And what’s the excuse for hypersensitive whites? No black people have raised a fuss over this, so posters on this board who are heaping criticism on blacks need to reread the damn article.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with what they did. The professor who had a problem with this stunt has unfortunately tainted the image of the very group he was trying to “protect”.
And it’s not like white people can’t grow afros. Bob Ross, Art Garfunkle, and Gabe Kaplan all had nice white-people-fros. Black people made wearing afros hip and cool, but the style is not exclusive to us. As someone who sports a modern day version of an afro, I wish we could all let our naturally curly locks spring free from the confines of chemical and physical restraints. Afro now, afro tomorrow, afro FOREVER.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The racial landscape looks different for us born ten or twenty years after the 60s than it does for those born before. Not to mention geographical differences. One of my favorite examples was when we were forced to watch one of those diversity/anti-racism/anti-sexism/anti-whatever-else videos in senior English back in high school. One of the examples used in the video was asking a black person if they were going to have watermelon for lunch. This got a complete WTF from the entire class (which was only about 15 students, but still) as none of us had ever heard of this stereotype before. Once it was finally explained (by the teacher, as the video assumed that we’d all know exactly what it meant) I think we all broke up laughing as it easily took a spot as one of the dumbest things we had ever heard. We were all 17 or 18, fairly intelligent and knowledgable (this particular English class wasn’t one normally taken by most students) and had never heard this. True, Albuquerque doesn’t have a large black population but that’s somewhat beside my point of that it is possible to go through life without having heard of or even thinking about some stereotype.
I don’t know what it means, but whenever I hear about some “outrage” now I make an almost-default assumption that the people taking outrage are white, especially when it is an “outrage” and not something along the lines of an actual outrage. The next assumption I make is that, if it’s not somebody white, it’s generally the group’s equivalent of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, somebody who tries to make a living as a professional offenderati. When either of these is the case, I am less than impressed.
Along these lines, there was a “racial incident” on campus recently. Apparently, two drunk guys, one black and one white, getting into a fight and yelling slurs at each other is a “racist incident” worthy of getting mass emails from the dean of students and the college president saying how shocked and appalled they were at recent events but not worth enough to bother to mention what the hell they were talking about. It was nearly a week later, when the campus paper finally came out, before I had any idea what the hell had happened. It’s not like I know (or care) about every thing that happens on this campus and I’ll be damned if I can figure out how the race of two people in a fight means anything, especially if it stops at the two people fighting. I’d post the email but I deleted it. Apparently, enough people were outraged for there to be an open forum on it. I wonder if anyone bothered to explain exactly why a fight was such a big deal, especially when there already is a system in place for fighting, underage-drinking, and such.
As for the whole afro thing, I don’t get it. So apparently nobody cared when a percentage of the student body wore afro wigs at home games but as soon as the university president puts one on for a photo with the player it’s a huge outrage. I wonder what would have happened if he’d worn it to a basketball game during the season. Honestly, when I think of afros (which I almost never do, cause I mean it’s a hair style we’re talking about here, not the economy or something) I’m likely to think of something along the lines of Nabeshin and his song in Excel Saga
or funk music groups than I am about any symbolism thirty years ago.
OK, so what we have here is what I would consider a tempest in a teapot. I wouldn’t characterize the president’s actions as offensive personally, but I would say that they demonstrate a lack of sensitivity.
Behavior is contextualized. If a man hangs out with his buddies drinking beer and he lets out a loud belch, nobody cares and an apology is uneccessary. However, there are other situations that warrant one even though the belch itself hasn’t changed in character or intent.
A white person appearing as the school president at an official school function in what is apparently a costume of a black person demonstrates a lack of sensitivity (as well as stupidity).
I think the “black face” reference, while not entirely relevant to today’s world, is still a hot button for some people. “Black face” refers specifically to white people dressing up as black people. That is why the roles are not reversible and analogies to other races do not adequately describe why someone might be offended.
Within the context of the school, it could be that he has offended nobody, but he should have anticipated that someone might be offended and skipped it. Because of his position, the overwhelming whiteness of the school, and the popularity of the basketball team, it’s entirely believable that those who would be offended would be afraid to come forward. A blanket apology is the least he could do.
Not to sound like a disrespectful ass, but seriously, who wouldn’t want watermelon for lunch? That’s some yummy stuff.
Generation gaps are rather interesting. It’ll be curious to see how the next generation will turn out. I mean, will the lines be blurred even more than they are now? So many white kids are tuning in to what passes for “rap” these days. I realize that many blacks aren’t terribly happy about that turn of events, but it’ll be interesting to see how it all turns out. Many of the black artists have embraced the new audience, though many are disturbed by it.
Why? You’re begging the question. Explain why an affectionate homage to a star player is offensive, and try to do so in a way that doesn’t solely amount to, “It’s offensive because someone will take offense,” which could be said of anything.
Are afros inherently silly or controversial? Does this play to a negative physcial stereotype, say the way a shuffling, slack-jawed “lazy negro” caricature would? I don’t think so. Suppose the star player had long blonde hair, tied in a pony-tail. If these wigs had been worn, would that have avoided offense? If so, explain how this is substantially different in any real way.
Does the fact that there seems to be stark absence of offended blacks count for anything, by the way?
furt, I basically agree with your asessment, up to the point where you describe the act as “ill-advised.” Why? Is pandering to silliness really a proper objective? There are still those, I am sure, who would be offended by the fact that there are blacks attending a University at all. Should we be concerned with that sensitivity? That fact that someone will be offended, by itself, is not reason enough to avoid a particular act.
I do not choose to speak for the younger generation. I based my remarks about the younger generation on your statement:
If that statement did not mean that the younger generation finds afros funny and laughable, you might want to explain what it does mean.
You have mischaracterized what I have said. I addressed only the errors of the complaining professors statements. The viewpoint about afros that young people have today does not affect the historical inaccuracies of his statements about the past.
The use of the Victory sign as a peace symbol was the least of their complaints at the time, although some didn’t seem to mind it at all. Some misinterpreted the symbol as “social/political rebellion against the government.” Actually, it was a symbol of peace.
It was racist in those days too, but it didn’t take a genius to figure out why there were so many angry blacks with that attitude. One has only to familiarize himself with the history of oppression to have a basic understanding.
Oh, I think a lot of people are generally ignorant of what really when on in the civil rights movement. No one is trying to force them to relive it. But at SDMB, we do try to fight ignorance wherever we find it.
I am mostly in agreement with you although there is still plenty to be accomplished.
I don’t want to destroy that. What did I say that made you think that I did? I think that everyone wearing the Afro wigs was a cool gesture and a healthy sign!
Furt, are you saying that being white is the equivalent of being anti-black?
I did. It is a hair style worn mostly by black people.
Because white boys wearing 'fros look funny in them, or because some black comedians use them in comedy routines largely as part of a stereotypical '70s funk scenester does not mean that all people of this generation find them laughable on sight.
You mischaracterize what I say, I mischaracterize what you say, it happens. shrugs Sad that the cranky prof is wrong, but like you said - he lived through it, he should know better.
Well, aren’t we glad that we live in a time when the greatest of complaints is about a 40 year old hair style?
… a symbol of peace isn’t a political rebellion against a government’s war? I would certainly qualify the social movement of the '70s as a social reblellion, and one of its primary symbols was the peace sign. In fact, it was so much of a revolution that it completely changed what the symbol meant, from what it was in the previous generation.
A lot of people are generally ignorant of what is going on right in front of them. I’m all for teaching more about the civil rights movement. I’m not for preserving its racism on either side, and that includes its symbols. If a white kid can wear a 'fro and play hip-hop without being racist, that’s an awesome demonstration of how far we’ve all come… Even though he not look as cool as a black man sporting the 'fro.
I wouldn’t read too much import into the whole Presidential apology deal. You know, institutional apologies from college presidents are quite possibly among the most bland of all human communications. From the article linked to in the OP, the “apology” went along the lines of “We like basketball and support our team, I’m sorry if anyone was offended.” This is hardly a hair shirt-wearing, breast-beating kind of apology. This is not President Clinton begging our forgiveness for his Oval Office antics, this is not what’s-his-name, Jimmy Swaggart, crying on TV. This is a guy who had his secretary whip out the form letter apology in between meetings.
On one hand, I can see how it seems ridiculous that in 2004, we have grown adults issuing appeasement apologies for things they aren’t even that apologetic about in the first place. But you know, on the other hand, it’s university culture, and in some ways, it is what it is. Despite working in this field for too many years, I’m still optimistic enough to believe that the downside of maintaining a forum for open dialogue is that some of that dialogue is Just Plain Dumb, but that the benefits of having such a forum for when it’s needed for serious issues outweigh the stupidity that makes it into the media.
I somewhat agree with the poster who pointed out that incidents like this might somehow water down more vital, serious issues related to race. But again, I’m saying this is part of university culture – that someone can voice his opinion, whatever that may be, and someone else will say “okay, I hear you. Thanks for sharing. I didn’t intend to offend you.” It doesn’t always translate well into the larger world (and whether or not university culture should conform more to the larger world is a whole 'nother debate), but it’s fairly intrinsic to the relationship that most universities have between their faculty and their administrations.
Not at all; I’m asking if that’s why some people might find it inappropriate (as Dr. Meehan obviously did). In other words, it is exactly becuase the afro was a symbol of authenticity and pride that a white person appropriating such a symbol could be seen as wrong?
You seem to be missing the whole point of sensitivity. I have likened this incident to a burp. Nothing huge, but still offensive to some. There’s nothing in intrinsic to a burp that makes it offensive or mean spirited or whatever. In some cultures I hear burps are a complement on the cooking. But if one is in a culture that disdains burping then the polite thing to do is to apologize after a burp, not to declare that there’s no real reason to be offended by burps.
I’m not going to try to make the case that a white person wearing an afro wig is offensive because it’s essentially an emotional response. You either feel it or you don’t.
In the company of friends one can do what one pleases, but a public figure at public events occasionally needs to consider others outside of their social circle.
Nope, we assign these properties to objects. Silliness and controversy are not intrinsic in anything.
Nope.
Maybe, maybe not. How hard have you looked? Are you willing say that in fact, that no blacks were offended? Or are you just trying to belittle those that where?
There is a validity to this viewpoint, but it shows absolutely no sensitivity.
This Doper of Color heartily agrees. The very idea of issuing an apology because some white people suggested that some black people might have been offended is mindboggling.
That’s presuming that all white people are anti-black, or anti-black power/pride whatever you want to call it. Clearly, as the president of the college was wearing the wig to honor the accomplishments of the team and its black captain and star, that’s not the case here, and therefore, that reason for taking offense does not apply.
A lack of sensitivity to what? The ability and willingness of the PC police to create controversy where none naturally exists and assign motives to people from afar without context or contemplation of the realities in which their actions were carried out? If that’s what he lacked sensitivity towards, then I say good on him. We all need to drop all sensitivity to such people. They don’t create solutions, they cause problems. They need to be shamed out of their mindset by means of societal silent treatment.
Are you saying that by donning the symbol of pride in his school’s team and its star, the president of the university was being inconsiderate of someone? Or that he should have considered the possibility of someone, somewhere being offended and modified his actions on the grounds that avoiding that possibility was more important than showing his support in the manner which had become prevalent on the campus?
You’re talking about my friends here and I don’t agree. You’ve taken it a step beyond just wearing the afro, you actually want to shame people out of their views. You seem to have your own police-like attitudes.
I think this thread is an interesting one… despite the general view that the SDMB is left-leaning, and despite the conventional wisdome that left = PC, there is basically no one who is actually offended by this, and only one person who has any reservations at all, which are of the “other people might find it offensive” variety.
Proving once again that PC exists primarily as a boogeyman these days. Albeit a boogeyman who self-perpetuates due to people fearing the boogeyman, in a kind of vicious circle.
(By the way, you all are forgetting an important hairstyle variant, the Jew-Fro)
Yes and no. In some places it’s very real. Let’s put it this way: I thought about writing a letter to the editor, signed with my name, criticizing the professor. I didn’t and instead opted to discuss it anonymously on a message board, and consider that to be a very wise career move.
Interesting. And yet many at this board seem unable to comprehend that a student might feel uncomfortable expressing an opposing viewpoint and signing their name to it.
Can you imagine at a mostly white school in the deep south that there might be some sort of pressure not to make any noise?
Let me highlight the sections of the professor’s letter you conveniently left out:
Ok so there were some protestors. Who were they? What did they do?
Also the professor seems to be saying much of the commentary felt that the actions were OK. I hardly see an air of PC thuggery here.
So apparently central florida isn’t some kind of race relations mecca where everybody just gets along and even innocent tomfoolery can always be regarded as such. That’s what I suspected from the outset, but it’s nice to get a bird’s eye view from this professor.
On good faith, I thought you were abreviating his quotes for brevity, but clearly you were trying to present his arguments in a vacuum to the benefit of your case. How pathetic. And you almost got away with it.
After looking over some letters to the editor in the school paper, I can tell you that the climate appears considerably less “PC” than my school. If such a thing had happened at my school (although it obviously wouldn’t) there would have been droves of students protesting for the president’s removal within a week.
Really all that happened was someone wrote a letter to the editor and the president issued a rather mild apology. All in all, a reasonable reaction to a tepid controversy. I don’t see PC thugs here.
far_born, I don’t know why you seem to have a hard-on for me. I started this thread asking for people to give their opinions exactly because I was open to the “minorities may think it’s wrong and just aren’t saying it” theory and wanted to get input.
As I said before, I think there were some other professors that complained; AFAIK Meehan is still the only person who has complained publicly. If campus african-american groups say something, I will update this thread.
Is the fact that Florida is in the deep south not self-evident? Did I ever say or even imply that it was a ‘race relations mecca’? I went out of my way to provide the school’s demographics, and I said there have been no recent racial tensions on campus because AFAIK it is true. I would have thought it absurd to say “Florida is in the south, a region with a heritage of racial discrimination.” Should I point out that Meehan neglected to mention slavery?
Gosh, yes. I was undone because you followed the links which I provided. :rolleyes: I couldn’t post any more because of copyright regulations. (Y’know, SDMB policy?)Your insinuation that I was attempting to deceive is absurd and frankly insulting.
“P.C. thugs” was not my term; hence the quotation marks. I included it as a way of indicating that there seems to be some backlash from the student body on this. I do not endorse it nor use it. In response to MaxtheVool, I said that in some places, “PC” can be a real phenomonon. No more.
I did not start this thread to bitch; as I stated in the OP, I was honestly wanting to know how many people thought that there was something here that I wasn’t seeing, and you have registered your vote. I honestly thank you for that; but I do not appreciate your questioning my integrity. Biggirl, pizzabrat … you out there?
shrugs Sad that the cranky prof is wrong, but like you said - he lived through it, he should know better.
Is the fact that Florida is in the deep south not self-evident? Did I ever say or even imply that it was a ‘race relations mecca’? I went out of my way to provide the school’s demographics, and I said there have been no recent racial tensions on campus because AFAIK it is true. I would have thought it absurd to say “Florida is in the south, a region with a heritage of racial discrimination.” Should I point out that Meehan neglected to mention slavery?
