As a Black woman, growing up there were not many people that looked like me on television and other media forms. Black people did not have a great platform in communications. The few representations that were available were of token Black people or were not good representations of the Black community. Many times it felt as if the media would portray Black news negatively. There were not as many good news stories involving Black people as there were bad ones. Beyond news, movies and shows presented many stereotypes forced onto the Black community. Even networks like BET, made for Black people, had problematic depictions of Black interactions that projected damaging subliminal messages of social interaction and behavior.

Though there were many negative depictions of Black people, when there was good representation, it was great. Some networks took great initiative to depict the complexity and diversity within different communities and show the excellence that does exist within their culture. That was the most interesting position of the media— seeing how others use different mediums to express themselves and the culture that they possess. In the Black community, it was great to see the new music videos for the latest songs, or when different movies would come out and they were relatable to your life because they were nuanced with a shared cultural experience that you knew well. Just as media can be used to destroy, it could be used to build. At times it built a whole community up by giving them the gift of hope: seeing that there were more opportunities and possibilities to be more than what was offered. That is why when the media is used to Blackfish, it is unethical. By presenting an identity that one does not experience, it insults the community it is borrowed from by diminishing its culture to arbitrary features.

To understand how significant Digital Blackfishing is, it is first important to familiarize oneself with what it is. Blackfishing is the delivery and interaction of minstrel-like behavior that performs as Black caricatures. Minstrels were shows that were performed to imitate Black mannerisms meant to mock and disrespect Black people, “blackface in American cultural history was the wearing of black theatrical makeup by white actors who portrayed African-American fictional characters and real individuals in mocking and racist stereotypes”(Angelita). These shows had a significant influence on the perception and treatment of Black people. This has been developed and adapted onto a digital platform as companies take on a Black persona. They will post content or have interactions that mimic and reflect Black jargon and reflect an “urban'' feel. 

When brands take the initiative to portray an ethnic group that they are not, this is what is referred to as branding Black. It uses Black aesthetics, culture, and mannerisms to capture the enticing elements of the Black experience to gain the benefit of Black populism. When “brands, including creative and cultural industry organizations, (mis)use (re)presentations of Black people as part of their digital presence to create the illusion that they are connected to and supportive of Black communities. Bobino discussed examples of institutions using images of Black lives to superficially “diversify” their marketing campaigns, positioning themselves as being adjacent to the “coolness” that may be associated with certain Black identities and aesthetics”(Sobande). This is done when people and companies use trends and language that imitates Black culture and stereotypes. Certain examples of digital Blackface reflect how some brands’ and non-Black people’s participation in online spaces involves them strategically (re)presenting themselves as being racially ambiguous, and, specifically, falsely alluding to their (non-existent) Blackness—including, at times, as part of attempts to be associated with marketized ideas related to Black social justice activism. Some social media users are manipulating their physical appearance and editing their photographs to appear Black online. In certain cases, this may be due to tacit knowledge of the marketability of non-Black individuals appearing to embody an exoticized aesthetic that in some ways may resemble the physical appearance of Black people, especially, Black women”(Sobande). When people cosmetically enhance themselves to have more Black features: bigger lips, darker skin, wearing braids, etc. They are participating in Blackfishing or composing Digital Blackface. “ Blackfishing, which may be regarded as a type of digital Blackface [because it] exemplifies how some non-Black social media users attempt to tap into the profitable online influencer industry by toying with people’s perception of their racial identity, emulating a Black aesthetic, and, potentially, profiting from the commodification and mimicry of Blackness”(Sobande). Additionally using Black emojis and GIFs can be participating in Digital Blackface because the interactions can reflect the characterization of a Black personality. “Such digital activity can involve a Black person’s mannerisms, facial expressions, image, and overall humanity being treated as though it is nothing more than a mere digital commodity and means to communicate online”(Sobande).

Though digital blackface could be a debate of ethics for some, as they could suggest the argument that no one can act a color, and by suggesting that someone could it is further discriminating against Black people. Their argument is not completely invalid when one assumes that Black personality is all-encompassing of specific behaviors that are automatically applied to all because that would be a stereotype. However, that is not the way in which acting a color would be applied. Instead, acting a color would be referenced as the language and mannerisms that are practiced by a group of people that experience the same culture. In the case of Black people, they share culture based on the skin— the heritage passed through ancestry, but also the influence of social interactions. Black people have language and mannerisms that are not shared with non-Black counterparts. This is evident when evaluating African American Vernacular English, also known as AAVE. AAVE has its own rules and flows to English that Black people inherit. When nonBlack people try speaking in a “blaccent” they do not accurately imitate the mannerisms of Black speech because they are not native to the rules of AAVE. This was shown in a study that evaluated trolls pretending to be Black. Therefore it can be accepted, “digital blackface uses the relative anonymity of online identity to embody blackness”(Jackson) because there is an experience exclusive to Black interaction.

The adoption and mockery of Black life, the Black Experience, is unethical. Whether it is for personal aesthetic or financial gain, it is wrong. Everybody wants to be Black until it's time to be Black. Many like to participate in Black trends, but do not want to support Black Life. Black Lives Matter. It is unethical to take aspects of life that you see fit, but not support the struggles that cultivated those aesthetics. By profiting off of Black culture they are exploiting pictures of Black lives to "diversify" their marketing efforts on the surface, positioning themselves as being linked with the trend associated with particular Black identities and aesthetics. They are branding to be ambiguous and gain the aesthetic advantage of Black culture because it pays to be Black, yet white institutions with predominantly white chairs and faculty do not do enough to disrupt the systems of privilege from which they benefit. There is silence on matters of racism and inequity-based disciplines and that is unethical because it supports the disparities and disenfranchisement against the people that they steal from.

“Digital Blackface, which often relies on mimicking and/or mocking Black people and Black culture, is a digital expression of societally engrained oppression that Black people face; treated as an objectified “type of commodity, a labor tool”(Sobande). It is not ethical to use digital platforms to imitate Blackness when Black people do not have the same access to those resources. Black people do not have representation in the media reflective of the influence they have. Whether that is through content that is produced without seeing Black people in it, or that Black people are behind the product design. Black people are not provided the same space and opportunity for such expression because they are excluded from the field. In what way can consumption be ethical if those responsible are not being accurately compensated? The media will take the profitable actions of Black culture and use them in unrepresentative examples. There will be aspects of life created or influenced by Black culture without the presence of Black people. Media continues to commodify Black life without regard for Black people.” Blackface performativity and representation are mutually inclusive of performer, performance, and spectator” (Angelita), thus expecting Black interactions to be for entertainment benefits. Imagine the blatant disregard one must have to reflect on an experience of life without the representation of someone who experiences it. “Black identity is digitally depicted and remediated, including in ways that do not involve (m)any real Black people in the process”(Sobande). The media does not support Black life, therefore using it to profit from the group it dismisses is unethical.

. As the media disrespects Black people, it teaches those who interact with it to disrespect Black people. These beliefs manifest behind the scenes, “white audiences were also players within blackface performativity because they expected, even off-stage, subjugated blackness or a genuine blackface whose performance was, in fact, uninterrupted” (Angelita).

The lack of representation is not only reflected in front media, but the digital interface of software design. The media from technological advancement is biased because of the lack of diversity in staffing. The software that we interact with does not include perspectives of Black thought and experience, therefore it will fail to include aspects of Black culture in its design. Although that seems to be a minor fluke of design, it is discluding an entire philosophy of thought that would only be available through representation, “taking with them their ability to communicate creatively about cultural work in ways that could attract new and different audiences”(Edwards). This leads to software and designs that are discriminatory. For instance, “Microaggressions, as well as overt discrimination, can be found in platform governance and designs [like] Snapchat and Instagram…releasing filters that encourage white people to perform “digital blackface”[by]... automatically lighten the skin of non-whites… [and]  Facebook, by tracking user activity, enabled marketers to exclude users with what they called an African American or Hispanic “ethnic affinity”(Metamoros). It is unethical to use discriminatory software while participating in digital blackface because it further excuses the disenfranchisement of Black people.

Through the lack of representation in media and software, discrimination can be used to control expression. By using digital platforms to present in blackface, one is continuing to assist in the suppression of Black voices and activism. As established previously, Black people are not provided the same opportunity to digital spaces. They are not seen or heard. When Black people are not given the opportunity to have a voice in the conversation, their voices are suppressed. Some media outlets will not provide alternative perspectives of these experiences or will punish Black people for their participation in using their voices. When groups are being ignored or punished for speaking out about issues they face, that is a result of an authoritative power abusing their power. By participating in Black culture for beneficial aesthetics, but censoring their concerns, one is appropriating Black life to popular contribution. It is ignoring the needs of the community for personal gain and that is not ethical.

Taking from Black culture and then profiting off of it is not only cultural appropriation and digital blackface, it is unethical consumption of social communication.  Though not always aware or intentional, the participation of digital blackface is contributing to the mockery and disenfranchisement of Black people. By engaging in a culture that one does not understand, the distinction between appreciation and appropriation becomes unclear. The boundaries being crossed are impermissible as more become comfortable with imitating Black culture. People are taking a fictional persona online and using it for gain and escape. This is not ethical. It is fraud. It has gone too far that it has begun to reflect in the development of society. Cultures have become a trend that is interchangeable. For some that may appear to be a sign of progression, however, it is a lack of respect for others' beliefs. Once a culture is seen as a fad of social interaction, it will lose its significance. To appreciate the adoration for culture, education, and authenticity need to be set as the priority. The current status in which we engage in other cultures is not ethical. Proceeding, it is essential that there be a resolution to reduce the unethical participation in digital blackface that has been adopted into popular society. 

Work Cited

Angelita D. Reyes (2019) Performativity and representation in transnational blackface: Mammy (USA), Zwarte Piet (Netherlands), and Haji Firuz (Iran), Atlantic Studies, 16:4, 521-550

Edwards, Lee. “Institutional Racism in Cultural Production: The Case of Public Relations.” Popular Communication, vol. 11, no. 3, 2013, pp. 242–256., https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2013.810084. 

Freelon D, Bossetta M, Wells C, Lukito J, Xia Y, Adams K. Black Trolls Matter: Racial and Ideological Asymmetries in Social Media Disinformation. Social Science Computer Review. April 2020. doi:10.1177/0894439320914853

Jackson, Lauren Michele. “We Need to Talk about Digital Blackface in Gifs.” Teen Vogue, 2 Aug. 2017, https://www.teenvogue.com/story/digital-blackface-reaction-gifs. 

Matamoros-Fernández A, Farkas J. Racism, Hate Speech, and Social Media: A Systematic Review and Critique. Television & New Media. 2021;22(2):205-224. doi:10.1177/1527476420982230

Myria Georgiou (2020) Racism, post racialism and why media matter, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43:13, 2379-2385, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2020.1784450

Sobande F. Spectacularized and Branded Digital (Re)presentations of Black People and Blackness. Television & New Media. 2021;22(2):131-146. doi:10.1177/1527476420983745