All Posts Tagged With: "university of Toronto halloween blackface"
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.
