rolling "Is This Racist?" thread

Here's some interesting background about the cake-troversy:
http://africasacountry.com/2012/04/18/swedish-cake/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr7ZLYPtiRs

Has anyone actually interviewed the artist about it?

xp hahahaha yes that's what i was thinking of!

http://www.racialicious.com/2012/04/18/voices-makode-aj-linde-and-that-cake/

The reaction of the assembled crowd, though, is perhaps more disturbing. They don’t seem to understand that this isn’t supposed to be “Ha-ha”-funny, and if observers ascribe their glee to a detached, condescending form of racism, I’d be hard-pressed to disagree. Really, who knows what they were thinking? Who the eff laughs at that?
- Tommy Christopher, Mediaite

yes I mean, who on Earth would laugh at an absurd screaming blackface cake, like how is that situation even fathomable

laughter can be a release of nervousness, based on an uncertainty how to react

Linde apparently posted Facebook responses to diff't questions about the cake; a youtube FAQ, so to say. This blog has compiled his videos:

http://www.womanist-musings.com/2012/04/artist-who-created-racist-sexist.html#more

this was his response to those asking why he chose to tackle female genital mutilation; it seems a bit more incoherent than the other responses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5ALkMzOKc&feature=player_embedded

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/524703_337071523023373_135799796483881_957463_646738037_n.jpg

so nervous...

I guess the only reasonable conclusion is that she thinks blackface & female circumcision are hilarious and was unaware that the public at large would react negatively to her racist worlview

much more likely that she isn't sensitive to blackface or female circumcision at all and just thought it was fun feeding cake to a colorfully dressed cake person

That is also a very reasonable conclusion

I suppose the optimal time to capture her nervousness on camera would be during the (possibly multiple) times she initially tried to cut the cake

leo stotch

It seems to me that the cake was a trick in what was really a piece of performance art. Show a (mostly) rich, white audience a disgusting, violent racial stereotype in a context where they think it's safe to accept it, and watch them gleefully participate in a very grotesque spectacle. The cake wasn't meant to be an actual statement against FGM, it was a prop Mr. Linde used to make a very dark point. Whether it's OK for a man living in Sweden to use that iconography to make that point is an open question, but I really don't think the cake was meant to be the art on display. The artwork was the group of white people cutting up the body of an African woman and eating it and laughing, while somehow still under the impression that they were making a statement against FGM.
Like Reply

would like to think that this was the case, but...

but what?

i think the minister was just showing she was happy to play along? "ah yes, ART, how subversive and delightful."

I want to know who got the first piece of cake

his statements do not indicate that he intended the piece as a "gotcha" stunt aimed at making liljeroth and the rest of the audience look bad, or that his use of FGM as a subject was as cynical as leo suggests

that to llb

I want to know who got the first piece of cake

And how high did they jump when they heard that scream.

I suppose the optimal time to capture her nervousness on camera would be during the (possibly multiple) times she initially tried to cut the cake

She should've been more like

http://vidgolos.com/images/3_364354634645634_2.jpg

the minister of culture got the first piece

Liljeroth, in a statement, said she understands why people felt offended and scandalized by the images widely circulated in the Swedish media. The Guardian reports she admitted that the cake installation was rather provocative and bizarre but that she was invited to speak about artistic freedom and the right to offend. She said: "I was invited to speak at World Art Day about the freedom of art and its right to provoke. And then they wanted me to cut into the cake. I don't review art, but I can very well understand that this whole situation was misunderstood." According to Liljeroth, the confusion stemmed from the artist himself. She said: "He claims that it challenges a romanticized and exoticized view from the West about something that is really about violence and racism." She added that the idea behind the exhibition was that "Art needs to be provocative."

idk contenderizer I think jaymc's link is v interesting and is worth reading

It’s Sunday, April 15th, and at Moderna Museet the swedish Artists Organisation is organising a celebration of World Art Day, as well as celebrating its own 75th birthday. Invited to speak is Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth, the culture minister, who – it’s worth noting – is reviled by large parts of the art world for her culture-sceptic stance and for previously condemning provocative art in what many see as a kind of censorship. Here’s her chance at patching things up.
A number of artists have been asked to create birthday cakes for the celebration. At some point, Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth gets asked if she would go ahead and cut the first piece of cake, standard politician fare she thinks, and she agrees. Then she’s told that the cake will be about the limits of provocative art, which is a subject she now carefully treads around, and about female genital mutilation.
The cake is wheeled out and uncovered. The crowd stares, tittering nervously. The culture minister is placed at the crotch end, and starts cutting into the cake – when suddenly the head starts screaming in pain. It’s the artist, Makode Linde, whose own painted head is placed as the head of the cake. The crowd’s tittering erupts in nervous laughter; the uncomfortable humour of the situation, the classic Swedish fear of conflict, triggered by the surprise sound and movement. Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth tries to play along as best she can in what she sees as a “bizarre” situation, reciprocating the laughter.
And on the other side of the cake, placed in the narrow space in front of a glass wall, stands one of the minister’s fiercest critics, visual artist and provocateur Marianne Lindberg De Geer, camera at the ready. And she snaps pictures of the whole series of events, as the minister is egged into doing more outrageous things, performing for the crowd.
It’s of course no coincidence. The whole thing was carefully planned, a “mousetrap” as one Swedish artist puts it. And based on how much traction the picture of the event has garnered, it was a very efficient mousetrap indeed.
Who’s Makode Linde, who staged the whole event? He is a visual artist, and as such has continuously asked uncomfortable questions about race, racial stereotyping and his own position as a black man in a condescending elite art world. The golliwog figure is a consistent image in his artwork, being placed on everyday objects, on paintings grinning nervously at the king, gawking in horror from children’s faces, at times undergoing almost formalist destruction. But just as importantly: he’s a club promoter and a DJ, one of Sweden’s most successful, who knows exactly how to manipulate crowds and their emotions.
And I’m left wondering – whatever the artist himself says – if the intended artwork here is not the cake, nor the performance, but the picture. Because what Makode Linde and Marianne Lindberg De Geer have produced is a picture which is incredibly powerfully laden with symbolism of colonial exploitation.

(that's from jaymc's link; sorry I shouldve cleaned that c+p up a little)

yeah, i read that earlier. interesting, but speculative. i'd hoped that linde's statements would skew in that direction, as the consumption in context is far more compelling and challenging than the cake in isolation (as the internet frenzy demonstrates).

some good articles out about this today.
this thread led to a LONG and contentious discussion last night with a woman i'm dating that ended with a disagreement about whether racism is determined by intent or impact.
it got more complicated cause i thought linde was white and that put the whole thing in a different direction for her, not so much for me.

most racism is in the eye of the offended, as I think I've said elsewhere. one of those "if you think I'm being racist, I might be. if you and she think I'm being racist, then I should check myself. if a lot of people think it... then I'm probably being really racist"

I am semi-bothered by the conflation of "racist" and "offensive" but not enough to make a strong argument about it

ha this is one of the only things itt where the thread title is salient

idk, if racism has been reduced simply to a matter of being offensive or taking offense, unconnected to any objectively measurable harm, then racism has become kind of toothless and weak, compared to its old robust self as measured by Jim Crow, apartheid and colonialism.

Offense resulting from insensitivity towards another culture is almost inevitable from anyone - ignorance alone can see to that. But thinking that race is determinant in whether one deserves privilege (or should be denied it) and all the subsequent harms that inevitably flow from such a belief is an easier target to defeat.

I am semi-bothered by the conflation of "racist" and "offensive" but not enough to make a strong argument about it

*(farts)* - "Damn, you're racist today."

xp yeah, but:
1) racism (especially in its institutionalized state) DOES continue to be connected to objectively measurable harm; US prison system would be exhibit A1
2) even if it had somehow disconnected from direct harm that still doesn't make it an ignorable evil

most racism is in the eye of the offended, as I think I've said elsewhere. one of those "if you think I'm being racist, I might be. if you and she think I'm being racist, then I should check myself. if a lot of people think it... then I'm probably being really racist"

this is a fine rule of thumb, but how do we square it with our general view of popular opinion? i mean, i'm kind of oppositional-defiant by nature, skeptical of appeals to social consensus as virtue or truth. if the vast majority of americans suddenly decided that gay marriage should be illegal, it wouldn't make me any more likely to agree. i am proud of the fact that my opinions and values are mine, and not simple accordance with my social environment.

that said, i would defer to criticism in in some cases simply because i am a white male, and the history/ongoing reality of white racism, oppression, exploitation, privilege and power are so obvious as to be undeniable. i.e., if non-white people think i'm being racist (or if women think i'm being sexist), then i will to pay special attention to their criticisms because i can deny neither the ways in which my attitudes may have been shaped by my privilege, nor their right to significant grievance. i won't necessarily agree, but i will at least check myself.

my point is that it isn't the extent to which i seem to disagree with popular consensus that makes me step back from my beliefs where racism and sexism are concerned, but rather my particular position of relative privilege.

I feel like Linde out-ing the piece as a mousetrap risks stopping the flow of condemnation towards the minister of culture, ostensibly the target of such a prank. I was looking for a cogent statement behind the piece, what Linde intended to get cross besides having a well-publicized gov't critic of provocative art having pictures taken of he by an enemy of hers, indulging in an outrageous and offensive spectacle; I haven't really found this to my satisfaction yet

xp to contenderizer

i've tried to argue in the past that racism (negative prejudice based on race) is distinct from and should be kept linguistically separate from both institutional racism (the mechanisms by which racial oppression is perpetuated in a society) and mere racial insensitivity/ignorance, though there's obviously a lot of overlap, and perhaps racism is as good an umbrella term as any.

agree w all that, llb, but i feel that i don't know enough at this point to have an opinion. that's why i left my desire to agree with that "leo stoch" comment hanging.

Yeah right on. I just feel like there is way mor going on than meets the eye (as much as there is of that!)

I definitely unintentionally glossed over that but taking offense is no doubt the tiniest indicator, whereas outright hostility, violence, and devaluing others is the core of it.

if the vast majority of americans suddenly decided that gay marriage should be illegal, it wouldn't make me any more likely to agree.

well, yeah, but the test here is: do we think gay people are reasonable human beings capable of making rational decisions? If yeah, then if you think a law or behavior may be offensive to gay people, then... ask gay people.

The minority party, the oppressed party, always has the first say of whether something is racist. If you're skeptical, then you might appeal a consensus among multiple members of that group. If no one from that group is present, you might have to go with a consensus best-guess among those you can poll.

It just kind of all comes down to the fact if it's person-to-person, you have very little ground for saying "I was not being racist" because perception trumps intent 100% of the time. If you can explain your intent and the perception is changed, then you might be ok, but if you were recorded in some way...

agree, mh, but only to a certain extent. bottom line, imo, is that people have a right to their feelings. if someone feels offended, then they have a right to have and express that feeling. it's important to remember, however, that just because a feeling is present does not mean that it has any automatic claim to virtue or correctness. to be offended is not necessarily to be in the right, nor is to have given offense necessarily to be in the wrong.

i agree with you that minorities and those with less social privilege/power have the first say as to whether or not something is racist (sexist, homophobic, etc). i say this not because their views are more likely to be correct than anyone else's (they aren't), and not because "perception trumps intent" (it doesn't), but simply because my personal ethics cause me to defer as a result of my position of relative privilege.

i dunno, i guess i'm getting hung up on small differences. we fundamentally seem to agree with one another.

bottom line, imo, is that people have a right to their feelings. if someone feels offended, then they have a right to have and express that feeling. it's important to remember, however, that just because a feeling is present does not mean that it has any automatic claim to virtue or correctness. to be offended is not necessarily to be in the right, nor is to have given offense necessarily to be in the wrong.

this is pretty much exactly what I said

^ but it isn't? i'm going out of my way to point out that being offended doesn't automatically grant anyone the moral or factual high ground. the only thing causes me to defer are my attitudes towards the responsibilities that attend power imbalances.

Well, sure, but if it's someone you're talking to and they're like "That's RACIST" then you can expand on what you meant and they can understand and drop it, but if they're insistent then there's no reason to tell them they're wrong or do some "oh, we'll have to agree to disagree" stuff, you just drop it.

Dropping it or just letting the point go doesn't grant anyone else the high ground, but really... there is nothing to be gained from arguing about how you weren't racist.

the only thing causes me to defer are my attitudes towards the responsibilities that attend power imbalances.

erg, subject verb. make that: "the only thing that causes me to defer is my personal conception of the ethical responsibilities that attend power imbalances"

xp - agreed

as a rule of thumb, allowing for situational variances...

The nearly complete silence on the question of Swedish culture -- which is a real thing, and Linde as an African Swede knew he was pushing particularly Swedish non-confrontational mores and the very Swedish thing of laughing and joking your way out of ugly and embarrassing situations -- is pretty striking. European racism works in very different ways -- often more bizarrely complex ways -- than American racism, and Americans commenters on this scene who reduce it to "white people laughing at black pain" are misreading it. The reality may be just as ugly, but it's a different ugly picture than that one.