Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gentlefish]

There's a difference between

Spoiler: blackface (click to show/hide)

and

Spoiler: dressing up as a black person (click to show/hide)

[Neonivek]

No pufferfish there is no difference

Blackface is ANYTIME a White person pretends to be a black person... period

[Rolan7]

That's technically what the word means, yeah.
There's still a world of difference between those two examples though.

[Orange Wizard]

Because it is insensitive due to the history around it

By the same argument, you could deem basically anything to be offensive or insensitive.

[scrdest]

Because it is insensitive due to the history around it

By the same argument, you could deem basically anything to be offensive or insensitive.

>Implying people don't.

[EnigmaticHat]

Because it is insensitive due to the history around it

By the same argument, you could deem basically anything to be offensive or insensitive.

I really struggle to see that.  Black face has a genuinely awful history, and is part of an even larger history of racial injustice.  That is not true of the vast majority of things.  (and before someone says it, I mean actually awful, not "hurr durr slaves wore clothes that means clothes are racist").

[Reelya]

Speaking of which... Can someone explain to me why blackface is considered so much worse than any other case in which a person of one race plays a member of a different race, including other cases where the race being portrayed is one that has been historically discriminated against.

Why is it that if I dressed up in blackface people would be extremely offended, but if I dressed up like an asian or a latino then people would be only mildly offended, if at all.

It's because of the history, a form of entertainment that mocked the slaves in the slave states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show

The minstrel show, or minstrelsy, was a US form of entertainment developed in the 19th century, consisting of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music, performed by white people in blackface or, especially after the U.S. Civil War, by black people.

Minstrel shows lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, happy-go-lucky, and musical. The minstrel show began with brief burlesques and comic entr'actes in the early 1830s and emerged as a full-fledged form in the next decade. By 1848, blackface minstrel shows were the national artform, translating formal art such as opera into popular terms for a general audience.

An analogy would be if the NAZIs created "the incredible Jew cabaret show" where Germans dressed up as Jews with plastic noses and mocked Jewish culture.

[Orange Wizard]

Because it is insensitive due to the history around it

By the same argument, you could deem basically anything to be offensive or insensitive.

I really struggle to see that.  Black face has a genuinely awful history, and is part of an even larger history of racial injustice.  That is not true of the vast majority of things.  (and before someone says it, I mean actually awful, not "hurr durr slaves wore clothes that means clothes are racist").

Yeah, the whole blackface thing was pretty bad. But not any more.
And it does depend on what standard we hold things to. Are stakes offensive to witches because so many were unjustly burned? Or is the fact that it's to do with race the sticking point?

[Reelya]

Because it is insensitive due to the history around it

By the same argument, you could deem basically anything to be offensive or insensitive.

I really struggle to see that.  Black face has a genuinely awful history, and is part of an even larger history of racial injustice.  That is not true of the vast majority of things.  (and before someone says it, I mean actually awful, not "hurr durr slaves wore clothes that means clothes are racist").

Yeah, the whole blackface thing was pretty bad. But not any more.
And it does depend on what standard we hold things to. Are stakes offensive to witches because so many were unjustly burned? Or is the fact that it's to do with race the sticking point?

Well you could make the same argument that Germans running around telling "Jews in the gas ovens" jokes isn't offensive, since that doesn't happen "anymore" either. But institutional prejudice against blacks in America is still a thing, and it stretches right back to the blackface minstrel days without a break. You can't say the same for witches being burnt at the stake. Or Jews in gas ovens for that matter.

So it's ok to revive racist stuff against black people as long as you're reviving an old racism that became unpopular, because that's not racist anymore because it was replaced by modern racism? Pretty convoluted argument.

[Loud Whispers]

Because it is insensitive due to the history around it

By the same argument, you could deem basically anything to be offensive or insensitive.

>Implying people don't.

TRIGGER ME TIMBERS

[LordSlowpoke]

the only people who are offended by such jokes are the germans themselves

and potentially jews

if i were you i'd ask hans the gas oven entrepreneur though

Because it is insensitive due to the history around it

By the same argument, you could deem basically anything to be offensive or insensitive.

>Implying people don't.

TRIGGER ME TIMBERS

𝘼𝘽𝙎𝙊𝙇𝙐𝙏𝙀𝙇𝙔 𝙏𝙍𝙄𝙂𝙂𝙀𝙍𝙏𝘼𝙎𝙏𝙄𝘾

[martinuzz]

Wtf my killing in the name of the Buddha thread got locked overnight, without any word from Toady on it.

If I had to guess, it would be because Loud Whispers said fucking fuck too fucking many fucking times in his replies

[Orange Wizard]

So it's ok to revive racist stuff against black people as long as you're reviving an old racism that became unpopular, because that's not racist anymore because it was replaced by modern racism? Pretty convoluted argument.

My point is there's nothing inherently racist with painting one's face black. It is, however, associated with ye olde blackface nonsense which shouldn't really be relevant any more.

[i2amroy]

Indeed. I see no problems with an actor painting their face black if the actual "character" in the show is a puppet, or if they are just an "invisible" stage hand, or similar. It has literally no connection to the old-fashioned blackface racist stuff, so I've never seen why people get so worked up about it.

[scriver]

So it's ok to revive racist stuff against black people as long as you're reviving an old racism that became unpopular, because that's not racist anymore because it was replaced by modern racism? Pretty convoluted argument.

My point is there's nothing inherently racist with painting one's face black. It is, however, associated with ye olde blackface nonsense which shouldn't really be relevant any more.

Why exactly shouldn't it be relevant any more?