“Illegal Pete’s” is Racist, But Words Aren’t the Fucking Problem Here

Illegal Pete’s is a restaurant with establishments in Boulder and Denver for over a decade, has come under fire from members of the Ft. Collins community recently for the use of the word “illegal” in their name. This has created somewhat of a PR shit-storm of back and forth debates and discussions between Pete (the owner) and people opposing the use of the name, both online and in public forums.

Pete has handled the Public Relations defending his business personally, and has explained that the name comes from his name, and his dad’s name, and is part of respecting a family legacy. Pete is facing legitimate accusations of an offensive name based off of using the word “illegal” in association with the restaurant, which utilizes Mexican imagery in its brand (as evident by the website), and offers a menu heavily based on Mexican food.

The brand of Illegal Pete’s is participating in cultural appropriation in order to sell itself, even though Pete has denied seeing the name as racist or offensive. He has had to build his defense against individuals whose ethnicity or cultural identity has become associated with the word “illegal” and their social justice seeking allies. They all have a point, that the word is offensive and racist toward Latino/a populations who are constantly framed as “illegal immigrants,” and the Public Relating has just brought out overtly racist anti-immigration online comments and opinions from many of Pete’s supporters, but I am not really sure what this public incident has accomplished. Pete has decided to keep the name, and the identity-offending brand has continued, and the angst has been pretty much silenced. Perhaps the awareness and the Public Relations bringing out the racism of the “Illegal Pete’s” name will be enough for some people to make the active choice to not give the institution their money, but I doubt that an established business in two other thriving cities will be brought down by an offended few in Ft. Collins, unfortunately. Ft. Collins may be especially thriving due to the fact that Illegal Pete’s is kind of a place for white yuppies who love their beer, and if Ft. Collins is known for any group of people at all, it’s those damned yuppies and their beer. Furthermore, if the racist pushback from Pete’s supporters was any kind of indicator, Pete’s may get more business in support of its “victory” in this debacle.

However, between all of the discussion and disastrous attempts to make change, the social justice team dropped the ball on their handling of the problem with the word “illegal.” Although there is no denying that the word is offensive, and anyone who has been a victim of the racialization of the word illegal has a legitimate beef, the problem is not with the word itself. It’s with the institutional injustice that the word represents.

People attempting to change the name tried their own strategy for marketing their case by labeling illegal the “I-word.” That is bullshit. Calling it the “I word” and attempting to just change the word or erase falls too much into pat-yourself-on-the-back do-gooder self-congratulatory social justice, and ignores the fact that an entire marginalized population in this country are, due to flawed and racist immigration policies, yes indeed, illegal. Instead of changing or hiding a word, what needs to be addressed are the brutal and unjust realities which that word only solidifies. I don’t think the word is nearly offensive as the reality which it represents.

So while Pete’s appropriation of Mexican culture as a theme for his restaurant, and his decision to keep the name “Illegal” are racist and insensitive to entire groups of human beings, the opposing side to Pete is maybe harming those groups in an alternative way, by ignoring the realities of the systemic injustices done to them in favor of attacking the word that only reminds people of those injustices. But getting rid of the word does not get rid of the problem. It doesn’t do very much of anything helpful really. Focusing so much energy on the word only takes that much energy away from fighting against the fact that no one should be “illegal,” and that there’s a hugely racialized and malicious immigration system in place, which is only being addressed now by executive order of the President with no support. Changing an established restaurant name so that it is politically correct does not help fight against any part of the system, and does not help anyone whose suffering from it.

Not one damn bit.

8 Comments

  1. eloquent and just. what perhaps needs to be evaluated is the negative connotation we IMMEDIATELY perpetuate with brands regardless. there’s a plethora of undertone racist references that go unnoticed every day from organizations we strongly endorse.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes the connotations are extremely important! Before I saw that the resteraunt used mexican food and Latin cculture as part of its brand, I didn’t see it to be as offensive as it was being made out to be. Before i decided to make this post more serious, I was going to offer my personal solution, which would be to re-brand with a pirate logo! Pirates are illegal. Pete the Pirate. no more racial connototation, even by accident. it works i think.
      Thanks for the comment!

      Like

      • I love your idea of adding a pirate– how creative! I, too, did not really but two and two together to understand the insensitivity behind the brand until recently. I agree that changing the name is outrageous, especially since it is a well-established chain. If it were the first of its’ kind, I would argue differently. I think this entire situation is simply dependent on how it is handled by the media, the owner and the public. Great post!

        Like

  2. I agree with you that immigration is the larger problem, and PC language debate obscures it. Its like Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing issue with the pictures on the wall.

    Like

    • I think the aspect of the pushback even aligns with Do the Right Thing, where the push to get people of color on the wall sparks a racial retalliation, and it only escalates from there. Unfortunately Instead of any kind of escalation or change I think the Illegal Pete’s controvoersey is just fading away, along with chances of anyone talking further about immigration policy because of it.
      Thanks for the comment!

      Like

  3. Hi! I really enjoyed this post, honestly I was expecting you to be a little more harsh on the whole i-word campaign, and I’m glad you went about it the way you did in validating the motives but challenging the methods. “Instead of changing or hiding a word, what needs to be addressed are the brutal and unjust realities which that word only solidifies. I don’t think the word is nearly offensive as the reality which it represents” I thought this was a interesting point and I’m not 100% sure how I feel about it yet; I was trying to the apply the same logic to other “PC” word battles and determine where the problem is really with the word itself vs. the larger social problem it associates to. Anyways, one critique I have for you specifically, as well as for myself and any other challengers of the illegal pete’s dispute and the way it’s been addressed by the “social justice team” in FoCo is, what would a better approach have looked like? How do you take a legitimate instance of appropriating culture, attaching it to a negative word connotation, and then address the situation in a way that effectively challenge enormous, politically fueled, socially dividing, and gravely misunderstood issues like racism and immigration policy? If the attack on the “i-word” is perceived as insufficient, or perhaps even detrimental to the cause, what do you suggest would have been a more productive approach?? I am not entirely on board with how the challengers decided to attack the issue, or with how realistic/impactful their sought outcomes were in doing so, however, I am struggling to devise a better plan. I leave you with some Audre Lorde that has come to mind while contemplating all of this 🙂
    “”I have come to believe over and over again, that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal, and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood.
    We can sit in our safe corners mute as bottles, and we will still be no less afraid…
    For it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence. And there are so many silences to be broken.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I think that is a fair critique and one that I have struggled with as well. I would like to beleive that the answer to an alternative is some sort of physical protest perhaps on location at Illegal Pete’s. Someone has told me their idea would be to occupy the extremely limited parking in old town and at Illegal Pete’s specifically, which would help limit the customers and create a financial pressure to make change. This seems like a more effective, and unfortunately more old school type of approach that requires dedication and work, which I think is not a viable option for people who have classes and jobs they need to attend to support themselves. This is a way in which capitalism and a famamcial gap and a need for money to live helps subdue protests, but that is a different discussion entirely. 😊 I think maybe the answer is somewhere in between, where the word and what it implies is discussed, but then the next step is also taken to address the larger issue and put just as much energy as would go into changing the name into fighting for reform, or even just to spread the word about Obama and Congress’ currentnactions amd how we can help to create political pressure on our government as they decide on immigration policy. At least for now, that is where my mind is at with dealing with this issue. Thank you for the thoughtful comment and the critique! And of course, the quote! 🙂

    Like

  5. I absolutely love this post!!! You are so right, the problem is not the word itself, it is the associations of the word with harmful injustices toward a marginalized group. People these days seem to spend so much time trying to be politically correct in their speech that the reason why they need to be so politically correct is often ignored or brushed under the carpet by what you called “pat-yourself-on-the-back do-gooder self-congratulatory social justice.” I feel like that is exactly what this is. It is a group of people that want to feel better about themselves and their “active role” in creating changed but they fail to make any real change. It is just a way for them to sleep better at night in their comfy beds, in their comfy homes and in their comfy lives while injustice rages on!

    Like

Leave a comment