As a WAG you sound rather bitter, which I understand. Probably no empirical reason but I respect bitter much more than whiny. Whiny strikes me as someone who is complaining mainly because they were told they should and now they have time to be outraged about an emoji or something. Bitter makes me think someone has real experience.
It’s hard to sympathize with someone whining about emojis when I know people whos parents were targeted by a program to move them to cities in order to " breed them out of existence" ( natives in the 60s)
Or peoples parents who had their land directly stolen (40s) bc " oh let’s build a military base"… " ok we’ll buy the land from Farmers" …" unless they’re black or Indian then we’ll just take it".
" We’re almost over budget"… " ok we’ll stop buying land, just steal nearby land from more blacks and indians and then trade it"
Or even like my grandmother who because she was poor was put in some program in school where they dressed the poor kids in like druid robes and made their special classrooms open air through the winter in northern Ohio. This was supposed to make them able to subsist on less food or something.
She says they weren’t allowed to speak to other kids, though the newspaper article plays it off as fattening them up with fresh air or some crap.
This is fairly recent stuff that you don’t even hear about.
I don’t see it and there is clearly zero racist intent or malice behind it. The whole point of the sketch is to take a person of the highest moral character and have them behave in a reprehensible way.
I see Nelson Mandela being made fun of and that’s it. It makes zero difference to me that the actor portraying him is white. In other shock news he isn’t from South Africa either and doesn’t really have that accent or those mannerisms.
In another set of sketches he pushes Margaret Thatcher off a cliff and steals an iPhone off Fidel Castro. The actors in both cases are neither female nor hispanic.
The outrage you feel is real to you but I would hope the actor completely disregards your opinion.
You brought up the car-srash analogy with respect to how intent makes no difference to you. I extended that analogy to challenge whether you really think that (I don’t think you really do). You sidestepped that so I’ll ask again…
So, when you get out of your car and go to speak to the people who hit you, are you seriously telling me that your reaction would not change in these circumstances v a case where the person did it because they were texting on their phone? Mine certainly would, I’d like you to answer that if possible.
You probably should, I take seriously all the points being made to me. I just don’t agree. I think a bigger principle is at stake and cannot ever see myself agreeing with a position that says all skin tone altering is racist and harmful.
That certainly seems to be the case here. The definitions here seem to vary from person to person and from country to country and it is useful to know that.
Only because I think it is unhelpful in general for society for people to assume malice and ill-will when they come across things that offend them.
I’ve never darkened my skin to play a character and never would but I think there can be perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so.
You realize that racial epithets are also not “inherently” racist. The word”n——-“ is just a dialectical pronunciation of “Negro,” which simply means “black.”
So do you similarly advocate that someone pure of heart should feel free to use the word because intent is all that matters?
Exactly my point. Darkening your face can be racist or not racist depending on the context i.e. why is it being done? how is it being done? who is the audience? what is the specific intention? You seem to be agreeing with me here.
No, I think it is better if everyone is mindful of the context in which they act. A person darkening their skin should be mindful of how and why they are doing it and the person experiencing it should also include consideration of that context when they decide how to respond.
If you maintain that it is wrong and racist in any and all circumstances then you are indeed imbuing the act with an “inherent” quality.
If you accept that intent matters then you are agreeing with me that there are, potentially, circumstances in which it is acceptable.
Yeah…I don’t think we use analogies the same way. I’m trying to say that random acts of racism hit you out of no where like a car crash and that causes you pain and negatively impacts your overall mental state (if only for a little while). I didn’t create the situation but now the onus is on me to deal with it. I don’t know what the hell you’re on about.
Can you please give me an example of time when a white person just HAS to be in blackface?
I understand where you’re coming from. I really do. You can’t understand how something you enjoy and take pleasure in can possibly be a bad thing that offends other people. God, it’s almost like we think your attempts to insult and dehumanize us aren’t funny at all! If only everyone would just ignore the historical legacy of mockery and ridicule inflicted upon people of color then they would see that this wonderful art form can be revived to further mock and ridicule people of color in a manner that we can all enjoy!
But hey, you keep thinking this is only about playing dress up and I’ll keep thinking you’re racist.
Of course, words do not have inherent meaning, they have usage and context and intent define that usage and inform understanding.
Don’t they…pal? (do you see?)
“pure of heart”? I wouldn’t put it like that but yes, just as a usually benign word can be used as an insult (see above) an historically insulting word or phrase can definitely be used by a person without it necessarily being an insult or a cause for outrage.
A comedy hero of mine illustrates this better than I ever can. I can’t find the routine online but it is on UK Netflix, “Stewart Lee’s Comedy Vehicle” series 3 ep 4 called “context”(quell surprise)
Lee reaches the end of his routine and relates an 8 word sentence that a relative of his uttered that is so offensive he won’t repeat it on air for fear of the repercussions. It is sexist, racist, sizeist and blasphemous. The irony was that in the course of the previous 20 minutes of his routine, Lee had used all of those 8 words but no-one was offended because of the context in which they were used. And yes, the word that gives you so much trouble was one of those.
That is not how you introduced the analogy at all. That’s twice you’ve directly avoided giving an answer to my pretty straightforward and relevant question. Even if you think I’ve misunderstood your analogy my question stands by itself just fine as a relevant one. I want to know whether you truly think that intent does not matter, and so I ask (for the third time)
It is a fair and relevant question, does intent really not matter to you?
No, short of immediate threat of death I don’t think there is any human action for which an alternative course of action cannot be proposed. Your point?
No, I understand it completely, I’m offended on a daily basis by many things but I do not see my offence as being a good enough reason to a priori assume malicious intent or to stop people doing stuff. The lack of comprehension seems to be all yours. You can’t understand how something that offends you can come from a place that is completely benign or be morally/artistically justifiable.
Actually, I take that back, you probably are able to do that for many things that offend you but for some reason you put anything with a racial component in a special category.
I’m not racist and nothing I’ve written nor any belief you care to quiz me on will show that I am. Ask me anything.
Why, because a white person thought it would be a good idea. How, that’s not even a useful question. the audience is whoever sees it, if you only show it off in the privacy of your own home, and only to people who like that sort of thing, then you will not cause offense. The intent is to portray a person of different ethnicity than the wearer.
And the context is one of a long history of racism and using blackface for the purpose of humiliating and denigrating minorities.
I don’t think that anyone made that level of absolutism, you chose to make that up. It is not racist in any and acc circumstances, as has been repeated to you, well, repeatedly. It is, however, racist in the vast majority of circumstances, so the null hypothesis in seeing someone in blackface is that they are doing it for racist purposes.
Knowing that most people will assume that it is done for racist purposes, and doing it anyway moves the intent from wanting to more accurately portray a particular character to outright trolling.
What he is trying to tell you is that, depending on why they hit you, the amount of damage that is done to you is different. Your whiplash should take intent into account. Your car mechanic will give you a discount on repairs if the accident was caused by someone having a heart attack, rather than someone on their phone.
It is obvious what he is saying, but I can see how you wouldn’t think that is what he is saying, as it is absurd.
Maybe they had a stroke?
And he will continue to be baffled by why emulating the actions of racists may cause people to think that he is a racist.
Don’t you mean that twice that I have refused to follow you down an irrelevant rabbit hole specifically designed to allow you to reframe the debate in a manner that better suits your world view. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself: I WILL NOT PLAY THIS GAME WITH YOU! The debate at hand is right in front of you. Stop trying to make this about how I define culture or how I use an analogy (you don’t properly understand) to try and frame my experience in a manner that might actually cause you to better understand my position.
Let me say it louder this time…I DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOUR INTENTIONS AND NO ONE OWES YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT! ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU BEHAVE IN A QUESTIONABLE MANNER!
The sole purpose of blackface is to mock and ridicule people of color. How in the world can you take something like that and think that it is benign in any way, shape or form? It can only be artistically justifiable if the artists intent is to be racist.
Everything you have posted in this thread leads me to believe that (1) you are not a good judge of your own racism, and (2) asking you questions is futile, because you are an unreliable reporter. You don’t show sufficient self-awareness or self-examination to make your answers worth anything. You don’t even display sufficient understanding of what racism actually is and the various ways in which it manifests.
I don’t trust anyone who actually uses the words “I’m not racist” with that apparent degree of confidence.
I’ve haven’t made it up, The answers given by some makes me think that some in this thread do have such absolute positions. I’m trying to challenge that because I think that it is not a helpful position to take.
If the view of everyone in the thread is that there are circumstances when it is possible to darken one’s skin legitimately then fine, no further debate needed.
and how is this not an absolutist position?
And again, you remove the possibility of any other motive other than outright trolling, is that not an absolutist position as well?
What you’ve just written in this very post are examples of what I think are unhelpful absolutist positions.
