Why Should White People Be Believed?
In light of allegations and apologies, who should we trust to bring in change?
So: Adam Rapoport resigned from Bon Appetit after an old photo of him in brownface and reports of his discriminatory remuneration practices came to light. The Head of Video, Matt Duckor resigned too, not long after accusations of bias and homophobic statements of his surfaced. Anna Wintour released an apology for the racially ‘hurtful or intolerant’ images and stories that she has published. Christene Barberich, editor-in-chief of Refinery29, resigned after reports of racism were shared by former employees. These are three instances of the many resignations and apologies that have resulted from revelations of their discriminatory practices and subsequent backlash from the public and present and former employees.
Except: Anna Wintour has been espousing the benefits and virtuousness of diversity and representation of marginalised groups (in the fashion industry) for a while now. And Sohla El-Waylly, a BA employee, has revealed that Adam and the larger BA team nudged her into being in the background of others videos to earn diversity cred. Which means both of these people already do recognise that inclusivity is good- at least for their businesses.
Which calls into question their apologies. If these people were already parading as woke and socially-conscious, their apologies, which are more guilty admissions, suggest a disconnect/something amiss. It is evidence that their behavior is not only contradictory, but outright dishonest. And that either stems from any measure of unprovoked self-awareness, or, it is deliberate.
So, what is the reasoning behind the hypocritical behavior in the upper echelons of these big companies? (I am using these three examples to look at similar patterns at other businesses, in media and otherwise.) Food media in general, has a habit of erasing cultural contexts and origins of dishes (ala Alison Roman) or taming recipes to suit a ‘western’ audience. Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of Vogue for 32 years, has said, “I want to say plainly that I know Vogue has not found enough ways to elevate and give space to Black editors, writers, photographers, designers and other creators.” For a person whose job it is to give space to creators of different kinds, why has it been especially hard to give those to black people? And why is that not elucidated?
The Black Lives Matter has caught on with a fervour in the last few weeks, but it is by no means a fresh/new movement. Initially starting on social media in 2013, it has had resurgences time and time again in recent years. And none of these apologies+admissions+promises emerged with the protests; they came after call outs and cries for accountability (exacerbated by the same companies and people posturing support for BLM). They were made by people, but also by the companies associated with the people (Conde Nast- which BA and Vogue both come under). These were made, at least in part, to save face and ensure their companies remain acceptable to a large portion of their demographic. BA’s YouTube channel, largely accepted as one of Conde Nast’s biggest cashcows, is adored by the internet, and certainly has a lot of lose.
When this current wave of BLM protests arose due to the murder of George Floyd, it’s focus was primarily on police brutality and wrongful incarceration faced by black people. But it gradually expanded its purview because of the prevalence of discrimination against black people. And while we acknowledge that racism is systemic and embedded, we also have to grapple with the fact that it is kept this way and alive by the deliberate actions of people, even people who may disavow racism in their speech. Even as Bon Appetit has asserted their will to do better by racism, it (Conde Nast) has, as of June 25th, suspended a video editor, Matt Hunziker, amid a “pending investigation”. The editor, much loved for his work in the immensely popular series ‘It’s Alive!’ on BA’s Youtube channel, has been defended by several of his POC coworkers as an ally and advocate against racism- and that they suspect the suspension to be the result of his social media posts critical of the company. On the flipside, they have also suspended Alex Delany, drinks editor, whose old social media posts reveal a confederate flag cake, use of the word faggot and some lewd tweets- albeit without any announcement (source: @joe_rosenthal on his Instagram stories on the 2nd of July).
To suggest that the racist actions/behaviors of powerful white people are committed because of ignorance leaves a lot lacking. Further, this benefit of doubt granted is itself a symptom of the pedestal whiteness has built for itself/stands on, what John Hartigan Jr. points to in Odd Tribes:Towards a Cultural Analysis of White People, ‘Whiteness […] asserts the obvious but consistently overlooked fact that whites are racially interested and motivated.’ If BA recognises the brand value of a diverse cast, their reluctance to remunerate/pay the few non-white employees equally shows that they don’t value them as much and/or they know they can take advantage of them. What is this if not a deliberate act of discrimination occurring from a position of white superiority/supremacy? How are these‘mistakes’?
Yet, bystanders exist. All the people whose videos Sohla was asked to make an appearance in, the production crew and whoever else happened to be around witnessed the engineered waving of the token POC. They might even have felt uncomfortable and displeased by it, but it went on, allowed. Yet these same people posted black squares (Rapoport did too) and information on different ways to support the BLM protests when they erupted (Alex Delany ran a fundraiser too). And while it is no doubt that they are complicit through their silence, this does suggest an disparaging lack of self-reflection.
Either way, both these scenarios cement/ascertain that white people cannot be counted on/trusted to dismantle racism. If their actions are news to them and only now require introspection, there is no saying when there will be a relapse. And if they were deliberate, well, that doesn’t need to be explained.
The million and one statements released on social media by people and brands are both heavy and empty. Christene Barberich wrote in her Instagram caption, “It’s time for a new generation of leadership that (..) builds and expands on our original mission to amplify and celebrate a wide range of voices, perspectives, and stories…stories that need and deserve to be told.” While she is the one resigning after reports of racism at R29, her caption asks for ‘we’ to change and for ‘we’ to do better. If ‘we’ was the original detractor, what makes it so that ‘we’ is on the right track now?
A movement like this with it’s releases of anger, energy and rallying support is cause for optimism, but when the fervour subsides, it is the effect on the realities of people that be the testament. Just the resignation of a few white people in a culture of toxic racism is not going to be the tide that turns the wave. While some of these posts include actionable promises, a large number of them are inflated with terms undefined, terms such as ‘we’, ‘better’, ‘future’. In her latest text-based installation at the Rice University campus titled perhaps, there is no sequel, artist Kameelah Janan Rasheed grapples with these concepts, their ambiguities and their use in this drawn out fight for human rights. One part of her installations sounds the echoes of their words, “there are leaky universes that lurk between each syllable and an aggressive syntax holds these delicate words hostage.”
