My racial characteristics are middle coloured skin (not African, not Nordic), large nose with roundish eyes (not oriental), tall and very straight hair that once was brown, but now grey.
Anyone would identify me as a dark skinned European.
Stop the bullshit and go away.
Are you going to define me into exhaustion/submission or something?
Blacking your face is a parody of people with black skin. Full stop. Parodying people with black skin is mocking them. Full stop.
Race is ill defined. All of the above are possible racial descriptions.
That may be your view (Try IMHO Forum) but it is not factual.
It depends what you mean by Parody and whether imitation or Portrayal is always Parody.
Do you believe that all Portrayal is necessarily Parody.
Make your point, don’t state your opinion.
You can call it a silly/good-natured/historical/culturally-important (or whatever) parody; but that’s on you. It still is what it is. Blackface/blackmoor/darkie dancing*.
*Not all Morris dancing just the blackfacers
Is this offensive?
3 minutes in
No, just looking for someone, anyone, to support the bald assertions that have been made about the Border Morris example of face-blacking, to wit: That it even originates as imitation of naturally dark skinned people.
Wow. So Dick Van Dyke was mocking black people in the movie Mary Poppins?
Or this:
Is all imitation parody?
Simple question.
Also: is all resemblance imitation?
No, context is still important in life. Your example of Rowan Atkinson and Lenny Henry parodying Martin Bashir and Michael Jackson (respectively), is still imitation/parody/mockery, its also funny.
That was not the question.
The question was:
“Is all imitation Parody?”
The question you seem to have chosen to answer is:
“Is all Parody Imitation?”
which is necessarily true.
Now answer the important one.
I’d argue it’s a difference of degree, no more - merely outlining difference on racial lines is evil intent enough.
Are you prepared to leave whether it’s harmful or not up to the group in question?
USA =/= universally. And no, it’s not “universally accepted” as a race. Personally, I’d say it’s an ethnicity.
That may be. Sickle-cell isn’t it.
Fallacy of the excluded middle.
It possibly may be (although not in your examples) but that’s overshadowed by the social and medical harm or waste that would happen e.g. an Italian not getting tested for Sickle Cell “because he’s White”, or a South African Black getting tested for it unnecessarily (since it has very low prevalence here)
???
No, context is still important in life.
Such as? Sickle-cell isn’t it - it’s very much tied to geography not racial characteristics…
What’s “African”-coloured skin, please?
How is it different from Indian skin or Melanesian skin or Aborigine skin?
Or Indian or Persian or North African or Coloured or …
Nope.
Not when your idea of “racial characteristics” are skin colour and nose shape, I’m not.
OP:
Yes. Always assume that and you can’t go wrong.
Care to defend that statement?
It feels like you’re saying “because I think it’s racist it therefore is racist”, with no possible argument against it.
It’s been discussed before but **Nava **will provide experience elsewhere in Europe that dressing up in blackface is not viewed as racist in every case. The example often used is Spanish F1 fans dressing up as Lewis Hamilton.
That seems at odds with what you were insisting at the top of this page (where it seemed to me that you were saying context was irrelevant).
Is all imitation Parody?
You can’t or won’t answer and big text does not answer any question.
