On the day before the Martin Luther King holiday, a group of students from Clemson University in South Carolina inadvertently stirred up a controversy that now has the attention of the nation's media. Reports indicate that the university received complaints concerning a private party with a "gangsta" theme held off campus by primarily white students who dressed like hip-hop gangsters and drank 40s of malt liquor. One student was even reported arriving in blackface.
Once aware of the outrage that the event had caused, party planners issued a letter of apology stating that persons of any race and type were welcome at the social event and that there was no intention for racial harm. They continued by saying that, "We want everyone to know how sorry we are, and that we are willing to do anything to make things right".
The South Carolina branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People didn't take the matter lightly.
Lonnie Randolph, the chapter's president stated, "We once lynched African-Americans as good fun and humor. We also execute them at a real high rate for fun and humor. We also don't educate them or pay them like we pay others in the community and that's fun and humorous to a lot of people."
My question is, when do the actions of a person or group of persons constitute racism? Many students have attended harmlessly themed social events. From 70s disco to love, lust or piety parties, many of us have attended events like these designed to add fun and excitement to a social gathering but, when does the imitation and emulation of a social segment or historical time period become cause for national controversy.
Surely the organizers of the Clemson ordeal harbored no intent for causing any harm to the reputation of the university and its student body, so where exactly does the blame lie?
Is racism then merely an action? Does the action of one student who appears in blackface hold all the blame for the controversy? Is racism born of intent? Is it propagated by ignorance? Is its seed planted in historical implications or is racism a lethal combination of all these.
Surely, anyone who has knowledge of blackface would ultimately be aware of its historical connotations. Blackface was originally a device created by a comedic white actor for theatre during the late 18th century. Soon after, the practice gained wide use in the entertainment industry as a means to portray African-Americans, however the portrayal was seldom done in a good light and was often the vehicle for humiliation and subjugation. The anatomical features of African-Americans were caricatured through this device thus denigrating African-Americans further and contributing to racial stereotypes that are still prevalent today. As our country moved into the 20th century blackface became regarded as a racist practice and was mostly forsaken in the waxing years of the civil rights movement. In essence there is an entire sordid history that goes hand in hand with blackface and any person who has even the slightest education, which this Clemson student obviously did, would understand the historical context from which it is derived. There is no excuse in this instance for the use of blackface other than pure racism or pure apathy. In either case that one student was truly an embarrassment not only to the university but also any person, white or otherwise, with a sense of honor and dignity.
However, to assert that these parties are wholly racist based solely on the fact that they are themed parties mimicking a subculture embraced by a distinct social segment is to dilute the efficacy of the social vigilance of racial equality. The rap industry has no doubt fostered a tangible, identifiable and reproducible subculture that can be closely represented in form through dress, speech and behavioral patterns. It is a subculture that belongs to everyone. Not every "gansta" is black. Not every rapper, producer or industry mogul is black. Not every hip-hop fan, consumer or member of the industry's sales demographic is black; in fact a very substantial portion of its consumer segment is comprised of affluent suburban white people. Therefore, its reproduction can not be wholly represented without considering the fact that not everyone being emulated is that of African-American decent. It would not be unlike a group of predominantly black students at a university holding a theme party based on the hippy subculture of the 60s. It too was born out of social resistance. It too flourished around a burgeoning music industry. It too was a movement characterized predominantly by persons of a singular race. It too can be reproduced through the device of dress, speech and attention to behavioral patterns. Therefore would it be racist for African-Americans to emulate "hippies" at a theme party in the same manner that white Anglos emulate "gangstas"?
There is no doubt that a line was crossed in Clemson and that the student appearing in blackface was nothing less than an idiot or racially insensitive jerk, but what of the other party goers who wished to mimic the characteristics of a non-exclusive subculture of the rap industry. After all, subcultures do not belong to just one group of people. Culture itself is not subject to exclusive proprietorship anymore than ideology. Both culture and subculture belong to any who embrace it. Were it otherwise, the civil rights movement would have been exclusively championed by blacks; the women's rights movement would have only been fostered by women: child welfare would have no advocates and labor reform would lie solely in the hands of the laborers.
It is my concern that the blanketing of stinging racial accusations such as Randolph's comparisons threatens to compromise the integrity of society's vigilance for equality. By likening the Clemson party as a whole to the lynching and indiscriminant killings of blacks throughout our nation's often lurid history is to severely dilute the integrity of the equal rights movement that continues to this day. As is with any righteous endeavor, in order to successfully root out maliciousness and deviance in society, we must first assure ourselves that in our adamance to fight the good fight we do not consume ourselves with zeal.