Racism Part two

[foreveryoung]

It was a joke at first, but how come no one ever mentions "White Chicks". Is racism not applicable to white people, i'm not sure. If there was a film depicting 2 dumb Black women, i'm sure there would be a riot.

Complaining about little Britain too, what about "Big Momma's House".  I mean is that ok, maybe because it's played by a black man??

[Awol]

26 minutes ago, snowychap said:

He he he. Marxists.

BLM stated goals - from their own website: overthrow the nuclear family and replace it with a commune structure built around the ‘movement‘; defund the police; overthrow capitalism. 

Yep, Marxist AF, hiding behind a facade of racial justice and useful idiots.

[Chindie]

6 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

It was a joke at first, but how come no one ever mentions "White Chicks". Is racism not applicable to white people, i'm not sure. If there was a film depicting 2 dumb Black women, i'm sure there would be a riot.

Complaining about little Britain too, what about "Big Momma's House".  I mean is that ok, maybe because it's played by a black man??

Punching up is different to punching down.

[HanoiVillan]

49 minutes ago, Awol said:

When is George Washington coming down? Jefferson? Maddison? 

Hopefully every statue of every figure who lived before WW2 can get in the sea, so a minority of emotionally stunted Marxists can satisfy their lust to impose modern morality on the past, retrospectively. 

What a bunch of absolute tools these people are.

This is missing the point; the past is the past, and it's gone. The question is whether, given modern morality *now*, we should celebrate people from the past who did things in their lives that we now understand to be deplorable.

In addition, every generation 'imposes modern morality on the past', because that is the only way we can understand history. I really doubt that you look at the Second World War and think to yourself 'who was on the right side here, no-one can say because that was then'.

Edited June 11, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[andym]

37 minutes ago, Awol said:

When is George Washington coming down? Jefferson? Maddison? 

Hopefully every statue of every figure who lived before WW2 can get in the sea, so a minority of emotionally stunted Marxists can satisfy their lust to impose modern morality on the past, retrospectively. 

What a bunch of absolute tools these people are.

It's not modern morality though is it, it's just morality, what is wrong now was still wrong then. 

I really don't get this idea of giving historical figures a free pass on the basis of 'well that's just how it was then'. It's not like the concept of freedom from being enslaved and from tyrannical acts etc didn't exist back then, the three names you listed demonstrated that given they fought for independence from the British. It's just to some people those ideas only applied to people of a certain race/social standing etc. And not everyone was like that, unlike say Columbus a lot of people managed to get by without committing atrocities.

That said, in terms of statues etc, i think some historical figures are so key, that having statues of them is fair enough, even if they have hugely negative aspects to their character and actions. E.G. the three figures you mentioned, they basically changed the world with the founding of the USA, Churchill has been debated previously. As long as those statues recognise the good and bad in some way so you get the full picture.

Basically, each case needs to be treated individually, this idea that it's all or nothing is ridiculous. You are right that some people are an absolute bunch of tools, wanting everything with even the most tenuous negative link pulled down. But its interesting from a scour of the media etc that the all or nothing argument is appearing on both sides as it were - i guess the ability to be a tool is independent of political leaning!

 

 

[Follyfoot]

27 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Little Britain I can understand because some of the characters have dated badly (and its shit) 

If they've done league of gentleman because of papa lazarazu though that's bullshit, despite the make up he's not a "black face" character, there's no racial connotations to him, that's what happens when you don't review things in detail and apply context

Edit - the inbetweeners has been taken off some apps too which I don't understand as well as rumours they're coming for django and hateful 8

The Little Britain sketch they have pulled up is the two fat women and the husband/ex husband. As crap as it is I do not see this as racist, I see it as a take on the thin man who likes big fat women which are sometimes seen in society. I would have thought the woman who vomits when she finds out food has been made by different races far more offensive 

[Seat68]

1 minute ago, Follyfoot said:

The Little Britain sketch they have pulled up is the two fat women and the husband/ex husband. As crap as it is I do not see this as racist, I see it as a take on the thin man who likes big fat women which are sometimes seen in society. I would have thought the woman who vomits when she finds out food has been made by different races far more offensive 

Thats making fun of the racists though isnt it. Its not Jim Davidson on a stage, this is people showing up how ludicrous racists are. 

[villa4europe]

white man blacking his face with make up and imitating a black man

not sure how there can be any kind of argument against little Britain or come fly with me

but like I said LoG is not that

[Demitri_C]

They seriously took some in betweeners epsiodes off???

This is getting beyond stupid now

[snowychap]

26 minutes ago, Awol said:

useful idiots

House!

[magnkarl]

As someone of a minority smaller than the black community I feel their pain. Luckily it's harder to judge me based on my appearance than it is someone from their community, hence I don't get the feeling that many black and people of colour have when going into shops, offering to help an old lady crossing the street etc. Racism of all shapes and colours is horrendous. My minority group (Jewish) is also full of idiots who are racists to Arabs, Africans etc and it's something that we are trying to deal with. It's a festering wound that is often associated with the feeling that a lot of the older folks in my community have about how my group got treated during WW2, in the pogroms and so forth.

There is obvious racism in sentencing, police prejudice and prejudice in funding in our country. There's no denying that.

I don't however see the logic in this retrospective lynch mob that is going about tearing down statues. In that case we need to get rid of everything depicting Churchill because he ordered the killing of close to a million mainly old and sick people in air raids at the end of the war against a defenseless country. Where does that argument end? 

Edited June 11, 2020 by magnkarl

[Davkaus]

8 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

They seriously took some in betweeners epsiodes off???

This is getting beyond stupid now

There's absolutely nothing to suggest it if for anything other than financial reasons.

It was taken down from Youtube, but remains available on Britbox.

[Davkaus]

13 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Thats making fun of the racists though isnt it. Its not Jim Davidson on a stage, this is people showing up how ludicrous racists are. 

I think a lot of it is this. Blacking up wasn't acceptable when this show was made. The joke was how ludicrous and offensive it was. 

I recall some blacking up in Peep Show and IASIP as well, both of those shows remain on Netflix.

[Vive_La_Villa]

What about animations such as Rik and Morty, family guy, South Park, even Simpson’s? 

What’s the criteria on taking down programs right now?

edit: sorry just catching up? Is it just the blacking of  faces sketches. That shit ain’t even funny. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Vive_La_Villa

[Davkaus]

Just now, Vive_La_Villa said:

 

What’s the criteria on taking down programs right now?

Basically how much stick the streaming companies get from the mob, I think. 

[Seat68]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think a lot of it is this. Blacking up wasn't acceptable when this show was made. The joke was how ludicrous and offensive it was. 

I recall some blacking up in Peep Show and IASIP as well, both of those shows remain on Netflix.

Blacking up is such an emotive area. No entertainer should go there. A friend of mine did it for a Hendrix tribute and he got took apart. Its never wise. My view Is its wrong to go down that route if you want any sort of career. 

[Demitri_C]

11 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

There's absolutely nothing to suggest it if for anything other than financial reasons.

It was taken down from Youtube, but remains available on Britbox.

Thats fair enough then. If we gonna start taking things like inbetweeners down we might as well be robots with no humour.

I dont think the little Britain duo are racist whatsoever.  I think at the time it wasnt deemed offensive as it is now. Its right to take it off after watching that video above as i can see how that was offensive. But comedy back then was accepted better than how it is now.

 

[Davkaus]

6 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Blacking up is such an emotive area. No entertainer should go there. A friend of mine did it for a Hendrix tribute and he got took apart. Its never wise. My view Is its wrong to go down that route if you want any sort of career. 

I read a post elsewhere that made a very good point, while LB used blackface, what IASIP and Peep Show did was have a character do blackface, which now I think about it, is evry different, in both cases, the other characters react in horror, rather than the other characters taking it at face value as the blacked up person really being black.

[andym]

34 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

It was a joke at first, but how come no one ever mentions "White Chicks". Is racism not applicable to white people, i'm not sure. If there was a film depicting 2 dumb Black women, i'm sure there would be a riot.

Complaining about little Britain too, what about "Big Momma's House".  I mean is that ok, maybe because it's played by a black man??

Because it's not really on the same level, it's a dumb shit film that takes the piss out of the dumb blonde stereotype.

Blackface is 100+ years of a lot more than just joking and comedic stereotypes - it was used to dehumanise and portray black people as inferior in every way. And obviously black people were still actually being treated like that, beyond the portrayals on stage/film etc.

 

 

[Awol]

31 minutes ago, andym said:

It's not modern morality though is it, it's just morality, what is wrong now was still wrong then. 

In 2008 Obama one of the policies Obama ran on was opposition to gay marriage. It’s now a social consensus that gay marriage isn’t an issue at all. That’s an evolution in what we, as society, considers to be the correct moral position. 

By the logic of these protests Obama should be condemned as a vile homophobe. Any other good that he did is irrelevant. Context doesn’t matter. We, here and now, will sit in judgement on people operating in a different time, to a different set of values. 

Wrenching people’s actions from their historical context and judging them by today’s mores and fashions is morally extremist, intellectually bankrupt, and needs calling out for what it is. 

If people want to have discussions about the past, what it meant, and whether on balance It is appropriate to have statue X on a plinth, or book Y in a library that’s great, moves society forward by consensus and actually serves a purpose.

Scumbags appointing themselves the moral arbiters of society, then doing whatever they chose ‘because feelings’ can get to feck. If it happens again I hope they are dealt with robustly. They don’t own society, our history or our public spaces.