<p>
</p>
<p>I have to disagree, I think they are more likely to say the latter when it is helpful in identifying a person they are pointing out (if there are two red-shirted people). They are not afraid to identify people by race when convenient because they are not hung on being tagged as a racist. Because they are not.</p>
<p>Wildwood11, you changed my example. I meant if there is ONE guy standing somewhere and they have two ways to describe him, what jumps out to describe is his red shirt, not the color of the skin he was born in.</p>
<p>But I think we’re both agreeing that the twenty-something generation is less racist than previous generations. We’re just tangling over how to express that with an example.</p>
<p>Oh sorry, paying3tuititions, yes, then I misunderstood.</p>
<p>Quote from article:
“On May 21, another school frat, Delta Upsilon, 5714 S. Woodlawn, advertised a planned party called “Conquistadors and Aztec Hoes.” Partiers were encouraged to bring “an unlimited need to conquer, spread disease and enslave natives,” according to the May 25 issue of the Maroon.”</p>
<hr>
<p>I was just reading along with the comments and not taking a particular position up front until I went back and read the linked article a second time. So the conquistadors are supposed to conquer, enslave and spread disease. I was thinking general purpose, equal opportunity colonialism or semi-twisted luau meets cinco de Mayo type event until I re-read the title and caught the “hoes” bit. For me that moves it from the obnoxious idea category into the revolting idea category. It has managed merge the historically insensitive with the personally offensive in one fun-filled event.</p>
<p>I will concede that the guys who thought it up were likely not trying to be offensive and are likely perfectly nice guys. That’s where the idea of raising awareness comes in. Over time, hopefully this type of idea won’t seem good enough to enough people to actually clear committee.</p>
<p>@Wildwood… my writing left it open to misunderstanding. Thanks for discussing it. You helped me make it more clear.</p>
<p>While I am not condoning what they did, it is sometimes difficult to draw the fine line between what is offensive and what is funny (eg satire), and oftentimes issues cover both. Mel Brooks often crosses boundaries in his satirical films, as do many SNL skits, things on the Daily show or the Colbert report. I just saw a movie preview called “Thats My Boy” (Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg and a host of others) that does a fine job of being tasteless, crass and tacky, but funny. I agree that we should be sensitive to the feelings of others, but sometimes its ok to take things with a grain of salt and laugh at ourselves a little bit. I don’t know where/how to draw the line, nor how to easily discern when its been crossed, but sometimes we could benefit from lightening up just a bit. JMO.</p>
<p>^^ true 
it could be a really high-brow attempt to mock the ‘pimps and hoes’ themes by calling a spade a spade in terms of the enslavement and disease. That is a great point and it would be a fine contextual line of where it is satirical social commentary and where it is too open to being misinterpreted. Does anyone know if this angle holds water in this case? It would be interesting to know.</p>
<p>In the past I have seen Pimps and Hoes, Gangsters and Mauls, Principals and School Girls, Casting Night (guys dress in suits like executives and girls like starlets), Cowboys and Indians, Jungle Explorer (guys wear khaki and girls dress like natives) and Dirty Old Men and School Girls. All have two things in common: 1) all have some sort of uncomfortable power dynamic; and 2) all are essentially an excuse for girls to wear as little as possible. Most of it is good fun until you focus on the insidious relationships that occur in real life. </p>
<p>I don’t believe most groups plan these in order to highlight this power dynamic, but rather to allow the people throwing the party to have a cool/manly costume and their guest to wear short skirts, bikini tops and play dress up.</p>
<p>This excuse that they are just barely adults is ludicrous. We send people their age to war to make life and death decisions, yet we are supposed to go, eh they are just barely adults so they shouldn’t know any better.</p>
<p>They know exactly what they are doing.</p>
<p>
Well, maybe. But in this particular case, I’m not sure I understand what they were doing. What was the point of it? What is the message?</p>
<p>My daughter went to a jersey shore type party. Eh</p>
<p>The difference is this when it comed to humor, these kinds of parties, political correctness, etc</p>
<p>When you ridicule a group based on what they do, ala pimps and hoes, or dirty old men, its one thing, but to ridicule based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, country of origin it’s something quite different.</p>
<p>And when you take a group like immigrants who are already dealing with complicated social and political issues, and have a party making fun, and making fun is not the same as humor, btw, then you show your own willful ignorance.</p>
<p>There were two separate incidents- one being the sombrero wearing and the other being the name/description of a party. Can posters please clarify if they are talking about one, the other or both? Are they equally problematic in readers eyes? Just curious.</p>
<p>The Conquistador party to me wasn’t necessarily offensive from a racial perspective because most people don’t identify themselves as Mayan or Aztec in this day and age (though many are still descendants), but much more offensive from a cultural and sexual violence perspective. However, I also dont’ think it was meant to be anything other than a different version of a pimp and hoe party. If it was a Cowboys and Indians party, I would have called that racially insensitive. I also hate thug parties, Paddy Wake parties and Italian Wedding parties for ridiculing cultures, though since I grew up in redneck country, I love Trailer Trash Bashes</p>
<p>As for the sombrero incident, I can’t understand the motivation behind it, so I think it was stupid, and truly insensitive. It wasn’t a hazing incident as the men involved were active brothers not pledges and so their reasoning is known only to them.</p>
<p>So how does a group have a themed party that is fun/funny allows them to be clever/creative in their decor or costume and doesnt manage to offend someone?</p>
<p>I am not meaning to be provocative. I really wonder if there is a way to determine this.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that nobody seems to think the Conquistadors party is offensive to Spaniards.</p>
<p>After all, those Toga parties are likely offensive to those of Italian / Roman descent Shame on you, John Belushi!</p>
<p>The lawn event was a fraternity pledge task, such as it was. And as pledge tasks are often supposed to humiliate and embarrass, this was a tacky public way of making fun of the pledges by having them dress as Latina doing manual labor.</p>
<p>Not the most horrid thing, but come on, pretty immature and sad to use other hardworking people as a way to humiliate your pledges. This is why their parents are paying for college?</p>
<p>Seahorse, it was NOT a pledge task. Those involved were not pledges, and that has been reported in several articles. That is why the motivation is unclear.</p>
<p>As for parties that stay aways from racial/class issues one co-op recently threw an “Eat Me Lei Me” party that involves candy necklaces and floral leis. Over the top sexual innuendo but harmless fun. I went to a party last year where we all dressed up like the person that offends us the most. I was Snooki. There were a lot of Paris Hiltons, politicians, Kardashian, at least one Michael Vick and a Tom Cruise. I think if you are going to offend some, why not try to offend all ;)</p>
<p>What is a first year pledge? Is that a low man on the rung in a frat house probably still having to do as they are told as part of pledging?</p>
<p>So at this frat house are you basically pledging all year? So unless these were upper class"men" then they were indeed pledges.</p>
<p>And then would be a type of hazing, I would gather. So the frats denial they were pledges is very self serving.</p>
<p>If they were upperclassman, they are morons.</p>