[Peace-discuss] Regarding the Chief from News-Gazette 11/16/08

Mon Nov 17 17:46:43 CST 2008

Honestly, I think we'd agree a lot if it weren't for the fact that we're trying to have a conversation through an e-mail.

Your words made me feel cornered and things like "touchy aren't we?" simply seem patronizing. I guess, I sent the original e-mail out to peace-discuss because I wanted to make others aware of what I felt was misleading about the news coverage. 

I'm beginning to think that peace-discuss isn't for me.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:11:52 -0600
>From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE at advancenet.net>  
>Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Regarding the *Chief* from News-Gazette 11/16/08  
>To: "'Rachel Storm'" <rstorm2 at illinois.edu>
>
>Touchy aren’t we?  I made no presumptions about your experiences; I did make some assumptions about what you presented as an account.  
>
>First, I gathered from reading your description that the t-shirt was not merely controversial but that it indicated a "true believer" attitude on the part of the wearer of the t-shirt; "Screw Liberals! Save the Chief!" suggests both a belligerent and intolerant attitude on the part of the wearer and an irrational and "closed-minded to change" attitude as well.  This makes me wonder why one (the protesters who engaged the t-shirt wearer or you as a reporter of the incident) would think that such an engagement in a rational conversation, discussion, or even debate would be possible with such a person as the t-shirt wearer. 
>
>Second, I did not assume that you are "naively optimistic;" my statement was that if you (or the other protestors) did think that engaging such a person would be productive and were surprised that it was not, then you were being "naively optimistic." It was not so much an assumption about your character as an opinion expressing my evaluation of your character should you actually have thought that engaging a person wearing such a t-shirt would be productive, lead to a meeting of the minds, would result in actual communication between the parties in question, or have an impact on the person who probably did not see or view a minstrel show or dance as being the same as the Chief as a mascot.
>
>>Furthermore, whether you see it as "naive" or not, I don't believe in "meeting" the pro-chief ralliers with an equal >level of hostility "r-a-c, i-s-t" (since I recognize that for many, the mascot is a "symbol" and not an issue of race at >all), nor do I think it productive to assume that civil dialogue is simply out of the question.
>
>Again, you jumped to conclusions and have not read closely what I wrote.  I did not say that you or anyone else should have met the pro-chief people with hostility or even be confrontational with them (at least in my post, although I might have different personal opinions that would favor such an approach under certain circumstances).  Nor did I preclude the possibility of civil dialog.  What I did write was that I thought it was unproductive to confront or engage in debate persons whose attire or demeanor indicated that they were "true believers" (independent of whether or not the substance of those beliefs are racist or not); I did suggest that it might be a better use of time and more productive to engage those who are less hostile and more open to rational civil discussion, who are capable of distinguishing racist elements in the use of such a mascot and their hurtfulness to others and the use of mascots as symbols which do not have racial components, and who do not see attempts to eliminate racist and ethnic mascots as a conspiracy of those who are promoting political correctness.
>
>>"One could hope that the reporter wrote "students with their faces painted black" because they actually did not notice >that they were actual real black people under the black paint and not merely white students with black paint, which >would indicate that the reporters maybe were not racist themselves."
>
>>"Students with their faces painted black" is bad reporting, either way, and deserves no excuses. And for the record, it >wasn't hard to tell what "real" race the students were. Again, why not form your comments into questions? "Could you >tell those of us who weren't there if the students could have appeared white or whether it was hard to be certain of who >they were under the paint?"
>
>Here, it is entirely possible that I was not as clear as I could have been.  What I intended to say was that one could hope that the reporter wrote "students with their faces painted black" because the reporter was color blind and did not distinguish white from black students but just saw them all as "students."  This would stand in contrast to a racist orientation which would focus on the distinction between the racial groups that the students belong to when reporting on the protest actions of activist students. I was not referring to if it was hard or easy to determine the actual race of the students, if they could or could not recognize the actual races of the people involved.  I disagree with you that a description of "Students with their faces painted black" is bad or inaccurate reporting.  Maybe you would prefer for the reporter to identify each of the students in black face and give their biographical history and characteristics rather than making a general reference to them as students or as being students with their faces painted black.
>
>Why should I form my comments as questions?  I was not concerned with obtaining information to make a factual account of my own of the event; I was focused on addressing what you wrote about the event and the reporting on the event. I could counter your saying that I should have formulated my assertion as questions by saying that maybe you should have given a more thorough and detailed account.  But even if you had, my assertion is not something that is asserted by formulation of questions.  To ask questions would not make any sense with respect to my assertion if I had made the intent of statements clearer than I did.  I take full responsibility for the misunderstanding with respect to what I was suggesting, which was meant as an ironic commentary and hope since I do not think that the reporter is or was color blind.  I do think that the reporter was focused on the fact that they were students under the black paint and not that they were black students wearing black paint as a statement parodying the stereotype of blacks in the same fashion that the Chief parodies Native Americans.  In fact, I would venture to say that the reporter and many of those at the event probably did not get or see the parody.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rachel Storm [mailto:rstorm2 at illinois.edu] 
>Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 3:52 PM
>To: LAURIE SOLOMON
>Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Regarding the *Chief* from News-Gazette 11/16/08
>
>Judging from your reply, Laurie, you- like many others- presume far too much about what went on. Rather than make all sorts of assumptions about my experience, ask me. 
>
>Do I think I can engage in dialogue with someone who chooses to wear clothing that is controversial? Not particularly. Did I? No. (And my quick e-mail was more an attempt to tell fellow activists that the creative protesting of a few was sanitized and purposefully NOT highlighted.) You have no reason to assume that I am "naively optimistic" and you could only answer the question of whether I am or not by inquiring.
>
>Furthermore, whether you see it as "naive" or not, I don't believe in "meeting" the pro-chief ralliers with an equal level of hostility "r-a-c, i-s-t" (since I recognize that for many, the mascot is a "symbol" and not an issue of race at all), nor do I think it productive to assume that civil dialogue is simply out of the question. I could speak more about the difference between when I was protesting with the two friends I was with alone on the corner of First and Kirby; and when we joined the group in front of the assembly hall. Our different tactics proved to create entirely different protest climates. 
>
>[Honestly, I feel like writing this is a waste of time.]
>
>"One could hope that the reporter wrote "students with their faces painted black" because they actually did not notice that they were actual real black people under the black paint and not merely white students with black paint, which would indicate that the reporters maybe were not racist themselves."
>
>"Students with their faces painted black" is bad reporting, either way, and deserves no excuses. And for the record, it wasn't hard to tell what "real" race the students were. Again, why not form your comments into questions? "Could you tell those of us who weren't there if the students could have appeared white or whether it was hard to be certain of who they were under the paint?"
>
>As for the bulk of your comments, I agree. I've thought of all those excuses myself as well. And, yes, they are quite revealing with regards to how conscious and subconscious these things can be.
>
>Rachel
>
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:23:36 -0600
>>From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE at advancenet.net>  
>>Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Regarding the *Chief* from News-Gazette 11/16/08  
>>To: "'Rachel Storm'" <rstorm2 at illinois.edu>
>>
>>>Their political statement was most poignant, in my opinion, as they asked a student wearing a "Screw Liberals! Save the >Chief!" t-shirt to explain how the chief dance is any different from minstrel shows.
>>
>>Did you actually think that someone wearing a t-shirt like that would (a) be someone with whom you could engage in a rational discussion, (b) know or care about the similarities with minstrel shows or even find anything wrong with them,  (c) sees or is willing to minstrel shows or any other racial/ethnic mocking or derogatory representation as being hurtful, slanderous, or insulting, and (d) is capable of understanding anything except power and authority when it is used to sanction them?  If you did, you are being naively optimistic.  To try and change the minds or convince people like is as much of a waste of time and effort as preaching to the choir.  It would seem that the object would be to engage those who you stand a chance of engaging in a rational conversation with and who are not wearing confrontational t-shirts that tell you right from the start that all that will take place will be an unproductive argument.
>>
>>>   I am the student pictured in the DI and two of my friends (* who, too, are white) were pictured. I am disappointed   >   that this picture was chosen as it didn't include people of color
>>
>>I think this indicates how deep racism really is in that the DI photographer probably learned in the journalism classes that he/she took or was taking what was considered the priority shot, what is significant and what editors would want, what to emphasize and focus on, etc. which comprise the values of the journalists work culture that journalism students internalize as part of their socialization process and which reinforce the underlying values and norms of the journalism  profession.  Maybe it is the schools, journalism departments, and professors that should be taken to task for not calling the assumptions of their profession into question, for not teaching their students not to focus (a) on what they can sell to editors that meet their compliance with the establishment's positions, values, and norms, (b) on what reinforces rather than what is critical of the mainstream culture, and/or (c) on what is the safe story or photographic image.
>>
>>On the optimistic side, one could hope that the reporter wrote "students with their faces painted black" because they actually did not notice that they were actual real black people under the black paint and not merely white students with black paint, which would indicate that the reporters maybe were not racist themselves.  It would be too much to assume that most students today - especially those reporters - would actually know and recognize a stereotype for what it is rather than accept such typifications as normal, natural, real characterizations.  Hence for them the Indian and the Asian were probably not people who were dressed stereotypically but people either in costume or wearing their native dress.  Thus, they were neither noteworthy, interesting, newsworthy, unusal, or worth focusing on as presenting a critical irony or as protestors. Moreover, the reporters, as is the case with many of the mainstream ordinary white people and the political/corporate establishment, given their stereotypes, probably expect to find people of color protesting and accept that they may be representing a legitimate racial/ethnic interest so the fact that they are there and protesting is not newsworthy; but when a white person protests for a non-white racial or ethnic cause, that is viewed as unusual and against their alleged racial and ethnic interests; as such, it is noteworthy and newsworthy as a story or illustration of a story that will grab attention.
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Rachel Storm
>>Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:17 PM
>>To: Jan & Durl Kruse; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Regarding the *Chief* from News-Gazette 11/16/08
>>
>>Dear AWAREfriends,
>>   As one of the protesters, I was very disappointed in the new coverage this has received. Naturally, this only supports my growing disdain for the media.
>>   "Students with their faces painted black" were actually two black students and not merely with black face paint, but with BLACKFACE. (They also were with two friends: an Indian woman dressed in a sari and bindi and an Asian student in a karate outfit, also representing their distinctive stereotypes.) Their political statement was most poignant, in my opinion, as they asked a student wearing a "Screw Liberals! Save the Chief!" t-shirt to explain how the chief dance is any different from minstrel shows. 
>
>>   I am the student pictured in the DI and two of my friends (* who, too, are white) were pictured. I am disappointed that this picture was chosen as it didn't include people of color, wasn't an accurate representation of who was there, and especially, failed to highlight those who used creative activism: those wearing their own stereotypes!
>>
>>Grrrr,
>>Rachel
>>
>>---- Original message ----
>>>Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:04:35 -0600
>>>From: Jan  Durl Kruse <jandurl at comcast.net>
>>>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Regarding the *Chief* from News-Gazette 
>>>11/16/08
>>>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>
>>>The dance brought up memories for others, too.
>>>
>>>In a statement released late last week, Robert Warrior, professor and 
>>>director of Native American House and American Indian Studies, said the 
>>>group's students, faculty and staff are "dismayed" about the plans "to 
>>>bring back the university's offensive former mascot."
>>>
>>>"The planned event represents a step backwards in the process of 
>>>changing the climate of intolerance, insensitivity and dehumanization 
>>>that Native American people experience at Illinois," Warrior stated.
>>>"Those who have planned the upcoming event and those who participate in 
>>>it are heading in the wrong direction by promoting a caricature, a 
>>>stereotype and an insult."
>>>
>>>About a dozen protesters – some with signs, a few with their faces 
>>>painted black – stood in a group outside as attendees began to leave 
>>>just after 4:30 p.m. A few police officers waited nearby.
>>>
>>>"At least we were noticed, and that was the whole point," said student 
>>>Vanessa Gutierrez, who rallied with protesters. "It wasn't to change 
>>>things, but things like this are an uphill battle. We're very low in 
>>>minorities, and it's reflective of the people that came here today. So 
>>>our voices are usually invisible."
>>>
>>>More Chief events
>>>
>>>The University of Illinois campus will host two more events during 
>>>which Chief Illiniwek will be discussed:
>>>
>>>— 'What's the Deal with the Chief?'
>>>
>>>Several UI organizations will hold an informal discussion about 
>>>Illiniwek from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Monday in room 314A of the Illini Union, 
>>>1710 W. Green St., U.
>>>
>>>The event will be facilitated by staff from the Asian American Cultural 
>>>Center, Bruce Nesbitt African-American Cultural Center, La Casa 
>>>Cultural Latina, Office of the Dean of Students, Office of Women's 
>>>Programs, and other units from student affairs.
>>>
>>>Light refreshments will be served.
>>>
>>>— 'Do Racial Mascots Honor or Offend? The Legacies of Chief Illiniwek 
>>>and the Pekin Chinks'
>>>
>>>At noon Tuesday the Asian American Cultural Center, 1210 W. Nevada St., 
>>>U, will host another related discussion.
>>>
>>>The program will provide information about the history of mascots, pro 
>>>and anti opinions and their legacies.
>>>
>>>http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/11/16/
>>>large_crowd_gathers_at_assembly_hall_for_chiefs_next_dance
>>>________________
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>International Studies/ Transnational Gender Studies WIMSE Program Assistant Forte International Exchange Local Rep.
>>(630) 677.7219
>>402 S. Race St, Apt. 2
>>Urbana, IL. 61801
>>
>>
>>
>>
>International Studies/ Transnational Gender Studies
>WIMSE Program Assistant
>Forte International Exchange Local Rep.
>(630) 677.7219
>402 S. Race St, Apt. 2
>Urbana, IL. 61801
>
>
>
>
International Studies/ Transnational Gender Studies
WIMSE Program Assistant
Forte International Exchange Local Rep.
(630) 677.7219
402 S. Race St, Apt. 2
Urbana, IL. 61801