Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
6 — Tuesday, March 27, 2018
An intersectional analysis of the blackface Snapchat
CRITICAL ETHNIC STUDIES AND A/PIA STUDIES GRADUATE AND FACULTY GROUP | OP-ED
W
atching
“Love,
Simon”
felt
like
arriving at a long-
awaited destination.
Something
that
I
had
been
anticipating
since
my first encounter
with a young adult
movie,
pretending
that
the
vanilla,
heterosexual
leads
weren’t
actually
heterosexual.
And
finally,
when
it
manifested
in
the film starring actor Nick
Robinson
as
the
closeted-
gay high school senior, it was
everything. And still, it will
never be enough.
Within the past three years,
films with queer people, mostly
gay cisgender men, have emerged
into the mainstream. Last year’s
Best Picture, “Moonlight,” was
the first Best Picture winner
revolving around an LGBTQ+-
themed story (not to mention
a solely Black cast). This year,
“Call Me By Your Name,” a film
about an Italian-Jewish boy
falling in love with an older
American man, was nominated
for numerous accolades.
Yet these movies, despite
having
the
themes
that
accompany
typical
coming-
of-age
stories,
were
still
thematically heavy. Their target
audiences
were
inevitably
mature, with aesthetics and
plots more concurrent with the
conventions of an art-house
movie.
Conversely,
“Love,
Simon”
follows
the
weepy,
popcorn-indulgent and corny
customs of an archetypal young
adult movie.
I grew up watching Edward
and Bella in “Twilight” recite
lines that were cliché and stiff
as cardboard, and I ate it up. I
witnessed the histrionics that
ensued after actress Emma Stone
lied about losing her virginity
in “Easy A,” and recited every
quote in “The Fault in Our Stars”
that filled theaters with sobbing
adolescents.
While some of these movies
did have deeply moving, tragic
elements (see “The Fault in Our
Stars”), they were all swollen
with
unrealistic
melodrama
meant to send hoards of teens to
theaters. “Moonlight,” “Blue is
the Warmest Color” and other
LGBTQ+-oriented films depict
the
raw
truth
of
being queer.
Just
as
these
movies
were
necessary
vehicles
for the stories of real
queer lives, so too is
“Love, Simon,” and
it’s something I felt
like I always needed.
I needed a cheesy
story that had humor
and heartbreak with
a character who also felt pinned
down by the burdens of keeping
his sexuality a secret.
Walking
out
of
“Love,
Simon” felt gratifying. The film
focuses on a gay teenager coming
to terms with his sexuality and
navigating his way out of the
closet. It is also a love story,
one which revolves around the
email correspondence between
him and the anonymous “Blue,”
a fellow closeted student at his
school. It’s also, remarkably, the
first major studio movie to focus
on a gay teenager.
I have grown up being
taught that my sexuality is
either a tragedy or a commodity.
Each
cinematic
experience
exhibits either the fraught life of
someone queer in the form of a
tragic drama or reduces the gay
experience by portraying queer
men as acerbic, sassy friends.
Finally,
an
entertaining,
romantic
teen
comedy
that
somehow
managed
to
encapsulate the truth of coming
out while still making my
friends and me giggle, weep and
fawn over the attractive leads
like any other movie. In one
scene, right after Simon comes
out to his straight girlfriend,
she instructs him on how to talk
about cute boys.
The palpable awkwardness
but
ultimate
triumph
of
Simon figuring it out was both
delightfully corny and acutely
genuine. It further exemplified
the movie’s ability to be just
a little too sentimental while
still circumscribing Simon as a
relatable character.
For me, this movie felt long-
awaited, yet for a gay teen who
hasn’t come out for whatever
reason, it elucidates a message
that,
while
mightily
cliché,
is very important: It does get
better.
Are there aspects of the
movie I wish could have been
done differently? Of course.
To begin with, the use of a
masculine, cisgender white male
in a fairly liberal area as a coming
out story can barely be viewed
as a proxy for universal tales of
coming out. Furthermore, the
use of a Black, gay character
who has very little dimension
and feels somewhat contrived
from stereotype is a little less
than desired.
In fact, prior to seeing “Love,
Simon,” this was the preeminent
misgiving I had with the film.
From the onset, it seemed to
engage minimally with actual
queer culture, instead opting for
a movie that was palatable for
straight audiences.
However, it was bucking
those
same
audiences
who,
for years, have weaponized
gay
representation
as
a
pernicious form of normalizing
homosexuality (as I’ve said, I
have seen nearly every young
adult
movie
with
straight
protagonists, and I have yet to
magically become straight).
In
the
end,
it
still
incorporated aspects of being
queer,
from
the
struggles
of coming out to a musical
number
featuring
singer
Whitney Houston’s “I Wanna
Dance
With
Somebody.”
Perhaps it wasn’t as much
Houston as I wanted (frankly,
I’m still waiting for a movie
that features an intense lip
sync battle to her classic “So
Emotional”), and it may not
have
been
revolutionary,
but it was an incremental
step in breaking down the
barriers
that
have
been
erected by homophobia and
misunderstanding.
And for LGBTQ+ teenagers,
whom are twice as likely
to attempt suicide as their
straight peers, the wonder of
seeing themselves illuminated
on screen will provide hope
for their futures and validate
their identities.
D
ear
communities
of
the
University
of
Michigan,
In light of the current
news
regarding
students
donning blackface to mock
#BlackLivesMatter
on
Snapchat, there is an uneasy
silence around the apparent
presence
of
the
Asian/
Asian-American
student
in
the photo. As students and
scholars
of
Critical
Ethnic
Studies
and
Asian/Pacific
Islander American Studies,
we present this letter to offer
an
intersectional
analysis
of the image as a means
to
better
understand
the
layers of mal-intent present
in the photo. We voice our
concerns in solidarity with
#BlackLivesMatter, Black and
African-American students, in
hopes of opening pathways for
healing and justice.
The black masks in the
Snapchat appear to be part of
an Asian beauty fad that cleans
the pores (the blackness of the
mask stands for the cleansing
properties
of
charcoal
and
also refers to the removal of
blackheads),
meaning
that
the “joke” intended by the
Snapchat works operates on at
least two levels. The students
effectively make fun of both
#BlackLivesMatter
and
the
Asian beauty product, a kind
of humor that relies on notions
of Asians as being ignorant
and indifferent to American
racism. And though the face
mask itself is not intended
to be used for blackface, the
caption of the Snapchat turns
the mask into one. The image
turns harmful for the ways
it mocks the important work
of #BlackLivesMatter and its
trenchant
critique
of
anti-
Blackness,
police
brutality,
mass incarceration and the
racist judicial system of the
United States.
Even though the Asian/Asian-
American student is essentially
silent and, in a way, made into
an accessory in support of the
racist
Snapchat,
the
student
is
nonetheless
complicit
in
constructing this racist image.
The ease with which he stands
next to and in support of LSA
sophomore
Lauren
Fokken
activates a deep history of the
“model
minority”
myth
and
its
roots
in
anti-Blackness
and
white
supremacy,
and
more recently, efforts to derail
#BlackLivesMatter
by
Asian-
American communities through
the support of Peter Liang and his
murder of Akai Gurley.
The image further erases
the
history
of
coalitional
activism in the 1960s and 1970s
when the very identity “Asian
American” arose in solidarity
with the civil rights movement.
Given the acts of violence and
erasures that the Snapchat
enacts with regards to the
racist criminal justice system
of this moment, police brutality
and the mass incarceration of
Black Americans, we wonder
about the punitive measures
that this racist act seems to
warrant. What response do we
desire from the two students
that would alleviate the pain
of these variously affected and
subjugated populations at the
University?
What
response
from the University would be
satisfying? After all, this is a
matter of social justice and
academic integrity.
One of the ways white
supremacy works on us is
through individualizing acts of
violence that effectively reduce
systemic issues of inequality
into individual acts. When
working with such ideas of
the individual, the solutions
to violence seem to warrant
punishment
and
extrication
from the community. However,
if we have learned anything
from the legacy of the civil
rights movement, the anti-
Vietnam war movement, the
anti-poverty
movement
and
the women’s movement, justice
works better when it serves to
heal communities, to call in the
very individuals who harm us
in an act of re-imagining what
community means. We are
left to labor harder to build
connections where they seem
most impossible, so that we
might redirect our anger at
the structures that oppress all
of us.
Many
structural
issues
come to mind: no alternative
processes
that
achieve
the
aims of affirmative action,
insufficient
programs
for
recruiting undergraduate and
graduate students of color,
lack of new tenure lines in
ethnic
studies
departments,
the insufficiency of race and
ethnicity course requirements.
The individual acts of racism
on campus speak to far larger
structural issues of inequality
and
reflect
the
current
climate of inequality at the
University. The justice that we
seek is one that moves toward
raising the consciousness of
our
community
members,
re-evaluating the purpose of
higher education as one not
geared
toward
maximizing
one’s earning potential or access
to pleasure, but toward building
a civically engaged community
that has an expressed interest
in the ethics that govern how
we should relate to one another
across difference.
In solidarity,
Critical Ethnic & Asian/
Pacific
Islander
American
Studies
Graduate
Student
Group
Asian/Pacific
Islander
American Studies Faculty
United
Asian
American
Organizations Executive Board
To love Simon, to need Simon
JOEL DANIELWITZ | COLUMN
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Joel Danilewitz can be reached at
joeldan@umich.edu.
Be careful what you wear
CARLI COSENZA | COLUMN
I
f you’ve been out and about
in the past couple of years,
chances are you’ve come
across some form of “Reagan-Bush
’84” apparel. Whether it’s a hat,
laptop sticker or shirt, the vintage
campaign logo has made a revival
in mainstream fashion today. The
design, which originally was used
during
then-President
Ronald
Reagan and then-Vice President
George H.W. Bush’s campaign (and
their re-election), has re-emerged
today with the idea in mind to
“commemorate the dominance of
Reagan’s conservatism.” Apparel
can be bought just about anywhere,
from Amazon to Etsy, where the
items are so popular that they are
listed among the sites’ best sellers.
The unique aspect of the
Reagan-Bush
’84
logo
is
its
appeal not only among today’s
conservatives, but its popularity
in modern fashion. The design is
often worn as a “retro look.” It is
described by Amazon sellers as
“funny vintage retro style” and
“lighthearted, nostalgic parody
appeal.” However, I can’t help but
wonder if fashion, and consumers,
are
missing
the
mark
here.
Specifically, I wonder if today’s
buyers are actually aware of the
policies enacted during Reagan’s
time as president of the United
States. I want to take a moment
to address the harmful impact
that Reagan’s racially-motivated
policies had on the civil rights
movement and particularly the
lives of Black Americans. Fashion
or not, the words that we wear
carry a message — are we aware
of the racist policies behind the
Reagan-Bush ’84 logo? Maybe
if more people were, the trend
wouldn’t be so popular.
Reagan’s
presidency
lasted
from 1981 until 1989. During his
time in office, he was able to launch
an attack on the civil rights agenda
that should be enough reason alone
for modern consumers to stop
wearing their support for him.
Let’s take a look at some of his most
damaging racist policies:
1)
Through
his
rhetoric,
Reagan supported racism with
remarks that characterized poor,
Black women as “welfare queens”
who “drove pink Cadillacs.” Not
only are these statements seriously
offensive, but they are also just
plainly,
embarrassingly
wrong.
There are 52 million Americans on
welfare, according to a 2012 census
bureau study, and many of them are
children who can’t even drive a car,
let alone a “pink Cadillac.”
2) President Reagan sought to
limit the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
which aimed to overcome legal
barriers at the state and local level
that prevented African Americans
from exercising their right to vote
under the 15th Amendment. He
vetoed reforms on the act, labeling
it as “humiliating” to the South.
3) One of Reagan’s campaign
promises was for less government
intervention. Apparently, he sought
to accomplish this goal through
racist means. For example, he
slashed important programs such
as the Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act, which “provided
needed assistance to Black people.”
4) Despite being remembered
as the president who made Martin
Luther King Jr. Day a federal
holiday, Reagan should also be
remembered as someone who
continuously
questioned
the
integrity of civil rights leaders. He
stated, “Sometimes I wonder if they
really mean what they say, because
some of those leaders are doing
very well leading organizations
based on keeping alive the feeling
that they’re victims of prejudice.”
Did he really suggest that racially-
based prejudice doesn’t exist?
That’s not an idea that we should
be proudly representing on our
clothing today.
5) Reagan tried to allow Bob
Jones University, a historically
segregated Southern school, to
reclaim federal tax credits that
had long been denied to “racially
discriminatory institutions.” So,
his standpoint on institutionalized
racism is pretty clear: He not only
did nothing to stop it, but actually
attempted to perpetuate it, at least
in this case.
6) In an effort to silence the
voices of Black workers, Reagan
ordered the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to shelve discrimination
claims by Black farmers.
7) And, as if all of the above
behavior doesn’t seem troubling
enough,
Reagan
considered
apartheid South Africa a “friend
and an ally.” He even permitted
American corporate support for
the racist regime. In 1981, after
pressure from Black leaders and
organizations, Congress passed
a bill of sanctions against South
Africa. Reagan vetoed that.
The list could go on and on,
but this would be a much longer
piece in that case. But by now, it
should be pretty clear: Many of the
policies under Reagan were very,
very racist. His agenda was not to
support the civil rights movement,
but to attack its participants and
limit its success.
Personally, I am unable to see
past the reality of Reagan’s damaging
policies in the name of “retro”
fashion. There is nothing wrong with
wearing what you want to wear and
everyone should have the freedom to
do so. But as conscious consumers, we
have to look at the bigger picture. As
modern philosopher Lars Svendsen
puts it, fashion is “one of the most
influential phenomena in Western
civilization since the renaissance.”
So, if you choose to wear a Reagan-
Bush ’84 shirt, what are you
representing? If you knew more
about the racist policies behind the
Reagan administration, would you
continue to wear a shirt promoting
his presidential candidacy?
I would hope that the popularity
of the Reagan-Bush ’84 logo is due to
the modern consumer’s ignorance
about Reagan’s racist policies, rather
than in support of them. If we want
any chance at confronting modern-
day racism, we should stop endorsing
the racist policies of the past and
pick a new fashion trend.
Carli Cosenza can be reached at
carlic@umich.edu.
Protecting global human rights
AUDREY GILMOUR | OP-ED
N
othing
summons
up
visions
of
Valentine’s
Day like roses, a box
of chocolates or a roundtable on
international law and justice. On
Feb. 14, the University of Michigan
International
Institute
hosted
a roundtable to commemorate
the closing of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia in 2017 after 24 years
of
international
justice.
This
roundtable event looked at whether
the future of international law
and justice is brighter due to the
ICTY. I agree with Law professor
Steven Ratner, who claimed that
instead of seeing the glass as half
full or half empty, the glass is only
5 percent full.
The ICTY was established by
the United Nations Security Council
in 1993 following the outbreak of
violence and conflict in the former
Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. The
mission of the ICTY was to try
and prosecute those involved in
committing human rights atrocities
such as genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes.
Some
of
the
University’s
brightest minds in human rights and
international law gathered on the
10th floor of Weiser Hall to discuss
the successes and failures of the
ICTY and the future of international
justice. Among these experts were
John Ciorciari, associate professor
of Public Policy, research associate
Robert Donia and Ratner, joined by
Dermot Groome, a law professor at
Pennsylvania State University.
Ratner qualified his rather
pessimistic view of a drop of water in
the bottom of the cup by adding that
the ICTY does still have redeeming
qualities. Before the ICTY there was
no glass.
Progress has been made in
international law and justice and the
ICTY is greatly responsible for some
of this progress. Before the ICTY,
the most recent trials prosecuting
war crimes were the Nuremberg
trials and Tokyo War Crimes trials
following World War II. Like Ratner
said at the panel on Wednesday,
without the ICTY, it would still
be considered acceptable to grant
amnesty to human rights criminals.
This is no small accomplishment.
However, the ICTY did not
accomplish its long-term and most
important goal of preventing future
human rights crimes. The ICTY was
not able to deter actors in the Balkan
Wars from committing war crimes
and human rights violations in the
eight years following its creation.
Bosnian Serbs murdered thousands
of Muslims in the Srebrenica
Massacre of 1995. Even those
being held directly accountable in
the ICTY were not deterred from
committing these crimes. There
was never a hope of it deterring
actors around the world from doing
the same.
Today, we still see mass
atrocities throughout the world.
In Syria, Bashar al-Assad has used
chemical weapons and barrel bombs
against civilian populations. The
Rohingya are being discriminated
against and driven from their homes
in Myanmar, leading to over half a
million Rohingya refugees. Human
rights violations and war crimes are
being committed daily around the
globe with no perceived effect from
the ICTY.
In
1948,
the
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights was
recognized as the global standard
by the United Nations, yet to this
day we continue to see its principles
of equality and security ignored.
While we live in a world where the
human rights of a single person
are violated, the United Nations
cannot consider itself successful in
protecting the human rights of the
global community.
The ICTY was not enough to
establish a standard of respect for
human rights in the global context.
It is the United Nations’s and every
world leader’s responsibility to
hold their allies and enemies to the
UDHR in all their actions and punish
those that do not with international
pressure and sanctions.
Audrey Gilmour is an LSA junior.
JOEL
DANIELWITZ