Wilfrid Laurier students in "blackface" at carnival

from the article

quote:

---

[b]Claims were made that although the Scottish team wore kilts and the Euros wore tight T-shirts, no one complained about them. [/b]

---

Were the people making these "claims" sober at the time?

quote:

---

Students dressed in blackface far from ‘harmless'

"Borat would have approved" was the eye-catching headline in the Globe and Mail, summing up Wilfrid Laurier's annual cultural winter carnival gone racist.

---

This from York University's Excalibur newspaper site.Except they shouldnt talk all smug:

>>since the York Federation of Students approved Borat. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] Thats right, the racist movie"film" was shown at York events on Feb.23rd
The hilarious taglines "We like" etc,were used in advertising the screening, and no commentary was provided by anyone.

Doesnt seem like a far stretch to call hypocrisy on that one...

Is this the place where it's necessary to point out that Sacha Baron Cohen made "Borat" as an ATTACK on bigotry?

These Laurier creeps sound like the U.S. frat boys that Cohen skewered with their own words in "Borat" who later claimed that Cohen GOT THEM DRUNK AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THEM?

(Yes, that's U.S. FRAT BOYS making the above claim, for all you sledgehammer irony fans out there.)

The simple fact is this what these kids did was wrong.

As for Cohen, Borat was made as an attack on bigotry and the movie as a whole moved towards that point regardless of individual scenes.

quote:

---

[b]Were these frat boys going to make millions of $$ on black people's misery?[/b]

---

.

In the U.S., it's entirely possible that they could make millions of dollars out of inflicting misery on the powerless. Don't sell OUR drunk frat boys short.

The ones in "Borat" were identified, both there and in subsequent news articles, as frat boys. I can't speak for the Laurier assholes, but they'd have likely fit in just fine in any U.S. frat.

Who do you feel are most insulted by the comparison, Legless? The frat boys or the non-frat boys?

Sorry.

The only reason I dealt with Borat at all here was that someone else brought it up in what I felt was an unfair comparison to what the jerks at Laurier were doing. Should've restrained myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Legless-Marine:
[b]

What ignorant assumptions of your own lead you to believe these students were in a Fraternity despite a lack of any indication that this is the case?[/b]

---

The Water Buffaloes, aren't a Fraternity by documentation standards but they basically have the same status as one on the Laurier campus.

quote:

---

Dr Whom: But I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on whether it is ever appropriate for someone to wear black make-up to portray a Black person - a specific person, mind you, not a general stereotype.

---

How did I miss this question so far into the thread?

To answer that, let's look at the word "someone" in your question, Dr Whom, and look at what assumptions there lies within. "Someone" clearly means a non-Black person, and given the context of the new racist phenomenon of white students doing "blackface" and "yellowface" and throwing "ghetto parties" it seems clear that it's white students doing the "-facing".

So, to answer your real question, is it alright for white people to dress up as, who? Eddie Murphy? Colin Powell? Martin Luther King? Sure it's "alright". We certainly can't legislate what dumb, drunk, over-privileged white university students do and I'm certainly not wasting my energy trying to educate a bunch of dumbfucks.

Will they get slammed for being racist fuckwads?

Damn right they will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]So(he asked with understandable dread)do Laurier grads tend to become bigs and wigs in Canadian business and politics?
Can we assume some of these anencephalic wonders will end up in the Cabinet someday?[/b]

---

Lets hope they don't

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]So, to answer your real question, is it alright for white people to dress up as, who? Eddie Murphy? Colin Powell? Martin Luther King? Sure it's "alright". We certainly can't legislate what dumb, drunk, over-privileged white university students do and I'm certainly not wasting my energy trying to educate a bunch of dumbfucks.[/b]

---

I just wish they were drunk at least then I would have felt somewhat better about what they did.

[ 15 March 2007: Message edited by: JayPotts ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]
BTW, legless, why exactly are you so touchy about whether the racist offenders in this story are identified as "frat boys"? I and many other people have had encounters with frat boys on many campuses(campii?)and they have historically been one of the most reactionary and bigoted elements of campus life wherever they existed.
[/b]

---

Reliance on cultural stereotypes to justify faulty judgement is ignorant and intellectually weak.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]
There may be exceptions, but the typical case is similar to an incident I personally experienced on the University of Oregon campus in Eugene in the early 1980's. There were several thousand of us in a protest against U.S. military involvement in Central America. The route of our march took us past "frat row", and I will always remember the site of one frat house where the boys were sitting on the roof, drunk, shirts off, screaming obscenities at us. They'd have sprayed us with beer or urine if they could've done that from the roof.
[/b]

---

You're using anecdotal evidence to validate your prejudice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[b]And btw, Legless, since frat boys almost always grow up to be given money and power, and to wield a dominance they did nothing personally to deserve, why on earth should anybody be sensitive or touch at all about how they are depicted?
[/b]

---

Wow, that was a loaded question. Because I'm feeling magnanimous today, my friend, I'll humor you with a response.

Your sentiments, and the similar sentiments expressed earlier in this thread by your peers are representative of a particular brand of hypocrisy common within the "progressive" activist left: The suspension of critical thought when dealing with an out-group.

Your message itself is a classic example of convoluted, circular, and hate-driven logic: You've spuriously concluded that a particular handful of individuals belong to a "them" group, while criticizing anyone who questions your faulty judgement as defending "Them".

It's very backwards for a subculture that styles itself as an improvement upon the status quo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]I disagree. White frat boys are not, and have never been, an 'out group'. Seems to me you're playing the reverse racism card
[/b]

---

Seems to me that you've mistaken Fraternities for a race.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]and I don't think that is going to go down well.
[/b]

---

Will you be recommending me for re-education?

Okay, the "frat boy" is a bit of a distraction from the thread topic, and a very common way that AR threads get derailed in order to not actually talk about racism.

Just wanted to name that before proceeding with further derailment. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

My take is that LM is naming a "lazy debate tactic" in which an "outsider group", namely frat boys, are stigmatized and stereotyped. I don't mean literal outsiders, because of course they aren't. They're frat boys one day and doctors, lawyers and CEOs the next. But they are an outsider group to lefty-progressive types, which is my read on what LM is saying. As a debate tactic, I actually agree with LM, which is a shocker for the day.

Certainly defending members of fraternities isn't something I spend any time doing, and generalizing and stereotyping about fraternities also doesn't rate high on my "challenge stereotypes priority list".

And, except for the US which has some predominantly Black fraternities, yes, fraternities in Canada and the US are perdominantly white. Certainly the students who thought this kind of party was a good idea were white, regardless of their fraternal connections.

Back to the topic:

I missed this from the OP:

quote:

---

Dr Whom: There were a series of skits and jokes and whatnot and one person played Adam in a skit and put dark makeup on his face. Everyone, Adam most of all, found this hilarious but there was huge fallout among the teachers who thought it was completely inappropriate.

---

POC apply a surprisingly huge amount of contortions and survival mechanisms to avoid alienating white people who are in position to hurt/maim/beat/humiliate/isolate them. I don't fault Adam for his response in the least, and I'm assuming that this was a white-dominated student population. If so, I strongly suspect that he was not truly pleased with this depiction. I, and many friends, have events like that in our histories. To talk about them in adulthood is done in safe company, and through a great deal of pain. I'm glad the teachers intervened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]Okay, the "frat boy" is a bit of a distraction from the thread topic, and a very common way that AR threads get derailed in order to not actually talk about racism.
[/b]

---

It's the deviations that make these discussions interesting. Typically, most threads on Racism are ritualized dialogues with predictable contributions and outcome. Like threads on the Middle East, they are usually little more than re-enactments of that which has already gone before.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]
My take is that LM is naming a "lazy debate tactic" in which an "outsider group", namely frat boys, are stigmatized and stereotyped. I don't mean literal outsiders, because of course they aren't. They're frat boys one day and doctors, lawyers and CEOs the next. But they are an outsider group to lefty-progressive types, which is my read on what LM is saying. As a debate tactic, I actually agree with LM, which is a shocker for the day.
[/b]

---

You have surprised me, BigCityGal, and very pleasantly so. I like being surprised by people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]
Certainly defending members of fraternities isn't something I spend any time doing, and generalizing and stereotyping about fraternities also doesn't rate high on my "challenge stereotypes priority list".
[/b]

---

That's a reasonable stance, all considered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]
And, except for the US which has some predominantly Black fraternities, yes, fraternities in Canada and the US are perdominantly white.
[/b]

---

It's not that simple.

During my University years, my campus-employment brought me in regular contact with many members of the Fraternities. Relationships inevitably developed. These relationships caused me to re-assess my previously held perceptions of Fraternities.

Over the years, I attended many "Frat" parties, made some close friends among them. I came to know their letters, their colors, their rings, their symbols, and some of their "secret" handshakes.

I came to know most of the fraternity folks on campus, if only to say hi (or not in some cases). They came in all shapes and sizes, and although the majority were white, some were not, and I think it's fair to say that the ethnic mix was generally representative of the ethnic mix on campus. A couple had mohawks. In general, fraternity members were of above average looks and musculature - But not always. Most were goal-oriented extroverts - But not always.

To this day, The bedspread I sleep under every night is a gift from a Fraternity friend who brought it back from Persia for me.

As someone who identified with "Counter culture" at the time, it was a fascinating experience to have my own prejudices challenged by experience.

I did not get a sense of priviledge or wealth from most of the fraternity members, nor was it a pre-requisite for joining. If there was money there, it wasn't evident.

For the most part, the Fraternity folk were much like any other, although there was one dynamic among a few of them I didn't care for, and that was a certain smugness. Not many demonstrated this trait, but it was more common among some of the Fraternity members than among non-fraternity folk. I did not care for these folks, but thankfully they were only a small subset of the larger "greek" population.

In regards to comments about "Frat Boys" being predestined to be "doctors, lawyers...": It is easy for me to imagine Fraternity folks being successful in their career pursuits, but not due to any birthright or priviledge, but due to benefitting from the support and mentoring that being in a fraternity offers - Which is one of the most significant reasons/benefits for Joining a fraternity. Simply put, fraternities are generally accessible networks of subcultural nepotism.

Perhaps in previous generations, Fraternities were about blue blood perpetuating blue blood, but such is generally not the case now (Although a few such orgs likely still do exist).

I remember the fraternities did a great deal of charitable fundraising on campus, usually in some kind of festive context. More often than not, the proceeds would go to women's shelters or children's groups, but I'm sure these good works went largely unnoticed outside of campus where they easily came into conflict with preconceptions.

The most curious thing I saw, however, was at non-university parties off campus, where boisterous, loudmouthed young men would be mistakenly identified as being in a fraternity by scorn-filled observers. Prejudices were exercised, confirmed, and perpetuated, despite being incorrect.

Why do I share these things? Because I have had some unique experiences, and it pleases me to shatter ignorant stereotypes.

Perhaps my experiences will help contribute to greater "tolerance" and "understanding": Much vaunted but selectively applied values in these parts.

[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]

No, Papal Bull, I'd have never figured you for a "frat boy type".

OK, not all frat boys are like that. Still, that's a hairsplitting point as far as the events described in this thread are concerned.

My last comment on this is that I find it particularly annoying that not only did Legless insist on dragging this thread miles off the rails with his irrelevant "don't pick on frat boys" filibuster, but he also made the rest of us drag his arguement out of him.

What matters here is that the conduct of the Laurier students was reactionary and racist, not the finer feelings of those who might have felt stereotyped by being compared to the jerks concerned.

2007.