What is your take on the controversy surrounding "black face"?

I see it as a costume. Much like Halloween. I was considering being young black Michael Jackson for Halloween…racism did not enter my mind at all. No, in my opinion this isn’t racist, I don’t see why EVERYTHING has to be offensive to someone now.

Bob Hope did it, Dave Chappelle did a white character on his show. I think it is the intent that needs to be looked at, not the action.

It doesn’t have to be racist to be rude. Blackface carries a great deal of emotional freight. How would Jews react if Vogue has a spread where people were dressed up like Jules Streicher caricatures?

I think it’s creepy.
I don’t think it’s specifically offensive or inappropriate. It’s what they do WITH the blackface that’s the problem.

If you’d like to see the French Vogue photos, here is a link with commentary from the Project Rungay blog.

The editor and photographer are American, and I suspect they were working from the POV that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. I disagree. Consider the photo of the model wearing the monkey fur gloves and hat toying with the minstrel cane.

I don’t tend to put a lot of stock in the idea of “political correctness” and I think a lot of it is overboard to the point that it becomes patronizing. That being said, I think that blackface is always rude, racist, and inappropriate. Why even go there?

I should add in that I do think this is DUMB. What, really, is the point? Why not just use a black model? What a waste of time covering someone’s body in all this gunk to make them look like a different race when there are plenty of attractive people that are naturally that color? Imagine the time she must have had trying to get all this paint off.

Looking at those pictures also makes me hate fashion.

@SuperMouse could you explain why it is always rude, racist, and inappropriate? I’ve just never seen it from that point of view and I’m trying to understand.
:edit: I’ve never thought it was polite, politically correct, and appropriate, either.

With few exceptions, it has been used to evoke the cluster of stereotypes that are associated with blackness. Perpetuating the idea that to be black means that one typically has certain other characteristics as well is to perpetuate the ideological foundation of racism. I learned recently that in Hollywood’s early days, black actors were often required to further blacken themselves and to wear white to accentuate their blackness, all to better fit the popular image of the “good old darky”.

As exceptions, I wouldn’t say that the role of Othello should be restricted to black actors, and the blackness of the character is essential to the role, without trading in other stereotypes. There was also controversy when Angelina Jolie played Mariane, the wife of Daniel Perl in the movie “A Mighty Heart”. Mariane Perl is black, and so Jolie darkened her complexion for the role. Some took offense at this, saying that the role should have been given to a black actress instead. If the casting director’s choice had been based on not wanting to use a black actress in the role because of not liking black actresses, then I would find that racist. But if, as I suspect, the director just especially wanted to use Jolie while wanting to accurately represent Perl, then I can give that a pass. But there remains the question of whether it was necessary at all. Jolie doesn’t resemble Perl much in other respects, so why was Perl’s blackness considered such a defining feature?

I think it’s an unnecessary scab to pick at, “art” or not.

@noelasun, @Harp explains my feelings about this perfectly. @Facade also makes a great point.

Here is a picture of the model in case anyone was interested: Lara Stone in Blackface

It is absolutely racist. I see no question about it. What makes it appropriate for someone to dress up as a Black person? Not only that but you have to consider the history of blackface and how it is used for oppressive purposes. It provokes a feeling in trauma for anyone who has faced such oppression.

Let us put this in reverse because people just love to do that. When there was a big movement to discontinue Native American mascots, the Native equivalent to Blackface, some people got it in their minds to do a funny joke. They made a team called the “Fighting Whities”. Man that made an uproar. More people were upset about this team than any of the Native mascots or actual Blackface that actually have histories of racism and brutality behind them.

The reason this is racist and not a matter of political correctness is simply because Blackface comes with a history of brutal oppression and stereotyping. It is not art. What if all the models came out with nooses around their necks? That’d be more historically accurate. It’s not funny.

Oh and BTW obviously not art because of reasons stated above AND she just looks fugly

Also a quick note. I don’t think it is appropriate during halloween either but for a bit different reasons

@RedPowerLady what would be the reasons its not appropriate for halloween?

@noelasun it is not appropriate for Halloween because it is mocking a race of people. It’s not funny and it is incredibly racist. I’m pretty sure I would be offended by someone dressing up as a welfare mother for Halloween. It isn’t like these costumes are born of respect for the person being mocked, they are born of hatred and bigotry or at the very least thoughtlessness.

@noelasun Oh man I don’t want to side-track this discussion because people are going to get mad that they’ve let their children wear these costumes.

The predominant reason is two-fold. One from the side of people who are not the ones who get dressed up as, those of the “majority”. The other from the side of the people who do get dressed up as, those of the “minority”.

1. Of the Majority – Children learn stereotyping. They learn that the types of people who get dressed up as (like Native Americans) are less than human. This is true and has been researched. It is because everything else they dress up as is less than human: ghosts, witches, etc… or a sub-category of humans like: sport starts etc… That is not the only reason. It also promotes extreme stereotyping among children. Let’s sit down and think of how we can look like an Indian. Hmm.. they wear feathers on the top of their head right? (wrong). It also promotes sharing these stereotypes outside of the holiday. Kids running around giving war hoops etc..
2. Of the Minority – Now the APA (American Psychological Association) has studied this in terms of people dressing as mascots. When others dress up as their race it creates a low self-esteem for children who are from that race. They simply don’t have the capacity to understand why people are making fun of their culture (and believe me that is how children see it, not as honoring them). It also creates danger for them when people see them as sub-human or stereotyped. They face so much racial teasing and sometimes violence because of these stereotypes.

Now what @SuperMouse said is also 100% accurate. It is still racism, you still have to consider the history of brutality and racism, it is still mocking people of a different race, and it is still not funny by any means. I am simply providing a reason that is very specific to children as halloween is directed at them.

To put my thoughts simply, changing your appearance using makeup as a way to mimic another race is NEVER NECESSARY and almost always offensive to at least some people. So why should it ever be an option??

I see some really GAs above. Lurve to those who’ve thought this through fully.

@noelasun not appropriate for Halloween for the same reason that it’s not cool to dress as a Nazi or in a KKK robe and hood.

Just to be clear, I am totally NOT ok with mocking people.
This is also not something that I see myself taking part in.
However, there are many things that I would not do that I’ve yet to make a moral decision about.
And as I read more and more about the historical implications of black face, I’m understanding the objections much better.
But I still feel that there are many possibly offensive things that take place all the time, that we do not react as strongly against.
Again, I might not be getting the full implications because I have no context, but it still feels to me that to say that dressing up as the jackson five and using blackface is wrong would be on the over-reacting side.

@noelasun I think examples work really well when discussing these matters. When it comes to the Jackson Five, for example, why would someone need to wear blackface? You can dress up as the Jackson Five quite neatly without making your skin dark. I suppose the question comes to mind, what makes it appropriate to allow your children to darken their face to look like the Jackson Five? Can you imagine being a Black child seeing this (or are you suggesting that it doesn’t matter how it affects Black children because I beg to differ)? Those are just the first few thoughts that come to mind and I better stop now because I have so many more, lol.

@noelasun Answer this: Do you think it would be appropriate to walk out of your house with your eyes taped into slants to make yourself look Asian?

The Jackson Five example is complex. You couldn’t just dress like the Jackson Five, because they didn’t consistently dress in a particular style. So if you’re five white kids, what do you do to get the identity across? Wearing fro wigs isn’t much different from blackface, is it? It still plays on what’s widely seen as a racial characteristic.

But kids have been honoring their favorite bands on halloween for as long as I can remember. Could it be that telling kids “No, you can’t make yourself recognizable as the Jackson Five because you’re white” just serves to reify the racial divide in their minds? They wouldn’t necessarily be out there “shuckin’ and jivin’” in blackface.

What if a white kid wanted to go as Obama for halloween? How would he get that identity across? Is there a difference between wearing a mask and darkening one’s complexion?

I’m not trying to take a stand with these examples, because I’m not sure how I fell about it. Just throwing these nuances out for consideration.

@Harp: you are voicing my thoughts much much better than I’ve been doing. Thank you.

To understand how offensive this is you have to look at it from an historical perspective. Minstral shows started in the 1830’s but really became popular after the Civil War. The entertainment lay in making African-Americans look like, lying, cheating, lazy clowns and fools. It was made even more “funny” by the white performers appearing in blackface and using very exaggerated accents.

Minstrelsy finaly went out of favor 100 years later as the civil rights movement reminded us that Africans-were not just Brudder Bones, Jim Crow and Zippy Coon with their big feet, enormous lips and preference for possom and coon for meals.

BONES OPENS A “SPOUT” SHOP.

Interlocutor. What are you thinking about, Mr. Bones? What is there on your mind this evening?

Bones. I was jis’ thinking ‘bout dat business I was in some time ago. I started in de—what you call dat business dat da hab free balls hanging out?

Interlocutor. Oh, you mean the pawnbroker.

Bones. Yes, I was a pawnbroker wen I went in de bis, but I was a dead broaker wen I came out.

Interlocutor. Let us hear of your experience as a pawnbroker.

Bones. Well, having nofing to do I fout I’d start de broaking business; so I rented a room, got free balls what I found laying around loose in a ten pin alley, and hung ‘em out.

Interlocutor. And what success did you have?

Bones. I’ll tell you. De fust man dat cum in had a big paper bundel under his arm; he looked all around, den begin to open de bundel, den he look all around agin.

Interlocutor. He was suspicious, I suspect.

Bones. Spec he was. At las’ he open de bundel and took out a ole hammer, an’ wanted two dollars on it.

Interlocutor. And what did you do about it then?

Bones Hammered him over de head wid a club. De next one dat come in was a Dutchman, wid a big hunk of Limburger cheese in his hand. He wanted to pawn it.

Interlocutor. What did you tell him?

Bones. Told him to “cheese it” an’ go. And de next man had a push cart.

Interlocutor. A push cart! What did he want to do with that?

Bones. Wanted to pawn it; it was all broke, and he wanted ‘nuf on it to get a new one.

Interlocutor. What did you do with him?

Bones. Took him up on de roof, put him in de cart, an’ pushed him off. De nex’ man had he leg ob a stove.

Interlocutor. A leg of a stove! What did he want to do with that?

Bones. Wanted to pawn it.

Interlocutor. Wanted to pawn the leg of a stove? What did you do with him?

Bones Stove in his plug hat wid it. De nex’ man dat come in was a woming.

Interlocutor. A lady, sir. And what did she want?

Bones She wanted to pawn a chaw of tobacer, and I was goin’ to chaw off her ear, but I seen she had a feller outside to back her. Den come a man wid fourteen suits ob old close, and dar wosent haf ob a suit in de hole lot.

Interlocutor. And what did he want?

BONES OPENS A “SPOUT” SHOP.

Interlocutor. What are you thinking about, Mr. Bones? What is there on your mind this evening?

Bones. I was jis’ thinking ‘bout dat business I was in some time ago. I started in de—what you call dat business dat da hab free balls hanging out?

Interlocutor. Oh, you mean the pawnbroker.

Bones. Yes, I was a pawnbroker wen I went in de bis, but I was a dead broaker wen I came out.

Interlocutor. Let us hear of your experience as a pawnbroker.

Bones. Well, having nofing to do I fout I’d start de broaking business; so I rented a room, got free balls what I found laying around loose in a ten pin alley, and hung ‘em out.

Interlocutor. And what success did you have?

Bones. I’ll tell you. De fust man dat cum in had a big paper bundel under his arm; he looked all around, den begin to open de bundel, den he look all around agin.

Interlocutor. He was suspicious, I suspect.

Bones. Spec he was. At las’ he open de bundel and took out a ole hammer, an’ wanted two dollars on it.

Interlocutor. And what did you do about it then?

Bones Hammered him over de head wid a club. De next one dat come in was a Dutchman, wid a big hunk of Limburger cheese in his hand. He wanted to pawn it.

Interlocutor. What did you tell him?

Bones. Told him to “cheese it” an’ go. And de next man had a push cart.

Interlocutor. A push cart! What did he want to do with that?

Bones. Wanted to pawn it; it was all broke, and he wanted ‘nuf on it to get a new one.

Interlocutor. What did you do with him?

Bones. Took him up on de roof, put him in de cart, an’ pushed him off. De nex’ man had he leg ob a stove.

Interlocutor. A leg of a stove! What did he want to do with that?

Bones. Wanted to pawn it.

Interlocutor. Wanted to pawn the leg of a stove? What did you do with him?

Bones Stove in his plug hat wid it. De nex’ man dat come in was a woming.

Interlocutor. A lady, sir. And what did she want?

Bones She wanted to pawn a chaw of tobacer, and I was goin’ to chaw off her ear, but I seen she had a feller outside to back her. Den come a man wid fourteen suits ob old close, and dar wosent haf ob a suit in de hole lot.

Interlocutor. And what did he want?

Bones. Wanted to pawn dem, an’ he wanted nuf on dem fourteen ole suits to buy seven new suits.

Interlocutor. What is that? Do I hear right? He wanted enough on the fourteen old suits to buy seven new suits?

Bones. Dat’s it.

Interlocutor. And what conclusion did you come to in regard to the clothes?

Bones. I concluded to close up shop, an’ I did so, an’ never ben in de biz sence.

@Harp There are Obama masks, though, so no need to do “black face”.

@galileogirl thanks for finding that

@SpatzieLover Right, but how different is that? suppose I’m a white kid who can’t go out and buy an Obama mask, for whatever reason. Why should trying to change my own face to look more like Obama be more offensive than wearing the mask?

Because I’m someone who somehow managed to grow up in the US and end up with no context for blackface except for the movie white chicks, (which I did not see), I’d like to ask:

Do you think that Blackface could one day become something not associated with racism?

Or is darkening of lightening our complexions inherently racist?

We do need to acknowledge that Hollywood has a long history of hiring white actors to play non-caucasian characters. Until the last 20–30 years, no one thought much about stars like Katharine Hepburn Judy Garland doing blackface and yellowface

For a historical perspective on why blackface is not OK, I can’t do better than to ask you to watch this Hollywood blackface montage from Spike Lee’s film Bamboozled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C45g3YP7JOk&feature=player_embedded

@Harp I did a google search and there are many ways to dress up like the Jackson Five that are recognizable without fro wigs and without blackface. For example there is Mike’s hair with the little curl in front. And they may not have worn consistent outfits but there are some outfits that scream Jackson Five.

Having said that your response makes it seem as if dressing up is honoring the band or the President. Dressing up in blackface or as any ethnic group is not honorable. And people from those groups have been screaming that at the top of their lungs for generations. The American Psychological Association also agrees.

As far as dressing up like Obama. You have your parents dress up like your bodyguards. Wear a nice suite and a nametag: Obama. There you have it. No blackface. Still fun.

@galileogirl Thank you for posting some history. I was looking for some myself but you did it quite nicely.

@noelasun Do you think that Blackface could one day become something not associated with racism?
The realistic answer is No. That is because you can’t erase the history of brutality, racism, and oppression that come with wearing blackface. Since oppression and brutality and racism still exist that makes this even more poignant.
The idealistic answer would be yes but only under a specific set of circumstances. And that is we get rid of racism and oppression. We allow for self-determination and the Black community overwhelmingly says “we don’t mind”.

@Harp Why should trying to change my own face to look more like Obama be more offensive than wearing the mask?

Two reasons:
1. Because you don’t have to wear blackface to dress up like the President
2. Because you can’t ignore the history of oppression, racism, and brutality that come with painting your face Black.

I simply will never be able to understand why people insist on arguing that something is not racist or that it is okay if the community they are talking about overwhelming says “please stop”. I have no idea what makes someone think their own opinion is more important than that of the majority of an entire community of people who have faced such horrible brutality because of these acts.

This does not mean I don’t think its unworthy of discussion. But I simply do not understand why this isn’t common sense.

This reminds me of an episode of America’s Next Top Model (fourth or fifth cycle maybe?!) where all the girls had to do a photoshoot and they were made up to look like a totally different race. Some of the white girls were made up to have darker skin, some where made up so their eyes resembled that of an Asian girl, one girl was even made to look very similar to me (mediterranean skin, dark hair). I never considered it to be offensive to any of the races they were trying to model as. Tyra claimed (I believe) it was to see how versatile it was (isn’t that what all her photoshoot ideas are aiming at???) . When I see that picture in French Vogue that’s all I can think of.

Anyway, I am aware that America’s Next Top Model does not have the final word in what is or isn’t acceptable but should I have felt offended that they changed a perfectly pretty little white girl, blonde haired blue eyes (if I remember rightly) to look like me dark skinned, dark hair? I don’t. The way I see it, we are all the same underneith the skin and this type of modelling only proves that (to me anyway). The model is still the same under the makeup and that’s where the art of it is (again, for me). It makes me want to look and I am a little inspired by it.

Having said all of that I don’t not think it is right to EVER use this make up in order to mock black people. NEVER, EVER!

As is often the case I know how I feel about this in my head but I am struggling to explain it in words. I really hope that nothing I have said about my opinion on “changing race” for art has offended anyone and I am really sorry if it has. This is just my opinion and I don’t expect everybody else to share it

@RedPowerLady I agree that in these cases it all comes down to historical context. Blackface has become a meme that trumps the individual intentions of someone who tries to use it differently. It’s like the controversy not so long ago about whether the public display of a noose constitutes hate speech. No matter what a person’s motivation might be for displaying it, it will always be interpreted as a symbol of racial hatred. Once any symbol has acquired a broadly accepted meaning, it’s almost impossible to use it otherwise.

@Harp Very Well Said!

Nevermind I was going to put up a cartoon that illustrates my point but felt it might not work out well as it is more directed towards the mascot issue than the blackface issue. It was not supposed to be funny, just poignant.

Those Aussies ought to be ashamed. The undertone of their blackface is: “Gee, black people are so weird and their hair is so crazy and their skin is so dark! They’re so unlike us, it’s like they’re not even human! Isn’t it funny? Look at ‘em dance! Oh, one’s of them’s trying to look like us, hahahah!” Not one black person on Earth looks like the way those Aussie boys carried on. Fuckers! And just to make it clear, I was shocked and dismayed when Eddie Murphy made up to play stereotypical Jewish and Korean people in his films. You would think he of all people would know better.

So, no, they don’t get to make fun of a whole race of people and then get mad when they’re called out on their shit.

As for Vogue, I say if they only want to use the skinniest, whitest, blondest girls ever for their magazine, then let them. I never buy their magazine. And I never have to buy it.

I forgot to add about Vogue that it’s not as if they can’t find black models, or any other colour of models. They act like it’s such a fucking favor to put a girl darker than a ghost in their pages. I know the deal is that designers want their clothes to be on the highest-status people, and I’m not going to claim to be so bright. Why won’t they admit that it’s a status/class thing and “dark” is seen as low-class unless it can fade from or be washed off white bodies? Only then is “dark skin” OK.

@aprilsimnel Not to mention there is a huge issue in the modeling industry for Black models. They want their African-American/Black models to be either very dark skinned or very light skinned. This is obviously not representative of the majority and many African-American/Black women have issues succeeding in the modeling industry because of this. How frustrating.

@RedPowerLady NO model is representative of many women regardless of colour. It’s not just black women that are hard done by when it comes to the modelling world.

The whole point of high fashion models is that they are different to the majority of women. Some aren’t even physically as attractive as the majority of more “normal” looking women but it is because they are unique that gets them in the pages of Vogue, Harpers Bazaar etc. It is because very light skin or very dark skin is uncommon in black girls that makes a girl “special” as far as modelling is concerned.

@aprilsimnel how many fashion magazines have you studied? I would imagine from your answer that it is not many. What is highly regarded as “special” where models are concerned changes in the same way (and at the same speed) as the fashions they are modelling. Saying they only use the skinniest, whitest, blond girls in their shoots (ok, granted they are skinny usually!) shows how little you know. I have noticed recently how popular Asian girls are at the moment as well as the eastern European look.

Also, we need to remember that we can’t lump all “white” people together. Eastern European girls look completely different to mediterranean girls who look completely different to Scandinvian girls. There are more thn just two “races” and just because you see a “white” girl on the front doesn’t mean she doesn’t have her own ethnicity to repressent and be proud of

@Leanne1986 Of course no woman is representative. That isn’t quite the point. The point is that they use the darkness or lightness of skin color for certain ethnicities of models which is a pretty inappropriate practice.

@RedPowerLady I understand that and I explained in my post above the reason why they do that (rightly or wrongly). They do it with ALL ethnicities not just certain ones. For example, for a while, fashion magazines wanted their “white girls” to have almost transparent skin and personlly I was relieved when more olive skinned girls became popular (call me bias but they look healthier). Red hair and ivory skin is often favoured by fashion houses which is probably because perfect red hair, combined with the perfect ivory skin is harder to come by than brown hair/fair skin or blond hair/blue eyes (as examples). Should “white girls” be offended because of this? After all, it’s not representative of the majority of white girls (if National geographic is to be believed!).

@Leanne1986 Of course they (white girls) should be offended. But you said that they already have moved past this and are accepting olive skinned girls. My point is that they have not moved past it with other ethnicities as of yet. I am in favor of the Dove Campaign for example. In fact I love the new commercial about “do your eyes sit wide, do your ears hang low, etc..” have you seen it? It is real women who are beautiful. Now I understand your point is that they are emphasizing certain ‘looks’ for arts sake but that does not mean I have to accept that practice as valuable, artistic, or appropriate. However if you simply want me to say the entire modeling industry is wrong then I’ll move for that. Of course I’ve seen more people of various ethnicities fail in the modeling industry than those of the majority so there is still a problem evident. I have never had a friend who was interested in the modeling industry say they were turned away because their skin color wasn’t right when they were “white-skinned” however I’ve had several friends of color say so. But hey I agree the entire thing is messed up. I understand you are advocating for the idea that this happens with ALL people not just people of color however I argue that it does happen from all people but disproportionally towards people of color.

oops i edited, may want to refresh

@RedPowerLady Fashion is fickle and they will soon get bored of us olive skinned girls (although maybe not the boys, they seem to love dark, brooding latino boys!). I am not offended by it because I am glad fashion changes, I don’t want to see the same look time and time again.

I wonder (and I don’t know any statistics here) if it is all relative to the population of “white” people compared to “black” people compared to “Asian” people? Worldwide, are there more white people or people with lighter skin than there are black people or people with darker skin? I’m not so much thinking of America here because it is so diverse but how about Europe which is a HUGE continent. Are fairer people easier to come by than darker skinned people do you think?

My boyfriends favourite saying is “it’s all relative” and I’m just wondering if that applies, maybe a little in this instance but it is only a question and I am not jumping to any conclusions!

@Leanne1986 I think it is less about numbers because certainly worldwide there are more brown people. But more about people seeing beauty in their own image. I would guess the majority of magazine owners and fashion creators are light skinned.
Again though I don’t see that as an excuse but rather an explanation. I would much rather see fashion be more representative of diversity in all its forms.

@RedPowerLady I agree that it shouldn’t be an excuse. Personally, when I open a fashion magazine (and I open a lot!) I want to see diversity in the model. Anyway, thank you for the discussion. I always like to read what you have to say in threads like this because you remain respectful at all times even though it is a touchy subject. :)

@Leanne1986 I appreciate talking with you as well. It is nice to be able to disagree and agree without disrespect. It is so refreshing to me.

My best friend M is a former model. Is absolutely stunning. She is also dark-skinned. She didn’t get a lot of work in the 80s or 90s, as she was frequently told, “We already have a “Naomi’ ” :/ Now, she’s just too old.

I do look at fashion magazines, and I will admit to just glancing over Asian women in spreads, and that’s my fault for overlooking them. I’m looking for more women who are the same shades as women in my family, and frequently, I don’t see them or I see one or two. It seem to me that in the US, white women are put up as paragons of beauty, while black women are told if they want to progress at work or in life, they have to straighten their natural hair. Or look like Vanessa Williams, Halle Berry, Tyra Banks or Beyonce, a woman whose hair has gotten progressively blonder as time has gone by. That sort of thing. But I feel bad for all the white women who think they have to be a blonde stick to get by, as well, so I see what you’re saying.

My perspective is different mainly because I am an American with West African ancestry. In the US, Eastern Europeans are considered white, as are Mediterraneans, such as Greeks, Spaniards and Italians, and some Middle Eastern peoples. “White” here is a very broad category and due to a lot unexamined events of this country’s past, things having to do with race are different than in the rest of the world.

I’m not a big fan of fashion, but I recognize its power in shaping what the world considers acceptable. Beauty still means a great deal for women’s lives, as much as we would not like it to be that way, so it bothers me if I see what I perceive that one group of women is extolled as beautiful and classy in my country and those who look more like my rellies aren’t. Unless they look like Halle, Tyra or Bey-Bey.

I do think these things need to be discussed openly, so I appreciate being part of this conversation.

Heck, look at our first lady, Michelle Obama, who I Iove. Does anyone think she would be as admired and accepted by the majority of white America if she even occasionally did her hair in corn rows or a ‘fro?

@MagsRags Good point.

@MagsRags Agreed. Did anyone read about the outrage when Malia wore her hair in twists this summer? It made me absolutely sick.

There is a traditional figure that appears at Carnival time: the black and white minstrel. It was famously described as “black men playing white men playing black men” and was a take on the American minstrel shows that were popular at the start of the last century. For a brief description and a picture, go to Minstrel. The blackface spoken of in this thread was never important in Trinidadian race relations.

@bea2345 However it was a common and racist form of entertainment in the US. It was a minor form in the 1830’s but became extremely popular after the Civil War. It wasn’t just a race crossing issue here. The makeup was overblown with exagersted huge lips, and coal black makeup along with cruel jokes about physical characteristics.

During the vaudeville era there were some all-black reviews and a few acts like Bill “Bojangles” Robinson who were required by producers to wear blackface and they only performed without it in segregates all-black venues.

It is very easy to say that was a long time ago and if Tommt Davison or Ted Danson does it today it’s all a big joke. In fact if we gloss over the disrespect and and malice in our past, it will reappear in the future as in the case of black members of the Duke basketball team following an Asian family down the street in San Francisco making ching chong gibberish sounds. We are telling people that as long as time passes, nothing matters.

@galileogirl – this is not to say that the average West Indian did not understand, and resent, the discrimination directed at nonwhites, especially blacks. In the interwar years, this resentment took the form of satire, as in the calypso; outright mockery, as the carnival minstrel. Today’s outspoken discourse was not part of the culture, right up to the late 1950s.

Make it clearer to me. As long as we call it satire, it’s not racism? Or as long as it is not meant by the performer to be racist, it’s not racist? Or is there something I’m not smart enough to understand that magically transform racism into discourse?

http://www.jlcauvin.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ted-danson-blackface-1b.jpg

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/gjay/www/Whiteness/blackface1.jpg

Maybe the difference is if it’s a celebrity playing a joke on his black girlfriend or a smartass Wisconsin frat boy entertaining his friends. It is as wrong as if the dressed up like this:

http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/wwII/05/p7-05/brooke-ark-p7-4-05/images/nazi_propaganda_eternal_jew.jpg

As long as we call it satire, it’s not racism?: not at all. In colonial days, it was not altogether wise or safe to be too outspoken. Nowadays, I can say, without fear of being considered crass, that Danson looks like an idiot and I am wondering what the uproar is all about.

Let me strengthen that. Danson looks like an asshole.