Black skin is so offensive, ayup

The BBQ Pit
1

So somebody zombified a GD thread about the word “Sambo.” Interesting stuff there about the use of “sambo” as a word before Helen Bannerman’s justly famous children’s book.

It came up that apparently the pancake house Sambo’s (which I remember from my youth) had in their decorations a not-so-dark-skinned rendition of the boy from the story (which I had forgotten; if you’d asked me, I would have said he was pretty dark).

Now, I always took it that the character Sambo was actually dark-skinned, like a Dravidian with a tan.

But then again, in some countries like Slovakia and Russia, Rom/Gypsies/Tzigane are called black. (I guess I can go with “Rom,” but it’s hard to find an ethnic term for that ethnocomplex that either covers all of them or is not a slur.)

So, I dunno what Mrs Bannerman was calling “black,” really. Still and all, this response popped up.

Well, Colophon, you gotta understand…:smiley:

In the USA, it is HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE to portray black people in art as actually having extremely dark skin. African-Americans must be no darker than a brown paper bag, for fear of looking low-class. Also any contrast between skin color and lip-gum color must be downplayed. (And of course other dark-skinned ethnicities, like Nubians and Dravidians, DO NOT EXIST.)

It is also HORRIBLY INSULTING to portray foreigners as having any “non-white” accents. They can have British accents, California accents, or Midwestern accents, but anything else is RACIST RACIST RACIST.

In fact, just cast white actors as your foreign characters, like Night Shyamalan did for The Last Airbender. And it’s always better to cast a white Australian to play someone from Detroit than, say, an actual :shudder: black person from Detroit.

Because showing black and foreign people is more racist than not showing black and foreign people. e_e

/Yes, I started a Pit thread for this bit of sarcasm.

2

Huh? Who or what are you miffed at/about?

Sarcasm fail.

:confused:

3

Sorry, misdirected post I guess. Comes from a long complex series of stories.

There was the group that got offended at aliens in The Phantom Menace having accents.

There are all the would-be social justice warriors who think “appropriation” of any race “of color” is worse than non-representation. (Brr!) I (sort of?) get it when it comes to indigenous Australians, but people freak out about appropriating the Japanese, because obviously they were conquered and had their land stolen too, oh wait there I go lying again.

There was the African character on ER played by Thandie Newton. :dubious:

There’s a tendency in American media to cast the most dark-skinned people as thugs and uneducated savages. God bless Taye Diggs, he gets around it; I guess if you wear a suit all the time, you can be taken for safe. (Actually, I should be saying God bless Shonda Rhimes, I guess.)

There’s the general freakout anytime someone draws a too black-skinned, light-lipped cartoon version of a black person. Yeah, it’s exaggerated, no, it doesn’t particularly look like how Africans and West Indians represent themselves, but that’s what cartoons are. I was just looking on Wikipedia, they have a phrase for it: “Darky iconography.”

Yeah, I can make up sociological terms too. “Jigaboo erasure.”

Maybe I’m imagining that there’s still a hell of a lot of colorism in the USA–and that it may have actually gotten worse in the last twenty years.

In politics, “white” (pinkish tan) Americans hate and fear “black” (not-so-pinkish tan) Americans who are barely a shade darker.

And then of course the wannabe ruling-class “blacks” (who don’t actually look black) have been biased against people who actually do look black, for being “common.” Not so much now, maybe.

But yeah.

It’s probably more the accent thing that tees me off, actually. Why does every non-U.S. movie character, regardless of nationality, have to have a British accent now? Because anything else would sound foreign, as in unEnglish, and foreign is bad.

I’m overreacting. I know I’m overreacting. It’s not the whole culture by a longshot. White kids still listen to black hip-hop artists. The culture is not that totally biased against dark-skinned people.

But sometimes there are weirdos who pop up and cry racism, but seem to me to be more offended by the fact that there’s an image of a race that isn’t their sanitized, “respectable” white-on-the-inside and no darker than a brown paper bag version.

But what do I know?

4

I find this story charming, and while it’s one crank in Japan, it’s kind of the thing I mean.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
In 1997, a Japanese retelling of the story, Chibikuro Sampo (“sampo” means “taking a walk” in Japanese, “Chibi” means “shorty” and “kuro” means black), replaced the protagonist with a black Labrador puppy that goes for a stroll in the jungle. It was published by Mori Marimo from Kitaooji Shobo Publishing in Kyoto. This publication was denounced by a 3-person organization calling itself “The Association To Stop Racism Against Blacks”, which consisted of a man (the president), his wife (the vice president), and their 10-year-old son (the treasurer). Kitaooji Shobo refused to stop the publication.

from The Story of Little Black Sambo - Wikipedia
http://www.tuat.ac.jp/~sarmac/MoriSBP2005.pdf

[/QUOTE]
Yes, I’m an idiot. And totally totally racist. I know.

5

I’m sure you have a point in there somewhere, but damned if I can figure out what it is, except that possibly it’s “racism is bad”. Or perhaps “thinking that racism is bad is bad”…

6

I’m with Smeghead I’m sure this all seems to make sense in your head…but…not so much as you’ve written it.

When come back, bring coherent!

7

I’m sure your heart is in the right place, but…why do you think “Darky iconography” is made up? It’s very real. It existed long before people put a name to it.

“Darky iconography” describes (quite well) the trope of westerns drawing Africans/blacks as the same, carbon copy, one-note, racial caricature (coal black skin, exaggerated red lips, big kinky hair, possibly with bone inserted in hair/nose/etc). Looking back, it’s almost if everyone was working from a set script. It’s just as offensive if one were to defend the old anti-Semitic “Jew iconography” that also existed.

If you want to see how different people portrayed themselves well just ask and the internet will provide. [ul]
[li]African masks[/li][li]Hindu icongraphy[/li][li]Egyptian-Nubian icongraphy[/li][li]Ethiopian icongraphy[/li][/ul]Notice that in all of these links people are not drawing themselves as racial caricatures. In other words, they don’t depict themselves by exaggerating whatever physical features that distinguish themselves from whites. You say cartoons are meant to be caricatures, but why is it that the caricature chosen is always the above “darky” caricature?

8

I guess that opinion is in the eye of the beholder, as most of those African masks feature big lips, bulging eyes and flat, wide noses.

9

It’s like how people wonder why anime characters don’t have narrow eyes. The answer, of course, is that Japanese people don’t think they have narrow eyes - they think they have *normal *eyes.

10

I guess you have a Constitutional right to draw Sambos if that is really what you want to do.

11

Elaine - “Wana go to the Gap?”

12

They don’t have narrow eyes compared to anyone. They just have epicanthal eye folds. It’s really funny, but this just changes one very tiny portion of the eye socket and in no way changes its overall dimensions. The eye will on average be the same width and height.

It’s very noticeable because humans concentrate on the face, but it has nothing to do with their art, which often features highly stylized eyes, but without a great deal of consistency from style to style or period to period.

13

They (supposedly!) had Jamaican (sic) accents and nobody liked those characters. That’s racist enough for government work.

Meh. When you’re talking about people who think eating outside your ethnicity is cultural appropriation the best response is to point and laugh.

What gets me is a complete and total disregard for the mention-use distinction. Say “tranny”, regardless of context, and you’re damned. Say “All Jews should be killed” and someone does their worst to make it look like you’re the antisemite.

What it comes down to, though, is using your offense as an offensive weapon: If you can claim to be offended by something in the right context, you win. You can get someone else to sit down, shut up, and stop trying to voice their opinion. Do you want to talk about how all men are rapists and not have to hear from the majority of men who aren’t? Claim offense at the idea that a man would invalidate your perspective and challenge your infantile misunderstanding of the concept of the patriarchy. There. Now your sexism can roll on unchallenged, because you’re in your safe space and are abusing the living Hell out of it. Also, any trans people who challenge your notions that gender is 100% socially constructed can politely silence themselves to protect your precious theories and stay off your turf.

Some people say STEM majors shouldn’t try to use their pre-conceived notions to understand social justice issues. (Others say STEM majors deserve to die horrible, painful deaths for having the gall to think tensile strength is more useful than feelings when it comes to designing a bridge.) Personally, I look at the foregoing, think k, and go back to studying harmonic oscillators. (I know, I know, when come back, bring comprehensibility.)

14

Nah, Dravidian’s are much darker than the restaurant Sambo. Mrs Bannerman, though she lived most of her life in India, was Scottish and probably thought anybody darker than “pallid” looked black. Which reminds me of a thread by an Afrocentrist from a few years ago. :eek:

15

That’s a good old fashioned “what the fuck are you talking about” rant, I guess. I don’t know where you’re going with this, foolsguinea.

I’ve never heard anyone say this, and I don’t believe anyone thinks it. But if you’re telling a story or making a TV show or movie today, you shouldn’t expect partial credit because you’ve used a stereotyped depiction of a minority instead of not having minority characters at all. Minority characters should be as likely as white ones to be depicted as individuals and complex human beings. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position.

16

I sympathize with the OP… these big long posts always sound so coherent in your head…

17

The only part of the OP* that made any sense to me.

*more like the sequel to the OP. Call it: Sambo II: The Wrath of Black Mumbo.

18

I think people were just as put off by the junkyard guy, Watto - although I don’t think they could all agree on whether it was a Jewish accent or a Greek/Middle Eastern one, so that just goes to show…
but seriously - ranting about posts from 2008, when you know it’s a zombie thread, is that some kind of record?

19

There were complaints that Jango Fett was the only character played by a Latino actor and he was a bad guy. I imagine some of those people felt rather silly when they learned the actor was Maori.

20

I pegged him as a Jew Jew Bee, so I can see where they were coming from.

As I recall, though, people were mostly up in arms about the Gungans, who they claimed were floppy-footed Stepin Fetchit caricatures complete with dreds and omigod a creole. Here’s a rather interesting take down of the concept. Interesting because it’s enlightening to learn about a controversy from someone who is responding to it, as they feel compelled to respond to aspects no single more neutral or opposite-biased statement is likely to have.