I live in the US, and the US government is not allowed to ban shows just because they are racially offensive. Where do you live? Is the government allowed to ban racially offensive shows there?
Been busy IRL. Sorry for the apparent drive-by.
My take is that it may be racialist- based on race (Moors etc) but it probably does not have enough intent to be racist- based on race and generally objectionable.
Many things are based on race (not that race is a well defined object) but have little in them to complain about. Many other things are based on race and are socially unacceptable.
I certainly accept that the Western world needs to give due credence to claims of racism (because of its lamentable history over chattel slavery and social beliefs consequent on that) but causes such as this are responsible for considerable racist blow-back. Lancashire where this is happening is one of the most racially fraught areas of the UK with covert war between groups of ethnic Sub-continent Asians and ethnic Britons (or at least people who claim those appellations.)
Challenging such rather silly traditions and making a big issue out of it feeds the white racism endemic in the area. Ignoring it and accepting that in the modern world there will be interesting occurrences at the boundary between different social groups may be the best policy.
Calling it racist and seeing it as comparable to disgusting overt racism is possibly counter-productive.
That’s not what I asked you.
I’m in this thread to make clear that I think it’s racist. And even though I’m a minority, my opinion counts. And I’m more then fed up with having to explain why things that are obviously racist are, in fact racist. And I’m tired of having to be the one to always provide cites and provide evidence. Let the people who are claiming it isn’t racist provide evidence for a change. Let the ones defending racism have to provide the cites. Because if someone can look at this situation and not think something’s wrong, there’s no amount of cites I can provide that can convince them.
It’s quite likely that all of these are little more than educated guesses on the part of anthropologists and historians, made in the absence of any firm leads.
IMO, it seems more likely to be linked to storytelling or ritual archetypes representing some sort of folkloric '‘mysterious stranger’ character - along with the Green Man etc (or Spring Heeled Jack, The Elder Mother, Silkies, The Church Grim, etc.)
Yours is the assertion. Yours is the burden of proof.
Rescind your comments about “bans” in post #55, and make it clear that we’re not talking about bans, and that I never mentioned the word “ban,” and then I will take your last post as independent from post #55.
I stand by my terminology. Things can be based on race (whatever that is) without being stereotypical.
Now if the black-face was seen as more foolish or as less valued than the other players, that would be stereotyping, and devaluing, but mere greasepaint does not imply that.
I have few problems with white actors playing Othello the Moor (with or without greasepaint), and even fewer with Modern non-white skinned British actors playing historical characters in dramas where someone of their rthnic heritage would never have been so- we recently had an English Actress of Afro-Caribbean background (dark enough and with believable facial features to play the child of two Jamaicans in a previous series) playing Guinevere.
Race and ethnicity is not everything.
How about you rescind your comments denouncing many of the participants in this thread as racists and/or Klan members first?
Oh, what happened? I thought you were going to look up cites for us? Now you’re going to try to get out of it, aren’t you?
These dances are racist. People who support them are racist.
But, you could actually prove me wrong. Why not? I mean, after all, if it’s so easy to prove that these dances aren’t racist, the proof should be easily found, right?
Really? You’re the one asking for retractions, in this thread?
Lol. Not even trying to be coherent are you?
Maybe you should read more carefully the exact words of the post #55.
He does not accuse you of doing this but refers to bans being called for- which they have been in this and other cases.
If it was was so obviously racist you wouldn’t have to explain it. The fact you do suggests it’s not as obvious a situation as you claim.
As Mangetout explained, it doesn’t work like that. You can’t expect people prove a negative. The current default setting for this scenario is “Not Racist” and it’s up to you, the one making a claim to the contrary, to provide evidence to support that stance.
Or maybe - and I just want to throw this out there as a suggestion - it’s because there isn’t anything wrong with it, or at least nothing wrong enough to get worked up about over, as Pjen suggests?
Explained already in post #54. I’m obviously not going to be able to uncover the true history of these characters, if generations of professional historians and anthropologists have already come up empty.
I’m fairly sure, however, I can demonstrate that the manner in which these dances are performed does not include any obvious racist behaviours or intent.
So you have repeatedly and strenuously asserted. Prove it.
You’re asking me to prove a negative.
The name doesn’t help… not hard to make the link between “morris” and moorish".
Part of the issue may be that this mysterious stranger, effectively the Ur-Other, has tended to be dark (as an obvious counterpoint to light) but without any specific racial overtones… Day vs Night, Light vs Dark, Clean vs Dirty, Fresh vs Soiled and so on.
The problem comes when you introduce another group into society who are also given the role of “other”, but this time specifically due to their skin colour. Then it’s not unreasonable for people to make a superficial link between the Ur-Other of the Morris, and the specifically racialised Other.
If a non-white person paints his face white to perform as a clown, is that racist?
Can I ask you where you are? I’ve been told repeatedly in this thread that my opinion doesn’t count because I’m not in the UK. So, for us to take your post seriously, according to posters in this thread, you have to be in the UK.
Don’t worry. I’m sure if you’re not in the UK, a bunch of posters here will rush in to tell you that your opinion is irrelevant simply for the fact that you are not in the UK. That apparently is normal in this thread.
No, but a person asking this question probably is racist.
Putting on my searching cap, I can find quite a few instances of “blackface/darkie/blackmoore” iconography (and such) in British culture. Mummer’s/Darkie Day, Britannia Coco-nut Dancers, Gollys, TV/movie characters.