Druski’s Whiteface Parody Sparks Backlash But the Blackface Comparison Falls Apart.

Druski’s Whiteface Parody Sparks Backlash But the Blackface Comparison Falls Apart.

(ThyBlackMan.com) It is hard to imagine that anyone who has access to a screen — of any size, at any place, at any time — has not seen comedian Druski’s ubiquitous parody of “Conservative Women in America” (his phrase). Even though Druski, née Drew Desbordes, never says anyone’s name in the video, Erika Kirk, widow of Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk, believes that he was specifically targeting her.

In any case, Druski’s use of “whiteface” in the parody has sparked controversy in some conservative circles. Charges of “hypocrisy” have been leveled at the comedian in particular, and at Black folks in general. Those who object to Druski’s skit draw facile comparisons between his performance and its ostensible parallel to the racist history of “blackface.”

Such criticism does not hold water. In fact, its logic is as leaky as a sieve. Small children often play games that teach them the principle of “this is not the same as that.” That principle abundantly applies in this instance.

Blackface traces its roots back roughly two hundred years in America. It also became a popular export to England. White performers created this “art” form as a way of derisively portraying Black people. By using exaggerated facial features, mocking Black speech, and wearing tattered clothing, whites performed as “Black” people in an extremely dehumanizing manner.

Such performances were not executed in a sociological vacuum; blackface was specifically designed to perpetuate white dominance over Blacks by portraying us as immoral, stupid, lazy and cowardly. Our humanity became discounted, if not negotiable. Blackface was, quite explicitly, used to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws, and all manner of domestic terrorism against Blacks. When you dehumanize people, you have the license to treat them inhumanely.

The manufactured controversy regarding Druski calls to mind another false comparison. A few decades ago, the phrase “Black people self-segregate” became popular. Perhaps the most famous examples were “Black lunch tables” at colleges, as well as Black Student Unions and other cultural safe spaces. Beverly Tatum, President Emerita of Spelman College, authored a popular book titled “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?”

So-called “self-segregation” was a direct result of actual race-based segregation that was enabled by culture, encoded in commerce and enforced by law — not to mention extralegal means. It had absolutely no resemblance — in motivation or practice — to de jure segregation. Comparing the two is as nonsensical as it is intellectually dishonest.

The same “logic” is true of blackface vs. whiteface. As is the case with blackface, whiteface has its origins in minstrelsy, albeit with fewer racist implications. Interestingly, whiteface literally comes from… clowns. Initially, whitefaced clowns were considered to be smart and refined — almost to the point of negating “clownishness.”

This contrasts with “auguste” clowns, whose faces were typically pink or brown. These were “foolish” clowns who were considered to be more boorish and less intelligent than their whitefaced counterparts. In fact, whitefaced clowns sometimes became offended that auguste clowns were referred to as “clowns” at all. Today, such distinctions are rarely made unless they are being taught as a history lesson.

In any case, whiteface is about characters; blackface is about caricatures. Blackface whitewashes racial violence. Blackface is ultimately about enforcing racial discrimination; behind the laughter is a dedication to erasing the humanity of Black people.

By contrast, whiteface has always — and only — been intended to make people laugh. There is no pernicious intent to demean white people. Whiteface has never been serious; it is satire. No one who has seen the Wayans brothers’ movie “White Chicks” views it as anything other than a farce that was designed to entertain in a decidedly non-offensive way.

Not long ago, Druski came under fire for his parody of ostentatious Black “prosperity preachers” of mega churches. As in the case of “Conservative White Women,” I found that skit to be laugh-out-loud funny. However, as a devout Christian, it also saddened me. That was not because it is false; it’s because it is true. Of course, as with the Conservative White Women video, some people were offended.

As the aphorism goes, “A hit dog will holler.”

Written by Larry Smith