All Posts Tagged With: "blackface"
This is what an offensive costume looks like
Legion KKK costume sparks memories of last year’s blackface controversy at U of T
A couple of geniuses decided to attend a Campbellford, Ontario, Royal Canadian Legion Halloween party this year dressed as a Klan member and slave. After allegedly sticking their fingers in electrical outlets and licking frozen telephone polls, the pair decided it would be a good idea for one man to don a Klu Klux Klan robe and lead around his partner—who would be in full blackface makeup—using a rope leash. Yes, Sonny and Cher costumes are apparently “out” in the Campbellford region this season.
As if the gag wasn’t enough on its own, the pair was awarded the top prize for best costume at the party. (I’m gonna go ahead and assume that the runners-up were something like a priest and a little boy duo, and a giant penis, respectively.) The celebration for the men ended, however, when the media caught wind of the unfortunate charade and the Ontario Provincial Police were brought in to investigate. The Legion and the individuals involved have since apologized.
So, does this debacle sound familliar to anyone?
Last year, a group of University of Toronto students caused a national stir when they dressed up as “The Jamaican Bobsled Team” from the movie Cool Runnings for a Halloween pub night. Four white students wore dark makeup and one black student wore white makeup to look like the characters they were supposedly portraying. The group won a “Costume of the Night” award, but again, their celebration was short-lived.
Soon after a local blog dropped the word “blackface,” the story appeared on national newscasts, in newspapers, and on the tip of many peoples’ tongues at the University of Toronto. Several different groups at U of T requested apologies from the men themselves, as well as the colleges that hosted the event and awarded the prize. Students also held a public shaming town hall meeting to discuss the event, and word on campus was that a puppy cried well into the night for days following the incident.
Yes, the Jamaican Bobstead Team costume was an unfortunate choice that happened to offend some people. The students had probably never heard of the concept of blackface and were genuinely trying to look like ‘Sanka” and his pals without giving thought to the sociocultural implications. While ignorance is no excuse, of course, this more recent Campbellford costume controversy illustrates the difference between trying to resemble characters from a movie and making light of serious racial issues of yesterday and today. The former is more “teachable moment” than “disgusting display.” And as for the latter…
In any case, while dressing up as a character who happens to be black is not the same as dressing up as a “black character,” some would argue that neither case should be exonerated. Beyond that, others actually believe the issue could be criminal. Not just stupid, illegal! (Somewhere in the country, ears are perking up at Human Rights Tribunal headquarters.) Which leads me to wonder: was the OPP just out to lunch when the U of T students were knotting their dreds last year?
Innocent Halloween costume or blackface?
Let’s save our public condemnation for those with malicious intent
They’re students. They painted their faces. Someone called “blackface” and lots got ticked off.
They were called racist, ignorant, foolish and insensitive, and apologies were demanded all around.
The four boys darkened their skin (and one lightened his) for Halloween. They dressed as the “Jamaican Bobsled Team” for a college pub event, and won best costume. But they didn’t have much time to celebrate. David Topping called them out on his Torontoist blog, saying they were manifesting “blackface.”
Then it took off. Hundreds of responses, one townhall meeting and a handful of media reports later, and the issue remains as contentious as ever. (For even more details, click here.)
But do these boys deserve all the contempt that’s come their way? Are they guilty of blackface, or has the issue been blown out of proportion?
I’d say blown out of proportion.
Mind you, I don’t want to downplay the fact that the get-ups genuinely offended certain individuals. I can try to empathize, but I know I will never totally get it. Still, I don’t think that means I have to remain relativistic (as some have argued), especially on something so litigious.
So, was this blackface?
The word’s a bomb. I don’t know who first dropped it here, but others seem to have picked it up without regard to its connotative weight. And I think it’s been misapplied.
Blackface is a very specific type of makeup worn in the 19th century by white actors playing black characters. Blackface makeup exaggerated racist stereotypes, contributing to overall attitudes of intolerance. I think saying these U of T students wore “blackface” is a bit of a stretch. Just because something looks similar, doesn’t mean it’s the same. For example, if someone wears a flashing star broach, it doesn’t mean she’s making fun of Jews in Nazi-occupied Germany. Maybe she just likes tacky jewelry.
Problems with free expression
The U of T blackface case raises important questions about the complex nature of freedom.
Elsewhere, my fellow blogger Scott Dobson-Mitchell notes the irony whereby in one comment I acknowledge that I occassionally edit comments on my blogs, while in another comment, I defend the right to free expression.
I’d be flattered that someone is reading me so closely, even if it is only other OnCampus bloggers, except that I’m pretty sure Dobson-Mitchell thinks I’m a douchebag. To wit:
I believe that racism, even those acts of racism that an educated, white, university professor of English literature deems to be otherwise, continues to be a “real problem” in today’s world.
Well, of course, racism itself is a real problem, but is the writer really suggesting that some guys wearing poorly thought-out costumes to a halloween party is an important issue? Compared to what? If Dobson-Mitchell can’t find plenty more serious problems than that in the world, he’s not paying attention.
As for the supposed contradiction over free speech, my colleague, I would say, misunderstands the freedom part of the expression. The right to free speech does not guarantee the right of anyone to say anything anywhere anytime. I am free to write a book, but publishers are free to refuse to publish it. I am free to speak my mind about politics, but Global Television is not bound to put me on the air. A reader may think that I’m an asshole, but unless he finds a nicer word for it, it’s not going in the comments on my blog; they call them moderated comments for a reason. He can call me immoderate names on his own blog. What the right to free speech should guarantee is that third parties should not be able to intervene and force others to speak and think as they would prefer.
Which brings us back to the halloween costumes. In my view, these guys had the right to wear their ridiculous costumes, and the party organizers would have been within their rights to say, “sorry guys, not at this party.” But where the whole thing changes is when some other group of people comes along — government, special interests, whoever — and starts holding meetings, demanding public apologies and the like. Then we start to move away from people choosing for themselves as to what they find offensive, and we move towards the policing of free action and opinion — and that becomes a very real problem indeed.
PS: why does Dobson-Mitchell point out my own race in his comments? What difference does it make that I am white? I certainly hope that he does not mean to imply that someone like me could not be expected to understand the issues involved.
