Tennessee Republican Terri Lynn Weaver appeared on Facebook posing with a man dressed, in blackface, as Aunt Jemima. Under the photo, Weaver wrote, “Aunt Jemima, you is so sweet.”
The reporting on Nashville’s Channel 4 is a great example of how the practice of reporting “both sides” in order to perform “journalistic objectivity” fails viewers. The story quotes people criticizing the photograph and people, including Weaver, objecting to that criticism. The story, however, does absolutely nothing to help us understand blackface, its history, or why it might be problematic today. It simply says: “Some people are offended; others are not.” We get no information that might help us form an educated opinion. It is a perfect waste of time masquerading as “reporting”:
Citizen Parables and Dmitriy T.M. alerted us to this month’s French Vogue. According to Jezebel, it features exactly zero black models. It does, however, contain several images of Dutch model Lara Stone painted so as to look black:
These photos are being condemned as contemporary blackface. I’d like to open it up to discussion:
1. Is painting a white model so as to look black the same thing (in some important and significant way) as the derogatory minstrelsy with which blackface (with white mouths and red lips) is associated? Is the intent (dehumanization) the same? Is the effect the same? Why or why not? If not, could it be that we are as inured to racism now as they were then?
2. Is the real (or part of the) problem the lack of actual black models? That is, if there were black models in the magazine, would we read these images differently?
3. If we saw models of different races being painted various colors, would the white model painted black cease to be significant? Or, because of history, should this always (for the foreseeable future) be off limits?
4. Is this “edgy” (and, therefore, fashion forward) exactly because it references historical blackface? In that case, should fashion play with such topics? Can people in the fashion industry do so responsibly? And, if so, what would that look like?
NEW! (Mar. ’10): Frida S. sent in the video Paris-Shanghai, written and directed by Karl Lagerfeld. The film is about Coco Chanel’s trip to Shanghai. While there are some Asian actors, there are also quite a few White actors made up to appear stereotypically Asian. Here are all three parts of the film, though only the 2nd and 3rd ones show scenes in Shanghai (where the scenes are, for some reason, shot in black and white, while the Paris scenes are in color):
It reminds me a bit of the first time I saw Breakfast at Tiffany’s and saw Mickey Rooney wearing eye tape to appear Asian. Though at least they don’t have huge buck teeth.
I didn’t watch the whole film, but Friday assures me it’s not particularly good even aside from the “yellowface” aspects.
Our intern, Velanie, forwarded us a link to a clip from an Australian variety show called Hey Hey It’s Saturday. In the clip a group called the Jackson Jive perform in blackface. Steel yourself; maybe skip it if you’re not up to being reminded, again, of white racism against blacks.
Sometimes people wonder why black people are not more open or trusting of whites. This is why. Harry Connick Jr., bless his heart, did what he could to try to make it clear that the performance was not acceptable. And, to be fair, the producers (?) gave him an opportunity to object more articulately. Here is a part of what he said at the end of the clip:
I just wanted to say on behalf of my country, I know it was done humorously but we have spent so much time trying to not make Black people look like buffoons that when we see something like that we take it really to heart… if I knew it was gonna be a part of the show I definitely wouldn’t have done it. So I thank you for the opportunity. I give it up cause Daryl said on the break you need to speak as an American. Not as a Black American or a White American but as an American I need to say that, so thank you for the opportunity.
I’m sure that many people appreciated that Connick stood up against blackface. But he is the exception. The host of the show didn’t apologize, he just pleaded ignorance and felt bad that Connick was offended. The rest of the people, including the unrepetant performers, the judges, and (it appears) the majority of the audience, had absolutely no problem with the performance. Further, the majority of Australians are defending the minstrelsy. Mary Elizabeth Williams, at Salon, summarizes:
In a poll on PerthNow.com.au, 81 percent of respondents said the sketch was not racist, with other newspapers clocking in with similar percentages. Punch deputy editor Tory Maguire glumly asserted that “The 2.5 million Australians who were watching were looking for nostalgia, so a returning act like the Jackson Jive was always going to appeal to them.” It’s a sentiment echoed by the show’s host, Daryl Somers, who told reporters that Australian audiences “see the lightness of it.”
Dr. Anand Deva, who appeared as Michael in the sketch, told an Australian radio station this week, “This was really not intended … [to be] anything to do with racism at all…
Couriermail decides it’s a great opportunity for a cheeky pun:
What should be obvious to anyone who isn’t a complete moron is that a little something called the entire history of Western civilization — what with the slavery and the colonization and the genocide — disqualifies us from mocking people for their color as grounds for entertainment. It’s just that simple.
It is just that simple. But so many white people still defend it.
This is why black people don’t trust white people. Because they never know what kind of white person they’re dealing with and it’s not worth the risk because, a good portion of the time, they’re dealing with the host who is “sorry that you were offended” (as if the offense is your own personal defect) or the lady in the audience who is just really excited to be on TV.
We’re pleased to feature a post by Macon D. About himself, Macon writes, “I’m a white guy, trying to find out what that means. Especially the ‘white’ part. I live in that heart of the heart of American whiteness, the ever-amorphous ‘Midwest.’” Macon’s blog, Stuff White People Do, is an excellent source of insights about race and racism. We thought this post grappled nicely with the complicated phenomenon of (literal and figurative) black face, while addressing a difficult and contemporary form of humor:
Minneapolis, Minnesota (click here for larger version)
On the absorbing and informative blog Kiss My Black Ads, Craig Brimm responds to an ad campaign currently being run by Chicago-Lake Liquors, a store located in a largely black area of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The images above are apparently billboards, and I’ve embedded below the three TV commercials also included in this campaign. (If you can’t view them, they’re also running now on the store’s site here.)The ads include “black” language, gestures, body language and so on, as performed by white, middle-class men (why no white women?). As I understand it, the joke is that these white folks are making fools of themselves by imitating black people.
Are these ads racist? Or are they making fun of racist white people? And if they’re “only” doing the latter, does that really make the contemporary blackface here any more acceptable?
Does context matter here, with Chicago-Lake Liquors located in a largely black area? Given that, perhaps the ads allow black people to feel superior in a way to these white people, by laughing at their silly efforts to get hip by acting “black.” Maybe, but that seems like a stretch.
Speaking of context — while blackface is largely condemned in the U.S., because it perpetuates and solidifies racist stereotypes, it serves other purposes in some other countries. Take a look at these other examples; as a United States citizen trying to become more aware on a daily level of racism and my own whiteness, I have increasing trouble ever seeing blackface, literal or otherwise, as acceptable. And yet, I’m a strong believer in the meaning-generating significance of social, historical, and cultural context. Many things have different meanings in different contexts.
Last summer, I posted a video in which British TV star Tracey Ullman donned blackface, in order to satirize (effectively, I thought) self-aggrandizing white people who adopt African children. Now, though, I’m not so sure this skit is worth applauding, despite the good point that I think it makes.
Is that acceptable blackface?
Then there’s this recent blackface performance by a Turkish newscaster. Apparently, according to ScoopThis.Org, this is a complicated joke of sorts, mostly meant to pay homage and gentle respect to Obama, and also to criticize Turkey itself for recent dealings with the U.S. BuzzFeed adds this: “Apparently, it’s actually a metaphor for the way the Bush administration ‘darkened’ the face of the Turkish public, and how the anchor hopes Obama will turn things around.”
Within a Turkish context, is this acceptable blackface?
Whether your answer is “yes” or “no,” it does seem worthwhile to interpret this performance in light of the strong probability that Turkish society in general has little sense or understanding of the particular, deeply racist history of blackface in the United States.
I’m also reminded of the Japanese teenagers who used to dress up, and maybe still do, in a fashion known as Ganguro (ガングロ), which literally means “black-face.”
According to a Western video report on this phenomenon, this look does not come from people of African descent; instead, its origins are traceable to a Japanese comic’s donning of blackface in order to clown around in a loincloth in the guise of an aboriginal Australian.*
So, I do find the Chicago-Lake Liquors ads racist. Even though the satiric butt of their central joke is clueless white people instead of black people, their version of blackness is insultingly cartoonish. They also basically revive what amounts to an American white supremacist tradition that deserves to die, blackface minstrelsy.
Still, I wonder — if we consider geographic, sociohistorical context, are some versions of blackface okay? Perhaps even, given its urban location, the contemporary American version in Chicago-Lake Liquors’ ad campaign?
* As Restructure! notes in a comment, Ganguro is one of three such modes of teenage blackface identified in the video; Yamanba, which means “mountain hag,” is the name of the one that’s tied to a comic’s racist parody of an aboriginal Australian. Jonathan Ross, the narrator of the video, notes that when Ganguro appeared after Yamanba, “many thought it was simply an homage” to the comic’s “beloved creation,” but apparently it’s not.
In this cartoon, titled “Plane Dumb” (1932), Van Beuren’s Tom and Jerry put on black face in order to disguise themselves in Africa. Putting on black face affects their intelligence as they go from being smart to dumb. Idoicy ensues. The “natives” come out at the very end: