Describing Conservative Republicans as just a little upset would be quite the understatement. I’d say that Republicans are so…fricking…pissed right now, and after American comedian Druski’s recent cosplay of Erika Kirk, the widow of late political activist, Charlie Kirk, I can’t say that I’m too surprised. Druski’s quite unsavory imitation of Erika Kirk has struck more than just a nerve but rather the blazing ire of the entire white conservative community, initiating conversations regarding double standards and racism within our society.
And in the wake of the recent controversy, the debate raises an important question. Should the practice of “whiteface” be considered as racist?
I mean, everyone loves the movie White Chicks—-you know, the movie where the Wayans Brothers disguised themselves as two white socialite women who they were originally in charge of protecting during a string of kidnappings? This movie is considered an all-time comedy classic, and many people love the film even to this day. It was released in 2004—you know, back when everyone had thicker skin and wasn’t so sensitive—and 22 years later, the film is still considered a comedic gem and a go-to movie at a Friday-night-sleepover with the gals.
So if a whiteface wasn’t considered offensive then, why should it be considered offensive now?
Well, here’s the thing. Just because no one cared at the time doesn’t delegitimize the offensiveness of the actual practice itself—so despite people claiming that they didn’t find any malice with the movie at all, the perception of the movie being generally insensitive remains valid. Blackface is an incredibly taboo practice that has been, for many years, described as an overtly racist and insensitive portrayal of African American actors. It was used in early cinema due to African American individuals being restricted from performing on the big screen and was a major part of black representation in early media. Blackface is still considered to be highly controversial today, with many people who promote or encourage the reckless act being eventually “cancelled” and put to shame.
Viewing the two acts as unparalleled is not inherently wrong, in my personal opinion, considering the difference in sociocultural histories between the two races is quite—incongruent—-but, to write off or invalidate any side of the argument because it may not be deemed as offensive as the other demonstrates an imbalance of sensitivity, clear double standard, and slight hint of ignorance. Social awareness should strive to achieve equality amongst all races, and while recognizing that contextual differences impact how a particular act or practice may be received, it is important to not invalidate the feelings or beliefs of a particular community because it does not land as badly as it would the other way around.
So please, to whomever reads this long-winded TedTalk about cultural sensitivity and what should be deemed offensive, do not have a “b*tch fit” or talk about anyone’s mothers. We can appreciate White Chicks as a thing of its time that still holds comedic value today—but we cannot downplay the offensiveness of an act that would be deemed “cancelworthy” if done in reverse. I think we should all come to the realization that some offensive things can actually be funny from time to time, and although it does not inherently change its insensitive nature, it can be laughed about and shaken off amongst everyone.
