Native stereotypes mirror black stereotypes

Joe the African American and Waya the Cherokee discuss mascots:

Extremely Awkward Conversation With a Native American at Redskins Game

By Dolph L. HatfieldJoe looked rather perplexed and responded, “Listen man, Redskins has been used as a term of honor and pride of Native Americans for 80 years and wearing an Indian headdress has been acceptable for as long as I can remember.” Waya said “Black faced minstrel shows and painted black faces began in the 1840s and continued in this country until the 1960s.”

Waya continued, “People are constantly telling me that the ‘R’ word means honor, but they have no idea how it really feels to an American Indian who associates the term with its history of being derogatory. Indeed, its history is deeply rooted in hatred; it’s even defined in the dictionary as a racial slur to American Indians.” Waya paused then continued. Waya proceeded. “Don’t you think that the affected party is the one who really decides what is racist and what isn’t?” Joe interrupted and, in a more consoling tone, said “Waya, I’d like to hear more of what you are talking about. The crowd is beginning to come in. Let’s slip out where there is less noise and I want to hear more. But PLEASE WIPE THAT CHARCOAL OFF YOUR FACE!” Waya took a towel from his coat and began to wipe his face. Joe, to the amazement of everyone sitting around him, removed his headdress. The two gentlemen began walking towards an exit, while Waya continued wiping the blackness from his face.

The two gentlemen found a quiet place somewhat away from the incoming crowd. Joe said “Go on Waya, you’ve got the floor and this better be good for me to miss part of my game.”

Waya continued “Joe, what you guys experienced is what we are going through now. If I’m not mistaken, in the early civil rights movement, the major emphasis of Black America was confronting many hardships like voting, education and unemployment inequalities, having to ride at the back of buses, separate eating, restroom and theater facilities, that were common place in the South. When the 1964 Civil Rights Act began taking affect and the unconscionable ways of treating African Americans were changing, your leaders turned their attention to addressing issues, such as stereotyping. Just think of the names and caricatures like the ‘N’ word, ‘boy’, ‘spade’, ‘jig’, ‘Sambo’, ‘Aunt Jemima’, ‘Jim Crow’, ‘Sapphire’ and ‘the Mammy’, and public spectacles, such as, painted black faces and black faced minstrel shows that your people said were demeaning. Many whites claimed that this was the way of life in America and it had been that way for years, many said they were only having some good, clean fun, meant no harm and there was no racism intended. But fortunately for blacks, much of white society realized the injustices of how Black America had been treated and they accepted that these acts that you,“ Waya pointed gently at Joe and continued “the affected party, said were stereotyping, and change occurred.” The two men looked at each other and Joe rubbed his head. “Waya, I have to agree with a lot you have said, please go on.”

“Thanks, Joe!” and Waya continued, “These changes did not come overnight and typecasting of blacks had been a way of life in America for many, many years. To my knowledge, there were no polls taken to see what percentage of blacks, or for that matter, other Americans, were opposed to these uses of derogatory words or stereotyping in general. But, Joe, there were many polls that have been conducted to see how many American Indians or Washington team fans think the ‘R’ word is racist.”

Waya realized that Joe was beginning to see his point and proceeded “I have often wondered if a poll had been taken among blacks, primarily living in the Deep South in the mid to late 1960’s, whether they cared that much about typecasting or the many other issues that Black America was facing. Recall that virtually all of the blacks in the South depended on whites for their jobs and livelihood. I would guess that the vast majority would have said these issues are not that important--wouldn’t they more likely have said that our jobs and livelihood depend on whites and we have to survive!”

Debating an "Arab" parade float

Facebook friend Brad posted a 2013 photo of an "Arab" float in a St. Patrick's Day parade. He added a caption:Like the original Irish emigrants to America--old white men pretending to be Arabs.



My immediate response: That's racist.

This led to an interesting debate with Brad and Cx. Brad spoke up early:Oh, that's not even the worst of it. Unfortunately I totally missed getting a photo of the float with two white women dressed as "black" basketball players!And then Cx and I were off to the races, beginning with her comment:And what, people can't satirize anymore without someone getting butt-hurt somewhere? Is theater dead then? Are red-nosed big-shoed clowns a stereotype too? Don't tell the thespians. It's a parade for cripes sake. Oh wait, no offense to the cripes. Have their people call my people. Keep pushing the word racism in the wrong context, it looses its meaning in the right contexts.One, I doubt anyone intended this to be a satire. Two, no, you can't satirize an entire ethnic group. Unless you're a member of that group, maybe, or the group as a whole has abused its power.

So you're saying there are contexts where racism is acceptable? Hell, no.There are contexts--theatrics as storytelling being one--in which apparel items and set design items are inherent in the telling of the story. People of other races can't portray each other without the label of racism? "Group that has abused its power" being a variable, and one of opinion.

Justifying when (and how) portrayal, parody or even sincere attempts to tell a story & use of items in the telling is not the answer to ending racism, if that's your goal. The old adage: *The honor of one is the honor of all.*Defending and justifying racism by making up a label such as "parody" or "satire" isn't the answer either. If the so-called parody isn't obvious, it doesn't exist except in the racists' minds.

Doing nothing except applauding racism like this example certainly won't do anything to end the scourge. My critiques are far more likely to do the trick.

"Art" excuses racism?

Theatrics or storytelling for what purpose? The purpose is the context. If it's to educate or enlighten, maybe. If it's merely to entertain by parading racism, literally, so observers will laugh at the funny nonwhite people...again, no.

So you're in favor of people in minstrel shows performing in blackface? Because that's exactly the same thing.

"People of other races can't portray each other without the label of racism?" Depends on the context and purpose. If it's to portray people falsely, with stereotypes, no. That's almost always unacceptable.

Perhaps you need to (re)read the documented harm of stereotyping as proved in psychology studies. Here you go:

The Harm of Native Stereotyping: Facts and Evidence

As one recent example of the harm, the "savage Indian" stereotype promoted by hipsters in headdresses tells Americans that tribal courts are unfair and violence against Native women is to be expected. Hence the conservatives' unwillingness to pass VAWA.You implying what I'm "saying" rather than focusing on what I'm questioning for the PURPOSE of questioning isn't necessary, Your responses are sufficient rather than implying what I mean. But your page, your pic, have at it.I addressed what you said and what you implied. If you think I got something wrong, feel free to address that point. Until you do, I'd say my interpretation stands.

Yes or no: This performance is equivalent to a minstrel show in blackface. If no, how is it different?The survey you link above being relevant to American Indian stereotypes specifically, can we keep the focus on THIS photo please? I don't know that it's satire, that's one assumption, but being I wasn't there and have never talked to these people to learn their intent, did you or Brad ask them?You're the one who wrote: "Keep pushing the word racism in the wrong context." This isn't the wrong context, it's the right context. You're mistaken if you think otherwise, and I've explained why.

If you have to ask someone if their racism is "satire," the satire has failed. If the satire isn't evident to observers, it doesn't exist except in the satirists' minds.

As I've explained dozens of times, the outcome is what matters, not the intent. People who malign women or gays or minorities don't get a free pass because they didn't "intend" to insult people. If they committed the offense, they're responsible regardless of what they intended.

P.S. Any research specific to Native stereotypes obviously applies to other minorities. More important, it's the tip of the iceberg. There's much more research about the harm to other minorities that I didn't cite.

Don't need no intentThis is a still photo. Without knowing the context or the persons' intent(s), you call it racism. Did you think to ask a person--better yet, take a survey of many (as opinions within a racial group vary)--from this way of dressing if they believe this is racism? Or are you the arbitrary the decider of racism in America, Rob?Intent is irrelevant. You don't understand racism and stereotyping if you think they exist only when people intend them to exist. Try again.

Again, their opinions on what they were doing are irrelevant. What matters is the outcome.

Is this a fair and accurate portrayal of Arabs or Muslims as a whole? If not, it's stereotypical. If they're singling out Arabs or Muslims for this treatment, it's racist.

Still waiting for an answer to my blackface question.

Every American can and should decide what's racist and speak out when something obviously is. If a person doesn't, she's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Same as if they see a rape happening in Steubenville or on a military base. Those boys didn't mean to hurt anyone, and neither did those soldiers. Shall we give them a pass because of their intent?"Try again" I often see you do this when your point becomes validly challenged and you attempt to make your opinion right over the other person. "The outcome" to whom? See, that assigning of whose effects are important (and decisive) and whose are not--now there's a clue!You haven't "validly challenged" anything. I've raised a dozen legitimate points and I'm not seeing your answer to any of them. What are you waiting for, an invitation? Answer the blackface question, for starters.I say I have validly challenged. Now who gets to be the decider? Opinion leaders? Isn't this fun? :-)Challenging questions with questions such as "the outcome to whom?" is the weakest sort of debate tactic. It's what pathetic people do when they don't have any arguments of their own. "The evidence supports evolution or climate change? Says whom?"

Yes or no: Is this performance equivalent to a minstrel show in blackface?

Yes or no: Is this a fair and accurate portrayal of Arabs or Muslims as a whole?

Yes or no: We should judge military rapes by whether the rapists intended to cause harm?Questions means I don't have an answer--yet. And therefore I reserve judgement and labeling until I know more. I don't see a debate to be won or lost here, Rob, I see an exchange of opinions. In your opinion, these folks dressed as they are in the context of a parade is racism, is that correct?You stated that this is the "wrong context" in which to attack or judge racism. That's not a question, it's a judgment.

Yes, this performance is racist. I wasn't kidding when I wrote that in my first comment.Yes, in my opinion, which at this time in this context I am voicing, calling or labeling this racism--judging simply on this being people of one race portraying another--without you being an "opinion leader" or whatever representative (debatable) of persons of this type of dress or culture is the wrong context, that's correct, you heard me right.Brad chimes in

Finally Brad returned to the debate:I'll happily be the "opinion leader"!

I would concur that you have to consider "intent", however not at the expense of "result". I think the rape example is a poor one, because while intent can serve as a mitigating factor the end result is always unquestionably harm. With racism that's considerably more of a gray area.

I think it's possible for one race to portray another in the context of education, performance art, or historical commentary without necessarily being racist. So I would say that's a point for Cx's argument on the issue. One example would be if a theater company in Norway were putting on a production of Othello, I wouldn't expect them to hunt down a black actor capable of playing the part. So it would probably be forgivable if they put an actor in blackface even though it wouldn't be absolutely necessary.

In this example, however, I think I'd have to side with Rob because the intent clearly doesn't meet the standard of being educational or informative. Nor are these people "satirizing" Arab culture. I think the comparison in this case to the "borrowing" of Native American culture is a good one. These people are pretty clearly lampooning Arab dress for their own purpose. I wouldn't put it on the same level as someone stereotyping, such as portraying an Arab as a crazy terrorist, but I would probably say it's on par with white people dressing in inaccurate Native attire and holding a pow wow. ;-)

Here's some factual background to consider:

Abdallah Shrine: A Brief History

ShrinersCx responded:Oh lookie, it's Brad. Yea well who the heck asked your opinion buddy? Oh it's your pic on Rob's wall haha ok seriously. So we have context here, Brad, this a group of Shriners, an organization whose purpose or effect is fundraising for its support of children's hospitals, is that correct?Stereotypes can be positive (Asians are brains), neutral (blacks like watermelon), or negative. This example is closer to neutral than negative, but it's still stereotypical.

"Arabs are terrorists" or "Indians are savages" is negative. "Arabs ride camels" or "Indians wear feathers" is neutral. But again, all these claims are stereotypical.

And if you persist in making these claims after you've been informed of the facts, I'd say they're racist too.

As for Brad's claim, I thought I said portraying a different ethnic group may be acceptable in certain circumstances. This isn't one of them. As you put it, Brad, it serves no purpose as "education, performance art, or historical commentary."

Therefore, agreeing with Cx means agreeing with me on this limited subset of the debate. On the main point, though, you're right that I'm right. There's no question that this parade float is stereotypical and arguably racist.

With its talk of priests and mosques, the Abdallah Shrine looks like a whole "homage" to (i.e., mockery of) Islam. It brings to mind such faux "Native" groups as the Order of the Red Men and the Y-Indian Guides. These groups appropriated and abused Native culture; this group seems to have done the same for Islamic culture.

Brad reaches a verdictBrad
Ha! Ha! O.k. I think I see what you're getting at Cx. Yes, the result of this situation is that they raise money to help sick children. Are you suggesting that they couldn't achieve the same result without the pageantry or phony "tradition". I think they probably could.

In a parallel example, the Washington Redskins are civic organization which has won football championships and no doubt helped the Washington D.C. community in numerous economic and philanthropic ways. Does that make their use of Native culture and iconography acceptable because there's a positive outcome?

Cx
Brad, I'm still comprehending what this is exactly. At first I thought this was a music performance in costumes, and perhaps a parody. I've since learned from the link you included that these are a group of shriners. That's where we left off. I don't think that simply because shriners as a group are philanthropic affects is this racism or not. I see it more as a theatrical effort. I still don't know if they are a parody or satire or serious from the still photo alone. Donning the clothing common to another area of the world or culture isn't in itself racism either. I look forward to picking up where we left off, Brad.Racism and entertainment aren't two mutually exclusive categories. Something can be both.

For instance, the minstrel shows I mentioned. The performers thought they were just being "entertaining." But observers could see that their so-called entertainment was racist.Brad
My position on this particular affair Cx is that it's racist. I think the two things clouding the issue are that it's a culture that's considerably less familiar to us and that the origins of their misuse are so long removed from the current practice.

On face, I'd say this no different than the hipster "pow wows" The origin of this civic group was in a "secret" society or club of white folks who used the Arabian imagery and mythos for their club strictly because it was old and "cool" and gave their organization the air of being something ancient and mystical.

As if that weren't bad enough, the current members are appropriating the cultural hallmarks of Arab society and wearing them in a mocking or cartoonish way, again much as the pretend Indians do. In that sense, I'd say Rob's example of the minstrel shows isn't parallel however as these people aren't attempting to actually portray Arabs.The rape example is a good one if there's no physical damage. The psychological harm of rape and racism is an apples-to-apples comparison.

In both cases, the act can cause painful mental trauma. Yes, rape is usually worse, but people have committed suicide over racist taunts and bullying, just as they've done over rape. The only "gray area" here is how severe the trauma is, not whether it exists.

And in both cases, you can't be sure of the perpetrator's intent. A rapist could've seriously thought he was "making love" to his victim and you can't prove him wrong. As with racism, we judge rape by the results because the intent is irrelevant. Harm is harm whether the perpetrator intended it or not.

As for the Shriners, I suspect they thought they were portraying actual Arabs. And I doubt minstrel performers were any less aware then than they are now. They were spoofing or caricaturing blacks for "fun," exactly as these Shriners are doing to Arabs.

Therefore, all my examples are good ones. Other than that, I agree with Brad since he agrees with me. ;-)

For more on the subject, see Bloody Jackson, Family Guy, and Archie Bunker, Hipster Racism, and The Magical Power of Intent.

Peruvian TV character Paisana Jacinta

Indigenous Lawmaker Wants Racist Anti-Indigenous TV Show Off the Air

By Rick KearnsThe Peruvian TV character known as “Paisana Jacinta” is racist and insulting to indigenous people according to Congresswoman Hilaria Supa, a Quechua leader and human rights activist.

Supa publicly called on the Frequencia Latina Channel on March 24 to remove the “Paisana Jacinta” show from the air.

According to various sources, the character Jacinta is an indigenous Andean woman who comes from the mountains to the city of Lima to find work. The story arc of each episode involves Jacinta getting fooled, tricked or swindled by a variety of people. The role of Jacinta is played by comedian Jorge Benevides who has been accused of racism for his role as “El Negro Mama” (the Black Mama in English) as part of a general comedy show.

As “El Negro Mama” Benevides wore blackface and used a prosthetic nose and lips to portray the character who was described as being dishonest and stupid according to sources. The character was taken off the air and in 2013 Frequencia Latina was fined 74,000 Soles (approximately $27,000 U.S. dollars) for its failure to apologize to the Afro-Peruvian community. But Benevides and Frequencia Latina returned with the controversial indigenous character this year.

Blackface popular for Halloween 2013

Blackface seems to be making a comeback this Halloween. The parallels to redface, which is still widely tolerated in America, are obvious.

There's no reason, or excuse, for blackface Halloween costumes

By Roxane GayActress Julianne Hough stepped out in blackface over the weekend. She was attending a Halloween party as Crazy Eyes from “Orange Is the New Black.” That’s fine. The show is hot this year and Crazy Eyes is a popular character. Hough wore the prison oranges, had her hair done up in what charitably could be considered Bantu knots and wore a name tag that said “Crazy Eyes.” That should have been enough—the necessary cues were there.

Hough took her costume one step further, though, dousing herself in bronzer to darken her skin so she might better resemble Uzo Aduba, the actress who plays Crazy Eyes. The blackface did nothing of the sort. It never does. Instead, Hough looked like she spent way too much time out in the Los Angeles sun before stepping out that evening. Once the images of Hough in her ill-informed costume were released, the Internet went crazy.

Here we were, yet again, having this bewildering conversation about why blackface, given its historical uses and the ongoing sensitivity around issues of race, will never be an appropriate costume choice. The apology parade began, and Hough said: “I am a huge fan of the show ‘Orange is the New Black,’ actress Uzo Aduba and the character she has created. It certainly was never my intention to be disrespectful or demeaning to anyone in any way. I realize my costume hurt and offended people, and I truly apologize.”

We know this dance. Public figure makes misstep. Public figure apologizes. That apology is then dissected endlessly, and we’re left wondering if the public figure even knows what they’re apologizing for.Is this 2013 or 1913? 7 Disgusting Displays of Halloween BlackfaceIn the last week or so, we've seen a rash of blackface episodes that makes us wonder. All of these attracted media attention, and while they're all very ugly, we'd venture to say that this handful of blackface incidents pales in comparison to the number of redface costumes that will go unreported or even unremarked.

Here's hoping that we'll reach a stage when white people pretending to be American Indian is as shame-worthy as white people pretending to be black.More about one of the incidents:

White Teen In Blackface Responds To Black Critics: ‘Worry About Finding Your Dad’

And one more incident that involved black stereotypes but not blackface:

Fraternity in hot water for “Hood Ratchet” party

Reminder: Cultural appropriation always looks bad

By Mary Elizabeth WilliamsThe Theta Xi event invitation had depicted an African-American man holding a wad of cash, and promised “bad bitches, white girls, basketball players, thugs, gangsters ratchet pussy” that “we goin back to da hood again!!” But University Vice President for Student Affairs E. Royster Harper sent a letter of rebuke to the frat Thursday, saying, “The language of the invitation and theme of the party denigrated all women and African American/black identified people through racial stereotypes and cultural appropriation. This behavior is offensive, disrespectful and unacceptable at the University of Michigan.”What's wrong with blackface?

The first rule of blackface: It’s not hard to understand, everyone

...is don't wear blackface. The end. Now why is that so hard for some people to remember?

By Brittney CooperWhen white folks paint their bodies black, they demonstrate that they see the black body as a permissive site for the expression of trauma, pain and illicit pleasures. In other words, being in a black body permits them to do everything they are uncomfortable doing in a white body: being lewd and crude, celebrating violence, acting sexually promiscuous, using racial slurs.

This is just one more lie of white racism: that black people are free to do all the things our society hates and demonizes while white people are bound by the strictures of respectability. White pathologization of the black body is classic psychological projection. Everything that there is to abhor about whiteness and white supremacy gets projected onto the black body and becomes a material problem for black people.

Now for many people who simply do not want to concede the horror and racism of these acts by Filene and the Cimenos, it would be easy to dismiss this as individual racism, to suggest that these people are clearly jerks, but that their sentiments are not generalizable.

Every year, pictures surface on social media of college kids and regular citizens donning blackface for parties. This is not an isolated incident. It keeps happening and it happens because white people do not actually believe this constitutes an injury to black people. Or maybe they just don’t care.

“We’re just having fun,” many of them say. Look, I get the cultural fascination with black skin. The American national imaginary is built on the mythic lore of black otherness–superhuman strength to supply the main labor force of the national economy, men and women with extraordinary sexual desire and prowess, unparalleled athleticism, and a deep anger that leads to a fearsome capacity for violence.When Black People Dress Up As White People For Halloween

By Danielle CadetEvery year, someone dons a controversial costume. And every year people spend several weeks wagging their fingers and shaking their heads and scolding said awful person for doing such an awful thing. And every year, that awful person--particularly when they're someone famous like sweet, little Julianne Hough--apologizes for being awful and unaware that his or her actions would be even slightly offensive to anyone, especially his or her black friends (because said person always has several friends of color with whom he or she immediately becomes even better friends with after all of the hullabaloo and accusations of racism).

But here's a very important message: Ignorance is not an excuse. It's especially not an excuse in a world where it's possible to know every verse on the Yeezus album 20 minutes after it's leaked online, or in a world where people who haven't read the viral story of the day are immediately considered stupid, uncool individuals who must spend their days living under a rock.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to fully understand the history of blackface--and I promise, I'll spare you a long explanation because I know you won't read it anyway. I'm not asking you to be an Africana studies major in college, or watch documentaries on minstrel shows. I'm asking you to do what you do every day, read the damn news, share stories on social, talk about things you found interesting or crazy or weird. You can't tell me you didn't read last year's story about blackface and you didn't see your black friend's post on Facebook last year (it probably said something like "really?" or "ugh" or "not again") when it happened...LAST YEAR.

The issue with hiding behind the ignorance safety net (i.e. "I didn't know it was offensive," or "I thought it was funny," or "I wasn't trying to be racist.") is you take the responsibility off of yourself and put it on everyone else. It becomes everyone else's (read: black people's) responsibility to teach you why blackface is offensive--which is the ultimate problem with privilege. It somehow becomes the oppressed person's responsibility to educate the offender turning the victimizer into the victim, but we won't even go there.Attention Thought Catalog: Blackface is always racist

A white female writer doesn't understand why Julianne Hough's blackface costume was offensive

By Prachi GuptaRheel, who at some academic level understands why blackface is degrading, acknowledges her ignorance first by stating it, and then by demonstrating it:Before I continue, let’s just get one thing out of the way. I am in fact, a white person. I’m not trying to pretend like I know what it is to be black in America and have to deal with a bunch of ignorant white nonsense on a regular basis but is this really one of those times? Like, honestly. I want to know. Because it seems like most of the people who are getting upset over Hough’s costume are white to begin with and it makes me want to say “chill out white people!” There’s plenty of actual racism going on in the world for you to freak out over and prove how not racist you are, but this probably isn’t your moment.Her distinction between “actual racism” and all that other, REAL racism is reminiscent of the embarrassing LL Cool J and Brad Paisley song, “Accidental Racist.” Rheel decides that Hough’s blackface is innocuous because Hough is “a white woman getting what is essentially a heavy spray tan to more accurately portray her favorite character.” According to Rheel, getting upset over this “seems like a trivialization of what blackface was in the first place.”

Listen up, Kelly Rheel: Darkening your face to make yourself look more like a black person IS blackface. That action turns blackness into a costume; it is a nod to years of oppression in which blackface was used as a theatrical weapon against black people, as Salon’s Brittney Cooper eloquently explains here. Always. If you’re not “trying to pretend like I know what it is to be black in America,” then please stop trying to pretend like you know what it is like to be black in America.Comment:  For more on blackface, see Mummers Parade in Redface, Blackface and 1491s on Redface and Blackface.

Below:  "Greg Cimeno's Trayvon Martin costume was idiotic, and posting pictures of it on Facebook wasn't exactly a genius move either."

Jewish defender dresses in blackface

Blackface-Wearing New York Politician Says he Won't Dress as an IndianThere's a consensus in the United States of America that the wearing of blackface is a racist act. It's something you just don't do, and if you do it you can expect to be rightly pilloried. For American Indians, it's often frustrating that racism toward Native Americans that feels very overt is somehow harder for the mainstream to detect.

With some ill-advised costume choices, and a thoroughly unapologetic apology, a New York State Assemblyman is doing his part to connect the dots.

Dov Hikind of Brooklyn is being rightly pilloried for hosting a Purim party wearing blackface. Costume parties are a tradition of the Jewish celebration of Purim, and Hikind had decided to host his in the costume of "basketball player," which necessitated an orange jersey-ish garment, an afro wig and dark makeup.

Hikind's getup earned him plenty of press. His initial response was a shrug of acknowledgement in a post to his blog entitled "It's Purim. People Dress Up." "I am intrigued that anyone who understands Purim--or for that matter understands me--would have a problem with this," he wrote. "This is political correctness to the absurd." Hikind was fixated on the idea that the costume only seemed racist because people didn't understand Purim. Also on Monday he held a news conference to address the criticism--but didn't. He explained again that costumes are part of the Purim celebration. (The "it's not racist, it's a costume" argument is one Natives hear every Halloween.) In addition to explaining what a costume is, he offered a classic first-draft non-apology: "Anyone who was offended--I'm sorry that they were offended, that was not the intention."

Hikind posted a more genuine apology to his blog on Tuesday. Unfortunately for him, the New Yorker and the Daily Show were still reacting to Monday's news.

African Americans have plenty of cause to be incensed by Hikind's ignorance--but so too do American Indians. On Monday, when Hikind was still trying to defend himself with the "political correctness to the absurd" argument, he told a New York Times reporter that the outcry was making him rethink his plans for next year's Purim.

"Next year I was thinking I’d be an Indian," he said. "But you know, I’ve changed my mind about that. I don’t think that’s a good idea. Somebody will be offended."

Of course, it's hard to know whether (or to what extent) he was joking about dressing as an Indian. (It is also hard to know exactly which kind of Indian he had in mind, but that's beside the point.) If he didn't know blackface was a no-no, there is really no telling how unenlightened his thinking may be when it comes to Native stereotypes. Many have seen a unique irony that it is Hikind who would be in this position--Hikind is well known as a zealous, perhaps overzealous, defender of the Jewish community against anti-Semitism or perceived anti-Semitism.

"Dov Hikind is the first person who will holler about something when he thinks or hears a whisper that it might be anti-Semitic," said Assembly member Annette Robinson, according to the Wall Street Journal, "but does not recognize something is disrespectful to another community."Comment:  For more on blackface, see Mummers Parade in Redface, Blackface and 1491s on Redface and Blackface.

Mummers parade in redface, blackface

2013: Mummers Still in Blackface (& Redface)

By Tara MurthaFrom the outside looking in, you'd think every Philadelphian was a proud supporter of the glittered and feathered pageant known as the New Year's Day Mummer's Parade. But you'd be wrong.

Local news mummer puff pieces begin, as every year, with profiles of mummers getting ready for New Year's day parade, "America's oldest folk parade."

"The now-112-year-old orgy of banjos, glockenspiels, feathers and sequins that as much as anything we hold dear, symbolizes our sweetly eccentric corner of the universe," is a typical sentiment of these stories.But:Despite these stories pivoting on tradition versus progress, the prominent historic role of blackface in the mummer parade is oddly, rarely explicitly mentioned. Neither is the fact that it continues, despite apparently, city policy ruling it out in 1964.

Mummers in blackface has a complicated history in a racially complicated city within a racially complicated country. That said, today's parade makes it quite simple: it's time to have a serious conversation about mummery and the way participants choose to represent other ethnicities and races without hiding behind the cop-out of "But it's tradition!"

Check out "Indi-insourcing," the skit performed by Venetian NYA, posted by YouTube under the title "Mummers WTF."

Murtha searched Twitter for responses to the parade and found these:Joe Nolan
@Joe_Philly
And the award for most racist Mummers brigade goes to "indi-insourcing" for dressing up as Indian people AND Native Americans

randyduque
@randyduque
This "Indian In-sourcing" routine is one of the most racially insensitive themes I've ever seen in recent times #mummers

Fantasource
@fantasource
Here's a few #Mummers guys dressed as Indian call center workers. Love the dot, so thorough #smdh ow.ly/gsOty (youtube via @dhm)

Charlie_O
@Charlie_O
#Mummers comic brigade celebrates "Made in America" theme with faux Native Americans raiding a faux Indian Call Center. Welcome to Philly.

That was before the Rastafarian-themed routine that featured blackface.

Courtney Wilburn
@cjwilburn
Curious about the thought process for the racist/xenophobic mummers skits. Were they like, "well since we can't do Blackface anymore…"

Courtney Wilburn
@cjwilburn
..and, there's the Blackface and fake dreds. Thanks, guys. #mummers

Jonathan Poet
@jonpoet
To celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, some Mummers walked up Broad St. in blackface.

Jen J Walker
@LucindaLunacy
@systris I saw a whole band of them as Jamaicans in blackface. Also in another float. One coming up has a flat out minstrel themeDefending the redface

Another columnist tries to defend the racist acts:

Stu Bykofsky: Strutting through controversy with the MummersThe other controversy is racism.

Out there in the twitverse--that's not a typo--some donkey sees blackface in the Mummers Parade and--kazaam!--as many as nine people on a couple of different "platforms" are finding other forms of "racism" in the parade, drawing insipid conclusions from their aggressive ignorance.

Before you can say, "What a load of crap," it winds up on storify.com (yeah, me neither) as a story or analysis--it's hard to categorize--by my friend Tara Murtha, who has done some really serious, penetrating work, of which this is not an example.

First, as Murtha acknowledges, blackface has been banned from the parade since 1964, which is longer than she has been alive.

Second, there's no proof that anyone was in blackface. Dignam says that every group has a city escort who enforces the rules.

Third, the alleged "racist" stuff was in the Comic Division, which uses comedy, satire and general silliness. The Venetian New Year's Association was mentioned for its Indi-Insourcing skit that satirized America outsourcing calls to India, then jumping the shark by having Native-Americans take over the call center.

Somehow, depicting Indians in call centers or Native Americans in buckskin is racist. Same with Eskimos (OK, Inuit) in igloos. Or women in polka skirts. Or male hillbillies in overalls. Or Turks in turbans. Or Hasidic Jews in long, black coats. They've all been featured in the parade.

If you're offended, here's a buck. Try to buy a sense of humor. Or an ounce of sense.Comment:  Racism in the parade is officially banned, and Bykofsky didn't see any of it. Wow, that's reassuring. What else is he oblivious to?

We've more or less banned racism in the country, at least officially, since we passed the 14th Amendment. Did that eliminate all forms of racism? No.

More than just buckskins

The faux "Indians" weren't just in buckskins. They emerged from a teepee, rode "horses," and wore headdresses. In other words, it was pure stereotyping. Moreover, they pranced in a way that caricatured Native people. They acted like stupid little children who don't know the first thing about Indians.

The "Asian Indians" were just as bad. They were dressed in saris, with dots on their foreheads, as they do a fake Hindu-style dance. There must be thousands of different ethnic groups in India, but the Mummers reduced them to a single stereotype.

The whole point of "satirizing" people is to mock and belittle them. Bykofsky basically admits the Mummers are making fun of minorities, and he thinks that's okay. No, it isn't.

Bykofsky's list of other ethnic stereotypes isn't at all reassuring. Being bigoted against several groups just means you're a really big bigot. Unless the Mummers spent the majority of the time mocking white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, they're clearly prejudiced against ethnic groups.

By the way, Bykofsky, your father is a coward and your mother is a pig. Do you find that offensive? I hope not, because "I was just joking."

If you're offended, here's a buck. Try to buy a sense of humor. Or an ounce of sense.

For more on offensive parades, see Callaloo Stereotypes "Native Americas" and "Indian Princess" in Doo Dah Parade.

1491s on redface and blackface

Videos: The 1491s Stir Up Controversy with Clips Showing Blackface and Utah Utes FansSketch and YouTube comedy group the 1491s are on a roll with their latest videos—though some are saying that the pranksters are rolling in the wrong direction. The fun and games started with a video framed as a PSA (public service announcement) to white people considering dressing up Indian for Halloween. The PSA ends with a white actor wearing blackface. The choice was not hailed as clever satire by all viewers.

The troupe followed the PSA video up with another video criticizing the outrage and ultimately encouraging civil dialogue—and ending with an interview with a college student dressed in what might be called a stereotypical “Pocahottie” outfit. That footage was filmed at the University of Utah, at an event sponsored by Budweiser, and again the reaction to the video was not universally supportive.

Dueling comments about this video from YouTube users:

“Satire or not, blackface is NEVER okay. You can’t justify the wrongness of making a costume out of a culture by doing the exact same thing. You just come off as an anti-black racist instead.”

“Natives have used all the rhetorical tools our disposal for YEARS to point out that dressing up in redface is abusive and offensive. What’s the result? Dressing up in redface became the hottest trend of the year. Most of the people commenting here have entirely missed the point: BOTH SHOULD BE SHOCKING. But only blackface is.”

The second video explains the first. Having to explain yourself is never a good sign, but this video does it effectively.



Dueling comments about this video from YouTube users:

“I love the Happy Ending: She admits that she can’t justify her double standard AND instead of trying to defend it–as SO many people would do–she realizes that she needs to reconsider her position! GREAT Vid, the1491s!”

“This still doesn’t justify your use of blackface.”

My thoughts

I get the point of using blackface It's so obvious it hardly needs an explanation.

I'd tolerate its use to make a point, but I don't think the video used it effectively. Better would be to show historic photos of performers in blackface next to photos of hipsters in headdresses. Or to dress up in blackface and go to a Utah Utes rally to challenge the team's fans.

This would make the same point, but it wouldn't confront viewers with the distasteful choice of a white guy sitting in his studio in blackface. I think people can sense this wasn't the best way to get the message across. It takes them out of the argument and makes them wonder what's up with the white guy.

One also could question the white guy's dismal portrait of what Native life is really like. True, it's that bad for some Indians, but not for all of them. As with the blackface routine, the guy is walking a fine line between making a point and purveying stereotypes. You shouldn't have to walk that line to argue against a big fat target like redface.

For more on redface and blackface, see Del Toro to Play Native Veteran and Blackface at the Oscars.

Blackface at the Oscars

And the Oscar for Most Racist Host Goes to Billy Crystal in Blackface?

By Jorge RivasDuring the opening sequence of the Oscars on Sunday night a blackface-clad Billy Crystal revived his Sammy Davis Jr. impression.

The worst part is the blackface appearance showed up at the same time Justin Bieber made a surprise cameo—perhaps the only moment during the Oscars that could attract a younger audience.

When Octavia Spencer won supporting actress for “The Help,” comedian Paul Scheer tweeted her win “shows just how far we’ve come since Billy Crystal performed in Blackface.”All Things Old Hollywood: Blackface At The Oscars

By Kendra JamesAnother Monday, another post-awards show morning, another day of waking up and asking myself if I really just saw what I thought I saw. Because there’s absolutely no way that I really saw Billy Crystal in blackface on national television the night before.

And for all I know, maybe I didn’t. No one’s talking about it. It didn’t seem to have made any morning news show headlines. I didn’t hear Kelly Ripa and Neil Patrick Harris mention it and I missed seeing what the women of The View had to say, but given Whoopi’s track record with the hot topics of the day I’m guessing I wouldn’t have been impressed.

Oh, but wait, a quick dive into the comments section at Jezebel (why do I do this to myself?) confirms that I did not, in fact, dream up what I saw last night. Not only did it happen, but it seems to have already been rationalised by the general public. You see, blackface is apparently no longer offensive, especially if it’s not being done to intentionally hurt anyone’s feelings. We’re in post-racial America! These things no longer carry the weight they once did. There’s no need to analyse it to death. It was just a sketch!

Here are some defenses offered by blackface lovers. Not coincidentally, they're the same defenses offered by redface lovers. You know, the people who defend Indian mascots and hipsters in headdresses.“Nothing was meant by it,” viewers from last night might say; or in the case of Crystal and Sammy Davis Jr, “It’s just one Jewish man imitating another Jewish man.” (So would they be alright replacing Billy Crystal with Al Jolson then?) It seems if racism isn’t accompanied by white hoods and burning crosses, it’s not racism. You’re overreacting and taking offense to something that hasn’t meant anything for years. Blackface on national television? Yes, fine. A brown woman gives middle finger at the Superbowl a month earlier? Dear God in heaven, the horror. No one appears to be forcing Crystal to give the apology MIA was pushed into.

I haven’t over-analyzed anything (“over-analyzed” being the favorite term of some of my white friends) if my immediate gut reaction is revulsion and discomfort. That doesn’t come after hours of reading or thinking on the topic, but rather the innate knowledge that this is wrong and no one is going to do a thing about it. It’s literally getting to the point where, as a black person, I can’t enjoy the things I love without being consistently confronted with racist imagery.Academy Awards 2012: Putting Blackface in Context

By Marissa LeeIn our society, to be “too sensitive” is a bigger sin than “doing something that has a racist impact” or “defending something that has a racist impact.”

Why? Because being sensitive is what people who are at an disadvantage do. (Hence sensitivity being a negative trait attributed to women and minorities who just want respect. Note that in our culture, “being a pussy” is taken as an insult to men and “having balls” is taken as a compliment.)

In contrast, cultural bullying is something that people with privilege do. People with agent status are lauded for making “gutsy” jokes and expressing their free speech without caring about responsibility or impact (that would make them “too sensitive.”) The entitlement is such that the “overly sensitive” feelings of the people they are disrespecting shouldn’t matter. Meanwhile, people with targeted status are expected to “take it,” as in, docilely receive and accept it.

Being perceived as “too sensitive” (read: weak) suddenly becomes a concern for anyone (gutsy enough) to speak out.Comment:  For more on lame excuses for racism, see Ignorance or Malice? and The Magical Power of Intent.

Below:  The same idea...a white guy dressed as a minority.

"We’re a Culture, Not a Costume"

It's that time of year again: the triple-holiday season that serves to remind Indians of their betrayal and oppression. First Columbus Day, then Halloween, and finally Thanksgiving.

Here's an effort to remind people of the white privilege that lets mainstream Americans dress up as minorities without criticism.

US students launch poster campaign against ‘racist’ Halloween costumesA group of students in America’s Ohio University have launched a campaign against some Halloween costumes which would hurt and humiliate people from minority ethnic groups.

A student group at the University called ‘Students Teaching Against Racism in Society’, created a poster campaign to highlight the racial stereotyping in Halloween party dresses, the Daily Mail reports.

The posters highlight the crass racial and cultural stereotypes that emerge in the Halloween fancy dress event each year.

The campaign, headlined ‘We’re a culture, not a costume’, shows images of people of different ethnic groups holding up images partygoers whose costumes they say sarcastically criticizes their cultures.‘We’re a culture, not a costume’:  Students launch poster campaign against ‘racist’ Halloween costumes

By Damien GayleThey have provoked an online row over whether the costumes are actually racist, or whether they are just in good fun.

One blogger who wrote about the posters two days ago had to disable comments on her website after she got 3,000 views and comments from ‘rude, racist people.’

On the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind blog, Melissa Sipin wrote of the campaign: ‘These posters act as a public service announcement for colored [sic] communities.

‘It’s about respect, human dignity, and the acceptance of other cultures (these posters simply ask people to think before they choose their Halloween costume).’

She added: ‘What these costumes have in common is that they make caricatures out of cultures, and that is simply not okay.’'We're a culture, not a costume' this Halloween

By Emanuella Grinberg"I think it's almost impossible to be ironic while being racist, so irony is lost," said Jelani Cobb, a professor of Africana studies at Rutgers University and the author of "The Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress."

"To treat a character like Batman or Superman as a Halloween costume is one thing, but to treat an entire ethnicity as a costume is something else. It suggests that people conflate the actual broad diversity of a culture with caricatures and characters."

While Italian-Americans can be stereotyped as gangsters and Irish-Americans as hard drinkers, there are no pervasive stereotypes for whites on the same level that allow for them to be caricatured as a Halloween costume, Cobb said.

"The more we look at people as caricatures, the harder it is to operate as democracy," he said. "What underlies this kind of costuming is the belief that these people aren't quite equal to what we are or aren't as American as we are or that you as a person who's not member of that group should be able to dictate how painful stereotype should be."'Racist' Halloween costumes stir debate

Ohio university group's 'We're a culture, not a costume' campaign goes viral

By Marlene HabibBlogger slams 'Eskimo Tease' costume

New Westminster, B.C., blogger Jarrah Hodge, a UBC graduate in women's studies and sociology, said costume companies are constantly coming up "with new ways to advance racial stereotypes and cultural appropriation, and sexualize women in every single profession and identity you could think of."

On her "Halloween Post," Hodge said she recently came across a distinctly Canadian racist costume called the "Eskimo Tease." The packaging for the outfit shows a buxom and lean blond in a cropped velvety long-sleeved top, a short flared skirt, a hoodie and legwarmers—all white-fur trimmed and made of velvety light blue material.

"The term 'Eskimo,' while a highly contested term, has a racist past and is generally unacceptable in Canada," Hodge writes. "The picture on the packaging and the costume name continues in the tradition of other racist costumes like the ever-popular 'Geisha Girl' or 'Pocahontas' in implying that racial identity can be boiled down to a recognizable outfit. It's white people creating symbols to define other races, then appropriating those symbols without any acknowledgment of their history."

Farrington says there's never an excuse for making light of someone's background, even if it seems like harmless Halloween fun.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Tribalism Is Trendy and Khloe Kardashian Thinks She's Native.

"Cowboys 'n' Indians" = blackface

I've discussed how dressing up as Indians (redface) is similar to dressing up as blacks (blackface) many times. In her Native Appropriations blog, Adrienne Keene explains why we tolerate this practice.

A "Cowboys and Indians" party is just as bad as a blackface party

First she posts lots of images to show how "normal" redface is:Let's look at some examples, all pulled from the first page of a google images search for "Cowboys and Indians Party." These were not hard to find. Most were posted with pride--"look at my sweet-a** costume, bro!" They can't be found on the websites of CNN or even the local newspaper. There were no bloggers calling for public apologies. In our society, this practice, completely akin to the images above, is accepted, condoned, and normal:

Then she explains why we treat redface differently from blackface:Throughout US history, donning redface has shifted and symbolized any number of movements, from rebellion to peace activism. But "real" Indians are always left out of the narrative. Americans are far too obsessed with their commodified and imagined images of "the Indian" to be concerned with true authenticity.

So how does this compare with blackface? In the words of scholar Kimberly Tallbear, "Black and White became a race binary, while White appropriated Red."

Scholars and historians argue that blackface was about creating a white identity that existed in contrast to Black slaves, and asserting power over Black Americans by relegating blackness to defined, extremely stereotypical character tropes. This was done through minstral shows, where whites painted their faces with black paint to perform.

Blackface was about creating an identity in opposition (a binary of Black vs White), while playing Indian was about absorbing "Indianness" into a national identity and narrative.

However, playing Indian still relegates Native peoples to stereotypical character tropes. The images above show one "image" of an Indian--the feathers, the fringe, the warpaint, the braids. Indians are sexy maidens, fierce warriors, peace-loving environmentalists, all holding up their hand to say "How." These characters were solidified through early cinema, where Westerns all seemed to include the helpless Indian maiden and the evil Indian warrior--all played by non-Native actors, of course--and continue through to today (see: oh, every post on this blog).

So, it's clear there are large similarities between blackface and playing Indian--both are intentional acts that draw upon stereotypes and a racist history to enact whiteness--but our Nation has created a narrative in which blackface=racist, while redface=normal.

Does that make it ok to play Indian or host a cowboys and Indians theme party? Absolutely not. It just goes to show how deeply the erasure of Native peoples runs.Comment:  I think Keene and Kimberly Tallbear have nailed the difference. As America expanded westward, we appropriated Indians as our symbol for everything we admired in ourselves. Indians were rugged individualists, noble warriors (when necessary), salts of the earth, etc. and so were we.

By dressing up and calling ourselves Indians, we softened the guilt over our genocidal actions. While the real Indians "vanished," we took their place figuratively as well as literally. "They're Indians, we're Indians," the thinking went. "This land is their land, this land is our land."

And a few decades later: "They're gone, we remain. We inherited America from them. We didn't do anything wrong; we simply outlasted them. That some 'species' go extinct and others replace them is the natural order of things. Now we're the owner/occupants of America--the new 'Native' Americans."

And "playing Indian" reinforces that message: "We're them and they're us. We 'honor' them for holding the land in escrow until we could use it productively. They were noble caretakers in their own savage way. Now that they're gone, we owe it to them to preserve their our country."

The fallacies in this thinking are obvious. One, the Indians weren't predatory animals like wolves or bears who had no claim to the land. Two, they didn't give up their land willingly. We stole it from them by breaking the treaties we signed. Three, they aren't gone. They're still here, like any other people, and still demanding their legal rights. The "we innocently took over from them" narrative is utterly false.

For examples of "cowboys 'n' Indians" events, see:

"Conquistabros and Navajos" invitation
UC Irvine's "Pilgrims and Indians Party"
"Drink like an Indian" at Station 280
Miami's 68th annual "Indian Party"
"Firewater Friday" at University of Washington

For more on why these events are wrong, see:

Stereotypes as mental maps
Stereotypes okay in "cultural commons"?

"Blacks" showband vs. "Indians" showband

While criticizing "The Indians," some people envisioned a stereotypical Irish band to send a message to the wannabes. I went with a black version to make the ridicule more obvious and universal:

I'm gonna start a band called the Blacks with "Frederick Douglass," "Martin Luther King," and "Maya Angelou." With "Barry Obama" on drums and "Oprah" as lead singer. Good idea?

In our costumes and makeup, we'll look roughly like this Australian group of Jackson 5 imitators:



In honor of the "Indians" and their Wigwam Wiggle, we'll play our first single, The Funky Monkey Chicken Lickin' Zulu Hula Dance. It's sure to be a worldwide hit.

Followed by our second single, Don't Be Jivin', Melon Spellin' (Fo' Shizzle Ebonics Rap).

Since our goal is to have fun and not to offend anyone, I'm sure this will be okay.


Ronnie asked:Um...what will your role be in this band? Manager? <g>The band members' names are just code names, you know. I may be most like Douglass, so I'll put on black shoe polish and a gray wig and be him.

Kathryn added:Make sure everyone knows you'll be performing in blackface, and telling anyone of African heritage to STFU because you are "honoring" them. Make sure you say racist things when when you tell them how much they should be honored. Then you'll approach what's happening with the fans of the Irish "Indians" show band."Barry" takes the stage

Here's "Barry Obama" in costume for his next gig:



Oh, wait...that's not a band costume. It's an example of Tea Party racism widely denounced across the United States. And yet...it's the same thing as the "harmless" Irish showband. Both involve people dressed as stereotypical savages.

Why is one "harmless fun" while the other is deeply offensive to most thinking people? Good question. Ask the racists in the Irish showband, not me.

For more on the subject, see Natives Attack "Indians" Showband and "Indians" Showband Gets Attention.

Whooping "Indians" at 2011 Stanford Powwow

Adrienne Keene writes about her second visit to the Stanford Powwow in her Native Appropriations blog:

Playing Indian at Stanford Powwow, Year 2

She first visited it last year, which led to this posting.

Again she notes the wannabes in hipster headdresses, including one whohad multi-colored feathers in her hair and warpaint on her face, and right before I snapped the picture, was war whooping (hand over mouth, other hand in the air) to her friend across the way (who was also wearing feathers and paint).And again she reminds us why this is a problem:In the grand scheme of powwows, Stanford powwow tends to have a lower ratio of wannabes "liberally interpreting" Indianess (i.e. creating an image of what they think an Indian is based off things they read on the internet and supplies they can find at a craft shop) than some powwows I've been to, but it still makes me angry.

I still don't know why people think it's OK to don feathers and warpaint and come to a Native community cultural event. I still maintain that it would be exactly the same as donning blackface and wandering into a Black community event. These people are dressing up as a race other than their own, based off of egregious and racist stereotypes from Hollywood and other forms of pop culture. All they have to do is look out in the powwow dance circle to see that they look nothing like "real" Indians. But the American narrative of "playing Indian" is so ingrained, people don't seem to see it as taboo, the way blackface remains today.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Whites "Play Indian" in Swamplandia!, Indians "Win" Oppression Olympics, and Racist Cupcakes vs. Chiefs.

BlogThis!