I don’t understand your comment. Is it a criticism of Professor Bright, or a criticism of the way the students reacted? Or both?
bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
Although it is difficult to form any type of conclusions from a single article, not actually being in the room at the time, I think that the fact that the woman who complained was a freshman and most likely a young person, contributes to the reaction. One of the purposes of college is so young people can learn how respond appropriately in social situations. To learn to be adults.
I don’t know if she questioned Sheng contemporaneously during the class or waited until afterwards to complain. Questioning him during the class would be the proper way to do it. Then they could discuss it in the classroom and sort it out. It sounds like she became very confrontational about it.
As for Sheng, you never actually know for sure what is going on inside someone’s brain. He seems rather clueless about the whole situation. The article said that he had attended awareness training, and I don’t understand how someone could not know that blackface in almost any context is inappropriate today and so he should have either picked an alternative composition adaptation example or explained prior to the showing that that blackface was inappropriate even in the 60s when it was made.
The reason why that kind of contextualization is required before showing the film is because older productions of that sort are designed to promote and perpetuate racism, which was largely tolerated before the civil rights movement during the 60s. It was designed to make people more racist. If those films are shown to a young audience who may or may not understand that, then it could have racism-promoting effects on those young people. By explaining all of that up front before the film is shown, then it helps to mitigate and inoculate against that and instead it can show how racism is bad.
@Pat https://reason.com/2021/10/08/bright-sheng-university-of-michigan-othello-racism/
it’s really like in wargames now, the only winning move is not to play.
he apologized and tried to clarify that he’s not racist only to have that turned against him. it’s kafkaesque.
the problem is mental immaturity and too many claims with absolute lack of skills and achievements. and attacking everybody around becomes the only possible way of self-affirmation.
this is the new brave world we've got.
“As for Sheng, you never actually know for sure what is going on inside someone’s brain.”
Right. But most of the time, we don’t need to guess that. First, there’s context, and explicit communication: a musician and educator showing a film to students is most likely showing a film to students to educate them about music — and definitely so if that is what he says to them. And then, there’s the Principle of Charity: when in doubt, assume the other part had the best of intentions and use the most charitable reading of his words and actions.
“I don’t understand how someone could not know that blackface in almost any context is inappropriate today.”
I bet he knows that. That is why he does not dress in blackface himself. He just showed a piece of art where “blackface” was a feature.
There is slavery, torture, rape and much more on the façade of Greek and Roman buildings, and on their poetry: are we supposed to think that 21st-century people, including college students, are so infantile as to need prior warning and explanations before being exposed to each of those pieces of art?
“He should have […] explained prior to the showing that that blackface was inappropriate even in the 60s when it was made.”
That is debatable (if also irrelevant to this discussion): the film was nominated for four Oscars, four Golden Globes, and one BAFTA. If blackface were even slightly as taboo back then as it is today, this would have been impossible.
“Older productions of that sort are designed to promote and perpetuate racism. […] It was designed to make people more racist.”
I don’t think so. Blackface in Othello was not there “to make people more racist”.
Imagine that humans of the 22nd century have abolished farming and breeding animals for food and clothing. Are all contemporary depictions of farms, farmers, laying hens, pigs, etc — in film, rhymes, paintings, children’s books, animation, etc — “designed to promote and perpetuate” farming, or just a reflection of every-day life and common values?
Imagine a future when fossil fuels are gone at last. Will our descendants see Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Fast & Furious, and Cars as material “designed” to keep us enamoured with combustion engines, consuming petrol, and minimise our worries about climate change, or will they see those vehicles there as mere reflections of the times?
The Reason piece appears to just be using the Daily article as their source, along with whatever original documents they could find online. The NY Times picked up the story (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/arts/music/othello-blackface-bright-sheng.html) and likely has additional research on it, but I can’t get past their paywall.
The practice of using blackface perpetuates racism whether or not the people doing it understand that it’s wrong. So the future examples you cite are indeed also in that very general category – many people today do not know that what they are doing is wrong, but some do.
When Olivier did Othello, most people didn’t see a problem with it, but forward-looking people did. (Othello is actually much more complicated – it was written before the US was even founded, which is why I said, “…productions of that sort…”, meaning productions using blackface.)
Regarding “safe spaces”, I think that’s a bunch of bullshit. College is for exploring and learning and discovery. It’s about discourse. Shutting down people who earnestly have a different view in order to prevent them speaking does not promote progress, it stifles it.
To damage somebody’s career like they did to Sheng is wrong. As I said, when somebody tries to apologize like that, you can never see into somebody’s brain to know for sure if they are consciously racist or just slow at becoming “woke”. The students should have confronted him directly and respectfully and discussed the issue.
If he would have continued to hold the position that blackface was ok, then that’s different. That would mean he has some kind learning disability and probably shouldn’t be teaching if he can’t even learn simple things like that.
@Pat @bonifartius It seems we do not disagree that much, that’s great. Let me answer to just a couple sentences of yours:
“The practice of using #blackface perpetuates #racism whether or not the people doing it understand that it’s wrong.”
I don’t think so. This is too simplistic (and the source of so much unnecessary confrontation). Non-blacks can admire, and want to emulate, black figures. A white person may be cast sometimes to portray a black character (for a number of legit reasons). There’s Halloween, historical recreations, sketches, comedy, parody. Context matters. Painting your face in black (or in white, yellow, brown) to more closely resemble some historical figure, fiction character, etc may be as innocuous as wearing a hat, high heels, a doublet, a wig, fake breasts, lipstick, etc.
How does a ten-year-old in love with Michael Jordan or Whitney Houston, who does all s/he can to emulate his/her idol, including hair and make-up, at a family party, school play or street parade, “perpetuate racism”. On the contrary!
“You can never see into somebody’s brain to know for sure if they are consciously racist or just slow at becoming ‘#woke’.”
It’s the very wide chasm in between that’s overlooked. There’s a lot in between “racist” and “woke”! That’s where the majority of decent people sit, in fact.
Please let’s all let that sink in, and share the thought with others.
As I said, when somebody tries to apologize like that, you can never see into somebody’s brain to know for sure if they are consciously racist or just slow at becoming “woke”. The students should have confronted him directly and respectfully and discussed the issue.
the only thing you can hope for is a change in behaviour not in convictions.
If he would have continued to hold the position that blackface was ok, then that’s different. That would mean he has some kind learning disability and probably shouldn’t be teaching if he can’t even learn simple things like that.
declaring people mentally ill has a long history.
(somehow I missed some of tripu's toots before I posted my previous toot, so addressing those and more...)
[Correction: Pat wrote, "That would mean he has some kind learning disability...".
It should read, "That would mean he has some kind of learning disability..." ]
There was contemporaneous criticism of Olivier's blackface portrayal when the film premiered in the 60s. Some audience members objected. I'm not surprised that Hollywood was tone-deaf to that criticism. Judging by the subliminally racist films that come out of Hollywood (even now well into the 21st century), those filmmakers are much more racist than the rest of society.
________
Yes, always assume good faith unless it's obviously intentional racism, like malicious use of epithets, etc.
[Note: These days malicious racism likes to hide behind ambiguity and (barely) plausible deniability, so good faith is often stretched to its limits. ]
________
I said, "...blackface in almost any context is inappropriate today...". There are some very narrow cases where it is appropriate (in my opinion), such as the depiction in Bewitched Season 7, Episode 13, "Sisters at Heart" where the main character, Samantha (the witch), changes a white racist man into a black man in order to help him become more "woke". (The episode was aired during the height of civil unrest during the civil rights movement in the 60s.)
Also, another reason why it is important for professors to contextualize things like Olivier's performance is because you cannot assume what kids know and what they don't, especially today with all these information silos. A freshman college student may not know about blackface or the civil rights movement at all. (A perfect case study of this is Tara Westover, "Educated")
> "Context matters. Painting your face in black (or in white, yellow, brown) to more closely resemble some historical figure, fiction character, etc may be as innocuous as..."
Yes, context matters. And not just the context of presentation, but the historical context. Historically, blackface was used to deny black people acting jobs and to represent them in a derogatory, stereotypical manner. The use of blackface today happens within the backdrop of that historical context. This is why it is so different than painting a face in some other colors.
“I’m not surprised that Hollywood was tone-deaf to that criticism. Judging by the subliminally racist films that come out of Hollywood (even now well into the 21st century), those filmmakers are much more racist than the rest of society.”
You must be joking. Do you really think that #Hollywood is “much more racist than the rest of society”?
On the contrary: the film industry as a whole is very progressive. Just one article about that.
“I said, ‘…blackface in almost any context is inappropriate today…’. There are some very narrow cases where it is appropriate.”
You are right: you left open the possibility of someone painting their face in black and that being an innocuous act, and I should have acknowledged that. Sorry.
(We differ about there being “very narrow cases” when it’s innocuous. I’d like to think that innocuous make-up is the default presumption, and getting upset when there is evidence of racist implications only.)
“You cannot assume what kids know and what they don’t, especially today with all these information silos. A freshman college student may not know about blackface or the civil rights movement at all.”
This is patronising and exaggerated. Again: surveys show that college students are, as a whole, very progressive in their mindset. It’s not like you have to tell them about slavery, racism, homophobia, or climate change: those concerns are fortunately front page and trending topic each and every day in 2021.
As I said before: if you feel one should warn college students about derogatory depictions of black people in art, be prepared to warn them every day about so much more, and worse, in the literary canon, in old paintings, in popular culture, etc — not to mention popular contemporary fiction (TV, films, comics) depicting verbal abuse, cruelty, violence, murder, and war all the time. Why do we feel compelled to give trigger warnings before showing a white actor impersonating a fictional black character (even if that impersonation is itself derogatory), but not before discussing a chapter of The Iliad (which may well be sadistic, xenophobic, abusive, misogynistic)? We are not consistent, because if we were, we’d spend half the time putting everything in (today’s) context. Fortunately most people are mature enough to do that for themselves.
“Yes, context matters. And not just the context of presentation, but the historical context. Historically, blackface was used to deny black people acting jobs and to represent them in a derogatory, stereotypical manner. The use of blackface today happens within the backdrop of that historical context. This is why it is so different than painting a face in some other colors.”
“Historically, blackface was used…” That’s they key. Historically it was used for other purposes. Today people can (should) use it if they please without those connotations.
I know that most actors self-identify as “progressive”, whatever that means, but the above-the-line producers, directors, editors who decide what the final product looks like – those guys are putting out racist content. I watch a lot films, and 8 out of 10 Hollywood films have racist content. Sometimes it’s really subliminal, but it’s there. And those filmmakers go to great pains over every minor detail in those films. In most cases, I believe they know exactly what they are doing when they produce that shit.
___
Regarding the very narrow cases, we’re almost splitting hairs. I think time will tell exactly where the line is on those, when the future looks back on it.
___
As I said, college is supposed to teach those critical reasoning skills, so kids can learn to put those things into context themselves. But they come into college from a wide range of experiences. Read Westover’s “Educated” for an indication of how widely those experiences can diverge.
__
Unfortunately, racism is not a historical artifact. It’s ongoing today. People of color are still portrayed stereotypically in a lot of Hollywood films. It never went away, it just became more subliminal. Hopefully we can get to a place where an actor of any race can play any historical character of any race without having to even be concerned about it. But we’re not there. Not even close.
@Pat I’m criticising the students who complained, and coward #MIT which caved in to the mob.