I was at very crowded and large bar in NY on Halloween at which one white bartender was dressed as Apu from the Simpsons, complete with brownface. Knowing the history of blackface and being of Indian descent, I couldn’t figure out whether I should be offended. No one else seemed to mind.
Then a patron walked in dressed like Flavor Flav with blackface. Again no one was offended and he received many laughs and high fives.
The crowd is relatively young, so perhaps no understanding of the history.
Was he wearing blackface or was he just wearing makeup like Darrell Hammond playing Jesse Jackson.
There’s a huge difference.
It’s not a huge difference. They’re not the same exact phenomenon and I would agree one is more offensive than the other, but they’re both stupid.
Both were wearing makeup. Sorry, should have been clearer.
Yeah, but that kind of misses the point, too.
The point isn’t whether or not it is universally offensive but whether or not people who do happen to find offense are somehow inherently wrong (as the OP suggests). They’re not.
If there was somebody there who was offended, it doesn’t matter that nobody else found it offensive. That offended person isn’t necessarily wrong or projecting. Maybe they are, but we can’t really decide that a priori.
It’s not something the majority can really decide, which is the point. These things are going to be of personal interest to a minority.
Exactly, the media/politically-correct types that like to sensationalize. Not, average people.
Are you trying to be sarcastic?
If not, you might want to retread Marley’s post because that’s not remotely what he said.
Yes, there are political activist groups that find it offensive. Everybody knows that.
Of course he is. And in so doing he’s made the fallaciousness of the claim even more obvious. ‘Regular people’ aren’t offended because everyone who is offended isn’t ‘regular people.’
Amos 'n Andy was an old time radio show, but they were white. Did they wear black face make-up? Yep!
I even think they did a TV show back in the 50’s wearing black face make-up to appear white and yes they were very offensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_%27n%27_Andy
I hate Wiki leaks, but I use them to show the contrast (no pun intended) …
Here’s one negative reviewer just a couple of months ago too
https://archive.org/details/amosandy1
If a professional football team were to name itself the black skins football team instead of the redskins football team then it would be considered offensive, but this is about people wearing a blackface to appear to be one so I will let prejudice rest and of course I should not even bring up the fact that Charlie Chan was a white man and not a chinaman … I will also let that be for another thread.
‘Average’ people. But that, I mean people that are more worried about day-to-day concerns about family, work, church, in life there are so many real things to be concerned about. The name of the Redskins is a very minor issue.
Anyway, this deviates from the thread topic, but, I would be curious to know why you think Native American “groups” have had so little success in changing the name of the Washington Redskins. . . If it’s naturally so offensive and obviously important to you guys.
Yes, these are all relatively minor issues. That doesn’t mean people are wrong to find this stuff offensive.
I agree with that.
Could you elaborate? For example, when I dressed as the Grim Reaper, I did wear make up, but I didn’t try to kill anyone. With some characters, it is possible to somehow “be” them without looking like them, but how does one dress up as Pi without attempting to look like him? Having a tiger there helps, but what else would you suggest, in this case specifically or in others?
Is anyone saying the skin colour has to be “just right”, though?
I think “gratuitous” is a bit… gratuitous. Skin colour is, objectively, a very obvious part of how someone looks, in the same way that hair colour is. If I saw someone dressed as a character with blonde hair, but without altering their natural brown hair or wearing a wig, I would think that to be a fairly lazy costume, personally. I get that skin colour is a more sensitive issue than hair colour, and I think for that reason I would simply avoid dressing up as someone with completely different coloured skin to mine. But shouldn’t we reject any special significance skin colour has over other attributes (such as hair colour), rather than allowing racists of the past and present to make skin colour an issue for everyone?
I’m pretty sure that isn’t a real person.
With a Halloween costume you are not necessarily trying to look exactly like the person or thing. You’re trying to represent that person or thing. You don’t have to look exactly like it/them. In a Pit thread someone recently suggested that a white person couldn’t possibly dress up as Mr. T without darkening his skin. I would say that if you have a crap ton of gold chains and a beard and a mohawk, maybe with a vest or a shirt with no arms, people will get that you’re Mr. T. It doesn’t suddenly become incomprehensible because the skin tone is off.
If I told you I was going to dress up like Elvis for the StraightDope Halloween Costume Contest, do you think it would be a requirement for me to whiten my skin to pull off the look? Or do you think stuff like the signature hair, the signature jumpsuit, and signature hip swivels would be more important?
Maybe being a person of color makes me see this in a different way than you (assuming you are not). As a little girl, I was always pretending to be someone. Wonder Woman. Shera Princess of Power. Bruno from Fame (don’t ask). All of these “characters” are people who do not in any way resemble me. Never once did it occur to me that I had to change my skin color to “be” them. The “look” is all in the props and action. To be Wonder Woman, for instance, requires that you wear Wonderoos while you spin around like Linda Carter. But you don’t have to look like Linda Carter. That’s silly.
Cosplaying black folk don’t usually find it necessary to lighten their skin when they dress up as various fictional characters. So it is not necessary for white people to darken their skins to do the same thing. Of course, they can if they really want to. But the point of dressing up is not to look exactly like your fanboy/fangirl love interest. It’s to take on their essence. If people can’t guess who you are based on clothing, props, and behavior, you have no business trying to be that character. This is why I think simulating skin color is “gratuitous.”
Actually your post #13 does very clearly exclude the middle. It’s good you now concede that is silly, even if tacitly.
As for your other points, it’s amazing that you can accept the cognitive dissonance of saying that changing hair colour or whatever is part of the “essence” of the character, but any attempt to make skin colour resemble the character is “gratuitous”.
I don’t see the problem with accepting that, in itself, copying skin colour shouldn’t be an issue, but it just is because of the history…rather than try to argue it from first principles when that clearly doesn’t make sense.
I concede nothing because I didn’t exclude the front, the back, or the middle. Now or before.
Is Mr. Spock’s skin color a part of his essence? Or is it the pointy, the Star Trek uniform, the severe haircut, and the flat affect?
Is Pippy Longstocking’s skin color a part of her essence? Or is it the freckles, the pigtails, and the knee highs?
Is Quasimodo’s skin color a part of his essence? Or is it the hunchback?
Is Harry Potter’s skin color a part of his essence? Or is it the school uniform, the wand, the broom, the glasses, and his owl?
Is Elvis’s skin color a part of his essence?
If someone showed up dressed up like any of these characters in white make-up, wouldn’t you feel like they went overboard? That they were kind of missing the point of a costume?
Does this woman not have the right idea about how to dress up? Would you criticize her for not “getting into character” enough?
I’m not arguing from “first principles” or any other principle. I’m just saying that it’s not necessary to do for a good Halloween costume and that it’s stupid to say it is. The guy could have gone dressed like Pi and have been recognized as Pi without changing his skin at all. If he had chosen imagination over literalism, no one would have been offended and he would have saved money on make-up.
My stance hasn’t changed one bit on this. If you look at the eleventy-hundred other threads on this tired topic, you will see I have been saying the same thing in all of them.
I love her post and she seems immune from critique. Key features of characters do not need to include skin color and her cosplay is solid proof of that.
Would you critique her if she decided that her Sailor Venus costume would be even better if she wore white-face?
As much as I realize the “just don’t do it” aspect of black facing for a character, I wouldn’t be bothered by her making the White-face choice. (Given the amount of skin female characters expose it might not be too practical though.) I do wonder though how that would play with the different elements here, including those who objected to her cosplaying White characters and those who object to wearing make-up to match the dark skin color of the character in question. I think the answer is one that draws from the historic context of black face.
And to the Mr. T Halloween costume, just to explore where lines get drawn … a Mr. T cover the whole head mask that is Black, worn by a White guy … okay? Make-up would be where the line is, yes?
“Nu-uh!”
Great response.
The things you list are just distinguishing parts of their appearance. As may be their skin colour if they have a minority skin colour for the country / planet / realm they are from.
Well no-one has said that. I haven’t said you have to change your skin colour any more than you have to wear a costume, or go to a party in the first place. I’m saying I have no problem with someone doing so, though I accept that it’s a sensitive thing and you have to be aware of the history of where you live.
I’m not so sure people would have recognized him as Pi.
And I don’t see why, in principle, trying to copy someone’s appearance is fine as long as it stops at skin colour and then we’re being “too literal”.