Zondervan Issues an Apology for "Deadly Viper"

Zondervan Issues an Apology for “Deadly Viper”

Posted on November 23, 2009
Viewed 2371 times
(32) comments

I've been watching this feud from a distance over the past couple of weeks. It looks like it's finally over. Zondervan has apologized for a racially insensitve book and pulled it from the shelves of all bookstores.

At dispute: The book: Deadly Viper: A Kung Fu Survival Guide for Life and Leadership. The book, written by Jud Whilhite and Mike Foster, uses Chinese characters and images for its illustrations.

It all started the first part of November when North Park Theological Seminary professor Soong-Chan Rah called for an apology because of the author's (and Zondervan's) insensitivity to Asian culture.

Quoted at Christianity Today and on his blog, Rah said, among other things:

This video clip is extremely offensive and portraying Asians in a cartoonish manner in order market your merchandise. Particularly offensive is the voiceover of a white person doing a faux Asian accent: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=35881373178&ref=mf

This image presents Asian as sinister enemies: http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=deadly+viper&init=quick#/photo.php?pid=2233965&id=101311418670

This quote reveals an insensitivity to the Chinese language and mocks Chinese names: “There is a killer called Zi Qi Qi Ren. No, this is not some communicable disease, but it certainly is deadly. This funky Chinese word”

The use of Chinese characters and kanji in a non-sensical manner.

Rah continued: "Mike and Jud, you are two white males who are inappropriately co-opting another culture and using it to further the marketing of your book," he wrote. "You are not from our cultural framework, yet you feel that you have the authority to represent our culture before others."

After Mike Foster, initially responding negatively to the criticism, many Asian American blogs picked up on the story; and the pressure began to mount on Zondervan. On Thursday of last week, Zondervan finally did:

This book’s characterizations and visual representations are offensive to many people despite its otherwise solid message.

There is no need for debate on this subject. We are pulling the book and the curriculum in their current forms from stores permanently.

What do you think? Is this a case of being politically correct, or a real act of racism? (A personal note: Deadly Viper was actually released two years ago in 2007. I read it shortly after it came out. It's a good book. I never thought twice about racial stereotypes when I read the book. Maybe because it wasn't about anything racial; maybe because I'm just racially insensitive. The book had a Kung Fu theme in an attempt to attract young men. It's a sharp, over-produced, expensive to make, little book. My teenage son went through a small-group using the book; and enjoyed it. It has many great themes, including integrity, self-discipline, and sexual purity.) None of us ever thought twice about the Kung Fu-i-ness of the book and how that might misrepresent Asian culture.)

Which begs the question: Are some of us under-sensitive? Are some of us over-sensitive? What's the proper balance?

You can read more here...

Love to hear your input...

Todd

Comments

if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, your picture will displayed on any website that supports gravitars.

WWJD on Mon, November 23, 2009

Was it clearly the intent of the authors to be racist? Or were they merely trying to make a point and chose a poor means to do it?

That would hold a lot of weight in my judgment.
KRAY on Mon, November 23, 2009

OK I am going to try to write this and not offend anyone while at the same time pointing out some of the absurdity with the points that Professor Rah made with some absurdity of my own.

“The images present Asians as sinister enemies” : NO, the book presents ninjas as enemies, actually vipers. Unless he is implying that all Asians are ninjas, dragons, or sumo wrestlers then there should be no offense taken. I am from American Indian decent so should I be offended if it was called “deadly tomahawks”? No because those are images FROM the culture not THE culture itself.

“Particularly offensive is the voiceover of a white person doing a faux Asian accent” : OK now really, how far are we supposed to take this? Does this mean that when Jacki Chan speaks poor English in his movies that he is being racially insensitive because he is “poorly imitating English speakers”? Should Chuck Norris apologize for all those poor attempts at “Asian inspired” films of the 70’s & 80’s (I think we would all agree that Segall totally should)? I guess if we follow this line of thinking to it’s only logical conclusion then SNL can never again show that old Belushi skit portraying him as an angry samurai.

“This quote reveals an insensitivity to the Chinese language and mocks Chinese names: ‘There is a killer called Zi Qi Qi Ren. No, this is not some communicable disease, but it certainly is deadly. This funky Chinese word’ : I grew up in the South. We say “yall”, call grocery carts “buggies”, and say “pee-can pie”. So should I be offended or consider it insensitive when an actor or author using the South as a setting or metaphor using these terms (or even makes editorial comments on their use)? If so there would be far less books on the shelves and movies at the box office.

Derek, I agree with your statement that “the Body of Christ NEEDS these differences. To gloss over these differences ignores their importance. Our brokenness and the Glory of our healing through Christ is found in these diversities” .

BUT knee jerk reactions like Zondervan went with only serve to make people of different backgrounds or races afraid to engage or even ask questions because of the fear of offense. This over sensitivity only stifles our growth and limits our ability to sing together in once voice albeit many tongues.

After reading the book myself, I think the authors were more celebrating the culture instead of mocking it. The only negative I saw was using Dog the Bounty Hunter as an object lesson (no thanks). Have we really come to a place in this melting pot called America where only Asian Americans are allowed to write anything involving Asian culture, Native Americans about Native American Culture, African Americans about African American culture, and so on??? What a boring place this will be where we all tip toe around each other .
Derek on Mon, November 23, 2009

Good question, Jesse. Thx. Personally, I don’t have a problem with ninjas. The issue resides with stereotypes and caricature. By many accounts, the book sounds like a good one. The point of contention is how Asians are portrayed.

Case in point, why would it be necessary to have a voice-over of an Asian accent (unfortunately, no longer available for viewing)? What is the purpose of that? I’m of the opinion that caricature and stereotype of believers and non-believers do not help advance the Gospel.

I’m just saying that showing respect for others in the Body of Christ is good for the Body as well as non-Christians.

I don’t know the authors’ intent but do NOT believe it was racist. Unwise, but not malicious. I can’t answer for Professor Rah but would imagine that if you took it up with him he’d provide an answer.
Dean on Mon, November 23, 2009

Derek, I think you are right on the money. Those of us who have not spent our entire lives being viewed in caricature can’t understand, but we need to.

For more insight on why this is offensive to Asian-Americans, visit Eugene Cho’s blog. He’s been a part of the conversation and is quite eloquent in expressing his ideas.

http://eugenecho.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/to-mike-foster-and-jud-wilhite-and-the-leaders-of-zondervan-publishing/
Jesse on Mon, November 23, 2009

Thanks for the reply Derek. Good point, I agree with you about respect & not using stereotypes.

I saw the video you’re referring to. Here’s my perspecitve: they used a common comedic technique of using voice-overs on old cheesy kung-fu movies. I can see how that’s offensive, but I also don’t see it. Should I be offended if they used an old western and did red-neck voice overs? That’s just as much my cultural heritage as Kung-fu movies are part of someone who identifies w/ that cultural history. My opinion is they used a common movie voice over technique, that’s used on more than just old kung-fu movies - Mystery Science Theater 3000 for example.

So how is it offensive? Why is the “Asian Accent” offensive? Strike that, I see now how it’s offensive. Like when African American comedians will parody a how a white person talks - is that the kind of thing we’re talking about? (doesn’t bother me, but I see how it’s offensive) One thing I see interesting about this kind of parody, they are parodying a typical dialect or accent that Asians have when trying to speak English as a second language. Have you ever made fun of the way a native english speaker speaks, say, Koren, or Japanese? (I don’t know if you’re Asian, or if you speak any other languages, can you relate to this?) English has many dialects & it’s common for one group to make fun of another’s accent. Doesn’t make it right - but I think this is the kind of offense we’re talking about here.

Furthermore, I agree w/ the person above who said that the menacing ninjas in the ad were not meant to be"all Asian people” - it’s simply not fair or honest to say that a picture of three menacing ninjas is a racist slam on all Asians - unless you’re trying to say that it’s racist to say that Ninjas are asian, maybe? Or that for ninjas to be menacing is racist b/c it represents Asians in a bad light, perhaps? Or it’s racist to use ninjas unless you’re asian?

This dialogue is helping me understand the offense better. Even if just voicing my thoughts & then mulling them over as a write. Please help me understand more.
JJ on Tue, November 24, 2009

I wonder if “making fun” of cultural differences is truly wrong. Sometimes it is good to celebrate our differences. In addition, as a white American, kunfu movies with cheezy voiceovers are a part of my culture. Like many people I loved these kungfu movies and how can you not laugh at the dubbed in voices. Americans did have a different movie going experience when they viewed these movies. The action was great and the voiceovers added an element of unintended humor. Perhaps, this was the authors way of making the book culturally relevant to Americans. It sounds to me like there were some people who did or said some pretty wounding things to Professor Rah. This is sad. It also sounds like his anger is misdirrected. This is also unfortunate.
jack on Tue, November 24, 2009

I read the book when it first came out - excellent book. I in no way thought about it being offensive to anyone - maybe except those who disagreed with its biblical content.

If it’s really offensive - change it. But aren’t we all just a bit too sensitive? I live in the south - how many TV shows, movies, books, comedians, writers, professors etc, stereotype (and probably offend) us? We just let it go…
Richard on Tue, November 24, 2009

Let the marketplace decide.
todd on Tue, November 24, 2009

I too didn’t get what the hubbub was about when I took a look at the book and materials. But that’s not the point. It’s not really about me and whether it bothers me or not. The issue is what to do when you have offended someone else. Not, “they really shouldn’t be offended” or “I don’t get what the big deal is.” Especially when it’s a lot of other people who find it offensive. Kudos to Zondervan and the authors for having the guts to do the right thing and pull the materials. Better to risk short-term financial loss than put in jeapordy relationships with other brothers and sisters in Christ whom have been genuinely offended by the book and marketing materials.
Darin on Tue, November 24, 2009

wow, this black and white reading is killing my eyes.

I do feel this is over-sensitive. I am offended at you being offended regarding my opinions.

If it was not done maliciously or out of racial ‘mean-ness’ but in a way celebrates some of our mixed heritage why can’t we celebrate that?

I cannot control how others will take my words, but if I am communicating out of right motives to tell a message or teach a message should I be the bullseye of so much negativity or can we celebrate the unique intentions of couple of brothers in Christ to teach some good content in a unique way?

If I have to walk on thin ice about everything that I say then I may just be afraid to say anything which is kinda why our American church is not growing like it should. We are all afraid to say anything out of fear of offending someone which if you think about it in our country full of so many backgrounds and heritages chances are someone is going to be offended.

My heritage is made fun of (joked about, referred to, mocked, etc) ALL THE TIME but if I let it bother me or make it a big deal then I become too sensitive and cannot focus on things of purpose.
Jesse Phillips on Tue, November 24, 2009

Ok, I think I get it now. I wish we could discuss this more, Derek. But I understand if you’re tired of talking with angry white people about this.
Derek on Tue, November 24, 2009

Jesse, thanks again for the questions and irenic interest in what’s going on. I can’t speak for other Asians—figure you wouldn’t expect that, but thought I should clarify things .

IMO, voice-overs in the old kung-fu movies are understandable, and indicative of the time. You’re correct about the parody of non-native speakers (immigrants who learn English as a second language), it can be hurtful. My father is an immigrant and I remember as a kid correcting his English. Bad move! He made clear that his inability to speak clearly like a native-born speaker did not mean he was not intelligent or capable—it made a strong impression on me of how poking fun at someone’s English (or lack of “mastery” of any language) can be hurtful.

Personally, the ninja-thing isn’t an issue for me. The more important issue is stereotyping. I have friends and congregants who grew up with family and friends who were interned during WWII. Stereotyping Japanese in the 40s was a way to demonize Americans who looked like the enemy. They lost a great deal (especially land—e.g. Japantown in Portland, OR) because they were identifiably different.

I’m of the opinion that stereotyping/caricature are not ways to advance the Gospel or God’s Kingdom. They dehumanize people and diminish what other races, ethnicities and cultures contribute to the Body of Christ. A relevant question to ask is, “Why is it necessary to use stereotype as a vehicle for the Gospel?” Using it isn’t inherently bad, but how we use it and the how it is done is important.

I appreciate and enjoy dialogue like these issues because I helped start a multiracial church years ago and these are important conversations to have. If you want to continue the dialogue off-line, you can reach me at dc.cgc06 (at) gmail.com.
Omega Seamaster on Wed, November 25, 2009

I haven�t read the book, but the entire debate seems unnecessary from this cursory review
Jerry on Mon, November 30, 2009

This has the ring of political correctness “Christianity offends me Happy Holidays no Christmas
Woo Wingo on Wed, December 02, 2009

ah, yesh. tha quwesion of whevva this was wasist or not. i do believe that people need to put aside their difwences daniel son. dees to men were simpwy twying to engage culture around them. and instead they got a kawate chop (HIIIYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAA!!!) to the back of the head. to bad we cannot work together, imagine what this wowld would look like if we all could. bbbbBBBWWWWWOOOONNNNGGGGG…...