# Is Black Face necessarily racist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2014, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660 "2014-04-22T05:39:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/241 "2014-04-24T08:11:50Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Fair enough. I guess I just wanted to highlight the difficulty of setting the tolerance level at absolute zero. I don’t think “Blackface is never OK outside satirical contexts” is the same as setting the overall tolerance level to zero. For instance, I’ve included a perfectly non-zero exception right there. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/242 "2014-04-24T08:21:03Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > As for the other part, “they do it to everyone” and “it’s just their way” (or, to use your phrasing, “they’re just curious”) is very much what you’ve said. You don’t see the difference between those phrasing. I’m saying that I considered it acceptable, and I wasn’t offended, because of the _motivation_ behind it; simple curiosity with no malice or offense intended, and simply no concept of black stereotypes (or even really the concept of race in _that_ sense…skin tone varies a lot across China so a black-white division is not the most natural to most here). Nothing to do with how common it is, which is the fallacy you keep accusing me of making. And the observation that whites are similarly of interest is to support what I’m saying about the motivation. I am not arguing it’s OK because whites are treated the same, which would be a beyond-ridiculous argument (is it OK to murder, as long as you do it equally to all races)? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/243 "2014-04-24T08:52:14Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Noticing it is not a problem, and expected. “Treat like a curiosity” isn’t quite the same thing. While agreeing it isn’t quite the same thing, I’d argue it is still to be expected. If I show up on holiday at some remote hill station in India where no-one has seen a white person since 1948, I’m going to expect a certain reaction from people, which may include quite a number of the locals wanting to do mundane things like “Watch the White Guy have a cup of tea in a cafe” because I _am_ a curiosity to them and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/244 "2014-04-24T09:10:44Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I don’t think “Blackface is never OK outside satirical contexts” is the same as setting the overall tolerance level to zero. For instance, I’ve included a perfectly non-zero exception right there. Then I think we are in agreement, but perhaps only dis-aligned on our individual interpretations of terms etc (such as the ‘mocking’ thing upthread). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/245 "2014-04-24T11:09:30Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > You don’t see the difference between those phrasing. Not really, no. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that I considered it acceptable, and I wasn’t offended, because of the _motivation_ behind it; simple curiosity with no malice or offense intended, and simply no concept of black stereotypes (or even really the concept of race in _that_ sense…skin tone varies a lot across China so a black-white division is not the most natural to most here). I have agreed with you that it’s not malicious. That’s irrelevant to the wrongness. Motivation isn’t the issue here, action is. > [@](#): > > Nothing to do with how common it is, which is the fallacy you keep accusing me of making. I think you misunderstand the meaning of Appeal to Common Practice - perhaps the alternate name “Appeal to Tradition” might make you see what I mean? You say this is just how they behave. That’s a fallacious argument if you want to show that what they do is acceptable. It’s a red herring. > [@](#): > > And the observation that whites are similarly of interest is to support what I’m saying about the motivation. I get that. I don’t see why you don’t see that that’s irrelevant, since _their_ motivation is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I am not arguing it’s OK because whites are treated the same No, you’re arguing that their behaviour’s OK because they don’t have bad motivations, and using the fact that they do it to whites too as evidence of that. Which a) doesn’t signify - they may do it to everyone because they’re horribly xenophobic all round (I don’t believe this, BTW) - this is where the “They do it to everyone” fallacious bit comes in. b) Given the fallacious nature of the “They do it to everyone, so they can’t be malicious” argument, the parent argument falls too. c) doesn’t matter, because their motivation’s irrelevant to the wrongness of their actions. Once again, I’m _not_ saying the Chinese are mean or evil in their behaviour. But it’s wrong behaviour, and it’s inexcusable in the modern world for it to go unchallenged. I’d make more allowances for someone in an undiscovered Brazilian tribe, but China is not a medieval kingdom, even in its hinterlands. Even Uyghur tribespeople have smartphones and TVs nowadays, ignorance is no excuse. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/246 "2014-04-24T11:10:42Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > While agreeing it isn’t quite the same thing, I’d argue it is still to be expected. > > If I show up on holiday at some remote hill station in India where no-one has seen a white person since 1948, I’m going to expect a certain reaction from people, which may include quite a number of the locals wanting to do mundane things like “Watch the White Guy have a cup of tea in a cafe” because I _am_ a curiosity to them and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise, IMHO. Expect =/= Accept. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/247 "2014-04-24T11:12:18Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Then I think we are in agreement, but perhaps only dis-aligned on our individual interpretations of terms etc (such as the ‘mocking’ thing upthread). I think so. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/248 "2014-04-24T16:17:48Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > It’s a red herring fallacy - whether or not it gets done to White people is irrelevant to whether doing it to POCs is wrong, since it isn’t the Chinese motivation behind the action that renders it wrong. Huh. I think the motivation – and although you didn’t say it, the context – is a huge part of what can render this sort of behavior wrong. > [@](#): > > “They do it to everybody” is just a version of Appeal to Common Practice. It could be, but it’s not. Instead, it’s a way to test a different theory: “they do it as part of a tradition of oppression against a subgroup.” It doesn’t say it’s okay, but it eliminates a possible reason for its wrongness. > [@](#): > > And you don’t see how dehumanizing her made the bolded bit easier? Sure I do–but I also see that it’s the dehumanization that’s wrong, not the curiosity that’s wrong. It’s possible to dehumanize someone without being curious, and doing so is wrong; it’s possible to be curious about someone without dehumanizing them, and doing so, I think, is not (absent other factors) wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/249 "2014-04-24T17:22:04Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Not really, no.I have agreed with you that it’s not malicious. That’s irrelevant to the wrongness. Motivation isn’t the issue here, action is. Well this is definitely one place we diverge then. Motivation i.e. intent, is critically important in judging the morality of an action IMO. It’s not the only factor but it is one of the most significant. And indeed here it’s pretty much the only factor as no harm occurred to any person. > [@](#): > > I think you misunderstand the meaning of Appeal to Common Practice - perhaps the alternate name “Appeal to Tradition” might make you see what I mean? You say this is just how they behave. That’s a fallacious argument if you want to show that what they do is acceptable. It’s a red herring. I would go with “straw man” rather than red herring, as I’ve never made such an argument. I’ve earlier suggested you quote where I have made that argument. Either do that, or drop it. > [@](#): > > a) doesn’t signify - they may do it to everyone because they’re horribly xenophobic all round (I don’t believe this, BTW) Yes, that could be the case, and this (finally) is a potential counter-argument. If we were to pursue this line I could mention some of the facts that make me suspect this is not the case; I already alluded one (that many of the people I’ve met seemed genuinely pleased to meet me and were incredibly welcoming), but since you have already rejected this hypothesis there’s no need. > [@](#): > > b) Given the fallacious nature of the “They do it to everyone, so they can’t be malicious” argument, the parent argument falls too. Again this fallacious argument is one I have never made. Indeed I gave the example of murdering people of all races to illustrate why it’s ridiculous. > [@](#): > > I’d make more allowances for someone in an undiscovered Brazilian tribe, but China is not a medieval kingdom, even in its hinterlands. Even Uyghur tribespeople have smartphones and TVs nowadays, ignorance is no excuse. The cultures are far less connected and mutually aware than you seem to be assuming though. Like I said, here in China skin colour is just a complete non-issue, and that’s a good thing. I wouldn’t want to import the situation in the US. That’s not to claim that China does not have any race or xenophobia issues…I haven’t said that, I’m just saying they don’t have _this one_. Nor is it saying that they should not learn about the history of slavery and the civil rights movement. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/250 "2014-04-25T06:57:27Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > it’s possible to be curious about someone without dehumanizing them, and doing so, I think, is not (absent other factors) wrong. I disagree - well, I disagree it’s possible to be curious about someone’s _racial features_, specifically, without dehumanizing them in some small way. Or perhaps **de-personalizing** them is a better term. > [@Mijin](#): > > Well this is definitely one place we diverge then. Motivation i.e. intent, is critically important in judging the morality of an action IMO. Nope. “Road to hell” etc. Outcomes matter. > [@](#): > > And indeed here it’s pretty much the only factor as no harm occurred to any person. No _immediate_ harm to _your_ one person, I agree. I’ve already outlined how I think it is harmful behaviour\* on aggregate\*. > [@](#): > > I would go with “straw man” rather than red herring, as I’ve never made such an argument. > I’ve earlier suggested you quote where I have made that argument. Either do that, or drop it. I’ve already done so, post 239. You disagree that that’s a valid interpretation of your words. Tough. The words are there - you say it’s their nature (“they’re just curious”), and make no negative judgement of this. This is exactly the same as saying “their behaviour is acceptable because it’s their common practice” > [@](#): > > Again this fallacious argument is one I have never made. It’s precisely the argument you made. > [@](#): > > Indeed I gave the example of murdering people of all races to illustrate why it’s ridiculous. A complete non-sequitur of an argument, which is why I ignored it. > [@](#): > > The cultures are far less connected and mutually aware than you seem to be assuming though. I’m not saying that _is_ the case, I’m saying that _should_ be the case - and it’s never going to get there if foreigners don’t object to being objectified. > [@](#): > > Like I said, here in China skin colour is just a complete non-issue, and that’s a good thing. If it were a non-issue, they wouldn’t notice it on foreigners. And if it were a non-issue, skin lightening creams wouldn’t be [doing big business](http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/13/asia.whitening/) in China. It’s, quite frankly, beyond ridiculous to claim the Chinese are colour-blind. It makes me question your perspicacity re: Chinese attitudes overall. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/251 "2014-04-25T07:44:49Z")
Well we’re obviously far past any meaningful discussion at this point. I have to at least reply to your last post because it is laden with so many factual errors and misrepresentations. But the thread’s trashed. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Nope. “Road to hell” etc. Outcomes matter. I didn’t say outcomes don’t matter. I was responding to your point that motivation/intent is _irrelevant_. Motive _is_ critically important in judging actions, and the legal systems of most of the world’s countries agree with me on that. But _very obviously_ I am not saying that the outcome of an action doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > The words are there - you say it’s their nature (“they’re just curious”), and make no negative judgement of this. This is exactly the same as saying "their behaviour is acceptable because it’s their common practice"It’s precisely the argument you made. No, it’s not. I’ve explained to you the distinction. I have never said it is acceptable because it’s common practice. I’m saying it’s acceptable because no harm is committed and there is no negative intent. You clearly have no argument here if you keep having to put words in my mouth. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying that _is_ the case, I’m saying that _should_ be the case Well, what you said was: “I’m afraid in the modern world, there’s no such thing as ‘a particular society’ any more”. Even if what you meant was it’s possible for people anywhere to research anything about any culture, it was very misleading in this context. > [@](#): > > And if it were a non-issue, skin lightening creams wouldn’t be [doing big business](http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/13/asia.whitening/) in China. I’m well aware that there is a fashion among some women here that lighter skin tones are more aesthetically pleasing. However, it’s no more a race issue than Western women going to a tanning salon. > [@](#): > > It’s, quite frankly, beyond ridiculous to claim the Chinese are colour-blind. It makes me question your perspicacity re: Chinese attitudes overall. Indeed…so ridiculous perhaps what you should question first is whether you have read what I actually said or just invented your own argument again. I didn’t use the term “colour-blind” and by “non-issue”, in the context of our discussion and what I’d previously elaborated, I obviously meant not a race issue. They don’t have any “dark-skinned people have behaviour X” stereotypes. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/252 "2014-04-25T08:54:45Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Expect =/= Accept. Yes, it does, at least in these sorts of contexts. If I wasn’t willing to accept it, I’d find somewhere else for my holiday. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/253 "2014-04-25T09:10:32Z")
I don’t think it’s necessarily racist but it is clearly offensive, at least in the US. Much of the world has a far more relaxed attitude towards this and that can’t be a bad thing. The pity of it is that minstrel shows were vitally important in the history of American entertainment and form the roots of most modern forms of American popular music. They brought African-American rhythms and musical forms into the mainstream. It’s sad that we can’t celebrate that without fixating on the fact that white guys put on blackface to sing. (Although it shouldn’t be forgotten that there were some celebrated African-American minstrel shows). ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/254 "2014-04-25T09:53:46Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I don’t think it’s necessarily racist but it is clearly offensive, at least in the US. Much of the world has a far more relaxed attitude towards this and that can’t be a bad thing. > > The pity of it is that minstrel shows were vitally important in the history of American entertainment and form the roots of most modern forms of American popular music. They brought African-American rhythms and musical forms into the mainstream. It’s sad that we can’t celebrate that without fixating on the fact that white guys put on blackface to sing. (Although it shouldn’t be forgotten that there were some celebrated African-American minstrel shows). See Michelle Shocked’s album Arkansas Traveler referenced above. Minstrel Show in good taste- celebrating the originals. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/255 "2014-04-25T11:46:23Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I didn’t say outcomes don’t matter. You said “here [motivation]'s pretty much **the only factor** ” - no word there on outcomes. > [@](#): > > I was responding to your point that motivation/intent is _irrelevant_. Motive _is_ critically important in judging actions, and the legal systems of most of the world’s countries agree with me on that And that’s great, _if_ we were discussing a racist crime rather than wrong (i.e undesirable) actions. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. I’ve explained to you the distinction. I have never said it is acceptable because it’s common practice. I’m saying it’s acceptable because no harm is committed and there is no negative intent. **And you cite common practice as evidence for the lack of negative intent**. Hence common practice -\> no bad intent -\> acceptable. > [@](#): > > You clearly have no argument here if you keep having to put words in my mouth. They’re your own words, don’t blame me if you can’t follow your own chain of logic. > [@](#): > > Well, what you said was: “I’m afraid in the modern world, there’s no such thing as ‘a particular society’ any more”. > Even if what you meant was it’s possible for people anywhere to research anything about any culture, it was very misleading in this context. I’ve explained what I mean by this, how can you _now_ claim it’s misleading? When I made the initial statement, maybe. But then the thing to do is ask me to elaborate, the way I asked you to give me examples of things you were talking about. > [@](#): > > I’m well aware that there is a fashion among some women here that lighter skin tones are more aesthetically pleasing. However, it’s no more a race issue than Western women going to a tanning salon. You think societal attitudes towards skin tones are going to remain segregated from societal attitudes towards groups with a tendency to particular skin tones? Are you really that naive? > [@](#): > > Indeed…so ridiculous perhaps what you should question first is whether you have read what I actually said or just invented your own argument again. I didn’t use the term “colour-blind” This is an interesting game you are playing, where every time I don’t use your _exact_ phrase, you say I’m inventing things. Your exact words were “here in China skin colour is just a complete non-issue”, I paraphrase it as “colour-blind”, and that’s putting words in your mouth? Are you really this much of a fussy pedant all the time? > [@](#): > > and by “non-issue”, in the context of our discussion and what I’d previously elaborated, I obviously meant not a race issue. They don’t have any “dark-skinned people have behaviour X” stereotypes. Forgive me if I don’t really trust your say-so on this, as I can find any number of internet sources that say different. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/256 "2014-04-25T16:29:22Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > You said “here [motivation]'s pretty much **the only factor** ” - no word there on outcomes. Let’s review. You said that motivation / intent is irrelevant. When I called you on it, instead of just saying “Well, OK, it’s not _irrelevant_” or something like that, you instead accuse me of saying the opposite: that the outcome of an action doesn’t matter. As if anyone would make such a ridiculous claim. And to support this, you’ve pulled a fragment of a sentence out, that you and I both know is out of context. It’s sad, really. > [@](#): > > you cite common practice as evidence for the lack of negative intent\*\*. Hence common practice -\> no bad intent -\> acceptable. They’re your own words, don’t blame me if you can’t follow your own chain of logic. “Common practice” has never been a part of my argument; it’s the straw man argument you wish had been put to you. > [@](#): > > I’ve explained what I mean by this, how can you _now_ claim it’s misleading? When I made the initial statement, maybe. I’m only _now_ mentioning that earlier post of yours because it’s only _now_ you’ve contradicted yourself on that point. So…do you have a response? > [@](#): > > You think societal attitudes towards skin tones are going to remain segregated from societal attitudes towards groups with a tendency to particular skin tones? Are you really that naive? A minority of Chinese women use skin lightening products. The point I put to you was that a large number of Western women (and men) go to tanning salons or lie in the sun with the intention of getting a tan: if some women lightening their tone is proof of beliefs about race, then what does the greater phenomenon of tanning imply? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/257 "2014-04-28T11:36:48Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > This would be easy to get away with if Morris dancers were stuck in Brigadoon. They’re not, they show up on Youtube. Sure, no-one in their live audience is going to take offence (or wouldn’t have 30 years ago - demographics change) but nowadays? Whether people are offended is not the barometer of something being racist. The question is whether it is actually disparaging of race either in intent or in result. It’s not the fact that someone is offended that makes something wrong, but what wrong attributes cause the offense. The Moors weren’t actually black, but just somewhat darker skinned, and no one claims to to be a Moor today. So it’s really hard for anything designed around them to be racist. The majority of people that would have been called Moors in the past would be called white today. I do not agree with you that the concept of race is in and of itself racist, and, unless you are willing to acknowledge that your opinion is unusual, I’m not sure we can discuss the topic while you have a completely different definition of the term. If the mere statement that “I am white” or “Someone else is black” is racist, then we’re into that area where insignificant statements are being called racist, and all you do is make racism more acceptable by watering it down. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/258 "2014-04-28T20:33:24Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Let’s review. Let’s not. > [@](#): > > You said that motivation / intent is irrelevant. When I called you on it, instead of just saying “Well, OK, it’s not _irrelevant_” or something like that, you instead accuse me of saying the opposite: that the outcome of an action doesn’t matter. As if anyone would make such a ridiculous claim. I quoted where you did exactly that. > [@](#): > > And to support this, you’ve pulled a fragment of a sentence out, that you and I both know is out of context. Context doesn’t change the words you wrote. > [@](#): > > It’s sad, really. Yes, it really is. You wrote the words, but you don’t like the implications. > [@](#): > > “Common practice” has never been a part of my argument; No, it’s the name for the fallacy you based your argument on. > [@](#): > > it’s the straw man argument you wish had been put to you. And yet you can’t seem to point out where the logical chain I quoted is not your argument… > [@](#): > > I’m only _now_ mentioning that earlier post of yours because it’s only _now_ you’ve contradicted yourself on that point. I haven’t contradicted myself at all - explanation isn’t contradiction. > [@](#): > > So…do you have a response? Not really anything I can say in GD, no. > [@](#): > > A minority of Chinese women use skin lightening products. Sure, _technically_ 46% is a minority (that’s [a 2007 number](http://books.google.co.za/books?id=WewhspE2Q9UC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=skin+lightening+China+%22percent+of+women%22&source=bl&ots=nJeXkFvnxa&sig=sNstNv2wxODhjnHRKd6TjZPLYMo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=arheU8GXIIj_OaWSgeAP&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=skin%20lightening%20China%20%22percent%20of%20women%22&f=false), though, and was set to grow dramatically, so it might be over 50%now) > [@](#): > > if some women lightening their tone is proof of beliefs about race I didn’t say this. In fact, I think the opposite is true - that the Chinese attitude to skin colour comes first (for historic noble vs peasant reasons), and colours their perceptions of race, not the other way around. > [@](#): > > , then what does the greater phenomenon of tanning imply? Jungle fever?:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2014, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/259 "2014-04-28T20:43:54Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Whether people are offended is not the barometer of something being racist. It very much can be > [@](#): > > The Moors weren’t actually black, but just somewhat darker skinned, and no one claims to to be a Moor today. So it’s really hard for anything designed around them to be racist. The majority of people that would have been called Moors in the past would be called white today. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The people of Europe saw them as darker Others. What they _actually_ were is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I do not agree with you that the concept of race is in and of itself racist, and, unless you are willing to acknowledge that your opinion is unusual The continued use of a scientifically disproven category system for classifying human beings is always going to be racist. > [@](#): > > , I’m not sure we can discuss the topic while you have a completely different definition of the term. So don’t discuss it then. > [@](#): > > If the mere statement that “I am white” or “Someone else is black” is racist, then we’re into that area where insignificant statements are being called racist, and all you do is make racism more acceptable by watering it down. It’s the people who actually do buy into the unscientific concept of race that make it acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660/260 "2014-04-29T05:27:16Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I quoted where you did exactly that. No, you didn’t. You quoted a part of a sentence, deliberately omitting context. Additionally, you then used no logic/argument at all to claim that what I _meant_ was, “it’s OK because it’s common practice”. Which I’ve never said or implied. Why don’t you try debating the points actually being put to you? You may find it much more interesting. > [@](#): > > Jungle fever?:rolleyes: Here you choose to lower the tone (again) instead of address the point being put to you. Again: If we can infer racial (or indeed class-based beliefs) about the Chinese by the fact a minority of women use whitening products, what can we infer from the use of tanning salons in the West? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-black-face-necessarily-racist/686660.md?page=14)