Article response: “SNL Korea Thinks Blackface is Funny.. I’m Not Laughing” (Seoulbeats)

READ THE ARTICLE HERE

Korean entertainment has done it again. And just when you thought the Shindong and Kikwang incidents should have caused someone in the industry to question the appropriateness of blackface by now. 

However, I can’t help but have my reservations about the accusations that are being thrown around, triggered by this one comment to the article (and its reply) I found on the Seoulbeats thread:

I found this to be one of the few very well-articulated responses to this issue. Like the commenter stated, we can agree on the conclusion – blackface, in this case, was offensive. SNL’s skit was offensive. In the context of K-pop, at least, blackface needs to stop. Why,  why, and why is context important in this case?

Firstly, because of my own perceptions of blackface (more at the end), and what origins I attribute it to, it was offensive to me. Secondly, K-pop is an industry that intends to be one for the world. It attracts, and aims to attract, fans from all walks of life; of different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds. Cultural and “racial” sensitivity therefore becomes an important mindset to adopt and integrate. There will be people who will find blackface offensive, and even racist. Secondly, context always matters. Yes, blackface is unacceptable, but this connotation derives dominantly from the history of black enslavement and maltreatment, a background as well as an education thereof that we do not find in East-Asian societies (as point 2 of the above comment implies). Keep that in mind as I continue with my train of thought here.

The history of blackface in North America can be summed up in a nutshell as Jim Crow racism (“overt prejudice and actions against racial-ethnic minorities”; “lynch mobs and fire bombs”; “segregation” [1]) during the mid-1800s; and the minstrelsy shows that were very popular during the era, which Charmaine Nelson of the Montreal Gazette defines them: 

…white nostalgia for black enslavement. The songs, dancing and comedy of the performances hinged on a recitation of the assumed inferiority of blacks and often-violent fantasies of the murder, torture and dismemberment of black bodies.

With this as our basis, we can argue that blackface and its origins in the United States and Canada are unquestionably racist. And it certainly is as well in many parts around the world. But as point 3 of the Seoulbeats comment states, there are places such as Brazil where blackface is donned as an act of homage (the Maracatu de nação). There are even instances of blackface (or blackened faces) that have no “racial” connotations at all, such as the Britannia coco-nut dancers of Lancashire, England. 

Okay sure, but many out there may nevertheless continue to think, “They should ‘know better’ — why can’t they not obviously see that blackface is offensive?” This is a way more complicated question to answer than many people would expect. For one, you still have people out there that denies racism exists in our modern century, both Western and non-Western. Look at the comment threads of any news article or forum that relates to “race” and “racial” discourses and you’ll see what I mean. Secondly, despite the fact that the origins of blackface and racial discrimination against “colored minorities” (in the context of the Western world) hits closer to home than anywhere else, we still have instances like this and this. (I know, WTF, right?) It’s crazy to see that such ignorance still continues to exist in places like Canada and the United States. If these people ‘don’t know any better’ and fail to ‘obviously see that blackface is offensive,’ then we should not make the mistake of thinking that the situation in South Korea, and the remedy that is needed, is purely linear and/or simplistic. If modern inhabitants of places even with a dark history of racism are still obviously confused of what it means to be racist, then it should come as no surprise that places that don’t are as well. Heck, even academics are still crying blood and tears over the complexity of the issue.

Here’s a sneak peek into the current discourses in today’s academia as it applies to race and racism, just so you get an idea of how convoluted the matter really is:

1. There is a general consensus that “race” does not exist (biological findings prove that there are no chromosomal differences between different ethnicities – in fact, there are more differences found between individuals of the same ethnicity.) However, this has led to the question of whether or not “racism” therefore exists. I personally think it does, because racism refers to the consequences caused by the historical adaptation of the race paradigm – even though “race” has been disproved, its social implications are very real. From personal experience, in my Race and Racism course, one of our biggest problems in our class was the mere discussion of the concept of “race” – how to we talk about something that doesn’t exist, and how we make sure we talk about it without perpetuating its realness? (Mind you, a lot of “quotation-mark fingers” were done throughout the term.)
2. One issue that is most discussed is the “the various levels of society at which it is held to operate [1].” Between and beyond the degrees of individual and institutional racism, for example, 
   

   … there currently exists other identified components: an interactional component marked by racialized stages of interaction; a particular language and rhetoric to make ‘colorblind’ arguments and denigrate oppressed groups; a history of racial denigration, social control of nonwhites, and ideology of racial supremacy; and other cultural and political components such as the merging of Confederate beliefs and symbols to define ‘Southern culture’ and resistance to racial equality, and the prevention of justice in the courts resulting from the belief in colorblindness and reduction of racism as a contributing factor to people’s lives [1].

3. As the article of the Université de Montréal blackface incident illustrated (which I linked above), many parties argued that the act was by no means a ‘racist’ one. Why? There seems to be this common conception (or misconception) that in order to be racist, you need to have the intention to be so. However, it is prevalent that undergraduate students are simply taught the “well-meaning, but ill-conceived formula [1]” that defines ‘racism’ as simply ‘racial prejudice + racial discrimination + power.’ But based on the way many people (those in the K-pop fandom included) have reacted, it evidently goes beyond negative feelings towards and stereotypes about a certain group (prejudice); and certain actions or “differential treatment [1]” of a group, committed by those with more social power (discrimination); otherwise it is possible to argue that orchestrations of blackface is not ‘racist’. Though arguably ‘stereotypical,’ sometimes it lacks genuinely malicious intent.
4. Other discussions include, but not limited to: denial, or colorblind racism; the culture of whiteness; and systemic racism. It still sort of confuses me, so I’m not gonna even try to discuss them extensively on this post :| (If you’re interested, hit me up via email and I’ll send you the PDF of the article I’ve cited (“[1]” — see below)

Oh, and one thing to remember – this is all in the context of Western academia. I don’t know what goes on in the East-Asian realm, but I think it’s safe to assume that because Western discourses are heavily planted in its histories and current realities of multiculturalism and multiethnicity, they have more differences than similarities. Including the definition of racism. Couple that with the fact that education is not accessible to many people both in the East and the West, and you’ve got the complete picture of the world we live in – a mosaic of both ignorance, unawareness, and so-called universal ‘truths’ and ‘common senses’ that are in fact nothing but fallacies, because not everyone thinks the same way, or knows the same things.

With that said, I encourage fans to react beyond the bases of your emotions. Yes, it’s annoying; yes, it’s offensive; and yes, it’s easier to say, “fuck this, I AM DONE,” but if change is the reality we want, then we need to open our minds to the fact that this way more convoluted than it seems. Not everyone is socialized the same way. Not everyone is exposed to the same things. It’s one thing to be upset and furious – we all are – but it’s another to be both without reflecting on the fact that different realities exist in this world. We’re going to have to dig deeper for approaches rather than just relying on our angry voices to do all the talking. 

Let me share two more cents: another thing that is initially unattractive about blackface, in any context (whether it be in Brazil or in Canada), is that to me, it implies the assignment of meaning to an ideally unimportant physical feature – the pigment of your skin. Why should that matter? Why is it necessary to emphasize the skin pigment of the person you are imitating? If only we lived in a world where phenotypes were not imbued with meaning — where the shade or tint of your skin had the same social significance as, say, the length of your fingers: nothing. But we don’t. And because of this, though it does not matter, it does. The recognition or implication of skin pigment does not only connote stereotypical and destructive meanings, it also connotes facets of diversity that matter. Black history month, for example, exists for the purpose of celebrating their achievements throughout history (yet there are many that try to argue that it’s racist). I guess you can even count the case of Maracatu de Nação – an homage to the contributions of black slaves in Brazil. And it is with this particular example that you think of the variable definition of blackface, or face blackening, as it applies in different contexts.

Belittling a culture and/or ethnicity and reducing them to merely a spectacle under a spotlight available for the entertainment of an audience is not right, but to refuse looking through different doors of how to go about approaching this isn’t either. Especially with a case like South Korea. Remember, it is a very young country – no more than about 60 years old. Discussions about human rights, multiculturalism, and other issues of social justice have just begun to emerge [2]. You can even argue that up until now, all that South Korea has been doing was simply appropriating from the West – “Western techniques, East Asian mindset” [3]. This is why despite the fact that it’s one of the biggest economies in the world, it’s still highly and strictly traditional. South Korea continues to be a huge paradox, meaning that though we all agree that blackface is offensive, let’s allow ourselves to question the SNL situation deeper, while generally recognizing that explanations and solutions are not going to come in some neatly-bundled package.

(BTW, a place to start is to send a message to the SNL producers. Because seriously, what’s the use of getting upset and not doing anything about it? See this Tumblr post for more details.)

NOTES:

[1] W. Carson Byrd, “Conflating Apples and Oranges: Understanding Modern Forms of Racism.” (2011) published in Sociological Compass

[2] Cho Hye-Jo, “Human Rights at a Crossroads: A Critical Overview.” (2002) published in Korea Journal

[3] I remember reading this in some article, I swear, but I can’t find it online right now ;_;

*Again, if you’re interested in taking a look at the above articles, shoot me an email and I’ll send you a copy: angrykpopfan@gmail.com