Black Face/White Face

This entry is dedicated to starting to approach the touchy subject of black face and white face. I’m going to try and not be pandering, didactic or stupid. But obviously I’m writing this & clearly I’m an American white guy that grew up in the suburbs, “Remington Court” actually…and there’s the chance that someone could (rightly) make the argument against me that, well, what does some privileged white kid have to say about black face? I think the aim is to understand, especially in the frame of this election, that there are a lot of racially-charged masks being bandied about.
At the coffeehouse/bookstore venue Housing Works in NYC, I sit typing this at a packed reading for a young black author, ZZ Packer, about a new anthology of Southern fiction.
I think of a former Brown University professor, who was teaching a Faulkner course, a self-identified Southerner, who said one day to the class that Faulkner was all about the question—Have we made progress since the Restoration? Obviously in term of civil rights—yes. But the question isn’t what has changed, but how have things changed?
And what is it when we make outstanding breakthroughs with civil rights, but enter a new age where acceptance comes along with commercial branding? Where people are assimilated to their marketing and polling potential? Where our most “audacious” political ideas are wrapped-up in silly sloganeering?
The inquiry into the image of black face and white face seems particularly a propos on the night of the historic acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination of a black man. Now there is some interestingly, though embarassingly timid, conversations circulating through the media of Obama’s “blackness”. He seems to be the “Huxtable” version of the black man—a light, agreeable, professional, who is successful and non-confrontational. In Michelle Obama’s speech at the Convention, in Kathleen Sibelius’ speech, in Hillary Clinton’s speech, it is almost not even acknowledged that for the first time ever a black man is securing the pressidential nomination. Barack Obama’s candidacy is decidedly “Oprah-esque”: Barack Obama is not a black man, but an Everyman.
Interestingly, the same does not apply to Hillary Clinton and her candidacy. Hillary Clinton is a woman, a mother. This role is not confrontational, but it has been historically undervalued, repressed and removed from power.
And yet the Obama campaign is sure not to address their historic candidacy too much, or be too particular about it.

I address this on this blog because it is not just a political question, but a question of media personae. Ellen Degeneres, the TV star cum Talk Show host, too, received endless flack for her ostentatious and confrontational identity as a gay woman, after her historic coming-out on her hit show in 1997. A few years in the shade, and she comes out again, as a friendly, affable TV Talk Show Host: an Everyman.
This role of the Everyman is symptomatic of our culture—a politically correct occupation of the tongue; an obsessive need to have our pop and political figures be likeable, normal, non-confrontational, like us. Who is “us”? (allow me the grammatical error) It would seem obvious to anyone that the Everyman, which may be indistinguishable from the White Man, is sales revenue, is high numbers, is good ratings. And is it surprising still that a black man secures the Democratic nomination? Isn’t it inevitable? If he’s not really black, but more of an Everyman?
The image-story of the “All-American” family seems to be the one that restores universailty. It stands for reassurance, stability, normality.
And we still stand, somehow, in some way, under the shadow of that image of the smiling, wide-eyed nuclear family from the 1950s.

Also of interest may be this Alessandra Stanley article publish in the Aug 27th, 2008 New York Times Op-Ed section:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/us/politics/27watch.html?ex=1377576000&en=09ea4cba30254a43&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink