Can't they just anagram it? It looks like relation is an anagram of oriental.

It’s not offensive because it’s not talking about a person. It just means “Eastern”. There’s still an Orient Express train, etc.

I wonder if they’ll rename Occidental College next? Because that’s the same fucking thing.

Sounds like perfect fodder for the Fox News crowd.

Why can't it be as simple as honoring someone by renaming a theatre (an occurrence that happens quite often actually)?

While I don't have a problem with the name change itself, my biggest concern is the loss of an historic marquee in the Loop.

That thing should be landmarked, actually. Those old school marquees are what differentiate use from shitbag Sunbelt snoozervilles like Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, etc etz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz I already fell asleep just thinking about those places.

Point is, we need to demand that they respect the historic features of this theatre's exterior appearance, including the marquee, even while changing the name.

Always seems like folks who aren't the subject of an purportedly offensive term are the first to say that the term isn't offensive. Even acting with indignation that anyone could think the term could be viewed as offensive and arguing that, given how long that term has been used, it should be exempt from change as a result of our evolving understanding of how that term may be offensive.

"It’s not offensive because it’s not talking about a person."

Except it is. The theater's name is tied to its fanciful/fictional depictions of scenes from the Far East (or East Asia to use a more modern term). Scenes that would, whether they are visible or not, be inhabited by the people therefrom.

"I wonder if they’ll rename Occidental College next? Because that’s the same fucking thing."

You are, if memory serves, living in London which is virtually the epicenter of Orientalism and you think "Occidental" is somehow equivalent? Sure in an alternate history where Oriens and Occidens were only ever used as Latin geographic terms. However that is not nearly the case especially after two or three centuries of colonial efforts in Eastern Asia.

Not that it should matter because it is an exact replica, but wasn't the vertical blade marquee missing for like 40 years before the renovation? Here's an image from the 60's showing the later marquee that lasted until the 1980's:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7...LY%201960s.jpg
_

I agree. I mean, I wouldn't open a new theater with the name "Oriental" bc it's such a loaded term, so just being aware of the word's baggage would steer me away from it. That said, I've never heard of anyone complaining of the term when applied to inanimate objects. Did whoever made this decision even consult with the Asian American community to find out if it reads as offensive? It's such an iconic sign and I'd hate to see it removed for a totally unfounded reason. And, yes, this is the sort of red meat that really mobilizes the crazies to double down on their racism.

Considering that University of Chicago has a highly regarded museum and research arm called the 'Oriental Institute', with no plans to change that...I dunno how to end this post...

^Good point. Didn't even think about that.

You seem like just the kind of “everything is offensive” snowflake that is driving otherwise Democratic voters to people like Donald Trump.

This is a nonsense, and a waste of time and money.

What’s next, no German-themed beer halls with staff in lederhosen and dirndls because that’s cultural stereotyping? Ban Mario and Luigi games because of the Italian stereotype? Better not have any neon signs for Mexican restaurants with a cartoon guy in a poncho either.

The historical marquee is much more important than any of these stupid concerns over the use of the term “oriental”.

Not to get political, but.....you are totally right.

Lets not feign outrage on behalf of ethnic groups we don't belong to, people. Let us speak for ourselves. And I don't see massive groups of East Asians out there complaining about the name of this theatre. NOBODY is offended--people are busy with their lives and have just a tad bit thicker skin than that.

I'm pretty persuaded by these points. None of this seems like snowflakery to me. It seems like a thoughtful understanding of the issue and why the term might be offensive when applied to a theater. I find the point that 'theater' is inextricably linked to 'people' and depictions of humanity to be quite compelling. In this context, the term really communicates an infantilized/fetishized portraiture of Asian people, and conjures images not unlike a minstrel show. Whereas when applied to a museum, "oriental" seems limited to artifacts and tools.

I do think its wise to understand these things deeply and to start from the presumption that the term is indeed offensive. Otherwise, your run the risk of letting your position of white privilege blind you to history and the present. But I'd really like to hear from an Asian American advocacy group to get their opinion and go with that.

As an “Oriental”, I’m aware that Orientalism was a movement in art, philosophy and history that had some problems. But it is not generally offensive like when it involves motifs from Asian art, though of course there are limits.

I mean, I absolutely love the old Shriners temple (now a Bloomingdales), even though it’s what some would call “cultural appropriation”— and I was actually really disturbed by a recent Tribune article criticizing it. In my experience, we usually see these things as forms of appreciation—however flawed—and are only annoyed when they’re used to perpetuate stereotypes, e.g. representations of men with swords sitting on cushions in a harem with veiled but naked (?) women belly dance around them.

Edit: Sorry, just saw that you cleared out the discussion. Feel free to delete.

Ironically a Nederlander is a person from the Netherlands

Naming it for Dutch people is super offensive! Now there's going to be a big outrage from the Dutch-American community. How dare they?!

Ironically the name Nederlander paired with the orientalist motifs of the theater make me think of the Dutch East Indies and therefore Java/Indonesia and therefore the ugliness and evils of colonialism, which is more negative connotation and thought than I would have ever had when thinking of "Oriental." Fucking ridiculous.

OK, maybe it's just me, but I thought it was pretty clear from the reports on the name change that the reference to 'oriental' being offensive was just thrown out for a little cover for the ONLY reason, and the REAL reason for the change.... the owners and the dollars talk... they want their name on the theater... that's all it is...

The sign is not a replica at all, it's complementary to the building, but Disney-style. The vertical sign is not to the full scale of the original vertical sign, either.
http://photos.cinematreasures.org/pr...JPG?1394920554

yes, that was my take as well.

the PC claim is a smokescreen.

and it appears to have worked.

Faking one objective in order to achieve one’s real goal. Good idea, I think we should refer to that strategy as the “Bezos maneuver”