Commentary: On Blackface

On September 28, 2018, I submitted a picture here to Banned of an incident that happened at Ambassador College back in the 1950s - of four early Students at the College who were wearing heavy blackface in a Quartet parody. 

Here are the comments that came on the board: Emphasis/bolding is mine:

" let's not go overboard."

" It was simply a different mindset than we find today."

"blackface in its heyday was morally neutral; "

" we can only speculate as to whether these students were honoring or mocking Black America. "

" There does seem to be an element of respect involved,mwhich is probably why this custom has been allowed to continue, while acting in blackface has fallen into disfavor."

"A different era. "

"Blackface, like cross dressing, was once used in theater as a form of comedy. Obviously, times have changed"

"Personally I don’t care what color you are and if you paint yourself a color of another race! Just like I don’t care if you wear a burqa or hoody or turban or dress or kilt or whatever! It’s your choice. I think context is important though. "

"And so if Americans find something “offensive” in Australia or Sweden or wherever it’ll spark “controversy” even though the context like our history or social and cultural attitudes is completely different to yours. For example Mark Knight’s recent cartoon of Serena Williams caused “offense” to some Americans online even though Knight’s reasons for his depiction of Williams and Osaka were completely satisfactory and not racist or sexist at all imho"

........

Addendum: The Governor of Virginia has recanted his admission to being the person in the photo which appeared on his Yearbook Page. Therefore, it cannot be stated definitively that this was the Governor of Virginia in the controversial photo. This does not make the photo - or any photo such as this - any less revolting and racist.

The overwhelming consensus of the comments seemed to indicate that, at least among the COG crowd, that the "Blackface incident" at Ambassador College back in the day was really not that big of a deal. 

Currently, at the time of this writing, there is a large controversy with Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who recently was discovered in a college yearbook at 25 years of age wearing blackface in 1984. This was the impetus that has caused me to write this article tonight. The similarities were/are glaring. 

  There is tremendous outrage that this happened with the Virginia Governor- because the person - back in 1984 who was 25 years of age - became Governor of Virginia. The consensus of the majority of the governing bodies of North Carolina are not giving Ralph a pass over the situation, and neither are the majority of the citizens of the United States of America. 

Regardless of whether the Blackface happened in 1957 with Ambassador College - or in 1984 with the Governor of Virginia - it was racist, it was unacceptable, it was wrong, regardless of the time and of the place. Yet, when I look back at the comments that followed my original photo that was sent back in September - and the "apathy" or "acceptance" of such practices at AC - as well as the lack of outrage among the commentators - what does this show? What story does this tell? 

Is it going "overboard" to condemn blackface by a religious college back in 1957? 

Is it acceptable that it was once a "form of comedy" and that it was simply a "different era" or "different mindset"? Are we excusing the behavior because of cultural reasons? 

Has blackface ever been an "element of respect"? Ever? Is this even outrageous to even suggest this? 

Is blackface "morally neutral"? Has it EVER been "morally neutral"?

And then there was this comment, which I will repeat again: 

"Personally I don’t care what color you are and if you paint yourself a color of another race! "

Is this the general state of mind and opinion of a majority of the ex-members OR current members of the Churches of God? Is there such an apathy to racism and such an acceptance of blatant racism that people are simply neutralized emotionally to racism within the Churches of God? Is it OK not to care? 

Personally, when I first saw the comments when they first came out, I was appalled, but I did not re-strike the conversation - until tonight. Because it needs to be brought up back into context in the Churches of God. 

It does not matter that this happened in the 1950s when culturally, for a myriad of reasons, there was an abundance of racist activity. It does not excuse the Church for practicing blackface, nor does it excuse any other group at the time for practicing blackface. At this period of time, racist activities including segregation and outright discrimination were widespread within the world and within the Church, as has been recorded in history and reported by this blog over and over again. The Chicago South congregation was especially created for the enforcement of racism within the Church, and racist policies and procedures were widespread within the structure of the Church in nearly every aspect of life, and was widely enabled by Herbert Armstrong - especially because of the racist doctrine of British Israelism which was the foundation of the culture of racism within the Church - a culture of white superiority under the supposed backing of the United States and Britain in Prophecy, supposedly God giving the anglo-Israelites favor over all other races, and the "inferiors" of the anglo-Israelites relegated back to whence they came forth from. 

Perhaps with that background, it should not have surprised me of the apparent apathy and ho-hum, whatever, no-big deal attitudes of those who saw the picture of the Blackface incident at Ambassador College. Perhaps it should have been expected. It does not change, however, the fact of the matter that the racist attitudes of the 1950s were wrong, worldwide, and in the Church. It does not change the fact that racial discrimination within the Church - and segregationist doctrines within the Church - were inappropriate and unchristian in every stretch of the word. It was just as wrong then as we have all come to understand how wrong it is now. 

When we look back at the history of the Church, and we see examples of blatant, intentional, unabashed racism within the Church, when we look at the clear white supremacy that was fully enabled within the Church clear up to doctrines of coming segregation in "The World Tomorrow". when we see the clear attitudes of lethargy when it comes to racism then, and apparently, in some cases, even now, it should be a wake-up call. A wake-up call that extends beyond the membership or ex-membership of the Churches of God, a wake-up call that extends beyond even the Governor of Virginia- but a wake-up call that acceptance of stereotyping culture or racist behavior in any form cannot be acceptable in any way, shape or form. The attitudes that were fostered by Herbert Armstrong - a clearly documented pro-porter of racist doctrines and policies and enabler of racist propaganda - only serve to perpetuate an attitude that is by no means morally neutral, but wholly and categorically unacceptable in a morally conscious generation - especially in the society of organized religion. 

This picture deserves only condemnation, not rationalization. It's appalling that the response was as lethargic as it was - but I should not have been surprised. This is the culture that we all were told was normal and acceptable. 

And for some, probably still is. 

These opinions belong solely to the author, SHT