This is not a traditional post where I present an argument or my opinion about a recent post although the social implications for studying identity, culture, and race are considered (admittedly as backdrop). Rather, I would like to offer something for discussion to the larger audience that I cannot quite come to terms with. So, I start with two simple, yet complex questions: What does this shirt mean to you? What does this shirt mean for society at large? A piece at The Root entitled “Can You Hear My T-Shirt Now?” called these questions into existence. The article highlights the current work of Renee Cox* of Maroon Rebel who wants to make t-shirts “racial and radical” once again with messages like “Bye Baby” with “Emmett Till Died For This” as the subtext (I think it would have been more powerful if she would have quoted Mamie Till, Emmett Till’s mother: “I have not a minute to hate. I’ll pursue justice for the rest of my life”).
**The old adage goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” What is missing, or rather, what is taken for granted in this old phrase is that each picture means a different thousand words to each individual. Though there will surely be overlap, a plethora of internal conversations between picture and individual are held even when only a few of us come across a single image (Look at the vitriolic comments launched against Malia Obama for wearing a peace sign on her shirt in her last trip overseas with the rest of the First Family).
I am of two minds with respect to t-shirts that claim to be “racial and radical” for a purpose on either continuum of the color spectrum. A host of questions immediately come to mind. Are the shirts just for shock value? Are these shirts made for getting a reaction out of passersby? Or are they to inform? Are they to force us to connect the picture or message—effectively, the representation of reality—to one’s reality? I am not sure. In fact, in writing this post I battled over including the following question as the opening so as to move the question beyond my own limited perspective: are there temporal or contextual constraints or expiration dates (if you will) for different modes of celebrating one’s history, the good and the bad? I changed my viewpoint as soon as the words were on screen because I realized that I was singling out African Americans for implicit in that question is that people should leave history in the past and only worry about the present and future, a perspective I do not subscribe to.
The fact remains that we are forever communicating with a larger audience. The body itself is always in dialogue with others. Taking off of sociologist Erving Goffman, the body both communicates and is communicated in the sense that one is always projecting and receiving social information simply by being copresent. The clothes we wear have cultural roots but they are also an expression of one’s individual and/or collective identity. So, when we wear certain shirts like the one pictured above, what exactly are we communicating?
*The picture headlining this post was taken on someone's person and is not one of Cox's design.
**This particular shirt is one of Cox's design.
Posts
This is a fascinating post, and will hopefully spark good discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn general, there seems to be a fine--yet noticeable--line between the two pictures you show here. The first seems to have an ambiguous message, or at least multiple messages that could be conveyed in multiple ways by multiple people. Is it referencing a specific time period, or historical event? Is it a symbolic gesture referencing continued persecution? Is the child intended to be white, or black? Is it about our national ignorance to the legacy of lynching, or is it about white racism? It's very unclear.
Cox's work, by contrast, references the same themes with succinct clarity. So the picture you show here, for example, references the phrase Emmett Till spoke to a young white girl--the phrase that got him brutally murdered at the hands of the KKK while visiting his relatives down South. The simple, sexist phrase is a reminder to men (since this is a woman's shirt)about the gravity of this phrase used so frequently today. It's incredible moving, at least in my opinion. It remains tasteful while conveying a very serious message.
The differentiating factor seems to be ambiguity. The problem with many politically charged t shirts is when folks that are reading them are unable to get the message. And often folks that are wearing them are unable to articulate a coherent message.
I'd be curious what the person in the first photo would say about their shirt...
"Are the shirts just for shock value? Are these shirts made for getting a reaction out of passersby? Or are they to inform? Are they to force us to connect the picture or message—effectively, the representation of reality—to one’s reality?"
ReplyDeleteI think the images, as I "read" them, are designed for each of the purposes you mention. That said, I do not believe that the t-shirts are meant for consumption in mixed race audiences. I would think that wearing the images amongst folks of one's own race - in this case, African American - would be a more powerful venue for shock and awe, for informing, for educating and for inspiring conversation.
I appreciate both comments.
ReplyDelete@Jeremy: First, I think that one may argue that it is a matter of degree. The intensity of the picture I chose to lead the post brings out more of an emotional response. Or rather, brings out an emotional response first (I am speaking from the I perspective). Emmett Till is as much a part of our dark history as the lynching of African Americans. A criticism could be that there was never a child swinging in that same tree. I would argue, one then has not seen enough pictures of the show certain whites put on during lynching ceremonies or the fact that, temporally, a child did swing in a tree that once was stage to someone's final act. I know that Cox's shirts are more specific in their message, they are also a bit more, for lack of a better word, tempered. They speak to specific issues. I must say though, if you look at her other shirts, their messages are less linked to historical events: "Negrophile" and "Bougie." I too hope that the person's who shirt this is writes a response
@missincognegro: Thank you once again for showing us love. The only thing that I have quarrels with in your statement is that we cannot assume a monolithic black response to such a shirt. I think Cox is right to advocate that her shirts are to educate and remind all, even those blacks who love to forget. I am not saying that you are wrong; in many ways you are right. I just think that if I were to wear this shirt, it would either be to a protest to something specific or around people that share more than my racial makeup. Admittedly, I would be hesitant to wear this in mixed company (I am speaking hypothetically). What do you think?
Tony, "one may argue" lots of things, and "one criticism could be" plenty of other things. But, what I don't see in your comment, is what YOU think. The question is not whether there is A message of sorts embedded in the first t shirt, nor is the question whether the person who wore it had a clear understanding of what that message was. The question, instead, is what the effect is. Because it matters little if that message isn't conveyed to whatever public sees the shirt. If this is a shirt only worn among black folks, then this might be a moot point (though, I wouldn't exactly call myself an authority on how black folks think). What I do know, however, is how white folks think. And white folks wouldn't have a clue what the point or political message of that shirt is, and moreover would be completely petrified to even ask. Now Cox's shirt, by sharp contrast, are clear enough that a simple question from a non-black could easily educate someone that might be totally ignorant to the story of Emmett Till.
ReplyDelete"Bougie" may not be linked to a specific historical event, but it's certainly politically charged, and conveys a very important political message--one that I wouldn't trivialize.
So if we are going to get all Goffman on this issue--what kind of self are you presenting if those that are charged with interpreting your "self" have no idea what your message is? In less convoluted language, if your message isn't clear, and folks can't get what you mean, you aren't really saying anything. The difference between shock value and important political message lies in this line between clarity and ambiguity.
Though, I'm open to be convinced otherwise by your friend that owns the shirt--would be particularly interested in folks' reactions to it, across different social settings (less concerned with why they wear it than with what the effect/impact of them wearing it is).
@Jeremy Points well taken. I began the post stating that I didn't know exactly where I stand on shirts of this nature, both the one worn above and also Cox's for that matter. And given that caveat, I also said that I was not going to begin with my position on the issue. If you had to put a gun to my head. the Emmett Till quote alongside the shirt above are on one end of the spectrum, though there is still separation between them. As I said above, it is a matter of degree. Cox's shirts are more moderate and, as you note, less ambiguous in thier message. The "tree" shirt still represents as real part of African American history. We might not like to think about those dark times or think of only the concrete, fixed instances like Till, but the "tree" is just as real. So, though I would not wear such a shirt (as I note above those situations are hypothetical), I think they serve a purpose of bringing up a dark path. I believe that because of the choice of expression it brings with it other stuff that may get in the way of a more analytical and less emotional response, I agree with it nonetheless. And one must be careful with making blanket statements though I agree a majority of whites will probably find shirts of this nature (both of them) offensive, but what is that a larger issue of?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do not necessarily agree with you with respect to the ambiguity/clarity distinction. From someone who seems unable to sever those roots to English and critical race studies, who says that ambiguous messages are always right when life itself is never quite so, dare I say it, black and white? (Sorry, had a Nella Larsen and William Faulkner moment for a minute in thinking about clarity or lack thereof but message still coming through loud and clear)
I would also like to see what others would say with racial identification amongst African Americans. Are there limits then to expression, not temporal, but some other qualitative measure of taste that should not be crossed? Is it only a matter of taste here or is it, as you suggest, a matter of clarity?
It really has less to do with taste, and more to do with interpretation. If your message can't be interpreted, then what's the message?
ReplyDeleteI guess taste will matter, but at the very least you gotta be clear to have a message. I mean, this is really very simple: if you aren't clear with your message, then you don't have a clear message. I'm just rearranging the words here.
The issue here is also not about limits of expression; anyone can express whatever they want. I can wear a wear my bright red Che shirt every day of the week. But if folks are gonna watch me walk down the street, and have no idea what the purpose of me wearing the shirt is (am I a revolutionary? am i marxist? do i support a coup? do i just like cuban/argentinian food? am i just being trendy?) then what is the EFFECT of me wearing the shirt?
The question you pose - "I can hear your shirt, but what is it saying?" is exactly in line with the clarity/ambiguity distinction, so I'm not clear what you are disagreeing with. "But what's it saying" asks "What is your message?" It can be expressive, but it's pointless without clarity. I guess it might serve some personal psychological need, potentially, but it serves no broader political agenda if no one gets it.
Let me repeat: I know what the tree shirt means. I get it. The problem is, while it certainly makes a lot of noise,not a whole lot of folks are going to understand what it's saying. Nor does it invite dialogue, or teaching. The same shirt with Cox's saying on it would mean so much more, and be so much clearer, and be able to invite that many more conversations.
Clarity seems to be at the very heart of this entire posts, and your comments.
Hi, Anthony! BTW: My older brother's name is Anthony. :)
ReplyDeleteActually, I wasn't assuming a monolithic response if I were to wear such a t shirt amongst only African Americans. After all, we're not monolithic. I am just saying that I would be more comfortable wearing such a t shirt amongst only African Americans. I realize that, for a variety of reasons, there would be a variety of responses amongst African Americans. As you indicate, there are some who would rather forget, and with good reason, depending on one's personal experience with the issue being illustrated on the t shirt.
In as far as wearing such a t shirt in mixed race company: I would not. Even amongst my more progressive and aware White friends. I happen to see such t shirts as a way of re-connecting to an aspect of the African American experience, and as a tool for perhaps educating a younger generation.
Speaking of t shirts, I used to own a t shirt in my 20s which said: "Danger: Educated Black Woman." Now, I would only wear such a t shirt amongst only Black people, for we get the message. Not to say that there aren't White people who would also get it. However, the response and the conversation it would generate would be different. Amongst the former, there would be a highly engaged conversation re: the implications of what it means to be Black, female and educated in American society. Amongst the latter, there would probably be some chuckles, and a "you go girl" response.
I bought this shirt (green one) in Thailand, which adds a whole new twist to the discussion. Many who see this shirt in the States interpret it as a lynching. But when I wore it in Ethiopia, a friend thought that the tree was a balance, holding death on one side and life (child) on the other. After spending 3 years in this country, I definitely see a lynching of a black man. Jeremy asked great questions in his first comment, which show the many ambiguities with pictures like this. Like Tony said, "each picture means a different thousand words to each individual."
ReplyDeleteOn the points of clarity and political message, I think you both assume that someone who wears a shirt like this either wants to shock people or has a message. For me it's neither. I saw the shirt and it reminded me of Naom Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. How from early on in life, we are taught to see the world in a uniquely distorted way. Children used to go to lynchings in the South; imagine the psychological effect of that. The young girl (whatever her race) doesn't “see” the hanging man. In Ethiopia, there is similar blindness towards beggars. You see people with varying diseases and ailments, and at some point, you learn to be blind to it. For if you really saw it, you could not just walk away from these suffering fellow human being, you would have to help. This sort of mental gymnastic is quite powerful (and dangerous) in distorting the truth around us.
I didn't mean to explain this by wearing the shirt. I personally saw an image that shook me to the core because of my specific experience and aim in life (to help the sick). And it serves ME as a warning, every time I wear it or see it in my closet, not to turn a blind eye to this catastrophe of a world around me. For only then could I really do something about it.
This issue is pretty interesting to me because of the politics of the body and the community. The way I read the shirt was how lynching was part of the same process of white privelage that allows a white child to live in bliss while at the same time not seeing the cost of such living. Of course, I find such readings wrong because I don't quite agree with the parameters of privelage, but that is what I thought the author was getting at (and yeah, intent matters :) ). I would never wear this shirt in any company because I disagree with it, but I would not bat an eye if someone rocked it. This is the sort of edgier stuff that can be quite volitile within the wrong audience (remember that story on the kids wearing 'Obama is my slave' shirts?), and context is always key.
ReplyDelete@Jeremy, you do realize that Che was a racist scumbag who only liberated Cuba because he (and others) thought the blacks were too incompetent to do it themselves, right? If you own one as a gift or just for fashion thats cool (for example, I will never BUY Nikes because of Lebron James, but if someone gives me a pair as a gift then thats kosher), but as a political statement a lot of people do not know much about him.
Yeah Winslow, I should have clarified "my Che shirt" is a hypothetical--I don't own one, nor would I ever buy one. The example was salient to me, though, because it came up a lot at Michigan; there were talks during my senior year that carried the headline "Do you know what your shirt means?" about how revolutionary communism is fascism etc etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat I wanted to bring up was the problem with wearing an inherently political shirt (which all of these examples are) and not being able to articulate what's going on with it. The Che shirt is a particularly good example; Hov wears it on the Unplugged special, and everyone thinks its hot. So then a kid buys one, or a hipster picks one up. But then they come up to a dude that calls them out on it, and they end up looking like an idiot unable to explain why they are wearing it.
Which had to do with my discussion of clarity...
T shirts are definitely political. But you gotta be able to exude a clear message with your shirt, or at least wear a shirt that invites discussion, if in fact that's your purpose for wearing it.
Actually I do not care that much about revolutionary communism because a) its never been tried before and b) I never likened it to fascism. The Che thing comes out of a lot of people who view Che as anti-x (racism? imperialism? sexism?) when in reality he was a big d-bag. I dunno, I have a thing about famous Argentine's who get lionized (Evita, Peron, Maradona, Che, the Kirchners?) by people who never really understood them (and I count the progressive left as being part of this group, not hipsters or high-schoolers).
ReplyDeletePolitical shirts are interesting because they almost never get figured out unless as a symbol of group membership. I have shirts I got at bboy jams (ok, make that one annual bboy jam over and over) and almost all the questions I have gotten about it have been what language it is written in (it has thin old-skool graff that gets confused for arabic). Indeed, almost nobody asks me about bboying or hip hop because a lot of people have difficulty making out my shirt. What purpose does it serve then? If I wore an anti-Che shirt though everyone would think me a republican, a fate worst than death. The only shirts that I consistently get compliments for are video-game shirts. Everything else is met with confusion or misreading.
Great info
ReplyDeleteTerm papers