Okay, so apparently there's a popular, well-known, well-established restaurant in Philadelphia called "Chink's Restaurant" and it's one of the best places in the city of brotherly love for Philly cheese steaks. It's been in business under the same name since the mid-1940's. Its original owner was a guy nicknamed 'Chink'. He was non-Asian. Over the years, it's changed owners several times, is no longer associated with the family of the original 'Chink', yet has continued to build a solid reputation with the name.
Last year, a woman (non-Asian) who lives in Philadelphia yet had never heard of Chink's, suddenly became aware of the establishment. She became deeply offended by the degrading racial connotations of the name, to the point that she is now trying to get the 'Chink' removed from the establishement's name.
To me, this is an interesting problem. On the one hand, the name-recognition that Chink's has built for itself over 60+ years of business is invaluable. To force them to forfeit that name would undoubtedly cost them some business. On the other hand, there's no doubt that the name could be offensive to some people.
Should the current owners be forced to change the name of their business?
9 comments:
Let the legal system sort it out, that's what it's there for. I'd be very surprised if there weren't special interest groups willing to foot the bills on both sides. In the meantime, if you're offended (as you have every right to be), boycott the place. Interestingly, the name Chink is on the founder's tombstone - most people didn't know his 'real' name. He was Jewish.
In a way, this reminds me of the mini-tempest that arose when John Joe tried to force the Charlottetown Festival to change the "school recital" scene in Anne of GG because it was degrading and offensive to (oh, Christ, what's the current OK term?) First Nations peoples. The counter argument, of course, was that you can wish it didn't used to be that way ... but dammit, it was. And historical accuracy demands that you show it how it was, not how you wish it was.
I sometimes wonder if people forget that bad things that happened in the past are what forged the present and what will inform the future.
I think, for 'sensitivity's' sake, that they should change it. They shouldn't wait to be FORCED into it. It would be good business to change it now. Maybe they could call it "Cha-Ching's!" Especially if it makes so much money....
I still call the Green Gables on Granville Street "7-11" (It's former name...about 12 years ago). Meaning of course, that people who frequent the place will probably always call it Chinks.
I agree one has the right to be offended by something I'm not nearly so quick to translate that into a prescriptive notion that something must be done to alleviate your taking offense. Its hard to believe that such petty revisionism advances the cause of humanity 1 mm.
Yes, I've always relied on Anne for its historical accuracy.
Those who think we can eliminate all things that are offensive to some are kidding themselves. Personally, I find members of the 'politically correct' movement offensive by times, but I wouldn't seek to eliminate them.
Ahh, er, out here in cowboy land there is a garment known as "chinks". Has nothing to do with persons of Han ancenstry, they are...dang, how to describe them. Ok, set the scene: you need to protect the front of your thighs (but not the backs) from thorns, nails, and various assaults of the horseman's life. You live in very hot climates, so you don't want to wear a whole leather pant.
So a garment called "chinks" evolves. It is sort of a apron for each leg, attached to a belt.
http://www.leatherlegends.com/chinks.html
Are these different from chaps?
I sent this e-mail to the person in charge of chnging chinks name,
Hey, no offense here people, but why is it that your not fighting to get the name spic and span changed. This is a nationaly advertised product which is degrading to peurto ricans, if they let it be. Now that's what I am getting at, IF THEY LET THEMSELVES GET OFFENDED. This is America, where in the first amendment it grants free speech. Now if the speech if offensive to a person is not the question. The real question is where do we stop enforcing name changes. Should we next tell people what they can name their kids? If someone names their child hitler, should jewish people fight to change their name? So I support your right to say what you want and air you grievance, but when you try and force another to change their private property I have a problem with that. So please rethink your position, or you may not be allowed to have that position if things keep going the way you want them.
Post a Comment