A Fashion Blog, Delicious Burritos, and People who are Offended by Offended People.

First, let me apologize for the title of this post.  It's not eloquent, but I can't think of any other title.

Since my post on the word "exotic," there have been two stories that popped up on my newsfeed.  One is actual news from my home state, Colorado, and the other is an apology from one of my favorite fashion bloggers, Keiko Lynn.

Let's start with the latter.

Earlier this week, Keiko posted a Day of the Dead makeup tutorial, then promptly deleted it and posted this public apology:

I just wanted to sincerely apologize for my latest post, with the Día de los Muertos makeup. I hope you all know that I had no intention of offending, and deeply respect the tradition. It was meant to be an artistic expression of something I have long admired, and no harm was intended, but I removed all the images because I sincerely do not want to offend anyone and am deeply sorry that I did.

I went looking for a photo from her tutorial deep in Pinterest's cache of information, then Google images, then the comment section of her apology in hopes someone had saved them, but to no avail. It's gone, but plenty of other examples show up.

via Pinterest.com

I'm not the purveyor of absolute truth about whether or not something should or shouldn't be offensive to a group of people. My usual way of handling a potentially politically incorrect subject is to not partake in the offense, just like Keiko did with deleting the pictures. Sometimes, people confuse being "politically correct" with just being nice. It takes very little effort to be nice, and our world won't explode if we give-in to the simple request of taking down a blog post to avoid further confrontation.

Besides, when your livelihood relies on people following your quirky fashion sense, it's only logical to not use it as a platform to lecture cultural appropriation and why or why not it's okay for a white girl to wear Dia de los Muertos make-up. She's not going to lose any followers because she chose to NOT offend someone.  What would that even look like? "YOU TUK DWN UR POST SOME1 COMPLANNED ABOUT SO I WONT LOOK @ ANY OF UR POSTS NOW >:-O"  Good riddance.  Read a book.

Conversely, Illegal Pete's is causing some controversy in Fort Collins, Colorado and the implications are much, much bigger. For those of you not  familiar with Illegal Pete's, it's a burrito chain I frequented while I went to school in Boulder because they wrap a hangover cure into a tortilla.

They have several locations throughout Colorado, and it seems like the owner is a pretty cool guy named Pete. I don't know him at all, but we're connected in two degrees within our Denver social circles. (the equivalent of saying a girl I knew in college is dating the drummer for The Epilogues.)

The controversy is people are threatening to protest their store opening in Fort Collins, which has a large Latino population. They're offended by the word "illegal" because it can be used as racial slur, similar to (forgive me, I feel disgusting even writing this) "wetback" [shudder]. 

The local response to this has been massive.  This Coloradoan article (it should be Coloradan, but I'm not one to split hairs (except in that previous sentence and this follow-up sentence)) covers a community meeting where about thirty Fort Collins residents ambushed Pete in the name of discourse with their life experiences and why he should change the name of his restaurant. Here's an excerpt:

Others likened the name to a racial slur directed at African-Americans, hanging a Confederate flag in the restaurant's window or calling a restaurant "Smoking Lynching BBQ."

I posted this story on Facebook and got this great response from a friend who is a dependable source of reason on hot-button issues:

They seem to be going a long way to find a little offense. Frankly, the most offensive part of this for me is their repeated attempts to conflate their struggle with what African Americans experienced in the south. There's a big difference there, and besides, "illegal" has many different meanings and connotations while most other racial slurs do not, saying that this particular instance of it is offensive seems very open to interpretation.

To which I responded:

I don't want to say these people have no grounds for being offended, but I DO want to say it's very clear that for someone to have a life experience which has made the word "illegal" hurtful toward them only solidifies Boulder rules and Fort Collins drools.

Rival college towns aside (Fort Collins is home to Colorado State University), CU Boulder is the second whitest university after BYU in Utah, so of course no one will be offended by it.  The Boulder Illegal Pete's customer base is mostly white college students who have never been on the receiving end of hate speech. This may or may not be the logic behind the following statement from the Coloradoan article:

...the audience discussion ranged from emotional past experiences with racial slurs to accusatory remarks toward Turner: "In a room full of people of color, this is probably a little uncomfortable for you," one woman said.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  That's a bit blunt, lady. But you're probably not completely wrong or out of line.

The response from Illegal Pete's supporters has been outrage.  People from all backgrounds are calling those offended "overly-sensitive" and telling them they have no reason to be offended.  However, calling someone "overly-sensitive," emotional," or "dramatic" negates completely rational feelings because that person doesn't agree with you.  Every single female on Earth has probably been told they're being "too emotional" countless times in their life.  Those words question an individual's mental state, making his or her argument invalid.

Some are saying, "I'm Mexican, and this isn't offensive at all."  To you, dude, I say I hope you never have a reason to be offended by that term. White people, in droves, are then saying, "I'm not offended by Cracker Barrel."  Of course you're not. Not only are you not from the South, Colorado person, you are part of the country's ruling majority and have never been beaten up because of your skin color while the assailants shouted "CRACKER" at you over and over again.  Most of the time, the name "cracker" is used comically.

Do I think Illegal Pete's should change its name just like I agreed with Keiko Lynn she should take down her blog post? Nah. Will I demonize protestors if they succeed and Illegal Pete's is called "Pete's Burritos" or something as equally inoffensive? No way.

The analogy many pro-name change advocates are using is the movement to change Washington's insanely offensive football team name.  It's a flat-out, non-debatable racial slur. It should absolutely be changed. The reason why I don't think Illegal Pete's should change their name is because it will give a new connotation to the word "illegal," which is pretty common in the English vernacular (though, less common in Colorado since legalizing weed).   Eliminating it from a popular burrito chain will only give the word more power for racists who use the word to describe people of Latin decent and make it a taboo word. Those are the people who need a re-education -- the citizens of Ft. Collins who are tormenting immigrants -- not Pete with his delicious burritos.