We recently posted about a baby doll pulled from Costco shelves after concerns that it was racist. Early news stories reported on a black doll called “Lil’ Monkey” and a white doll called “Pretty Panda.” As the story developed, it became clear that both dolls came in white, black, and Hispanic versions. It made for an interesting discussion: (1) Given the history of associating black people with primates, would it have been racist had the doll only came in black monkey and white panda versions? And (2) given the history of associating black people with primates, was it racist, regardless, to make a black “Lil’ Monkey” doll that potentially triggered and/or effectively ignored this history?
The CBS affiliate in Denver linked to our post and discussion in their story about the controversy…
…which was published under “weird news.”
Screenshot:
I am trying to keep my cool here.
Justification for African slavery was built on an association of black people with primates designed to deny black humanity. Institutional, social psychological, and symbolic racism is ongoing in the U.S. and profoundly inhibits the life chances of black and brown people.
And yet when people say “hey, this makes me uncomfortable,” they are ridiculed and slotted into “weird news.”
It doesn’t even matter whether the intent or effect of the doll is racist. Let me say that again: For this discussion, it doesn’t matter whether the intent or effect of the doll is racist.
Concerns about racism are trivialized when raising the question is defined as simply “weird.” Even more, it is yet another way to deny the humanity of people of color. When they and their allies raise their voices to weigh in on what representations of blackness are acceptable, they are dismissed like petty children or lunatics. It is nothing less than a stunning lack of empathy.
If you needed evidence that we are not post-racial… well, there you have it.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 31
Samantha C — September 3, 2009
Purely out of curiosity, where would you have filed the story? I tend to take the "weird news" section to mean that it's nothing life-threatening, it's not International, it's not Financial, Scientific, Local, or Entertainment news -- I understand why the name 'weird news' makes you mad, but I don't think of it as much as things that are actively "weird" as things that don't fit any of the other categories on the site. Where else would you have categorized the story?
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — September 3, 2009
Samantha, good point. I guess... if I was an editor for a news website, I would have filed this under a tag called "Social Issues and Racism," but then again, most news websites don't have that tag.
I've always had a big issue with the New York Times. Whenever they write a serious article about domestic violence on women, women's issues, and feminists, the NYT always file it under "Style/Fashion" which is just SO offensive and patronizing.
Cedar — September 3, 2009
As a related aside, awhile back (June or July I think), the president of Slovakia had death threats made against him, and and it was filed under the "News of the Weird" on Reuters. If the Chancellor of Germany, or the President of Russia were to have death threats issued against them, it wouldn't exactly be breaking news, but it would likely get on the front page, or at least the world news page of news services websites. Yet the president of one of them "joke" countries with a funny name and weird clothes like Slovakia has the same happen to him and it's relegated to the "Oddly Enough" page, along with "Nudist Airline" and "College offers major in butchery."
jfruh — September 3, 2009
I have some experience reading "weird news" or "odd news" sections of websites, and my guess is that the "weird" aspect to those doing the filing was the central aspect of the story -- that someone called a doll of a black baby "li'l monkey" in the first place. It's not the controversy that's weird, even though that's the driving factor in the headline. Generally "weird" or "odd" is interpreted extremely broadly, with a healthy number of "that's outrageous!" stories often being filed here as well.
Jenn — September 3, 2009
I don't share other commentators' optimism about the choice to file this story in "Weird". Filed very often in weird are stories that are zany or that feature stupid—but harmless—slapstick hijinks. There's nothing weird, harmless, or funny about racism by a major US retailer. Filing the story in "weird" makes it look like we're supposed to think that the story itself features people behaving abnormally in a somewhat funny fashion. Racism isn't abnormal, it's extremely common. Or were they referring to CostCo's choice to pull the doll as "weird"? Is listening to the concerns of marginalized people now strange and zany? The story seems to be implying that the people who complained were getting uppity about nothing consequential and that CostCo's decision to listen to them was "weird"—they should have just blown them off.
Stories like these need to be noted as serious, not "weird". That major news sources trivialize stories about violence against women and racism and various other manifestations of bigotry goes to show that they obviously think that such bigotry doesn't exist, or if it does, complaining about it is simply because we're "weird" or "people who like style/fashion" (i.e. women).
mordicai — September 3, 2009
Devil's Advocate: wouldn't you say it was "Weird" that someone would make a black babydoll in a monkey costume?
Laura — September 3, 2009
Here's a link to part 17 in Shakesville's series "How Odd!" which makes a similar analysis of waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many news stories :( (in the sense that there are way to many stories like this, not that they do too much anaylsis). Scroll to the bottom of the page for links to the rest of the series.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-odd.html
Susanne — September 3, 2009
I agree with mordicai and jfruh. "Weird News" is usually less about the controversy, more about the underlying topic. It's not weird that there's an uproar about a black doll called "Lil' Monkey". It IS weird that the doll was actually made in the first place.
A — September 3, 2009
I also agree with jfruh.
AG — September 3, 2009
It might help to actually click the link and see what other stories are filed under "wierd" at this CBS station. Some of them are funny, but an exploding taxi and a teacher selling grades aren't things we as a society take lightly either.
* Crooks Clean Out Apple Store In 31 Seconds
* Taxi Cab Explodes Near NYC's Times Square
* Cops: Agitated Stranger Slaps Crying Tot At Store
* Doctors Stumped By Tenn. Teen's Tears Of Blood
* Garbage Truck Crushes Rooftop To Simulate Snow
* Ex-Inmate Injured Trying To Sneak Back Into Jail
* S. Florida Man Sues Doctor After Losing Penis
* 'Hill Flying' A Dangerous Trend In San Francisco
* Police: N.J. Teacher Made $1,400 Selling Grades
* Ark. Woman Pregnant With 19th Child
* Mariachis Go For World Record In Guadalajara
Business might have been a better label, but with that section full debate on whether or not the latest numbers mean that we've made it through the worst of the recession, there's no room left. But it's worth reporting because its kinda unusual, so you stick it with the other unusual stories.
Jesse — September 3, 2009
Is it possible that concerns about racism are trivialized when one gets extraordinarily outraged about the website classification of a news story while insisting: It doesn’t even matter whether the intent or effect of the doll is racist. Let me say that again: For this discussion, it doesn’t matter whether the intent or effect of the doll is racist.
Is racism a big deal or not? If it's a big deal, we may actually want to sort out whether particular concerns about racism are actually valid. After all, racism is an incredibly important issue with a substantial impact on many people's lives.
So we could have a debate about whether the monkey doll is racist and whether Costco should have pulled it. But then it's possible we may conclude that the concerns about racism are not valid in this case.
So instead of discussing substance, let's talk about something else: how this news story is classified. That way we can retain our full righteous indignation. I mean, slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, assassinations, lynchings -- I just feel the righteous anger surging through me. And now this story about a monkey doll gets filed under "Weird News"! It's all just a continual chain of evil and oppression!
On the left toolbar the website has a few links under the NEWS heading: Colorado, US & World, Weird, YouReport, and Links. Looking at the other stories in the Weird News section, it's pretty clear that "Weird News" means something like "water cooler conversation news" -- stories that aren't "serious" news items but can easily generate conversation.
But wait, how can a story about a subject as deathly serious as racism be relegated to such a category? Doesn't this prove that racism is alive and well? Uh no. If you want to argue that the story is a deeply serious one, then you can go ahead and make that argument. This "oh even if it's not racist it still raises interesting questions that are so very important" nonsense is just a way to hold on to a feeling of righteous indignation in the face of all reason and logic.
Jesse — September 3, 2009
Shorter version: racism is an important issue, "concerns about racism" may or may not be an important issue. A sociologist who says, "Gee, this raises some really interesting questions and makes for a great discussion" is not thereby granted the status of Martin Luther King.
Lu — September 3, 2009
Thank you for writing this. I don't have the energy to argue with anyone who doesn't agree with you, but I agree 100% and thank you.
Rhys — September 3, 2009
Questioning the racism of the doll most likely wasn't what got the story filed under 'weird news' - the very existence of a black doll called 'li'l monkey' in 2009 is more probable. In other words, they're on your side.
Kate — September 3, 2009
The thing is, I WISH I could agree with the people who think I'm overreacting when I get cross about things like this, or play the 'humourless feminist'. I really wish we lived in a world where having a monkey doll or commenting on a woman's fuckability as a measure of her worth was not that big a deal. But it is, sorry. And it will CONTINUE to be, until people stop denying that it is...
Ick.
baerana — September 3, 2009
Part 1 of comment: (relevant to the story this story is discussing)
So, you could make a line of dolls holding a monkey in the three races some biologists acknowledge (Caucasian, negroid, mongoloid) or the 100-some races KKK members think there are (upper-Spanish, dark-Spanish, Moorish, I don’t know, they have nuances involving defining your race including everyone you’ve ever met or everywhere you’ve ever been and then, of course, the “one true white”) or anything in between, but if you have a black doll with a monkey, it’s still racist, not inclusive? No matter what?
I’m asking this because I actually want to know. The original story (black doll w/ monkey, white doll w/ panda) pissed me off. Three colors of dolls, with both animals, just confuses me. Seems inclusive, rather than racist. (Though treating Hispanic as a race still pisses me off, but that’s not what this is focused on.)
I’m now raising a black kid – and I do hope “I have a black step-son” isn’t something met w/ as much skepticism as “I have a black friend” – and while I’m suddenly seeing racist undertones everywhere – seeing a display w/ all 6 of these dolls wouldn’t have caused me to bat an eye.
Part 2 of comment: (relevant to this story)
my first response to the category of this as "weird news" was anger - I'm used to the "weird news" section being about, crop circles, or the world's largest pig, or a criminal getting locked in the store he's trying to rob. However, it does seem this particular news outlet uses "weird" instead of "misc" or some other more appropriate category. As was pointed out, most stories in their "weird news" section are VERY serious and not AT ALL TRIVIAL:
* Crooks Clean Out Apple Store In 31 Seconds
* Taxi Cab Explodes Near NYC’s Times Square
* Cops: Agitated Stranger Slaps Crying Tot At Store
* Doctors Stumped By Tenn. Teen’s Tears Of Blood
* Garbage Truck Crushes Rooftop To Simulate Snow
* S. Florida Man Sues Doctor After Losing Penis
* ‘Hill Flying’ A Dangerous Trend In San Francisco
* Police: N.J. Teacher Made $1,400 Selling Grades
I doubt many people are laughing about those, they vary from serious crimes, dangerous crimes or situations, to serious medical issues. (there were 3 of the 12 stories listed that seemed more trivial)
my point is, this story is NOT being stuck in the "trivial" news section. It is NOT being trivialized.
(Though anyone who thinks we are post-racial is a complete idiot. I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that.)
Kevin — September 4, 2009
As others have said, I don't think that "Weird News" is necessarily meant to be unimportant, or even harmless in many instances, but it's definitely meant to be strange and usually amusing in some respect. I don't think "business" would be a better section to file it under, it would probably make the most sense as just a regular US news story. If you look through, you'll see that it is cross-listed that way (both under US & World and Weird), as are other "Weird News" articles. So the question is more about why this one was /also/ categorized as "weird news" since it's available already as a US & World story. Do they require all articles to be categorized under at least 2 labels?
And also, it seems that in most, if not all, of the "weird news" stories, the punchline, the weird or amusing aspect, is in the headline. You can see that in the quoted headlines in the comments and just looking through the list on the website. That, in addition to the explanation about the different races the doll came in right under the headline, leads me to question the assertion that the existence of the doll itself is what makes the story weird rather than what's in the headline - that costco pulled it or that it was controversial. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
weliveunderrocks — September 13, 2009
I don't mean to be splitting hairs, but it always irks me if it is argued that claiming people being descendants of primates was racist. Actually, and strictly speaking, black people are primates, as are white folk and all other members of the human species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate#Classification_of_living_primates). However, neither of us are monkeys. Just saying.
Concerns About Racism Are “Weird” | Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture — October 5, 2009
[...] by Guest Contributor Lisa, originally published at Sociological Images [...]
Jess (not Jesse) — October 8, 2009
I know this is late and maybe nobody will see it, but I thought it important to post.
I just spoke to the web site manager at News 4, Jesse Sarles. He explained — as I understood it — that the section marked “weird news” was originally called “water cooler” and was designed to be about stuff that people would talk about (hence the name “water cooler”).
Anyhow, the deal is they changed it some time back to “Weird News” as a way of getting more eyeballs. But the section is still where a lot of miscellaneous stories end up. Those stories, by the way, are sent out from the CBS office in New York.
So, it would seem that the story got filed in there because that’s where stories that would get a lot of people talking would go. Whether they qualify as “weird” is another point entirely. A quick look shows that there’s a lot of stuff that wouldn’t necessarily be called “Weird.”
Mr. Sarles was quite nice about it, by the way, and didn’t indicate that concerns about racism — either on the part of people reacting to the doll or on Costco’s part — were that relevant to placing the story in “Weird News.” It was more that it was a story people would talk about.
I asked him — twice — about whether they thought it weird that Costco would let this through or thought concerns about the racism of the doll weird. He said (if I understood him correctly) that neither was part of the equation in that sense.
He also mentioned that he might change the title of the section. though he promised nothing. In addition, this issue came up before on a couple of other stories.
Jesse Sarles gets email, by the way, but if you have concerns please, please, be polite.
Lisa (SocImages) — October 8, 2009
Jess,
That's really interesting! Thanks for sharing your inside scoop!