Responding to Hijab “Costume”

Last updated on: February 14, 2013 at 2:00 am by Azra

Responding to Hijab “Costume” 2013-02-14T01:48:15-04:00 Azra

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Last week, several major news outlets in Minnesota reported St. Paul police officers dressed as Somali women wearing hijab (I’ve included links here from Minnesota Public Radio; the stories also received coverage in local newspapers The Star Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press). Pictures of the police officers were found on Twitter and initiated a strong response by local activists.

The first image reported by outlets showed an off-duty St. Paul officer wearing a hijab with a cell phone tucked under his ear. His red clothing and nametag identify him as a Target store employee (where he works when he’s off duty). A second image shows another officer wearing an orange hijab while in blackface; it was anonymously shared a mere few days later. The images were brought to attention by local activists on Twitter, and prompted a response from the St. Paul Police Department.

A group of local activists responded to the problematic images by deconstructing the racist implications of the so-called “costume.” The images were brought to attention almost entirely on Twitter, alongside a #culturenotcostume hashtag. Comments associated with the original image of the man have since been deleted. I didn’t find any additional insight to explain why the photographs were taken, or why the officers chose the costume they did, beyond that the men chose to dress in hijab as a Halloween costume.

The local activists’ tumblr post identifies why the actions are problematic, and identifies tangible next steps for the involved individuals and organizations to take to ensure such situations don’t happen again. Their explanation of why cultural clothing should never be used as costume was clearly articulated, as it reminds readers of the appropriation it constitutes:

“Wearing culturally specific and revered expressions of identity as a costume is an offensive act and an expression of white privilege. These “costumes” perpetuate racial and cultural stereotypes, reduce entire communities to a set of props and qualities, and result in cultural appropriation and misrepresentation. To suggest that such behavior “may be perceived as offensive” makes any reaction to these racist caricatures a question of sensitivity or feelings. We need to recognize that being upset about such costumes is not a reflection of a person’s hypersensitivity or lack of humor. Rather, it points to the very real power, consequences, and trauma that come with stereotypes and racism.”

The group goes on to ask the institutions involved—namely St. Paul Police and Target—reconsider their institutional attitudes towards Somalis and to strengthen ties with the community. The group reminds readers that the actions of the officers affects many other groups in addition to Somalis and could have further implications: “acts of racism also raise red flags with other communities of color and will undoubtedly fuel mistrust between law enforcement agencies and communities.”

What struck me, looking back at how the two examples were brought to attention on Twitter, was the strength and swiftness of the response both by local reporters and activists as the images were brought to light. The images were first discussed publicly on Twitter, and elicited responses from the police department directly—both on Twitter and in real life as the police chief and one of the men offered their apologies. It was fascinating to see how local, online engagement of bringing the images to attention on Twitter spilled over to its discussion in the news.

The interplay between the news stories,Twitter conversations, and response from activists raises several questions for me: Would this important dialogue been able to have taken place offline and outside the Twittersphere? How would a community response have differed (or even take place?) Without such a strong initial response entirely online, would it have received the amount of coverage it did by local media outlets?

And looking beyond how the stories were reported and the responses it elicited: Why exactly did the men choose to dress as Somali women? What was their intention behind choosing to wear a hijab? We know nothing about the commentary associated with the original images to glean if their intention was to mock Somali women, or if they had some other positive sort of intention. While the activist response was to take offense, with clearly articulated reasons for why it was offensive that elicited condolences from those responsible, would everyone consider the images or actions offensive?

The recent World Hijab Day, which asks non-Muslim women to wear hijab for a day to experience what it means to wear it (or maybe what it means to be Muslim–I haven’t quite been able to determine what purpose it serves) also came to my mind. What is it about a White man dressed in hijab that is so clearly offensive compared to non-Muslim women wearing hijab for a day? Yes, the intentions of those participating might be taken into account. But at the end of the day, will either the men or women wearing hijab really know what it’s like to be a Muslim woman? Will they understand the cultural context fundamental to one’s identity or the myriad of spiritual beliefs and understanding that accompanies someone throughout their personal religious journey?

Previous Post

February 13, 2013

Muslim Women, YouTube, and Third Space

Next Post

February 15, 2013 Friday Links | February 15, 2013

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Advertisements Art/Theater Books/Magazines Cinema Comics/Cartoons Culture/Society Events Fashion Film Friday Links Merchandise/Commodities MMW Announcements MMW Highlights Music/Radio News Photography Politics Profile Ramadan 2012 Ramadan 2013 Ramadan 2014 Ramadan 2015 Roundtable Satire Social Media Sports Technology/Science Television Uncategorized Video Web

Select a Month November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Why did God command the Israelites to eat unleavened bread?

Select your answer to see how you score.

It was the only bread they knew how to make They had to leave Egypt quickly It was a symbol of humility Yeast was considered unclean