Racism Part two

[NurembergVillan]

47 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

If I saw a white guy dressed up as TuPac, which I saw recently. I really wouldn't relate it to disrespect, neither did many people of colour, as I have witnessed it, they found it quite funny,

But imagine how much better it would have been if he'd just dressed up as a white celebrity, still made laugh AND not risked upsetting anyone.

It's literally that simple.

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Replying to @foreveryoung on his now deleted point that 'White Chicks' dehumanises white people, that racism needs to completely work both ways (eg white chicks is equal to blackface) and that am I happy feeling guilty for slavery.

How are black people dressed as white people 'dehumanising them'? They are still humans. They aren't dressed up as white people because they think white people are not human.

In history when were white people ever dehumanised by black people wearing white on their face? White people did it because they literally saw black people as sub-human and society agreed.

It never worked both ways. Black people have never systematically owned white people as slaves, and it be socially ok. I don't feel blamed or guilty, but I acknowledge that history wasn't equal to our ancestors. I can accept the 'discrimination' of not being able to use the n word, or accept that black and white face are 2 different standards.

I think this logic only works within rather narrow bounds though - the major eastern civilisation like the Chinese or Japanese didn't enslave black people, that was a western thing. So is it fine for a Chinese person to black themselves up given their race doesn't have the same historical association with slavery?

Blackface is offensive primarily because it was playing on racist stereotypes of black people (being stupid and primitive). As far as I'm concerned, it's unacceptable for someone to dress as anyone from another race in order to act out a racial stereotype. Claiming that black people are allowed to do it because they never enslaved white people is surely another way of saying blackface is perfectly fine for anyone that's not historically descended from European nations that conducted the slave trade, no?

I'd be interested to hear what principles guide you in these matters? I said in the other thread that my guiding principle is a harmonious and colourblind society, and I support things that move us towards that and oppose things that move us away from it. You said that was ridiclous and society shouldn't even aspire to that. So what specifically do you consider when you assess whether a proposal goes too far in addressing historical injustice (e.g. reparations, etc)?

[foreveryoung]

53 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

But imagine how much better it would have been if he'd just dressed up as a white celebrity, still made laugh AND not risked upsetting anyone.

It's literally that simple.

Or maybe a black guy dressing up as a dumb blonde would not have upset anyone either  just Been a laugh. Or a China man, they were not enslaved. It just don't make sense.

[Eidolon]

37 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Or maybe a black guy dressing up as a dumb blonde would not have upset anyone either  just Been a laugh. Or a China man, they were not enslaved. It just don't make sense.

I think the Wayans brothers ended up getting two or three films out of that concept

[Mark Albrighton]

I guess “white face” hasn’t ever really been a tool to degrade white people, to “keep them in their place” if you like. As such it doesn’t have anywhere near the negative connotations that “black face” has.

Subsequently, something like the film “White Chicks” in my opinion, can’t really be offensive to white people through the use of “white face”. I also don’t think that white people are really the target of the film, I think it’s the like of Paris Hilton. There’s a sense of them punching up to the wealthy elite rather than kicking a whole race.

To the question as to whether a Chinese person “blacking up” would be racist, my initial thought is it would still be offensive, perhaps not as immediately jarring and objectionable as a white person doing it, but yes I think it would be wrong and it wouldn’t go down well.

Reverse the situation and think what would happen if Lenny Henry did a comedy sketch about China with “slitty eyes”. How do we think that would be received? That probably answers the question.

[Seat68]

Watching a 70s blaxploitation film of the 70s, and the use of the word honky was never likely to be offensive. See also the band of the same name. The reasons are the same as @Mark Albrighton has outlined. 

[Xela]

A classic from Viz

[foreveryoung]

4 hours ago, Seat68 said:

Watching a 70s blaxploitation film of the 70s, and the use of the word honky was never likely to be offensive. See also the band of the same name. The reasons are the same as @Mark Albrighton has outlined. 

It's true I will never understand taking offence because of something that happened 400 years ago. That's some  grudge to hold.

People do realise that people of colour had slaves too in that century yeah?  I also believe one of the biggest traders of slaves was actually black.

[Seat68]

4 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

It's true I will never understand taking offence because of something that happened 400 years ago. That's some  grudge to hold.

People do realise that people of colour had slaves too in that century yeah?  I also believe one of the biggest traders of slaves was actually black.

Do you have a name? Without question some involved in the slave trade were black but one of the biggest, that's a leap. 

[Mark Albrighton]

6 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

It's true I will never understand taking offence because of something that happened 400 years ago. That's some  grudge to hold.

People do realise that people of colour had slaves too in that century yeah?  I also believe one of the biggest traders of slaves was actually black.

Sorry, what was 400 years ago? Which social change took place in the early part of the 17th century are you alluding to that means black people have nothing really to hold a grudge about now?

[foreveryoung]

4 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Sorry, what was 400 years ago? Which social change took place in the early part of the 17th century are you alluding to that means black people have nothing really to hold a grudge about now?

It stopped in the early 17th century yeah? 300 years then sorry, although hardly makes a difference. It's a good job the Jews don't hold such grudges, although I guess you will tell me that is different because.......

Edited February 13, 2022 by foreveryoung

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, foreveryoung said:

It stopped in the early 17th century yeah? 300 years then sorry, although hardly makes a difference. It's a good job the Jews don't hold such grudges.

You think slavery ended in the 17th century?  

[foreveryoung]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

You think slavery ended in the 17th century?  

Without looking late 17s early 18s was it?

[chrisp65]

Slaves have always been traded.

Look hard enough you’ll find Cornish people raided and taken as slaves by North African sailors.

The Aksum Empire was built on slavery and the slave trade. Traded across Africa, with Rome, with Persia, with India.

When the Europeans industrialised agriculture in the Americas, it very quickly lead to the industrialisation of the slave trade.

Twelve million people were taken from Africa as slaves across the Atlantic.

Twelve Million.

It must be exhausting constantly having to find new whataboutisms.

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by chrisp65

[Stevo985]

26 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

It's true I will never understand taking offence because of something that happened 400 years ago. That's some  grudge to hold.

People do realise that people of colour had slaves too in that century yeah?  I also believe one of the biggest traders of slaves was actually black.

Of all the posts on VillaTalk, I think your posts in here are the most uninformed I’ve ever seen

[Davkaus]

What's a couple of centuries between friends

[StefanAVFC]

14 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Without looking late 17s early 18s was it?

Mid to late 19th...

[Davkaus]

And I think the more important point, especially in the US which often seems to drive these discussions even abroad these days, is that things didn't just become fine overnight once slave trading was abolished.

[Xela]

Slavery still exists today. Sweat shops in Bangladesh producing your sports goods, cobalt mines in DRC for batteries for your EV car and other electrical goods and forced labour camps in China in the iPhone production chain. 

[Mark Albrighton]

7 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

It stopped in the early 17th century yeah? 300 years then sorry, although hardly makes a difference. It's a good job the Jews don't hold such grudges, although I guess you will tell me that is different because.......

Right.

I said the 17th century because you said 400 years ago. That’s the 17th century. 

I’m going to assume you understand the difference between the 1700’s and the 17th century. I won’t allude to that again.

Since the abolition of slavery, nah, not much. No lynchings, no KKK. No underclass treatment whatsoever. That whole civil rights movement thing, it was about overcrowding buses I think…

On the Jewish thing, presumably you have missed the whole “Y” word discussion that’s been on the news recently then.

But I guess from your stance if Jewish people were tolerant of abuse they receive (they’re not as it happens), black people should just get on with it.