Black Person Halloween makeup

[MrSmith]

MrSmith: Thanks for your considered post.

Likewise.

I think it's important to at least recognise that people of colour continue to get a rough deal; arguably, ignoring inequality is as bad as denying it. In this particular instance, you couldn't find anything wrong with the OP's question or the image he posted - you found it funny in fact - and you therefore couldn't understand why anyone else might find it offensive or problematic until provided with some historical context.

True. And I maintain that people from the UK, although we are aware of black suffering 'academically' (as in the US South/hangings/slavery), pictures like the above don't have the same impact generally.

No, it's not ethnocentric to drink alcohol or defend your right to do so, because, referring back to the definition you posted, you've merely acknowledged that drinking alcohol is forbidden by Islam; you're not evaluating another culture from the perspective of your own.

True. But I gotta say my culture's better regarding the booze

The only thing intrinsic to the image posted above is the exaggerated eyes and lips. The humour that you find in the image is entirely subjective; personally, I find it to be grotesque, offensive and somewhat unsettling: the character in black face looks to be on the verge of tears.

True, he does. I viewed it as posed.

Respect.

 

[Brize]

Respect.

Likewise.

 

[bowens]

I still think that asking if it is ok for a black person to dress as a white person is a perfectly valid question. Maybe white people didnt have to suffer the same as ethnic minorities in the past - maybe they still dont, but I personally find reverse discrimination bloody annoying. Things like the MOBO awards I find offensive - where are the MOWO awards? I cant see that going down very well, there are also radio stations over here for music of black origin, sure as hell dont get white music radio stations. I actually think these things are detrimental towards race relations as they preach that there are differences based on the colour of skin and create yet another divide.

I've thought this same thing and a quick google search shows that others have too.

http://naawpflch.org/

 

[redAPPLE]

Out of interest, does anyone find Borat offensive?

i love borat.

so let me go back on topic. try charcoal that should give you the black teint you need.

 

[Brize]

there are also radio stations over here for music of black origin, sure as hell dont get white music radio stations.

I rarely listen to the radio, but I find it hard to believe that White people aren't expressly catered for by UK radio stations.

There's Classic FM, which I've always considered to be pretty White-orientated, then there's Virgin Radio, BBC Radio 2 (four Black presenters out of fifty-two), Radio 3 (two Black presenters out of fifty-five) and Radio 4 (zero Black presenters out of ninety-six!). Hardly representative, is it?

Let's face it, this is predominately White programming for White people, hosted by White presenters.

 

[wimic]

Okay... so I might be bringing my macrumors involvement to a screeching hault by posting this, but what the hell.

I don't see why african americans have such a problem with white people impersonating them or talking like them - and why they assume that we have such bad intentions when doing so.

I know there's a lot of bad history there, but that's exactly what it is - history. we all talk about being equal and having equal rights, and i believe that the people who are suffering in this world, whether they be african american or not, are those very people who didn't take it upon themselves to do something about their poor living conditions/quality of life.

i can't even count how many times i've heard the word cracker used on television. white people shrug it off. why is there such a bad connotation with the N word - the fact that i can't type it on here is a perfect example of the difference. there are double standards and it's not fair.

it's almost a reverse discrimination, in my opinion. it's time for people to stop being so defensive, take responsibility for their actions and stop pinning their disadvantages on other people - especially over something that was over and done with decades ago.

My intent is not to offend people - not by a long shot. and perhaps my opinion arises out of naivety. but in any case, i think everyone's entitled to an opinion... and this is mine.

 

[lmalave]

I took that as a hint he was offended somewhat.

I still think that asking if it is ok for a black person to dress as a white person is a perfectly valid question. Maybe white people didnt have to suffer the same as ethnic minorities in the past - maybe they still dont, but I personally find reverse discrimination bloody annoying. Things like the MOBO awards I find offensive - where are the MOWO awards? I cant see that going down very well, there are also radio stations over here for music of black origin, sure as hell dont get white music radio stations. I actually think these things are detrimental towards race relations as they preach that there are differences based on the colour of skin and create yet another divide.

Another question - would people find it offensive if he wanted to dress as an italian? or an austrian in lederhosen? or wear a cork hat and pretend to be australian? All stereotypes, but they are ok because it doesnt involve a change in skin colour? As far as I can tell the bloke just wants to go to a party dressed as Samuel L Jackson, not bring back segregation.

The difference is that there isn't the the historical baggage of people dressing up as Italians, Austrians, Australians, etc. to demean them as inferior.

On the other hand, there *is* a history in American culture of white people dressing up as black people in order to mock and demean them. And this was in the same time period that violence against blacks was common, and blacks were institutionally denied civil rights under state laws. Therefore, the practice of blackface is inextricably linked with racism and discrimination. That's not necessarily an attack on the OP of being rasicst. It *is* an indication, on the other hand, of a profound ignorance of the historical baggage associated with the actions that he is proposing (a white person dressing in blackface).

So it's a free country and anyone has the right to be offensive, but it's important to recognize that it *is* offensive. For people that are just responding "I don't see how this is offensive": fine, *you're* not offended. But a lot of people are. If a bunch of people are saying that they're offended, then it's your right to offend them - but for Pete's sake don't try to argue with them that they shouldn't be offended!

EDIT: to answer the other part of your post - it is NOT the same thing for a black person to dress as a white person, because it doesn't have the historical baggage. Look at it from a legal perspective. It is *not* inherently illegal for a white person to wear a black disguise or vice versa. But let's say it happened in something like a work situation (a work halloween party), where there could be legal ramifications related to job discrimination, intimidation, etc. In that case, wearing the costume itself would not be illegal. The legal issue would be whether it was done with the intent to intimidate or create a hostile work environment. Because of the *historical precedents*, it would be a *lot* easier to argue in court that a white boss was being intimidating by dressing up in blackface, vs. a black boss being intimidating by dressing up in whiteface. The history *does* matter here because there is a longstanding historical *precedent* to use blackface as a way to demean blacks.

 

[savar]

Just out of curiosity, would the people saying not to do it have a problem if a black person turned up with white makeup on?

No. I wouldn't have a problem if a white person showed up in black face either.

I was just suggesting that most people are not like myself. The response would probably not be favorable, depending on where you wanted to where this.

I certainly never called the OP a racist, nor hinted at it nor skirted around it. I simply said that blackface carries racist connotations because of its historical usage.

Edit: just read Imalave's response above. Couldn't agree more. Like I said in my first post, if you're wondering what this history is, watch Griffith's "The Birth of A Nation".

 

[Foggy]

I rarely listen to the radio, but I find it hard to believe that White people aren't expressly catered for by UK radio stations.

There's Classic FM, which I've always considered to be pretty White-orientated, then there's Virgin Radio, BBC Radio 2 (four Black presenters out of fifty-two), Radio 3 (two Black presenters out of fifty-five) and Radio 4 (zero Black presenters out of ninety-six!). Hardly representative, is it?

Let's face it, this is predominately White programming for White people, hosted by White presenters.

I am not denying there is a greater white presence but I would expect there to be - according to the 2001 UK census the UK population was 91% white (I actually really didnt expect the figure to be that high).

It is just my belief that things like Radio1 Xtra actually goes against everything that we try and teach in terms of equality. We try to teach that skin colour doesnt make us different, but then in the next breath we seem to say that it does. At the same time, I find it strange that it is perfectly politically correct to say that we have a radio station that is the 'New black music network' but there is no way a 'New white music network' could be advertised without riots.

Then again, I feel the same way about the way we teach sexual equality - we say that is it wrong to discriminate against women but at the same time say it is fine to have women only gyms, women only classes, women only sports events. It isnt that I am saying that sexism and racism are justified - far from it - it is more that I find it somewhat hypocritical to say that it is ok one way and not the other, regardless of history.

 

[Foggy]

The difference is that there isn't the the historical baggage of people dressing up as Italians, Austrians, Australians, etc. to demean them as inferior.

On the other hand, there *is* a history in American culture of white people dressing up as black people in order to mock and demean them. And this was in the same time period that violence against blacks was common, and blacks were institutionally denied civil rights under state laws. Therefore, the practice of blackface is inextricably linked with racism and discrimination. That's not necessarily an attack on the OP of being rasicst. It *is* an indication, on the other hand, of a profound ignorance of the historical baggage associated with the actions that he is proposing (a white person dressing in blackface).

So it's a free country and anyone has the right to be offensive, but it's important to recognize that it *is* offensive. For people that are just responding "I don't see how this is offensive": fine, *you're* not offended. But a lot of people are. If a bunch of people are saying that they're offended, then it's your right to offend them - but for Pete's sake don't try to argue with them that they shouldn't be offended!

EDIT: to answer the other part of your post - it is NOT the same thing for a black person to dress as a white person, because it doesn't have the historical baggage. Look at it from a legal perspective. It is *not* inherently illegal for a white person to wear a black disguise or vice versa. But let's say it happened in something like a work situation (a work halloween party), where there could be legal ramifications related to job discrimination, intimidation, etc. In that case, wearing the costume itself would not be illegal. The legal issue would be whether it was done with the intent to intimidate or create a hostile work environment. Because of the *historical precedents*, it would be a *lot* easier to argue in court that a white boss was being intimidating by dressing up in blackface, vs. a black boss being intimidating by dressing up in whiteface. The history *does* matter here because there is a longstanding historical *precedent* to use blackface as a way to demean blacks.

Please re-read my posts - I totally agree that going dressed in blackface would be incredibly offensive but I dont think that is what the OP was wanting to do and have said as much a couple of times before.

 

[Earendil]

I rarely listen to the radio, but I find it hard to believe that White people aren't expressly catered for by UK radio stations.

There's Classic FM, which I've always considered to be pretty White-orientated, then there's Virgin Radio, BBC Radio 2 (four Black presenters out of fifty-two), Radio 3 (two Black presenters out of fifty-five) and Radio 4 (zero Black presenters out of ninety-six!). Hardly representative, is it?

Let's face it, this is predominately White programming for White people, hosted by White presenters.

*enters into the fray*

I've been following and just waiting for someone to say something far enough off that I had to jump in. When you are talking about "representing" what exactly are you talking about? Take a step back and think about that. To me it seems like you are implying a couple things here:
White people like White music.
Black People like Black music.
There is no cross over.
A White person could not pick music a Black person would like.
A Black person could not pick music a White person could like.
Now you will emediately disagree with all of those statements, as any person who has actually lives in society would.

So what than do you mean by "White People are expressly catered to" ?!! Really, please, tell me. Because afaik Musical taste is not genetic. In fact worse than that, as most american genetics are pretty well world class mutt, what you're actually telling me is that musical taste resides in the gene for skin tone. Give me a BREAK.

Now on to what the guy you replied to was Actually saying.
Why is it okay to have a "Black Person Radio", whether they play music that 90% of white kids today like or not, and NOT okay to have a "White Person Radio", Even if they play music that most Black people would like? Please, can you tell me? Few people blink an eye at "Black TV (BTV)" or heck, the Apollo Theater. But do you know the riots that would happen if those were reversed?!!

I think what a few members here are trying to convey is a little bit off topic. The thing is that prejuist runs in every direction. Perhaps under the covers and in the back of peoples minds, or in the old farts and back woods people, there exists those people that go out of their way to hinder the progress of someone of a different skin color. However the obvious in your face dividing lines of today are drawn not by people of lighter skin, but those of darker skin. My generation in my neck of the woods sees no segragation brought on by white people. In Fact as a white college student I'm keenly aware that if I were black or a women my options for scholarships would sky rocket. There isn't a soul out there that could offer a "White people only" scholarship without being sued and beaten to death. Why is that?

fyi the number one song on iTunes right now is by a black group. 3 of the top 7 artists are black artists. And one of those white artists is weird al doing a paradoy of song written by a black guy!! Notice I am talking about an artists skin color, I am not talking about the skin color of their listeners. After all, not too many black Africans would probably find Ludacris all that interesting

I almost (but don't) find it funny all the talk of discrimination and prejudice, because in my generation there is very little. Social economically the adults are still throwing up lines, but every black person I know gets along dandy with every white person I know without question. There are no lines in my part of the country, in my world. Except for those lines drawn to give people of a different skin color an advantage, or to highlight the difference of skin, not the difference of culture or who a person is.

On the topic of the OP, I just have this to say. If a person is doing something to intentionally offend someone else, and does so, that is wrong. If someone does something that they know might offend someone, but they make sure they don't see it, that isn't wrong. The OP is doing something that in SOME cultures in SOME parts of the world might be found offensive by SOME people. Does that make it okay to offend those people? NO, of course not. But if he is doing it in the privacy of his own home with some friends that he knows he isn't going to offend, and he isn't doing it with any hatred in his heart, but instead to dress like an actor that he probably regaurds highly? Is this okay people? Let's get it out on the floor, does anyone REALLY think that is wrong?

Some of you guys REALLY need to chill. Not that what some of you say isn't true, but because for some reason some of you felt like launching off on the racist(!!) bandwagon without opening an ear

~Tyler

 

[Brize]

Foggy: I can only assume that radio stations targeted at Black audiences came about because it was felt that Black culture wasn't properly represented in mainstream radio. Yes, you would perhaps expect White-orientated programming to predominate in the UK, but as I've attempted to illustrate, it's unlikely that mainstream radio is representative of the general population.

Let's face it, Radio 4 could aptly be renamed as 'White, Middle-Class FM'. I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with that, but bear in mind that it's not only White, middle-class people who pay the licence fee. The overriding point here is that we don't need to label a radio station as a 'White radio station' in order for it to be so.

Earendil: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about: I'm implying nothing that you suggest. Foggy identified that Black audiences were being expressly catered for, and argued that it wouldn't be socially acceptable for a radio station to specifically target White audiences. My point, as noted above, is that it clearly is socially acceptable, because the radio stations mentioned in my earlier post do precisely that.

I'm not suggesting that White people only listen to White music and vice-versa, but that Gospel Vibrations with DJ Fitz on Radio 1Xtra is targeted at those who identify with Black culture, whereas The Beethoven Experience on Radio 3 likely draws a predominately White audience. I think that's a fair assumption.

 

[Earendil]

Foggy: I can only assume that radio stations targeted at Black audiences came about because it was felt that Black culture wasn't properly represented in mainstream radio. Yes, you would perhaps expect White-orientated programming to predominate in the UK, but as I've attempted to illustrate, it's unlikely that mainstream radio is representative of the general population.

That last line there... It is inlike that mainstream radio is representative of the general population? Um? All qualms with radio content aside, how is "main stream" radio not suiting the "general" population? It has been sited that 91% of the UK is white, and you yourself say that "main stream" radio caters to white people.

Let's face it, Radio 4 could aptly be renamed as 'White, Middle-Class FM'. I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with that, but bear in mind that it's not only White, middle-class people who pay the licence fee. The overriding point here is that we don't need to label a radio station as a 'White radio station' in order for it to be so.

The point he was trying to make is that it COULDN'T be renamed that, not because it wouldn't be true, but because our society wouldn't find that okay. We can make things publically exclusive for people of a different color, unless they are white. It's a double standard. If you heard "White Radio" you'd probably think it was run by neo-nazis, the KKK, or the UK equivalent.

Earendil: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about: I'm implying nothing that you suggest. Foggy identified that Black audiences were being expressly catered for, and argued that it wouldn't be socially acceptable for a radio station to specifically target White audiences. My point, as noted above, is that it clearly is socially acceptable, because the radio stations mentioned in my earlier post do precisely that.

He can correct me if I misinterpretted his post. But see what I write a paragraph above.
What you failed to glean from my post, is that I do not believe that Radio targets "white people" or "Black people". It targets cultures, it targets musical taste, it targets age groups. It does not target skin color.
NOW, you may find that within a culture the skin color may sway more in one direction than another. However unlike where Christianity may define a Christian culture, I do not think skin color is what defines the culture you are calling "black".
Even if you did think so, music is hardly the area to try and break down these two "cultures", and it crosses all racial lines, and in very large percentages.

I'm not suggesting that White people only listen to White music and vice-versa, but that Gospel Vibrations with DJ Fitz on Radio 1Xtra is targeted at those who identify with Black culture, whereas The Beethoven Experience on Radio 3 likely draws a predominately White audience. I think that's a fair assumption.

And that assumption makes for too many bad conclusions.
A: The content makes the music
B: I would have to be from a "black culture" to understand or appreciate gospel and DJ Fitz. If I manged to break that I would not be normal.
C: Beethoven draws white people.

Now if you don't think that musical taste is genetic, than what you are really defining is a culture, which breaks all color boundries. I don't know about the UK, but kids in the US 12-22, both black and white, are more apt to shun both Beethoven AND Gospel in favor of Emenim and Beyonce.

Now perhaps you could make the argument that radio stations run by white's are more likely to only play music by whites based SOULY on their skin color. And that Black artists need radio stations that will cater to Black artists. However since Generes are far more screwed ethnically than the audiance, that would also be a hard argument to make.

I've heard a few racial slurs in my life, I've seen a few people with a distaste for another race. I've NEVER heard anyone say "turn that artist off, he's black" or "I'd like this if it wasn't a white guy singin it".

Personally I'm going to stick to my Counting Crows, Linkin Park, Eagle Eye Cherry, Hooters, and Bob Dylan. However my room mate doesn't turn off the Rap and R&B... oh yeah, and he's about as white as they come.

~Tyler

 

[jsw]

I can't see how this thread can go anywhere but further down, so....