The summer issue of the Washington University Magazine celebrated our school’s sesquicentennial. While flipping through it this past July, I started reading the article “Washington University Students: Active, Energetic, and Involved,” about the extracurricular activities of University students throughout the school’s history. Accompanying the story were photographs of homecoming, plays, and other social events. The article took a cheerful, nostalgic tone, as you might expect from a publication used to promote the school to alumni and prospective students. However, when I turned to the fourth page of the article, I was surprised to see a black-and-white photo from the 1950’s showing a group of white fraternity members dressed as Japanese prostitutes and their pimp; by all appearances, a yellowface performance.
Yellowface is the Asian equivalent to blackface, in which a white actor uses costume, gaudy makeup, and a stereotypical, exaggerated ‘ethnic’ accent and mannerisms to portray an Asian character. The Sigma Chi members’ skit, “Teahouse for Two,” was based on the film, “Teahouse of the August Moon,” which featured Marlon Brando in the role of a Japanese man.
I decided to e-mail Mary Ellen Benson and Teresa Nappier, the editors of the University Magazine, as well as Student Union Vice President Kenny Edwards. Edwards referred me to Jill Carnaghi, the Student Union advisor and assistance vice-chancellor for students. Through Carnaghi, I made two requests of the magazine’s editors; first, that the image not be reprinted when the summer issue was archived on the University website, and second, that an apology-including a definition of yellowface and an explanation as to why such an image is offensive-in the next issue of the magazine. After some discussion, it was agreed that the image would not be reprinted, and Carnaghi informed me that an apology would be printed in the fall issue. When I asked to see a copy of the apology, however, it did not meet my expectations:
“The Magazine received an expression of concern from a student that a 46-year-old photograph included in the coverage of student activities in the Summer 2003 issue was demeaning to people of Asian heritage. That certainly was not the Magazine’s intent.”
The apology went on to say that, “A number of such plays, musicals, and movies produced during that era were seen as an attempt to bridge the gap between East and West. The editors regret any concern raised or offense caused by the use of this picture from our past.”
The intent of the performance is irrelevant. The apology was so litigiously worded that I felt the only thing being apologized for was my inability to get the joke. The apology neither explains why I was offended, nor does it convey the offensiveness of that image to Asian people.
Yellowface is offensive for two reasons. Firstly, it was often used in a comical performance, to exaggerate the characteristics or mannerisms of an “Asian” character – mocking him not only for his actions, but also his ethnicity. Secondly, the casting of white actors as Asian characters often suggests that no Asian actor is good enough to fill the role – or perhaps, that an Asian actor is unable to epitomize ‘Asianness’ in the way white writers, directors, and producers wish to see it portrayed.
It was an ignorant mistake to include the yellowface image, and it would be an even bigger mistake to believe that this mistake will not happen again. The image was used because the editors did not understand why it was offensive; now, because of the weak, mealy-mouthed language of the ‘apology’, no one else will either. An opportunity to educate the University community has been wasted.