opinions // no. 20 theotherpress.ca

Costumed controversy

» When is a costume racist?

Jeffery Gladstone
Contributor

 

has been a year of reflection.
2 O 2 O Specifically, reflections
on what we consider acceptable and
offensive in society. Earlier this year,
there was a reckoning in the television
world for episodes of people portraying
blackface. With the entertainment world
having such a vitriolic reaction to their
previous portrayals of blackface it poses a
question: is all representation of blackface
inappropriate or is there wiggle room?

Why is blackface wrong, but

whiteface, like the Wayans Brothers’ movie
White Chicks or Dave Chappelle on The
Chappelle Show isn't? Some will argue
that whiteface is fine because it’s satire.
However, I don’t believe this argument is
on equal ground because I don’t think a
white person dressing in blackface today
for satirical reasons could do it without
controversy; in fact, this is exactly why the
aforementioned reckoning took place. I
think when it comes to racial issues like
this, we shouldn't have rules where one
thing is acceptable for a specific group
of people and unacceptable for another.
Either it should be acceptable for everyone
or unacceptable for everyone. If we say that
it is fine for everyone to dress as someone
from another race but just not include the

addition of colouring one’s skin, then that
is something I can understand. Leaving it
in the grey where it’s only okay for some
people will just lead to confusion and more
incidences of mistakes and anger.

Some might make the argument that
we look at blackface too critically compared
to other costumes someone might wear. For
example, let’s say at a party a white man is
getting criticized for dressing in blackface
and a person walks by dressed as a white
character, like a Viking. In searching
whether dressing as a Viking was okay,
many sites said it was fine, despite the
fact that the most well-known moniker of
Vikings was that they “raped and pillaged”
communities and were bloodthirsty
warriors. Even if they didn't really do that,
this is a big part of their legacy and image.
Rape is still a serious problem in the world
yet this costume gets a pass, but dressing as
a black celebrity or character is somehow
worse—even if done respectfully and with
positive intentions (e.g., admiration for
the person). I think most people can’t even
imagine how Vikings could have roamed in
our society since they lived so long ago, but
blackface is still considered a very recent
trauma in the last hundred years, so it
needs to be cut on all levels.

I will fully admit that my opinion on
this may not be informed since J] am a white
person commenting on this, and I admit

A worthless symbol

» Retrain your brain to stop craving luxury goods

Alexis Zygan
Contributor

 

espite the cliche about not judging a

book by its cover, judging others is a
part of our unconscious brain chemistry.
The way a person speaks, behaves, and
especially how they dress registers
either a positive or negative response;
this subconscious reaction is why first
impressions matter in situations such as
attending a job interview or meeting a
potential romantic partner fora
first date. The instinct may also
explain why people avert their
eyes from a disheveled individual
on the streets and hold high
regard for a person dressed to
the nines from head-to-toe in
luxury brands—their presentation
signals status. People inherently
care about their image and how
others view them. However,
defining people solely on their
goods is harmful, especially since
greed and vanity are customary
to many. Modern society, under
the capitalist system, preserves
materialism by encouraging
consumers to keep buying. Even
if people do not have the money
for the iconic double G gold Gucci
belt, retailers still find a way (e.g.,
Amazon sells a dupe for $20).

The luxury goods industry is
predicted to grow by nearly $103
billion from 2020 to 2025. During
a pandemic that has impacted

the global economy and led to mass
unemployment, some affluent consumers
still go forward as normal—purchasing
luxury items from household names; out
of touch with middle-class struggles,
well-to-do people buy Rolex watches and
Hermes handbags to flex their wealth on
social media.

“Flex” is a slang term for bragging
and is said to originate from Ice Cube’s
hit single “It Was A Good Day.” The term
skyrocketed to popularity in 2013 and
brought forth “flex culture,” the act of

that my stance is controversial

because pretty much every

article I found not only said it

was wrong, but chastised anyone

who dared to have an opinion

otherwise. But I just cannot

understand why anybody of any

race would ever be offended by

someone dressed as a character

from another ethnic group as

long as they do so respectfully. If

it is someone dressed as a slave,

or dressed as a minstrel show

character, I can understand

why that offends since that is

specifically using a character or

a moment in time that brought

great pain to black people. But

if someone is dressing up as a

fictional character, or a real-

life person, and it’s done out of

appreciation and respect for that person/

character, why is that considered offensive?

There is an debate to be had about cultural

appropriation, but that topic is far too

detailed to cover in this argument.
Blackface gets a lot of hate, but I

believe that if it is someone acting as a

specific character (as long as that character

itself wasn’t specifically designed to

offend), or someone consents to someone

else dressing as them, why should that be

considered offensive or given the label of

flaunting wealth online for validation. Flex
culture is just one of the many negative
impacts of luxury goods on people who
cannot afford the luxury lifestyle. Even
those who can afford these items end

up basing their self-image solely on

their possessions, a slippery slope to a
supercilious egotistical outlook. Many of
these luxury brands are far from ethical;
Louis Vuitton and Fendi received scrutiny
after an investigation uncovered that they
allegedly pay factory workers the same
wage as sweat-shops. Worse still, the

  

 

“racist” blackface? I know the world still
has many areas of injustice but saying

that dressing as a character or figure is
offensive regardless of intent is not going to
solve this problem. We need to stop hyper
fixating on such issues and focus on fixing
the true problems of inequality; maybe

in the future, we will look at dressing in
blackface the same way we look at dressing
as a Viking—just a costume with no intent
to offend.

high-end price and Made-in-lItaly tag in no
way represents sustainability. To prevent
depreciation and protect their status, firms
like Gucci, Chanel, and Burberry burn
unsold items. Other luxury brands, such as
Cartier, purchase back unsold watches to
be destroyed and recycled.

A movement has arisen in response
to vapid materialism that rejects the value
of luxury goods. Many minimalists choose
not to partake in mass consumption and are
often motivated by the promise of financial
stability or reducing debt caused by the
mindless materialism. Some hope to
rewire their brains to no longer seek
external validation from purchasing
goods. Minimalists can be seen as
the antagonists to the bourgeoisie
who spend their money on items
from household luxury brands
Gucci, Versace, and Louis Vuitton.

Even though a Hermes
handbag may signal wealth,
one cannot decipher a person’s
capacity for kindness, empathy,
or wholeheartedness based on
their appearance. It is up to
consumers to become aware of
their subconscious judgements
and get comfortable with the
cognitive dissonance of changing
their thinking to revert from fixed
conclusions that result in jealousy
and arrogance. No amount of
luxury brands can ever turn
someone into a genuinely good
person.

Photo by Arnaldo Fragozo