Another question: have you ever displayed any Old Mammy memorabilia or a Lawn Jockey?
We didn’t have a lawn jockey but I’ve seen quite a few. I’m not sure which is worse: leaving the original blackface or “whitewashing” them. Either way, they’re extremely tacky.
Still better than lawn butts though.
The reported offensiveness of “lawn jockeys” didn’t make sense to me as a kid. But that’s because the only kind I ever saw were the thin, fox-hunting-suited White ones (according to Wikipedia, these are called “Cavalier Spirit” models, a term I’ve never encountered before):
It wasn’t until my teens that I saw the racist “Jocko” lawn jockeys:
These have been the subject of much parody. The “21 Club” in Manhattan has dozen of the Cavalier Spirit jockeys outside The cover of the April 1973 National Lampoon had a “White” lawn jockey outside what looks like an urban brownstone:
Here’s the thing that the ‘what’s the big deal’ people don’t seem to get - would he have darkened up to play an Italian, or lightened up to play a Swede? I doubt it, I’ve never seen people feel the need to do that. The idea that you can dress as a white guy by changing your hair and outfit, but need to put on dark makeup if you’re going to dress as a black guy (even one as fair-skinned as Micheal Jackson) is explicitly treating black people as distinctly ‘other’ in a way that white people of various shades aren’t.
I’ll note that Weird Al Yankovic has been dressing as black celebrities to mock them for decades but oddly enough has never felt the need to wear blackface while doing so, and I’ve never heard of any significant number of people not getting that he’s trying to look like Michael Jackson or Coolio or whoever.
In looking through the old Virginia med school yearbook from my father’s graduation year, I found an architect’s drawing of an impressive high-rise building captioned:
“Proposed New Hospital For Whites”. :eek::smack:
There’s a farm in Wisconsin that has two out by the highway, but they are painted in green and gold NFL uniforms and have Packer helmets. I think that’s OK.
eta: Found it
No. I dressed up as a girl one Halloween, but no blackface. Seemed to have missed that one.
I haven’t, but I am not at all sure that I wouldn’t have if an occasion called for it. I don’t think I even knew that blackface was offensive until I read a post here relatively recently (say, sometime between 2003 and 2008) about a blackface-themed college party.
Is it offensive if it is done in genuine admiration? I think most people would recognize that you were specifically Hendrix, as opposed to just a random Black man - if you had on a paisley shirt and were holding a white Stratocaster.
A lot of people had a similar line of thought. The concensus is, yes it is. Mainly bc of the history of it, and beyond that , if you know it might be and still do it you’re at the very least discounting what others might feel about it.
This is an excellent and thoughtful point. It’s not like you need to change your skin color to successfully impersonate Michael Jackson – the costume/voice/moves are all pretty iconic by themselves.
Yes, it is offensive precisely because you feel the need to black up in order for it to be a Hendrix costume, but wouldn’t white up if you were dressing as a white guitarist. I am pretty sure the idea of putting on white makeup to look like a guitarist who’s usually untanned never even occurred to you, nor did matching skin tones with any of the European descended guitarists.
This sounds pretty racist.
Let me elaborate. That sounds extremely racist.
No, unless you count some candle-soot smudges on my face once when I was dressed as a hobo for Halloween. I was maybe eight.
I love that you thought your answer was insufficient, so you clarified by using a bigger adverb.
If you’re using a definition of “racist” that applies to Ulfreida’s post – a post that boils down to, “only the folks being mocked should get to evaluate how harmful the mockery is”–you’ve got a pretty trifling definition of “racist.”
Let me elaborate. You’ve got an extremely trifling definition of “racist.”
I have never worn blackface but know people who have. At an Anthropology Club Halloween party in my undergrad university, one student and his roommate came as black men. Not just blackface but blackbody. Even the black students thought it was funny. They were so unrecognizable that the host thought a couple of black guys were committing a home invasion and almost called the police.
Dutch here. I have dressed up as Black Pete several times. You have Santa and his elves; we have Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet (Black Pete).
Only in the last 8 years or so have the Dutch started to admit that the Black Pete tradition may be hurtful to colored people. But many, most actually, still hold the position that Black Pete is a beloved innocent folk tradition and that calling it racist is pc ness taken entirely too far.
https://www.google.nl/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/12/black-pete-christmas-zwarte-piet-dutch
You can’t say “colored people”–you have to say “people of color.” If you fail to find this a difference of meaningful, prepare to face people of anger who will consider you a person of racism.
NAACP = The National Association for the Advancement of** Colored People** is a civil rights organization in the United States, formed in 1909 as a bi-racial endeavor to advance justice for African Americans by a group including W. E. B. Du Bois, Mary White Ovington and Moorfield Storey.
Do you really think blacks would give a prominent black organization a racist name? “colored people” is not racist; it is simply out of style.
My god, the petulance of people upset about changing social norms.