<p>Consolation: I understand your point, but I was specifically answering LIT's question. However, I can now bring more information to the table. Because it's Thanksgiving my brilliant American Studies daughter is sitting right here by me and want me to add information.</p>
<p>She wants to add:</p>
<p>1) "Wilding" -- the appropriation of physical and cultural traits to function as a mask that allows people to "act out" wilder behaviors than are socially acceptable. Thus, the socially more out there traits can be attributed to another more "animalistic" or some such culture. Germans did this with Jews; the English with the Irish, and in America, obviously black face, and earlier than that Native Americans, as in the Boston Tea Party. </p>
<p>"Wilding is destruction for both the culture doing it and the culture being appropriated. The "white" culture dissociates from its own sexuality and the targeted culture becomes the repository of sexuality.</p>
<p>In this case, even a rehab party is a form of "wilding" because dressing up as people in rehab allows acting out that might not otherwise be comfortable for those in costume. I suppose this is the reason for disguise and masking in festivals such as Mardi Gras.</p>
<p>2) This outlet contintues sexual repression because it marginalizes it by projecting it onto a more marginalized culture.</p>
<p>Consolation -- if you see my previous posts, I allowed that the racism might be unconscious. However, I still maintain that by targeting skin color as a differentiating trait, we can only be adding to a racist perceptions. And in the cultural history of the United States students in college should know better than to paint their skin darker unless they are trying to simulate a sun tan. (Even black face productions of Othello are now considered in bad taste.) In addition, the term "black face" is an encompassing term. It includes naturalistic stage make-up and Al Jolson singing "Mammy."</p>
<p>And I think we can call the students racist without pillorying them -- it's a learning experience.</p>
<p>Just a thought, would you think it offensive if my D, who is black, went to the same party as Britney Spears complete with white powdered face, trashy outfit, no underwear, cigarette hanging out of her mouth, long blonde wig, holding (loosely) a baby doll? Just a thought.</p>
<p>Yes, I would, but I don't think it would have the same destructiveness because it's a different historical context. </p>
<p>I hate anti African-American racism. I teach a large mixed population, minority, immigrant, white suburban kids (community college, Nassau County) and confront these issues every day.</p>
<p>That said, I feel a bit protective of Britney Spears. Leave the poor girl alone! (Not you GA1012MOM -- I understand your point. I mean the press.)</p>
<p>Maybe bad tasted but not racially offensive for your D to appear as Brit Spears (likewise the Wayans bros portrayal of wealthy White sisters in "White Chicks" - - bad taste and a G*d awful movie, but not for racial reasons). It is the historical context and power dynamic that makes blackface offensive.</p>
<p>NYC, I'm on board with the not logical but true. And it follows from this that some reactions may be "true" or "valid" but nonetheless also irrational. Which is why there's disproportionate friction.</p>
<p>LiT, the only one of your examples I would feel comfortable with is dressing up as Groucho Marx.</p>
<p>The students who dressed up in blackface were waaay over the line of what's acceptable (but that's not the part I'm interested in discussing) but Americans have evolved a God-given right to be Offended and woe be unto anyone who attempts to deprive anyone of that right.</p>
<p>I wouldn't think to mock someone in rehab, regardless of race, because I think the whole rehab thing has acquired way too much of a chic attribute for people who are mostly famous for being famous and they receive enough unwarranted attention as it is. Judging by the newspapers and websites, I'm in a distinct minority.</p>
<p>MM's #41 is a good informative post. </p>
<p>Race is still one of the most inflammatory things to discuss in this country, despite decades of "progress," as evidenced by the attitudes of some that the problem is "solved."</p>
<p>But you get into some bits of silliness as well: I know of a conflict between a black girl and some Asian classmates at an LAC, the resolution of said conflict including a presentation of White Privilege.</p>
<p>It isn't so much that these two were portraying black people. The problem is that they were making a mockery out of them. Some may get offended because it may appear as though all black people are portrayed in that way. I'm black and personally I'm not offended, because they were dressed up as particular celebrities. If they were dressed up as just black people then that would be messed up. The black face paint or whatever was not neccesary. I've had white friends dress up as black celebrities for halloween, and they didn'y have to use face paint. This was a mistake on their part, but I'm sure that they didn't mean any harm.</p>
<p>Surely it was an honest mistake. I think it shows true strength of character and a great sense of decency that the students in question removed the make-up when confronted, were actually moved to tears, and showed serious regret, but did not lash out and call others hypersensitive. This was a learning experience and they embraced it. It's not fair to focus on this one incident and these two kids when the deeper issue is a lack of communication. People are offended by different things and react to that in different ways. Everyone is entitled to her feelings. Some people express that through anger, others repress it, others calmly address it. There is no way to go through life without making mistakes. Sometimes you have to really screw up and cross the line to see the deep grief it can cause to others. So we can all condemn these students, call for forums and education, or we can call for a mutual sense of awareness. Forgiving someone who has erred does not nullify their lesson learned. It only gives you power, the power of compassion and understanding. Let's all try to gain something from this incident.</p>
<p>Agreed, but forgiveness follows a transgression. Here, many (White) students insist that there was no transgression, and that the offended black students were hyper-sensitive. That, as the college response recognized, is more than miscommunication.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for the costumes deriding Bush, Cheney, Regan - -one might take offense at mocking the office of vice/pres, but race (or other group identity) isn't implicated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So... ridicule is acceptable as long as it is directed against an individual instead of a group? Doesn't work for me.</p>
<p>TheDad: "Weenie, there's a stretch in my book from attempted verisimilitude (black face) to taunting intimidation (nooses)."</p>
<p>I mentioned nooses, not in the context of this particular incident at Smith, but in light of numerous other recent racially insensitive incidents on college campuses.</p>
<p>All these incidents, and many people's reactions to them, have one thing in common and that is a poor understanding of these symbols in history; the pain, fear, marginalization and worse that they have caused black Americans. </p>
<p>To compare these symbols to, say, Laurence Olivier made up as Othello (and I don't mean to pick on this poster as there are numerous other similar analogies out there in the world) shows just how much misunderstanding or lack of empathy there is out there. (I prefer to believe it is simply poor understanding.)</p>
<p>Ridicule, particularly of elected officials, is often humorous (late-night monologues, roasts, etc.). Humor that crosses the line and becomes unkind is always in bad taste; adding race (or racist symbols) makes it worse.</p>
<p>Excuse me, but in no way, shape, or form did I compare Laurence Olivier made up to play Othello with nooses! </p>
<p>You cannot lump all such symbols together. The recent "noose hanging" incidents were very, very clearly a racist threat. There is no way that a hangman's noose can be taken as anything but a symbol of death, and in the recent case it is very clearly a symbol of lynching. That is precisely why it was used. There is no possibility of mistaken significance or innocent intention there, and I would never suggest that. I do not have a poor understanding of the historical significance of blackface OR of lynching, or of the physical and emotional havoc wreaked upon black Americans by either.</p>
<p>I certainly wouldn't find masks or other costuming offensive. </p>
<p>I recall an episode of "Gilmore Girls" where Rory attended a themed party dressed as the adolescent Japanese bodyguard/assassin from "Kill Bill." The haircut, plaid skirt school uniform, knee socks and flats, in conjunction w/ the party's theme (Tarantino characters?) were sufficient to convey the image - -there was no need for yellow body paint or pulling/pinning the eyes.</p>