November 01, 2011

Okay to dress up as real person?

Someone named BSK asks a follow-up question in the Racialicious posting noted in Whites Defend "Right" to Be Racist:Great post. I loved the ad and hated the "counter" campaign.

I have a question about a trickier issue: dressing as actual people/characters of another race or culture instead of as a stereotype.

For instance, an NHL player dressed as Jay-Z, part of which included darkening his skin. Now, this wasn't Al Jolsen style black face...but, yea, he darkened his skin. Apparently, he is a huge fan of Jay-Z and did it out of reverence and the costume itself clearly is not intended to mock but, is this okay?

Perhaps the answer to that is obvious (though I'm not so sure it is), what about a child who does an accurate representation of Pocahantas, without skin coloring? Or Mulan, without eye taping? I have a personal stake in figuring out the answer to this question because I am a teacher (Pre-K) and we do a costume parade at my school (personally, I'd rather avoid Halloween since we wrongly assume that everyone celebrates it (false) and that it is a non-religious American holiday (also false). As a teacher, where should I draw this line? Is Cinderella okay but Jasmine not? (I'm using the Disney princesses because of how popular they are, but I have my own issues with that for many other reasons.) Is a dread-wig as part of generic-Jamaican-guy costue wrong but dread-wig as part of Manny Ramirez costue okay?
My response (slightly modified from the original):

The real Pocahontas was a 10- to 12-year-old who went around topless if not naked. You could dress your pre-K girls like that, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Any other "authentic" Pocahontas costume isn't authentic. It's stereotypical.

Other than that, here's my take on your question about dressing as actual people of another race or culture, BSK:

1) The costume would have to be very specific AND non-stereotypical. You probably could do an accurate costume for Cleopatra or Frida Kahlo, but isn't Princess Jasmine a harem-girl version of a Arabic woman? I doubt you could rehabilitate her.

2) A white kid doing Michael Jackson seems as valid as a black kid doing Elvis. But I'd suggest no face-lightening or darkening because of its historical problems. If you can't convey the person through dress alone, you probably should rethink the idea.

3) A costume such as OJ Simpson or Osama bin Laden would be hugely problematical no matter how accurate the representation. Why? Because these people are known for their behavior, not their appearance. I shudder to think of white kids acting "black" or "Muslim" to convey their beliefs and attitudes. I'd say it can't be done without veering into racist stereotyping.

If you stuck with well-known historical figures who are defined by their clothing--I'm thinking of people like Queen Elizabeth I, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abe Lincoln, or Amelia Earhart--I think you could get away with colorblind costuming. But Pocahontas, Jasmine, or Mulan? I don't think so.

Part 2

In the same discussion, someone commented on a white couple who went to a party dressed as Jay-Z and Beyoncé:In my opinion, his costume was offensive, and it was hilarious to me that his girlfriend who was supposedly Beyonce did a piss-poor job of it. So yeah, Beyonce wears giant honey-blond/brown wigs, but the girl wore something that looked like Snooki hair and was pitch black. It's hard to articulate, but the fact that she felt the need to darken her skin but not use the proper color wig just seemed off to me. Why argue about the need for authenticity if you don't seek to accurately emulate other things? I see your Manny Ramirez suggestion as being problematic for the same reasons as this Jay-Z/Beyonce couple. People are just looking for ways around taking responsibility for the inherently racist act of going about in blackface. Using his hair as part of your costume is just another attempt to circumvent things.

Cartoon or movie characters who have distinctive costumes when worn by a child wouldn't bother me...but leave the stereotypical interpretations of our skin, hair, and other physical features out of it. It always, always, always reverts to this idea that everyone except white people has the same features and oh, aren't they just so funny, cute, hahahaha. You know, there are black people with "white" skin. So you can use our own skin and pull off your costume. Ditto for hair.

There are just so many things that you can be for Halloween. Why are so many people determined to dress up like racist a$$holes as if their lives depended on it?
My response:

Good points. Other than Michael Jackson, I'm having a hard time thinking of black celebrities who would be instantly recognizable from a costume. Maybe Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, or Prince, but that's about it.

You want to go as Michael Jordan? Go as a generic Chicago Bulls player instead. Manny Ramirez? Go as a generic Boston Red Sox player instead.

Unless you're the world's greatest fan of Oprah, Jay-Z, Tiger Woods, Beyoncé, etc., I don't see a good reason to cross racial lines. There are literally thousands of nonracial costumes you could choose from. If you're a white person who insists on being black, I have to wonder about your motivation.

For more on Pocahontas, see Pocahontas Opera Casting Criticized and Nicole Scherzinger as Pocahontas.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

In general, the rules of masquerade state that celebrities and fictional characters are perfectly cromulent costumes, BUT dressing up as a generic Indian is not.

Anonymous said...

"You want to go as Michael Jordan? Go as a generic Chicago Bulls player instead. Manny Ramirez? Go as a generic Boston Red Sox player instead."

You want to go as Sitting Bull? Go as a generic Sioux Indian instead.

Anonymous said...

Powhatans wore shawls and cloaks in cold weather. Knee-length fringed skirt + mocassins + turkey-feather mantle to cover the fact that they're wearing non-traditional, but warm, clothes underneath = appropriate, accurate Pocahontas costume, and even better, not sexualized remotely like dressing like the Disney character is.

Even better would be a kid going as Pocahontas post-John Smith, with the ugly 1600s dresses. I would give that kid all my candy for historical accuracy alone.

I think the trouble is that any historical figure who is defined by their clothing but is not European will be struck out as "stereotypical." Technically every Greek goddess costume is just a stereotypical ancient Greek woman, and every princess costume is a stereotypical medieval wealthy woman. Even a Elizabeth I costume is technically a stereotypical 1600s wealthy English woman. So a child can only dress as white heroes and heroines? Just because the general public is so uneducated that they would read my Pocahontas costume as a stereotypical Indian, or the same of a Sitting Bull costume, doesn't mean that children shouldn't dress like those people, as long as they are respectful, as accurate as plausible, and are genuine.

Rob said...

I'm not sure what your point is, Anonymous #2. Even a generic member of a sports team has a specific uniform. By definition, therefore, the uniform can't be stereotypical.

There's no such thing as a stereotypical Chicago Bulls uniform, for instance. A Bulls uniform is either correct or incorrect. The only question is whether it has a known player's name and number on it or not.

In contrast, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a generic Sioux Indian costume that wasn't false or stereotypical. Maybe if you copied a Catlin or Bodmer painting and got the details right, we could discuss the costume's appropriateness. Since that isn't likely to happen, it's not worth discussing.

Rob said...

True, you could go trick-or-treating as Queen Elizabeth I, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abe Lincoln, or Amelia Earhart in a heavy overcoat, Anonymous #3. But would anyone recognize you? Normally a historical costume is what someone wore in a pleasant daytime environment, not at night or during the winter.

Anonymous said...

"In contrast, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a generic Sioux Indian costume that wasn't false or stereotypical. Maybe if you copied a Catlin or Bodmer painting and got the details right, we could discuss the costume's appropriateness. Since that isn't likely to happen, it's not worth discussing."

Since you're not sure what the point is, here it is. An accurate Sitting Bull costume would be much better and easier to come up with than a generic Sioux costume.

On top of that, Sitting Bull was a great leader who should be right up there with Abraham Lincoln on the short list of "historical people who would be good choices at Halloween."

BTW, I'm glad to see that you finally changed your avatar from the one of you in a racist Mexican costume you had right next to most of your articles about racist costumes. It's much easier to take you seriously with that gone. Or were you dressed as a specific Mexican person or character?

dmarks said...

This Sioux leader would not be hard to do either.

dmarks said...

"Good points. Other than Michael Jackson, I'm having a hard time thinking of black celebrities who would be instantly recognizable from a costume"

It's kind of stretching it to call our President a celebrity, but his likeness would be VERY recognizable.

Anonymous said...

When I grew up Michael Jordan was at the height of his popularity. A lot of white kids dressed up like him simply by wearing a Bulls jersey with his number. The more dedicated ones would also carry a basketball.