There have been a few high international profile cases. The first one is almost unintentionally comical in its aftermath but worth reflection on. In the US state of Virginia, the newly elected governor, Ralph Northam, had a scandal erupt. There was a photo from one of his school yearbook which had him either dressed up for a Halloween costume party in either a Ku Klux Klan hood or blackface. (Humorously at one point of his defence, he could not be sure which one he was, which, though understandable as it was over 30 years ago, made things worse; in the final wash, it would appear that he went to a party in blackface but not that one; but his answer also revealed that it probably wasn't the only time he'd done so.) There was uproar and near universal pressure for him to step down from the governorship. He has refused. Without going into the comedy of what he said and did later, I think the case bears some thought.
I don't believe someone should have to step down from their job on the basis of an uncontextualised photo, utterance, belief or action. Even the most despicable things can be viewed differently in any of the diverse contexts we find ourselves within. And time is one of the big contextual factors. The KKK hood and blackface are in our current time clearly in bad taste, and even at the time probably not the best. But university is a time when you might try to do edgy things. Blackface is an interesting case because it takes some knowledge and cultural maturity to see how it could be seen by those who are sensitive to it. If there were no people at the party who would be offended by it, nor was done with the knowledge of its offensiveness, nor the intent to be offend, is it really in bad taste? (Almost sounds like that unaccompanied falling tree in the forest.) Of course, ignorance or claims that doing blackface is "just a bit of fun" surely show someone whose beliefs are not as magnanimous to the full range of people he would be leading which, as a governor, is perhaps the biggest consideration.
If you asked me whether I'd ever dressed in a way that could offend someone, I'd say I probably had. Not because there is a particular case I can remember, but that I'm not aware of all symbols and themes that could have associations. I've almost certainly said things that with a different audience would have come off in bad taste. And even with the audience I had, I have probably incidentally said things in bad taste that others copped without telling me. I'm pretty sure I haven't painted my face black but in NZ, we don't have some of the baggage of other countries - some people might paint our face black to support the All Blacks with no intent of offence. We have our own words, symbols and attitudes. In NZ we use the terms "crackers" and "wop-wops", without the racist meanings those words have in the US. A traveller here might get the wrong idea from seeing or hearing either.
To interpret correctly you would need to know the context something was in, or intended to be seen in; and if you have any doubt about how you're presenting something you might need to think widely how something could be seen from people who are in a context very different from your own.
This is quite clear in an example just this week where one of our regular cafes, Eiffel on Eden, also walked right into a wall of outrage. Like many cafes these days, they have a little sign outside with something witty, usually coffee-related, outside. On Thursday, they decided to put: "On Valentine's Day open the car door for her. After Valentine's Day open the car boot for her." I'm not sure whether they created this themselves or they picked it up somewhere else. I think if I'd run past this sign that day prior to hearing about any of the hubbub, I would say that it was a peculiar statement. I'd assume, probably in line with the person who penned it, that Valentines is all romantic chivalry, and after the day it transforms into a more banal, everyday chivalry, perhaps with a hit that she's just been on a shopping spree but perhaps just the groceries. If I someone were to ask me whether it could be seen as offensive, I'd say it definitely has a scent of sexism about depending what you think of chivalry, or pitching it from a man's perspective, or associating women with shopping.
Overall, I would give the sign two stars out of five and not give it much more thought. But I'm a man and I didn't think much more about the juxtaposition of wife and car boot which. If you check the article, became a cause of outrage for its association with domestic violence and putting a murdered spouse in the boot. To be honest, I think the outrage is still a bit unfair but, like anything, a little bit of discussion would have ironed this out. For those aggrieved: it is Valentines Day. There is no hint of intention to associate violence so when it's read you'd normally think of romance, consumerism, gifts and chivalry. Wives and car boots both exist in ordinary life, too. As do toasters and bathtubs, cats and microwaves, Lime scooters and uncovered manholes, cucumbers and condoms, and teachers and whiskey bottles. The cafe in my mind didn't do anything wrong in putting out such a sign except for trying to say pithy and failing. Compare that with the horrid "joke" that I bumped into back-checking this story: "Wanna know who loves you more? Put your spouse and your dog in the trunk of a car and drive around for an hour. When you open the trunk, who's happy to see you?" That would be surely in bad taste to most audiences, unless you really know the person well. I asked my wife to interpret the sign without allowing her to know about the kerfuffle about it and she was confused exactly what it wanted to say, then abruptly said, "What are you going to kill her and put her in the boot?" with a laugh. Maybe it depends on who reads it and whether a case of a body in a boot had come up.
That all being said, when there is an unintended response, it's always good to be humble, receptive and to listen. The cafe didn't do that the first time round. Probably not the second time round either. A lot of the "blackface" accused do not often seem to approach the offence in the right way either. There is no effort to understand, only to defend or explain their own intentions.
The last example that is on my mind is that of Liam Neeson. In the promotion of a movie with a vengeful theme, he decided to reveal a very dark 40 year old secret to the public. After a close friend was raped by a black man, in anger he'd apparently gone through a very primal phase of wanting to kill a black man in retribution. The commentary has been a mix of criticism and some compassionate interpretation, and whether he was surprised by the response he has dug a deeper hole. To be honest, I'm not going to stick a knife into someone who is upfront and volunteers a dark secret. No one would condone the thinking that he had then, but it is understandable. Part of coming to terms with a dark secret is to put it out into the sunshine. Most people let their darkness fester. The question seems to be whether it was racist or just primal rage back then and whether he is racist now. When his friend told him about the rape, he apparently asked "what colour" the assailant was, which some have taken to mean that he approached things from a racist point of view, regardless whether it was primal rage or not. I guess I'd just think that it was 40 years ago in a particular moment of his life. We all evolve and should be given the chance to evolve our ideas.
As for racism itself, almost every still "sees colour" to an extent, even if a bit blurrily. I remember a comment I made mid-last year which may have bothered my senior teacher. He was teaching a small class with some Indians. The room lacked good air conditioning at that time and when I covered a bit of the class the scent of unwashed men was rather overwhelming. It was a likely factor that they were living in an overcrowded situation to save money for courses such as the one that we were providing, without easy access to showers and regular clothes washing. I made what I thought was an objective comment on it, and also the need for them, in an interview situation to learn timeliness and not forget hygiene. He looked at me with an odd look. He might have thought I was being racist. Perhaps it was a bit racist. But the student stunk and if he came to me looking for a job, I wouldn't take him on. Chinese students also elicit many generalisations, too. But when we accidentally speak in generalisations, even when we acknowledge a more nuanced truth, it can come across as racist and offensive.
Life is difficult and a little understanding and humility can go a long way to avoid offending and misinterpreting offensive behaviour and language.
No comments:
Post a Comment