Here is a quote (it combines two portions of the statement), which I pulled from a news report:
"We do not make decisions based on petitions," the Trader Joe's statement reads. "Recently we have heard from many customers reaffirming that these name variations are largely viewed in exactly the way they were intended—as an attempt to have fun with our product marketing."
I mentioned last week that I've sometimes referred to Trader Joe's as "Racist Joe's", though only among close friends; the news about this petition did not surprise me. But I'd never brought up this joke seriously, even if it does sound serious, because I had never been offended by the packaging. You could say that it was my attempt to have fun with the product marketing, which I suppose I found cliched. But despite having a vague notion about the legitimacy of the claim, the process that led to the eventual outcome always felt like a formality to me. And yet, I couldn't ignore that thousands had signed this petition - how often are so many people wrong about racism? I suspected there was more to my joke than I had ever acknowledged, so I decided to seek out additional points of view about the situation.
One thoughtful piece expanded on the statement by offering a specific interpretation of what was likely intended by these brand names, which I welcomed given how Trader Joe's had helpfully provided "we were having fun" as their official explanation. Anyway, here is a quote that summarizes this interpretation:
"Couldn’t Trader José be taken as a playful but progressive gesture acknowledging that in Mexico or another Spanish-speaking country, a trader named Joe would be a foreigner, a “gringo,” and that a local trader would more likely go by José?"
This looks about right to me, and addresses the only portion of the petition that makes a direct claim about racism ("Trader Joe’s branding is racist because... it presents 'Joe' as the default 'normal'..."). I will note that the above is only a partial elaboration for two reasons. First, it doesn't address the portion of the petition that asks a serious question about 'trader' and the colonial legacy invoked by the term. However, I'll overlook it today because I suspect concerns about the word 'trader' might be better suited for a separate challenge to the full name as opposed to this petition about its branding.
The second reason is that this interpretation offers nothing regarding Trader Joe-san. If I were to accept that this interpretation applied to Trader Joe-san, I would be making a serious logical error by exonerating the whole thanks to a justification of a part; it would be like a doctor determining I was in perfect health based solely on an examination of my uninjured arm. The fact that Trader Ming acknowledges the foreignness of a Joe in China or that Trader Giotto is a nod to Italian names doesn't help me at all when I pretend that Trader Joe-san represents a playful acknowledgement of a local Japanese trader.
Of course, I am only speaking about this one opinion, and I don't mean to make too much of a cherry-picked quote from a piece that is only partially related to my claim; the above quote makes the case for most of the brands but it is under no obligation to speak for all packaging. Let's look instead at a second excerpt from the company's response:
"Decades ago, our Buying Team started using product names, like Trader Giotto’s, Trader José’s, Trader Ming’s, etc. We thought then—and still do—that this naming of products could be fun and show appreciation for other cultures."
I suppose if I take this portion of the statement as an explanation, I am being asked to accept that using the honorific '-san' is an acceptable way of showing appreciation for Japanese culture. This feels only partially correct. If a Hollywood movie set in Japan accurately portrayed the customs and mannerisms of the people, it would indeed be an example of showing appreciation for the Japanese culture. But as we know about Hollywood, it will cast white actors to fill Asian roles, and no amount of acting skill, scripting accuracy, or - perhaps most importantly - good intent will keep me from wondering who is being appreciated when a Joe is playing the default normal.
Who is Trader Joe-san? I think the most likely answer will go back to some of the expressions found in the above quotes ("an attempt to have fun", "a playful... gesture") and I wouldn't disagree at all. In a sense, the most likely explanation is that there is no explanation; I suspect Trader Joe-san represents the residue left behind by other deliberate actions. I can imagine the scene in the Buying Team's meeting - one person suggests José as a Spanish-language alternative to Joe, another builds on the point and offers Giotto as an Italian name. There are chuckles, there are nods of agreement, there are dollar signs glittering in the eyes around the table; it is fun and everyone is capitalizing.
In such a situation, I'm not surprised that no one pointed out what seems obvious to me: using 'Joe-san' to represent Japanese products is inconsistent with the logic of the other brand names. And although Trader Joe-san isn't racist and it's not necessarily wrong, it's trite. It's just another example of the careless banality that enables a common assumption - invoking anything remotely associated with another culture will suffice as a show of appreciation to its culture. It reminds me of the day my new boss offered me some wasabi peas, adding "you look like you would like these". Where did he learn that method for relating across differences, and what is tolerated in our culture that reinforces, perpetuates, or excuses this behavior?
I didn't see the point in challenging my boss, which was perhaps reflected in my reaction - I felt not anger but resignation, because I had just learned something ordinary about a person with significant influence over my life; the label for his question was just a detail. But I believe now that if I did challenge the question, the answer would likely have been the same one I've heard in countless other similar situations - I meant no offense. To be honest, it's probably the truth, because it seems impossible to mean offense in this society, which is so obsessed with preserving even the most pointless features of its routine that it seems incapable of grasping the nuance that offensive does not require racism. I am sure without having asked that my boss meant no offense, just as those Hollywood directors meant no offense when they didn't hire Asians for Asian roles, or that Trader Joe's meant no offense when it didn't use Tanaka for its Japanese branding. I am not wagering on petitions to drive change; my money is on collective embarrassment. But until that day comes, when Trader Yukiko - excuse me, Trader Yukiko-san - is winking at me from the wasabi peas, I'll have to remember that when you have no defense, you say no offense.
