Featured Post

Ignorant Bullies Censor Art Exhibition

La Japonaise by Claude Monet - image from Wikipedia

La Japonaise by Claude Monet – image from Wikipedia

It appears a group of ignorant bullies in Boston has succeeded in partially shutting down an art exhibition that the group apparently considers offensive. The Boston Globe Reports:

In an episode that speaks volumes about cultural institutions, ethnic sensitivity, and the power of protest in the digital age, the Museum of Fine Arts is hastily pulling back on an event that protesters labeled a latter-day form of racist minstrelsy.

MFA officials announced Tuesday they would recast “Kimono Wednesdays,” an attraction scheduled to run throughout July. It is extremely rare for the MFA to change exhibition plans in the wake of protests; it appears such action had not been taken for decades.

Created as a light summer distraction, “Kimono Wednesdays” invited visitors to “channel your inner Camille Monet” by donning museum-provided kimonos and posing for photos in front of Claude Monet’s “La Japonaise,” a painting of the artist’s wife wearing a kimono.

Of course, no actual Japanese people are offended. In fact, the exhibition just finished making rounds in Japan, where it was popular and well-received, as indicated in the MFA’s statement in response to the bullies:

The MFA’s mission is to engage people with direct encounters with works of art, and to be an inclusive and welcoming place for all. When the MFA’s painting, La Japonaise by Claude Monet, travelled throughout Japan for an exhibition, historically accurate reproduction kimonos were made for visitors to try on. When the painting returned to Boston and a similar program was introduced at the MFA, we heard concerns from some members of our community, and as a result, we’ve decided to change our programming. The kimonos will now be on display in the Impressionist gallery every Wednesday evening in July for visitors to touch and engage with, but not to try on. This allows the MFA to continue to achieve the program’s goal of offering an interactive experience with the kimonos—understanding their weight and size, and appreciating the embroidery, material, and narrative composition. We will also increase the number of Spotlight Talks presented by MFA educators, to take place every Wednesday evening in July in conjunction with the display of the kimonos. The talks provide context on French Impressionism, “japonisme,” and the historical background of the painting, as well as an opportunity to engage in culturally sensitive discourse. We apologize for offending any visitors, and welcome everyone to participate in these programs on Wednesday evenings, when Museum admission is free. We look forward to continuing the Museum’s long-standing dialogue about the art, culture and influence of Japan.

And, in the Globe article:

Reproductions of the kimono were commissioned by NHK, the Japanese broadcaster, as part of “Looking East,” a traveling exhibition including the Monet work that was seen at museums in Tokyo, Kyoto and Nagoya. The statement noted visitors to that exhibition could also try on the kimonos.

In addition to the people and official institutions of Japan not only supporting the exhibition but actually planning it, the relatively small Japanese community in Boston was excited and proud that the people of Boston – who don’t get as much exposure to Japanese culture as their West Coast brethren – would have an opportunity to appreciate the craftsmanship of a real kimono firsthand in the context of a classic Western work of art.

Nevertheless, I heard from a Japanese national in Boston that there may be an ulterior motive: apparently, whenever the MFA has a specifically Japanese exhibition planned, members of other Asian-American ethnicities protest or threaten to protest, invariably claiming “orientalism”. In support of this, one of the protesters initially held a sign that read:

“Try on the kimono, learn what it’s like to be a racist imperialist !!!today!!!”

I’m not suggesting that that is the case here, but Japan doesn’t really get along well with its Asian neighbors – a truly amazing feat for a nation that has constitutionally rejected war as a policy tool for the last seventy years. Indeed, it turns out the protesters are not Japanese at all. They have names like Amber Ying, Amnes Siyuan, Christiana Wang, Aparna Pampi Daz, and Loreto Paz Ansaldo. That’s not to say that members of other Asian ethnicities cannot reasonably be offended by how Japan is portrayed, but I would not at all describe this group as reasonable. Here is their Tumblr. It includes heaping forkfuls of word salad:

What happens in ivory towers of culture is intimately connected with the iconography that is institutionally and uncritically supported and propagated that informs the justification of violence against othered bodies on the streets.

One of the group members, Pampi Daz, also made this absurdly offensive statement (see Globe article), comparing non-Japanese people wearing kimonos to the forced chattel slavery of Africans:

“(This)…goes back to the world exhibition in Europe where visitors would come see people in cages brought from Africa.”

Perhaps smelling the MFA’s weakness at rolling back the exhibition, the protesters have decided to double down, posting a list of “demands” on their Tumblr, which include making themselves panelists in some sort of panel discussion that they’re demanding. The MFA would do best to demand that security escort the protesters out of the building, and we as a culture would do best to demand zero tolerance for those who would censor art.

 

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

371 thoughts on “Ignorant Bullies Censor Art Exhibition

  1. One of the group members, Pampi Daz, also made this absurdly offensive statement (see Globe article), comparing non-Japanese people wearing kimonos to the forced chattel slavery of Africans

    Is there a name for the fallacy where you identify some way in which two things are superficially similar, and then go on to assert that that means they’re the same in some other way?

    Because I see that a lot.

      Quote  Link

    Report

      • Except it’s a really bad analogy. Usually even fallacious use of analogy uses something closer to being on point than this. Maybe something like one of those painted tableaux with the cut-outs for your face so someone can take your picture as a hillbilly or something?

        I don’t understand how the kimono thing is supposed to be mocking anyone, assuming that’s even their point. I’m confused.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • There was a website that had me knitting my brow a while back:

          Your Fave Is Problematic.

          They cover stuff like celebrities engaging in cultural appropriation and how that’s bad. Well, maybe not how as much as that.

          Anyway, one of the issues that got me the most confounded was the posting of a couple of pictures of a celebrity at a wedding in India who was appropriating the whole application of vermillion to the forehead thing followed by the printing of a handful of letters explaining that, no, in that particular corner of India, the wedding guests all get some vermillion applied as part of the ceremony/celebration so the fact that this western celebrity had that too wasn’t appropriation.

          And I couldn’t help but notice that the person, whomever it was, was engaged in defending a culture they didn’t understand.

          I’m sure that whomever did that, though, is exceptionally good natured and has the best of intentions.

            Quote  Link

          Report

  2. If you challenge the protestors on the point that actual Japanese people or Japanese-Americans do not seem to care, they would respond that it doesn’t matter because they are speaking for all people of color or something. If you point out that this is in itself a form of appropriation, they wouldn’t bling an eye.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  3. On the second thought, it might not matter that none of the protestors were Japanese or Japanese people weren’t offended. The movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s is extraordinary popular in Japan. Most of the Japanese people I’ve talked to about the movie do not seem to take offense at Micky Rooney’s very stereotypical performance of the Japanese landlord. Asian-Americans and other Americans of color, whom aren’t Japanese in origin, find Mickey Rooney’s role extraordinarily racist. If you argue that the role isn’t racist because actual Japanese people do not mind than your kind of missing the point. The Asian-American and Americans of color criticism of Mickey Rooney’s role was that it perpetuated racist Asian stereotypes and continues a long process where people of color, especially any person of color who wasn’t African-American, was played by a white actor in makeup for the most part.

    The protestors could make a legitimate argument, if they were more articulate and did better prep work, that the Boston Museum’s event was still racist even though Japanese people do not mind because of the long history of Western appropriation of other cultures. As recent events shown us, cultural appropriation is not a victimless crime. In this case, the victim aren’t Japanese people but Asian-Americans or to an extent any non-white person because an aspect of a non-White culture is being used as an object of fun for mainly white people.

      Quote  Link

    Report

        • The daycare I once worked at had a parent (prior to my employment) who practiced Wicca and asked that the center avoid the green faced, warty nosed witch caricature during Halloween. She didn’t object to all depictions of witches — even those inconsistent with how most Wiccans presented themselves — just the ones that made them seem inhuman. She didn’t want her daughter to think their faith made them monsters. I was 19 when I hears this told and even in my infancy of understanding this stuff, jt didn’t seem unreasonable. It is probably easier to be empathetic when you can look at the person (especially a kid) possibly impacted and the near zero effort required to comply with the request as opposed to reading about things from afar.

            Quote  Link

          Report

    • “The protestors could make a legitimate argument ”

      Yeah, the COULD but it’s easier to go all “godwin” on and shout inanely and inarticulately.

      It’s far easier to just tune out tools like this. If you can’t actually articulate a complain and instead just spout jargon and spittle, you should be ignored.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I think you’re right. One of the dysfunctions of outrage culture is that it often obscures legitimate points in its vitriol (and, in this case, in its attempt to co-opt… appropriate?.. an academic language that they clearly don’t fully grasp).

        That said, if they were to speak in their own voice, and make an argument about why they weren’t happy about this exhibit, I’d be willing to listen without retaliatory hysterics and equally charged language (like, say, the title of the OP).

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • Lee,
      I actually think that if the people from that country (and their American relations) don’t mind, then it can’t be all that much of a problem. Maybe that’s just me, but I have seen anti-Semitic portrayals on TV, and until someone — anyone — starts complaining, I’m going to be laughing just as much as the next person.

      I mean, really, what gives a Person of Color (Varietal: Dark Brown) the special privilege to complain about the treatment of a Person of Color (Varietal: Blue)? Do rednecks in general get special privilege to complain about the treatment of blue people?

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • As recent events shown us, cultural appropriation is not a victimless crime.

      Which recent events, and who were the victims, and how were they harmed? I am generally pretty skeptical of these sorts of claims – appropriation *itself* is IMO usually not the problem, it is instead wider power dynamics (or malice and disrespect) that is.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • The problem is not malice, nor even a deliberate disrespect. It is more to do with an unintentional disrespect. For instance, one instance of cultural appropriation that gets on my nerves is the way in which some western media (by and large the offending material will tend to be found in urban fantasy*) portray some of the more fearsome Hindu deities as evil (by featuring them as villains of the story)

        The existence of new agers who appropriate Hindu concepts irritates me to varying degrees too. Part of it has to do with the un-seriousness with which the appropriation occurs. It seems that new-age-ism is something that upper middle class white people flirt with while they “find themselves”. It is an expression of rebellion against their parent’s cultural symbols. For the rest of us practicing Hindus, while it is sometimes flattering that you (i.e. young rebellious white people) find our symbols worth appropriating, the frivolousness of the reasons for doing so is also insulting. For us, our symbols and concepts are accompanied by onerous and involved rituals and restrictions which we feel (somewhat) obligated to abide by while New-agers guiltlessly avoid those restrictions. Many Hindus may also avoid those same rituals and restrictions, but we expect to be held to account for doing so by our more orthodox compatriots.

        *This is not to say that most urban fantasy offends this way, only that most offenders are urban fantasy novels

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • This really gets to the heart of it and is a very good analysis of cultural appropriation and it’s problems, . It isn’t that the appropriators are going out of their way to diminish another culture most of the time, they usually have at least some love or respect for what they are appropriating. The crime comes from getting things wrong deliberately or mistakingly for any reason and causing feelings of hurt in the party from the culture.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • @murali – but you guys are all over the place, in terms of the seriousness of this. Lee keeps using the term “crime”, and implying victims are “harmed”. Murali instead talks about things that “get on his nerves” and “irritate” him.

            Needless to say, I suspect Murali’s closer to the truth here, so…is all irritation “offensive”? I agree we generally shouldn’t go out of the way to deliberately irritate people (though it’s not always a principle I abide by), but the guy who drives under the speed limit in the passing lane doesn’t necessarily need protestors and shouted slogans on his front lawn.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • It is really difficult to describe the level of harm done by cultural appropriation. Sometimes it results in nothing more than a person being mildly to very offended that Kali became a villain in India Jones and the Temple of Doom, which is a very fun movie but does have some problems with cultural insensitivity. They even got it wrong by portraying Shiva as opposing Kali. Kali is an incarnation of Shiva’s wife in Hinduism. They should have least had Vishnu be the opposite of Kali.

              However, sometimes cultural appropriation can cause more harm than annoyance like the recent Rachel Dolezal affair or to use a different example all those groups claiming that they are the real Jews/Israelites and that actual Jews are just imposters like the Anglo-Israelites of the 19th century or the Black Hebrew Israelites of the 20th century. With India Jones and Kali, Spielberg wasn’t claiming to be an authentic hero. He was just using some Hindu themes to create a fun movie. It was offensive but not full appropriation. With the latter, it is full on theft of identity with some attempt to claim more authenticity than the actual members of that group.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • With India Jones and Kali, Spielberg wasn’t claiming to be an authentic hero. He was just using some Hindu themes to create a fun movie.

                You’d think India Jones would have known better.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

              • They should have least had Vishnu be the opposite of Kali.

                Even that would be getting things wrong. Durga/Kali worshippers regard Her as the same Person as Lakshmi (Vishnu’s consort) and Saraswathi (Brahma’s better half). They are all supposed to be different aspects of the same Mother Goddess figure in various roles of punisher of the wicked, granter of wealth and of learning respectively. Thus Kali fighting Vishnu would also pit husband against wife. (Although, since stories do pit Shiva against Vishnu and Shaivites regard Vishnu as but one aspect of the Supreme Being, Shiva, and Vaishnavites regard Shiva as but one aspect of the Supreme Being Vishnu, there is a lot of fighting oneself that does go on)

                  Quote  Link

                Report

    • I would question the degree to which non-provincial art can survive if “appropriation” is out-of-bounds. There are clearly cases where symbols can be appropriated* to mock and denigrate or clearly disrespect, but the problem is the mocking and denigration and not the appropriation itself. Short of that, the concept seems culturally stultifying.

      * – Apologies to is I am using “appropriate” contrary to its academic use.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I think the questions of “who”, “how”, and “why” matter. Though when those are sufficiently answered, we may no longer call it appropriating. In which case appropriation is wrong but there are other forms of exploring cultural elements outside your own.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • It’s just the inability to explore cultural elements outside one’s own. It’s the ability to absorb them. There has to be something above and beyond the use of symbols and aesthetics to make it wrong. That’s why I mention mocking or denigration. Such mocking isn’t always intentional, but some sort of case needs to be made above and beyond “Used imagery that is identified with another (less powerful) culture for your own purposes,” which in-context is what “appropriation” seems to mean.

            Quote  Link

          Report

            • My favorite recent example was Khloe Kardashian posting a photo of herself in Middle Eastern garb, including a niqab, and people freaked out, screaming “appropriation!” Then it was revealed she was actually in Dubai, and wearing it out of cultural sensitivity (and because some level of covering is required), and people were like, “Well, yeah, but… er… still.” It was rather embarrassing to watch.

                Quote  Link

              Report

                  • Where does she stand? I know they have expressed… complicated… views on race. But I also know many Armenians* don’t identify as white and are often not perceived as white regardless of how they identify. My college roommate — who is a short Armenian man — was one called a “Taliban Smurf” by a drunk guy.

                    * Are they full or half? I don’t know Kris’s background.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                        • Well, me either, but then I haven’t given it much thought. I’m not going to go into it, because it’s R.’s opinion, and I’d rather let her speak for herself.

                          She’s not gonna do that here, of course, but if you come to Austin and buy her a drink, I bet she’ll tell you all about it.

                            Quote  Link

                          Report

                        • I think of them as white, but in a non-Anglo/Northern European way. If pushed to describe, I’d say “ethnic white” though that’s not the most comfortable phrasing.

                          (I might say something like “Armenian” in particular, but only if I had a degree of confidence that was correct.)

                            Quote  Link

                          Report

                      • I don’t know how much this relates or not. And I apologize for the non-conventional family trees involved. But… my non-biological brother’s mother (NBBM) had a neighbor that was a white family with three white sons and a dark-ish Hispanic daughter (DHD).

                        The daughter, at some point, started dating a black kid. NBBM, who cared a great deal for the girl and indeed the entire family, was very disturbed by this. She expressed her reservations by saying that the kid she was dating was nice but DHD needed to take care not to date black guys because then white boys wouldn’t date her.

                        The concept that someone’s race could be determined by such things just about knocked me sideways. I mean, I wasn’t color-blind and I knew she was dark-skinned. I also figured that anyone who had a problem with people that have dark skin would dismiss her out of hand, white family or not. And the rest, mostly… wouldn’t care.

                        But it’s an exchange that I recall all these years later. I think she was, in the particulars, off-base. Indeed, I think there was a good chance she favored dating other non-whites because they shared a sense of differentness regardless of her white family, though that’s speculation. But it was said so matter-of-factly that for some people it has to be true. Certainly of her generation, and probably passed down to mine among some people.

                          Quote  Link

                        Report

                    • Donald Glover has a bit about how he likes to date the “black girls” of every race, so he dates Armenians, “the black girls of white girls” and Philipinas, “the black girls of Asian girls.”

                      Perhaps the Khardashians agree with this sentiment. There is something very interesting about the fact that these women are among the biggest of American celebrities and that they owe their status, in large measure, to the fact that their father helped get OJ off, making a sex tape with Brandy’s little brother, and dating lots of famous black men.

                      If there is a race god, he is most certainly trolling us.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Most of the Armenians and Georgians I know either identify as white or as Armenian and Georgian but not necessarily as a part of a larger Asian race or of color. Similar to the Arabs and Iranians.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

      • There are clearly cases where symbols can be appropriated* to mock and denigrate or clearly disrespect, but the problem is the mocking and denigration and not the appropriation itself.

        Yup.

        Short of that, the concept seems culturally stultifying

        Worse than simply ‘stultifying’; pursued to its logical end, it implies the desirability of a sort of cultural “purity” that has its own…unpleasant historical connotations.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • No need to apologize to me. For one, it’s not really an academic term, and what’s more, the people abusing it most these days are the ones complaining about instances of “appropriation,” by which they (almost exclusively young folk) mean any instance of cultural influence between a less dominant and more dominant culture. So vaguely Asian fashion in a white woman’s dress in L.A.? Appropriation!

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • This point you are making between appropriation and influence is important, and clearly needs to be discussed further with the folks who are protesting this exhibit.

          As they are defining “appropriation” is insidious. Are people of other cultures not allowed to take part in activities, cuisine, and practices that are not connected to their own specific ethnicity or identity? Can East Asians play classic European music? Is it not appropriation because it isn’t a European taking part in someone else’s culture?

          All I know is I would hate to live in a world where wearing a kimono is cultural insensitivity.

          This quote from Circe Rowan seems dead on to me:

          “This is not like objecting to war bonnets. You don’t earn kimono or inherit the right to wear them, you go to a department store and fucking buy them. You can even buy ‘cheater’ obi where the bow is on a wire frame that just stuffs down the back of the sash. They’re for festivals and formal occasions. If you stay at a traditional Japanese inn, they give you a yukata to wear around the place. Getting angry at this is like going to Japan and getting pissed at an exhibit that lets Japanese people try on prom dresses, because high school proms are an American thing.”

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • Agreed.
            “Happy Jesus Day” everyone, and fear the Santa Claus.
            (these are obvious references to exactly how wrong Japan gets American holidays…
            I haven’t even bothered mentioning first-graders summoning Jesus in a pentagram)

              Quote  Link

            Report

  4. The SJW urge to ban things is really fascinating. Are people in need of a mission and a purpose so badly that they are now flailing about, striking at anything that could be even nominally construed as culturally insensitive?

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I think we should at least consider the possibility that there’s some selection bias going on – we may only hear about the most ridiculous cases, because in some cases the people most immediately-involved look at things and go “yeah, you know what, you have a point” and quietly change direction.

      That said, I don’t know which way it cuts that the ones I can think of that I most readily dismiss, are Asian-related ones. The Colbert/Suey Park thing (which was explicitly satire about racist caricature), the band “Viet Cong” vs. Oberlin College, the “kung-fu master” episode of How I Met Your Mother.

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • SJW believe that they are creating a better world. They have a revolutionary mindset and that is burn everything down and start again. These types always existed but the difference is that the Internet gives them amplified strength for better or worse. A protest like this could exist before the Internet but it would be a few easily dismissed people regardless of how righteous or correct they were. With the Internet they can call on similarly minded people from a wider geographic area and get more support.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Because it’s the INTERNET that’s made it a CRIME to speak ill about the Natives?
        Ha fucking ha. (Here’s a hint: it’s not. it’s been a crime for a while. not stateside)

        It’s times like this that I wonder how much Americans know about the world around them. They’re remarkably oblivious a lot of the time.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • In some ways I agree with this – it’s certainly true that organizing is easier now and that voices can be amplified in a way that was not formerly the case. But I don’t view this as the problem, to be honest. In many ways, this is probably a good thing – levels of passion on an issue now matter as much or more than raw polling data, meaning that those with the most at stake on an issue now have an influential voice in the process even if they don’t have the cash that would otherwise be required to have such a voice.

        I think the real problem is that social media has disincentivized placing things in context or obtaining context before making a judgment. This is especially true in the realm of art, both popular, and in this case, fine. There are, I think, a couple reasons this has happened, which I don’t have time to get into right now.

        But the issue is that once an initial judgment is made, confirmation bias sets in and any context that would have prevented the initial judgment if provided up front gets disregarded – if it ever crosses the individual’s Twitter feed at all, and even if the context becomes clear just a few minutes after the initial judgment is made.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I agree. The problem with social media and the Internet isn’t that it amplifies but that it encourages quick reaction rather than reflection before action. A person can write an article and get be denounced by thousands with an hour.

            Quote  Link

          Report

        • In many ways, this is probably a good thing – levels of passion on an issue now matter as much or more than raw polling data, meaning that those with the most at stake on an issue now have an influential voice in the process even if they don’t have the cash that would otherwise be required to have such a voice.

          Well, that could be a good thing. But n this case we seem to be running up against the “Second Coming” problem.

            Quote  Link

          Report

        • “social media has disincentivized placing things in context or obtaining context before making a judgment.”

          The assumption among SJWs is that nothing anyone does is by accident. You *always* were being racist, either overtly but in a sneaky way (dogwhistles) or secretly (racism without racists) or even unconsciously (epistemic closure). And if you honestly, truly, no-kidding didn’t know, well, it’s still your fault because you’re ignorant and it’s not their job to educate you. So when someone tries to talk about context, they’re really just trying to cover up what they did and pretend it wasn’t racism.

            Quote  Link

          Report

    • I think Glyph and Lee are right. I don’t doubt their sincerity that they think they are creating a better world and they do have a point but their zeal sometimes gets the best of them.

      There are lots of angry people out there and they are rightfully furious about many things. The SJW movement is also largely very young (like under 25 young) and young people often have trouble differentiating between a tape measure and a sledge hammer in their rhetoric. There were a lot of years when minorities just were forced to put up with the worst stereotypes and offensive remarks in the media and popular culture.

      So people are mad and they are not going to take it anymore. Now I don’t always understand what they are going against and sometimes I think that anything they perceive as coming from white-culture is treated way too suspect. There was a controversy with Serial because a Jewish-American reporter of European origin was casting doubt on the conviction of a Pakistani-American who killed is Korean-American girlfriend. A lot of Asians seemed to view it through the lens of immigrant and Asian stereotype and combine this with a tragic murder story and you get a situation. The criticism of Serial really wanted Sayed to be guilty for some reason. At least that is what I got out of them.

      Lee is also right about all these people interact on social media and this creates an amplification factor that might not have existed in the past.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Oh, I know they think they are doing good in the world, I just think they do damage to our culture and their cause than good. Sure, they got together and had a fine time protesting, but most will see this protest as another attempt by people on “the left” of overplaying their hand in the aim of censorship and cultural degradation.

        When college leftists took on culture as their battleground, they lost sight of our movement’s real aims.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • The thing is — it’s their culture too. They get to shape it as well.

          Our “culture” has our (as older adults) stamp on it. Some of us got to put a much bigger stamp on it, shaped it a lot more, than others.

          I can shake my fist at kids these days, and believe they’re over the top, shooting themselves in the foot, and causing all sorts of damage in their attempt to be helpful. But in the end — it’s just as much their right to break and reshape our culture as it was and is OUR right.

            Quote  Link

          Report

            • Of course you don’t. You shaped the world you live in now. It’s more or less comfortable. You’ve changed what you could, accepted what you couldn’t.

              “Kids these days!” — it’s still that same issue.

              They want to shake things up, change it, put their mold on it, get rid of things they don’t like and bring in things they do!

              It’s disruptive and has happened for all of civilized society. It’s just our generations’ term to sneer “SJW!” and pretend it’s some unique thing. They called my parents hippies and me a slacker.

              All the same thing.

              And really — it’s their culture too.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • Thus, are “the old” inherently reactionary? I argue no; I surely don’t want to enshrine an idealized past. I do however wish to combat forces of nonsense as they regenerate in the political arena.

                Implicit in your comment is the idea that you have to just go along with the cultural ride directed by this specific type of activist. Some of the best voices speaking out against this trend in post-modernism is other college aged activists that have been spoon-feed a healthy dose of this throughout their lives.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • Goodness no. The “old” merely have actually gotten to shape culture already. They’ve got an investment in it that the young really don’t. The young were raised in our culture, but haven’t gotten to impact it.

                  So they’re often passionate, eager, uncompromising.

                  But if you’re older, odds are — you’ve seen successes and failures. Seen things change, sometimes the way you wanted, sometimes not. You’ve got a stake in it, you’ve made your mark as it were — you’re less likely to want to burn the whole thing down and start anew.

                  That’s all generalities, of course. But I think it’s true enough.

                  Lots of older voters were all for changing America to allow gay marriage. That’s the opposite of reactionary. :)

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                  • Goodness no. The “old” merely have actually gotten to shape culture already. They’ve got an investment in it that the young really don’t. The young were raised in our culture, but haven’t gotten to impact it.

                    Somewhat relevant to the point…

                    Last week, I spent a few days in TN. I flew in and out of Knoxville and stayed in the Pigeon Forge/Gatlinburg area. My view – while the removal of the flag from the SC statehouse was a nice symbolic victory that got quite a bit of coverage, you couldn’t go more than five feet before seeing a Rebel Flag. Also, maybe this had to do with what happened in SC but on at least two occasions, I saw groups of pick up trucks (20 to 30) flying the flag along the main strip and congregating in a parking lot. Perhaps they were rallies of some sort, but I wasn’t interested enough to go over and ask.

                    This reminds me of the flag conversation in a now deleted open post put up by Mike Dwyer after the church shooting. If I recall, there were some commenters of the belief that taking down a symbol of something bad could lead to less of that something bad.

                    Granted, I was in TN and the flag removal was in SC, and as I much as I don’t object to the removal of such a symbol, I don’t think it’s going to have that impact.

                    In all fairness, being the skeptic that I am, I liken symbolic victories to masturbation. Both get people off but neither one represents the kind of accomplishment worth bragging about.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

              • “SJW” isn’t your generation’s term. Know Your Meme attributes it to Will Shetterly, who was a boomer, but it was popularized by millennials, and to the best of my knowledge that’s where it still sees the most use.

                Your generational narrative just doesn’t fit the facts here.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • The people I see most using the term “SJW” as a pejorative are members of my generation or older.

                  So yeah, it fits the facts. The people calling my parents generations “hippies” weren’t just their parents — it was their parents and everyone older. The ones calling mine slackers? Same thing.

                  The people using SJW as a slur? Seem to be my age (Gen X) and older. In short, it’s a sneer at “kids these days”. Dismissive of them, their ideas, their goals, and their concerns.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                  • I don’t think “hippie” became a slur, or took on elements of one, until it was judged that the “counterculture”‘s moment had passed. When the kids were still thinking about putting flowers in their hair and going to San Francisco, it was just the name for members of a movement, like “beatnik” and “mod” before them, and “punk” a bit later – punk having been to some extent as much a reaction to “hippie” as Reagan Republican. In 1968, being a hippie was groovy. By 1978, being groovy was long past being groovy, and I don’t think anyone has ever found it unambiguously groovy since.

                    I’m not an expert, but I don’t believe that “Social Justice Warrior” was ever anything but derisive. The “Warrior” part especially seems obviously sarcastic. For someone like Chris, who I think desperately wants to believe that social justice warfare of the familiar type can be something other than pseudo-activity, usage of the term identifies the writer as a Reaction Warrior, or soldier in the opposing troll army, someone to be defeated but not listened to.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

        • Roland Dodds:

          When college leftists took on culture as their battleground, they lost sight of our movement’s real aims.

          Marxists were big on culture from the very beginning. Maoists doubled down on that tendency quite famously (infamously). Going back to the orgins of ‘the left’ the anti monarchists in France were all about uprooting centuries old cultural traditions that they felt kept elements of the ancien regime in power even when formally deposed. The defining characteristic of ‘the left’ since the 18th century has been the rejection on some level of existing culture – that’s what distinguishes the left from conservatives.

            Quote  Link

          Report

    • The SJW urge to ban things is really fascinating.

      I may be projecting, but in my mind I cannot separate this phenomenon from the style of helicopter parenting that this generation grew up under. It feels like an extension of trying to childproof the larger world. It was not uncommon in other generations for adults to try and censor what their kids were exposed to. To my knowledge, this is the first generation in which you find instances of young people acting to censor themselves.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Elders have always tried to censor their children, even as they grow up. You’ve seen Fiddler on the Roof, haven’t you? There are certain groups that are… naturally drawn… towards censorship.

        We might find the young people being the censors a bit more troubling, I’ll grant.

        “Safe Spaces Inevitably devolve into No Arguing Spaces”

        Seen neopets lately? remarkably nsfw. [best new pet: CopyKurtCobainKids]

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • Roland Dodds: The SJW urge to ban things is really fascinating. Are people in need of a mission and a purpose so badly that they are now flailing about, striking at anything that could be even nominally construed as culturally insensitive?

      I don’t think this is a new thing.

      For those of a certain political mindset and age, there’s a great deal of romanticism tied up with the earlier eras of the civil rights movement, especially the late-50s to early 70s era. When I was in college, we all went out of our way to find things to protest about, and in truth very few of these things were issues that many (any?) of us really cared about. Our motivation drew for more from who we wanted to see our selves as than it did what we wanted the world to look like.

      Much of the SJW stuff I see today seems similar. The two differences are that the intertubes allow them to be visible to a far greater number of people, and that quite often the intertubes allow them to hook up with actual meaningful causes and do far more good than we were ever able to accomplish. (I credit SJWs for the way transgendered issues seem to thankfully be successfully riding the SSM train, which I would not have predicted even 18 months ago.)

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • It is different in its goals. The post-modern left has abandoned the goal of taking and then remaking the state. They now fit comfortably into liberal consumer society, spending their days lost in discussions on culture and media. But the socialist project is as dead as can be to activists of this nature.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I actually think this tendency existed long before the socialist project was forgotten. It really traces back to the anti-colonialism and third world movements of the 1960s. Opposing American and European imperialism is a good thing but some leftist intellectuals and their followers like Edward Said took it to ridiculous extremes and held that any Western interest in or influence on non-Western cultures is by nature colonialist. Certain aspects of the Social Justice movement seem to be direct descendants of this but in a more cartoonish form.

            Quote  Link

          Report

    • Roland Dodds: Are people in need of a mission and a purpose so badly that they are now flailing about, striking at anything that could be even nominally construed as culturally insensitive?

      Perhaps appropriately, perhaps inappropriately and therefore all the more appropriately in a different way, Alexander Kojeve referred to this phenomenon fifty-some years ago as a movement toward the Japanese in political culture after the “end of history.” He had formerly thought that American and Soviet culture presented the most developed examples of “post-historical” “human” life, the only truly essential difference between the two cultures being that the Americans were so much wealthier, but a trip to Japan had made him view Japan as more representative.

      To make a long critique short, the theory goes that since we don’t have anything truly meaningful to fight about anymore – or, to say the same thing, no longer find what we fight about truly meaningful and do not even truly fight about it – politics reduces to fashion, or high snobbery without political-historical content, “forms without values.” Since accomplishing anything important is out of the question, one expresses oneself with the aim of being seen to possess the proper or superior attitude, saying the proper or superior things, looking the proper or superior way, treating the intrinsically unimportant as important until the moment that it becomes unimportantly important to cease to do so.

      I imagine that these particular SJWs are quite delighted with themselves and their appropriation of BMFA’s exhibition for their own purposes. They may even honestly believe that it all authentically has advanced some cause beyond their own political-cultural careers.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  5. Honestly, I preferred the art museum when the hicks who weren’t taking selfies there chose instead to go to the truck pull museum or wherever else they go.

    Little silly stunts like “get your picture taken” means that the wrong people are enjoying Monet.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  6. I’ve developed this weird tic in which I stop reading someone the moment I see the letters s, j, and w in succession, and in that order. Dunno how that came about.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  7. “At one point, Nagaoka and the group opposing the event, along with other visitors, gathered in a doorway of the gallery, and the conversation became slightly heated. “You don’t understand anything about art,” one man said as he passed through. To which someone responded, “Check your privilege.””

    Worst. Conversation. Ever!!!

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2015/07/08/tensions-questions-mfa-reconfigured-kimono-wednesdays/5VpgDhLrDNK2nPIOSygFNL/story.html

      Quote  Link

    Report

  8. Once, on a trans-friendly website (not on Tumblr, though), I described a conversation I had with a 12-year old that knows our family, telling him about my daughter’s transition. I said that, among other things, this is a thing that has been happening for centuries to all kinds of people, including Native Americans, who called trans people “two spirit people”.

    I was accused of cultural appropriation. How dare I? This struck me as extraordinarily odd. It’s bad to portray someone’s situation as something that happens in many different cultures, at many different times?

    I was irritated as crap at this, but I’ve calmed down now. And I wonder, where is this energy, this sense of shame, coming from.

    I grew up with the idea that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. When two people are in a relationship, they influence each other. They adopt each others speech patterns and mannerisms. Can’t that be true of two nations?

    If you visit Japan, you will notice lots of Western things there. Japan has its nativist element, it’s true, but it is very subdued. One of the things I noticed was that there were plenty of billboard ads for lingerie, but they all featured models that were blonde and blue-eyed. So what was the meaning of that? Was this meant to protect the innocence of the pure Japanese women. Western women can be sexy in public, but no Asian ones?

    I’ve been able to identify some instances of appropriation where the offense taken makes some sense. When western women belly-dance, they often do it as a way of making themselves more exotic and sexually enticing. This is highly offensive to women from the Middle Eastern cultures who think of themselves as highly respectable and who place their belly-dancing in a tradition where they learn it with their sisters from their mothers and aunts and friends. There’s nothing exotic about it to them.

    The best criticism of that horrifying twerking that Miley Cyrus did with Robin Thicke at the VMA was a piece by a black woman saying, basically, when Miley gets up tomorrow morning, she’ll be white, and it’s not fair to just pick up a piece of black culture to portray oneself in a certain light, and then walk away from it. My impression is that it was bad, and that Miley in fact did not commit herself to it, constantly mugging for the camera as she did.

    With power comes responsibility, and as a very powerful nation, or as white people, we have to take a bit more care. At the same time, being insular, and uninterested in, and uninfluenced by, other cultures, is also a problem.

    Long story short, I think the Boston MFA should have used this opportunity to explore issues of cultural appropriation. But that means facing down shame, and that’s always hard.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • Appropriation versus imitation versus cultural theft is pretty context driven.

      Which means that the young are often going to miss the context (that takes experience to stop and assess) and the more foreign the source, the more likely you are to screw it up (because you truly don’t understand what you’re looking at on the far side).

      And the thing is, there’s a long history of…really bad appropriation, you know? Of using it to trash the weird and the different. I can understand a push-back, and I can understand an overreaction because historically it’s often been…pretty darn bad.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Yeah, I’m with the point Jaybird is actually making: This was an *Japanese* exhibit. Created by a Japanese broadcasting company.

        Those innovative Japanese folks, appropriating their own culture.

        If the Boston MFA can’t show it, then it can’t show anything from any ‘other’ culture at all, at least not anything vaguely participatory.

        As the article mentions, this really does look to be non-Japanese people protesting against Japanese culture.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • If we’re being fair, the protestors attempt to address this point by saying that the cultural experience of Japanese in Japan is different from the cultural experience of Asian-Americans. So the same work can be inoffensive in one environment and yet hit on racial stereotypes in another. That said, this is such a nuanced view of offense that it deserves more of an explanation than just a jumble of buzzwords on a tumblr.

            Quote  Link

          Report

  9. This seems for me to be yet another case where we as a culture haven’t found our footing, between our desire for untrammeled freedom of expression, and moral norms of respect for each other.

    On one hand we celebrate the freedom to opt out, at will, of any moral norms we choose. I’m thinking of all the ways we celebrate and valorize the iconoclast, the rebel, the romantic renegade who thumbs his nose at convention.
    Yet we also want to enjoy the fruits of mutual respect and dignity, and the safety that comes with a clear structure of norms which demarcate things which are taboo.

    So we have this weird uneven terrain where the rules of social propriety are invisible tripwires which themselves are laid out in a random pattern.

    Which makes me want to call for a new form of etiquette, new taboos and structures guiding us. But even when the rules are clear, when they aren’t enforced in goodwill, they become even worse.

    I think of Edith Wharton’s story “House of Mirth” which dealt with Victorian etiquette, and how a clear set of rules of social propriety could be gamed and cynically manipulated to create a horrific injustice.

    I can’t help but wonder if part of the art museum’s panic was its own blindness. Did it have enough people with enough knowledge of Japanese culture, who could speak with authority, to confront the protestors on their own terms?
    Or were they like characters from a Tom Wolfe novel, pious liberals who just took any statement from a “minority” at face value?

    What’s really missing I guess is an actual dialogue where people can speak honestly and endure the pain of things they don’t want to hear.

    Its like how we talk about moving beyond “food and festival” multiculturalism, to a place where we can see and openly acknowledge our cultural differences, without judgment or criticism.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  10. The post is beautiful, but the comment thread should be censored and quarantined for infectious bad “whom”-ing.

    (By the way, a trick I ran across years ago for when you’re unsure, and can’t parse out the grammar immediately, is to take the remainder of the phrase or clause in question and imagine it as a full sentence using he/she/they vs him/her/them:

    So, you might, in a state of censurable and censorable laxity, write the following:

    I’m sure that whomever did that…

    But, unless you were writing in or imitating some Pidgin or Rastafarian English, you’d probly never say:

    Him did that.

    Or, because you not so secretly hate me and like to cause my ears to bleed, you might write the following:

    …whom aren’t Japanese in origin

    But, no matter how evil you are, you probably wouldn’t write the following sentence:

    Them aren’t Japanese in origin.

    These are simple examples, but you’ll find that the trick works in a larger number of more complicated contexts. )

      Quote  Link

    Report

  11. I’ll admit that the Tumblr was incredibly off-putting, essentially restating the argument as fact over and over with increasing verbiage. But here’s a nuanced article that actually tries to articulate why the exhibit is negative appropriation : http://bigredandshiny.org/18982/demonstrators-protest-cultural-appropriation-in-mfa-galleries/

    This whole debate reminds me a lot of people wondering why blackface is offensive to african-americans but drag shouldn’t be offensive to women, and I think it’s a worthwhile exercise to actually try to articulate the differences between these types of appropriation.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • Drag is..complicated. I really don’t know how I feel about that one (not that I really have a dog in that race, being neither a drag performer, a woman, or otherwise involved). It’s at a weird intersection of performance, gender relations and norms, transgender issues, crossdressing (which is not transgender but a whole ‘nother thing), and it’s not exactly a new phenomenon to boot which means it’s roots may have one meaning and it’s current style another.

      It’s a big muddle.

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • The piece you link may be less combative, or more sophisticated, than the activists’ writings (I confess I haven’t gone through the latter in detail), but it still operates according to a set of ideological presumptions about art and history (and art in history) that together fuel a backlash that may be felt less within the art world, where those same presumptions reign, than in popular culture and politics, and indirectly.

      morat20 says, “it’s [the young protestors’] culture too,” and that’s true. Though the long histories of cultural offense-giving and -taking are well-known, I don’t see much problem with anyone reminding us of them, but I also think that demands and conduct here, and the reaction of bureaucrats, donors, volunteers… whomever – finally of the community as a whole such as it is – are part of the same phenomenon – or so-called “culture war,” including the victories currently being celebrated, for instance, on the Confederate battle flag or even on the fetishized word “marriage” in the SSM debate, or running their course in every other day’s latest social media kerfuffle.

      These volunteer censors or appropriation vigilantes have themselves appropriated – effectively confiscated – the self-expression of Bostonian dilettantes, putting themselves in the starring roles – or, in other words, they’ve “made it about them.” Their use of the museum’s outreach gimmick is in that sense another version of what they are pretending to attack, meant to be differentiated and justified in accordance with borrowed (or appropriated) claims of victimization. The logical yet absurd consequence of their implicit theory of inappropriate appropriation would be the end of all art exhibitions and all discussion entirely, since it is impossible to discuss any topic at all, or address anyone else’s point of view at all, without reducing it in some way, and in a manner that will tend to represent one’s own over anyone else’s arguably more authentic position or “origins.” The same process is visible when BR & S insists that a proper introduction to the topic would have been with Japanese woman artist’s treatment of kimonos depicting women of different classes: In other words, let art instruct the the People (or the middle class, perhaps) about class, race, and gender as we require them to be understood.

      Many here like the outcomes in other cases, but dislike the one regarding the pretty lady, the pretty kimono, and a touch of un-serious irony. I’m not denying the possibility of rationale for preferring one outcome over another, but the same set of shared presumptions, about the basis for a decisive argument, are operating throughout, and the political-cultural right has been and likely will remain able to exploit that fact.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • What’s a “culture war” but the battle between Americans over what America should be and stand for?

        It’s never going to end. The battlegrounds might change, but the war will never end as long as this country stands and new generations are born.

        We can agree, disagree, quibble, argue, and make our own stands — but culture is the combined creation of all of us. It’s who and what we are, in aggregate. And that debate will never, ever, ever end.

        Because we’re 300,000,000 people, born over a hundred year timespan of widely differing backgrounds. It’d be strange if it wasn’t a fight.

        Personally, I think the youth provide energy and necessary change. I also think they’re prone to using sledgehammers because they haven’t learned about scalpels. But I also think some of it might be they haven’t learned the proper etiquette, another aspect of our culture.

        How to fight it the way we (as older, more established) Americans like it. After all, we frown on open racists. But smile upon dog whistles. Same appeal to culture, different words. Sounds like etiquette to me. You want the salad? Just use the salad fork, otherwise you’re banished….

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • Agree about it being realistic to expect problems, but “woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”

          A problem for them – the young activists – may arise when it turns out that their activism is also born of old ideas or a prior generation’s ideals that have already reached their cultural peak, and are already on the other side of it, and that another group desperate to make its “unique impact” is also around, and possesses its own sledgehammers, possibly as weighty or weightier… and more of them.

            Quote  Link

          Report

      • Without getting too much into the weeds, I see the article and the tumblr as coming from completely different schools of thought. If anything, the article is a text-book case for how this kind of argument can be made respectfully (I’ll note that the article concedes that this is an outreach gimmick, while the tumblr argues this is racism comparable to slavery). Here are the main points, which were a direct response to the public statement issued by the MFA (quotes in italics, interpretations mine):

        1. “The painting in question, a work from 1876, is a singular example of Orientalism, a tradition in Western art that broadly caricatures regions as disparate as North Africa and East Asia with the aim of cultivating a Romantic visual language around Western cultural imperialism.

        2. The museum states that the painting cannot be racist because it is ironic, but stereotypes and appropriation are not acceptable simply because they come with a dose of irony. Nor does the piece, as presented, critically address the irony. “At best it is an uncritical way of engaging viewers with the work, and in the case of this particular painting, it does more harm than good.

        3. The museum also states that the purpose of the dress-up is to familiarize people with the craftsmanship of kimonos, but if that’s the purpose there are many works of Japanese art on display that could serve the same purpose without also engaging stereotyping and appropriation.

        4. “The MFA should absolutely be pointing visitors to La Japonaise, but they should be asking why the image appeals to popular sensibilities, rather than simply celebrating it. They should be asking what this fascination says about our past as well as our current cultural condition.

        To be honest, I’m not seeing a culture war but rather a sensible critique of a curatorial decision by the museum.

        I kept trying to come up with an analogy to understand why people would be offended that wasn’t too self-serving and I’m pretty sure I’ve failed, but here goes: The museum is running an advertising show which features a vintage print of the famous Aunt Jemima packaging which stereotypes black face and dress at the time (“Happyfyin’ Aunt Jemima Pancakes / Sho’ Sets Folks Singin'”). The exhibit allows visitors to dress up in similar clothing and pose for photos in front of the ad. When criticized, the museum responds by saying (a) The ad is not racist because it’s celebrating the tradition of African soul food and cooking; (b) anyway, the purpose of the exhibit is to familiarize people with African American dress and culture of the time; (c) the exhibit was originally set in an African American history museum in Harlem and did not draw offense. Would you see this response as satisfactory? Would you consider continued criticism of this curatorial decision as an act of culture war?

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I have to agree that your analogy fails, even before we get to arguably vast differences in the subjects (Japanese culture viewed through a European artistic lens, with the former as dubious proxy for “victims of Western imperialism,” vs African Americans in crude stereotype), since we can distinguish between Monet’s work, which shows mature self-consciousness and also offers an immersion in beauty, and “advertising” of the type you describe, which does neither.

          I won’t pretend to assess the adequacy of your hypothetical museum’s response, but criticism (or protest) of such a curatorial decision as racist would be virtually by definition “culture war,” and the protestors’ victory in the particular battle you imagine would likely be an easy one (one reason it wouldn’t likely be attempted in the first place). It wouldn’t, for instance, likely inspire a counterstrike at OT, gathering majority support in the comments.

          Otherwise, as I said before, I consider the presumptions underlying arguments 1 through 4, in regard to history as well as in regard to the purpose of art and proper engagement with it, debatable. BR & S, in this way no different from the protestors, treats those presumptions as settled conclusions that we are obligated to adopt as truths. The problem for most museum administrators is that they probably agree..

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • >>BR & S, in this way no different from the protestors, treats those presumptions as settled conclusions that we are obligated to adopt as truths.

            What I see BR&S doing is making a logical argument flowing from certain presumptions, in contrast to the protestors making an emotional claim. The BR&S assumption is what Japonisme was about, which seems fairly uncontested; the subsequent assertions are that irony does not absolve stereotyping and that other works of art better express the stated curatorial goal. The article never claims that the decision was racist. And to the extent that there are settled conclusions here, they are there in any criticism that states “if you want to achieve X, you would do better by doing Y”. In fact, I don’t see any way within your framework that one could make a critical statement without it being equivalent to the protestors screaming baseless racism on tumblr.

              Quote  Link

            Report

        • I think a more appropriate analogy would be if Russians or Turks or Iranians living in Japan protested Tokyo Disneyland having a Japanese woman play Snow White, because this is offensive to all white people, while Disney itself and all Americans living in Tokyo continue to insist that they have no problem with Disney in Tokyo and indeed even strongly support it as a celebration of their own culture.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • You’re focusing a lot on the ethnicity of the protestors being different from the victims, but I think that having a representative of the victim amongst the protestors is a *sufficient* condition but not a *necessary* one to conclude that an offense has occurred. While having offended Japanese would certainly make the case for offense easier, it’s entirely possible to conclude that the exhibit is offensive without such victims coming forward (in fact, I would argue that it’s impossible to conclude that no such victims exist). Victimized people often do not know that they are being oppressed or mocked; but that alone does not absolve the perpetrator.

            Your analogy also ignores the fact that Orientalism really was about stereotyping and romanticizing imperialism (i.e Snow White would need to have come from a Japanese story genre exploiting whites) and the museum response which both rejects this fact (stating flatly that the painting is not racist) and attempts to sweep it under the rug (stating that the painting was chosen only because it features a kimono and kimonos are cool, even though there are many other works in the museum featuring kimonos without any Orientalist overtones). I don’t think you can seriously assess harm while ignoring these points.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • I think I can in fact seriously assess harm in this situation by looking at whether or not the ethnicity that is supposedly being offended is actually offended. In fact, I think that this is how harm should be assessed. Presuming that Japanese people should be offended by a white person wearing a kimono because imperialism and such is actually projecting our (outrage) culture’s norms onto their culture in an offensively parentalist way.

              And I think when we’re concerned that appreciating fine works of craftsmanship from other countries or cultures may be offensive or causing harm, we’re getting into serious Hamlet territory. The logical conclusion from such an approach is that I must never eat anything that originated in another culture (goodbye curry), never wear another culture’s clothing (no more pants), listen to another culture’s music (adios flamenco), use another culture’s technology (my Samsung phone in the trash), etc. It’s reductio ad absurdum and incompatible with life.

                Quote  Link

              Report

            • The argument that you can’t find anyone of the target ethnicity that’s offended by the work, therefore it cannot be offensive is both subjective and weak. The racism/racialism is inherent to the work, not the viewer itself: the Aunt Jemima ad would be offensive even if it was only ever seen by white people. Trying to formalize your argument only leads us into crazier territory: If I find 1 Japanese person who takes offense, does the work now become offensive? Or do I need to find 10? Or some % of the Japanese population? What about American-born viewers of Japanese decent, how much do they count? Obviously this isn’t the only way we assess whether something is offensive.

              Moreover, you continue to ignore the fact that this painting comes from a movement that really was motivated by ethnic stereotypes and a romantic view of colonialism. As far as I’m aware curry, pants, and flamenco did not arise out of such a movement. This is like arguing that if we find the Aunt Jemima ad offensive, we must conclude that any ad with a minority spokesperson is offensive; or if we’re offended by the Confederate flag, we must also be offended by the flag of any losing army.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • Offense is by its very nature subjective. (I would go farther and argue that everything is, but that’s neither here nor there.) Nor is it “weak” to attempt to inquire whether or not members of a particular group are offended by something. In this case: (1) no, they are not offended; (2) Why? Because they designed the exhibition; (3) they consider the exhibition a positive reflection on their culture; and (4) they strongly desire it to stay. Seems like an open and shut case. Notably, I’m not trying to formalize anything, since I’m taking a common sense, practical perspective, but you’re right that it would be silly to have some minimal percentage that must be offended by something in order to conclude that we should censor an art exhibition. So let us burn your straw man together then. Nor are we discussing the painting as if it’s your Aunt Jemima scenario above, since that is built on top of a different sort of cultural scaffolding than this, however, even if that exhibition were put forward in a way that the only offended people were white leftist college students, I would be inclined to let the exhibition continue and remove them from the museum in that case as well.

                Regarding the painting itself, I’m not an art historian, but colonialism doesn’t apply in this particular case, since Japan was never colonized. The fascination in the West of Japan at the time was procured through voluntary exchange. On the contrary, curry came to Great Britain through conquest of the Indian subcontinent, pants were adopted from the Celts, who were violently subjugated by first the Romans, then the Germanic tribes – but of course, even my attributing pants to the Celts is chauvinistic and Euro-centric, since pants arose in many different cultures. My appreciation for flamenco music of course comes in the context of my chosen nation’s subjugation of Latin American peoples via the Monroe doctrine for nearly two-hundred years at this point, along with the continued marginalization of undocumented immigrants, many of whom are natives of those nations. Arguably, for me to enjoy any of these cultural artifacts is an order of magnitude more offensive than wanting to take a selfie in a kimono, given the contexts I have described. Except that my curry is served to me with love by my friend from Delhi, whom I joke with as I eat it and fairly compensate before going out the door, people would probably be more offended if I were not to wear pants, and the native speakers of English who might speak for marginalized Latin Americans are too busy trying to censor works of art to raise much of a stink about things that matter.

                While I find much of orientalism theory quite silly, I do agree with Edward Said that behind a lot of it was Western patronism. I see none of that here. In fact the only thing that’s quite clearly patronizing is trying to tell a member of another culture that he should be offended by something that he is not offended by.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • >> Nor are we discussing the painting as if it’s your Aunt Jemima scenario above, since that is built on top of a different sort of cultural scaffolding than this.

                  In what substantial way does the cultural scaffolding differ? I’m no art historian either, so I’ll take the article at it’s word that Orientalism was a movement based on stereotyping and romanticizing colonialism. The difference between an Orientalist painting and curry is that one was specifically intended to stereotype and the other was not. It’s the difference between a white person putting on a minstrel show and a white person break-dancing.

                  Given that your conclusion was drawn using the highly scientific method of looking at the last names of the protestors, we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether the right kind of people were sufficiently offended. “I don’t know anyone who was offended” is second only to “I have minority friends” in terms of excuses. The fact that the exhibit was inoffensive in Japan also doesn’t say very much. This is a Western painting of a white woman ironically wearing a kimono. An exhibit where a primarily Japanese audience poses in front of the painting in kimonos is inherently different from an exhibit where a primarily Western audience does the same. The intended audience and their perspective on the work matter. That some people get to use the N-word inoffensively doesn’t mean that all people do.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                  • I think some of your criticisms of are focused too much on the faultiness of his analogy* when his analogy wasn’t the entirety of his point. As I read him, he’s introducing a critique different from your critique. In this comment, he even seems to agree with you, stating that the tumblr and the article he cites come from very different perspectives.

                    And to my mind, the article he cites (at least as he outlines it….I haven’t read the article itself) seems to make a point that’s worth considering, especially if we’re focused on a critique of the exhibit and not, as the tumblr’ers seem to want, on forcing the museum to take down the exhibit.

                    Unfortunately, the sub-thread discussion has seemed to focus too much on the analogy and on the question of whether and how many “Japanese” as opposed to merely “Asian Americans” have been offended and how to measure offense. The article he cites, though (again, at least as Trizzlor summarizes) seems to have a point.

                    Finally, as for whether Japan or Japanese people can truly feel “marginalized” or “orientalized” despite the fact that they were never colonized is itself an interesting question. I speculate that any answer would have to account for some facts that don’t yeild a clear answer. On the one hand, at least since the late 1800s, Japan was a major world power. On the other hand, it and its people were sometimes treated as a second rate power or inferior (think back to Japanese exclusion movements in the early 1900s and the “gentleman’s agreement” of 1907. On the third hand at least since the 1960s, I think you can argue that an “Asian American” awareness has obtained among at least some people of Asian ancestry. None of these facts proves the article’s argument as correct (and the first fact contradicts one of the bases for the argument), but to my mind they seem to support Trizzlor’s point more than he’s being given credit for.

                    *And although he’s somewhat doubled down on that analogy in this sub-thread, when made the analogy, he acknowledged how hard it is to come up with an appropriate one.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                    • I don’t have a problem with @trizzlor’s point or even his analogy. I acknowledge that he has acknowledged that his analogy has little bearing on this specific question.

                      I even agree with some of the points of the article he linked and, in fact, do not say that the protesters in this case have no right to be offended. My problem is that he is attacking a straw man. In particular with this passage:

                      “Given that your conclusion was drawn using the highly scientific method of looking at the last names of the protestors, we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether the right kind of people were sufficiently offended. “I don’t know anyone who was offended” is second only to “I have minority friends” in terms of excuses.”

                      I’m merely advocating a pragmatic approach to “outrage”. In this incident, there really is little that should cause reasonable people to accommodate outrage to the point of censoring an art exhibition.

                      In particular, I strongly disagree with this claim:

                      “The fact that the exhibit was inoffensive in Japan also doesn’t say very much.”

                      I think this says everything, especially in conjunction with the fact that Japanese specifically planned this exhibition with the intention that Americans of all races pose in front of the painting while wearing kimono. Case fishing closed!

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                      • Christopher Carr: Case fishing closed!

                        Well, it would close the case, except, from the perspectives of the protestors, of more sophisticated critics making the same point more gently, and of well-meaning individuals like Trizzlor, the fact that hardly anyone is offended is or would be itself offensive to the offense-takers. In their view we all should be offended on behalf of the victims of colonialism/imperialism/racism/appropriation etc., and it is a major if not the primary purpose of art institutions and possibly of art altogether to instruct us properly on such matters, and especially on this world-historically all-important one. It doesn’t matter that the painting is gorgeous, that the painter was apparently something of a critic of the movement within which his work is being placed historically, that the painting wittily elucidates that criticism, that the organizers have what would seem to be proper ethno-national credentials, and that, contrary to Trizzlor’s assertion, the particular views on the political-cultural movement in question might be considered quite contestable. What matters is that we are all properly instructed as to the deemed correct view and are never encouraged to adopt the incorrect one, intentionally or not. From the point of view of critics, given the importance of a general and unchallenged adoption of the correct views in this case, even if Monet and his present-day curators are innocent of the specific charges, since they’re attached to the objective class enemy, we might as well make examples of them anyway as the white racist colonialist imperialists, fellow travelers, and running dog lackeys that they are.

                          Quote  Link

                        Report

                          • Glad you find my activities interesting, though that doesn’t mean I agree with your description.

                            I don’t really think, for instance, that I’m actually given to mockery as a rule. Show me the evidence and I’ll seek to mend my ways. I don’t usually deploy the Marxismleninismspeak, but it seemed appropriate here, and a useful shortcut to making a point clearly that didn’t seem to be getting through. As I noted in my initial comment (after the “whom” comment, which I wrote before this post had been promoted), this case is an unusual one. The controversy (#kimonogate, for some) was placed by Christopher and initial commenters on the other side of the more typical reflexes regarding any issue in which the white/male/Western vs other/victim complex comes up.

                            Could just be a matter of luck and timing, but it could be the weakness of the case, including the absence of qualified representative victims. The last meant that outragers needed to fit other othereds into a mode of dress that rightfully belongs to a group who, except in occasional reference to wartime internment policy or the A-bombs, are not familiar for us in the role. So it’s a version of the usual controversy with some typical elements suppressed, letting others show forth more clearly.

                              Quote  Link

                            Report

                      • Thanks for clarifying, and I don’t have much of a bone in the discussion between you and Trizzlor as it evolved in the sub-thread. So if you say he’s strawmanning, that’s between you and him.

                        I will sound a note of caution about this statement from your comment:

                        especially in conjunction with the fact that Japanese specifically planned this exhibition with the intention that Americans of all races pose in front of the painting while wearing kimono.

                        I know you know more about Japan and Japanese culture than I (you’ve lived there and learned the language, correct?…I’ve done neither), but I do imagine it’s better to say that some Japanese persons designed and planned this exhibit and had whatever intentions they had for its use. Do you, with your knowledge of Japanese culture, know of any social class stratifications or sub-cultures that might be offended by this type of art exhibit? Or if offended is too strong a word, then any groups of Japanese people who are not particularly invested in this type of artistic representation? Even if your answer to either of these questions is yes, that’s not fatal to any of the points you’re making. It just strikes me as kind of a broad generalization. And again, I realize you know much more about Japan than I ever will.

                          Quote  Link

                        Report

                        • These are facts:

                          The exhibition made the rounds of various art museums in Japan and was very well received.

                          NHK (think Japanese BBC or NPR) was involved in its implementation.

                          It was part of the plan of the exhibition that when the piece was returned to the United States, American MFA visitors would have the same opportunity as Japanese did to experience wearing the custom-made replica of Camille Monet’s kimono.

                          As much as this story has attracted the attention of the media in Japan or the Japanese expatriate community, the offense that has been taken is outrage that non-Japanese Asians managed to shut down a celebration of Japanese culture.

                          The only complaints that I’ve heard, witnessed, or read have been along the lines of: why do the Americans force their politically-correct culture on us?

                          That being said, I’m not ruling out the possibility that the exhibition could be construed as offensive or that some Japanese person somewhere is offended. Nor am I invalidating real offense that other Asian groups may be feeling.

                            Quote  Link

                          Report

                          • Thanks for this update Chris. I had no idea that the exhibit was designed with the intent of eventually traveling outside of Japan, nor that the Japanese response has so far been backlash to the protest. I agree that this makes a big difference and makes my take on it an overreaction. It was one of those weird things that started as a contrarian point and ended with me QUITE upset that someone on the internet wasn’t thinking of the children. Given that Japanese people are not bothered by the exhibit as it is in the US, I’m not going to turn them into victims against their own will. What remains is the offense taken by the “Stop Yellowface” group, which has not been articulated in any way that I can actually understand.

                              Quote  Link

                            Report

  12. I don’t know about all this racism business, but this isn’t an issue if BMFA doesn’t cancel the exhibition. Without that, there’s nothing to talk about except how certain folks (protestors!) are exercising their speech rights in ways that some of us may find odious. Or not. That’s just par for the course in an Open Society, no? I mean, even tho I may not agree with them I defend to the death their right to yadda-daba-doo and so on, yeah? So the big question, to me, is why did BMFA decide to cancel the show, and one thing that comes to mind is that the institutional Art community is so confused about what the hell Art is anymore that it can’t decide whether or not the protestors are actually right and because of that decided to play it safe.

    So I’m wondering why anyone would blame the protestors in this situation and what the focus of the blame actually is. Are they supposed to not express their speech rights when the outcome of such expression is self-censorship by others? How the heck is that consistent with speech rights?

      Quote  Link

    Report

      • It strikes me as an abuse of the language akin to the one these kids used in their jumbled statement, to call kids with a tumblr who are yelling at a fairly established institution. It’s sort of like calling Sam a bully because he says nasty things about the Catholic Church.

        That the institution caved to their “bullying” does not make the abuse of language any less severe.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • And, as always, I go back to the discussions I used to have (with people who aren’t here and, interestingly, don’t seem to be anywhere in this discussion… like, even on other websites or in other media) about the Mapplethorpe exhibit or, yes, Immersion (Piss Christ).

          I’m sure that you remember those discussions as well.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • Jaybird,

            If you think that an “injustice” has occurred here – a violation of Free Speech And Expression! – then focus on the primary actor: the BMFA, who voluntarily (via self-censorship) decided to cancel the exhibition. It seems to me that your whole argument relies on the presumption that a “wrong” has been committed. But the BMFA chose to engage in what you view as a wrong, and if not for their closing down the show this entire discussion reduces to a judgment of the conditions under which people (the protestors!) ought to be allowed to express their speech rights.

            I find it ironic that you’re effectively trying to shut down their speech on the premise that they shut down someone elses. Which just isn’t the case. BMFA chose to shut itself down.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • Oh, I haven’t used the word “injustice”.

              If I were to compare it to anything, I’d compare it to Reddit’s treatment of Ellen Pao.

              While it’s certainly true that Reddit is responsible for throwing her unceremoniously to the curb, I can’t help but think that the user revolt has a lot to do with it.

                Quote  Link

              Report

            • Well, I’ll give you some of the accounts from a lot more recently than now and let you see how it looked closer to back then. (I’m trying to make everything more or less contemporary but web archiving wasn’t as good in 1987 so I’ll just try to make sure that everything is prior to 9/11.)

              Here’s the NYT:
              http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/29/us/trouble-right-here-in-cincinnati-furor-over-mapplethorpe-exhibit.html

              A couple of paragraphs from the middle (but, of course, you should read the whole thing):

              Leaders in the arts, as well, have stood firmly on the side of the arts center’s decision. ”Twenty-five years ago, I left my native country, Hungary, to seek artistic freedom,” said Ivan Nagy, director of the Cincinnati Ballet Company, at a recent news conference. ”Twenty-five years later, as the Iron Curtain is falling, it’s shocking that we have to stand here and fight this battle.”

              But museum officials say that the opposition to Mr. Mapplethorpe’s work has gone beyond merely speaking up. ”There has been a systematic, well organized campaign of letter-writing and anonymous phone calls to board members and their places of employment,” said Dennis Barrie, director of the Contemporary Arts Center. ”It’s an organized minority trying to enforce their world view.”

              Here’s the Village Voice:

              http://www.villagevoice.com/news/running-scared-6420840

              And here’s a paragraph from the middle:

              But this increasingly was the issue: the art world cocoon had been penetrated by people on the right whose rigid worldview was being challenged. They quickly became adept at targeting transgressive symbols impossible to explain in a sound bite. And sometimes even the art world seemed embarrassed by this art.

              As for Immersion (Piss Christ), here’s the close from an editorial from the NYT:

              http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/28/opinion/in-the-nation-art-and-indecency.html

              The N.E.A. will get the message. The likely result, as Jesse Helms intended, will be greater caution in the awarding of N.E.A. grants, with safer, non-controversial works being favored over the daring and the possibly offensive. Since taxpayers’ money is involved, there may be some political validity to that approach; it’s hard to justify disbursement of Federal funds for works that offend or baffle most of those who provide the money.

              Political prudence is one thing, however; stifling artistic expression and creativity is quite another. The N.E.A., warned by Senator Know-Nothing, no doubt will try to strike a proper balance. But if public and Congressional pieties ultimately limit Federal support for the arts to the most conventional works, then foundation and other private funds will have a greater responsibility for underwriting new ways of seeing, original means of expression, however controversial.

              (And please read each of these yourself, to make sure that I’m not taking anything out of context.)

              I used the NYT and Village Voice in the hopes of giving a reasonable center-left point of view from the time.

              Do these help give an idea of the arguments being given by the reasonable center-left around the time of the Mapplethorpe/Serrano debates?

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • I’m still not sure I follow.

                What do you think the position of the “reasonable center-left” was with regards to the Mapplethorpe/Serrano debates?

                What do you think the position of the “reasonable center-left” is with regards to the MFA/Kimono debates?

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • It seems to me that the position of the reasonable center-left back then was that these complaining groups were stifling artistic expression and trying to impose their world view on the art world.

                  It seems to me that the position of the reasonable center-left today is that focusing on the complaining groups is to miss the point because they have the free speech right to make their voices heard and if the museum decides of its own volition to act in accordance with these views, that’s on the museum and not on the people complaining.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

          • I don’t know what you mean. That the anti-Piss Christ folks were bullies? As some we’re not only members of powerful groups, but speaking on behalf of those groups, the word might be less of a stretch. But these kids? Seriously? They could easily have been ignored without a bloody lip resulting, which cannot be said of anyone who can even remotely accurately be described as a bully.

            As I hinted earlier, the only people who look as silly as these kids are the grown-ass people who are this hysterical about them.

            And that includes both the museum and far too many of you here.

              Quote  Link

            Report

            • Well, the cancelling of the show changes things, it seems to me.

              Sure, the BFMA ought to have had a lot thicker skin, here… but I can’t help but see a show closing in response to public outrage as a show closing in response to public outrage.

              I mean, the BFMA seems to have thought that they ought to have closed the show in response to these kids and now the kids think that the BFMA ought to publicly apologize…

              Something is going on here and I’m not sure that assuming that the kids shouldn’t be seen as even powerful enough to make the BFMA close its show doesn’t seem to be irrelevant given the whole issue of the BFMA closing its show.

              And, let me point out, we don’t seem to be in a situation where “moving it from this museum to a fully privately funded one” would resolve the problem the way that the bullies from the wrong side of the aisle back in the day pretended it would.

                Quote  Link

              Report

              • So, given that the BMFA decided of it’s own volition to close the show, your OUTRAGE is that these kids had the ignorant, bullying audacity to try to get the show closed but not that the museum actually did??!!??

                Is that right? That the real grievance here is that people do stuff you disapprove of? (Let’s assume that’s right since I’m a roll here!) But what is it, specifically, that you disapprove of? It’s not that they expressed the view that the exhibition is racist I’ll suppose (since that’s a Protected RIght and denying them their voice amounts to Censorship!) but that they further demanded that the exhibition be closed. So you’re complaint is that these kids don’t hold Freedom of Expression in higher regard than their perception of racism, yeah? Which means, in turn, that you just disagree with them about the beliefs they hold and call them, following CC, “ignorant bullies” as a shorthand to express your outrage.

                I mean, if you’re really gonna get outraged, it should be directed at the museum. Where’s their commitment to free speech, dammit??!!

                IOW: this just sounds like the standard old complaint about other people fucking things up for you.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • You seem to be implying that my opinions are much stronger than they actually are. I’m not saying “injustice” or “outrage”. I’m saying “censorious” and have dropped the word “bully” in favor of “idiots with buzzwords”.

                  If you’d like me to denounce the BMFA, I will happily do so now.

                  The BMFA caved in to censorious idiots with buzzwords and, in doing so, have opened the door for bullies to think that they can veto the arts for others in the future. They’ve made the culture worse by doing what they’ve done and by giving these censorious idiots a larger platform by giving them the time of day.

                  I’m sure that this will happen again, and again, and again. And we will again, and again, have opportunity to berate museums for listening to censorious idiots with buzzwords over following their own damn mission statements.

                  This is a camel’s nose that they’ve let into the museum. The camel will soon take up a lot more space in there.

                  To the point where even you might say that the camel deserves a share of criticism.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

              • Hmmm… First, remember that the “show” hasn’t been cancelled. They just don’t let people try on the kimonos. The painting is still there, as are the kimonos.

                Second, you didn’t answer my objection to the use of the word bully, you just restated what I was objecting to.

                Look, the kids are clearly idiots with buzzwords. There are intelligent people out there talking about this, though. Hell, some might even have talked to the MFA folks. Perhaps we should do that thing where, when something looks so obvious, and those who disagree with us look so stupid, we take a step back and try to find better versions of the counterargument, ones that don’t so easily confirm our existing beliefs.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

    • Are they supposed to not express their speech rights when the outcome of such expression is self-censorship by others? How the heck is that consistent with speech rights?

      “Can” does not imply “should,” and “should not” does not imply “should be prohibited by law.”

      We don’t say freedom of speech is important because every act of speech is good. We say freedom of speech is important because giving the government the power to decide which speech is good and which speech is bad, and to ban the latter, has a fairly limited upside and a huge downside.

      Which is to say, it’s not at all contradictory to say that freedom of speech is important while maintaining that certain speech acts are bad, and the people performing the contemptible.

      Not that the BMFA doesn’t deserve a big share of the blame for backing down, but there’s plenty to go around.

      Edit: To draw an analogy, most people agree that a) people should not commit adultery, and b) the government shouldn’t criminalize it. Do you disagree with either of these propositions?

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Brandon Berg: “Can” does not imply “should,” and “should not” does not imply “should be prohibited by law.”

        We don’t say freedom of speech is important because every act of speech is good. We say freedom of speech is important because giving the government the power to decide which speech is good and which speech is bad, and to ban the latter, has a fairly limited upside and a huge downside.

        Which is to say, it’s not at all contradictory to say that freedom of speech is important while maintaining that certain speech acts are bad, and the people performing the contemptible.

        I don’t really disagree with any of this, but I find myself reminded of, first, the conversation we had here in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and, second, the more recent go-around about the Confederate flag. And… I find myself struggling to find a halfway consistent principle at play apart from that expressed in your second paragraph.

        To my mind, putting the blame on the protesters feels an awful lot like that thing certain law and order conservatives do when they blame defense attorneys when fairly obviously guilty criminals walk free on a technicality.

        I think we can fairly criticize the position advanced by the protesters while also putting the blame squarely on the MFA for making the decision to cancel the event. Two actions, two different critiques.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I agree that the MFA harbors the primary blame here, but there is a critical difference between this and Charlie Hebdo. In this case, the resulting action seems to be consistent with the goals of the speech. In the Hebdo case, getting killed was not the goal of the speech.

            Quote  Link

          Report

          • I should add that this comment assumes that it was a goal for the BMFA to cancel the show, which is sort of my assumption. If they were just complaining about it, and BMFA canceled it, then their responsibility seems extremely negligible.

            I should also add that I don’t especially consider this to be an example of censorship. Or, if it is, it’s of the pretty mundane variety. That doesn’t mean I think their response to the alleged offense was justified or proportional. But barring extraordinary circumstances, and without threat of punitive action (sometimes with), “that’s offensive and we’re asking we want you to take it down” is how society and speech work.

              Quote  Link

            Report

  13. New(ish) developments!

    https://news.artnet.com/art-world/boston-kimono-mfa-debate-rages-on-315783

    The new “list of demands and charges” from the group, which calls itself Stand Against Yellow Face the MFA, is nearly 2,000 words in length. They group is offended by everything from the prospect that the MFA planned to curate the photos resulting from the event for its Facebook and Instagram accounts to the fact that the robe, they say, is an uchikake, not a kimono. (An uchikake is a formal variety of kimono, or outer robe, used in wedding ceremonies.)

    They demand that the museum apologize not only on its website but via “multiple media outlets and on social media” and that it explain “why this event is unacceptable.”

    The article finishes up with a shot at Clarence Thomas, which is nice.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  14. Interestingly, reading the responses to this incident elsewhere, places not dominated by white dudes talking to other white dudes about what this stuff looks like to white dudes, I found some interesting discussion (unlike here, where there is just precisely the sort of thing Sam got criticized for the other day, only in this case by some of the same folks who were criticizing him: as over there, we now know y’all are reasonable and morally righteous; awesome). I recommend trying it.

    Or you could stay within the safe confines of white dudes taking about how white dudes feel about these sorts of things, so everyone will recognize the reasonable righteousness of your intelligent, well-thought-out and informed opinion.

    Outrage at outrage!

      Quote  Link

    Report

          • Great premise. Now if only knew what Shakesville was, I could figure out whether or not I’m in that category.

            What a hell of a conversation to come back to after a vacation… #facepalm. Well, at least no one is being accused of being a bigot so I guess that’s progress.

              Quote  Link

            Report

              • I had to look up that site just to see what the hell you were talking about (as you can see, I’m not all that experienced in these kinds of conversations to pardon what may be appear to be a knee-jerk repulsion to the concept).

                I may understand based on this article right here:

                https://www.t-nation.com/blogs/gay-bashers-even-gayer-than-bodybuilding

                This article was posted onto T-Nation’s Facebook page. The comments section erupted into a virtual brawl. I can’t tell you how many people pulled the “T-Nation, I come here to read training articles, not this shit” or “T-Nation why do we have to read this politically correct bullshit” cards and got HAMMERED for it (I was one doing the hammering).

                I would have thought that the title itself was a sufficient enough trigger warning to keep those still offended by gays from reading it, but no, the biggest criticisms of the post didn’t focus on substance but the fact that the post was published in a place where people “come to read about training”. My apologies for not being up to speed to this, but my take on those people was that they viewed T-Nation as a safe space.

                If I’m looking at you like you have three heads (hence my snarky comment given my at-the-time high level of irritability), it’s probably because my frame of reference is limited to what I most recognize, something that I’ve rarely seen here, if at all.

                Just sayin’

                  Quote  Link

                Report

    • , Why don’t you do these pathetic “white dudes” and fellow travelers the service of presenting or linking to the (predictably!) superior and apparently even interesting commentary that you have encountered in your very elevating travels to these much better places?

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Never seen someone take such offense to being called interesting ;).

        Look, you of all people here should be wary, if not openly critical, of folks railing against views they have snippets of in cases they have incomplete information about (e.g., did the museum receive other complaints?).

        I suggest seeking out info yourselves, of course. Twitter has hosted several interesting threads. However, here are some discussions to start, because they’re open on my phone:

        http://syuminiki.tumblr.com/post/123518838458/theladyintweed-legalizegayweed

        https://twitter.com/HirokoTabuchi/status/618639896476012544?s=09

        https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/10/mfa-kimono-controversy-should-spark-deeper-conversation/lZeb3uxDpGBeP2t6Q7IzuL/story.html

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • Chris: Look, you of all people here should be wary, if not openly critical, of folks railing against views they have snippets of in cases they have incomplete information about (e.g., did the museum receive other complaints?).

          Fine, but life is short, while the insistence that white-dude-ness or lack of it must be the key criterion is clear, and something different from the question of what people do or don’t get to do on a museum’s community day in Boston.

          Now, I did read through one of the posts you linked, from a “non-white-dude” (as I suppose we have to say while engaging in this exercise in ethnodemographic opinion-sorting), and the author finally gets to her Japanese-American bottom line:

          As earnest and well-meaning as [patronizing white person] sounds, it’s lack of imagination, ultimately, that is the problem here, the lack of willingness to consider someone else’s position. To consider that the OK of one Japanese friend who likes your kimono doesn’t mean wholesale approval from all Japanese people, let alone Asian-Americans. Or to consider that even if an act — a harmless one like putting on a costume in front of a painting — isn’t wrong, it might not be right either. Most of all, what I wish we’d do in the face of race-related protest is listen, consider other possibilities, then have a real conversation.

          The uncertainty about whether the act is beyond or other than “right or wrong” raises questions about the determination to assess the aesthetic expression as a moral and political expression at all, while the call for a “real conversation” ought to be painfully familiar, unless it’s just numbingly familiar. I’m pretty confident that her call will remain unanswered, and that we will instead repeat our endlessly unreal conversation for the infinitieth time.

            Quote  Link

          Report

    • I must confess that sometimes I find it hard to know exactly what to do with this kind of comment, which I see a lot of these days: A white dude hanging who hangs out at a site, criticizing other white dudes for being white dudes hanging out at the very same site.

      I say this not as a cheap dig, but rather as simply noting that I’m genuinely not sure how to respond to it. I often find myself being in turns sympathetic, in agreement, eye-rolling, and feeling slightly absurd, often all within the space of a second or two.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Obviously I have no problem hanging out with white folks, but when issues of race, or even gender come up, the self-satisfied ignorance can be a bit much. Combined with the site’s reflexive dislike of anything socially further left than, say, Jay, it’s even more frustrating. That is all I mean. I doubt I’m alone in this.

          Quote  Link

        Report

        • I get that. Like I say, I’m usually nodding along to comments like yours as I read them, even as I recognize that there’s a certain level of absurdity baked in to my doing so.

          Though I am not sure what to make of your noting that the site is hostile to anything left of Jaybird. FWIW, this has not been my personal experience at all. As the site’s official No-Declared-Team guy, I almost feel the opposite: Lots of cheering whenever I take on the Right, pretty thoroughly excoriated by just about everyone when I dare criticize anyone or anything on the Left.

            Quote  Link

          Report

              • Well, to Chris’s point, this site does have a pretty good track record in the “white guy splainin” comment category. Seems to me anyway. And the issue isn’t that white guys have opinions about stuff. It’s when white guys discount other people’s opinions because those folks are, for example, ignorant. Or bullies.

                Which reminds me of what Roger used to say, so maybe it’s not teams all the way down, it’s Ignorance and Evil in Others all the way down!

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                • Well, sure it does. I not only agree with that observation, I don’t know how anyone could not.

                  But that seems the answer to a different question than the question, is pretty much everyone here a social conservative?

                  Because the answer to that question seems to me to me, “No.” (Or at least, not unless my understanding of what social conservative tend to believe is way, way, way off.)

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                  • Tod, I haven’t read all the comments but I did read trizzlor’s comments (everyone should always read the trizz!) and he was the only person who struck me (could be wrong) as trying to defend the protestors and/or the change in the exhibition. Most folks who’ve criticized the OP, from what I’ve gathered, have challenged either CC’s judgment of the protestors, or placing the blame on them, or etc. So, all in all, not very far to the left (by one conception of that term).

                    Heck, even Chris isn’t defending the guys CC sites in the OP. All he’s said is that there are more nuanced, less vitriolic arguments expressing the same views and those are less susceptible to arm-chair refutation and worth taking more seriously for folks inclined to refrain from reflexive judgments.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                    • Thanks Still! Reading through the thread I think Lee and Doctor Jay made a much more careful and considered rebuttal to the shaky arguments in the OP than I did. Which is probably why they were mostly ignored.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                      • trizzlor,

                        No problem. I think your comments are consistently some of the best, most interesting reading here at the OT.

                        And thanks for mentioning those other writers. I’ll scroll thru and check em out.

                          Quote  Link

                        Report

                    • FWIW, my criticisms of the protesters are as follows and come from “the left”:

                      1 – They don’t appreciate the context of the exhibition, and their opposition to it comes from that ignorance.

                      2 – Their tactics and goals – looking to censor art, shouting at museum-goers, having protest/counter protest battles with actual Japanese people trying to defend the exhibition – are self-righteous and forms of bullying.

                      3 – They’re trying to project their own cultural norms onto another culture’s interpretation of an art exhibition. This, for me, is the most damning.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report