Black Ink
Forum
Page 9
Novembers
Oversensitivity Does Not Apply To Racism
By Chris Bracey
Contibutor
They say we are just too damn
sensitive. “It’s just a statue. What’s the
big deal?” They call us overly critical.
“It’s just an honest mistake. It doesn’t
just happen to you guys.” They say we
are too judgmental. “I don’t think this
incident (‘KKK’ being painted on a
vehicle) can be attributed to racism.”
Please! Brothers and Sisters, once
again I am here to shed some light on a
very important issue. Everyday white
students approach me asking me why
am I so vocal about the removal of the
statue, why I wrote such a vicious letter
to the Daily Tar Heel, and why am I so
overly sensitive to racism. These
questions, taken for face value, are
relatively innocent— indicative of an
ignorant, eurocentric perspective, but
nonetheless innocent. Yet if one looks
deeper, these questions reveal a sinister
thought process which, frighteningly
enough, is not limited to one segment of
the campus population, but pervasive
throughout the entire white community.
To begin, whites cannot wholly deny
what a racist doctrine consists of simply
because they are not within the
oppressed group. On the contrary, I
maintain that most, if not all whites have
one base knowledge of the racist doctrine
naturally because either they possess
some racist qualities themselves, or they
know someone else who does. Whites
come in contact with racism frequently,
just not on the receiving end. It has
been incorporated into the university
system, asserting its strength across the
campus, and making its presence felt
everyday to everyone on campys.
Therefore, I refuse to buy into the
argument that white people have no
fundamental knowledge of racism, racist
acts or offensive, commentary simply
because they are not African-American.
This excuse does not suffice. Thus, I find
it awfully difficult to believe a white
person who says that he does not
understand how something (a statute
for instance) could offend somebody
else. Rather, I believe that white people
are cognizant of the offensive nature of
a racist aa, but fundamentally believe
that there exists a form of racism which
blacks should lower their sensitivity to
and accept because of its triviality. In
other words, white people seem to
believe that there are certain forms of
racism which are less damaging and
thus, do not merit such a grand response.
This is a frightening thought, for we
as African-Americans know that the day
we allow racism to continue
unchallenged is the day which we initiate
our own demise. I am sorry, but I refuse
to subscribe to this evil thought process.
There is no such thing as oversensitivity
when it comes to racism. Racism should
not be tolerated in any form no matter
how trivial it may seem because, in
reality, there is no such thing as a trivial
racist act. Any form of racism, however
minute, is damaging and therefore must
be eradicated before its destruction is
felt. It is ludicrous to believe that any
racially offensive act or object is immune
to this stria scrutiny. Any person who
believes otherwise either lacks a true
understanding of racism and its many
faces, or lacks respect for African-
Americans and their continuing struggle
for equality in America.
Gone are the days of the doddering
Negro. Gone are the days of
acconunodation, where we have always
had to give a lot just to get a little.
Brothers and Sisters, understand that it
is time for us to take a firm stance on
these issues of racism. My blood boils
wheneverl think of how institutionalized
racism in the white family and
community causes African-Americans
to forsake their own instinctual urge for
liberation. The next time one of your
white friends ask you “Why the big
fuss?”, you tell them it is because you are
tired. Tired of all the “honest” mistakes
when reporting minority issues. Tired of
being treated “differently.” Tired of the
sarcasm in their voice. Tired of the
ignorance. Tired of it all. For God’s sake,
this is an institution of higher learning.
We are here to be educated and
enlightened. Perpetuation of racism and
racial bigotry has no place on this
campus. This community is as much
ours as anybody else’s. Let us dig in and
make this campus friendly to all people.
Take a stand, black man, because as we
have seen these last few weeks, if you
do not take it, no one else will take it for
you.
"Student Body," con't from p. 9
vision is to compromise all of art. A
crucial theme of much of twentieth
century art (and art of other times, for
that matter) is that the artist should have
the right to disagree with his or her
audience. It is a disservice to the artist
and to other viewers to impose one’s
personal interpretation on others, or
even worse, to attempt to keep the work
from being seen as the artist intended it
to be seen.
This means that even moving the
sculpture to another Oess-visible) part
of campus may be a compromise just as
bad as removing the statues completely.
The controversy is reminiscent of Richard
Serra’s TiUedArc, a 12-foot high, 120-
foot long rusted steel wall placed in the
center of the plaza of a Manhattan
federal office building in 1981. People
who worked in the building complained
that the work was an obstruction (not to
mention just plain ugly) and plans were
made in 1985 to move the sculpture to
a local countryside. The artist tried to
sue for $3,000,000, protesting that
moving his work would destroy the
whole reason it was built. Serra lost his
lawsuit in 1989 and the artwork was
finally removed, much to the chagrin of
the New York art community.
Serra, then, was commissioned to
do a public artwork, fulfilled every
requirement in his contract, and had his
plans approved by the federal agency
which hired him, only to have the same
agency remove his sculpture six years
later. Balk’s experiences have so far
been similar. Although we can’t be sure
of the details of Balk’s commission, it is
safe to assume that her plans were
approved by someone, sometime before
the sculpture was installed. To suddenly
change the rules would be an insult on
the professional level.
Serra lost his lawsuit because there
was no clause in his contract which
stated that the sculpture couldn't be
moved. If this is true in Balk’s case, then
the university does have the legal option
to move The Student Body to another
location (and the fact that the artwork
was donated makes it even easier). This
solution seems like a fair compromise,
but it comes with a heavy cost to the
rights of the creator. It must now be
decided by the university administration
whether this cost is worth it.
Since the Tilted Arc fiasco, many
public-art programs have been soliciting
more input from the communities which
will benefit from the artwork. It has so
far proved an effective way of keeping
the public involved and in touch with
the artist’s intentions, and many artists
have had positive experiences with these
programs. Perhaps in the case of The
Student Body, the real student body
should have been consulted at some
point
However, what’s done is done. This
campus has been presented with a
sculpture which was meant to bring us
together, but has tom us apart. A decision
will be made sometime soon concerrung
the artwork, and the only solutions
available to us will demand sacrifices
too difficult to accept. Whatever the fate
of The Student Body, the real student
body will have plenty to discuss for
years to come.
(Note: For more information on
Tilted Arc and the public art controversy,
I recommend these articles; Don
Hawthorne, “Does the Public Want
Public Sculpture?”/lrtAfeu^5(May, 1982),
pp. 56-67; and Harriet Senie, “Richard
Serra’s Tilted Arc': Art and Non-Art
Issues” Art Journal (Winter, 1989),
pp.298-302.)
P0STER&I^^-T-5HIRT5
POSTCARDS BAJA^RIS
“"USEDBOOfSLPi LTAPES
PATCHES
10Z-A W MAIM ST.
CARRBOR0