I’d also like to suggest something that I don’t think has been really covered in this thread but is pretty widely understood ESPECIALLY in the context of cosplay.
One of the reasons why “I don’t personally hate black people” isn’t sufficient reason for “race-emulating makeup” to be acceptable is that it provides cover for folks who DO have ill intent. If, say, people wearing earnestly-done “race-emulating makeup” were common at conventions or parties, it becomes much easier for inappropriate users of the same to get away with it – all they need to do is use the magic words, “I’m just trying to look like X character.” The cosplaying community has, as a whole, come together to have a mostly-zero-tolerance policy in order to provide safety to people of color within the community.
This is also a big reason why it’s considered off-limits even for most comedians: even if THEY are personally capable of handling it with caution and intelligence, they know doing so would give a hundred lousy middle managers “permission” to try to do the same thing at next year’s Halloween party.
No, I’m not saying that. It might be done for a variety of legitimate non-racist reasons. It also may be done for racist and malicious reasons. I think the last category, certainly in my experience in the current era is less common than the others.
If you employ circular reasoning to say that all skin-tone altering counts as blackface and as all blackface is racist so it follows that all skin-tone altering is racist…sure, you can legitimately come to that conclusion. You mark your own homework there.
Not in this thread I haven’t. The reasons why some people would be offended are clear and obvious.
I understand why they might say it is a horse, I don’t know why anyone would say “it can never be a zebra”
And there we go. We are in complete agreement. The only thing that really makes a difference in the two scenarios, the thing that modifies your reaction, is the context and intent of the person triggering the offence.
I didn’t even know what cosplay was until this thread, it is not something I do, it is not something that I have any interest in or knowledge of.
No, I said ( or I certainly meant) that giving offence was inescapable, I agreed with you that deliberate offence was a choice you make. Knowing that something will offend someone, somewhere in someway and yet still choosing to do it is not the same (to me at least) as deliberately setting out to offend someone. Judging by your response to my marriage example, we agree.
It is an interesting question but is it really a closer analogy? My only interaction with that mode of dress and iconography is with the far-right and a self-professed racist ideology. But that in itself is vanishingly rare and I’m not even sure whether I’ve ever seen a real-life person dressed like that outside of films, TV or media. In all honesty it would surprise me so much that I’d assume it was a character on location (I’m thinking of Tim Roth, Stephen Graham, Ed Norton style characters here) an explanation along those lines would be very plausible to me. Purely fashion-based? not so much.
On the other hand I have experienced multiple cases of people darkening their skin tone for non-racist reasons and vanishingly few for racists reasons. (I realise that others in this thread may say that it is not possible for there to be a non-racists reason for it, in which case there’s no progress to be made)
Curiously I was in conversation with British Telecom helpdesk just the other day, her name? Swastika. A lovely lady, pity her parents are obviously racist scum.
I have to give Novelty Bobble a break here.
I thought kind of similar before.
I think pert of the point he’s trying to make Is that if we didn’t make a big deal out of it, it would be much better for everyone. Hopefully one day we can get to that point, where you try to look like a character using whatever means you want and it’s just not an issue.
Having to make every single instance a big deal regardless of context has its own way of just adding to the dichotomy, rather than diminishing it.
'coon would be a good example. If I say Coons got into my garbage can my meaning is obvious.
If I say I’m taking the dogs out to hunt Coons , it could potentially be taken badly.
If I say I hate Coons , most people are going to take it badly regardless of my actual meaning.
All instances are likely to remind someone of the bad meaning, so I’m just gonna go out of my way the tiniest bit to say raccoons every time.
It seems brownface is similar.
In any case not assuming it’s racist every time would go further toward unity and equality.
However we just aren’t there yet, so if it presents some minor inconvenience for costume every two or three years or so… Oh well. I doubt it’s currently going to add to the dichotomy to not do it , more than doing it would add to the dichotomy.
I also give a nod to ascenray here , he’s totally honest and blunt about it. To totally paraphrase; He straight out says he’s not gonna be bothered with context in this scenario , admits it’s not some inherently racist thing but because of history he doesn’t give a shit, he’s just gonna assume it’s racist and keep stepping.
I do find the big stirs about things that are minor in comparison to some real serious shit that’s happening to be unecessary though, for the reason that while someone is busy making a big deal about a soldier in camo ( counterproductive camo but that’s a different story). There are real serious incidents like people being innocently convicted or drastically oversentenced that aren’t getting that attention.
Yep, it is. Actual blackface is a genuine symbol of systematic dehumanization and murder of black people. I’m not sure you appreciate just how extreme the revulsion towards that imagery that most people feel is, especially in the US.
The “blackface lite” that you seem to be defending in this thread is STILL going to bring blackface to mind for most people, especially most people of color. Even if it’s done “tastefully” and “with honest intentions,” it will STILL remind people of blackface and FORCE people of color to have to question their safety or social standing in the environment. You have the luxury of not worrying about that.
If you prefer a slightly closer analogy, I’ll allow that the fellow in our hypothetical is wearing a shirt with an orthogonal, not diagonal, swastika. See? It’s a swastika lite. It absolutely has an alternate meaning (even if uncommon), and isn’t IDENTICAL to the famously racist symbol. Is it now acceptable when he says, “Hey, I just like this symbol?”
Maybe with a long enough break, one day noone will care. Hopefully it’s not a series of escalating rules forever that will eventually just recycle racism by creating problems where they don’t exist.
Do you live in some backwater hamlet? Because I, as just a tourist, have seen Nazi skinheads in London and Leeds in the last few years. And doesthis look like vanishing rarity to you?
Okay, so you are talking “current era”, as if history has no impact on the now. Wel, you are right, in that most cases of blackface that are done publically in the common era are either meant to be done in good faith, or were done not out of racism, but out of ignorance of the historical contexts.
But that is because we have largely eliminated the promotion of blackface used as a mocking and denigrating thing. We have certainly done enough that it isn’t done for a song and dance number as it was just a generation ago. It is still used, but in smaller gatherings, and not publically amongst anyone who wants to not be thought of as a racist.
It is an uphill battle, and it’s not won yet. Give it another generation or two or three or four or five or six… and maybe the fact that it was used well within living memory to mock and denigrate people who are still around and still alive will have faded enough that the initial assumption is not that you are trying to mock and denigrate.
But I am not using it as a circular reasoning. I am pointing out that blackface has been used for the purpose of mocking and denigrating far more often than it has been used “respectfully”, certainly historically (and by historically, I’m talking about within living memory), and probably still today.
Okay, then I really don’t get your point at all then.
And, other than BeagleJesus, who I understand where they are coming from, though I disagree, no one here is saying it can never be a zebra. We are not even saying that you can’t ask if those hoofbeats are a zebra. But, we are saying that we are not going to make that assumption, as it is a poor assumption to make.
Well, yeah, but in either case, you were willing to upset people for your decision. For your first, you were willing to upset people because of the importance of your love, and in the second, you were upsetting people for the purpose of upsetting people.
You are correct, either way you are upsetting people. You were saying before that people shouldn’t be upset based on your intent, and that is what I was disagreeing with. You will upset people no matter your intent. The question is, is whether or not you care that you are upsetting people.
If the people that you are upsetting are a bunch of bigots who object to your union with your one true love, then fuck them, what do you care. If the people that you are upsetting are a bunch of people who have been mocked and denigrated by people using blackface in the past, and the reason taht you are doing it is for shits and giggles, then well, that puts you as the party in the wrong, IMHO.
And it is something that I have never done, but I have many friends who have. They get great enjoyment out of it, enough that I have even thought of joining them, but I ain’t got time for that. They have done green face for the hulk, and white face for vampires, but never blackface. I haven’t talked to them about it, but I would assume that if I asked, they would give me a pretty solid “No.”
But, that was not my point. It was taht you’d have to have as much love to accurately portray a black character as you do for your bride in order to have the same self justification for the offense that you will cause.
Well, and you have to balance the offense that you will give against how important it is to you.
I keep thinking about that guy whose Geordi costume included brown facepaint. Initially, the cosplay effort seemed at once so inept and sincere that I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt; he pretty much looked about as good as his friend, “Data,” he just had an extra reason to wince because of historical issues. But he didn’t mean any harm.
Except that guy didn’t just teleport into that costume and in front of that camera in a moment. He didn’t get stung by a bee, then swerve his car accidentally into the makeup. As bad as the efforts were (no, colored contacts are not impressive as cosplay goes; many cons have a dealer room booth or two that sell them) they had to take time, spend money, meet people and interact with others as they put together the pieces of their cosplay, planned it, and eventually arrived and wandered through the con to be photographed.
I really find it hard to imagine that he never, at any point, had anyone point out to him the reasons not to put on that makeup. I find it regrettable that he apparently just wandered through a convention like that. But I think he had to know by the time he was in the costume and in the convention center, and maybe just decided, “Their reasons for saying this is offensive aren’t good enough, I’m willing to offend people if I get to dress like this.”
I travel in and out of London every week. I am doing so tomorrow. I’ve never seen a real-life nazi skinhead with swastikas. I do live in a rural location and nothing there either.
Did I claim that they don’t exist or was it perhaps that I’ve never seen them outside of film and media? like, you know, the media that you just linked to. For the purpose of the hypothetical it matters whether I have ever come into contact with them. I haven’t. Feel free to believe me or not.
Still, I wouldn’t call it a scenario where the guy is obviously racist.
People do much more clueless stuff all the time. Like the fat guy in Spiderman PJs you mentioned, you would think that at some point someone told him it wasn’t a good look, you would think he’d never make it into public that way and yet he did.
Mr. T seems to me like someone would take offense and maybe Camacho too.
Big gold chains, gold teeth, seems like you could easily be taken as portraying a stereotype.
This is where it’s still very murky for me, and why I’d have to at least partly agree with Corey El . I can easily see someone being offended at mrT or Snoop or whatever rapper.
Giordi is pretty safe.
Agent J seems impossible on sight, but people are still gonna easily say MIB so whatever.
Please note Camacho didn’t have gold chains and neither he nor Mr. T had gold teeth.
So yeah, if you don’t know these characters well and assume they map to black stereotypes just because they are black and your costume reflects this ignorant assumption, then I wholeheartedly agree that you shouldn’t cosplay as them.
