Offensive Halloween costumes: a Crikey round-up

There’s currently a brouhaha in the United States about an “illegal alien” Halloween costume. Many major retail chains have pulled the costume from sale amid protests that it demonises immigrants.

Its most obvious shortcoming is that it’s stupid, but it does prod a political sore point in the US. Immigrant advocate Jorge-Mario Cabrera told the Associated Press the costume “perpetuates this idea we have about undocumented immigrants as alien foreigners, strangers, scary.”

The Halloween tradition of costuming was popularised in America by Irish immigrants and stems from the Celtic belief that on this evening, good and evil spirits roam the earth. To ingratiate yourself with the evil spirits, you disguise yourself as one of them.

Traditional Halloween imagery revolves around death, the occult, evil and monstrosity, but it also has elements of carnival  — the temporary suspension and profaning of ordinary morality.

In this context, offensive Halloween costumes make more sense. They tend to fall into several strands: burlesques of shocking news stories and controversial celebrities; childish delight in sex and bodily functions; and deliberate flouting of social taboos.

But it’s one thing to make your own offensive costume. It’s more unsettling that others are being mass-manufactured and sold through mainstream stores and websites, including Amazon.

Take, for example, this Fu Manchu-esque illegal alien mask:

Its designer, Richard Zagone, calls himself “as left-wing as they come” and claims it’s ironic, but with its droopy moustache and baseball cap, it seems deliberately to play on stereotypes about Mexicans  — whereas race is only implied in the other illegal alien suit.

But wait, there’s more. How about Robert No Dinero

the Gaylien

and Fee Ling You?

Ha ha ha, it’s all so true! Latinos are poor! Chinese people have buck teeth and their names sound funny in English! And gay people are purple, with white fuzzy hair!

Other costumes aren’t as outrageously bigoted  — but only because their racial, gender and s-xual stereotypes have been around so long they’ve become taken for granted.

A search for “Indian costume” will instantly turn up a plethora of Native American costumes, but funnily enough, it won’t find any saris, turbans or salwar kameez.

You could also get into a bit of Orientalism (make sure you bring a gong to soundtrack your entry to the party)

Or perhaps you could exploit women and African-Americans at the same time!

It’s dispiriting to have to spell this out, but it’s very, very uncool that costume manufacturers are profiting from perpetuating images that have historically been used to dominate and demean people.

Then there’s religion. Is it offensive to dress up as a statue of the Buddha?:

or as Jesus?

If so, you could always opt for an S&M nun, a happy-clappy Hare Krishna devotee or the video clip for Sadness by Enigma.

And how about that misogyny, eh? The tendency to turn Halloween into some sort of stripper convention is tedious … that is, when it’s not exploiting mental illness:

or eating disorders:

Then there are outfits that turn women into playthings or mock them for being “gold diggers”, for having pubic hair, for growing old or owning cats.

There are lots of costumes about bodily functions  — giving birth, menstruation, toilets  — and of course, the evergreen penises and vaginas, because everyone loves a good beaver!

How offensive these are depends on how squeamish you are and how much your sense of humour has moved on since you were 12.

Tampon.

Plug and socket”:

or “Longuini and meatballs”. There’s also a subgenre that could be called “Touch My Penis, I’m Beggin’ Ya!

Dodgy kids’ costumes can be offensive when they seem to defile our cultural ideals of childhood innocence. Some costumes impose adult s-xuality onto children (hello Miley Cyrus Junior, aka “Trashy Vampire ”!), while others are horrifying because they evoke violence against children, or implicate children in acts of evil.

But lest I come across as some kind of humourless PC cop, there is also plenty of good, wholesome hilarity to be had in infant humiliation!

14 Comments

  1. mtats
    Posted Tuesday, 27 October 2009 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, so i’m NOT supposed to be laughing at these? Because some of these are pretty hilarious.

  2. meski
    Posted Tuesday, 27 October 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    … And the Yanks complained about Hey Hey’s skit? Pot calling the kettle #000000

  3. Amber Jamieson
    Posted Tuesday, 27 October 2009 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    While I do think some of these costumes are a tad offensive (hello Anna Rexia!), I find several completely hilarious. The best costumes are ones that balance the line between funny and wrong.
    And flouting social taboos should happen every now and then. Particularly if it involves tampon costumes or aliens coming out of babies.

  4. vovo
    Posted Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    Mel Campbell gets the “Sanctimonious Aussie Award of the Month” for October!

    Calm down, Digger!

    Take a deep breath, Skip!

  5. Orin Thomas
    Posted Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know how the author could reasonably argue that dressing up a child as an animal that is routinely boiled alive is a bit of harmless fun.

  6. meski
    Posted Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    So this is going to devolve into an animal ethics argument? It’ll go the same place all such arguments go, you know.

  7. Michael Butler
    Posted Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Last time I checked, being offensive wasn’t against the law.

  8. JamesK
    Posted Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Last time I checked, being offensive wasn’t against the law” says Michael Butler defending those fearless agents of satire.

    Nuns, priests, Jesus Christs and Buddha’s ridiculed but apparently no Mohammeds Mohammedans or Ayatollahs.

    Those fearless wags and Crikey apparently know the unwritten law about what’s a a safe bet for their necks to remain in communication with their heads.

  9. gef05
    Posted Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    1. That’s not Buddha.
    2. Buddha is not a theological equivalent to Christ.

  10. JamesK
    Posted Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Neither is Mohamed.

  11. Tamo
    Posted Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Maybe in the USA it is safer to make fun of women than to make fun of people of certain other Religous Groups or Afro-Americans (which I Capitalise just to be on the safe side).

    PS: When did we stop calling the county the “USA” and start calling it “America”?

  12. beckchanock
    Posted Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    I take your point about most of these being quite offensive, but they are also very tame compared to some of the home made costumes at the Halloween party I went to on Saturday (in Australia)! We had a Josef Fritzl, various deformed children to go with him, an Asian friend turned up with stuffed animals on kebabs…dressing up is supposed to be shocking. And fun.

  13. wyane
    Posted Thursday, 5 November 2009 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    beckchanock makes a fair point. It was never part of any culture I’ve been immersed in (same, maybe, for Mel too?), but doesn’t the spirit (sorry) of All Hallows or Hallowmas involve a nod towards what is shadowy, unknowable and at other times of the year best left be?

  14. meski
    Posted Friday, 6 November 2009 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    @Wyane: “at other times of the year” we can get back to the regular symbolic cannibalistic eating of flesh and drinking of blood? :^)

Register now to join the conversation instantly, or log in to post a comment now.