Racism Part two

[foreveryoung]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Mid to late 19th...

 

2 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

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.

I haven't condoned any sort of abuse or racism in this thread. But carry on if you need it to back up the narrative.

[StefanAVFC]

It’s almost as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parkes didn’t happen last century and blackface wasn’t a thing. 

Staggering. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by StefanAVFC

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, Xela said:

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. 

 

25 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

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.

 

 

 

(Not aimed at you Alex)

[Seat68]

19 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

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

Ask me anything about football. 

[Mark Albrighton]

4 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

 

I haven't condoned any sort of abuse or racism in this thread. But carry on if you need it to back up the narrative.

You replied to @Seat68 saying you couldn’t understand someone (in this case black people) holding a grudge for something that happened 400 years ago (as it turns out this was your guess as to when black people stopped being slaves). 

As far as I can tell this is the first mention/reference to slavery in relation to black face as being entertainment in this discussion.

I can only take from this you think since the abolition of slavery, there’s been nothing following that black people should hold a grudge about. 

Am I wrong? Because that’s how it reads.

[StefanAVFC]

21 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

But I guess from your stance if Jewish people were tolerant of abuse they receive (they’re not as it happens),

Oh absolutely.

Even to the point where non-abusive statements (like Emma Watson's support of Palestine) is manipulated into being anti-semitic.

[foreveryoung]

3 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

You replied to @Seat68 saying you couldn’t understand someone (in this case black people) holding a grudge for something that happened 400 years ago (as it turns out this was your guess as to when black people stopped being slaves). 

As far as I can tell this is the first mention/reference to slavery in relation to black face as being entertainment in this discussion.

I can only take from this you think since the abolition of slavery, there’s been nothing following that black people should hold a grudge about. 

Am I wrong? Because that’s how it reads.

Racism, abuse I can not condone. Someone dressing up as TuPac at a party is not the same as someone dressing up as a black slave or just as a black person. I didn't think it was disrespecting black people no. It didn't bother any people of colour at the party either, they actually thought it was quite funny.

[Mark Albrighton]

25 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Racism, abuse I can not condone. Someone dressing up as TuPac at a party is not the same as someone dressing up as a black slave or just as a black person. I didn't think it was disrespecting black people no. It didn't bother any people of colour at the party either, they actually thought it was quite funny.

Ok. 

So someone dressing as an identifiable individual, in this case TuPac (presumably by “blacking up” I would guess) you’re ok with.

I don’t really agree but ok.

It sounds like you’re less enthused about someone dressing up as either a black slave or a “generic” black person. If so, I would agree. 

As such, you think “White Chicks” is problematic because they’re dressing themselves as generic white women. 

Have I followed that correctly?

If I have, theoretically if the Wayans had dressed up as Paris Hilton and another famously rich white woman, that would be ok in your opinion?

This isn’t a trick question, I’m trying to make your stance clear in my mind. 

[foreveryoung]

18 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Ok. 

So someone dressing as an identifiable individual, in this case TuPac (presumably by “blacking up” I would guess) you’re ok with.

I don’t really agree but ok.

It sounds like you’re less enthused about someone dressing up as either a black slave or a “generic” black person. If so, I would agree. 

As such, you think “White Chicks” is problematic because they’re dressing themselves as generic white women. 

Have I followed that correctly?

If I have, theoretically if the Wayans had dressed up as Paris Hilton and another famously rich white woman, that would be ok in your opinion?

This isn’t a trick question, I’m trying to make your stance clear in my mind. 

People are saying it's in bad taste to dress up as black person walking round like a gangster rapper, or a pimp. 

But, it seems okay for the Wayans to dress up as 2 white girls representing then as dumb rich white blondes.

[Panto_Villan]

6 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said:

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.

Thanks for the reply.  I do agree that blackface is a special case given it references the whole traveling minstrel show thing, and I agree should be considered offensive even if a Chinese person were to do it because the link still exists even if someone from a race not responsible for slavery were to do it. It's the same logic for why it'd be offensive for an Asian person to call a black person the n-word.

I'm not sure the logic regarding whiteface is consistent with societal attitudes though. To illustrate by continuing the previous example - would it be considered offensive for a white man to paint his face the skin tone of a Chinese or Japanese person?

There's no significant history of slavery between white people and the eastern civilisations and no "yellowed-up" actors performing the equivalent of the travelling minstrel shows, so it'd be exactly the same as a black person wearing whiteface. It's just someone crudely impersonating another race. It therefore shouldn't be considered offensive using the logic in your post - but my instinct is that it would be, right? Because the act of obviously impersonating another race comes across as a form of racial mockery.

So I don't really agree that whiteface can't be inherently offensive (unless you also think people shouldn't be offended if I was to walk around with my face painted yellow). It lacks the historical connotations of blackface so it's not as racially offensive, but it is still racially offensive. Would you agree?

Edited February 13, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[Stevo985]

41 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

People are saying it's in bad taste to dress up as black person walking round like a gangster rapper, or a pimp. 

But, it seems okay for the Wayans to dress up as 2 white girls representing then as dumb rich white blondes.

They are totally different and if you can’t see that then my post above rings even truer

[Mark Albrighton]

38 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Thanks for the reply.  I do agree that blackface is a special case given it references the whole traveling minstrel show thing, and I agree should be considered offensive even if a Chinese person were to do it because the link still exists even if someone from a race not responsible for slavery were to do it. It's the same logic for why it'd be offensive for an Asian person to call a black person the n-word.

I'm not sure the logic regarding whiteface is correct though. To illustrate by continuing the previous example - would it be considered offensive for a white man to paint his face the skin tone of a Chinese or Japanese person?

There's no significant history of slavery between white people and the eastern civilisations and no "yellowed-up" actors performing the equivalent of the travelling minstrel shows, so it'd be exactly the same as a black person wearing whiteface. It's just someone crudely impersonating another race. It therefore shouldn't be considered offensive using the logic in your post - but my instinct is that it would be, right? Because the act of obviously impersonating another race comes across as a form of racial mockery.

So I don't really agree that whiteface can't be inherently offensive (unless you also think people shouldn't be offended if I was to walk around with my face painted yellow). It lacks the historical connotations of blackface so it's not as racially offensive, but it is still racially offensive. Do you think that's sound logic?

No problem.

Firstly I haven’t brought up the issue of slavery with regards to “black face”. None of my reasoning involves slavery. That’s been brought up elsewhere.

White people portraying themselves as Chinese (or Japanese) hasn’t been as prevalent but it has happened enough.

Mickey Rooney in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” is possibly the most famous example. But there are others. “The Mikado” by Gilbert & Sullivan is one of their most famous works. It’s full of white people looking Japanese, it’s still performed. “Come fly with me” by Matt Lucas and David Walliams being a more recent example.

“Yellow face” (to give it it’s name) also isn’t acceptable.

Pulling at the thread, it can be a tricky subject. I think it’s ok for Peter Sellers to play a French man and wear a moustache and do a silly accent. I don’t think it’s ok for Peter Sellers to play an Indian, darken his skin and do a silly accent.

One is far more jarring than the other.

Now does this mean that ALL Indian people find Peter Sellers offensive in “The Party”? No, I suspect there is a generation who, to some, that is water off a duck’s back. But I wonder how much of that is because they dealt with far worse on a day to day basis.

Now if an Indian person or a Chinese person “whited up”, would I be offended? No, I wouldn’t. To me, “white face” is not something that really has any truly negative associations. So while I follow your logic, I just don’t see it as offensive.  

[Mark Albrighton]

This conversation has literally turned me into a “veteran” by the way.

[HanoiVillan]

9 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

This conversation has literally turned me into a “veteran” by the way.

Veteran of the culture wars.

[Mark Albrighton]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Veteran of the culture wars.

I’ll be waking up in the middle of the night, drenched in sweat, having had flashbacks to various scenes from “White Chicks”.

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, Mark Albrighton said:

I’ll be waking up in the middle of the night, drenched in sweat, having had flashbacks to various scenes from “White Chicks”.

My wife finds that movie unnervingly funny, so I've seen it on more than one occasion, so sadly this could actually happen to me.

I think my considered opinion on White Chicks specifically is they really didn't care who they offended, and probably the more offensive it appeared the better they felt. As I recall, the single dumbest character is a ricj black guy who purchases a date with one of them at an auction (?) and doesn't figure out it's a dude despite tons of clues (? - subs, please check)

[mjmooney]

'Catgate' is currently a big topic on Facebook. Huge numbers of black Africans very angry, because they are convinced it's racist persecution of a black footballer, and it was 'only a **** ing cat anyway'. This was my contribution to the debate: 

Quote

Can we PLEASE put these accusations of racism to bed? First off: there IS racism in this country. Nobody should pretend there isn't - and it is shameful. However this is NOT what 'catgate' is about. This is all about British sentimentality about pets, which is perhaps not widely shared in all parts of the world. And yes, there IS a large element of hypocrisy involved, given that many of the outraged (myself included) eat meat and dairy. Nonetheless, race is not the issue here. I can 100% guarantee that if the cat-kicker had been white, the furore would have been exactly the same.

 

[HanoiVillan]

9 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

'Catgate' is currently a big topic on Facebook. Huge numbers of black Africans very angry, because they are convinced it's racist persecution of a black footballer, and it was 'only a **** ing cat anyway'. This was my contribution to the debate: 

 

Show them some headlines from the 'cat bin lady' story

[bickster]

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

People are saying it's in bad taste to dress up as black person walking round like a gangster rapper, or a pimp. 

You realise that mocking a racial stereotype is 100% racist? No ifs, no buts, its racist

Its not "in bad taste", its racist. Its not an issue of taste, there is no subjective opinion. It's not gold paint in your living room or a blue and pink striped t-shirt

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, Mark Albrighton said:

No problem.

Firstly I haven’t brought up the issue of slavery with regards to “black face”. None of my reasoning involves slavery. That’s been brought up elsewhere.

White people portraying themselves as Chinese (or Japanese) hasn’t been as prevalent but it has happened enough.

Mickey Rooney in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” is possibly the most famous example. But there are others. “The Mikado” by Gilbert & Sullivan is one of their most famous works. It’s full of white people looking Japanese, it’s still performed. “Come fly with me” by Matt Lucas and David Walliams being a more recent example.

“Yellow face” (to give it it’s name) also isn’t acceptable.

Pulling at the thread, it can be a tricky subject. I think it’s ok for Peter Sellers to play a French man and wear a moustache and do a silly accent. I don’t think it’s ok for Peter Sellers to play an Indian, darken his skin and do a silly accent.

One is far more jarring than the other.

Now does this mean that ALL Indian people find Peter Sellers offensive in “The Party”? No, I suspect there is a generation who, to some, that is water off a duck’s back. But I wonder how much of that is because they dealt with far worse on a day to day basis.

Now if an Indian person or a Chinese person “whited up”, would I be offended? No, I wouldn’t. To me, “white face” is not something that really has any truly negative associations. So while I follow your logic, I just don’t see it as offensive.  

Yeah, it is a tricky subject and it can be a little exhausting to think about sometimes. But it's interesting to discuss, and I'm not asking these questions to try and catch you out. Just trying to understand where and why your perspective differs from my own.

Would you mind expanding on why consider "yellow face" unacceptable? To me the Indian example you gave in the post is much closer to the black analogy given the history of empire in India - it wasn't quite slavery, but there was still a lot of oppression going around. I think there's good reasons why a British man playing an Indian would be unacceptable, particularly when many of the people involved in the Raj were still alive. At least with slavery people are arguing about what our ancestors did to one another and we're all several steps removed from it.

However the reason I picked Japan as one of the examples in the first case is that mainland Japan has historically never been invaded and they're also a rich developed nation in the modern day, so the same unfortunate overtones of historical (or modern) inferiority that apply to a lot of cultures don't really apply. China suffered a bit more humiliation in the time of empire but they're an older civilisation than us and a more powerful country in this day and age, so to some extent you can say the same about them. So what is it that makes it offensive for a white person to do yellow face, but not the reverse?