Covered up posters are another example of Bowdoin’s culture of thoughtlessness

Doing it wrong: From Drake to feminism: unpacking America’s obsession with cultural authenticity

Fraud, identity theft, false advertising, being switched at birth—as modern citizens who take pride in our individuality and dignity, we have much to be afraid of. We do not like to be fooled, or at least we don’t like to know that we are being fooled. Authenticity is a priceless quality to many. It is the essence of something, the root of it, the way we are able to understand something.
The fear of inauthenticity pervades contemporary culture—from the highest to the lowest segments of it. Just last summer, billionaire Bill Koch settled a lawsuit against a wine retailer worth millions of dollars, for selling him counterfeit wines.
One of the shows MTV currently produces, “Catfish,” reflects this same hostility towards being duped. “Catfish” follows people who meet romantic partners online, and appear on the show to find out whether these partners are actually who they say they are.
With both Koch’s wine and Catfish, the problem is akin to false advertising; people are offended because they have been sold something different from what they set out to buy.On a trickier level, many take issue with the idea of people presenting themselves in a way that is not true to their self or their background. This is especially true in the music world.
Hip-hop star Iggy Azalea has been heavily criticized for the voice she uses when she performs, as well as her overall expression. Although she is a white woman from Australia, she sounds like she is trying to imitate an African-American when she raps. Australian comedian Aamer Rahman (who visited Bowdoin last fall), has said on the subject: “A white rapper like Iggy Azalea acts out signifiers which the white majority associates with black culture—hypersexuality, senseless materialism, an obsession with drugs, money and alcohol, as well as adopting clothing, speech and music—as a costume that they can put on and discard at will. It’s a cheap circus act.”
Her performance is definitely a form of appropriation, and it is certainly not authentic in the sense that she is selling a persona that is not true to her background or circumstances. But can it still be an allowable form of artistic expression?
Hip-hop stars like Drake have also been confronted about their authenticity. Can he really sing a song called “Started from the Bottom” if he grew up in an affluent suburb and acted on “Degrassi” as a teen? Does the song carry less meaning because of his stable background?
The ways that people can get riled up over the idea of a true identity are particularly interesting because they suggest we believe in an essential self. We believe that people, on a certain level, are permanently affected by their circumstances, and that these circumstances form our true selves. So if you deny your roots, or try to appropriate different ones, are you creating a self that is false? Are you presenting a lie? Are you trying to become somebody that you never will?Trans-exclusionary feminists have often made the argument that trans-women aren’t real women because they didn’t grow up as such. They weren’t treated as women growing up; they didn’t have the experience of women. But to make that argument is to say there is an essential woman’s experience—that there is something exclusive to women that brings us all together. I’d like to think an entire gender is more complicated than that.
There is something to be said for trying to grasp cultures and experiences beyond your own. But those who attempt to bridge the gap, those who try and adopt an experience outside of their own, must be ultra-sensitive to the way that certain people feel ownership of a culture. Perhaps being authentic isn’t the most important thing. Perhaps being comfortable with yourself and respectful of others is more fundamental.
As a society, I think we should give people leeway and creative license to reinvent themselves, especially if that lets them further explore their identities. It seems negative and authoritarian to tell people how authentic they are. And as individuals, I think we owe it to ourselves to be thoughtful about adopting new elements of expression and identity. Our origins and heritage will always be a part of us, even if we can fake an accent.

Doing it wrong: Oppressed groups need to seek common ground

Unfortunately, wages are still one of the many facets of society where inequality is present. And while bringing light to any form of inequality is a worthwhile endeavor, there is a wrong way to go about it, and Patricia Arquette did just that in her acceptance speech at the 87th Academy Awards last Sunday. While on stage, she said, “We have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.” But to complicate things further, in the press room afterwards, (according to USA Today) she said, “It’s time for us all…the gay people and people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.” Arquette’s statements at the Oscars assume two very incorrect ideas. First that, people of color and LGBTQIA people have gained equal rights while women haven’t, and second, that the struggles of all of these groups are not interconnected.
To tackle the first misconception, you don’t need to look any further than the wage inequality that Arquette referenced. While the wage gap undoubtedly affects women, it affects some women more than others: according to the data from the last census, while white women make 78 cents to the white man’s dollar, black women make 64 cents, Native American women make 59 cents, and Latina women make 54 cents. Furthermore, to combat the idea that the wage gap only affects women, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals that Black and Hispanic men earn less weekly than White and Asian women ($664 and $594, as opposed to $819 and $722, respectively). The wage gap, and inequality in general, is bigger than gender.Arquette’s comments are not only ignorant of the difficulties many communities continue to face, but they also perpetuate the divisiveness of identity politics. In order to advance equality for all, we need to stop seeing our struggles as disconnected.
Women cannot be truly free until all people of color and all LGBTIQA people are truly free. The colonization of the body will not be over until all facets of it are seen as equal. Why? Because feminism doesn’t stop at white women, anti-racism does not stop at men of color, and LGBTQIA rights do not stop at the white community or at men. Transgender women of color exist, disabled brown immigrants exist, gay male rape victims exist—people often experience oppression in different parts of their identities. We must continue to strive for the rights of all marginalized people so that these people will feel equal in our society. When Arquette says that it is time for people of color and gay people to fight for women now, she is suggesting that they are three isolated categories; she ignores intersectionality. As a woman of color, I feel that Arquette’s statement denies the multifaceted nature of my identity. Oppressions cannot be solved separately from each other.
On top of this, Arquette’s statement was offensive on the level that she suggests that she, along with all women, have fought for everybody else’s rights. Firstly, I was not aware that Patricia Arquette was an anti-racist and LGBTQIA activist. I was not aware that Patricia Arquette has been fighting so hard for my rights as a person of color.
We are not done fighting for these rights.
To suggest that is to undermine the very difficult struggles of millions of people. Arquette needs to look past her own experience as a white woman and recognize that just because a struggle does not exist for her personally, does not make it invalid.
There are ways to highlight injustice within one community without ignoring the injustices in other communities—evidenced by an earlier speech by John Legend and Common, where they touched on Dr. King’s activism as motivated by “a love for all human beings.” We must strive for this all-encompassing, inclusive love and fight for each other, instead of further alienating ourselves from each other. The recognition of intersectionality is how we will achieve true equality.

Doing it wrong

Covered up posters are another example of Bowdoin’s culture of thoughtlessness

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

February 12, 2015

Sometime in December, I was struck by a bulletin board covered with sheets of paper in David Saul Smith Union. On each paper was a poem, and I soon noticed that a black writer wrote each poem. Some of the poets featured were people I deeply admired, like Langston Hughes and Audre Lorde, and some of the poems were by writers I had never heard of.

This display of black poetry was deeply touching and seemed especially timely. Members of the community had just sponsored a vigil and a die-in at the dining halls in response to the non-indictment of Darren Wilson, the police officer who killed Michael Brown.

Coming back to Bowdoin after Winter Break, I was excited to see what forms of activism and solidarity the new semester would bring—especially since February is Black History Month. And it has been inspiring to see all the work that organizations like the African American Society have put into recent events. Another poster in Smith Union, showing minority victims of police brutality, has stood out as especially captivating and upfront.

While I am proud of the initiatives that Bowdoin has taken to confront racism, I was still disappointed to see what eventually happened to the poetry board in the Union. Walking by it several days ago, I noticed an assortment of posters for various events pinned over the poems.

My purpose is not to call out the individual people or groups who put up these new posters, or even say that they did anything wrong. But the image of that board, and the thought of covering those powerful words, struck me as thoughtless—even disrespectful.

The term microaggression has been increasingly brought up in progressive circles within the past couple of years. A microaggression refers to an action or statement that is unintentionally discriminatory.

A clear example would be showing something written in Chinese to a Korean person and asking them what it means—simultaneously applying a sameness to very different East Asian cultures and assuming cultural knowledge based on a person’s appearance.

This type of discrimination happens all the time. Microaggressions are often murky, and they can be a result of racism, ignorance or even good intentions.

I’m not trying to say definitively that putting posters over the poetry in the Union is a microaggression. But it does veer close to that. I think of all of the various ways this could make someone feel. I acknowledge that I am someone who appreciates and writes poetry, and I am very sensitive towards racial issues. But I am not advocating for an excessive sensitivity or atmosphere of extreme political correctness.

However, there is an indifference and self-centeredness required to cover up poetry by black writers right before and during Black History Month. It is completely possible that those who covered up the poetry did not even realize what it was or who the writers were. But it is also possible that they did.

Either way, what does it say about our community when people ignore something as beautiful as poetry, provided free and in such a convenient space? What does it say when we are close enough to read it and choose to hang up our own posters?

I know Bowdoin students are busy. I am not exempt from occasionally ignoring the intellect and beauty and entertainment that we are endlessly supplied with. But I am not guilty of carelessly putting up posters.

Putting up these posters exemplifies desensitization towards art and a selfish privileging of one’s immediate needs. There is without a doubt plenty of space in the Union and other school buildings to put up a poster. I realize these poems cannot stay up forever, but I think it is a bit soon to start obscuring them.

In a certain way, this is a Bowdoin version of the 5 Pointz building in Queens. 5 Pointz’s exterior was covered in intricate and stunning graffiti. It was completely demolished last year.

The building had been covered in graffiti for decades and there was a substantial public outcry when the news spread that it would be demolished. The situation brings up the same question of how long unsanctioned art should be displayed, and what its destruction means.

On another level, this bulletin board exemplifies how quickly and callously some students at Bowdoin go about their daily lives here.

There are so many presumptions and expectations that our lives are filled with—not to mention a seemingly endless list of responsibilities. This has created an atmosphere in which our decisions are not made as thoughtfully as they should be, where alternatives are not considered heavily enough.

Many students drink for hours instead of attending lectures or music recitals, work for an A instead of trying to gain a new perspective in a class, or pass by walls of poetry and art without giving them a second glance. I think poetry, art and the creativity and intellect with which we are privileged enough to be surrounded deserve more than that. I strongly encourage Bowdoin students to take advantage of the resources provided to them and give a longer look at the efforts made by their fellow students to engage them.

Comments are permanently closed.