more on nooses, blackface, and OSU

I’ve recently posted a bit about the current issues on campus here surrounding the use of blackface at football games and the recent sighting of a noose at Phi Gamma Delta (also known as Fiji). I’d like to provide some more background information that I learned last night, explain my thoughts on the issue a bit more in-depth, and address some of the comments left on posts here and here. I apologize beforehand for the length of this post. I normally don’t go on at length this long on a medium that usually calls for shorter posts (reading on the screen is so different from reading on the page). An advanced thank you to anyone who reads this.

A. MORE BACKGROUND

I talked to a friend of mine last night who is a member of Fiji and is in a leadership role there. A noose left hanging from a tree is a pretty disturbing thing to see in the context of the recent turmoil here at OSU and in our country as a whole, so when I remembered that my friend was a member, I approached him last night to ask about the situation (I was cued by his sweater; I am not familiar enough with Greek Life here to keep houses separate in my mind, so I didn’t even remember what house my friend was a member of).

I had heard rumors that the noose was left up because they hadn’t cleaned up after a party that was themed “Salem Witch Trials.” This is actually incorrect: The event in question was a philanthropy event to collect cans for Linn-Benton Food Share, a great program that gets lots of food to many folks in Linn and Benton counties. The event was held on Halloween night, and the fraternity actually “hangs” people inside the house (but has a harness on them so there is no risk of injury). The noose in question outside actually had a fake witch hanging in it, but the fake witch had been stolen. Because the even takes a week to set up, it also takes quite a while to clean up. The members are busy, with school and other events, so it couldn’t all be done in one day. Unfortunately, and my friend realizes that huge error in this, they left the noose up. The pictures taken, according to my friend, don’t grab the context of the noose, in that there were still decorations laying all around the yard, including spiderwebs and other Halloween decorations.

B. MY THOUGHTS

Various questions have circulated through my head recently, including how do anti-racist folks respond to events they believe are racist? how much do intentions of an event matter, and how can we talk about those intentions with compassion while talking about the effects of actions and events? how can we get people to listen to each other when emotions are so high? amongst others.

Last night I was able to have a great conversation with my friend where we were both able to listen, but also, I realize my anger was not as charged as others’ because I have white privilege, and while these events anger me, they don’t necessarily threaten me as directly. Additionally, my friend largely agreed with me that it was a huge mistake to leave the noose out, and once I knew the intentions of the fraternity, my anger was subsided a bit.

But how can the various groups on campus come together to dialogue about this? My friend greatly wanted a dialogue, but felt it would be hard because of the polarization of the various issues. I agreed it would be hard, but I encouraged him to attempt to start this dialogue. He also relayed to me that members of his fraternity felt attacked by being called “bigots” and “racists” and never got a chance to explain themselves when they were confronted about the noose.

Which brings me to how do we respond to actions we perceive as racist? I am reminded of a training I went through a few years ago where I learned a taxonomy regarding people’s views of oppression that could be useful here. Roughly, this is how it looks (and is being interpreted through my own lens):

Paradigm 1: Oppression does not exist. There are explicitly racist or sexist acts, sure, but those are done by individuals and institutional oppression does not exist.

Paradigm 2: Oppression exists, but the various oppressions are not necessarily linked, and when I see oppression, I should use guilt, anger, and shame to make others see my experiences or the experiences of others. I belong strictly to my identity group and you belong strictly to yours. Different forms of oppression can be worked on separately.

Paradigm 3: Oppressions are linked and largely invisible. When I see oppression, I should approach the issue with compassion and understand that other people may not be where I am at in my understanding of oppression. Approaching someone with shame and guilt does not respect the other person’s dignity, nor does it really advance my causes. We cannot work on various oppressions as completely separate oppressions, but must understand that racism, sexism, classism, ableism, ageism, and heterosexism are linked.

I would describe myself as largely a paradigm 3 person, in part because I understand that it doesn’t do much good to help others understand the consequences of their actions by calling them a bigot or a racist. I do still use the word racism (I won’t sugar coat things), but I often also try to convey that societal racism is different from racist intentions; that is, you can have intentions that are perfectly benign and do something that is racist. I try not to label someone who does this as racist. Although, of course, sometimes I do, especially when really angry.

I’m going to move on a bit to discussion of the differences between intentions and consequences. The defense of blackface is often that it’s not intended as racist and the fans just want to have fun, so it’s not racist. Additionally, those who defend blackface also claim ignorance of the historical ramifications of blackface, and thus argue that it’s behind us and doesn’t even matter.

Let’s approach that first one: do intentions matter? To a degree, no. To a degree, yes.

I feel I could explain the no answer from a few different angles, but I think I’ll use two lenses to discuss this: a) a rhetorical understanding of audience, and b) an analogy (which, admittedly, might be overwrought). First, audience: When students wear blackface, they are doing a rhetorical act (that is, making an argument) intended to both show solidarity with the team and other fans, and, by doing so, intimidate the other team by having a large group of fans engaged in the same public display. The decision to do this takes into account only a few audiences: a) OSU football fans, as a sign of solidarity; b) the other teams’ fans; c) the OSU football team; d) the other football team. These are largely all primary audiences: that is, the facepaint is directed at them, though each one for a different purpose.

However, those who use blackface don’t consider their secondary audience rhetorically: that is, any public action not only has a primary audience, but also has others who are going to witness or read the act. When engaged in public actions (and going to a football game is very public), one must consider not only who you are directing your actions to, but also others who will witness it as well. Having the white privilege of not knowing the historical context of blackface allows for white folk going to the game in blackface to not understand the way their faces will be read by black people and other people who have an awareness of this historical fact. So, do intentions matter? No, because a rhetorical act is read in various different ways by various different audiences.

Let me move on to my analogy. I want to stress that this just an analogy, and an admittedly overwrought one; I will be pulling a Godwin’s Law here, but I am in no way calling anyone a Nazi. I want to make that clear.

So the analogy: Let’s say that teenager white Christian Bob has no historical knowledge of the use of swastikas. One day he discovers this swastika, but he has no idea what it’s been used for in the past. He thinks it looks cool and decides to wear it to have fun. In fact, he gets some friends to wear it as well. They go to school wearing it, and everyone is shocked. They are read as Nazis and Jews, people of color, and many others who have the knowledge of the history behind this sign feel unsafe. Do Bob’s intentions matter? Not when it comes to how the act is read. A symbol, while not having an inherent meaning, has a historical meaning that is read by those who the symbol has been used against. It is up to people who were not harmed by these symbols to understand their historical use so as to not continue using a symbol that causes fear.

Blackface is similar. It’s a historical symbol used to mock and maim the dignity of black people. When white people use it, their intentions do not matter; it is how it is read by others that matters.

But wait a minute. I also said above that intentions do matter, in a way. This is where our response to those who use blackface or other symbols without knowing their history matters. It’s important to be compassionate in our response and to listen and help others to see the history without attempting to shame them. This is what I think Renee Roman Nose did in her column addressing this issue: she approached this with compassion, she discussed her conversation with the originator of the Facebook group that started the blackout, she called for more conversation. Others’ intentions matter when we address grievances with them.

Never once did Roman Nose call anyone a racist or a bigot in her column. Yet, this is where it gets even more complicated, because folks aren’t listening to Roman Nose. She explicitly stated that wearing black was not a problem, yet I have seen on Facebook groups people claiming she and other do not want anyone wearing black. She didn’t call anyone a racist, yet people are claiming that she called them so in her column. Listening is admittedly hard, but it’s necessary.

C. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

I’ve received a few comments on prior posts that I’d like to address here, after explaining some of the situation and my own thoughts on it.

Anonymous writes here:

The fraternity used it as a decoration as part of a philanthropic event to help raise money for the Linn-Benton food share. It’s a prop, I don’t see people getting pissed off when there’s a hanging scenes in movies and such, oh that’s because it’s a white person and we don’t have a right to get angry about anything because that somehow is racist too. Stop being so fucking sensitive. I’m not racists, I have black family members and I don’t think any less of them because the color of their skin nor any other race.

I think the philanthropic work of fraternities is really amazing, Anonymous, and I applaud the work of raising money for the Linn-Benton Food Share. The problem with leaving the prop of the noose out so long is the current situation, both locally and nationally, of symbols equated with historical racism. I didn’t call any member of Fiji racist in my original posts, nor do I think anyone from Fiji is being explicitly racist. I think it was a mistake to leave it out, and I trust the leadership of Fiji to hopefully address this issue publicly and start dialogues about racism and how mistakes like this can be apologized for and prevented in the future.

On another note: having family or friends of color doesn’t absolve one of engaging in racist acts or having racist thoughts. This is not meant as an attack on you as an individual, but rather as a point about what it means to grow up and live in a racist society. We are all prone to racist actions and thoughts; how we correct ourselves is what’s matter. It’s a fallacy to state that “I am not racist because I have racist family or friends.”

Another Anonymous wrote here:

Um the blackface… it’s fucking face paint. i don’t actually know any “black” person that looks like that do you? Plus is was fucking school spirit, and yes some people were asses and took it too far but shame on them, don’t make the entire university look like a bunch of racists because we decided to wear our school colors and support our team. As for the noose it was a prop… a prop. It was a decoration that was used for a philanthropic event that raised money for the Linn-Benton Food Share and helps feed the hungry in the community which I’m sure includes black and white families. I don’t think people realize how much work the haunted house must take especially if you didn’t go through it like I did. I’m not surprised they are still working on cleaning up their house and property of decorations. This one noose while it may have offended some people probably helped more people in that one Halloween night than many people do over the course of a year.

Anonymous, I and almost anyone would agree that blackface does not actually look like black people. However, this is not the issue. The historical use of blackface was meant not to look like actual black people, but rather to parody them and maim their dignity. This is the image that is being connoted by the use of blackface: the blackface used in minstrel shows.

The excuse that it is school spirit doesn’t really matter, except in how we respond to it. Yes, there is not malicious intent, but saying that something is okay because it is fun isn’t charitable to the people it affects. Lots of harmful activities have been justified because they are fun, so this argument doesn’t hold much weight. In order to decide whether a fun event or activity is justified, you have to think about how it affects all parties involved, not just those who are trying to have fun.

Yes, the noose was “just” Halloween decorations, but additionally, the noose outside didn’t actually help people (as you state it did in the last paragraph): the members of Fiji and those who attended and contributed to the philanthropy event did.

Alex writes here:

A Tragedy…

It’s really too bad that this issue has been pulled along the way it has. The noose just adds more flame to the fire. Of course, nobody will care what the fraternity students real intentions were, just like nobody cared about the intentions of the “blackout”. But it isn’t the intentions that matter here anyway. What matters is that a group of people were offended. I think that the students of OSU owe them a formal apology. Not that we knowingly practiced in racist activities, but that we simply didn’t know how offensive our actions could be. I sure as Hell don’t appreciate being labeled as a racist because I was unaware of the historical implications of “blackface”. But at the same time I know it was offensive and I apologize for that.

In the end, I think it’s difficult to say that students were “targeting” a group of students with their actions. But I do think that students need to be a little more sensitive to the effect their actions might have on those around them.

Thank you, Alex. It is refreshing to hear people apologize for their actions and to hope that others too apologize and realize that, while their intentions were fine, the effects were what was harmful to others. I agree that “targeting” might not be the best word to use (and it is the word I used in that post), because “targeting” implies intent. Unfortunately, once activities like blackface continue, it appears to be a case of “targeting,” because now people are at least somewhat aware of ways in which blackface is read.

Thank you to anyone who’s read this far. I understand this is a long post, but it’s a lot to think and write about.