|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: David Walliams dressed as Kim Jong Un
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Chimney sweeps wore turbans?
The history of Morris traditions isn’t perfectly clear. Except for the name, which is derivative of Moorish and the 15th C statue set of dancers which includes a black man.
It is a muddled thing which could be one, the other or both.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Mummers' plays often include a character called the 'Turkish Knight' who fights St George and is killed - probably a reference to the Crusades. That's the most likely explanation of the statue set you reference (do you have a picture?). Mummers also did Morris dancing.
As you say, the origins of Morris dancing are unclear. Probably we are dealing with several points of origin.
Yes, I know... references to the Crusades are problematic too.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The costume looks like a typical dancer, rather than a knight, to me.
[ 10. November 2017, 09:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Interesting. It looks more like a real black person than someone white in blackface, though. It's also not an English statue; I was unaware that there were Morris traditions elsewhere in Europe.
I wonder if the statues are portraits of a real dance troupe, and one of the members of the troupe just happened to be black? No way of telling now, of course...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And a joke about racism should only be done by someone who and/or whose people have been on the receiving end.
I disagree. I believe that I am absolutely entitled to regard racists and racism with ridicule and contempt, and to laugh at them. I do not believe that I need to have been hurt personally by racism to find it an absurd, as well as an unjust, form of conduct.
quote:
Um...why in the world would anyone think it's ok to make fun of folks from the Congo? Because they're black and far away?
Why ask me? I don't think it's OK to mock any racial group. And I think I've said that often enough on this thread that if you missed it, it's not my fault.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
quote:
What a moronic statement.
So humour this moron and refute it with an actual argument?
I did. Hard to put it more simply. M&W's costume choice and Webb's line are exactly blackface and needs the history, and the attendant discrimination, to register at all. So, even though they are not intending to be racist, it has the same effect.
I think I said in my first comments on the sketch that the character’s behaviour was clearly based on crass and racist stereotypes, so pointing the same thing out with slightly different words doesn’t really count as either an argument or a refutation.
Yes, the sketch depends on a history of racism. Obviously.
But equally obviously, the sketch isn’t making any negative comment about anyone based on race. Hence, where’s the offence?
Are you saying that you don’t like seeing racism represented at all, in a light entertainment medium, even by people that you know aren’t racist? If so, sure, I get that. Some people can’t watch fictional depictions of all sorts of unpleasant things, and others don’t mind. I’ve got my own list of things I’d rather not see. That’s not an argument that the depiction is necessarily wrong – it’s an argument in favour of trigger warnings.
quote:
quote:
I was responding to a specific assertion by AmyBo that portraying a black person in one medium (LARP) is wrong because white people can't fully understand black people's experiences.
Fairly certain this is not what she is saying.
That is pretty much exactly what she said, except she used “people of color” rather than “black”.
quote:
Dungeons and Dragons in the sun; does that work for you? Ren faire for people who can't get laid?
Well, sometimes sun, and sometimes (like last weekend) rain and mud. It’s all good.
I think a “ren faire” is mostly a US usage, so I really couldn’t comment on your relative likelihood of getting laid there or at a LARP event. Why not turn up to both, and see?
quote:
quote:
quote:
If blackface were truly ancient history, then your "respectful" re-enactment argument might have legs. As it is not, it does not.
For clarity, I have not argued that Halloween costumes, LARP, re-enactment, story-telling or anything else is, or should be, "respectful". I think that would be a completely impossible standard to apply.
So they are disrespectful you admit?
No, I don’t admit that. I just think “respectful” is completely unworkable as a standard of behaviour in this area. Walliams’ costume, for instance, probably isn’t intended to reference Koreans in general at all, and if so, is neither respectful nor disrespectful of them. I don’t think the M&W sketch is particularly respectful of anyone, but I don’t think its wrong on that account.
quote:
There you go with the "reasonably" again. Which is not reasoned support of your position as much as it is a passive-aggressive statement to ridicule those who disagree.
No – it’s a recognition that some conclusions drawn about a person’s message, intent and purpose from their behaviour can be justified (even if in fact mistaken) because they are based on good grounds, and some can’t, because the conclusions aren’t well supported.
In my usual form of discourse (UK legal practice) “reasonable” is the word commonly used to make that distinction. It is not aggressive (passively or otherwise) or intended to ridicule others.
quote:
Yeah, your reversal is exactly the same because there is all that history of black people enslaving white people, stealing their land, raping them, disenfranchising them, imprisoning them keeping them poor and then mocking them as well.
Again, that’s a response to AmyBo’s position which was explicitly that “The act of putting on makeup to look like another race is in and of itself a denigrating act”.
She is not (when making that argument at least) relying on any particular history of racial interaction. She is saying that dressing up as another race (at least if you use make-up) is inherently a racist act.
You can defend parts of your case (the parts, in fact, that I am not attacking and agree with) by saying that there’s a history of racial oppression against black people, but you can’t use that to defend a case which is expressly advanced as applying to all races whatever.
quote:
Go ahead, though, whitesplain some more.
Go ahead. Any-fucking-colour-you-like-splain how that’s not racist.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Painting one's face green or black is the exact equivalent of writing "Grallac had lived all his life in the goblin-warrens of Dastria..." or "A young African-American man was standing in the corner of the room..." in a novel. It tells you a bit about the character as a prelude to actually telling their story. It's that subsequent imagining which is the real point of the exercise.
So what do BME people do when they participate in LARP, playing the roles of white people? Do they use really pale foundation to "signal" that they represent a white person? Or do they do a "white voice"?
Or do they either (a) not do "signalling" of this kind or (b) not participate in LARP at all?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
AmyBo
Shipmate
# 15040
|
Posted
There's a disconnect here, and I think I see it? Most of us are looking at this through the lens of being white. That's white privilege. Let's look at this through the lens of the person whose race is being portrayed. Do you still want to play dress-up as another race, or reduce their race to paint?
As for the LARPing thing, I'll get specific. My experience is with rendezvous-era re-enactment. Some very fraught racial tensions there already. I was personally appalled by a man who was white and decided to portray a Native character. The body paint he used to make himself look darker was really gross - both from a makeup perspective and from one of racial sensitivity, or lack thereof. But even if he left off the paint, he very well could be appropriating the culture of our neighbors. It's a delicate balance, and there is a lot of gray area; I tend to err on the side of caution because I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of such appropriation.
So maybe a "Moorish knight" or whatever POC a white guy is playing is OK, but then I have to ask, why? Can't you make room for people of that ancestry to play that character? Because the "indian" in grease paint made it pretty clear no Natives need apply.
I'm not calling the people in question jerks or evil. The act may be racist, but the person isn't necessarily a racist. It's not personal; there's no need to dig in and get defensive.
Posts: 122 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
The disconnect actually seems to be between Europeans and Americans. Americans are saying 'this is obviously racist' from the context of their culture and (some of) the Europeans are saying 'it's not so obvious from where we're standing.'
My own position: I wouldn't want to give offence by dressing up as a character of a different race for a costume party or a LARP... but I've been a Chinese peasant, a Hebrew slave and various other characters in operas I've taken part in. No, we didn't do yellowface for Turandot but we did wear slightly darker makeup than usual for Nabucco. Should we stop performing these works because Puccini and Verdi were Europeans writing about different races?
I think that the blackface Morris teams should stop blacking their faces, or choose different colours (I saw one team that had made themselves up in all the colours of the rainbow, thus annoying racists and homophobes in one act; their dancing was pretty good, too); but I can also see why the people who are protesting ('it's just tradition! it's got nothing to do with the Black and White Minstrels!') are upset at another example of the inexorable march of American cultural imperialism.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But equally obviously, the sketch isn’t making any negative comment about anyone based on race.
Your posts seem to indicate that you either do not have the ability to understand or the willingness to; so going further on this example may be pointless.
quote:
Are you saying that you don’t like seeing racism represented at all, in a light entertainment medium, even by people that you know aren’t racist?
No, not what I am saying. Depictions of racism can have a positive purpose, even in light entertainment. But they can also be throw-away bits, like the M&W sketch, that trivialise a group's experience for the sake of a laugh.
quote:
I think a “ren faire” is mostly a US usage,
Worldwide, actually, though there appear to be more in the US. But living history, medieval faires, whatever. I grabbed a quick adult dress-up reference. Could have said Furries.
quote:
I just think “respectful” is completely unworkable as a standard of behaviour in this area.
Sorry, you'll have to explain this one a bit better. Why shouldn't respect be part of it? Granted, a large percentage of LARP appears to be fictional characters that the term doesn't apply to.
quote:
In my usual form of discourse (UK legal practice) “reasonable” is the word commonly used to make that distinction.
Yes, and then an explanation of why said thing is reasonable could be required to defend that determination.
And this is a conversation, merely making a simple statement without any reasoning is neither conversation nor makes your point.
Your single argument is one of intent and this does not negate harm, even in a legal application.
quote:
You can defend parts of your case (the parts, in fact, that I am not attacking and agree with) by saying that there’s a history of racial oppression against black people, but you can’t use that to defend a case which is expressly advanced as applying to all races whatever.
I am not. This thread is about Walliams costume and M&W got dragged in. Both cases of groups maligned by white people in Britain.
quote:
quote:
Go ahead, though, whitesplain some more.
Go ahead. Any-fucking-colour-you-like-splain how that’s not racist.
Whitesplaining is racist. Though, to be fair, the same comments could have been made out of a pompous disregard for others in general and...Oh, you think accusing you of whitesplaining is racist.
The term is similar to mansplaining. It is not directed at a general group, but a specific person, therefore the opposite of prejudice.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
(b) not participate in LARP at all?
Pretty much this, from what I can tell. LARP is OVERWHELMINGLY white.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The disconnect actually seems to be between Europeans and Americans. Americans are saying 'this is obviously racist' from the context of their culture and (some of) the Europeans are saying 'it's not so obvious from where we're standing.'
Some of the white British are saying it is not so obvious. And racism is often less obvious in the UK than in the US. Likely due to far fewer brown people in general, especially in the past, and slavery and oppression were done overseas rather than domestically.
But blackface was done the same in the UK as it was in America.
quote:
Should we stop performing these works because Puccini and Verdi were Europeans writing about different races?
No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
quote:
but I can also see why the people who are protesting ('it's just tradition! it's got nothing to do with the Black and White Minstrels!') are upset at another example of the inexorable march of American cultural imperialism.
Again, it isn't American. Racism in the UK isn't identical to that in the US, but this isn't one of differences.
The UK is very much more white than the US. It is only a few areas that have much melanin. And this affords a additional level of blindness, IME.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
But there are also cultural differences, there is a history of traditional protest by the poor going back over 500 years that predates the transatlantic slave trade. Because the penalities for protest were so harsh (often hanging) people blacked their faces with charcoal to avoid being identified. They used ritualised forms of protest to give themselves social legitimacy, and some traditional festivals see themselves as being in this tradition and legacy (I am not referring just Morris here, but also other forms of guising.)
The Rebecca riots in Wales are a famous example of this kind of protest, as are the Captain Swing riots that spread across large areas of the south east. (Not riotous in the modern sense, they were largely peaceful.). The spreading nature of these protests after the beginning of enclosures and the loss of common land, especially in relation to the loss of traditional rights to gather fuel, hunt & glean, is what lead to blacking up for protest being specifically outlawed.
In addition, the British mischief night and Halloween traditions largely relate to the undead and magical beings, absent other cues my default assumption on seeing someone with a blackened face would be that they were portraying a demon or imp rather than a racial caricature.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
Danny La Rue wore makeup (to say the least) in order to portray the 'other group', ie, women. Wrong? Or are women not oppressed enough yet to qualify as 'those who should not be represented by anyone else who isn't part of their specific group'?
How do impersonators impersonate their target without reflecting the fact of that person's ethnicity? It would be unacceptable to caricature the person's ethnicity, of course. But wouldn't it be insulting to ignore the fact of it, too, and pretend they weren't black or Asian or Latin American etc?
Or should white people not offer comic political critiques using personations of public figures who aren't white?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I suppose the most obvious examples of white folk portraying Asians in the UK would be in pantomimes, in the production Aladdin or Ali Baba and the 40 thieves - I suspect it's challenged less because it's seen as unreal, fairytale, and also because of all the role reversal - the dame being played by a man the principle boy by a woman etc. So another transposition seems somehow less out of place - because noone is representing their own identity.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
Danny La Rue wore makeup (to say the least) in order to portray the 'other group', ie, women. Wrong? Or are women not oppressed enough yet to qualify as 'those who should not be represented by anyone else who isn't part of their specific group'?
Cross-dressing is a bit more complicated, especially its history among the gay community. But cross-dressing hasn't been used to denigrate women in the same way blackface is used to denigrate brown people. Not giving it a right or wrong, though I've never cared for it.
quote:
How do impersonators impersonate their target without reflecting the fact of that person's ethnicity? It would be unacceptable to caricature the person's ethnicity, of course. But wouldn't it be insulting to ignore the fact of it, too, and pretend they weren't black or Asian or Latin American etc?
You impersonate them not their ethnicity. No makeup required. Impressionists have done for decades. It isn't ignoring ethnicity, it is making the person the centre.
If I did a verbal impression of the Queen, and it was good, I trust you'd be intelligent enough to get it and not be confused by the colour and age difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But there are also cultural differences, there is a history of traditional protest by the poor going back over 500 years that predates the transatlantic slave trade.
Blackface as a caricature isn't strictly tied to slavery.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
True, but the but the protest tradition has nothing to do with race and everything to do with disguise.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I think we can agree that race is an integral part of a person's identity. Therefore it seems to me that any attempt to portray a person accurately has to include some attempt to portray their race accurately.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I think we can agree that race is an integral part of a person's identity. Therefore it seems to me that any attempt to portray a person accurately has to include some attempt to portray their race accurately.
I don't agree. As has been mentioned upthread, portraying a character of another race/culture has been done and quite successfully. Hamilton, the hottest theatre ticket in America and much anticipated in the UK, doesn't worry about portraying race.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
True, but the but the protest tradition has nothing to do with race and everything to do with disguise.
But the protest tradition doesn't encompass all of Morris or blackface dancers.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
How do impersonators impersonate their target without reflecting the fact of that person's ethnicity? It would be unacceptable to caricature the person's ethnicity, of course. But wouldn't it be insulting to ignore the fact of it, too, and pretend they weren't black or Asian or Latin American etc?
Well said. Walliams is very clearly targeting Kim as Kim, and not Koreans generally. No possible suggestion of the latter.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AmyBo:
There's a disconnect here, and I think I see it? Most of us are looking at this through the lens of being white. That's white privilege.
Seems like some here are looking at this through the lens of being American. Taking a reasonable observation like "where I come from, it would be considered culturally insensitive to dress up as a member of a disadvantaged race" and turning into a universal prohibition. Without any regard for whether other people's cultures might look at things differently. Is that American privilege ?
quote:
My experience is with rendezvous-era re-enactment.
I had to look that up. Seems to mean early 1800s "frontier" America, but in mountainous terrain rather than cattle plains ???
quote:
I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of such appropriation.
Please do explain. With reference to your own culture, exactly what is it that you don't want us foreigners to do because it would "appropriate" your way of life ? Eat Macdonalds ? Watch Hollywood movies ? Drive pickup trucks ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No possible suggestion of the latter.
This is even more dismissive and arrogant a statement than Eliab's "reasonable".
Clearly it is possible however unlikely you think it is.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Perhaps you're right if anything is possible. So we'll just say that it appears extremely unlikely that it was intended as a caricature of Koreans as a race, rather than that of the murderous ruler those in North Korea have.
[ 10. November 2017, 20:57: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Perhaps you're right if anything is possible. So we'll just say that it appears extremely unlikely that it was intended as a caricature of Koreans as a race, rather than that of the murderous ruler those in North Korea have.
Yours and Eliab's posts are projecting intent based on a couple of pics and the lack of mention any feedback from the party guests, so "extremely unlikely" is a stretch.
And I am saying intent is not the only criterion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Not for the first time, you're reading something into my post that just isn't there. I've said nothing about a lack of racist intent, just about an intent only to caricature Kim - and that's all we know. Of course, as it's only a short clip, it's possible that Walliams has all sorts of nasty intents we don't know about; it may even be possible that your reading of a racist intent is correct.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Anselmina:
How do impersonators impersonate their target without reflecting the fact of that person's ethnicity? It would be unacceptable to caricature the person's ethnicity, of course. But wouldn't it be insulting to ignore the fact of it, too, and pretend they weren't black or Asian or Latin American etc?
You impersonate them not their ethnicity. No makeup required. Impressionists have done for decades. It isn't ignoring ethnicity, it is making the person the centre.
If I did a verbal impression of the Queen, and it was good, I trust you'd be intelligent enough to get it and not be confused by the colour and age difference.
Well, clearly in the case of a verbal impression one would need to be extraordinarily stupid to be 'confused' by colour and age difference. Unless of course it's a poor impression!
But by the same token you can trust me to be intelligent enough to look at David Walliams and know he's lampooning a mad-as-a-box-of-frogs world leader, not an entire ethnic section of the world's population. I see nothing at all confusing about his physical personation of Kim Jong Un. I know what he's doing, just as I know what Tracy Ullman is doing with her Angela Merkel characterisation on her current BBC programme. Making a comic-political critique of a prominent world-figure whose completely fair game for ridicule and lampooning.
Ethnicity is a complex construct, though isn't it? It's not merely physical. It is accent, language, use of the vernacular, clothes, customs; the psychology which drives behaviour, response, attitude etc.
Should you give the best verbal impression (which is not the same thing as 'impersonation', of course) of Her Maj, say over the radio, to people who couldn't see you, you would still most assuredly be portraying her within her own ethnic grouping. There is no way you could replicate the tones of a royal-born, aristocratic white English woman without placing her very firmly smack bang in the middle of where and how she was born, educated, within what kind of culture and according to what kind of societal mores. So what is the taboo about the physical aspect of ethnicity, which apparently doesn't apply to all those other aspects?
If you are, in fact, already verbally pretending for comic effect to be an ethnically white, blue-blooded elderly English woman of a unique and powerful position, why would you baulk at looking like her, too, if called upon to impersonate her, say for a sketch on TV? If you've no reservation about satisfying your audience's ears, why not their eyes?
True. The Queen's skin colour, age, hairstyle, figure etc is not the whole of who she is. But neither is her voice. If you think that looking like her is out of the question, where's the justification for sounding like her?
Are we saying that we shouldn't consider people, in general, clever enough to know what it is they're being presented with? Some, of course, won't be. But in a liberal environment where people of power are subject to irreverent comic critique, that is arguably a risk we should be prepared to take.
[ 11. November 2017, 00:39: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So what do BME people do when they participate in LARP, playing the roles of white people? Do they use really pale foundation to "signal" that they represent a white person? Or do they do a "white voice"?
LARP (at least in the UK) is mostly white. The non-white LARPers I known (of Chinese and Middle-Eastern ethnicity) are a small minority, but play exactly the same sorts of characters, in exactly the same sorts of costume, as white LARPers. No one would expect them to stick to characters of 'their' racial type. In my corner of the hobby, no one would expect a dark-skinned LARPER to use pale make-up to portray, for example, a Norseman or Celt (and I've never seen anyone do that, but if they did, I don't think that anyone would mind).
At least in the systems I play, it is very, very rare to use face-paint to portray a human character of any race. The only examples I can recall is (a) to portray fictional human sub-types (such as Melniboneans or Githyanki) as truly white (as opposed to the pasty pink that is usually called white), and (b) to give a refined aristocratic character unusually pale skin. Different human races are portrayed all the time, but other means than face-paint are commonly used to signal that. Accents are used, frequently (though not universally).
There is (necessarily) a great deal of suspension of disbelief in LARP, so it's possible to get away with little to pass as whatever it is you want to play. But on the other hand, many people enjoy making an effort and appreciate that in others, so the standards of authenticity vary a lot.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But by the same token you can trust me to be intelligent enough to look at David Walliams and know he's lampooning a mad-as-a-box-of-frogs world leader, not an entire ethnic section of the world's population.
His intent isn't the whole of the problem. The problem is the yellow-face. And that he did not need to wear it to communicate who he was lampooning. Again, he didn't do Kim's other major physical attribute: Fat.
quote:
Ethnicity is a complex construct, though isn't it? It's not merely physical. It is accent, language, use of the vernacular, clothes, customs; the psychology which drives behaviour, response, attitude etc.
Culture comes into play as well. It is inter-related, but not identical.
quote:
Should you give the best verbal impression (which is not the same thing as 'impersonation', of course) of Her Maj, say over the radio, to people who couldn't see you, you would still most assuredly be portraying her within her own ethnic grouping.
No, her subculture, not her ethnicity.
quote:
There is no way you could replicate the tones of a royal-born, aristocratic white English woman without placing her very firmly smack bang in the middle of where and how she was born, educated, within what kind of culture and according to what kind of societal mores. So what is the taboo about the physical aspect of ethnicity, which apparently doesn't apply to all those other aspects?
There is not the same the history of oppressing royalty, except by other royalty and nobility, as there is of brown peoples.
quote:
True. The Queen's skin colour, age, hairstyle, figure etc is not the whole of who she is. But neither is her voice. If you think that looking like her is out of the question, where's the justification for sounding like her?
I did not say looking like her was out of the question, but that it is unnecessary.
quote:
Are we saying that we shouldn't consider people, in general, clever enough to know what it is they're being presented with?
Actually, yes, because they haven't been so far. If they were, we would not be having this conversation.
quote:
Some, of course, won't be. But in a liberal environment where people of power are subject to irreverent comic critique, that is arguably a risk we should be prepared to take.
The very same critique of Kim could have been done without the yellowface. Simply the haircut and the uniform would have been sufficient for anyone who knows who Kim Jong Un is, and not amount of makeup would inform those who did not.
[ 11. November 2017, 02:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
lilbuddha: quote:
No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
You have to wear *some* makeup on stage, or you look like a corpse!
As I said, we wore ordinary makeup for Turandot (making us clearly European people in fancy dress, just like the plot really) and makeup a couple of shades darker than usual for Nabucco (Europeans with a slight tan, dressed in what appeared to be potato sacks).
quote:
The UK is very much more white than the US. It is only a few areas that have much melanin. And this affords a additional level of blindness, IME.
That's true enough. You're also correct that British racism tends to be more passive-aggressive than in-your-face, though it seems to be getting more like American racism post-Brexit.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
lB--
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't agree. As has been mentioned upthread, portraying a character of another race/culture has been done and quite successfully. Hamilton, the hottest theatre ticket in America and much anticipated in the UK, doesn't worry about portraying race.
Actually, my understanding is that Lin-Manuel Miranda, who created the show and is (I think) Latino (possibly Puerto Rican) *purposely* set out to have a non-white cast.
In a clip I saw, there was one white actress--as Hamilton's wife, IIRC. The cast changes, periodically, so she may no longer be betrayed by a white actress.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I'm going to chuck in the hand-grenade that is Papa Lazarou in The League of Gentlemen. This show had a cult following in Australia, but I'm not sure how mainstream it was in the UK. Certainly the creators of the show are all lauded as geniuses, and have gone on to work on some iconic British shows such as Dr Who, Horrible Histories, Sherlock and a number of top-drawer BBC dramas. They are, I think, the establishment in British Comedy.
The Papa Lazarou character wears blackface, but I find it difficult to watch because of how he bullies and manipulates the women in this clip. I haven't watched any other clip with this character. It just goes too far with me, which is saying something given the content of some of the other storylines. As I say though, the writers/performers have been certified as geniuses.
The League of Gentlemen: Papa Lazarou
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
lilbuddha: quote:
No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
You have to wear *some* makeup on stage, or you look like a corpse!
Which is why I said “to portray other groups”.
BTW, brown people also wear theatrical makeup, though not to avoid looking too pale.
quote:
You're also correct that British racism tends to be more passive-aggressive than in-your-face, though it seems to be getting more like American racism post-Brexit.
It is quite nice of you to confirm this. I wasn’t quite sure I should believe my own experience. Or that of family, friends, coworkers... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Yes, fuck Brexit and Trump. Britain is becoming America and America is stepping backwards. What a wonderful time to be alive!
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
lilbuddha: quote:
It is quite nice of you to confirm this. I wasn’t quite sure I should believe my own experience. Or that of family, friends, coworkers...
Didn't mean to sound patronising - sorry. I've encountered blindness to prejudice myself - when complaining about people from the South being rude to me because of my (Northern) accent, I got 'what are you talking about? I've never had any problems in the South, only in the North.' From a Londoner. Gosh, yes, how very tolerant and broad-minded Southerners are; they aren't prejudiced against people with the *same accent as themselves*.
Race and class and parochialism all intersect over here. That's why we (still) have so many regional accents...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm going to chuck in the hand-grenade that is Papa Lazarou in The League of Gentlemen. This show had a cult following in Australia, but I'm not sure how mainstream it was in the UK. Certainly the creators of the show are all lauded as geniuses, and have gone on to work on some iconic British shows such as Dr Who, Horrible Histories, Sherlock and a number of top-drawer BBC dramas. They are, I think, the establishment in British Comedy.
The Papa Lazarou character wears blackface, but I find it difficult to watch because of how he bullies and manipulates the women in this clip. I haven't watched any other clip with this character. It just goes too far with me, which is saying something given the content of some of the other storylines. As I say though, the writers/performers have been certified as geniuses.
The League of Gentlemen: Papa Lazarou
It was a big hit in the UK, the man playing the woman in the headscarf is the guy who wrote Sherlock and plays mycroft in it- Mark Gatiss.
It has not aged well. Yes, that is self-evidently blackface - and I am ashamed to admit that until you posted that I hadn't noticed.
When I watched it I saw the character as an evil clown, one of a series of grotesques in horror-comedy show in which no one was who they represented. (In so far as that's true of the plot - he steals away people to a circus of which he acts as ringmaster and then transforms them - it also reflects a lot of the anti-Roma prejudices directed at travellers.) Now that I come to think of it the pig-faced shopkeepers are self-evidently a crystallisation of every cliche about inbred rural villages.
I know it is a series whose portrayals have made me increasingly uncomfortable over time, not just re race but also the portrayal of woman, other nationalities and transgender folk. I actually own copies of those series, but haven't watched them in over a decade - think I'll bin them.
[ 11. November 2017, 13:08: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Trivia fact, the League of Gentleman is set in Royston Vasey - because that is the real name of Roy Chubby Brown, who the creators claim to have disliked - though I note wiki says he was cast in the series at one point.
This is the same team who did Psychoville and Inside No 9
[ 11. November 2017, 13:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This old guardian article has a round up of more recent incidents (it was written just before Obama won his first term): https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/aug/23/comedy.race
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ooops! Several posts up, I said that a white actress had "betrayed" Mrs. Hamilton in "Hamilton". I meant "portrayed".
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I think we can agree that race is an integral part of a person's identity. Therefore it seems to me that any attempt to portray a person accurately has to include some attempt to portray their race accurately.
...portraying a character of another race/culture has been done and quite successfully. Hamilton, the hottest theatre ticket in America and much anticipated in the UK, doesn't worry about portraying race.
That's an artistic decision taken by a professional theatre company. The amateurs at portraying other people that we're talking about in this thread - guests at fancy dress parties, role-players - face a similar decision - how much will looking more like the person I'm portraying add to the experience ? But (often) make that decision as individuals, without a director/producer to co-ordinate the look across the cast.
Seems like you're making a utilitarian argument that the gains (from makeup that suggests the race of the character one is playing) are smaller than the losses, and therefore it shouldn't be done. The loss being the risk that someone of the ethnicity portrayed will be offended thereby. Is that it ?
The alternative might be that you're saying that trying to look like someone else is an inherently disrespectful action. And that while you're quite happy for anyone to disrespect Glorious Leader, you think it's wrong to disrespect Koreans in general, regardless of how beneficial it may be in other ways.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems like you're making a utilitarian argument that the gains (from makeup that suggests the race of the character one is playing) are smaller than the losses, and therefore it shouldn't be done. The loss being the risk that someone of the ethnicity portrayed will be offended thereby. Is that it ?
Surprisingly, fairly close. Except that I'd argue out of respect rather than utilitarianism.
quote:
The alternative might be that you're saying that trying to look like someone else is an inherently disrespectful action.
I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful. As I have stated more than one on this thread.
quote:
And that while you're quite happy for anyone to disrespect Glorious Leader,
Disrespecting him for what has has done is fine, disrespecting him for what he is (by birth/culture) not so much.
quote:
you think it's wrong to disrespect Koreans in general, regardless of how beneficial it may be in other ways.
Go on then, tell me how disrespecting Koreans is beneficial.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
So, here we have a thread where white people want to look brown for fun when real brown people’s attributes are erased.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful. As I have stated more than one on this thread.
Yes. You keep stating it. You haven't as yet explained 'why' using makeup to impersonate another group - maligned or otherwise - is disrespectful. I can easily see why it is sometimes disrespectful; minstrel shows, racism etc. Obvious. But you haven't said why it is always disrespectful. In fact, you yourself seemed to see the ambivalence of male impersonation of female (a maligned group?) involving much make-up. And you seemed quite able to rationalize a view which might excuse that, despite your own much-stated principle against it.
I'm not saying you don't have some valid points. Just you're not being consistent or particularly clear in what the problem is.
The OP was about Walliams and the ludicrous but dangerous leader of North Korea. He made himself up to look like him, presumably to point fun at him. Seems entirely reasonable. Why shouldn't someone lampooning a political target, look like the political target?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
.You keep stating it. You haven't as yet explained 'why' using makeup to impersonate another group - maligned or otherwise - is disrespectful. I can easily see why it is sometimes disrespectful; minstrel shows, racism etc. Obvious.
There is no clean disconnect between those portrayals and the supposed “benign” ones. Because the inequities and prejudices which are root of the practice are still very real and significant.
quote:
In fact, you yourself seemed to see the ambivalence of male impersonation of female (a maligned group?) involving much make-up.
Wearing cosmetics or a dress isn’t what makes one female. The trans community isn’t doing it for laughs or to mock women. And gender-bending in the LGBT+ community isn’t the same thing as Blackface.
quote:
And you seemed quite able to rationalize a view which might excuse that, despite your own much-stated principle against it.
”much-stated principle”? I said one time that I didn’t care for it. And that is a personal thing, not a principle thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
AmyBo
Shipmate
# 15040
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful. As I have stated more than one on this thread.
Yes. You keep stating it. You haven't as yet explained 'why' using makeup to impersonate another group - maligned or otherwise - is disrespectful. I can easily see why it is sometimes disrespectful; minstrel shows, racism etc. Obvious. But you haven't said why it is always disrespectful. In fact, you yourself seemed to see the ambivalence of male impersonation of female (a maligned group?) involving much make-up. And you seemed quite able to rationalize a view which might excuse that, despite your own much-stated principle against it.
I'm not saying you don't have some valid points. Just you're not being consistent or particularly clear in what the problem is.
The OP was about Walliams and the ludicrous but dangerous leader of North Korea. He made himself up to look like him, presumably to point fun at him. Seems entirely reasonable. Why shouldn't someone lampooning a political target, look like the political target?
Imagine every time you see yourself portrayed in the media it's negative. Imagine when you show up to school all the teachers are harsher to you than your classmates. Imagine that the behavior you were taught was appropriate and even respectful at home was considered rude at school. Imagine that when you did screw up some do-gooder decided you couldn't do any better and didn't help you improve. Imagine that all your peers had families with intergenerational wealth and your family just got into their first house because of redlining. Imagine you put your hair into pretty braids like your aunties and grandma and you were called names, but when your classmates who don't have that tradition did the same they were called edgy. Imagine people decided not to see your skin color, the reason you're treated so differently, and instead called you Urban with the same disdain they used to drop the N word.
Now put one of those folks in black face, that was used to denigrate your ancestors at a time when your uncles and grandfathers were swinging from trees. Or even now, when your mom's boyfriend who is raising you, is murdered in front of you by a cop.
How can that be anything but disrespectful?!
[edited for missing "and"]
[ 13. November 2017, 14:21: Message edited by: AmyBo ]
Posts: 122 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The loss being the risk that someone of the ethnicity portrayed will be offended thereby. Is that it ?
Surprisingly, fairly close. Except that I'd argue out of respect rather than utilitarianism.
I was asking if you think it's only a problem if there's someone at this private party that's likely to take offence, or whether it's an inherently disrespectful action. Is it about someone who subjectively feels offended (whether it not it is reasonable for them to so feel) ? Or is imitation an inherently and objectively disrespectful action ?
quote:
I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful.
That's an answer.
If it depends on who is being imitated then it's not an inherently disrespectful act.
I think you're saying that the issue isn't really about makeup at all.
It's about awareness of the backstory.
You have in your mind a story. A history, a true story about makeup - a small thing in itself - being part of a system of oppression - a big thing.
And if you're saying that the act of seeking to look more like a darker-skinned person will always remind you of this historic context, then clearly we have to accept that. You feel what you feel.
But other people in other cultures have other stories. The meaning of the act to them may be totally different from what it means to you.
That doesn't make them any more blind or insensitive than you are. You can't reasonably insist that the meaning to them must be the same as the meaning to you. Or that your meaning is privileged over their meaning.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I was asking if you think it's only a problem if there's someone at this private party that's likely to take offence, or whether it's an inherently disrespectful action.
Why would a decent person want to do something disrespectful, simply because the persons disprefected mightn’t see it? Seems disrespectful all the same.
quote:
I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful.
That's an answer.
quote:
I think you're saying that the issue isn't really about makeup at all.
It's about awareness of the backstory.
Not sure what this means. If someone were ignorant enough to not know the backstory, a decent person would apologize for inadvertently offending.
quote:
You have in your mind a story. A history, a true story about makeup - a small thing in itself - being part of a system of oppression - a big thing.
just history, no story needed. Not a small thing, BTW. Less than enslavement, but still significant. And small things add up, so it is difficult to quantify things as less significant.
quote:
But other people in other cultures have other stories. The meaning of the act to them may be totally different from what it means to you.
This discussion isn’t about cultures which don’t have a history of Blackface. It is primarily about the UK, which does.
In a culture which has no history of oppressing people might indeed do makeup of other groups without inherent disrespect. . But oppression is the history of Europe and its colonies, so...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
But other people in other cultures have other stories. The meaning of the act to them may be totally different from what it means to you.
This discussion isn’t about cultures which don’t have a history of Blackface. It is primarily about the UK, which does.
In a culture which has no history of oppressing people might indeed do makeup of other groups without inherent disrespect. . But oppression is the history of Europe and its colonies, so...
It is the combined British histories of oppression and of mocking the *appearance* of ethnic minorities that means it particularly grates.
I remember when I was a kid there was a "joke" doing the rounds in the playground:
Q: What three things can't a black man get?
A: A black eye, a thick lip and a job
Hilarious.
Not.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But equally obviously, the sketch isn’t making any negative comment about anyone based on race.
Your posts seem to indicate that you either do not have the ability to understand or the willingness to; so going further on this example may be pointless.
What I really don't understand is how that's a useful response to my point.
I asserted (I think with good reason) that it is obvious that the M&W sketch is not making a negative racial comment. It's not saying Congolese and/or black people are [something bad].
It's possible that you think I'm wrong - in which case, why not just say what negative comment you think is being made?
It's possible that you agree that I'm right on this point (but still disagree with me for other reasons) - in which case why not confirm that we do agree?
I can't see how it's constructive to pick out a statement of mine which (as far as I can tell) is a perfectly reasonable one, and follow it with a vague "you aren't able or willing to understand". Do you think that I'm right that the M&W sketch isn't a negative racial comment or not?
quote:
quote:
I just think “respectful” is completely unworkable as a standard of behaviour in this area.
Sorry, you'll have to explain this one a bit better. Why shouldn't respect be part of it?
Because:
a) views about what constitutes 'respect' and how it is shown, vary enormously between and within cultures. We'll never agree about what is respectful;
b) I don't think it's part of a comedian's job to be respectful;
c) What I'm principally defending here is the liberal principle of harmless fun. My justification for (non-malicious) jokes, dressing up, LARP, re-enactment, Halloween or whatever is that people enjoy these things, and should be free to enjoy them as harmless fun, not a serious, respectful social commentary.
I'm sure you could, for example, do an ECW re-enactment as a moving act of tribute to the sacrifices of men and women who did the best they could according to their views of God, rights and royalty, and in doing so shaped Britain. But you could also do it because you like to dress up and shoot muskets. And both are OK.
Exactly the same applies to any other sort of dressing up, from an astronaut to a North Korean dictator. It might be serious and respectful. It might also just be for fun. Both are OK.
quote:
quote:
In my usual form of discourse (UK legal practice) “reasonable” is the word commonly used to make that distinction.
Yes, and then an explanation of why said thing is reasonable could be required to defend that determination.
And this is a conversation, merely making a simple statement without any reasoning is neither conversation nor makes your point.
Your single argument is one of intent and this does not negate harm, even in a legal application.
That's not my argument. It is, at most, the starting point of my argument.
I think that intentional racism is wrong, yes (and also care more than you seem to about whether offence that has been caused was intended), but I also I fully accept that something can be harmful without intent. I've said several times that it might well be wrong to do something that a reasonable observer could misconstrue as a racist attack. For, as far as I can see, the same reasons that you give.
However what Walliams, Mitchell and Webb are doing isn't racist, and isn't harmful, and can't reasonably be misconstrued as being meant that way. They (almost certainly) do not intend any racial insult, and looking at what they are doing it is unfair to assume that they intended it, because their actions are fully explained and better explained without inferring a racist motive. With the single exception of Kim Jong Un, you can't look at what they are doing and fairly conclude that you or your race are being mocked or ridiculed.
quote:
Whitesplaining is racist. Though, to be fair, the same comments could have been made out of a pompous disregard for others in general and...Oh, you think accusing you of whitesplaining is racist.
The term is similar to mansplaining. It is not directed at a general group, but a specific person, therefore the opposite of prejudice.
Yes, what you said was racist.
I don't know actually know what ethnicity you are, except that it's not the same as mine. I don't need to know. I am trying to engage with your arguments on their merits. If I appear dismissive of your arguments, it's because I (rightly or wrongly) see no merit in those arguments - not that I see no point in engaging with you. And I would be utterly ashamed if I gave the impression that the reason that I was dismissing something you said had anything whatsoever to do with your race.
I'm surprised that you do not feel the same way.
I'm even more surprised that on being called on it, rather than withdraw, you doubled down and called me racist.
Your "white-splaining" comment was clearly intended to be dismissive (which is fine), and explicitly links your dismissiveness to my race (which isn't). It is self-evidently a racial insult.
Alright, it's an extremely feeble racial insult, and reflects far more badly on you than it does on me, but my pleasure at being handed a rhetorical victory gift-wrapped and on a silver platter doesn't change the fact that your comment was undoubtedly meant to be insulting, and was undoubtedly meant to be racial. It's not any the less racial because you only directed it at one person.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I asserted (I think with good reason) that it is obvious that the M&W sketch is not making a negative racial comment.
M&W are doing black face.
Blackface cannot reasonably be separated from the negative because it still happens and the inequities are still massively present.
The sketch uses the history of blackface as a throw away to get a laugh. I do not believe this was their intention, but this is the reality.
I'm not advocating this lapse as a reason to revile the pair, but it doesn't change that they didn't get it right.
quote:
a) views about what constitutes 'respect' and how it is shown, vary enormously between and within cultures. We'll never agree about what is respectful;
This is a cop out. "There will never be perfect agreement with everyone so fuck trying"?
quote:
b) I don't think it's part of a comedian's job to be respectful;
No, it isn't. But there are lines that, when crossed, are rightfully challenged. You are correct in that there will never be perfect agreement as to where those lines are, you are incorrect in assuming that you get to choose where the line should be in disregard to those the line stepping is aimed at.
And...oh fuck it the rest of your post is repetitive and useless at this point.
Except this bit.
quote:
It's not any the less racial because you only directed it at one person.
Yes, yes it is. The very definition of racism needs conferring an attribute on a group of people. Whilst you need to be white to whitesplain, it isn't an attribute of being white that causes it. It, like mansplaining, is referencing the blindness caused by a power differential and is very much an accusation directed at what an individual is actually doing, not on a conferred trait.
Put another way, your whiteness allows you to be deaf to what your are saying, it does not cause your deafness.
[ 15. November 2017, 17:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why would a decent person want to do something disrespectful, simply because the persons disprefected mightn’t see it? Seems disrespectful all the same.
That clarifies even further - you're saying it's not about any offence that other people might feel. It's about an act that is objectively disrespectful even if everybody present is fine with it.
quote:
If someone were ignorant enough to not know the backstory, a decent person would apologize for inadvertently offending.
A decent person would indeed apologise if they realised that they'd inadvertently offended someone present.
But you've just said that's not what you're objecting to. You're objecting because it's an act that inherently disrespects those who suffered racial mockery in the past. Regardless of what those present feel about it.
quote:
small things add up, so it is difficult to quantify things as less significant.
You don't seem to find any difficulty with quantifying people's artistic freedom to use or not use makeup as something insignificant.
It sounds like you're saying that white-on-black racial prejudice is such an enormous issue for you that you don't consider anything related to that issue as insignificant. Which is understandable.
What grates is when you imply that everybody else ought to feel that way too.
quote:
This discussion isn’t about cultures which don’t have a history of Blackface. It is primarily about the UK, which does. [/QB]
And Ireland ? If the Sligo amateur dramatic society are putting on The Mikado, are they allowed makeup so as to look more oriental ?
Now I can quite see that if there were a significant oriental minority in Sligo, and if there were a history of that minority being mocked on stage, then it might be prudent to consult a sample of people to ensure no misunderstandings occur. And if the situation were really fraught, to do Yeoman of the Guard instead. But that's about the feelings of those around you.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
