I think you're exactly right.

Blackface has a long history in this country that is inextricably interwoven with racial stereotypes and supposed racial superiority. One couldn't have a real black man in a show, so white men dressed up, very stereotypically, as black men and behaved as very stereotypical black men.

Now, no matter how innocently a naive college student may put on blackface for his rapper Hallowe'en costume, there's just too much historical baggage connected with a white person putting on blackface. No matter how innocently it was done, it is going to offend, and understandably so.

The same just cannot be said for putting on "whiteface." There is no historical precedent for "whiteface" being used as a socially-acceptable form of ridiculing white people. Putting on whiteface, per se, does not necessarily reflect prejudice, nor can one assume that the whiteface will offend, as one can with blackface.

All of that said, the man in question may (I, of course, don't know one way or the other) have been expressing some prejudice through his choice of a Hallowe'en costume, in which case his costume can validly be considered offensive. It would be the underlying motive, though, and not the whiteface itself that should give rise to offense.

Hypos:
What would people think if someone put on yellow face (i.e. asian)?
Or red face? (american indian)

I personally believe that any member of any race has the ability to be racist against an individual, or group of individuals, of another race. Whites can be racists, blacks can be racists, etc. However, I don't feel that this episode at UVa is as much about racism, as perhaps poor judgment. Considering the past incident, the young man most likely knew that his costume would evoke a passionately irate response from many of his peers. However, "black face" is offensive, not because it is a way to imitate blacks, but because it was used historically in minstrel shows as a way to exaggerate the features of blacks that were erroneously thought to be the most unattractive. As far as I know, there have been no events in American history where blacks dressed in white face as a way to degrade whites. There are certain things that are racist in one context, and benign in another. Every culture has sensitive spots, based on their history, that do not apply to another culture.

Was dressing in "white face" wrong? Yes. Was it an act of racism? No.

Also, what do you think about the fact that this was done on a campus that recently had a very high profile blackface incident?

Race is an issue in the U.S. and I wish people would move to actually do something about it instead of engaging in conversations that are more opinion based than factual and progressive. I think the fact that it happened in Virginia @ UVA is interesting. Considering the history of the state and the origins of the university.

a pink polo and a sweater around his shoulders...
 

that's hilarious.

As someone of Asian descent, I think yellowface is kind of insulting. I saw a movie the other day called "The Sleeping Dictionary", where Jessica Alba was playing someone who was half Indonesian, half English. I couldn't stop wondering why they didn't get an actress who was half Southeast Asian in the role, even though Jessica, who is part Hispanic does "pass" as someone who is Eurasian. Several years ago, when Miss Saigon opened on Broadway, many Asian actors were upset that Jonathan Pryce was playing the Engineer, a character that is half French, half Vietnamese. They felt that the role should have been played by someone who was of Asian descent. I believe that every actor in that role since Jonathan Pryce left has been of Asian descent.

Although "yellow" face or "red" face doesn't have the same historical context of blackface, I would still find it rather offensive. To me, it's far worse if a while person does black/red/yellow/whatever face than if someone of another race does white face -- since white people are in a position of power in this country and pretty much always have been.

While there is no historical context for the "whiteface" as a socially acceptable form for ridiculing "white" people I have to imagine that the intent of this student was infact to ridicule "white" people by playing-up the stereotype. So if the intent, based on the discription of the costume, was to mock or ridicule another culture or ethnicity how is that not racist?

Ah so that makes it okay.... :rolleyes:

How does everyone feel about dressing in drag for Halloween?

Girls: Would you be insulted if a guy dressed as a woman?

Boys: Same thing, but the other way around.

Of course, then it's easier to blame them.......

Some of you are beyond ridiculous.

This isn't racism.

It might be funny to some, and it may be stupid to do, but it is not racism.

It always baffles me when someone clearly can't see that line.

Next people will say it's OK to burn crosses and dress in white sheets because it's funny and the history is irrelevant.

But then again, I wouldn't expect much from someone like RACooper who says people call him a racist and anti-semite and mocks people with a history of the Nazis and takes pleasure in death.

-Rudey

I feel that all that's Halloween has become is an excuse for guys to dress up like girls, and an excuse for girls to dress up like sluts.

Without meaning to sound overly (or even mildly) Clintonesque, it depends on how one defines "racism." Dictionary.com gives two definitions: (1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others, and (2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race. By these definitions, a prejudice-induced intent could indeed mean racism, assuming (with regard to the first definition) that it reflects a belief in the superiority of the wearer's race (something that blackface, because of its historical context, cannot help but do).

But some sociologists and the others define racism more restrictively, like the definition given by The Epitome1920 above. Even my 1962 Random House unabridged gives these (and only these) definitions:

1) a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2) a policy of enforcing such asserted right.
3) a system of government or society based upon it.

By these more restrictive definitions, only the societally-"superior" race (that is, the race with the "upper hand") or those who associate with them can be racist. Members of other races can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not racists.

Some may disagree with or not like this more limited definition, but it is nevertheless an accepted definition. Arguably, it is the more long-standing definition as well, with the "looser" definition having arisen from more casual use. That's why in a discussion like this where an important word can have more than one meaning, good communication depends on figuring out exactly what other posters mean by words like "racist" or "racism," rather than assuming they are working with the same definition that we are.

Thus, if the intent of the "Hallowe'ener" was to mock or ridicule white people, he can rightfully be considered a bigot. Whether he could be considered racist or not would depend on whether one is using a more or less expansive definition of "racist."