link
A popular Berlin theatre troupe has denied accusations that its
adaptation of a Tony Award-winning play featuring a white man in
blackface is racist, saying it's "tradition" for whites to play blacks
in German theatre.
“Many older black actors come from the music industry, and that wasn’t a
fit for the play as it isn’t a musical,” Thomas Schendel, the director
of "I'm Not Rappaport" told The Local. “When we couldn’t find an elderly
black actor who fit the role and could speak with a perfect German
accent, we opted for blackface make-up.”
But the decision to cast 76-year-old Joachim Bliese as the feisty
character “Midge,” – an African-American who discusses racism and
growing old with an elderly Jewish friend – has prompted a firestorm of
criticism from those who have likened the play at the Schlosspark Theater to a minstrel show.
Tahir Della, a spokesman for the Initiative for Black Germans (ISD),
which represents the black community in Germany, called Schendel’s
explanation “idiotic.”
“There are more than enough black actors in Germany, especially in Berlin. Schendel is making excuses,” he told The Local.
And visitors to the theatre’s official Facebook page have flooded it
with angry comments, calling the decision “racist” and “ignorant.”
Blackface or "blacking up" – painting a light-skinned person’s skin to
appear black – was once commonplace. But in recent decades it has become
associated with racist American theatre from the 19th and early 20th
centuries that aimed to mock African-Americans.
Germans have come under particular criticism in recent years for being
insensitive about the much-maligned tradition. Last year, for instance, a
popular comedian sparked outrage when he posed as Barack Obama on a
Berlin billboard while wearing blackface.
But theatre officials said they were shocked by the vitriol online,
pointing out there had been a previous production of "I'm not Rappaport”
at a different Berlin theatre with a white actor playing the part of
Midge.
"(It) wasn’t met with a reaction like the one we’re facing now,” a Schlosspark Theater spokesman told The Local.
Schendel said he found the negative response to the play “saddening.” In
an open letter on Facebook, he invited the play’s critics to attend its
premiere on Saturday – nobody responded.
“In Germany blackface is part of a theatre tradition that was never
intended to be racist,” Schendel told The Local. “I tried to make a play
about racism and ended up being called a racist,” he lamented.
The play, said Schendel, will go on as scheduled.
Showing posts with label blackface. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blackface. Show all posts
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Florence + the machine using white supremacy in music videos
link to video
link to article
link to article
Florence + the Machine released the latest video this past Friday, for “No Light No Light,” the third single from their new album Ceremonials. Since frontwoman Florence Welch is known for her theatrical music video productions, the clip was eagerly awaited by her fans.
The video, directed by Iceland-based duo Arni & Kinski,
has already garnered over 800,000 views on Youtube, in addition to
generating countless responses over the images in the video. It’s
actually slightly astounding how much racist imagery they managed to
pack into just four minutes and 15 seconds.
You
can watch the video for yourself to get your own interpretation, but if
you can’t watch it for whatever reason here’s a brief summary: Welch, a
thin white red-haired British woman, is the focal point, but at various
points, we see what seems to be an Asian man in blackface,
misreprentations of the voodoo religion (which of course inflicts harm
on the poor white woman). The overall plot of the video seems to be of a
white woman pursued by “darkness,” represented by the aforementioned
man in blackface, who ends up falling into “whiteness,” represented by a
choir of young white boys in a church. Oh yes, that old trope. Black =
evil, white = good. Echoes of British religious imperialism and its
violent history of colonization abound. You get the picture.
The video has already attracted criticism from around the blogosphere, and Jezebel’s Dodai Stewart mapped out why the representaion of the Voodoo religion in the music video is not only negative, but factually incorrect:
Haitian Vodou is a religion that is very misunderstood. Slaves were brought to the Caribbean against their will and forbidden to practice their traditional African religions as well as forced to convert to the religion of their masters. The Bond movie/Eurocentric/Americanized viewpoint presents Vodou as an evil, primitive version of witchcraft. But it’s a religion like any other, with a moral code, gods and goddesses. Many ceremonies deal with protection from evil spirits.In addition, the “voodoo doll” itself has been misconstrued. In Haiti, it was traditional to nail small handmade puppets or dolls to trees near graveyards; these small figures were meant to act as messengers to the spirit world, and contact dead loved ones. It’s safe to imagine that European folks didn’t understand this — and assumed an evil intent behind a doll with nails in its body.”
On
the other hand, all sorts of defenses and excuses are being pulled out
of the hat to try and label this music video as anything other than what
it is: racist. Glorifying the white female central
character as representing goodness, all while vilifying the evil dark
skinned heathen Other. The number of times this has been done in film
date back to one of the very first blockbusters, D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation,
and continue on until today with this latest incarnation. But in this
age of “colour-blindness” and “post-racial” talk, we confront a fairly
new beast: vehement denial.
That’s where a large part of the problem with the discussions around this music video lie – the desire to talk about anything other than race. Fans of Welch’s have offered their own denials, including:
- ”it’s not blackface, he’s green!”
- “It’s not blackface, people in Britain don’t know about blackface.”
- “It’s not blackface, it’s a representation of darkness.”
Even fans who will readily agree that this music video is “symbolic” and uses darkness (in the shape of a, lest we forget, a human being,
an Asian man in blackface who practices voodoo and chases Welch) to
represent “evil” and whiteness to represent “good” will still find ways
to vehemently deny it is racist. “Maybe it looks like it could
be racist, but it didn’t mean to be!” they say. When it comes to
confronting the argument of whether or not the video was “intentionally”
racist, I’ll point to minh-ha t. pham’s response for Threadbared to Crystal Renn’s yellowface photoshoot, where she explains:
Racism is so deeply entrenched and pervasive in many societies that everyday racism is often unintentional. On the other hand, what is always intentional is anti-racism. The struggle against racism resists the pervasive ideologies and practices that explicitly and invisibly structure our daily lives (albeit in very different ways that are stratified by race, gender, class, and sexuality). Anti-racism requires intentionality because it’s an act of conscience.
What
Pham hits on there is the need to first acknowledge we live in a world
where racism and white privilege exist. In the end, the excuses over why
“No Light, No Light” is not racist are pointless to entertain if you
can’t even begin to acknowledge that. You’d have to live in a very
sheltered world to believe that this video is anything other than a
giant platter of rehashed racist imagery.
Now,
one thing I’m surprised others have not raised in their criticisms of
the “No Light, No Light” music video is that this isn’t the first time
Welch has been criticized for being “culturally insensitive,” to put it
mildly. Her other music videos could hardly be excused as perfect,
either.
A quick look
at “Dog Days Are Over” (which has over 20 million views on Youtube)
features a mishmash of unidentified Othered cultures in the background,
such as women in head scarves banging on drums, an all-black gospel
choir with silver foreheads, and two blue women (yes, blue). The already
very light-skinned Welch is painted an even whiter white, and is
featured prominently in the foreground leading the masses of ambiguously
ethnic backup dancers in a frenetic crescendo:
At the end of the video,
they all explode into bursts of bright colours, leaving the “wild”
Welch draped in a furry tattered garment, waving a flag.
What
these music videos show is the amount of misrepresentations around race
that many (white) artists are able to use, all under the guise of
“art.” It happens in fashion photoshoots, music videos, films, books,
etc on more occasions than one could possibly count. While it happens
all the time, that does not make it any more defensible. And being a fan
of an artist who makes a misstep and ends up creating something racist,
intentionally or not, does not oblige you to running to their defense.
Being a card-carrying fan of an artist or musician does not make them
infallible.
Discussions
about whether or not Welch is personally responsible for this racist
music video have cropped up. When you break it down and imagine the
number of people who were behind the storyboarding, choreographing,
casting and creative direction around this video, it is slightly
astounding that not one person raised concerns about how problematic
this video is. Many petitions
have cropped up, asking that “be pulled, edited, or reshot and she and
her label should issue a sincere apology.” In putting forth this music
video attached to her album and her persona, Welch has given it her
unspoken seal of approval. In this case, she has also simultaneously
alienated any number of people of colour and critical folks in her
fanbase.
We’ll probably be waiting with bated breath, as Welch nor her label have responded to the public outcry so far.
In
the end, the most important and all too often ignored factor in the
case of this racist music video is just that: calling it racist. The
fact that in 2011, a top-selling young creative artist has released a
music video like this one means we still need to have conversations
about racism, stereotypes, blackface, and impact that images in music
videos like these ones have. Let’s take this opportunity to talk about
how to hold artists, including pop stars, accountable for propagating
racist imagery. Let’s talk about why blackface
is always wrong, about why reductive stereotypical misrepresentations
of people of colour are harmful and need to be confronted, and why we
still have to unlearn colonial histories and legacies.Friday, November 18, 2011
If you protest racism during Black Face season in The Netherlands, you will be beaten up and arrested
link
Ah, my home, The Netherlands. Tourists from all over the world wax lyrical about the tulips, the windmills and the widely available weed. What these tourists hardly ever get to see is how institutionalized racism works in this country and the lengths the State will go to in order to protect it. Or how, if you are personally affected by this racism and you summon the strength to protest it, you will be brutally beaten up and arrested.
Now, here is the thing: this is a small country. All matters of racism happen here but they go unreported in international mainstream media because the Dutch language is mostly inaccessible to the world at large. So, these matters remain untold, underreported, downplayed or just ignored. However, international media loves to talk about our most famous homegrown xenophobe: Geert Wilders. His influence is far reaching and international. His words repeated all over the international press; he gets invitations for public engagements and speeches; fellow populist and xenophobe politicians from all over Europe and places as dissimilar as the US, Canada or Australia cite him as a source of “inspiration”. Meanwhile, the general public abroad struggles to come up with an explanation of why, a country that is present in popular imaginations as “tolerant”, “multicultural” and “modern” could be represented by such a divisive and racist force. That is, because systematically, mainstream media misses the context. And I believe that the events that transpired on Saturday, during the official opening of what I like to call “Black Face season”, can provide some of that context.
“Black Face season” is not exactly the official name for what, in reality, is a children’s holiday known as Sinterklass. This is the time of the year when Dutch people carelessly don black face and speak in a faux Surinamese accents. This is the time of the year when, if you venture the streets, you are likely to encounter sights like these:
[Image description: a group of eight White adults wearing multi-color satin and velvet costumes that imitate those of Colonial times. All people in the photo wear Afro wigs and make-up commonly known as “Black Face”]
Photo via
Or like this:
[Image description: two White women walk down a street while wearing a satin costume in orange and purple colors, Afro wigs and make-up commonly known as “Black face”]
Photo via
The above, for those not familiar with our local “traditions”, are popularly known as “Black Pete”, or “Zwarte Piet” in Dutch. These “colorful” characters are the helpers of Sinterklaas, or more formally Sint Nicolaas/ Sint Nikolaas or Saint Nicolas in French. Sinterklaas is a children’s Winter holiday celebrated every year in The Netherlands, Belgium and some cities in the North of France. According to tradition, the Saint arrives to The Netherlands a few weeks prior to the celebration, in a boat, carrying the gifts he will deliver to children. The “Black Petes” are his helpers and they carry candy and control children’s behavior (children who misbehave supposedly get no presents from the Saint). Again, according to “tradition”, these helpers are Moors, or North African slaves. This “tradition” has evolved throughout the years, partially due to increasing protests from groups that find these depictions offensive. Nowadays, it is claimed that the Black face is due to the fact that the helpers have gone through chimneys and as a result, their faces are covered in soot. What again, nobody can clearly explain, is what kind of soot leaves such a uniform and evenly spread residue. Or worse, why these “chimney dwellers” speak in a fake accent that parodies the Black population of the Dutch former colony of Suriname.
Over the years, a small but growing group of people have been protesting this celebration of Black face costumes and ridiculing of minorities. Systematically, these protests have been met with a very strong and stubborn resistance from a majority of White Dutch who refuse to even consider the racist implications of this “tradition”. Those who are against the Black Pete depictions are consistently told that there is nothing offensive in it, that the tradition is not up for debate, that they are being oversensitive and that, and here comes the usual xenophobic retort, “if they don’t like it, they should go and live some place else”. Additionally, people who speak against this are also told that they are importing North American models of “political correctness” that have no place in Dutch society. Moreover, the supporters of these Black face depictions are adamant that there is nothing, absolutely nothing racist in Black Pete’s representations and that claiming otherwise is the result of a cultural imperialism brought upon by North American influences. According to supporters, Dutch culture is so different from that of the US and the context so incomparable that such discussion should not even take place. Any attempt at contextualizing the role of the Dutch in slavery in the Americas and how the continuation of these racist practices owes everything to the mindset that made such trade possible is met with protestations and the statement that “only Americans see offense in Black face, we, the Dutch, are obviously different and not racist in our traditions”. In sum, what they claim is that the rights of White people to don Black face are more or less sacrosanct and native Dutch children have a right to the continuation of this “tradition” undisputed.
And because I promised context, here’s what the Black face apologists will never tell you or admit, not even to themselves: the real, harmful consequences of the perpetuation of this racist stereotypes. In The Netherlands, where a significant portion of the White native population demands the freedom to be racist, under 25 years old Moroccan youth (not faux Moors like the Black Pete “legend” claims) face an unemployment rate of 28%; and under 25 year old Surinamese youth (the ones who do not speak with a faux Suriname accent during a children holiday, but the all too real citizens of the former Dutch colony), face an unemployment rate of 27%. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate for White, Dutch, under 25 years old natives is at a meager 6.9%, the lowest in the European Union. And I would love for anyone to tell me that there is no correlation between racist media depictions and people’s real lives.
Earlier this year, a group of Dutch people from the former and present Dutch colonies (Curacao, Suriname, Aruba, etc.), started a campaign under the banner “Zwarte Piet is racism”. They invited people to submit a photograph of themselves wearing a stenciled t-shirt, making a statement against this racist practice. Some local celebrities like Greg Shapiro (from the legendary comedy group Boom Chicago) have lend their support to the campaign. Moreover, in June this year I was at one of the final performances of the Broadway musical Fela! (one of the main guests at the prestigious Holland Festival) and some of the members of the cast, at the end of the show, held a sign that read “Zwarte Piet is racism”. Unsurprisingly, local media remained moot and this went unreported.
All of the above is just a mere introduction for the events that transpired this Saturday, 12th November. This weekend marked the arrival of the Sinterklaas boat with the little “slave helpers” wearing the usual Black face. The event is a yearly spectacle that attracts significant crowds. Parents bring children to the port and they watch actors disembark with horses and parcels carrying the gifts that will be handed over to children later on in December. This is an event that more or less kick starts the pre-Christmas holiday season and to say that it is massive would be an understatement. Not only is the event broadcasted in national TV, but it is also reported in news channels, newspapers, magazines and major websites. Every year, the “official” arrival takes place at a different Dutch city. This year was the turn of Dordrecht, a city in the province of South Holland . The usual pomp and circumstance surrounded the event, which would have been as inane as it usually is, had it not been for a small group of people who decided to take a stand against the practice of Black face. This group of activists, mostly Black local youth, (Dutch media cannot agree on the exact number, some say five or six, others say a dozen or so), wore the stenciled T-Shirt with the words “Zwarte Piet is racism” and stood by the side of the road while the parade passed by. According to reports, they also yelled “Zwarte Piet is racism” when the Black Petes were walking in their vicinity. This was met with disgust by the Dutch in attendance who complained that they were “ruining” the celebration. Police were summoned. The State called upon to protect the right of the Dutch to continue being racist.
What happened afterwards will turn your stomach. Police demanded the activists to disband and stop protesting. They were told this was a children’s event and that children had the right to celebrate the holiday without disturbances. Two men and two women were arrested (link goes to news report in Dutch) when they stated that they also had the right to protest practices that actively harm them. They were told, in no uncertain terms, that they had no right to be there. One of the men resisted. He yelled that it was his right to protest. This video here, caught by a bystander, shows what happened to this protester. He was dragged outside the Parade, brutally beaten, thrown into the ground, dragged some more. In the video, you can see this young Black man, wearing a t-shirt that states “Zwarte Piet is racism”, subject to State violence in order to protect a Dutch tradition that is clearly not open for debate. The right of the White majority to wear Black face every year should be protected through whatever means necessary, even at the expense of those who are harmed by it.
Earlier this year, in a highly publicized trial, Geert Wilders was acquitted of inciting hatred through Hate Speech. Dutch courts stated that his speech is denigrating but not hateful. Prosecutors were asking for a sentence that contemplated the possibility of jail time. Wilders has used coarse and xenophobic language against immigrants and minorities in this country. His party is funded on the premise that those of us who hail from nations classified as Non Western have no place in this society. He actively promotes laws and initiatives to further alienate and isolate immigrants. And yet, his words were deemed non hateful and, as such, not deserving of a sentence or even one day in jail, protected by free speech laws. A young Black man protests racist stereotypes that actively hurt him, he protests a tradition that further promotes his isolation and his status as “Other” and he is brutally beaten and dragged through the ground, arrested. He is told he has no right to protest, no right to raise his voice. Obviously, the protections afforded by free speech are only available to those that the State deems to be free to begin with. The largely unacknowledged responsibility of the Dutch State in the transatlantic slave trade, practically absent from school history books, means that some people, still to this day, continue to be bound by chains that prevent them from exercising the same rights freely afforded to Gert Wilders. Because above all, the Dutch State has made it clear that it will protect the right of White Dutch people to be racist without consequences.
Edited to add: Yesterday, Sunday 13th November, the Sinterklaas Parade also took place in Amsterdam. Five people carrying flyers stating “Zwarte Piet is racism” stood by the Parade route, in the Leidseplein attempting to distribute the flyers. In order to avoid direct confrontation, they didn’t wear the stenciled T-shirts. All five were also arrested for “provocation” and told they had no right to disturb an event aimed at Dutch children. (Link goes to report in Dutch)
If you protest racism during Black Face season in The Netherlands, you will be beaten up and arrested
[Content warning for very racist images, links to videos of police brutality and depictions of State endorsed racism]Ah, my home, The Netherlands. Tourists from all over the world wax lyrical about the tulips, the windmills and the widely available weed. What these tourists hardly ever get to see is how institutionalized racism works in this country and the lengths the State will go to in order to protect it. Or how, if you are personally affected by this racism and you summon the strength to protest it, you will be brutally beaten up and arrested.
Now, here is the thing: this is a small country. All matters of racism happen here but they go unreported in international mainstream media because the Dutch language is mostly inaccessible to the world at large. So, these matters remain untold, underreported, downplayed or just ignored. However, international media loves to talk about our most famous homegrown xenophobe: Geert Wilders. His influence is far reaching and international. His words repeated all over the international press; he gets invitations for public engagements and speeches; fellow populist and xenophobe politicians from all over Europe and places as dissimilar as the US, Canada or Australia cite him as a source of “inspiration”. Meanwhile, the general public abroad struggles to come up with an explanation of why, a country that is present in popular imaginations as “tolerant”, “multicultural” and “modern” could be represented by such a divisive and racist force. That is, because systematically, mainstream media misses the context. And I believe that the events that transpired on Saturday, during the official opening of what I like to call “Black Face season”, can provide some of that context.
“Black Face season” is not exactly the official name for what, in reality, is a children’s holiday known as Sinterklass. This is the time of the year when Dutch people carelessly don black face and speak in a faux Surinamese accents. This is the time of the year when, if you venture the streets, you are likely to encounter sights like these:
[Image description: a group of eight White adults wearing multi-color satin and velvet costumes that imitate those of Colonial times. All people in the photo wear Afro wigs and make-up commonly known as “Black Face”]
Photo via
Or like this:
[Image description: two White women walk down a street while wearing a satin costume in orange and purple colors, Afro wigs and make-up commonly known as “Black face”]
Photo via
The above, for those not familiar with our local “traditions”, are popularly known as “Black Pete”, or “Zwarte Piet” in Dutch. These “colorful” characters are the helpers of Sinterklaas, or more formally Sint Nicolaas/ Sint Nikolaas or Saint Nicolas in French. Sinterklaas is a children’s Winter holiday celebrated every year in The Netherlands, Belgium and some cities in the North of France. According to tradition, the Saint arrives to The Netherlands a few weeks prior to the celebration, in a boat, carrying the gifts he will deliver to children. The “Black Petes” are his helpers and they carry candy and control children’s behavior (children who misbehave supposedly get no presents from the Saint). Again, according to “tradition”, these helpers are Moors, or North African slaves. This “tradition” has evolved throughout the years, partially due to increasing protests from groups that find these depictions offensive. Nowadays, it is claimed that the Black face is due to the fact that the helpers have gone through chimneys and as a result, their faces are covered in soot. What again, nobody can clearly explain, is what kind of soot leaves such a uniform and evenly spread residue. Or worse, why these “chimney dwellers” speak in a fake accent that parodies the Black population of the Dutch former colony of Suriname.
Over the years, a small but growing group of people have been protesting this celebration of Black face costumes and ridiculing of minorities. Systematically, these protests have been met with a very strong and stubborn resistance from a majority of White Dutch who refuse to even consider the racist implications of this “tradition”. Those who are against the Black Pete depictions are consistently told that there is nothing offensive in it, that the tradition is not up for debate, that they are being oversensitive and that, and here comes the usual xenophobic retort, “if they don’t like it, they should go and live some place else”. Additionally, people who speak against this are also told that they are importing North American models of “political correctness” that have no place in Dutch society. Moreover, the supporters of these Black face depictions are adamant that there is nothing, absolutely nothing racist in Black Pete’s representations and that claiming otherwise is the result of a cultural imperialism brought upon by North American influences. According to supporters, Dutch culture is so different from that of the US and the context so incomparable that such discussion should not even take place. Any attempt at contextualizing the role of the Dutch in slavery in the Americas and how the continuation of these racist practices owes everything to the mindset that made such trade possible is met with protestations and the statement that “only Americans see offense in Black face, we, the Dutch, are obviously different and not racist in our traditions”. In sum, what they claim is that the rights of White people to don Black face are more or less sacrosanct and native Dutch children have a right to the continuation of this “tradition” undisputed.
And because I promised context, here’s what the Black face apologists will never tell you or admit, not even to themselves: the real, harmful consequences of the perpetuation of this racist stereotypes. In The Netherlands, where a significant portion of the White native population demands the freedom to be racist, under 25 years old Moroccan youth (not faux Moors like the Black Pete “legend” claims) face an unemployment rate of 28%; and under 25 year old Surinamese youth (the ones who do not speak with a faux Suriname accent during a children holiday, but the all too real citizens of the former Dutch colony), face an unemployment rate of 27%. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate for White, Dutch, under 25 years old natives is at a meager 6.9%, the lowest in the European Union. And I would love for anyone to tell me that there is no correlation between racist media depictions and people’s real lives.
Earlier this year, a group of Dutch people from the former and present Dutch colonies (Curacao, Suriname, Aruba, etc.), started a campaign under the banner “Zwarte Piet is racism”. They invited people to submit a photograph of themselves wearing a stenciled t-shirt, making a statement against this racist practice. Some local celebrities like Greg Shapiro (from the legendary comedy group Boom Chicago) have lend their support to the campaign. Moreover, in June this year I was at one of the final performances of the Broadway musical Fela! (one of the main guests at the prestigious Holland Festival) and some of the members of the cast, at the end of the show, held a sign that read “Zwarte Piet is racism”. Unsurprisingly, local media remained moot and this went unreported.
All of the above is just a mere introduction for the events that transpired this Saturday, 12th November. This weekend marked the arrival of the Sinterklaas boat with the little “slave helpers” wearing the usual Black face. The event is a yearly spectacle that attracts significant crowds. Parents bring children to the port and they watch actors disembark with horses and parcels carrying the gifts that will be handed over to children later on in December. This is an event that more or less kick starts the pre-Christmas holiday season and to say that it is massive would be an understatement. Not only is the event broadcasted in national TV, but it is also reported in news channels, newspapers, magazines and major websites. Every year, the “official” arrival takes place at a different Dutch city. This year was the turn of Dordrecht, a city in the province of South Holland . The usual pomp and circumstance surrounded the event, which would have been as inane as it usually is, had it not been for a small group of people who decided to take a stand against the practice of Black face. This group of activists, mostly Black local youth, (Dutch media cannot agree on the exact number, some say five or six, others say a dozen or so), wore the stenciled T-Shirt with the words “Zwarte Piet is racism” and stood by the side of the road while the parade passed by. According to reports, they also yelled “Zwarte Piet is racism” when the Black Petes were walking in their vicinity. This was met with disgust by the Dutch in attendance who complained that they were “ruining” the celebration. Police were summoned. The State called upon to protect the right of the Dutch to continue being racist.
What happened afterwards will turn your stomach. Police demanded the activists to disband and stop protesting. They were told this was a children’s event and that children had the right to celebrate the holiday without disturbances. Two men and two women were arrested (link goes to news report in Dutch) when they stated that they also had the right to protest practices that actively harm them. They were told, in no uncertain terms, that they had no right to be there. One of the men resisted. He yelled that it was his right to protest. This video here, caught by a bystander, shows what happened to this protester. He was dragged outside the Parade, brutally beaten, thrown into the ground, dragged some more. In the video, you can see this young Black man, wearing a t-shirt that states “Zwarte Piet is racism”, subject to State violence in order to protect a Dutch tradition that is clearly not open for debate. The right of the White majority to wear Black face every year should be protected through whatever means necessary, even at the expense of those who are harmed by it.
Earlier this year, in a highly publicized trial, Geert Wilders was acquitted of inciting hatred through Hate Speech. Dutch courts stated that his speech is denigrating but not hateful. Prosecutors were asking for a sentence that contemplated the possibility of jail time. Wilders has used coarse and xenophobic language against immigrants and minorities in this country. His party is funded on the premise that those of us who hail from nations classified as Non Western have no place in this society. He actively promotes laws and initiatives to further alienate and isolate immigrants. And yet, his words were deemed non hateful and, as such, not deserving of a sentence or even one day in jail, protected by free speech laws. A young Black man protests racist stereotypes that actively hurt him, he protests a tradition that further promotes his isolation and his status as “Other” and he is brutally beaten and dragged through the ground, arrested. He is told he has no right to protest, no right to raise his voice. Obviously, the protections afforded by free speech are only available to those that the State deems to be free to begin with. The largely unacknowledged responsibility of the Dutch State in the transatlantic slave trade, practically absent from school history books, means that some people, still to this day, continue to be bound by chains that prevent them from exercising the same rights freely afforded to Gert Wilders. Because above all, the Dutch State has made it clear that it will protect the right of White Dutch people to be racist without consequences.
Edited to add: Yesterday, Sunday 13th November, the Sinterklaas Parade also took place in Amsterdam. Five people carrying flyers stating “Zwarte Piet is racism” stood by the Parade route, in the Leidseplein attempting to distribute the flyers. In order to avoid direct confrontation, they didn’t wear the stenciled T-shirts. All five were also arrested for “provocation” and told they had no right to disturb an event aimed at Dutch children. (Link goes to report in Dutch)
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Racism is alive and well in Canada
source
The recent staging of blackface at an institution of higher learning in Montreal is disturbing, to say the least. But it can serve as a potent reminder of the ongoing legacies of racism and racist cultural practices against blacks in the west - and yes, this includes Canada.
As a professor of (among other things) Canadian art history, I can state unequivocally that there is a profound deficit of knowledge of Canada's racist past among university-aged students in Canada. When I introduce topics such as the vast visual culture of transatlantic slavery to my mainly white Canadian students, the majority initially approach the materials exclusively from a perspective of American and Caribbean slavery. It is always a moment of shock when they learn that Canadians (French and British) for centuries also enslaved peoples of African and native descent.
How has the 28-year period (1833-61) of the Underground Railroad (which remembers Canada as the saviour of African-American slaves fleeing northward to freedom) taken on such mythic status in our national consciousness, while the centurieslong history of slaving in the "Great White North" has been almost universally forgotten? The answer, though complex, can be summarized as follows: Canadians have a knack at off-loading their colonial history of racial marginalization and exploitation onto their southern cousins, the United States.
The events at the school of Hautes Études Commerciales should alert us to the fact racism is alive and well in Canada.
In one fell swoop, this student performance maligned various groups on the basis of race, nationality, religion, language and culture. The students not only vilified and marginalized black people in general by "blacking up," but also took underhanded swipes at the entire nation of Jamaica (carrying the flag and wearing the national colours), while criminalizing blacks as pot-smokers (chanting "smoke more weed"), ridiculing Jamaican patois (chanting "Yeah mon"), equating the use of marijuana in the religious, spiritual and meditative practices of Rastafari with getting high and partying for the hell of it, and finally, some even wearing hats with fake locks attached (a problematic appropriation of a black hair aesthetic).
It is hard to believe the students' and university's initial explanation that the group's dress and behaviour were meant to honour the Jamaican Olympian Usain Bolt. Could they not have honoured Bolt dressed as themselves, white students? And if Bolt had been on campus that day, would they really have greeted him dressed in this manner?
Although minstrelsy and its related practices, such as blackface, are most often associated with the United States, this once widely accepted form of popular culture did exist in Canada (as well as in Europe and other locations). A part of the problem is that the histories of minstrelsy in Canada have yet to be written.
The recent staging of blackface at an institution of higher learning in Montreal is disturbing, to say the least. But it can serve as a potent reminder of the ongoing legacies of racism and racist cultural practices against blacks in the west - and yes, this includes Canada.
As a professor of (among other things) Canadian art history, I can state unequivocally that there is a profound deficit of knowledge of Canada's racist past among university-aged students in Canada. When I introduce topics such as the vast visual culture of transatlantic slavery to my mainly white Canadian students, the majority initially approach the materials exclusively from a perspective of American and Caribbean slavery. It is always a moment of shock when they learn that Canadians (French and British) for centuries also enslaved peoples of African and native descent.
How has the 28-year period (1833-61) of the Underground Railroad (which remembers Canada as the saviour of African-American slaves fleeing northward to freedom) taken on such mythic status in our national consciousness, while the centurieslong history of slaving in the "Great White North" has been almost universally forgotten? The answer, though complex, can be summarized as follows: Canadians have a knack at off-loading their colonial history of racial marginalization and exploitation onto their southern cousins, the United States.
The events at the school of Hautes Études Commerciales should alert us to the fact racism is alive and well in Canada.
In one fell swoop, this student performance maligned various groups on the basis of race, nationality, religion, language and culture. The students not only vilified and marginalized black people in general by "blacking up," but also took underhanded swipes at the entire nation of Jamaica (carrying the flag and wearing the national colours), while criminalizing blacks as pot-smokers (chanting "smoke more weed"), ridiculing Jamaican patois (chanting "Yeah mon"), equating the use of marijuana in the religious, spiritual and meditative practices of Rastafari with getting high and partying for the hell of it, and finally, some even wearing hats with fake locks attached (a problematic appropriation of a black hair aesthetic).
It is hard to believe the students' and university's initial explanation that the group's dress and behaviour were meant to honour the Jamaican Olympian Usain Bolt. Could they not have honoured Bolt dressed as themselves, white students? And if Bolt had been on campus that day, would they really have greeted him dressed in this manner?
Although minstrelsy and its related practices, such as blackface, are most often associated with the United States, this once widely accepted form of popular culture did exist in Canada (as well as in Europe and other locations). A part of the problem is that the histories of minstrelsy in Canada have yet to be written.
Dating to the early 19th
century, minstrelsy involved a public theatrical performance that
included racist humour, singing and dancing. The mainly white male
performers (often of marginalized or so-called "undesirable" white
groups, such as Jewish and Irish men) often performed in blackface,
applying dark black face paint and deep red lipstick. In this guise, the
whites of their eyes were dramatically apparent.
Minstrelsy celebrated a white nostalgia for black enslavement. It is no accident that it reached its peak only after slavery had been abolished. The songs, dancing and "comedy" of the performances hinged on a recitation of the assumed inferiority of blacks and often-violent fantasies of the murder, torture and dismemberment of black bodies. Of course, this all helped to bolster ideas of white supremacy.
Whether or not the group of HEC students knew explicit details of the history of minstrelsy, it is difficult to imagine that they did not know that "blacking up" in 2011 could be construed as inappropriate and racist behaviour. Students are voracious consumers of popular culture (television, internet, print media, etc.). A quick glance at any of these media would tell you that images of blackface have been all but banned from the public domain. The old Hollywood movies where white movie stars donned blackface are almost never screened, and neither are the older versions of cartoons like Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry that used blackface.
The HEC students and a university spokesperson said that their actions should not be construed as racist, due to a lack of knowledge. But one could argue that not knowing that this type of spectacle is wrong is a perfect example of racism. Surely racism is not only a matter of intent. If our measure of racism is based solely on what people meant to do, we ignore the impact of the racist acts upon its victims.
The negative message that this performance sends to the black population of the university should not be underestimated. The white students who chose to don blackface eventually went back to classes and sat down beside their black fellow students, listened to lectures delivered by their black professors (although there are very few), checked out library books handed to them by black library staff, and ate meals in campus cafeterias served by black staff. Their disregard for the impact of their performance on the well-being of the black members of their shared university community is telling. It speaks of racial narcissism.
Lest we dismiss what happened at HEC as an isolated incident, we should remember the debacle that took place during Halloween at a Legion Hall in the town of Campbellford, Ont., last year. Unbelievably, the first prize was awarded to a pair of white men, one of whom wore a Ku Klux Klan costume with a confederate flag draped on his back and the other in blackface with a noose around his neck. The direct references to the American Civil War and the heinous practice of lynching made this spectacle particularly vile.
Minstrelsy celebrated a white nostalgia for black enslavement. It is no accident that it reached its peak only after slavery had been abolished. The songs, dancing and "comedy" of the performances hinged on a recitation of the assumed inferiority of blacks and often-violent fantasies of the murder, torture and dismemberment of black bodies. Of course, this all helped to bolster ideas of white supremacy.
Whether or not the group of HEC students knew explicit details of the history of minstrelsy, it is difficult to imagine that they did not know that "blacking up" in 2011 could be construed as inappropriate and racist behaviour. Students are voracious consumers of popular culture (television, internet, print media, etc.). A quick glance at any of these media would tell you that images of blackface have been all but banned from the public domain. The old Hollywood movies where white movie stars donned blackface are almost never screened, and neither are the older versions of cartoons like Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry that used blackface.
The HEC students and a university spokesperson said that their actions should not be construed as racist, due to a lack of knowledge. But one could argue that not knowing that this type of spectacle is wrong is a perfect example of racism. Surely racism is not only a matter of intent. If our measure of racism is based solely on what people meant to do, we ignore the impact of the racist acts upon its victims.
The negative message that this performance sends to the black population of the university should not be underestimated. The white students who chose to don blackface eventually went back to classes and sat down beside their black fellow students, listened to lectures delivered by their black professors (although there are very few), checked out library books handed to them by black library staff, and ate meals in campus cafeterias served by black staff. Their disregard for the impact of their performance on the well-being of the black members of their shared university community is telling. It speaks of racial narcissism.
Lest we dismiss what happened at HEC as an isolated incident, we should remember the debacle that took place during Halloween at a Legion Hall in the town of Campbellford, Ont., last year. Unbelievably, the first prize was awarded to a pair of white men, one of whom wore a Ku Klux Klan costume with a confederate flag draped on his back and the other in blackface with a noose around his neck. The direct references to the American Civil War and the heinous practice of lynching made this spectacle particularly vile.
Back
to university campuses: here and in the U.S., there is a rising trend
of "gangsta" "hip-hop" or "ghetto" parties at which white students
congregate in blackface, "tricked out" with "bling," even going so far
as to pad their backsides in a disturbing parody of black anatomy. This
resurgence of minstrelsy seeks to degrade blacks. Clearly black students
are not welcome at such parties unless they consent to being the
punchline of a racist joke.
It is unsettling that a popular cultural form that supposedly died in the mid-20th century is making such a strong comeback. It is fitting that we ask why, and why now. Is this not the age of Obama (the first black president of the U.S.), of Michaëlle Jean (Canada's first black governorgeneral), of Yolande James (Quebec's first black female MNA), of the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Canadian businessman and philanthropist Michael Lee-Chin?
I see the resurgence of blackface and minstrelsy as a racist pushback against precisely these types of gains and accomplishments. There is a specific type of racism reserved for high-achieving blacks. Middle-and upperclass blacks - people with education, credentials, good careers, and money - often encounter what I like to call "how dare you?" racism: "How dare you be more educated than me?" "How dare you make more money than me?" "How dare you assume a position of power and leadership over me?"
It should perhaps be even more upsetting to us that blackface is making a comeback among young, educated whites. What does it mean that university-and collegeeducated young adults are engaging in these acts? Well, for one thing, we need to rethink the simplistic idea that racism is more abundant among older populations and non-existent among our youth. Furthermore, we need to ask if "education" is a cure for racism. Clearly education in general is not. In fact, the type of Eurocentric education that proliferates in the curriculum, methodologies, theories, course materials and resources of the majority of university disciplines is precisely what perpetuates the racist ignorance and racist behaviour of students like those at HEC.
Canadian universities' diversity policies, many of which are strategically unenforceable and unenforced, also contribute to the racial exclusion of blacks, people of colour and natives on university campuses, especially as faculty and upper administration. The policies help to propagate the idea of Canada as a race-blind, multicultural state, one that does not really need to engage with the issue of racism, since racism is supposedly not a problem in Canada.
As disturbing as it is, the HEC incident can act as a wake-up call to Canadians and a starting point for a broader public discussion. The university's initial reaction was inept, an attempt to downplay the incident as innocent fun; it was a shining example of how racism is typically "managed" in Canada. International media attention rendered that early response untenable. The question is, what will the university do now? Should the students involved be expelled? Lose a semester of study? Be forced to make a formal apology? Be made to do community service at one of the many black cultural institutions in Montreal, so they could spend time with and get to know some of the blacks and Jamaicans whom they ridiculed that day?
And what about the university's diversity polices and procedures? Why weren't there checks and balances in place to ensure the blackface idea never made it to the level of a public performance?
While I am disturbed by the fact that this blackface performance took place, I am pleased at the critical international media attention that it has spawned. In Canada, this is a long-overdue and worthwhile conversation.
It is unsettling that a popular cultural form that supposedly died in the mid-20th century is making such a strong comeback. It is fitting that we ask why, and why now. Is this not the age of Obama (the first black president of the U.S.), of Michaëlle Jean (Canada's first black governorgeneral), of Yolande James (Quebec's first black female MNA), of the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Canadian businessman and philanthropist Michael Lee-Chin?
I see the resurgence of blackface and minstrelsy as a racist pushback against precisely these types of gains and accomplishments. There is a specific type of racism reserved for high-achieving blacks. Middle-and upperclass blacks - people with education, credentials, good careers, and money - often encounter what I like to call "how dare you?" racism: "How dare you be more educated than me?" "How dare you make more money than me?" "How dare you assume a position of power and leadership over me?"
It should perhaps be even more upsetting to us that blackface is making a comeback among young, educated whites. What does it mean that university-and collegeeducated young adults are engaging in these acts? Well, for one thing, we need to rethink the simplistic idea that racism is more abundant among older populations and non-existent among our youth. Furthermore, we need to ask if "education" is a cure for racism. Clearly education in general is not. In fact, the type of Eurocentric education that proliferates in the curriculum, methodologies, theories, course materials and resources of the majority of university disciplines is precisely what perpetuates the racist ignorance and racist behaviour of students like those at HEC.
Canadian universities' diversity policies, many of which are strategically unenforceable and unenforced, also contribute to the racial exclusion of blacks, people of colour and natives on university campuses, especially as faculty and upper administration. The policies help to propagate the idea of Canada as a race-blind, multicultural state, one that does not really need to engage with the issue of racism, since racism is supposedly not a problem in Canada.
As disturbing as it is, the HEC incident can act as a wake-up call to Canadians and a starting point for a broader public discussion. The university's initial reaction was inept, an attempt to downplay the incident as innocent fun; it was a shining example of how racism is typically "managed" in Canada. International media attention rendered that early response untenable. The question is, what will the university do now? Should the students involved be expelled? Lose a semester of study? Be forced to make a formal apology? Be made to do community service at one of the many black cultural institutions in Montreal, so they could spend time with and get to know some of the blacks and Jamaicans whom they ridiculed that day?
And what about the university's diversity polices and procedures? Why weren't there checks and balances in place to ensure the blackface idea never made it to the level of a public performance?
While I am disturbed by the fact that this blackface performance took place, I am pleased at the critical international media attention that it has spawned. In Canada, this is a long-overdue and worthwhile conversation.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Friday, September 16, 2011
University students in Montreal perform blackface and mock Jamaica and Jamaicans
source
MONTREAL—Students at an elite Montreal business school painted themselves in blackface and chanted in mock Jamaican accents at a back-to-school event that had the university expressing regret Thursday.
The frosh-week stunt was organized by a student sports committee at the Hautes Études Commerciales, the Université de Montréal’s business school.
Participants were encouraged to dress in Olympic-themed costumes, with one group choosing to portray Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt.
Along with donning the colours of the Jamaican flag, several students also covered their face, arms and legs in black paint. The colourful attire included at least one Rastafarian hat, one green underwear patterned with monkey faces, and a stuffed animal that students carried around.
One witness, who is of Jamaican descent, said he felt uncomfortable and was shocked to hear some students chanting, “Smoke more weed.” At one point the students also repeatedly chanted, “Ya man!”
“It was terrible and I felt awful seeing it,” said Anthony Morgan, a 25-year-old law student at McGill University.
“Students at that level can’t have the idea in their head that this is OK.”
Morgan happened to be on the Université de Montréal’s campus Wednesday afternoon as the event was taking place at the school’s football stadium. He recorded the mock sprinters with his BlackBerry camera.
He said he found the display deeply offensive because of the troubling historical connotations of blackface.
“It is connected to a longer tradition of minstrel shows, reducing black people to pretty much jokes,” he said. “They’re put on as a spectacle, to almost look grotesque.”
A spokesman for the business school said the stunt was unacceptable — but he said there were no ill intentions. He said the students should simply have chosen another way to get into the Olympic-themed spirit.
“They interpreted the theme poorly,” said Michael Lartigau.
“We spoke to the students and they found the reaction regrettable and are sorry.”
Lartigau would not comment on whether the students involved would face disciplinary actions.
The director of the sports committee that organized the event said a “great deal of misunderstanding has surrounded” Morgan’s video, which has since been posted on YouTube. In an email, Frank Sciortino said the event was part of the committee’s efforts to encourage physical activity and team spirit.
“My wish was simply to... assure you that in no way were they a racist act.”
Morgan said he doesn’t hold any hard feelings against the students, but questioned what institutional safeguards were in place to prevent such incidents from happening.
“As problematic as it was for the students to be doing this, I thought it spoke more about the university,” he said.
MONTREAL—Students at an elite Montreal business school painted themselves in blackface and chanted in mock Jamaican accents at a back-to-school event that had the university expressing regret Thursday.
The frosh-week stunt was organized by a student sports committee at the Hautes Études Commerciales, the Université de Montréal’s business school.
Participants were encouraged to dress in Olympic-themed costumes, with one group choosing to portray Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt.
Along with donning the colours of the Jamaican flag, several students also covered their face, arms and legs in black paint. The colourful attire included at least one Rastafarian hat, one green underwear patterned with monkey faces, and a stuffed animal that students carried around.
One witness, who is of Jamaican descent, said he felt uncomfortable and was shocked to hear some students chanting, “Smoke more weed.” At one point the students also repeatedly chanted, “Ya man!”
“It was terrible and I felt awful seeing it,” said Anthony Morgan, a 25-year-old law student at McGill University.
“Students at that level can’t have the idea in their head that this is OK.”
Morgan happened to be on the Université de Montréal’s campus Wednesday afternoon as the event was taking place at the school’s football stadium. He recorded the mock sprinters with his BlackBerry camera.
He said he found the display deeply offensive because of the troubling historical connotations of blackface.
“It is connected to a longer tradition of minstrel shows, reducing black people to pretty much jokes,” he said. “They’re put on as a spectacle, to almost look grotesque.”
A spokesman for the business school said the stunt was unacceptable — but he said there were no ill intentions. He said the students should simply have chosen another way to get into the Olympic-themed spirit.
“They interpreted the theme poorly,” said Michael Lartigau.
“We spoke to the students and they found the reaction regrettable and are sorry.”
Lartigau would not comment on whether the students involved would face disciplinary actions.
The director of the sports committee that organized the event said a “great deal of misunderstanding has surrounded” Morgan’s video, which has since been posted on YouTube. In an email, Frank Sciortino said the event was part of the committee’s efforts to encourage physical activity and team spirit.
“My wish was simply to... assure you that in no way were they a racist act.”
Morgan said he doesn’t hold any hard feelings against the students, but questioned what institutional safeguards were in place to prevent such incidents from happening.
“As problematic as it was for the students to be doing this, I thought it spoke more about the university,” he said.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Arizona State University Students Wear Black Face to Football Game
source
Racist or Not? Arizona State University Students Wear Black Face to Football Game
by Dr. Boyce Watkins, Your Black World.
Arizona, a state that is regularly accused of having a serious issue with people of color, received another stain to its reputation. This week, four white female students at Arizona State University showed up to a football gamewearing black face. The school asked students to wear all-black attire to celebrate the new uniforms in their game against the Missouri Tigers. This is when a few students took it too far.
The game was televised on ESPN, so the entire world saw the action go down both on and off the field. Thousands of people have expressed their anger at the students for their insensitivity. But while many were outraged, some found no reason to be offended.
One has to laugh at the irony that a school with students showing up to a game in black face also happens to be highly dependent upon African Americans to run and jump, thus bringing millions to the university in revenue each year. The idea of black men working up a sweat for white folks in the stands wearing black face is beyond disturbing.
We also cannot forget that Arizona received national attention for being the only state that would not support the Martin Luther King holiday, and also for some of the most Draconian immigration laws in the country. Arizona State University made news itself for refusing to give an honorary degree to the nation’s first black president, even though they’d given a slew of these degrees out in the past. Apparently, they don’t think that being the first black president in American history is all that big of a deal.
One thing we know about racism is that much of it is learned. We also know that young people must also learn racial sensitivity. In both cases, Arizona State University appears to have failed the test. Students are a reflection of those who teach them, and it’s interesting that these four white women made the plan to wear black face, went out and bought the makeup, told their friends about their plan, put on the makeup and went to the game, without anyone even taking a second to realize that what they were doing would be incredibly offensive to millions of people.
That, my friends, is what happens when young people are not educated. Arizona State University should be embarrassed for this behavior. But given the racially-disgusting behavior of university officials in the past, they are probably quite proud.
Dr.Boyce Watkins is a Professor at Syracuse University and founder of the Your Black World Coalition. To have Dr. Boyce commentary delivered to your email, please click here.
Racist or Not? Arizona State University Students Wear Black Face to Football Game
by Dr. Boyce Watkins, Your Black World.
Arizona, a state that is regularly accused of having a serious issue with people of color, received another stain to its reputation. This week, four white female students at Arizona State University showed up to a football gamewearing black face. The school asked students to wear all-black attire to celebrate the new uniforms in their game against the Missouri Tigers. This is when a few students took it too far.
The game was televised on ESPN, so the entire world saw the action go down both on and off the field. Thousands of people have expressed their anger at the students for their insensitivity. But while many were outraged, some found no reason to be offended.
One has to laugh at the irony that a school with students showing up to a game in black face also happens to be highly dependent upon African Americans to run and jump, thus bringing millions to the university in revenue each year. The idea of black men working up a sweat for white folks in the stands wearing black face is beyond disturbing.
We also cannot forget that Arizona received national attention for being the only state that would not support the Martin Luther King holiday, and also for some of the most Draconian immigration laws in the country. Arizona State University made news itself for refusing to give an honorary degree to the nation’s first black president, even though they’d given a slew of these degrees out in the past. Apparently, they don’t think that being the first black president in American history is all that big of a deal.
One thing we know about racism is that much of it is learned. We also know that young people must also learn racial sensitivity. In both cases, Arizona State University appears to have failed the test. Students are a reflection of those who teach them, and it’s interesting that these four white women made the plan to wear black face, went out and bought the makeup, told their friends about their plan, put on the makeup and went to the game, without anyone even taking a second to realize that what they were doing would be incredibly offensive to millions of people.
That, my friends, is what happens when young people are not educated. Arizona State University should be embarrassed for this behavior. But given the racially-disgusting behavior of university officials in the past, they are probably quite proud.
Dr.Boyce Watkins is a Professor at Syracuse University and founder of the Your Black World Coalition. To have Dr. Boyce commentary delivered to your email, please click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)