Identities, not costumes
Halloween’s a time of year to forget about life, let loose and dress up as someone other than yourself. While the activities we embark on each year change as we get older, the big question remains the same: “What do I dress up as?” (back to story...)
Discuss this story (32 comments)
All discussions are moderated. Please see our full comment policy for details.
Before I get to my point, I admit that blackface (based on the little I know of it from your article and a quick google search) does seem racist to me. It seems to be caricaturing racial features of black people, which is obviously racist and intolerable.
What rubbed me the wrong way with your article was how you were advocating against caricaturing cultures as well, and considered it synonymous with race caricaturisation.
I personally would take absolutely no offence if someone dressed up as a "Canadian", complete with beaver cap on his or her head, a toque hanging out of her or his bag, a beer in one hand, hockey stick in the other, and saying things like "so where's the maple syrup, eh?" and "eh? what are you talking aboot? oh, sorry." or maybe even "I'll drive right over, just let me grab my zamboni".
This hallowe'en, I'm dressing up as a pirate, and yes, as a stereotypical one too. If I wanted to dress up as a traditional aboriginal warrior (complete with snowshoes and feather headdress), then I think that this should be fine as well. Surely you see nothing wrong with dressing up as a medieval knight, a King, or as a nun.
Stereotypes are a large part of hallowe'en, and provided that these stereotypes are not harmful, racial stereotypes, and provided that everyone realises that these are indeed stereotypes, than there should be nothing wrong with that.
--
Jesse
PS. I hope your juice box is taller than it is wide, complete with the bendy-straw, sticky juice dripping down the side, and the leftover glue on the front from where the straw was packaged.
Jesse,
The problem is that Canadians are not just of French or British decent. So when you say, dress up like a Canadian that means a lot of different things. I would argue the costume you'd be talking about would be more towards 'British/French... Explorer/Colonialist/Colonizer' ect.
The issue I think Ken et. al were trying to underscore, especially with aboriginal/ 'indian' costumes, is that because so many people are out of touch with these issues having people mimic a culture they don't understand or worse boiling hundreds of cultures into a 'indian outfit' is problematic.
When you say aboriginal warrior? From what Nation are you imagining in particular? Personally, I would not know the difference between one Nation's regalia to another. And from what little I understand, regalia is a huge part of culture for most aboriginal cultures. I would argue its plainly disrespectful to even attempt an aboriginal warrior costume because of the lack of history and knowledge and culture behind it.
As for dressing as Knight. We learn a lot about medieval Europe in school from a young age in Canada. Our Canadian history, for the most part, only focuses on the European part. Most history books don't describe colonizers as invaders. So when we talk about dressing like Knights or Kings ect I would argue that there is respect paid elsewhere to that history and that culture.
In my education I didn't find much information on aboriginal cultures or current issues. I was never taught about different nations, their histories, their perspective. Residential schools were a sad fact... but the lasting impact was never discussed, for example.
Because aboriginal history and culture... a huge part of Canadian history... is so often ignored and because of the prevailing issues facing Aboriginal people in Canada...i feel wearing a half-baked (at best) attempt at a snap shot of culture really problematic and insulting.
I support your opinion piece 100% - well done QCRED!
A Canadian, pirate, medieval knight, nun and juice box don't directly have race attached to them. And none of those costumes have a history of discrimination and violence that still lives on today. (Noting that Canada obviosuly has discrimination and violence but I would argue Canadians as a group have not experienced it due to the fact that they were Canadians).
Racial stereotypes are harmful because people aren't so quick to see stereotypes for just silly representations without meaning. These stereotypes have meaning, and we know this because they have not changed throughout time. Without active interaction with cultures and peoples that you do not identity with, stereotypes are the only thing you have to go on and people will use them to define others who are different from them.
Ken, I think you've made a great point in saying that the ability to put on and take off these racial identies is deeply privileged and I hope people reading your article really think that through. Great Article! Happy Halloween!
Jesse,
The main difference between dressing as a "Canadian" and dressing as an "Aboriginal Warrior" is the social impact. Making fun of "Canadians" doesn't cause any harm (unless some Canadians don't like hockey, maple, etc.). Making fun of or caricaturing Aboriginal people helps to perpetuate stereotypes that historically and presently have real negative consequences. In short: one costume wouldn't cause any harm, whereas the other would contribute to actual social harm. Just because two things seem "the same" doesn't mean they would have the same consequences.
I can always count on QCRED to say the right thing at the right time. Thanks for all your efforts towards making this place breathable, folks. Very articulate and expressing the sentiments of those marginalized by Halloween every year.
Great work Ken and Friends,
This is a discussion that we must have as a campus.
QCRED rocks! :-)
Jeff's points rock! :++)
I rock! :(
I'm a rock...
for halloweeeeeeeeeen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QCRED, thank you so much for this amazing and incredibly timley article. I think it will really make students think...
Have a Safe and Happy Halloween everyone :)
wow the comments are so positive for a change!...
Amazing post! So thrilled to read this article.
Great article QCRED! :)
What I find odd is that SPHR, which does all of its business with the university through QCRED, actively promotes anti-Semitic sterotypes in its demonization of Israel. Are Jews not worthy of protection from racialized Othering? Or are they free game because the campus left sees them as a 'priveliged' group?
So, if I were white and I wanted to go as Obama for Halloween because he's a political figure (like Nixon, Cretien, Harper, Bush, Mao, Che, and even Hitler, etc) it would be bad form simply because I wasn't black? I'm aware that people may have an issue with me portraying a black man (even if he identifies as white aswell) but, the last time I checked, a cartoonist or political satirist didn't need to share race with a politician to poke a little fun or buzz in on their policies or behaviours. This over-sensitivity needs to seriously end.
I'm completely for understanding the historical relevance of "blackface" but, assuming that dressing as a "public figure" is a matter of race simply because they are of a different race is a matter of ignorance in itself.
Certainly people share a different history but, must we not share a future?
@tiredofthisignorance: I suggest you read this: http://www.kaichang.net/2006/11/the_s...
But the gist of it is:
“Underlying every complaint of 'PC' is the absurd notion that members of dominant mainstream society have been victimized by an arbitrarily hypersensitive prohibition against linguistic and cultural constructions that are considered historical manifestations of bigotry. It’s no coincidence that 'PC'-snivelers are for the most part white men who are essentially saying, 'Who the hell do these marginalized groups think they are to tell me how I should or shouldn’t portray them? I’m not going to say ‘mentally challenged’ when it’s my right to say ‘retard’, goshdarnit there’s only so much abuse I’ll take!'
…
Simply put, the great 'PC' cliché, as commonly deployed in mainstream discourse, is cultural propaganda designed to befuddle and misdirect while defending the current power structure. All politics deal with power relations, and in the debate over America’s alleged climate of 'political correctness', there’s a stark asymmetry of power between the defiant megaphone-wielders who complain of being constrained by humorless hypersensitivity from below, and the under-represented people of color, women, LGBT, disabled, poor, and otherwise marginalized or dispossessed people who have no choice but to absorb the linguistic, cultural, and physical barbs of the ruling class. The former feel psycho-emotionally oppressed by their inability to crack puerile ethnic jokes without criticism; the latter simply are oppressed.”
KEVINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN, your conspiracies are sooooooooooo true. omgggggggggggggggg, i mean, wowzerz.
just look at this crazy message from qcred
http://qcred.org/?p=25
they are such badddd bad people
and you know what 'tired of this ignornace', i'm tired of the ignorance that comes out of your ignorance as ignorance that is blissfully making everyone else ignorant. TOUNGE TWISTER! say that 5 times quickly.
p.s. i just tried, and i feel sooo ignorant.
Kevin,
Your comment about SPHR is absurd. SPHR is an organization concerned with human rights and anti-racism, and takes aim at the Israeli state, as well as the Canadian government's complicity in the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people. SPHR does not, and has never, racialized Jews or Judaism.
How you managed you turn an anti-racism article related to Halloween into a platform to misrepresent Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights is beyond me. Try a bit harder next time, maybe scrounge up some facts to support your claim.
I don't know why I even bothered trying to start a dialogue as it's evident that those who responded to my comment failed to actually comprehend it.
If I'm to understand Vlada's reply, I'm just an ignorant bigot trying to keep the power-structure as it stands because I fail to see the effect it has on minorities (of which I may very well be myself; As you may have noticed I said "If I were white..." ).
My point (which apparently was not clear enough) was that I feel that it's important to separate cases of blatant stereotyping (dressing as "cowboys and indians") and political satire (poking fun at a politician's nuances and policies) because it allows us to better distinguish and discuss issues of race and bias by not enveloping everyone into categories of race first. I won't argue that race isn't part of the individual but, I can argue that there is much about each of us that is not dependent on race.
'Political Correctness' has been a public issue for long enough that we can see the benefit and lacking of it's inception. I think we could all benefit from more dialogue and less term-testing. Does this need further explanation?
Might be easy for some people to separate Obama's identity into him as a political figure and him as an African American....but it certainly is not easy for anyone who is a person of colour, especially because more often than not it is our skin colour that is identified first and foremost. Additionally I don't think political satire directed at policies is the issue, no one will call you a racist for disagreeing with policies in a critical and constructive way...however, i would argue that dressing up in blackface is in no way related to Obama's policies and ,given the historical implications of Blackface, probably not a good idea anyway. If you still think political correctness is term testing, I would challenge you to think critically about why you would even want to say/do some of the things that are deemed "politically incorrect" in the first place. It's not that we want to limit what you can say or do, it's that, if you understood at least a few of the concepts outlined by Vlada and other people on this board, saying/doing politically incorrect things won't even cross your mind.
So then would it be sexist if a man dressed as a woman for Hallowe'en? What about it a woman dressed as a man? And if dressing up in an identity the wearer doesn't hold is "wrong" according to the article's argument, what about those who dress in professions? Is it being derogatory to those who work in the profession to dress in it? Would it then be classist for a university student to dress as a construction worker? Or for someone with a high school education to dress as a professor?
I agree that it is important to be sensitive in dressing for Hallowe'en, I'm just concerned that if you take the argument presented to its logical conclusion, the only costume you could possibly dress in for Hallowe'en would be yourself -- and even that could act to stereotype an identity you hold.
One of the main ideas behind dressing up for Hallowe'en (once we get past dressing up as ghosts to scare away the dead from children, the historic origin of All Hallow's Eve), is for children, and by extension everyone who continues to dress up once they are no longer children, to imagine themselves as something other than they are. This may take the form of the fantastical or the extremely realistic (how many of you were dressed as surgeons or clowns?!). As a child, I once dressed up as a character from my favourite obscure children's book and that degenerated into me calling myself a generic princess about a half and hour into trick or treating because no one knew who I was, even after I explained the whole plot of the book. The problem with this costume was that it was too specific and other people were not able to appreciate it. Once I became the generic princess, other people began to recognize who I was and I probably received more candy than I might have had I stayed Eilonwy for the rest of the evening.
The best costumes are often (though not always) ones which other people are able to recognize. A few years ago, a classmate dressed as the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland and won a costume contest because of her creative use of an oversized top hat. And while her costume was not racist or sexist, the character of the Mad Hatter in Lewis Carroll's beloved children's book is a classist depiction of the mercantile class in Victorian England. Was her costume supporting a negative stereotype? And if so, is any costume idea safe from the potential of being seen by at least one person as being a negative stereotype.
I agree with Matt (see above) that following the arguments of this article, the only safe costume might be one in which you dress up as yourself. This year, must I dress up as a beleaguered 4th year English Student bogged down with 1000 paged Victorian novels and end up explaining my costume all night?
Every week on SNL, Fred Armisen, who is not black, portrarys President Obama. For this impression, his skin is darkened slightly. If I'm understanding this article, then it would seem that SNL is patently racist, and would continue to be racist until such time as a black performer portrays Obama.
Blackface was about more than white people applying black makeup. "Blackface" also refers to the manner in which white actors portrayed black people, namely as simple, cotton-picking, watermelon-eating buffoons. This being the case, one could argue that for a white person to go as President Obama for Halloween would actually be quite a clever, subversive satire of blackface: whereas once white people put on black makeup to portray the black man as buffoon, today a white person puts on black makeup to portrary the black man as President.
Which brings me to the difficulty I think I'm having with QCRED's very thoughtful editorial. Halloween is indeed a time for fun, and satire is a form of fun, but QCRED's analysis doesn't appear to leave any room for satire, or sincere imitation (the highest form of flattery, as the saying goes). It's just "don't dress up as a minority, ever". Is it really that simple? We don't just have to talk about President Obama; what about, say, Will Smith, Tiger Woods or Beyonce? These are some of the most successful, admired people in the world, and yet, were someone to darken their skin in order to portrary them, it seems that the authors of the editorial would have you believe that nothing about the portrayal matters more than the makeup being worn. The fact that Will Smith is the most successful actor in the world matters less than the fact that he is black, and the person who fantasizes about being him is white. In my mind, that sort of analysis seems a lot like "losing the forest for the trees".
Look, if someone goes out for Halloween dressed as an Aboriginal and carries an empty beer bottle as a prop, obviously that's patently racist and shouldn't be tolerated in a civil society. But if a white kid admires Sitting Bull and wants to dress up as him for Halloween, why should that be a problem?
I think one of the key points the authors tries to make is the fact that putting on someone's identity as a costume is not only problematic because the identity is portrayed often in a stereotypical manner, but also the person choosing to don said costume fails to recognize the privilege that they have in being able to put on and take off this identity at will. To contrast, people of colour and other marginalized identities are often the target of such distasteful and stereotypical costumes, but as a person of colour, I don't have the luxury of taking off the associated stereotype as easily as one would with a costume. This only further fuels the very unfortunate misunderstanding of different peoples we already hold as well as force the same marginalized peoples to encounter humourless mockeries of their culture (ie. Indian Princess, Aboriginal Warrior). I think it's important to realize that there is no need to don someone's racial identity specifically in the name of costume authenticity, as the effect on others will far outweigh the benefits (hopefully). I do find it disconcerting that people seem more consumed by the limits to their costume choice than the ill effects of these choices have on your peers.
Thanks Brian K! I think you hit the nail on the head.
LTW: my comment was not specifically about the "limits to costume choice," but more was intended as a comment on the sometimes difficult relationship between the Freedom we have to express ourselves and our Rights against discrimination.
I fully agree with the author's opinion, but can also see why there is so much discontent.
Yes, the modern-day purpose of Halloween is about fun, jokes, and doing whatever it takes to have a good time. Fundamentally, no one is intending to offend/hurt anyone else, but it doesn't change the fact that people will view and see thing regardless of it's original intention (for good and bad).
Three examples:
1. Dressing up as a construction worker will probably offend someone who has friend/family members working in that profession. Sure, there's nothing *wrong* with being a construction worker, but I would have to ask myself the question: why am I choosing this costume? If there are any negative racial/stereotypical implications in my answer, then I probably shouldn't be going in that costume! If my answer is positive then the next thing to consider is: how will this affect others and what am I implying? The point is--any possibility of causing harm/offense *should* outweigh any benefit of anyone's idea of fun and jokes when choosing a Halloween costume. Of course, if you simply do not care then that is another thing altogether :).
2. Dressing up as a 'Canadian'! Hey I'm Canadian. Born Chinese, but am a Canadian Citizen :). So if my American buddy dressed up as a 'Canadian' with hockey stick, beaver hat, and maple syrup in hand, I probably wouldn't be offended; BUT, I'd probably ask: why is it that the word 'Canadian' and it's stereotype doesn't seem to represent me at all. Sorry, I'm not a rabid fan of hockey, don't eat maple syrup too often, and like beavers so I don't want any hat made from any part of them! "Where's your multi-cultural pin damn it!" I would ask. My point here is that although my friend obviously isn't intending to be offensive in any way, it would still unsettle me. I'd wonder: why am I always fighting against the 'Canadian' Stereotype! Even with/amongst friends. Why enable it! GRRRR.
continued in next comment
continued from previous comment
3. I actually think dressing up as Obama is fine because at this point in time President Obama is generally seen as a positive symbol/person. ie. it is very safe to identifying myself with him (even if through a costume) because I believe that the positive effects far outweigh the negative. It'll hopefully shows my appreciation. Obviously after reading the article, I've been proven wrong: I didn't know about Blackface or the implications it carries.
In conclusion: this whole Halloween costume choice is a very subjective thing. The question is: "how sensitive should I be?." I guess it's not about sensitivity. It's really about: what kind of person do YOU want to be? What kind of person will you let yourself be? If you think all is good and you are not bothered then hey! You live with that. So be it :). But hopefully you'll change your mind before you really offend/hurt someone.
This was a long comment and not very articulate, but I really wanted to contribute something! For me personally, it's one step at a time (and sometimes I simply disagree), but hey, it's great to be challenged so that I can at least think about it.
Thanks for reading!
LCW,
Queens Alum from Vancouver
"So then would it be sexist if a man dressed as a woman for Hallowe'en? What about it a woman dressed as a man? And if dressing up in an identity the wearer doesn't hold is "wrong" according to the article's argument..."
Yes matt, according to that logic that would be the case. However, this is the Queen's Coalition Against Racial and Ethnic Discrimination not EQuIP or a similar group. They are discussing the implications of donning cultural or ethnic costumes and why it is problematic.
If you are concerned whether dressing in drag for halloween affects people who identify as transgendered, transsexual, or are drag kings/queens then that would be legitimate. Because they face stigmatization from others based on how they identify, I could see how it could turn their lives and struggles into a joke for a frat boy trying to squeeze into a dress for a laugh.
I don't feel you should critisize QCRED for this article because they don't discuss gender and class in relation to Halloween costumes. They are highlighting a really important issue, and if you want answers on other issues that relate to costumes, seek answers from organizations established for the purpose of education on those issues.
Great Article QCRED!!!!
Gaelen, so do you mean to say that one type of discrimination is more important to acknowledge and address than another?
Are you really saying that it is okay to be sexist so long as you're not racist?
While I understand QCRED's mandates are with respect to racial and ethnic discrimination, I would hope they would support all forms of anti-oppression awareness given the incredible intersectionality of identities.
QCRED does seek to support all forms of anti-oppression within their oragnization, however I don't know if they feel it is their place to publicly comment on issues of sexuality and gender seeing as EQuIP literally stands for Education on Queer Issues Project. They would be much better versed in addressing that complex issue. Because some could argue that dressing in drag actually destigmatizes tabboos of men's sexual and gender identities, where others, may personally find that's not the case.
If this article had addressed this issue I'm sure you would have said they were wrong and it wasn't their place, etc...
Just accept that this is an important article, and maybe next year, if the queer community or the women's empowerment committee feel as though costumes have become an issue they can address it then.
I'm a little late in joining the conversation. Oh well.
While there've been interesting comments on both sides, I think the core issue is still why we dress up for Halloween at all. Our answers will vary, but essentially it's to have fun and to take on another identity. But should our desire to have fun ever take precedence over respecting someone else's identity? Should we be allowed to temporarily borrow another person's culture just for the sake of that one night of fun? Not in this reader's opinion.
If your costume has the potential to hurt or offend a certain group of people, perhaps the answer is to simply wear another costume. As LTW pointed out, we should be caring about the messages that our costumes send out, not the limit on our number of costume choices. @ matt: yes, it's always tricky to find the line between our freedom of expression and our right against discrimination, but if we are expressing ourselves in a way that inadvertently discriminates, it's obvious that we need to find other ways of being expressive. It's always easy to try and argue that because your intentions are harmless, or maybe even good, you are justified in what you are doing. However, consider whether your dressing up as Sitting Bull (because you respect him) truly encompasses his culture and his experiences. I doubt it. Isn't it more likely that your costume will, to the rest of the world and to the Hunkpapa people, simply appear to be an ignorant mockery? Why contribute to an already pervasive problem?
We shouldn't choose costumes that parody any race, profession, or culture. After all, identities are not for us to borrow, misuse, misrepresent, and discard.
"We shouldn't choose costumes that parody any race, profession, or culture. After all, identities are not for us to borrow, misuse, misrepresent, and discard."
And the logical extension of that argument is that we should not dress up, since assuming any identity other than our own is offensive to someone, somewhere. I have no problem with that argument being made, but I do wish the people who are implicitly making it would just come out and say it. But it's a lot easier to imply it than defend it in full, I guess...
Journal comments policy
The comments on this website do not represent the views or opinions of the Queen's Journal, but of the comment-writer alone. Libelous comments and unsubstantiated allegations will not be printed, nor will comments that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, marital status or mental or physical ability. All comments are moderated, and may take up to 24 hours to be posted on this site barring any unforeseen circumstances. The Journal reserves the right to refrain from publishing comments. Comments are not edited for grammar or spelling, or for vulgar language outside of the above restrictions. The Journal respects your privacy. By posting your comments in our feedback forum you give us permission to post and publish your name, city and comments on the Journal website. All submissions must contain the email address of the comment-writer. Thank you for your co-operation.
Kingston
October 30, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.
This Op-Ed was a collaborative effort from more than 10 people. Unfortunately, Journal policy allows only one name to be attached. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge everyone who contributed in the writing and editing of this piece.
On another note, QCRED stands for: Queen's Coalition Against Racial and Ethnic Discrimination.