I may be wildly all by myself, here, but I’d say I’m OK with making “don’t reduce Black people to just their skin colour” a universally-acceptable rule. I’m prepared to allow that this is a risky move…
I’m OK with ‘Paki’ still being one that’s up for debate. Meanwhile, I’m going to continue not using the term myself.
I’m not even sure how we got here, but:
a) the graped phrase contains a contradiction already discussed (the term ‘black’ IS exactly such a reduction)
and
b) is it always ‘reduction’ in such a negative sense?
This is clearly being obtuse.
You’ve described repeatedly how blacking up involves choosing a single skin tone, usually very dark as you put it. But you are completely unable to fathom an alternative, despite the fact I’ve described it several times?
I brought this up in the context of contrasting it with blackface in my first post of the thread. The only reason I’m still talking about it is because you are disagreeing with me, so I’m defending my position.
I didn’t say anything about someone touching my hair. 
The situation is not what you seem to be imagining / assuming.
Outside of the main cities in China, just about anyone that is not Han Chinese is somewhat of a “natural curiosity”, including whites, but not in a pejorative way.
I recently did some volunteer work at a hospital and people seemed really pleased to meet me; many people told me they’d never met someone non-Han, or heard Mandarin being spoken by someone not raised in the language.
But sure, if you want to project on to that some kind of confederate america image, and see them as malicious racists, go for it.
So where are Pjen’s stats to back up the suggestion that interracial marriage is more common in the U.K. compared to the U.S.?*
All I see is an article covering different issues entirely.
Yes, we’ve been over that. It’s also a bad thing. Replace it with “Africans” and the sense is the same.
Yes. It’s dehumanizing to reduce any group to a non-representative cypher. And dehumanizing people is bad.
Yes, I am, because I’ve only ever seen it done the other way. IME any tone dark enough to look dark on exposed skin totally loses realism in the shaded parts of the body.
Unless you’re describing a movie FX-level make-up job, which I’ve already covered.
Without being able to illustrate what you mean. So it’s a purely hypothetical magic make-up job - sure, your magic make-up job isn’t racist. Happy?
I didn’t say anyone touched your hair. I said I wouldn’t stand for it if it was done to me. Because it’s a typical othering behaviour I’ve read about. Not just in countries that don’t have many Africans, either. That shit even happens in the US and Canada when you go into the less diverse boonies.
I didn’t say it was pejorative, and “it happens to Whites too” is a logical fallacy.
One of us is projecting, but it isn’t me. I didn’t say they were malicious. Just wrong.
Genuine question–can you elaborate on this?
I think about when I was a kid and we went to Guatemala. My dad, a physician, had brought some medicine, and one of the things we did was to deliver it to some medical centers in rural Quechua (sp?) areas of the country. I and my sister are red-heads, and some of the locals were totally fascinated by our (okay, my sister’s–I was a gangly thirteen-year-old, not quite as lovely) hair.
If it bothered her because it was sexual harassment or for any other reason, of course it’d be in her bailiwick to ask them to knock it off (or more likely for one of the adults to ask them to knock it off). But if she didn’t mind–if she was comfortable indulging curiosity about her hair–would that be a problem? Would its problematic nature center on her whiteness, such that it’d be a different level of problematic if she had thick kinky black hair that Quechua folks were curious about instead of having thick wavy red hair?
Definitely I get why it’s icky for white folks in the US to want to touch the hair of black folks. It seems to me that that ickiness is inextricably tied up in our history and how white culture is still so dysfunctional, failing to get over our loss of privilege from the Jim Crow era. I’m not clear on how that ickiness would transfer into a setting divorced from Jim Crow (or apartheid or other institutionalized anti-black racism).
Curious about your thoughts.
On the logical fallacy bit or what you asked below? The way you quoted me makes me uncertain.
It’s icky to treat real, live people as curiosities - it dehumanizes people. Sure, it may be harmless or even flattering to any particular individual, but taken as aggregate behaviour, it’s not a nett positive. So it should be opposed even if a particular individual or group of individuals doesn’t mind, or a particular setting isn’t historically oppressive of that particular group. Because it isn’t always harmless, and it just perpetrates the notion of some humans as Other Than Us. And that leads to all kinds of bad effects, historically, and far less good ones. In fact, I’m struggling to think of any good ones at all, but I’m sure there must be.
I’m curious about both parts. Why is, in the context of rural China, “it happens to white people” a logical fallacy?
See, I’m thinking that the problem with Sarah Baartman is the slavery bit and the treating her like a zoo animal bit and the massive racism that went with it. I’m not sure that’s analogous to a genuine curiosity about a human body that looks different from the bodies you’re used to seeing.
I think that the curiosity about folks that look (or sound) different is a pretty normal reaction that we trumped-up-monkeys have to seeing trumped-up-monkeys from different tribes, so to speak, and it’s much healthier to have that sort of curiosity than to be fearful and suspicious of folks with different physical or cultural characteristics.
At the same time, that curiosity must be balanced both against historical oppression, in which folks’ culture gets commodified and fetishized, and against the individual’s right to privacy and bodily integrity. So I’m not going to ask a dude from Jamaica to say Yah Mon, and I’m not going to reach out and rub a chemotherapy patient’s bald scalp, no matter what my curiosity on the subject might be.
But absent either historical oppression or an individual’s desire to protect privacy, I don’t see the curiosity, or its satisfaction, as a problem.
Am I wrong?
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. “They do it to everybody” is just a version of Appeal to Common Practice.
And you don’t see how dehumanizing her made the bolded bit easier?
You’d be right if it was just an isolated thing that happens to one person ever. But it’s not.
The thing is, having a different skin colour is a hugely obvious thing, especially in places with an overwhelmingly dominant ethnicity. You can’t just pretend that the only white person in a town full of Asians, or the only black person in a function room full of white people, don’t stand out to the point where people are going to notice the fact.
Yeah, I guess so, since we’re now in agreement on that point. A genuine attempt to copy someone’s skin colour is not inherently racist, though things which are not inherently racist may still be unacceptable in a particular culture for historical reasons.
Well it was quite confusing that you brought that up at that exact moment, when we were both talking about a specific event that happened to me and why you thought it was wrong.
Just throwing out a different anecdote is not an explanation.
No, it’s not.
If I had argued “Everyone in China does this” or “It’s been like this for centuries”, and that that makes it OK…then I would be committing that fallacy.
What I did instead was point out that they are treating all races equally on this issue – which is pretty clearly not racism.
All they are doing is noticing that someone who looks novel to them…looks novel to them.
Noticing it is not a problem, and expected. “Treat like a curiosity” isn’t quite the same thing.
Because it was part of a broader conversation. But I get that you were confused, and I apologise for causing that.
It wasn’t an anecdote, it was an example of the kind of behaviour people do to Others that I find wrong.
Yes, it is
“They Do It to Everyone” is just as much Appeal to Common Practice as “They’ve Always Done It” is. You’re saying treating non-Chinese as Others is their traditional practice.
Do they do it to Han Chinese? No? Then it’s racism.
Look, if all you’re talking about is them noticing you’re different, then we’ve been talking at cross-purposes. I’ve clearly been talking about people treating Others as curiosities - touching them, making constant remarks, following them around in the street. I’m not talking about someone at a party where you’re the only non-Chinese just saying something about the fact. That is expected and acceptable, and if *that’s *the kind of thing you were talking about, this has been pointless.
Mijin - to elaborate: I got the impression from your initial post that they constantly talk to you about the difference. If it’s an occasional thing, and mostly on first meeting you, that’s not wrong.
It is just a first meeting thing, so I think we are in agreement on this, and the only remaining thing is:
To commit the fallacy would be to say that because most do it, or it goes back a long way, then it must be a sensible / acceptable behaviour. I’ve said no such thing.
I mentioned that they treat whites the same as blacks on this, which is an observation about the behaviour itself. I mentioned it because it supports the point that they are not curious about meeting a black person because they believe any kind of stereotype about black people or have particular expectations. They do it because it’s a very racially homogenous country in many parts, and they are just curious to meet someone that looks different.
It is also fallacious to say because they do it to everyone, therefore it must be acceptable. “It’s just their way” is the same fallacy, and that’s effectively what you’ve said…
Fair enough. I guess I just wanted to highlight the difficulty of setting the tolerance level at absolute zero. I don’t actually think it’s possible, practical, or in all cases, preferable to the status quo (for small enough values of ‘wrong’ - the act of correcting them may bring about net consequences that are worse than the problem).
Neither of the statements you just made here is what I have said.
Go ahead and quote me.
What I actually said is what I just summarized for you in post #235.
Forgive me if I read the lack of you making any negative comment whatsoever about their behaviour, as you saying it’s acceptable. If I’m wrong, and you think the behaviour is unacceptable, then feel free to say so. Otherwise, yes, your explaining their behaviour is saying it’s acceptable.
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. OK, you didn’t say “everyone”, you said “just about anyone that is not Han Chinese”.
This US white male found the music charming and the video alarming at a gut level. Yes, yes, it’s from a different culture: I got that.
Back to the vid. The players didn’t look like they had just crawled out of a coal mine. I’d be ok with black powder, though I still wouldn’t want something like that in the US. And hell, racism doesn’t exactly kick me in the teeth. The players looked as if they were wearing masks that caricatured blacks. Distasteful. If I visited the UK, I wouldn’t object to such a display because I’d want to act like a respectful guest. I would however be inclined to walk away: it gives me the creeps, as does pretty much any form of black greasepaint.