So in your world, all those parades of my childhood in which a white man and his pageant representing black people were honored were evil? We didn’t have any actual black people available to play the roles; as soon as we got them, we started doing our best to cast them, but they still have to accept. Is casting a black man as that character evil as well, when it turns out it’s someone who had never heard of the character before? The casting is completely based on his race.
They are not “Spanish F1 fans”, they’re “Spanish Alonso fans”. Different animal: the first group actually likes F1, the second one likes Fernando Alonso.
Do I need to? Splitting the human race into smaller groups along completely arbitrary lines based on superficial physical characteristics is evil in-and-of itself
Pretty much, yes. Small-e evil, but not good, no. Why the need to dress anyone up? all it does is emphasise physical difference.
And yet you can’t tell me what makes a particular skin colour “African”…:dubious:
“Ill-defined” is the only thing you’ve gotten right, so far.
Just because you can’t actually answer my questions, is no reason to give up. I know, cognitive dissonance hurts…
For those that now seem to want to get into an argument as to what actually is a “race”, may I point you towards this:
Specifically section 3:2:b and the end of the “Concise Encyclopedia” note. I honestly believe this should be stickied somewhere as it seems like every time the word “racism” is used someone starts making weird claims about what is or is not a race.
[QUOTE=Concise Encyclopedia]
"Race” is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history.
[/QUOTE]
to
[QUOTE=Pjen]
Diseases do discriminate by ‘real’ racial characteristics- genetic markers often only obtained through a particular genettic/racial heritage
[/QUOTE]
???
I’m using the definition of race that my opponent seems to be i.e. that it’s genetic.
I think you might as well include 3:2:a and 3:3:c in the functional definition as relates to racism (unless you think they are implied by the catch-all ‘or characteristics’ bit of 3:2:b
But within that are broad groups with similarities physical attributes ranging from facial features, to skin colour to their DNA that allow classification into non-discrete, ill defined classes.
There are further cultural differences that are non-genetic but may be physical or mental.
Humans are necessarily discriminating animals and they divide humanity up into categories- friend and foe, like and unlike and so on. Some of these categorisations have validity and utility for different reasons, others do not. Each claimed class needs to be justified in it own terms.
Pretending such racialisation does not exist is stupid- it obviously does.
So you would rather we had had someone completely pale and undistinctive representing black folks? And how were we supposed to explain to children that this white guy represented black people? Or is it directly that having someone represent black people (while two other guys represent brown people and glow-in-the-dark people) is wrong?
Aside from the painted faces (which are the contended issue), is anything that’s happening here recognisable as stereotypically or caricature/mockery of something commonly associated with… well, any racial/ethnic group you can think of?
Are these dancers obviously mocking black people? Is this a* racist dance*? This is the problem I have. I can’t see any mockery happening at all. In fact, if there was some behavioural mockery, then it would be present in some of the other Morris traditions where their faces aren’t painted - because the dances and costumes are similar.
Subcontinentals (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc.) are a mix of two distinct racial groups (Ancient North Indians and Ancient South Indians), one of which is pretty distinct from most other populations (besides the Andamanese). So subcontinentals are definitely a racially distinct population from most other groups, even though they are (like all of us) a mix of ancestries. I’m not sure quite what your point is here.
And no, the Morris dancers dressed up as Moors aren’t racist. It’s a pity that even needs to be stated- this whole controversy is really too silly for words.
I’d rather black people ‘represent’ black people. Failing that, I’d prefer the people doing it didn’t focus on one minor physical attribute, that isn’t unique to that group, as a shorthand for an entire ethnicity.
Distinctive costumes? A placard?Tell them?
The white guy representing brown people would be wrong too. Since glow-in-the-dark people are fictional, there’s nothing wrong with that one.
*If *they’re painted to represent Black people (and I think they are, given the origins of the name “Morris”, but you may not) then there doesn’t need to be any further element of mockery.
Because real-life Black people are not coal-black. Especially Moors. So it’s already an exaggerated caricature of Black people’s physical features.
I have another question. Please don’t misunderstand this, it is asked in complete earnest.
If the producers of the Black And White Minstrels Show had decided (say, in 1976) to switch to navy blue face paint, or green or lilac (but with no other changes to the format, style, etc), would the show still be mocking/parodying black people?
What I’m asking is: is it the blacking up, or the musical style, mannerisms and choreography?
I suspect it’s a combination of them all, but what I want to know is: what would have to be changed to make it not-racist?
This does also go back to Border Morris - because:
[ul]
[li]It was suggested upthread that they just use a different colour.[/li][li]Some Border Morris groups have already done that, to avoid being involved in this sort of debate.[/li][/ul]
If all the Border Morris groups suddenly agreed to start using blue paint instead of black, is that the end of all controversy? If not, what is the root of it?
