No blackfaces allowed.

smcgiff

Links234 wrote: »

Nice false equivalence there

The point I was making is that just because lots of people disagree with something isn't ALWAYS a reason not to do something. I agree they are not equivalent, just making a point.

WindSock

Sofaspud wrote: »

So dressing as an oppressed minority is only offensive if the people dressing up intend to use their costumes to portray a negative stereotype?

See where I'm going with this?

You can't compare experiences of racism and sexism similarly when it comes to portrayal of non white people and women. Both groups had different experiences historically and were or are mocked in different ways.

smcgiff wrote: »

Agreed. No tell us how were the lads dressing up as the characters from Cool Runnings being a caricature of stupid black people.

See above.

It is not mocking black people in a stereotypical sense, but giving the message that black skin is a characteristic that we can wear as costumes.

Shakespeare's Sister

And the Robert Downey Junior character in Tropic Thunder is confronted by the Booty Sweat guy for his "Chicken George sh1t".

There was Blackface back in the bad days as a form of belittling black people.
Now there is this case of white people darkening their skin to look more like people who happen to be black.
I really do not think the two are the same. Intention is the crucial element. It's to try and mimic a physical characteristic, nothing more. Why can't it just be seen for what it is instead of an intention to offend being imposed on it which will just caused further polarisation?

smcgiff

magicman88 wrote: »

Can't dress as snoop dogg for next year

Snoppy the dog is okay. Just don't over do it with the black spots! :eek:

smcgiff

WindSock wrote: »

... but giving the message that black skin is a characteristic that we can wear as costumes.

What does that even mean?

Are you saying black people cannot dress up as white people because white skin is a characteristic that cannot be worn as a costume?

Links234

smcgiff wrote: »

The point I was making is that just because lots of people disagree with something isn't ALWAYS a reason not to do something. I agree they are not equivalent, just making a point.

It's a terrible point though, I could just as easily say that just because people are angry over something, doesn't make them wrong. There's a knee-jerk reaction that I see on After Hours that assumes that because someone's offended, the problem lies with them. If you agree they are not equivalent, why even bring it up? Unless you're saying the 'right' to wear blackface is a civil right up there with, you know, not siting at the back of the bus, etc?

Mickeroo

hfallada wrote: »

Remember its only racist when a majorly dress and acts like a minority. Like the film white chicks isn't racist, but if there was a 90 min film on a white person, dressing and acting like a black person there would be up roar.

Tropic Thunder didn't cause any uproar, hell RDJ got nominated for an oscar!

Wibbs

smcgiff wrote: »

What, insanely PC?

Well he is called Friend Computer so...

Untouchable Peasant

So what if a white person paints their face black in order to look black?

American basketball player D-Wade dressed up as Justin Timberlake and I didn't notice any white people getting offended.

Something tells me this is all just really people getting offended on other people's behalf's than anything else.

humbert

Magaggie wrote: »

And the Robert Downey Junior character in Tropic Thunder is confronted by the Booty Sweat guy for his "Chicken George sh1t".

There was Blackface back in the bad days as a form of belittling black people.
Now there is this case of white people darkening their skin to look more like people who happen to be black.
I really do not think the two are the same. Intention is the crucial element. It's to try and mimic a physical characteristic, nothing more. Why can't it just be seen for what it is instead of an intention to offend being imposed on it which will just caused further polarisation?

I'm sorry but that's just too much effort. Imagine how exhausting it would be to have to consider the intent every time before becoming offended. Imagine having to have to explain why that particular costume cast black people in a negative light before expressing outrage. How many people would read an article titled "Teachers dress up as popular well liked black characters which in no way portray black people in a negative fashion", let alone be discussing it on a different continent. Just not going to work.

smcgiff

Links234 wrote: »

It's a terrible point though...

No, it's not. But we'd be going around in circles if I explained why.

Links234 wrote: »

I could just as easily say that just because people are angry over something, doesn't make them wrong.

And you'd be right. The point you originally made was that because a lot of people would be angry and it shouldn't be done was wrong.

Links234 wrote: »

If you agree they are not equivalent, why even bring it up? Unless you're saying the 'right' to wear blackface is a civil right up there with, you know, not siting at the back of the bus, etc?

While not equivalent, it is an example as to why you were wrong in your assertion that because many people would find something wrong it shouldn't be done. Exaggeration was used to make a point.

I wonder if someone went as RDJ from Tropic Thunder would that be considered racist?

One of the most ironic argumentsvideos ever observed took place a few years ago when a black man, dressed up in white face was screaming abuse at a white guy in black face. It was something of a surreal encounter.

SweepTheLeg

This made me angry. I'm gonna dress up as Django next Halloween! Chains and all.

Frank Lee Midere

You can't ignore history. So black face is not the same as white face ( in America).

Links234

smcgiff wrote: »

The point you originally made was that because a lot of people would be angry and it shouldn't be done was wrong.

No, I think you misunderstood my point. I didn't say it shouldn't be done because people would be angry, I didn't even say it shouldn't be done at all, and I even mentioned in my post instances where it was done in a clever way and people have gotten away with it, eg Tropic Thunder/It's Always Sunny. My point was: don't act surprised if people get pissed.

Pumpkinseeds

o1s1n wrote: »

Cindy Marten, superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District, announced the suspensions with officials from the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Anti-Defamation League.

National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People?

That name is more backwards than going blackface.

That organisation and others of it's ilk will do more to damage equality than the average racist. FFS, people need to get a grip, advancement should be based on ability not skin colour, but then I'm forgetting, not all discrimination is bad, if you're getting what you want it's positive discrimination:rolleyes: fc,uking idiots:mad:

LordSutch

BattleCorp wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/story/1162816/blackface-costumes-lead-to-school-suspensions

White guys dress up at a Halloween party as the Jamaican bobsleigh team from Cool Runnings and get suspended from work because they went "blackface".

For fcuk sake. Over the top or what?

Very OTT, first they had the ban on school 'blackboards', claimimg that the term might upset black people, now this crazy stuff.

smcgiff

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

You can't ignore history. So black face is not the same as white face ( in America).

But, whiteface should not be tolerated because it highlights the problems with blackface. It portrays a "we're allowed do it, but you're not" which creates tension, which leads to prejudice, which leads to AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 2.








This is a joke btw.









You know, just in case it offends.

Muise...

LordSutch wrote: »

Very OTT, first they had the ban on school 'blackboards', claimimg that the term might upset black people, now this crazy stuff.

did that really happen? Really? It wasn't that the manufacture of whiteboards and washable ink just made them obsolete?

Femme_Fatale

LordSutch wrote: »

first they had the ban on school 'blackboards'

Who's they? And no, nobody banned blackboards for that reason - an urban myth that too many are keen to believe.

WindSock

smcgiff wrote: »

What does that even mean?

Are you saying black people cannot dress up as white people because white skin is a characteristic that cannot be worn as a costume?

Given that white people haven't been made charicatures of over the last few centuries and up until very recently, I don't think its as bad or offensive. I would say if a person who has problems with blacking up then whites themselves up then its a bit hypocritical, but not offensive to me or probably most white people if someone whites up. *But see my first post for thoughts on White Chicks.

I'm all for jokes and lots of things amuse me but I also learned that I don't know what it's like to live a day as a dark coloured skin person and I would imagine their experience is very different to ours and that's all I am saying.

I don't like when the R word is bandied about lightly and I never once used it toward anyone here or the costume people and stated more than once I don't think people blacking up do so out of racism or racial hatred.

And no I am not offended on anyones behalf, similarly I am not gay but I give my opinion on people who are anti gay too.

And that's just like, my opinion man and all I have to say about that.

smcgiff

Links234 wrote: »

. You really, really can't claim to be ignorant that people will be pissed, and you'd have to be a real prize idiot to go and do a blackface costume for halloween, then act like the aggrevied party when people get pissed off with you.

If I'm missing the point, then you're missing what the entire thread is about.

They didn't do blackface 'Blackface is a form of theatrical makeup used in minstrel shows, and later vaudeville, in which performers create a stereotyped caricature of a black person'. They dressed up as film characters.

Ush1

WindSock wrote: »

Given that white people haven't been made charicatures of over the last few centuries and up until very recently, I don't think its as bad or offensive. I would say if a person who has problems with blacking up then whites themselves up then its a bit hypocritical, but not offensive to me or probably most white people if someone whites up. *But see my first post for thoughts on White Chicks.

I'm all for jokes and lots of things amuse me but I also learned that I don't know what it's like to live a day as a dark coloured skin person and I would imagine their experience is very different to ours and that's all I am saying.

I don't like when the R word is bandied about lightly and I never once used it toward anyone here or the costume people and stated more than once I don't think people blacking up do so out of racism or racial hatred.

And no I am not offended on anyones behalf, similarly I am not gay but I give my opinion on people who are anti gay too.

And that's just like, my opinion man and all I have to say about that.

So it's okay for one, but not the other? Equality 101.

P_1

Eh looking at the photos of the lads in their costumes I'd hardly call what they're wearing 'blackface'. Blackface was burnt cork daubed on somebody's face, that looks like professional makeup the lads have going on there.

Links234

smcgiff wrote: »

They dressed up as film characters.

...in blackface

smcgiff

Links234 wrote: »

...in blackface

Just No.

creep

People thinking this is racism is actually why racism occurs in the first place.

If a black person painted there white face nothing would be said.

It's not racist whatsoever.

token101

Links234 wrote: »

...in blackface

Because the characters had black skin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's no different than that ****ty Wayans brothers movie. It's a joke of a decision. More pandering.

WindSock

Ush1 wrote: »

So it's okay for one, but not the other? Equality 101.

Didn't read my post or do I need to summarise it for you? Because I really can't be arsed typing the same point over and over again when I signed off on the end of the last one.

P_1

Out of interest, would it still have been considered by some as racist if they wore black masks as opposed to black make up.

To be honest it just screams of the organisation concerned justifying their funding, nothing to see other than that

smcgiff

P_1 wrote: »

Eh looking at the photos of the lads in their costumes I'd hardly call what they're wearing 'blackface'. Blackface was burnt cork daubed on somebody's face, that looks like professional makeup the lads have going on there.

Just looking at the photo again. One of the bob sleigh team has their face covered. PUUUUUUUULEEEEEASE someone tell me this person is actually black and hanging around the two hardened racists!

This would actually make my day

garv123

We went as simpsons characters and painted ourselves yellow.. Were be being racist?

Links234

smcgiff wrote: »

Just No.

Just yes. You're resorting to splitting hairs by trying to say that because it isn't done in a traditional minstrel show fashion means it doesn't count as blackface.

Femme_Fatale

Links234 wrote: »

Just yes. You're resorting to splitting hairs by trying to say that because it isn't done in a traditional minstrel show fashion means it doesn't count as blackface.

Well it doesn't IMO, because there was no intention to belittle.

I agree it's nonsense to say racism against whites and racism against blacks have the exact same history, but I also think it's nonsense, and just even more divisive, to pretend there was racist intention behind this.

Links234

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Well it doesn't IMO, because there was no intention to belittle.

I agree it's nonsense to say racism against whites and racism against blacks have the exact same history, but I also think it's nonsense, and just even more divisive, to pretend there was racist intention behind this.

I never made that claim though.

smcgiff

Links234 wrote: »

Just yes. You're resorting to splitting hairs by trying to say that because it isn't done in a traditional minstrel show fashion means it doesn't count as blackface.

But that's what blackface means. If the word isn't what you want it to mean use a different word. It'll avoid confusion.

Ush1

WindSock wrote: »

Didn't read my post or do I need to summarise it for you? Because I really can't be arsed typing the same point over and over again when I signed off on the end of the last one.

I did read it. The opening gambit was because of historical reasons white face isn't as offensive? Have I got something drastically wrong?

Lingua Franca

smcgiff wrote: »

Just looking at the photo again. One of the bob sleigh team has their face covered. PUUUUUUUULEEEEEASE someone tell me this person is actually black and hanging around the two hardened racists!

This would actually make my day

I'm afraid you won't get the satisfaction of going "hah, see there was a BLACK PERSON there which automatically makes it NOT RACIST".

They were all blacked up.

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/10/30/blackface2.jpg

The faces that are blurred out are simply not suspended school employees.

Here in the Netherlands there's a huge debate raging about Santa's little helpers being blackface stereotypes. All the white people are going "It's not racist, if you think it's racist, YOU'RE the real racist" and the black people are going "This is really racist, hurtful and offensive and sends a terrible message to our children."

One of my (white) friends, who I had previously thought of as very caring and liberal said something along the lines of "We shouldn't let the hurt feelings of a minority rob us of our valued traditions."

The black Dutch I know are unanimous in saying that they find it hurtful and offensive and would be glad to see the back of it.

But sure, isn't it up to white folk to decide what is racist and what isn't.

P_1

Links234 wrote: »

Just yes. You're resorting to splitting hairs by trying to say that because it isn't done in a traditional minstrel show fashion means it doesn't count as blackface.

But that's clearly the case though? If you were to apply the same logic it wouldn't be much of a stretch to claim that wearing fake tan is also being racist

Lingua Franca

smcgiff wrote: »

But that's what blackface means. If the word isn't what you want it to mean use a different word. It'll avoid confusion.

Is the first line of a wikipedia article on a given word considered the definitive definition now?

DebDynamite

They're kids. Born decades after blackface stopped being acceptable. In their whole lifetime black people have had full equality. The president of their country is even black.

When so will it ever be ok to colour your face to resemble a character from your favourite film you wish to pay homage to?

Lingua Franca

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

What's the point in inferring racism from something has absolutely no racist intentions behind it though?

Tell me, would the costume have worked without the guys blacking up? Since they would have, and it would have been clear who they were supposed to be, what was the point in them blacking up?

P_1

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'm afraid you won't get the satisfaction of going "hah, see there was a BLACK PERSON there which automatically makes it NOT RACIST".

They were all blacked up.

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/10/30/blackface2.jpg

The faces that are blurred out are simply not suspended school employees.

Here in the Netherlands there's a huge debate raging about Santa's little helpers being blackface stereotypes. All the white people are going "It's not racist, if you think it's racist, YOU'RE the real racist" and the black people are going "This is really racist, hurtful and offensive and sends a terrible message to our children."

One of my (white) friends, who I had previously thought of as very caring and liberal said something along the lines of "We shouldn't let the hurt feelings of a minority rob us of our valued traditions."

The black Dutch I know are unanimous in saying that they find it hurtful and offensive and would be glad to see the back of it.

But sure, isn't it up to white folk to decide what is racist and what isn't.

In this case they were dressing up as a famous bobsleigh team from Jamaica who happened to be black. They weren't dressed up as slaves working on a cotton plantation.

smcgiff

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'm afraid you won't get the satisfaction of going "hah, see there was a BLACK PERSON there which automatically makes it NOT RACIST".

They were all blacked up.

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/10/30/blackface2.jpg

The faces that are blurred out are simply not suspended school employees.

Here in the Netherlands there's a huge debate raging about Santa's little helpers being blackface stereotypes. All the white people are going "It's not racist, if you think it's racist, YOU'RE the real racist" and the black people are going "This is really racist, hurtful and offensive and sends a terrible message to our children."

One of my (white) friends, who I had previously thought of as very caring and liberal said something along the lines of "We shouldn't let the hurt feelings of a minority rob us of our valued traditions."

The black Dutch I know are unanimous in saying that they find it hurtful and offensive and would be glad to see the back of it.

But sure, isn't it up to white folk to decide what is racist and what isn't.

This recent Irish article might be of interest to you.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/why-would-anyone-think-that-blacking-up-is-a-suitable-way-to-mark-christmas-1.1581014

I've a sister living in Holland, married to a Dutch man. So, I've heard of this before.

It is a tradition that goes back a long way. Should it be changed to suit modern sensibilities? I don't know enough to decide either way.

Gummy Panda

MagicMarker wrote: »

Hey, I know, let's dress up as a black person for Halloween.

Utterly fùckin moronic.

Even if it's Mr T?

Compu Global Hyper Meganet

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Tell me, would the costume have worked without the guys blacking up? Since they would have, and it would have been clear who they were supposed to be, what was the point in them blacking up?

No. It would not have worked as well.

smcgiff

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Tell me, would the costume have worked without the guys blacking up? Since they would have, and it would have been clear who they were supposed to be, what was the point in them blacking up?

No, it wouldn't - have you seen the film in question. That'd answer your question.

Femme_Fatale

Lingua Franca wrote: »

One of my (white) friends, who I had previously thought of as very caring and liberal said something along the lines of "We shouldn't let the hurt feelings of a minority rob us of our valued traditions."

The wording is harsh but what's wrong with what he's saying? I wouldn't like if a longstanding benign tradition in Ireland was discontinued because it caused offence despite no offence being intended. I sure as hell wouldn't expect a longstanding tradition to be discontinued in a country I moved to, and I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be, either.

smcgiff

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Even if it's Mr T?

I pity the fool that tries











Sorry, coat, door ... I know the procedure.

smcgiff

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Is the first line of a wikipedia article on a given word considered the definitive definition now?

Not necessarily, but have you a counter definition? Otherwise....