Cheerleader Blackface: The Cultural Function of Pretend Shock

By Deputy Editor Thea Lim

Colourface fatigue, I haz it. Who here is tired of reading about blackface? Because I sure am tired of writing about it. And at this point I don’t know what more there is to say.

Well, come to think of it, there was never much to say in the first place. Because here we tend to deal more in the subtle nuances of racism; when something is as out and out wrong as painting yourself black for a lark, you don’t need us to deconstruct it for you.

But I ask this: why is a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader who colourfaced it up as Lil Wayne for Halloween causing so much of a ruckus? It might just be because I live in Texas, but all day Monday I heard reports about white cheerleader Whitney Isleib and her poor choice of costume. The team even received a request from a Texas media outlet for an interview.

News, by definition is (among other things): a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material. This is pretty elementary: there has to be something spectacular about your behaviour for it to make headlines. Simply behaving badly or cluelessly – which Isleib most certainly was – is not enough to get you in the news. You have to behave badly in some kind of unusual way.

But colourface is not unusual. It is reprehensible and grotesque, but it’s not unusual. Who here was out and about on Halloween, and saw some colourface? *raises hand*

So. Why the attention for Isleib’s dressup? Yes, Isleib is sort of a public figure. But that’s just it: she’s only sort of a public figure. I can’t imagine her getting this much attention for anything else. Isleib’s situation is markedly different from biracial colourface on ANTM, Vogue painting white supermodel Lara Stone black, and Harry Connick Jr putting his foot down at Australian blackface. These are all examples of public performances of blackface. Isleib on the other hand was at a private party. Why is this news? Why is it even local Texas news?

A minute ago, I said that in order to get on the news, you have to behave badly in some kind of unusual way. I should correct that: you have to behave badly in some kind of way that is perceived to be unusual. Or further, you have to behave badly in some kind of way that we like to perceive as unusual – regardless of the truth.

Partly Isleib is news because it’s an amusing “quirky” newspiece. Uh oh! Another example of Facebook Fail! And partly Isleib is news because there are still some lucky souls who think that blackface is unusual – clearly they haven’t been following the colourface epidemic.

But I do think that there is something deeper here than just a slow news day. What do we get out of perceiving Isleib’s blackface to be newsworthy or shocking? What cultural function does shock fulfill?

Consider this: violence against women is incredibly common, yet when a serial killer kills multiple women, media outlets go to town. Cases get blown up, and the 24-hour news cycle analyses every grisly detail of an individual case – instead of turning an eye to the broader culture that engenders such violence. And people react with shock and horror – How could this happen here? Can you believe this? – to something that happens every single day, something that is terrifyingly ordinary. Definitely we should report terrible murders. But acting shocked about them is an inappropriate response when violence is such a way of life for us. There is something very hypocritical about shock.

As a culture, we go out of our way to express shocked disapproval, when we want to demonstrate distance between ourselves and some extreme act of hatred. It’s a smokescreen that masks the hatred we carry out everyday.

As a culture, we pay attention to the most heinous – or most clueless – examples of patriarchy and racism in order to ignore the daily insidiousness of oppression and suffering.

We pay attention to Isleib’s stupidly ordinary costume because it allows us to pretend that blackface and all its disturbing connotations are out of the ordinary. But they’re not. While publicly we feign surprise, on anonymous internet message boards people are talking about how awesome Isleib’s costume is.

So again. I’m not saying that what Isleib did is no big deal. It’s just that I hate that it’s news.

–
Incidentally since the writing of this article, some of the news pieces I was looking at of Isleib have disappeared. If you enter “dallas cowboys cheerleader blackface” into Google News, the service tells you that there are 14 related articles. But when you click “More”, there are only 3. Damage control?

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Bonne Vie - Wholestyle on the Web: Week of 11/06/09 on 06 Nov 2009 at 5:32 pm

[...] Racialicious (Thea Lim): Cheerleader Blackface-The Cultural Function of Pretend Shock [...]

Comments

Jeremy wrote:

“We pay attention to Isleib’s stupidly ordinary costume because it allows us to pretend that blackface and all its disturbing connotations are out of the ordinary.”

YES. Well put.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 9:06 am ¶
lauren wrote:

This is such a common, yet sadly very effective way of public disinformation. People (might) question information that is factually false, but not nearly enough people question what information is focused on and what is more or less ignored. And so the media helps those of us who are privileged to live in happy denial of how bad things truly are. This is how myths like the “post-racial” society are created.

I understand that you are tired of the topic, but still, I would love to hear the thoughts of a more knowlegable person on this:
There is a movie comming out in Germany, a documantary by a reporter who is known for trying to “walk in the shoes of” the people whose lives he is reporting about. This particular film deals with the daily racism towards poc, specifically those of African decent, in Germany. And yes, the reporter was “painted” black during a lot of the filming. Unlike the cartoonish versions of blackface, he had professional make-up applied. He was also accopanied by a friend who I believe is from Nigeria, though I am not absolutely sure about this part.

Where does a movie like that stand on the scale of colour-face? Does the fact that it was done with “good intentions” (to show the racism in people’s reactions) make it more acceptable? Does the fact that it was professional make-up?

My initial reaction was that they could have just filmed the friend, who actually is a PoC. But maybe some people will get the message better when it is clear that the racism really is a reaction to nothing but the skin colour? I don’t know what to make of this, and I hae that a film that seems important to me (because there are far to many people in Germany who fall for the racism = Nazis nonsense and argue that there is very little racism left) is based on something so questionable.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 9:22 am ¶
dersk wrote:

Well, it’s news probably because Limbaugh was in the news lately for being shunned by the NFL, so racism and professional football are in people’s minds right now.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 9:27 am ¶
prvlgd cdn wrote:

Also: in the news because its an excuse to show a picture of an attractive, scantilly-clad blonde.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 10:52 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

What? You want the media to ignore this and act like this doesn’t exist?

What are they supposed to do about it, then? Some people will never change. Racism will never disappear.

But the least the media can do, is openly talk about it and express their outrage.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:27 am ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:

I agree with DIMA, but I also see what Thea was trying to say.

I admit when I saw this picture, I rolled my eyes, and sighed deeply. The fact the little simp did it is an indicator that she’s lost and her brain is a lost cause.

We need to continue to teach our kids about all other races and cultures, positively and honestly, so that they can stop this bulls**t once and for all.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶
ieishah wrote:

thea, are we not twitter friends?? i tweeted this exact thing last week… i’m so over caring about who paints their face black.

yes, i totally believe in airing the issues, but at some point we have to freaking ask, to what end?? what this woman needed was for one of her friends to give her a side-eye and a baby wipe. she does NOT need national coverage. and lord forgive me, but neither do we. it’s all blackface all the time these days. and if fear of public exposure were making people not want to black up, it’d be one thing. but it seems people are reveling in the attention. people who think blackface is okay, need someone who knows and loves them, someone they respect in return, to grab them by the collar and shake the shit out of them. metaphorically speaking, of course. front page of the papers is not going to do it. i’m mad i even responded to this post.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:13 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:

@ Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist

Nope, I don’t want the media to cover this. The response that this is news, and that this is something to be shocked and appalled about, is getting us nowhere. Were you really shocked to see these photos of Isleib, after the blackface parade of the past months? A response of surprise and to say that this is news is very hypocritical and hides just how common and regular this is.

@ieishah

No, we are not twitter friends! I will go rectify this now.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:38 pm ¶
method wrote:

Isn’t the function of public disapproval and censure to telegraph the limits of acceptable behavior? Isn’t the effect of seeing somebody semi-prominent transgress a social more and get punished to warn people away from that transgression? Your article seems confused — I see people in colorface and am upset by it, but I don’t want the media to discuss the problem in a superficial way. Shouldn’t the conclusion be more like, looks like we still have to explain blackface to people, so we’re going to need tons more exposure before people become aware of yellowface, exotic “oriental” costumes, etc? You may have fatigue, but most Americans have never seen the Miley Cyrus slant-eye picture, let alone have been educated to see this as offensive rather than “a bit of fun”.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:10 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:

@method

If a media outlet wanted to critique the predominance of blackface in a thoughtful way, I’d be all for it.

But making a news piece out of the fact that some woman went to a Halloween party in blackface is not doing that at all. I question the motives behind turning that into a newspiece, and also the attitude that this is something surprising and interesting.

I don’t think the media are the ones who are going to explain blackface to people. And if the media is going to cover it in a sensationalised way that individualises the action instead of looking at the broader culture, I’d rather they reported on something else.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:21 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:

@method

PS Note that the Miley Cyrus “slant-eye” picture is very different from this situation, because Cyrus is a world-famous celebrity. But who had heard Isleib’s name before yesterday? If a news outlet in your town published pictures of a no-name person making the slant-eye, what would you think?

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:23 pm ¶
Azizi wrote:

I agree with prvlgd cdn and dersk as to why this woman wearing blackface made the news. I very much doubt that the producers of the news show cared about the historical, sociological, and psychological ramifications and impact of blackface.

lauren, you and others may be interested in reading reviews of John Howard Griffin’s book Black Like Me , and particularly the critical review by a poster named Allison (November 2008) .

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42603.Black_Like_Me

I’m not sure how similar the German movie that you referred to will be to that book and to more recent blackface (and blackface/whiteface) books, articles, and filmed docu-dramas. But it seems to me that this technique is getting rather tired-or maybe it’s just that I’m tired of this technique.

I agree with the point you made that the German producers could have just filmed the experiences of a Person of Color rather than a White person in blackface. And, no, I don’t think that “good intentions” absolve the persons involved with this project from what seems to me to be a poor choice. After all, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I don’t care why they do it putting on blackface is disrespectful.

And, for what it’s worth, I’m one of those African Americans who also don’t like look of the Black church mime/dance groups who paint their faces white (and yes, I get that this is supposed to be done so that people can better see the expressions on the mimes’ faces. But it seems to me if we take issues with blackface, we should also take issue with whiteface (except for clowns).

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:32 pm ¶
Aiyo wrote:

Is colour face the new black this is what’s in now right? This is the new fad right now.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 3:26 pm ¶
Irene M. wrote:

Why is Islieb getting so much attention?

Overly Cynical Answer: It’s a great excuse to air pictures of really young looking, blond sexy cheerleader on television. Seriously, I’m sure there are other photos they could have used to demonstrate her normal non-blackface face, but that wouldn’t have been as hot right?

Way Too Optimistic Answer: Islieb, as a Dallas Cowboy’s Cheerleader, is a sort of community representative. The local news is behaving responsibly and calling out her racist behavior.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:12 pm ¶
method wrote:

@Thea Lim, I’m just saying, take it where you can get it. I can see how that can be unsatisfying if you have a higher expectation for the level of discussion. But in terms of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, there is still a practical value in alerting people to the fact that a certain behavior is a transgression by new cultural standards. Arguably, that transmission is the true function of the mass media, for good and ill.

One day you wake up and it’s no longer okay to say that gay people are disgusting in polite company. Where does that come from? It’s like a message propagating through the social medium. Obviously you want people to actually not hate gay people, not to silence those thoughts out of fear of social ostracization, but it’s the foundation for further progress.

In the case of colorface, isn’t the “epidemic” similar to the autism “epidemic” in that people are more likely to to report it nowadays? And not all people; I could be wrong about this, but did people not on the Internet reading blogs take notice of the Miley Cyrus story? Did it even make tabloid news stands? Finally, are you sure that a Dallas cheerleader isn’t a kind of celebrity, especially as they are attached to the franchise?

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:39 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:

I have mixed feelings about this.

While I’m revolted by Blackface in general and was absolutely repulsed by the Vogue spread, I feel somewhat differently about costumes when the person is trying to emulate an actual person or celebrity and not just a generic stereotype (like the horrid “Fat Black Lap Dancer” “Fu Man Chu” “Mexican Bandit” costumes). Then again, I was pissed off when Angelina Jolie played Marianne Pearl in brownface (Sophie Okenedo is by far a more superior actress and would have been perfect for the role; Angelina was cast purely because of her relationship with Pitt at the time).

I would be a hell of a lot more pissed off if this costume was “Hey, I’m a random black hip-hop star/caricature of a Black person.” But it wasn’t; she went as Little Wayne. So maybe context is important? *confused*

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:53 pm ¶
lauren wrote:

I think that this is a problem with all media. By deciding what to report as “news”, the people in charge automatically also decide what is not news-worthy. When there is unproportionally more media focus on the death of Anna Nicole Smith, or the prison stint of Paris Hilton than there ever was on the hundreds of deaths every day in the so called third world countries caused by the consequences of collonialism, or the horrible conditions for inmates who do not have a celebrity status, then the public is given the impression that these things don’t matter. After all, if they did, they would be in the news, right?

This incident is simply the flip side: if it makes the news, it has to be an extraordinary even. So obviously, people in colour face are extremely rare.

It is a sickeningly effective way of misinformation by assigning different, unproportional values to different information

@azizi
Thanks for that link. The comment by Allison really gets at what I also find problematic about this film.

I believe that the reporter, Günter Wallraff, did have good intentions, and that the blackface in the movie is not meant to stereotype and belittle PoCs.

But at the same time, the question one has to ask is, why is there interest in hearing the story of one white man pretending to be black than there is in hearing the voices of the people of colour- both Germans and immigrants who actually live in Germany. If not for the clout Wallgraff already has, would anybody have produced ths movie? If it were only about showing the realities of overt and institutionalized racism in Germany, why did he have to be in front of the cameras at all?

One can not help but wonder hom much of Wallgraffs interest was in furthering his career, getting back into the spotlight.

It is sad that it might very well be true that this movie, simply because it is made by a famous (in hs circles) white man, might reach more white people in Germany than all the voices of all the PoC here together.

I really wish they had gone for the alternative, because I still think this movie really needed to be made.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 5:31 pm ¶
louise wrote:

So can i go in flour-face to events and mock white celebs?????

Whats that?? That’s rude and i cant do that……

one rule for some and other rules for others.

i hated white chicks for the record, i thought it was just another poor showing from the crucially unfunny wayan brothers. i don’t love white-face nor black-face.

It’s lame

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 5:34 pm ¶
Nadra wrote:

I agree with Thea aboqut questioning if an incident like this is newsworthy. I was reading TMZ.com Sunday, and they had a post about Richard Heene (aka Balloon Boy’s dad) having written a driving pamphlet in which he warned readers to beware of the following drivers: “brothers” jamming in their Cadillacs, “Orientals” and “towelheads.” I considered writing something about this but decided not to because why should we care about Heene anyway? He’s already proven himself to be idiotic, and the fact he’s racist matters little considering that people who use racist terminology are omnipresent. The only interesting part about this is that he married a Japanese woman and fathered children with her.
As for whiteface, Azizi, this is something the theater has used for centuries. It was never meant to poke fun of Europeans and render their features grotesque, thereby dehumanizing them. Blackface and whiteface are two completely different animals.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 6:31 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:

I mentioned it in the other thread, but most of my fatigue was in looking at that entire party of people, including POC, who seemed to be cool with all of the mockery/fail going on. That’s frustrating. When your coworker and her partner have blacked it on (famous person or not) for entertainment, and you’re not only going to not say anything, you’re cool enough to take pics with it? Not cool, to ME.

And, honestly, I don’t consider it REAL news, since it clearly hit days after relevance. Just more like the John and Kate-type of news fluff.

I save real ire for Fred Armisen in brownface for Obama. Since he SUCKS as Obama anyway, WTF is the color going to add? But I’ve been beefing about that since he started.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 6:47 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:

So why is there such a minority of people in the Tyra thread who are offended? So, is ANTM worse because it further points how many “regular” viewers don’t understand any outrage behind the shoot?

But, I guess this all just attached to celebrity, and not “our” reactions…?

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 7:00 pm ¶
Azizi wrote:

As for whiteface…., this is something the theater has used for centuries. It was never meant to poke fun of Europeans and render their features grotesque, thereby dehumanizing them. Blackface and whiteface are two completely different animals.

@Nadra, I still don’t like seeing Black mime groups with white facial paint and white gloves. It reminds me of reverse blackface, even though I know something about the history of mime. It’s a gut reaction, not a mental reaction.

I believe that the use of white facial paint by African American mime dance groups is a custom that few people have questioned. But is it really necessary? Are audiences watching these dancers really that interested in watching their facial expressions (which ,presumably, the white paint makes easier to see)?

I think this custom gives ammunition to proponents of blacking up because they can turn around and say “if it’s okay for Black people to paint their faces white, then why can’t we paint our faces black?”

On another forum I post to, supporters of Morris dance groups that “black up” routinely support their right to do so because “Africans paint their faces white” during some traditional ceremonies (though those particular blacking up Morris supporters* never mention which Africans do this and when).

And I’m aware from that forum that there are [still] members of some Morris dance sides in Great Britain who wear blackface and who are adamant that this custom has nothing what so ever to do with minstrelsy or with Black people.

I absolutely don’t agree with position, but I’m sharing it here to alert people that this argument is being vociferously made by some people in Great Britain and elsewhere.

* I hasten to say that there are a number of supporters of Morris dancing on that forum who are very much against the custom of those dancers using black face paint, and who advocate either that those sides (groups) wear no face paint at all, or wear other colors besides black or brown.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 9:02 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:

For a second there I was genuinely frightened. A colleague of mine looked exactly like that cheerleader on Halloween, because his costume was Lil’ Wayne as well. And I can only imagine how flattered that dude is right now, that even the white boys and the white chicks want to look and be like him….I sincerely hope I’m wrong on that- so, so wrong.

Anyway, the media has been so diluted by celebrity and technology that allows us to all be media(AND celebrity), that of course they would make this pathetic girl news, because there’s a need to sensationalize the next this or that. If the news didn’t break it, a blogger or a tweet would have, thus shifting people further and further away from traditional news.

That said, had this story been used to show that even your friendly neighborhood hot(yeah, up for debate) Dallas Cowboys cheerleader can be capable of sickening, racist acts, it would have received my support. But because it is solely a promotional tool, so that the channel can probably link to it on YouTube from the channel’s Twitter and rack up the viewership, it receives nothing but my disdain.

Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 9:20 pm ¶
Martina wrote:

Well, I’m mixed.

I think it depends on what was said and how it was handled.

The Vogue and another case of blackface didn’t make major news as far as I know, but I saw it got a nice if not little, serious talk on the Joy Behar show.

I think it’s good if blackface is shown in the news to point out how disgusting it is (as long as it’s percevied that way), but for anything else, I would be annoyed.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 1:12 am ¶
Bagelsan wrote:

I can see the argument that calling this “news” makes it seem unusual and surprising (when it’s really anything but) and absolves society of its responsibility to address racism, and I tend to agree. I’m a little confused, however, because it seems like often news is reported to *normalize* things; little white girls getting kidnapped and killed is reported on waaay more than any other group, but everyone seems to see that as meaning that *only* little white girls are attacked (instead of seeing it as some weird exception.) Ditto the reporting on boys being molested by priests; people didn’t see that as some weird exception, they just assumed that only boys were molested.

So it seems like reporting isn’t as black-and-white (yes I went there :p) as “anything reported on is unusual automatically.” This doesn’t detract from the argument, I think, but maybe complicates it a bit…

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 3:17 am ¶
IronOxideCorset wrote:

I agree that this shouldn’t be news. Making a no-name Cheerleader who decided to have a ridiculous costume for Halloween adds nothing to the conversation. It ultimately ends in a “Is this racist?” discussion. Those that are privileged as well as unaware ultimately say “no it’s not racist, POC are being overly sensitive” and it ends at that. I would like to see a real dialogue in this country about race before I die. (But I’m not about to hold my breath).

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 4:45 am ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:

I agree with Thea that is not news worth reporting. All it does is normalize, as Bagelsan pointed out, another instance of blackface (which is disturbingly becoming more common as entertainment and what’s worse becoming justified in the name of some BS excuse like artistic expression). And is it just me or are men and women who engage in blackface judged differently by society? The Australian blackface episode received alot of negativity because people saw it as an updated version of blackface minstrel shows from the past (and correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming most past minstrel shows were performed by men, so when the Australian men performed it reminded people too much of those old disgusting shows). With the Vogue modeling shoot, Tyra’s ANTM episode, and now this stupid cheerleader’s getup, most people assume it’s not colorface because it’s not a performance like those minstrel shows of old, plus fashionistas like to use the excuse of it being “an expression of art”. All the media does is sensationalize these stories and leaves the people to come up with excuses for why one form of blackface is offensive but not others based on who performs it (men/women, POC/white) and how it’s done (mock performance of Jackson Five or modeling shoot).

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 7:02 am ¶
Yirssi wrote:

Funny how the “mexicans” in the back of a couple of the pics are not an issue.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 2:05 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:

@ 28 that was part of my point, epic fail all around for a community of people, at a diverse party, and no one is looking askance in the pics? There was so much going on it was amazing.

But it’s a non-issue, I guess, since it was local celeb ignorance, not national tacky show-ignorance.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 5:36 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:

Well said and executed, Thea.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 7:15 pm ¶
BSK wrote:

Halfway through this, I started thinking exactly what you ultimately concluded. This was obviously racist. Those other instances, to many, was not obviously racist. If we denounce the easy, we don’t have to deal with the difficult.

Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 10:11 pm ¶
Bettie wrote:

Quite honestly, I think it makes the news cycle because it is the unspoken desire of the majority. It is the same with serial killers. On a daily basis people think about killing one another. Here is the person who flouts the rules and does it, not in the singular, but en masse. Dark desires are a big part of what is presented to us in the media. I believe that for the 90% that say, “Ain’t this about a bitch” there are 75% who think, “Aw, if only there weren’t such societal constrictions.”

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 9:59 am ¶
9jah wrote:

@Lauren #2:

“But maybe some people will get the message better when it is clear that the racism really is a reaction to nothing but the skin colour? ”

My thought on this is that many white folks don’t seem to accept and respect black opinion as legitimate, an outlook that is itself prejudicial and racist. Basically, white validation (here, a white guy dressing as a black person and assuring white folks that, yes, racism truly is a problem) is often needed concerning things involving black people, where black perspectives should instead be considered and accepted on their merits. Happens all the time. White people are consulted on issues affecting the black community in the US (though this is changing) and it would appear there are virtually no indigenous experts on anything in Africa if one didn’t know better.

Basically, this phenomenon occurs in most instances where black people step into mainstream space. In the context of urban music, it basically took an Eminem to legitimize rap in the mainstream. And suddenly it is taken seriously as a music form.

Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 2:21 pm ¶