A Multicultural Sorority?

[gee_ess]

Okay, I am going to get flamed for this but I just want to throw out there for all to discuss:

Was it is private party? Can people not do what they want to do in private?

I totally understand the whole PC argument and I know that this sorority wants to avoid doing anything unkind, or ruin their reputation,etc, but I have to say, that unless they were parading down Main Street, isn't this a personal choice at a private party?

Some people chose to dress up as Indians and that caracature(sp) was offensive to some. I understand. Where is the outrage over "pimps and ho's" or "redneck" parties?

Let the flaming begin...

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by gee_ess

Okay, I am going to get flamed for this but I just want to throw out there for all to discuss:

Was it is private party? Can people not do what they want to do in private?

I totally understand the whole PC argument and I know that this sorority wants to avoid doing anything unkind, or ruin their reputation,etc, but I have to say, that unless they were parading down Main Street, isn't this a personal choice at a private party?

Some people chose to dress up as Indians and that caracature(sp) was offensive to some. I understand. Where is the outrage over "pimps and ho's" or "redneck" parties?

Let the flaming begin...

From the sounds of it, it was a mixer type party (or date party), so the sorority's name is attached to it.

If you want to have a get together at your apartment and have people dress up in a way that offends other people, hey, more power to you, but WHY would you have an official event, and do that with your sorority's name attached to it?

Like the columnist said:

In an article that appeared in the Grand Forks Herald on March 22, "Sorority party prompts complaint", there was a response from a woman who was the president of Gamma Phi Beta when the party was held.

She said that they "had no control" over how others dressed. No control to say to her other "sisters" there is no way we are going to be a part of something so blatantly racist and disrespectful.

They had no control to tell people that throwing a party such as theirs was comparable to having a black-face party during Black History Month. They had plenty of control to stop this party, but they allowed it to happen.

I find it hard to believe that she had "no control" over how people dressed. She could have easily sent out a memo or something? She herself even had pictures of herself dressed like that up for the world to see on the internet.

Like I said, if you're going to do it on your own free time, whatever, but why would you do something like that and attach your sorority's name to it?

[Little32]

Originally Posted by gee_ess

Was it is private party? Can people not do what they want to do in private?

I think that this question is beside the point. Sure people can do what they want, I guess. But such choices belie claims of cultural sensitivity and respect.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by gee_ess

Okay, I am going to get flamed for this but I just want to throw out there for all to discuss:

Was it is private party? Can people not do what they want to do in private?

I totally understand the whole PC argument and I know that this sorority wants to avoid doing anything unkind, or ruin their reputation,etc, but I have to say, that unless they were parading down Main Street, isn't this a personal choice at a private party?

Some people chose to dress up as Indians and that caracature(sp) was offensive to some. I understand. Where is the outrage over "pimps and ho's" or "redneck" parties?

Let the flaming begin...

I have long hated the "pimps and ho" and "redneck" type themes - I don't even like the "wedding mixers" because I think it is disrespectful to take something that is considered by some to be a sacrament and use it for a party theme. There's a fine line to be walked - for example, a Cinco de Mayo party can be fun, but all it would take is one insensitive person to dress in a serape and hat and talk like the Frito Bandito to make it a culturally offensive event.

[Kevin]

Blackface is something which has its own sordid history. We know why that's offensive.

"Redface" has no such history. I don't think portraying the physical characteristics of another race is per se offensive. We need to all be a little less touchy about things. The action the natives are bringing is apparently a "discrimination" action. Who was discriminated against? Did they have a sign at the door which read "People of native ancestry not welcome!" No. Of course not.

This discrimination suit is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by some idiots to use the law to punish thought-crime.

I guess the next time anyone holds a toga party, greek/italian student organizations need to stage a protest, right?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Blackface is something which has its own sordid history. We know why that's offensive.

"Redface" has no such history. I don't think portraying the physical characteristics of another race is per se offensive. We need to all be a little less touchy about things. The action the natives are bringing is apparently a "discrimination" action. Who was discriminated against? Did they have a sign at the door which read "People of native ancestry not welcome!" No. Of course not.

American Indians would disagree with you. Putting on red facial paint, or "war paint" may not have the same history as blackface, but American Indians have, as a people, been abused, slaughtered, lied to, practically enslaved, forced off their land, forced to abandon their heritage, and forced to live in poverty throughout history.
Treating a race of people as if they are a Halloween costume is more than ignorant immaturity.

You should know better than to play word games with the name of the action. If the "discrimination action" definition includes that of their complaint, such as the creation of a hostile environment, then they were in face "discriminated against" by the technical definition.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

American Indians would disagree with you. Putting on red facial paint, or "war paint" may not have the same history as blackface, but American Indians have, as a people, been abused, slaughtered, lied to, practically enslaved, forced off their land, forced to abandon their heritage, and forced to live in poverty throughout history.
Treating a race of people as if they are a Halloween costume is more than ignorant immaturity.

And toga parties depict Greeks and Romans in a negative light as well. Are they not entitled to the same sort of protections?

I don't really need an education on how natives have been treated in this country. I live a state where our culture and politics feature native issues very prominently.

Blackface in itself was one thing. War paint is quite another. There is no comparison between the two except that a select group of indians who pretend to speak for the whole are acting all butt hurt over something people did at a private party.

War paint does no more to treat a race of people as "Halloween costumes" than dressing up in a toga, or as a viking, or whatever. The party seems more geared at depicting the cowboys and indians of old western films.

You should know better than to play word games with the name of the action. If the "discrimination action" definition includes that of their complaint, such as the creation of a hostile environment, then they were in face "discriminated against" by the technical definition.

If these folks weren't in the "hostile environment," then they lack standing. If this complaint is actionable under the school's policy, then that school's policy is likely not constitutional. Schools try to force students to adopt these ridiculous PC standards of conduct sometimes. This seems to be some massive overstepping of what the school should or should not be engaged in.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And toga parties depict Greeks and Romans in a negative light as well. Are they not entitled to the same sort of protections?

This goes back to historical context and the social significance of negative portrayals beyond people's feelings just being hurt.

If a group of Greeks and Romans came together to protest toga parties, pulling from the historical context of negative portrayals that extended to social exclusion, then YES they are entitled to the same sort of protections.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And toga parties depict Greeks and Romans in a negative light as well. Are they not entitled to the same sort of protections?

I don't really need an education on how natives have been treated in this country. I live a state where our culture and politics feature native issues very prominently.

Blackface in itself was one thing. War paint is quite another. There is no comparison between the two except that a select group of indians who pretend to speak for the whole are acting all butt hurt over something people did at a private party.

War paint does no more to treat a race of people as "Halloween costumes" than dressing up in a toga, or as a viking, or whatever. The party seems more geared at depicting the cowboys and indians of old western films.



If these folks weren't in the "hostile environment," then they lack standing. If this complaint is actionable under the school's policy, then that school's policy is likely not constitutional. Schools try to force students to adopt these ridiculous PC standards of conduct sometimes. This seems to be some massive overstepping of what the school should or should not be engaged in.

Just something to consider:

WASHINGTON (UMNS) - The head of the United Methodist agency for social action and advocacy has written to the Washington Redskins asking that the football team change its name.
"The name is offensive and hurtful to the many Native Americans who are citizens of this nation and to all people who reject racial stereotypes and bigotry as socially acceptable," writes the Rev. Thom White Wolf Fassett, top executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society.

Fassett acknowledges the difficulty of such a change and the need to involve both the National Football League and the club's fans. The term "redskins" has been derogatory from its start, he says, and by embodying a history of degradation and slaughter, it demeans the team as well as Native Americans.

He cites the denomination's act of repentance for racism on May 4, as well as a resolution in the church's current Book of Resolutions that is "a call for repentance for the church's role in the dehumanization and colonization of our Native American sisters and brothers."


http://gbgm-umc.org/usa/umns062200jpmw.stm


ETA: To the topic itself....there were questions as to whether or not it was a private affair etc and so forth...ladies and gentlemen...let us all remember (sorry if I preach to the choir but I think we are missing this) that what we do in the privacy of our own homes and residence, halls etc are just that....but when it is done advertising your org. regardless of what it is....at that point, what people see people will take at face value. You are your organization's face. People who see any type of activity will make a baseline judgement from those activities. It's not based on the individual(s). So when you hear that Joe Shmoe, Jane Shmore of XYZ org did ABC event that got whatever attention in the news...what part do you think people pay attention to more?

Common sense should dictate, if you are going to do something that may be questionable to your org...

1. THINK
2. If you really decide that you are going to do it...disassociate yourself beforehand because once pix pops up and they see you doing something questionable and letters involved...it's YOUR ORG that comes under question not you. and that image will make more of a lasting impression....


Beta Theta Pi at Aurburn imitating Omega Psi Phi (in black face even) anyone.....?

[SWTXBelle]

I have to respectfully disagree about intent not being important. Someone who unthinkingly acts in a culturally insensitive way can be educated. Someone who does it with malice would probably not. 18 - 22 year olds do stupid things - one advantage to going to college and being in a GLO is that you hope they will grow, learn and mature. The programming of NPC sororities is geared to help their members in the process.

eta - and it is my understanding that the problem began with pictures posted on Facebook. FYI.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't think portraying the physical characteristics of another race is per se offensive.

because you're not the one who is being offended.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Blackface is something which has its own sordid history. We know why that's offensive.

"Redface" has no such history. I don't think portraying the physical characteristics of another race is per se offensive.

i did just want some clarification on this. are you saying practices such as "yellow, brown, red, >insert color<face" aren't neseccarily offensive, however blackface is?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by gee_ess

Okay, I am going to get flamed for this but I just want to throw out there for all to discuss:

Let the flaming begin...

Eh...stop blatantly trying to play devil's advocate, people.

**************************

Most of us aren't shocked about this situation. These things have always happened and are just getting more attention over the past 10 years.

I also dislike it when sports fans dress up in "red face" and wear Native American gear. This is one of the only (if not, the only) group of people that it is found acceptable to openly mock. Yes, it is a mockery rather than an appreciation.

And it doesn't matter if "some Native Americans do it"/"...say it's okay"/"...do rain dances at the football games...." That doesn't make it STRUCTURALLY appropriate just because some INDIVIDUALS condone it (even if they condone it in their silence).