The Trudeau "brownface" fiasco: An example of historical and artistic illiteracy

Before decrying Justin Trudeau's costume-party escapades, labeling them "brownface", a mockery and insult, we have to, first off, understand the difference between the American minstrel shows and their depiction of African Americans, and the art of theatre and film.

If I met Justin Trudeau today, I would ask him to elaborate on his choice of skin colour in his Arabian Nights costume. His motives might help us understand why he made the choice he did and even whether or not it was right and reasonable.

First of all, in the world of drama, which was Mr. Trudeau's background, the best actors are able to remake themselves into their roles. This will often mean simulating a disability, for example. People even put on fat suits and fake bellies to pretend they're pregnant. They do this because they need a professional actor who can appropriately interpret the role, make it authentic, carry the story, and it's not always possible to find an actor with exactly the right motor or sensory impairment, weight, or pregnancy status, to name a few examples. Generally, actors have to aspire to create the 'ideal' type of what they are representing, and that's what the highest caliber of actors do.

Today, the theatre and film world are seeing a sea change as people with ordinary bodies, including "fat" ones, are increasingly incorporated into roles. As well, there is active work to create cadres of talented actors recruited from minority populations including indigenous folks, folks of African heritage, and those whose ancestors come from Asia. However, until the talent is developed, the arts world continues to experience an uncomfortable tension between making powerful theatre and having the "black", "Asian", "disabled", etc. experience represented by those who have actually lived it.

So what exactly was Justin Trudeau doing when he put on a costume for an "Arabian Nights" themed party, choosing to paint his entire body (or the visible parts, at least, from the photographs), a dark shade, so dark in fact that he almost blends in, looks like the perfect image of a "black/brown" man? (The exact shade is hard to deduce from black and white photographs.)

I have already discussed the issue of cultural appropriation in my previous article on this subject, showing how Trudeau's impulse to recolour his body may well have reflected a deep desire to know and identify with the Other, e.g. to go beyond Orientalism. Yet the media insists on calling his actions "brownface", some kind of term implying mockery of what society simplistically calls "people of colour", as if colour only matters if it's not what gets arbitrarily labeled "white". They are able to make this rhetorical leap by using the term "blackface" as a signal of horridness, intolerance, hatred.

This narrative does not support the cause of improved so-called "race relations" (in quotes because the concept of "race" has already been thoroughly debunked in the natural and social sciences literature), because it actually reflects an ignorance of American History and the minstrel shows themselves. By claiming to support "brown people", "black" people's history is being appropriated, distorted and used as a weapon against our Prime Minister.

I will now take a moment to share with you the history of the American minstrel shows, which is part of the curriculum at my second alma mater, the University of Winnipeg, where I studied Theatre History as part of my BA in Acting.

As described in mainstream sources such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, minstrel shows were a popular form of art that reached peak popularity between 1850 and 1870. In these shows, "white" musicians made their faces black and intentionally parodied the songs and dances of African slaves in the United States.

The founder of this movement was Jim Crow, the whose name now stands for an entire era of oppression in America. Jim Crow, the historical person, was in fact an early African American impersonator, who made the genre popular.

Blackface was a weapon used against African Americans, to perpetuate stereotypes, "including being lazy, ignorant, superstitious, hypersexual, criminal or cowardly." (https://www.history.com/news/blackface-history-racism-origins) It was part of a campaign of intentional, malicious violence targeting a group of people for their skin colour, ethnic origin, and facial features, justifying domination by an exploitative, cruel, rapacious system that treated African peoples like objects, to be sold into slavery and transported over the ocean packed into boxes like sardines, starving, dying.

So now let's consider this reasonably. Did Justin Trudeau enslave a so-called "brown" person? Was he trying to mock so-called "people of colour" - who in fact have many distinct origins and tones of skin, despite our culture's despicable way of lumping them all together under the "POC" category, showing our total ignorance about the race concept and its abolishment in anthropology? Or was his action something else? More akin to the actor who wishes to fully embrace a part.

In this current cultural climate, we look at the striking similarity between the makeup job of blackface actors - done with shoe polish, grease paint, or burnt cork - and the effect that Trudeau produced. We find this action indefensible because he cannot possibly know the experiences of those discriminated against by our racist society, i.e. racialized people, those subject to an outdated, ignorant, unscientific view of human diversity. which leads to harassment, violence, abuse and deprivation of opportunities to prosper in life.

However, there is another angle on this story. This relates to the notion of taking on a foreign role and trying to understand the foreigner. Whether or not Justin Trudeau was a sufficiently talented actor to pull off an Aladdin-like personality - and I wonder how his colleagues remember those parties - is it possible he was actually going for a vision of historical accuracy?

Think of, for example, Jesus Christ. Jesus was likely an olive-skinned man from the Middle East. However, in its missionary zeal, Christianity has made Jesus into whatever colour matches the local population. This is historically inaccurate, and it makes it harder for people to understand the difference between historical Jesus and the Jesus that Christianity is trying to put into everyone's hearts - a personal Jesus, in just exactly your shade, who doesn't suggest cross-cultural possibilities, anything out of your group consciousness.

The colonial project and Christianity have common roots. You bring in the missionaries, you re-teach the natives how to live according to your perception of how they should be - subservient, basically - and you replace their faith with a faith in you and your system, creating dependency. The Church has done a fine job of that over the years, but I'll leave that discussion to a true historian, not a mere journalist with a 3-year undergraduate degree in Theatre.

So where does this leave us? Well, one thought I would like to plant in your minds is that perhaps Trudeau's actions were an attempt to portray his vision of what history actually looked like. The men in the Middle East do have dark skin, and along with his fine features, he might pass for someone from Arabia or the Indian subcontinent. Is it possible that he simply appreciated the grandeur and beauty of stories like Aladdin or Lawrence of Arabia, that he was expressing his deep love of story, the love that can only come from a dedicated drama educator? Is is possible that his attempt to accurately portray history was actually a form of homage, respect, and conscientious accuracy, rather than this despicable new word, "brownface"?

I call on the arts and history communities in Canada and around the world to consider the deeper implications of Trudeau's actions, to debate the subject, and to start a nuanced discussion. This could be a tremendous opening, showing the world the value and decency of a fine liberal arts education.

Sara Arenson, originally a computer science graduate (BSc Hons, 1999), software developer, and Sessional Instructor at the University of Manitoba, made the leap into the arts after completing her science degree. She is now a Canadian journalist, dramatic artist, and disability rights activist whose passion encompasses a wide variety of areas including history, anthropology, languages, dance, theatre, media, sociology, psychology, rehabilitation, holistic healing, and kinesiology.

However, she has been unemployed for years due to perceived psychosocial disability. When she finally landed a part-time job as a Gallery Attendant at the Manitoba Museum in 2014, she was denied advancement opportunities due to the perceived psychosocial disability, a competitive and cliquish organizational culture, and being an anglophone striving to improve her French, and an occupationally-acquired injury.

While at the Manitoba Museum from 2014-2015, Sara named a science exhibit, "Dancin' Tones and Buzzin' Bones", receiving no credit or payment for her intellectual property. Furthermore, she was subject to unpleasant and cold interactions from fellow staff members.

At the Manitoba Museum, Sara also served as an Exhibit Attendant in Barry Clifford's epic REAL PIRATES exhibition, where she learned the ins and outs of the culture of piracy: a brotherhood of men, a democratic society, where a few women were included, and the goal was to scare people, not to hurt them. She also wrote her own French script to introduce a video, as well as providing free material to the programming department on which they could base the tours, material not only in English, but in French.

However, because Sara was not officially "bilingual" - not having come from a French home or a French immersion school - and her job title was not "Animator", and she was not allowed to give official tours of her own gallery, under Union rules. Also, she was paid less than $12/hr for her work versus slightly under $15 for Animators.

At the time, the museum also had a practice of engaging volunteers to run the exact same educational programs, in English, alongside Animators who were hired because they were bilingual, taking away union hours and exploiting members of the public whose ambition to actually work in a museum, to be paid, to have engaging work, was constantly thwarted. Indeed, the institution came to seem like a "Bait and Switch" game.

When she had had enough of this treament and tried to step into the role and really engage visitors in material such as the Triangular Trade (which she had studied in International Development at university), she was scapegoated as mentally ill, rumours circulated, and her co-workers manipulated her boss into sending her home from a job that was already about to end - a temp position due to be terminated because the only staff members that Lila Knox would hire as Animators had to be fully bilingual - as if it was impossible to recognize knowledge and talent for teaching and history, and help cultivate people's language skills as they work. Furthermore, positions in program development only went to either those who were bilingual or who already had the "right" degree, "history", as if a broad liberal education was inadequate.

Other practices of the Manitoba Museum, when Sara worked there from 2014 to 2015, included uncooperative colleagues in the science gallery, rumoured bullying of new Science Animators, and favouritism towards certain individuals. There was also nepotism, in that, for example, the son of the Volunteer Coordinator (Noreen Hees) was constantly hired. There was also a culture of mediocrity in which a high school diploma was considered adequate to teach public history.

Since that time, the Manitoba Museum has refused to consider Sara as a viable candidate for an Animator/Animatrice position, although they have increased pay scale and educational requirements. When Sara requested accommodation to volunteer again, and asked for a chair in each gallery, so she could teach while seated, Hees, currently the Museum's Volunteer & Employee Relations Manager, told her this would be impossible.

In an accommodation meeting that Sara had requested. Hees's first question was, "So, after what happened, why do you want to come back?" making the issue Sara's putative mental health disability. Hees made it clear that she hadn't even seen Sara that day, that she was going on rumours. When Sara asked if someone in a wheelchair could give tours, Noreen said a definite no, that you had to be able to move in small spaces. Note that this was for a volunteer position, where Sara would be giving her own time to this Museum.

Meanwhile, rumours were also circulating about financial mismanagement of the organization, including management's decision to spent $10,000 on a black Jolly Roger (pirates) flag.

All told, the occupational injury, partly due to hours on concrete floors, a lack of physical training for museum workers, and a lack of protective equipment like fatigue mats, combined with a complete disregard for things like footwear, basically made Sara unable to stand and even enjoy a museum for five years.

She is now in recovery after years of searching, having to find a way to rehabilitate her own body, as physiotherapists, chiropractors, doctors, athletic therapists, and massage therapies had no idea how to help her with her very strange foot problems. At this stage, the Manitoba Museum is morally liable for the injury caused to lose her dreams - to be a tour guide, to show people history, to engage, to be active. By disabling her, the Museum took away five years of precious livelihood and personal growth. Because if you can barely stand, you can barely do anything.

Sara is hoping to return to the teaching that she loves.