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.
The photograph above, used for shitty attempts at click baiting an article on Billboard.com about the singing competition show THE VOICE, displays the three female judges who have been a part of the show at different times. Two of the artists, Shakira and Christina Aguilera, are Latina, yet the show has managed to eerily morph all three of these stars images into what is virtually the same bleach blonde, fair skinned, Northwest European ideal of beauty. Whether it is part of the shows attempts at keeping a brand that requires their female judge to look a certain way, or if it is an image template that has proven to be a successful marketing tool and has been adopted for that reason by each pop star, they have all participated in assimilation toward the “normal” ideals of beauty and perfection. Either way, this assimilated image is not an isolated incident that is reduced to the images produced by THE VOICE, but it is instead a symptom of a larger problem that has faced “crossover” pop stars for as long as they have existed.
A “crossover” star is a label attached to a star who, because of their race specifically, is considered an outsider to mainstream culture. Mary Beltrán discusses this concept of the “crossover” star and its roots in what was dubbed the “Latin Wave” of the 1990s in her book “Latina/o Stars in the U.S. Eyes.” As Latina stars were making their way into American pop culture, they were not seen as being part of mainstream culture the way a white tar was, but rather a niche market that was permeating mainstream culture. The idea of the “Latin Wave” became that these “crossover” stars were accepted as viable moneymakers in mainstream culture, but were still only really marketable to Latina/o people. The alternative to being seen as just for a niche market was assimilating into the mainstream ideals of what sold and what was marketable to “mainstream, or white, audiences. Through assimilation, these crossover stars could break away from being seen as specifically “Latin” stars, and be seen as regular ol’ run of the mill Hollywood stars. However, assimilation meant the star giving up part of the ethnic background that helped define them in order to be accepted as ethnically vague, or some kind of “exotic” white.
The case study provided by Beltrán is a focus on Jennifer Lopez, possibly the biggest and most successful name to come out of the “Latin Wave.” She describes how J. Lo was first embraced as a Latin star, which not only meant focus on her Latina ethnicity in music and Hollywood roles, but also meant that sexual traits like the “booty,” usually emphasized and eroticized to create the “Spicy Latina” or “Spitfire” stereotype, where put directly under the spotlight and used to market Lopez in the mainstream. There was a constant battle between Lopez and the apparent need for assimilation, and a visible public struggle where her re-branding and marketing attempts to hide her Latina ethnic traits and qualities could be measured against her early interviews where she proudly embraced and promoted her Latina-ness. Lopez was compelled to speak about her ethnicity early on, usually taking full advantage of the emphasis on her derrière, but as she became more successful she began to emphasize her Bronx roots, as opposed to Latin roots, and her Hollywood roles became less Latina specific and more ethnically unidentifiable.
If this case study was to be continued, you can see today that the battle between assimilation and holding onto ethnic roots still plagues J. Lo. As evident by her two most recent, and I think highly contradictory music videos, she shows that she still struggles with the need to market herself as a successful commodity, and the need to promote pride in her ethnic roots while also struggling with the need to promote positive body images for women, and use her status to discuss issues of sexual liberation and agency while occupying an ethnic female body.
Lopez’s first video, “I Luh Ya Papi,” uses the title’s language, as well as the inclusion of two backup dancers who have emphasized Latin vernacular in discussion with a white male video director, to overtly display a Latin ethnic background right from the start. The discussion J.Lo and her backup dancers have with the director is attempting to challenge the typical commodification of the Latina body, speaking against objectifying women in videos, and attempting to reverse the roles so that men are objectified and that women are portrayed as the successful “players” with swarms of sexualized men surrounding them. Lopez openly acknowledges here that she recognizes problems with the portrayal of the female body, and is attempting to make a shift away from that. However, in her next video, she seems to succumb to the very objectification she finds so frustrating, and possibly finds it necessary in order to sell the commodity known as J.Lo.
In the video simply titled “Booty,” Lopez brings direct emphasis to, you guessed it, her Booty, as well as the Booty of Iggy Azalea, who is featured in the video with her. There is not any attempt though, to associate the booty with any kind of ethnic origins. Whereas in the 90s J Lo may have used her butt as a point of ethnic pride, now it is reduced to a simple object of lust, up for grabs by any ethnic or racial background. This is especially prevalent given that Lopez created the video with Azalea, who is criticized for putting on the performance of an Ethnic identity in her public appearance. Along with people like Miley Cyrus and Meghan Trainor, Azalea is part of a current Booty-centric wave that seems to consist of white female artists taking pride in that “boom that all the boys chase,” which seen as exclusive to females of color.
There is a long history of white beauty ideals that has placed female bodies of color as exotic and Othered due to focus by white mainstream culture on enlarged breasts, and most importantly butts, which were displayed as gross exotic fascinations for a dominant white culture who’s ideals of beauty were seen as the exact opposite of an ethnic female body. Since first contact with African women, whites have used black female bodies as the undeniable Other, or the polar opposite, of the fair skinned white females with smaller sexual features. White culture used women of color, such as the Hottentot Venus, to create a racist binary of what beautiful looks like, with white bodies being the ideal. The ideas of assimilation and beauty stem from the black and white body binary, where in order to be successful in the mainstream, or at the very least have an opportunity to try, women of color become as close as they can physically to the white ideal which has been force fed down our throats as what beauty looks like, attempting to get rid of the enlarged features of their bodies, that are used to identify black female bodies as an Other.
However, there is a collision happening right now that becomes emphasized by the Jennifer Lopez/Iggy Azalea video. Where females of color, even J. Lo, have seen themselves forced into a position of assimilation, giving up their ethnic features and traits in order to be more “white” and more successful, it seems now the white stars are beginning to appropriate the features that have for so long been seen as ugly, and Other than what it means to be beautiful and successful, in order to in fact become more successful. Trainor’s video is even seen as inspirational for destroying the traditional notions of a beautiful body. However, she’s not singing or talking about all plus size women, she’s singing about women who are plus size in the right places, meaning white women who are now taking pride in large boobs and booty, that have forever been shunned on black females.
I believe this trend is sparking a need to renegotiate who has the right to use female bodies of color in their music videos. Something like Nicki Minaj’s “Anaconda” video, with whatever problems it may have, is possibly attempting to own the black female body, and the booty, which has seemingly been reduced to a prop to be exploited in the background of Miley Cyrus and Meghan Trainor. Minaj is taking a more aggressive approach of ownership and agency, while Lopez is perhaps opening the doors saying that all females can participate in the Booty. Coming from a background where Lopez had to sacrifice the Ethnic pride that came with her booty, perhaps accepting white artists who wish to use booty to their advantage is a way for Lopez to be able to regain ownership and discussion of her own. The question that arises is that if every female gets to claim ownership of the booty, regardless of ethnic identity, does the booty mean anything anymore, or has it been reduced and commodified into just another mainstream sexual object.
Borg Cube approaching the Enterprse. If you don’t get the reference… Google.
It seems the Booty trend is coming at pop culture like a Borg collective hell bent on assimilating all Booty’s in its path. I see someone like Jennifer Lopez, with a long history of Booty politics, who may see assimilation of the booty into a larger collective where everyone is able to participate as finally being allowed to use her booty as a successful tool, not just as a Latina, but as an artist just like everyone else. For Lopez, there is no longer a need to hide the booty, however assimilation of the booty into mainstream means that any Ethnic background it is tied to is now lost.
On the other hand, Nicki Minaj sees how the booty, with a long and rich history tied specifically to black female bodies, is being manipulated and used for the purpose of mainstream commodification. She is facing the same booty collective that faced J. Lo, telling Minaj that her booty will be assimilated and adapted, or shared by all females to be used in the mainstream, for whatever purpose, with no respect to the racialized history that applies to it. Minaj is using “Anaconda” to aggressively say back to those attempting to assimilate the booty for their own needs that they have no right, and that the ethnic female body is not a commodity or a product to be sold by the white mainstream that has denied it as an Other for so long. Minaj is resisting the assimilation of the black booty into mainstream as a de-contextualized product.
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.
The ideas of assimilation and beauty stem from the black and white body binary, where in order to be successful in the mainstream, or at the very least have an opportunity to try, women of color become as close as they can physically to the white ideal which has been force fed down our throats as what beauty looks like, attempting to get rid of the enlarged features of their bodies, that are used to identify black female bodies as an Other.
The Pictures Make My Head Hurt 