Is it ever OK to wear black paint on your white face?
Let us contemplate the possibilities.
1. You’re out of sunblock and don’t want a burn; you happen to find a can of black paint next to your swim trunks in the back of your closet.
- Not okay to wear blackface.
2. You are going to a “Vaudeville” theme party but you can’t find your ventriloquist’s dummy; your goth girlfriend offers to share her black makeup.
- Still not okay to wear blackface.
3. You are a student at Princeton University planning a run for Student Government president. It is Halloween, and you think it’d be funny to be “Peter Pan’s Shadow” by painting your entire body black and running around terrorizing people. You don’t mean to be racist, and you have tons of black friends, anyway, and they all think it’s okay.
- Definitely not okay to wear blackface, especially if there are cameras present.
PUSG presidential candidate (the Prince says he’s a shoo-in) Josh Weinstein ‘09 found himself in Blackface Situation #3 freshman year, and judged it okay to post the shady pictures on his blog, complete with Malcolm X and Rosa Parks references. Though Weinstein removed the material more than a year ago, a “Concerned Undergraduate” (who set up an e-mail account solely for the purpose of anonymously tipping this story) sent it to us this week, which means “Concerned” saw and copied the material years ago and has been sitting on it ever since.
Smear campaign? Inigo Montoya-level vendetta? As for how this will affect Weinstein’s candidacy, let us not forget Princeton’s election last year of president Rob “Rodent-Roast” Biederman, pyromaniacal torturer of squirrels (who only had to beat Grant “Get-Off-Our-Campus” Gittlin, banned from student housing due to extreme disciplinary disturbance). Which is to say, Princeton has a high tolerance for faux pas.
View the pictures, blog entry, and Weinstein’s new statement on the matter, after the jump.
anyway, we show up in forbes to commence our getting into costume mode, when i find out there was no blue paint to be found: green and black were our options. [redacted] quickly made due and became the hulk. we were tossing around ideas, obviously including teenage mutant ninja turtles, but in the end, most of us painted our faces all black
myself, [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] all donned the black face paint to become the black man group, as a tribute to the lost blue man group idea. individually, we were our own entities: i was a shadow/rick james, bitch, [redacted] was malcolm x, [redacted] was nat turner, and [redacted] was rosa parks. nice.
Josh Weinstein’s statement (received on November 28, 2007):
The photos in question are from my personal website, and depict me at a costume party, dressed as a person’s shadow. It was very clear, from the beginning, what my costume was about: imitating a person’s shadow. As such, I followed around other party attendees, mimicking their actions. The friends I met at that party were humored by my idea, and at no point was there controversy about what my facepaint, speedo cap, and clothing portrayed.
It is disconcerting that someone, seeking to undermine my decency, would anonymously search through my archives and photos, (deleted over a year ago to save space), withhold them for a year, then suddenly reveal them at this late hour in the election season, in a desperate attempt at political-and more importantly, personal-defamation. They claim, incomprehensibly, that my costume that evening somehow suggests that I am a racist, or at least racially insensitive.
From the start, it was clear that I have had nothing to hide about these pictures. Were this really a case of conscious racial insensitivity, can anyone believe that I would post them on my personal website for all to see? Anyone who asserts that my costume had a racial bent would have to employ a biased interpretation of it, perhaps itself informed by racial stereotypes. The accusation of racial insensitivity is one that is being imposed from without; there is simply nothing to the accusation that my costume had something to do with racial complexion and less to do with a shadow.
It seems obvious that an accusation of racism against me is, to say the least, far-fetched. The more specific accusation was that my costume was meant to depict Rick James, the famed David Chapelle character, with my friends as prominent civil rights activists in African-American history. If my attempts at humor in any way suggested that this was the case, I offer my apology. Freshprince is my online diary, meant for my (and my friends’) use to look back on my college years. The news archive, after 2 years of almost daily posts became unwieldy.
The issue, as I said, isn’t about freshprince and my intentions, as someone, though solely with the intent of sabotaging my candidacy and much much much more importantly my personal credibility and friendships, viewed my pictures and post as visual and textual racial slurs. While the caption of one of the pictures reads “shadow and ladies” and the others are equally innocuous, the anonymous e-mailer would like everyone that reads Ivy Gate and every member of the Princeton community to think “Josh Weinstein is a racist.” If you feel this way, based on my actions as a freshman with no intention (as anyone who has ever met me could attest) of offending my friends and peers, I wholeheartedly apologize. Anyone who has ever met me can attest that I am not a racist by any means; they would just like me to stop using the Borat accent.
I would like to explicitly point out that I do not believe that my opponent in the election is in any way associated with this anonymous person.
98 Comments | 
Digg This | 
Share on Facebook | 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Read more: Princeton, student government
Search
Email
About
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
November 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
IvyGate, I know you don’t subscribe to any particular code of journalistic ethics, but this post is completely asinine. Whoever sent those photos to you is clearly trying to slander this guy but doesn’t have the ammunition to do it, and you’ve played right into it for no other reason than to attract a few hits. Is it smart to wear black paint? Maybe not given that blogs like this exist, but you’re out of your fucking mind if you think that costume was somehow racially motivated. Still, as long as some anonymous dipshit can work this guy’s name and “racist” into the same post, I guess your job is done. Maybe you should start posting underage porn every day—I hear that draws traffic, too.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:11 am
A “concerned undergraduate” has been sitting on this stuff for more than a year? I wonder who that might be? Might it be a desperate girl about to lose an election?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I went to high school with Josh, and I can tell you he is the nicest, most decent guy I have ever met. It sickens me that someone would try to do this to him.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:23 am
This could be the dumbest article I have ever read. Not only is it a blatant smear campaign against Mr. Weinstein, but the examples you present are exceptionally moronic, as the third situation is clearly the only one that is NOT racist of the three, as it is not “blackface” but a “shadow”. This is biased journalism at its best! Thanks IvyGate!
November 29th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I dunno. It’s seems like he wasn’t trying to be offensive, but he shouldn’t have been dumb enough to assume that the internet isn’t a free-for-all in terms of who views your page and who does (or does not)find things offensive. In fact, I’m more offended that he’s completely surprised someone might take something posted on a website open to everyone to use against him. Join the 21st century. If you don’t want to get shit thrown at you, then don’t put it on the internet.
Also, I thought it was a pretty interesting article. If my future president is this dumb, I would want to know.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Congrats Ivygate! You’ve succeeded in printing something so without merit even the Daily Prince wouldn’t touch it (otherwise, I assume the “concerned undergrad” would have tried to make his mark there.) Seriously, this is pathetic. Next, why don’t you search through people’s facebook photos and post them? I’m sure you can find something better than a bad Halloween costume there.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:39 am
While IvyGate certainly has a responsibility, even an obligation, to point out the inanity that is the Ivy League, this post falls below even the journalistic standards of the Daily Princetonian.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:45 am
This is the most blatantly political move by a USG President candidate that I have ever seen. She should be truly ashamed of herself. It is equally shameful that you guys chose to publish this. You provided no evidence of the photo, no evidence of the posting and are relying on the testimony of a concerned student. I think the concerns of this student are that Sarah Langberg is going to get schooled because no one likes her and no one thinks she’d even be half competent. Also Josh had no choice about wearing the black paint (if I remember back to Freshman year it was for a frat thing) and the entire situation is completely blown out of proportion. In terms of offensive and racist stuff that goes on at Princeton this is nothing. Shame on you Ivygte
November 29th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Weinstein is not a bigot.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
You’d expect even Ivygate’s sensationalist rants to rely on some journalistic integrity, but apparently not. Maybe you guys get a power thrill from posting what is obviously a poorly grounded political stunt, but you clearly had no consideration in mind for Mr. Weinstein’s campaign. How can we even take this blog seriously when a misinterpreted FRESHMAN Halloween costume is raked up from the clutches of a clearly biased party and fed into your petty shock value machine.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Even if he WAS intending to impersonate a black dude, WHO GIVES A FUCK?!! It’s funny, chill out or go cut yourself (or go protest/starve at Columbia).
November 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I know both Sarah Langberg and Josh Weinstein and I don’t think that Sarah would have done this, nor do I think Josh is a racist.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
@ AEPi: This is not the dumbest article ever. This article is discussing issues - something that USG elections have lost in a haze of squirrel burnings and Grant Gitlin’s charm. It is not okay to wear blackface. It is never okay to wear blackface. It is worse to wear blackface, take pictures of yourself wearing blackface, and then post those pictures of yourself wearing blackface on your blog. It is likewise questionable as to why Josh Weinstein would remove the pictures from said blog if he didn’t find them a little offensive. This doesn’t mean weinstein’s a racist - it just means he’s a little bicurious and when the revolution comes he’ll be the first to go. And it doesn’t change the fact that we’d all take a blackface-wearing josh weinstein over sarah langberg any day.
SCOTT LAYNE FOR PRESIDENT!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
@Pton 08: Rumors are emerging that weinstein himself sent the pictures to ivygate in order to take his campaign to the next level.
SCOTT LAYNE FOR PRESIDENT!!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
What if Weinstein did this himself to make it seem like Sarah was resorting to smear tactics?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Glad to see Josh’s friends are rocking the comment boards. If Josh is too dense to not realize that painting yourself in black face is something that is likely to come back to haunt you, then he deserves the bad press for his shitty judgment whether he meant to be a “shadow” or not. He knew how it would be perceived and chose to do it anyways. Yeah, the release of the pictures is politically motivated, but that doesn’t mean he did something flagrantly stupid with clear racist overtones (whether they were “intended” or not).
And I don’t understand his response to the Rick James, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks accusation. Is he saying that this wasn’t the text to his blog post?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Why do idiots who spam comments think that we don’t know when it’s the same persona posting over and over again? Also, please translate:
http://thedartmouth.com/2007/11/29/arts/coolkids/
November 29th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“persona”…. Freudian slip?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
yeah, what josh did, while harmless and a little naive, was pretty dumb. but i’m still amazed that a person sat on these pictures for more than a YEAR, just in an effort to smear josh. “concerned undergrad,” you’re a coward. if you really had an issue with josh, you should have confronted josh yourself.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
To all those who feel that IvyGate has not lived up to your standard of journalistic integrity: As a blog about the shit that goes down in Ivy League schools this is not an irrelevant post, nor is it politically skewed. When anything comes to light, it is the mission of this blog to make fun of it, which they did. This post does not have any political implications other than what you give it. The fact that it was posted with the candidate’s rebuttal is, quite frankly, proof positive that the writers of IvyGate are concerned with a fair presentation. And you cannot truly say that the article did not attempt to make light of both the anonymous tipper’s obvious political motivations nor of the initial situation in which a white student painted himself black (for whatever reason) and made jokes about Rick James, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. I am no fan of stifling creativity (shadow costume = neat idea) but we can’t let that blind us to the fact that someone out there would definitely find this offensive - and apparently that someone found it so offensive they copied it and waited to sabotage a campaign with it. Like the recent instances of blackface at Yale, there must be some realization that Halloween does not justify forgetting about racial sensitivity. I am sure this guy is not racist but don’t defend his actions on the grounds of Halloween/intent or defame IvyGate for publishing this post. I personally think it was just a neat costume idea that unfortunately evoked some pretty horrible historical context. So get over it. This won’t change the outcome of your election. Oh, and I just want to remind you THIS IS IVYGATE not the Prince. It makes no pretense of publishing unbiased stories. It is biased against all of us as it exists to make fun (from the inside) of the Ivy League and point out how much ridiculously stupid shit we do.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
None of this matters. 1 Josh is not a racist, 2 Josh will win because he is the better candidate. Also I think Josh makes a great point when he says “Anyone who asserts that my costume had a racial bent would have to employ a biased interpretation of it, perhaps itself informed by racial stereotypes.” What kind of mindset do you have to be in to think that this is somehow racial? The political correctness of this article is out of hand. Not only is it smear tactics with no credibility, the issue at hand is non-existent.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Wow, IvyGate, you guys are really in dire need of content if you have to resort to this.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
“It’s funny, chill out or go cut yourself (or go protest/starve at Columbia).”
Hey Keggy, shut the fuck up. Your personal vendetta against my school is getting really old. Why the hate, man? Did you get rejected or something? However, I do agree with you that no one should be making a huge deal out of this. It’s funny.
Columbia is NOT full of radical leftists. Those are only a tiny minority of students. Most of us didn’t give a fuck about the hunger strikers or their silly demands. Amazingly, Columbia cured my liberalism by turning me into a conservative.
Re: the article…this is pretty fucking low. I thought CCSC elections here were competitive, but no one would stoop to this level.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
On one hand, Ivygate printing this is pretty pathetic (how’s it feel to be a tool for student “politicians”?), on the other hand, student assembly types are universely scum, so this kid deserves every last ounce of public scorn.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
nnenna ukwu. ja shukry-shia. pacific overtures. the great af-am snafu of 2001. the JE dining hall. how quickly yale forgets. that had blackface AND yellowface, and it had a point (which 99% of the audience missed)
November 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Wait, so the Rick James comment was an “attempt at humor”? Clearly that comment reveals that he KNEW he was in blackface (even with the “shadow” allabi), and he knew what that implied!!
November 29th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I know both Josh and Sarah really well, as well as many of the others in USG. Let’s be honest here. Josh isn’t a racist. Langberg isn’t crafty enough to send these photos in.
What matters is, Josh is 100% more qualified to serve as USG President than Sarah. According to what the other sophs/juniors in USG told me, Weinstein practically runs the place, and Langberg shows up solely to bitch at people and advocate for her (very few) projects. She’s a great girl–and a friend of mine–but just not qualified to take over as President.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Dear All-Knowing IvyGate,
Is it alright to paint your face black if you’re dressed like a commando, Navy SEAL, etc.? You seem to be the final word on such complicated social issues as this.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
To claim that this article is talking about “issues” is to precisely miss the point. An “issue” is something like student life concerns or relationships with administrators. Let’s call this what it is: muckraking, plain and simple, and by the number of people who have read and commented, this sort of ‘journalism’ is just as popular today as a hundred years ago.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
This just in. All those C ‘08 and Dartmouth ’09s who were hating on ivygate at the early hours of the day were doing so from IP addresses in Princeton. Sorry about your lack of ivy-wide support. At least the FRAT has got your back.
SCOTT LAYNE FOR PRESIDENT!!!
November 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
This is pretty much the same situation as Yale’s much-ballyhooed run-in with blackface this past halloween. The girl that was accused of being in blackface was trying to be an iPod dancer.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
hey tcnj! my grandma lives like 3 minutes away from that place. i remember when it used to be called trenton state which is a more awesome name and then some princeton lads got mad because princeton was called college of new jersey before like 1890 and they egged the new sign. true story.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
@tcnj ‘11: This isn’t journalism. It was never supposed to be journalism. It’s just the simple revelation that josh did something pretty stupid two years ago. And it’s not long any of these elections even matter; it’s all just pretend.
SCOTT LAYNE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
November 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Wow, this is ridiculous. It’s kind of sketchy that whoever did this sat on the pictures and sent them now, sure, but what is more troubling is that someone who wants to be our USG president, and represent the student body of our entire school, would be foolish enough to do this — whether it was when they were a freshman or now.
I’d like to think that our student body president would have had and will have now the reasoning and judgment to not make stupid and yes, for all those defending him, BLATANTLY OFFENSIVE decisions. Apparently, history shows he doesn’t.
As for the Frat (AEPi, if you haven’t figured it out), chill with your monotonous defense — you’re pretty much the lamest frat at the school, even with all your quasi-political ambitions. And your backing doesn’t make Josh’s appalling attempt at humor any less reprehensible.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Wow, this is ridiculous. It’s kind of sketchy that whoever did this sat on the pictures and sent them now, sure, but what is more troubling is that someone who wants to be our USG president, and represent the student body of our entire school, would be foolish enough to do this — whether it was when they were a freshman or now.
I’d like to think that our student body president would have had and will have now the reasoning and judgment to not make stupid and yes, for all those defending him, BLATANTLY OFFENSIVE decisions. Apparently, history shows he doesn’t.
As for the Frat (AEPi, if you haven’t figured it out), chill with your monotonous defense — you’re pretty much the lamest frat at the school, even with all your quasi-political ambitions. And your backing doesn’t make Josh’s appalling attempt at humor any less reprehensible.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
That’s painting your face black, not blackface.
Perhaps Princeton needs a shadow government?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I think the person above me is right… That was stupid, Josh. And it just reinforces the idea that princeton’s jut a good-old-boys college filled with racists — WHICH IT’S NOT. anyways, he’s lost my vote.
that siad, why does that comment have two different years? it’s a little sketch too
November 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
P’09: Congratulations on having never ever done anything foolish in your life. Can you teach us your secret? Or, better yet, maybe you should have run for USG President. We could use someone with such… perfection at the top.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
P’08: i’m not perfect, and definitely don’t want to run for USG president, although i’m glad for your…support.
that said, i don’t take and post incriminating pictures of myself on the internet for the world to see. It doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Absolutely ludicrous that his opponent would dare be involved in this. Who else but a conniving girl bent on a desperate attempt at defaming her clearly superior opponent would embark upon such a slanderous revelation? Despicable Langberg. Simply disgusting.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
As someone who’s been close friends with both Josh and Sarah since freshman year (and someone who remembers this incident when it first happened), I think I can echo a couple of things. (1) Josh’s defense of the situation is pretty weak. Admitting that it was a fraternity stunt, that it was immature and insensitive, and then apologizing would have been a much better plan. (Actually the best plan would have been not posting those on his blog in the first place… but I think we all know that…) (2) Sarah would love to win this race. I think in terms of Facebook group membership, as well as endorsements from current USG members, it’s obvious that Josh is leading by a large margin. That said, she wouldn’t resort to this. She has maintained her integrity over the course of three previous elections (two of which she lost). (3) This is just another example of some pseudo-scandal rocking the USG presidential election. I think it’s great that IvyGate picked it up because hopefully we can realize how ridiculous it is to take these things so seriously.
All of these things said, I will reiterate that Josh was dumb for putting himself in this situation in the first place by painting his face. It is cause for pause, but I don’t think it will have all that great of an effect on the election.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
We should not ridicule the person who saved the pictures one year ago and have only now released them to make an opportunistic jab at this Weinstein. In fact, we should praise this person.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I wish Ivygate had more self-restraint than to publish private pictures of a private person who is running for student government. Are the pictures stupid? Sure. It was a mistake. I wish the publishers of IvyGate would have to public atone for every dumb thing they ever did in COllege.
This is NOT a public political race. Its a school race. Public humiliation of this sort is awful.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I think the dumbest thing about this entire article is that he referred to Rick James as a “Famed David Chapelle character” First of all, who the fuck calls him “David Chapelle,” and second of all who thinks that Rick James is nothing more than an imaginary character?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
nice, sarah.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
When did everyone here become so self-important about ethics and “smear campaigns”? It’s a real shame when people are suggesting that ivygate has a political agenda in this, as if giving a shit about college elections is suddenly our new thing. The kid wearing blackface while he’s running for student council president is damn funny in a very farcical way, because it’s during a national election season where if, say, Barack Obama doesn’t put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance for 1 second, it’s photographed like mad and spread across the internet screaming that he’s unpatriotic. That’s kind of the less visceral aspect of this post, guys. Surely Josh is a nice kid and not a racist, and suggesting we’re “smearing him” — or that we’re in the employ of his opponents! or that any of this matters! — is a disappointing case of buying into the vapid meme tactics of the modern political media. Stop getting so Web 2.0ed out.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I really doubt that sarah would do this, and i don’t think it’s fair to automatically blame her for it.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
is it really blackface if you put black paint all over your face to be something besides a black person? I was under the impression that blackface referred very specifically to wearing paint like the old entertainers who acted as cruel stereotypes of African-Americans. I wouldn’t have said this guy was wearing blackface.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
this is a usg election. who gives a fuck? i don’t understand how people can get so riled up about this.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Speaking as a person who is half black, it bothers me that many of the people commenting on this story are completely writing off the possibility that a reasonable person might be legitimately hurt by Weinstein’s blog entry, choice of costumes/friends, and response. I have heard that he is a really nice guy, but blackface (and fine, his costume as a shadow might not be blackface in it’s pure racist form…but what does it mean to be “a shadow/Rick James, bitch”. I mean, you’re either one or the other.) He says in his defense that only someone “solely with the intent of sabotaging my candidacy and much much much more importantly my personal credibility and friendships” would do this, but couldn’t it just have been a person who didn’t want to see his or her student body represented by someone who just doesn’t get the issues of all of his constituents (minorities on campus)? He should have said that he’s learned from his mistakes (we all make them), but instead he’s shown he hasn’t learned a damn thing. I’m sure he is a nice person, but what he did lacked sensitivity and I don’t think we should have someone like that representing the Princeton student body. He sure doesn’t represent me…
November 29th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
@green ‘09: We are riled up because we cannot possibly let this go. If we did, what does that say about us?
This Weinstein is insensitive to the max. He ignores the thought that ANY average person, when looking at these pictures, would automatically assume that he’s doing a blackface. He shows no humility or responsibility for his actions.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
The previous two posters must have been so blinded by their righteous indignation that they overlooked this:
“If you feel this way, based on my actions as a freshman with no intention (as anyone who has ever met me could attest) of offending my friends and peers, I wholeheartedly apologize.”
November 29th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
do you guys at pton actually have a competitive election for this? like where people have opinions on which candidate is better? my class and the classes several years before and after me at penn just kept reelecting the same people unopposed every year (and like 4 percent of people would vote). they had thrilling platforms like “i will get a better band for spring fling” or “i will make our class t-shirts look cool.” and that’s pretty unfuckwithable, insofar as preserving a nice apathetic student body. but i guess at penn we weren’t smart enough to get involved politically. haha penn is dumb and businessy ha.
@Columbiatch: thank you for being funny.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:41 am
What a f–king dick that Weinstein is. I hope a group of white guys show up dressed in Nazi outfits and nooses and surround him making some lynching references and then say that they were just playing “period soldier” and that it’s all gravy. But don’t worry, there will be a group of douches to attack your journalistic integrity for reporting on it. Oh wait, they’d all be kicked out before they got undressed. Says everything about Princeton. And they would elect this Weinstein SOB why? Oh yeah it’s Princeton. I’m on some live and and let live stuff but someone should have kicked his ass on G.P. Selective bigotry by selective groups is all the rage at Princeton though it seems.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:07 am
I think in the spirit of ivygate punishing people for things they made public that they shouldn’t have, we should have a reprinting of the Jacob Savage classic from my freshman year “The Top 10 Holocaust Movies that I’ve never seen but wish I did” (if not for any other reason than a little integrity)
November 30th, 2007 at 9:13 am
WTF pton ‘08? The attempt at finger pointing away from with some indicipherable, alleged transgression about what someone else allegedly did DOES NOT take away from what your buttwipe buddy did (and then posted it on his blog). Your buddy is running as president of student government and he did that jackass move in college and pretty recently.
The way you guys have responded just makes the whole bunch of you look more irresponsible and willing to support any behavior by this wad. And some of the excuses were beyond lame. I would have had more respect if Weinstein would have swung a “hey, it was dumb shit I was a little high and engaged in some jacked up behavior by making the Rosa Parks, etc. comments while wearing black paint on my face. I apologize and here is my stance in issues and some background that proves this was an aberration.” Or Weinstein could say “Yeah, I do shit like this from time to time because I am a little bigoted and in my social circle it plays well. There aren’t any consequences really. F–k it.” I don’t agree with the latter approach but I could respect it.
VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY. HE CAN’T BE LESS OF AN ASS!
November 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Correction- “MORE OF AN ASS!” Clearly Weinstein is the unrivaled jackass here.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:02 am
college.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I think a lot of you are over reacting. IvyGate isn’t posting this to imply that Weinstein is a racist, and I think it’s obvious that Weinstein himself wasn’t trying to be racist with his costume. IvyGate posted it because it’s hilarious that someone, especially someone who cares about his image as much as a candidate for president would, would be so oblivious to don blackface and not assume that people would not be confused about the costume. If IvyGate is really about exposing how stupid the Ivy League really is, then this was certainly a valid post. I certainly hope many of you don’t come to IvyGate looking for serious news.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY!
November 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Alright, enough is enough. All of the PC Nazis can bugger off and stop suggesting that everything that is considered “offensive” by certain groups of society should suddenly become unacceptable. The irony of this of course is that those who are most fervently advocating toleration of diversity and multiculturalism in these responses while castigating Josh Weinstein (a friend of mine) for his “insensitivity” are in fact intolerant of others purported intolerance.
You may not agree with the actions that others take, but by God, you must respect their freedom to undertake these actions. We live in a western liberal democracy where above all, we value freedom of expression. It is unnecessary and simply sensationalist to suggest that every time a white person puts black face paint on, they are racist bigots. Let us consider, that even if a white person deliberately chose to change their appearance to resemble that of a black person, so what? IT DOES NOT IMPLY OR MEAN ANYTHING IN AND OF ITSELF. Does purchasing a gun imply that I am a mass murderer; no.
It is very easy to jump on to the bandwagon of bashing others especially, when there is an unfortunately easy opportunity to do so. However, this is despicable and causes more problems than it resolves.
Somebody give a lucid and well reasoned argument as to why wearing black face paint equates to being a racist, a bigot, and intolerant of blacks.
One last point to ponder: all of you who were so incensed by the black face, what would you think of a black person wearing white face paint (ala whiteface)? I’m certain that the liberal double standards subscribed to by many of the bleeding hearts in this forum would certainly defend the rights of a minority to do so; because you’re all a big bunch of pussies who are too afraid to stand up for what is right in case you are also yourselves labeled racists and bigots. If you don’t like what Josh did, good for you, by all means dissent. But to slander him and suggest that he is a racist is pure vitriol.
Can’t wait to see the responses of righteous indignation and claims that I (the poster) am a racist, elitist, bigoted stereotypical Princeton student. I would expect no less vapid and hysterical attempts at character assassination, because that is what these arguments always boil down to. I’d like to see for once a legitimate debate on the issue, not a stupid flame war.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“Somebody give a lucid and well reasoned argument as to why wearing black face paint equates to being a racist, a bigot, and intolerant of blacks.”
I support Josh Weinstein for President. But, historically, gotta say that people have USED the very wearing of blackface as a racist symbol…think blackface acts (though Al Jolson was not himself a racist, he mocked Black culture, which was a sensitive topic at the time).
JW for President though.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
What a racist bigot that Weinstein is. It sez right there he was rick james. And all his buddies - Rosa Parks, Malcolm X… I’m sure it would’ve been tough claiming to be dressed only as a “shadow” in such notable company. I love it how these douches take student government so seriously so as to start smear campaigns. I say disband the damn organization once and for all.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
p08: you’ve clearly never met Josh Weinstein, because, if you had, you would have realized (like everyone else has) that he is one of the most genuine, caring guys you’ll ever meet– to everyone.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I am guessing that p08’s comment was meant to be tongue in cheek; if not, shame on you for your clear lack of any logical reasoning. Were one to impersonate a black person on Halloween by putting on black face paint, then it stands to reason that one would impersonate a real black person. It is neither offensive nor racist to assume the appearance/character of others as a costume; people dress up as Mexicans (with de rigeur sombrero and poncho), Elvis, cowboys, etc. and attempt to make costumes appear authentic. That is the whole point of a costume; to disguise one’s appearance, or assume the appearance of someone/something other than oneself.
Narrow minded fools.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:43 am
It never ceases to amaze me how naive some people are (ala p09). There’s a difference between being a liberal PC asshole and being historically aware/sensitive to things that might offend the vast majority of members of a particular group. Idiot. And I gues I have to qualify this before team AEPi starts the comment barrage (again) — as someone who knows Josh, I’m not calling him a racist; he just did something profoundly stupid and is paying for it now.
Also, I just ran into Sarah. Both she and Josh have been invited to speak at a Black Student Union panel on the greater implications of this tomorrow at 3pm in McCosh. I highly doubt anyone on here will be showing up though — typical Princeton, just talk big online and take no real action.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Why are people making such a big deal of a clear attempt to defame Josh when there is no talk about Sarah’s comment of being “web-tarded” in The Prince? I don’t have a link to that Prince article since the Prince so kindly altered its web version, but the print version still says that.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Those pictures are of someone painted black, not blackface. There’s a difference, and anyone who’s ever seen pictures of someone in blackface should be able to see that. I wouldn’t have even considered the blackface interpretation of it had it not appeared in the opening of this blogpost (as well as the 50 million e-mails the Black Student Union is flooding my inbox with at the moment). The hoopla made over this is ridiculous and I’m still voting for Josh.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/11/28/news/19487.shtml
December 1st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
The title of this article is the only racist comment I saw.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Frankly, I find this article ludicrous.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I’m almost more appalled by the comments posted on this page in response to Josh’s actions than by his decisions that Halloween. I cannot believe that so few people writing in do NOT see the implications that dressing up in blackface still has (REGARDLESS of whether he was “only a shadow” or not)! And I am even more ashamed that I go to the same #1, Ivy League School as many of these insensitive students!
I do not know Josh personally and do not believe he is racist, but I think it was a stupid, inconsiderate, and simply thoughtless act to parade around with a face painted in black, and later to make comparisons to famous Black figures. Although I don’t believe his costume was planned with racist intentions, I do think it was poorly thought out. As a Black female, I am hurt not because I believe he was a “racist bigot” but just because he was narrow-minded and simply had NO concern for anyone he might have offended. Maybe next time he thinks about reaching for that can of black paint, he’ll think about the hundreds of black students attending Princeton that will probably give him dirty looks when they pass him on the Street.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
C’10 comes from a princeton university IP address. Stop pretending to be a columbia/cornell racist when you’re just a typical princeton racist.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
The worst thing about this clearly is how he calls Rick James “the famed David Chapelle character.” Disrespecting a musical legend like that is just classless and disgusting. Tells me enough about the guy already.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I had written a post a day or two ago being very harsh to Josh Weinstein, and after hearing him speak today to BSU (and hearing what was left out of the ivygate post), I retract what I said. It still bothers me that some people commenting above (and many white people in general based on recent conversations with friends), don’t really understand just how bad blackface is. But anyway, Weinstein seems like a really good kid who is not only apologetic, but really did just want to dress up like a shadow to imitate people’s moves. And also, he says that the whole Rick James thing was just something sarcastic (albeit stupid) that he said when people on the Street accused him of not being a shadow but being in blackface, and that carried over into his blog entry.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I really agree with “no longer disturbed at pton.” I saw Josh today, and I was skeptical at first, but after seeing him today, I came away thinking he is a very good guy. He seemed to really have learned from his mistakes, and this will make him an even more powerful representative for us if he’s elected next week. I wasn’t planning on voting for him before the meeting today, but now I think I will.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
The majority of comments on this page are alarming, especially the enlightened person who adamantly states that Al Jolson was not racist. I’m sorry, did you know him personally? Because most the “achievements” of his career would seem to suggest otherwise to any lucid human being. Or did he have black gardeners and househelp, or perhaps occasionally walk by black people on the sidewalk on his way to his minstrel shows? In that case he is definitely not racist.
I’m always impressed by how quickly and readily people jump to someone’s defense when they do something racist. “I really don’t think Josh is a racist, I really don’t think Josh is a racist blah blah blah.” Why is this exactly? I propose a three pronged system for assessing whether his (and other people in similar cases) actions are defensible.
First, Do you know him? Secondly, has he ever done or said anything racially insensitive to you? Thirdly, and most importantly, ARE YOU WHITE???? Because excuse my presumptuousness, but my white friends (and trust me I have many, probably more than you have black friends) HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED RACISM VERY OFTEN, AND VERY OFTEN IN MOST CASES MEANS NEVER. This is a point that is conveniently lost on many people on this page. Maybe, if you have never experienced racism, are not black, and are arguing that blackface for halloween is not offensive, then you are somewhat misguided and/or not in a position to add anything meaningful to a conversation about what is racist and what isn’t.
I should make clear that I do not know Weinstein, but I am not white and have experienced racism. So I am not prepared to say he his racist, but you all definitely do not have cause to say that he is not. That said, the zeal with which is actions have been defended is typical of clueless people who don’t have a clue about American history, and the world we live in today.
It would take a whole other posting to address how almost y everyone has evading discussing the “black man group” which included Josh Weinstein as shadow/Rick James, and two other idiots as Rosa Parks and Malcom X. Rosa Parks was a black woman actually, for any of you unfamiliar with that particular allusion.
I’d be really interested in anyone who could explain to me how Weinstein’s idea to post that his costume depicted a shadow/Rick James is ok. But I am probably just being silly. It’s the slash-shadow part that makes it ok, right?
December 1st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
He may be a “great guy” in person (as his many friends posting above have attested to), but if elected, he will be the face representing ALL Princeton students–and this university as an institution–to the outside world. Though people may be standing up for him here, these pictures and his actions will never go away. Is this really the image we want to represent us?
December 1st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
p09: This is in response to po9 who claimed that a white person wearing a black face is the same thing as a black person wearing a white face, and that people would not be enraged if this occurred.
Dear p09,
I have to assume that based upon your argument that you have either (a) been living under a rock your entire life, (b) were drunk when you had the thought, and decided to type it or (c) never got past an elementary school education. My guess is C so I am going to talk to you like a child and explain to you why what you just said is so far beyond dumb that I had trouble believing someone actually wrote it. So, there was this thing called the Middle Passage where a bunch of WHITE people took a bunch of black people from Africa in chains, against their will, to a country called America. These BLACK people were then enslaved for about 200 years. Finally, these BLACK people were “set free,” however, these BLACK people, in the white peoples eyes, were still seen as lesser individuals. For forms on entertainment, these white people thought it would be funny to make fun of these black people in various forms i.e. plays, vaudevillian shows, and later movies. Black people at this time were not allowed to be hired for these events so in order for the white people to make fun of the black people, the white people had to wear BLACKFACE. This trend continued for over 50 years. So, as you can see, there is a history of white people wearing black face that is extremely racist, insulting, and in no logical sense O.K.
Now, lets examine the history of black people wearing white face….wait, there isn’t any.
Read a book, take a soc class, get your head out of your ass.
Sincerely,
someone with a brain
( :
December 1st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
The majority of comments on this page are alarming, especially the enlightened person who adamantly states that Al Jolson was not racist. I’m sorry, did you know him personally? Because most the “achievements” of his career would seem to suggest otherwise to any lucid human being. Or did he have black gardeners and househelp, or perhaps occasionally walk by black people on the sidewalk on his way to his minstrel shows? In that case he is definitely not racist.
I’m always impressed by how quickly and readily people jump to someone’s defense when they do something racist. “I really don’t think Josh is a racist, I really don’t think Josh is a racist blah blah blah.” Why is this exactly? I propose a three pronged system for assessing whether his (and other people in similar cases) actions are defensible.
First, Do you know him? Secondly, has he ever done or said anything racially insensitive to you? Thirdly, and most importantly, ARE YOU WHITE???? Because excuse my presumptuousness, but my white friends (and trust me I have many, probably more than you have black friends) HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED RACISM VERY OFTEN, AND VERY OFTEN IN MOST CASES MEANS NEVER. This is a point that is conveniently lost on many people on this page. Maybe, if you have never experienced racism, are not black, and are arguing that blackface for halloween is not offensive, then you are somewhat misguided and/or not in a position to add anything meaningful to a conversation about what is racist and what isn’t.
I should make clear that I do not know Weinstein, but I am not white and have experienced racism. So I am not prepared to say he his racist, but you all definitely do not have cause to say that he is not. That said, the zeal with which is actions have been defended is typical of clueless people who don’t have a clue about American history, and the world we live in today.
It would take a whole other posting to address how almost y everyone has evading discussing the “black man group” which included Josh Weinstein as shadow/Rick James, and two other idiots as Rosa Parks and Malcom X. Rosa Parks was a black woman actually, for any of you unfamiliar with that particular allusion.
I’d be really interested in anyone who could explain to me how Weinstein’s idea to post that his costume depicted a shadow/Rick James is ok. But I am probably just being silly. It’s the slash-shadow part that makes it ok, right?
December 1st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
You people at Princeton are ridiculous. Raise your hand if you’ve never done anything stupid. The guy said he was sorry. Can’t you all just move on?
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 am
Okay, what does it say about a world where we automatically feel people are out to get us?
Let me start out with this. I am black. I saw these pics when they were first posted. I was not offended. Why? Because somehow I’ve escaped the persecution complex that seems to haunt members of every minority race that EVERYONE WHO DOES SOMETHING NO ANYTHING is out to get them. We see this time and time again. Black people have a history of being persecuted, yes. Is Josh Weinstein a perpetrator? No. He was a kid dressed as a shadow, that made an insensitive comment he didn’t think was a big deal. And honestly, if he didn’t mean anything by it, why do we have to inflame it? Why do we have to turn this into “J.W is a racist”? That wasn’t the intent of the message. And how many of you have never thought a racially insensitive thought? I have. Once, in high school, a white girl was trying out for the hip hop team, and I thought she wouldn’t be as good as the others. Racial Stereotyping. She proved me wrong of course, but that doesn’t mean i was reformed and have never thought something for a quick second before I could overcome the social conditioning and realize it was BS. The kid did something three years ago that some people took offense to because they chose to be offended. And I do mean chose. I think it is very clear that he did not mean to be a racist based on the post itself. He was having fun. I can envision a response. “What does that say about his character that he didn’t think that was offensive?” It says that his character probably grew up without tons of black people around, and so he never learned what would be taken the wrong way. He has probably learned since then. Josh Weinstein has a lot of friends– of all races. I’m not even sure he notices their races.
I think the overarching issue here is why have we become so willing to take offense in today’s world. People of all races are up in arms about things that in the long run, really aren’t worth as much indignation as they are recieving. Why are we even thinking about this when we’ve got the Jena 6 to worry about, a chimpanzee for president, and people of all colors dying overseas. Do we really need the focus that an event like this causes so much?
If yes, then it makes me really upset that people waste so much effort on something that to me, seems like another stupid frat idea, as they all are.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 am
ivygate, or Jim Newell: quite frankly, this is just not funny in the least. It’s not illuminating, it’s not relevant, and of all the bad ivygate posts I’ve seen (and for every funny/interesting post, there are at least ten stupid ones), worst of all, it’s actually harmful.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:15 am
LAY OFF JOSH! Every person at Princeton, every person who wrote a comment on this wall, have all done something that someone else will think is insensitive or offensive when that wasn’t the intention at all. I know Josh personally and as a person of colour I can guarantee that Josh is not a racist! This article is slander and it is absolutely ridiculous! Josh Weinstein is a good person with a great heart. He cares for the entire student body. He cares about every single student at Princeton. He is going to be an amazing USG President. He has the heart, dedication, and past results to prove that he’s going to definitely beat Langberg in this presidential race. Sorry Langberg but you’re going down in this race. And she should stop using the first female president in 5+ years. As a women i find it offensive that she would use her gender to try and win a race. We can see you are female. Who cares, are you sexist? Anyone who has a problem with Josh ever, go talk to him. He’s a sweet, honest, open guy. I’m sure he’ll be glad to help you out and answer any questions or concerns you have. VOTE JOSH!
xox
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Lovejosh: Slander is spoken. In print, it’s libel.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
@jameson: Please don’t quote from the spiderman movies.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:50 am
This kid’s a racist. It bothers me that he and has friends are using the comments box to distort what was clearly a very inappropriate and racist gesture. Dressing up with your friends as Rosa Parks and Rick James is never appropriate.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 am
I’m a little suspect of his actions because of the blog post. If he had indeed just dressed as a shadow, a cool costume idea I must admit, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Then he has to add his friends as Rosa Parks and Malcolm X? Give me a break.
It was 3 years ago, but as enlightening as a Princeton education is (especially in terms of race…), this kind of insensitivity doesn’t go away easily.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 am
Josh is absolutely not racist, and whoever thinks so clearly doesn’t know him at all. Perhaps it was a stupid thing to do because it could be interpreted that way, but I think a lot of people are just trying to read into this too much. Also, Sarah Langberg would not stoop to this, if you know her either. The fact that Josh was so upset that he could barely answer questions is a testament to the fact that this truly surprised him and was not at all his intention.
Furthermore, if someone of another race painted their face black to be a shadow for Halloween, how many people would have said that he or she was racist? Racism isn’t just a black and white thing…
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 am
How can this post be construed as slanderous, libelous, or anything remotely resembling such? It simply repeats material that Weinstein POSTED HIMSELF on the internet. I’m also disgusted that Josh’s friends and people who “know him personally” have used this fact to somehow purport that he isn’t to blame at all for his actions. Racist or not, Weinstien’s actions call his judgment, consideration for minorities, and viability as a candidate into question.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
I don’t even know Josh personally, but I do know that he has a reputation for being one of the greatest guys in the class of ‘09. He wouldn’t be so universally well-liked and respected if this kind of behavior were a true reflection of his charecter.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I would buy what he’s trying to sell in the absence of the Rick James bit.
I don’t pretend to fully understand the painful experiences of African-Americans in this country. Even though I didn’t attend grade school here, I’ve done my research and black face is certainly racially insensitive even without malicious intent. I’m surprised that so many Americans don’t seem to understand this. It’s a part of American history and it should certainly be taught in schools. I’m told that this isn’t the case. If it were, I’d be more likely to view this as malicious.
A real possibility is that he sent them himself to generate buzz. Perhaps a member of the “black man group” or an ex of his did this. Who uses up precious memory for another person’s photos? I don’t even save most of my own pictures. Regardless, he did this to himself and in it’s entirety, I don’t buy his excuse.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:10 am
blackface is the new black
December 26th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Black face, yellow face and red face are ALWAYS racist when done by a white person.
The ‘original intent’ of BF was to mock and demonize African-American people, thus when whites do it today it is still racist. I hope that one day BF is made into a hate crime.
White people always seem to look at the ‘intent’ but Black people look at the ‘end result’ and that is, BF done today, conjures up ‘memories’ of the original intent.
A few years ago, Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform to a costume party and the Jewish community took offence, I am sure that Prince Harry did not “INTEND” to cause pain, but the Jewish community looked at the “end result” and were hurt.
Only a white racist of the highest order would wear BF, and it is even more sad and ironic when a Jewish person wears it.
Remember, BF is (((ALWAYS))) racist, there is no harmless way a white person can use it.
What about the movie White Chicks?
There is NO racist history behind WF, that film was all in good fun, it grossed 77 million and there were NO protests from white people, white face does NOT equal black face.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Sorry mike, but you’re generalizing the situation. First, not all blackface has its origins in racism. Blackface has been used in European folk dances and performances to represent night and the coming of winter, or even to represent faces blackened from coal mines like in England. True, the blackface in question has nothing to do with these European traditions, but these traditions show that blackface is not always racist. Obviously, I don’t think the world is ready for everyone to just don blackface as they please, but I feel like a major part of moving past racism is to move past these associations that we make, such as that blackface is “always” racist. Holding people accountable for the actions of their forefathers does not solve the problem. Now, all that said, I am not a proponent of wearing blackface; I’m merely trying to illustrate a point.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Okay dmouth, since you insist on being technical and using the hair splitting defense, BF (IN AMERICA) worn by whites is always racist, due to it’s racist history. BF used by whites in other parts of the world has different histories thus is not nearly as offensive nor meant to be, but we know why BF is done in America.
Even in Japan, some of the youth there wear BF to pay ‘homage’ to Hip Hop culture, one of the names they call it is Ganguro, thus they do it to flatter, but that was never the case in the states.
You said:
“Holding people accountable for the actions of their forefathers does not solve the problem.”
But when the descendants of ‘today’ do what the racist forefathers originally did, makes the descendant culpable.
When you get some time, see ‘Birth of a Nation’, it can be found in most libraries video section, this film should leave no questions in your mind about the evil of black face.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Sounds like all of you who justify the dumb ass kids actions as just a joke are so insensitve to what the world is going through that you can’t smell shit from roses you want to look at the future and believe that there are no consequence for you dumb actions the idiot doesn’t know the defamation of character he has portrayed and thinks that his faggot friends wil get him off the hook by posting love stories about him well keep in mind dork politics will stay with you forever and you will never gain the minority vote in the real world sorry for your luck jack wad.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
MORE PICTURES