UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:The sketches you're talking about are from 2008-2012, and it wouldn't be an enormous surprise if another series appeared.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Harry has the power to make me weep with laughter. Some of his stuff (it's what, late 90's?
quote:All comedians dressing up as $famous_person are caricaturing that person - that's how the comedy works. The line between caricaturing an individual's features and a racial stereotype is a little fuzzy.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
In general, I don't see a problem with someone dressing up as someone from another race - so long as that doesn't involve a caricaturing of racial characteristics in some way.
quote:No, it isn't. Because, as noted earlier, one could satirise him without any reference to his ethnicity.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't the real question is whether we regard Kim Jong Un as so objectionable that any satire of him is such fair game that it trumps other issues of taste, not causing offence etc.
quote:No, I don't think so. Because if your costume crosses the line into a racist caricature, you're not poking fun at Kim any more, you're caricaturing Koreans.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't the real question is whether we regard Kim Jong Un as so objectionable that any satire of him is such fair game that it trumps other issues of taste, not causing offence etc.
quote:Yebbut, the question was whether it has done. And if David Walliams was caricaturing Kim Jong Un, and we are agreed that the latter is someone who thoroughly merits caricaturing, I remain prepared to give him sufficient slack as to whether there is some other person or group who might leap out of the woodwork and say they resent being caricatured.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
No, I don't think so. Because if your costume crosses the line into a racist caricature, you're not poking fun at Kim any more, you're caricaturing Koreans. ...
quote:Of course, it has done. As explained, yellowface isn't necessary to caricature Kim. The outfit and haircut would suffice.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Yebbut, the question was whether it has done.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
No, I don't think so. Because if your costume crosses the line into a racist caricature, you're not poking fun at Kim any more, you're caricaturing Koreans. ...
quote:Because it does not target you.
And if David Walliams was caricaturing Kim Jong Un, and we are agreed that the latter is someone who thoroughly merits caricaturing, I remain prepared to give him sufficient slack as to whether there is some other person or group who might leap out of the woodwork and say they resent being caricatured.
quote:Ah. It's not "citizens of North Korea" who are the victims of a racist caricature of Kim - it's ethnic Koreans, and by association other ethnic East Asians, who all tend to get lumped into the same basket.
Originally posted by Enoch:
And in this situation, I don't count the unhappy citizens of North Korea as an interest group.
quote:I can't imagine that it would be difficult to find wigs to achieve both.
Originally posted by simontoad:
... I would LOVE to have either a Kim hairstyle or a Trump hairstyle. Unfortunately my male pattern baldness prevents the former, and my commitment to a hair routine in the mornings the latter.
quote:Case in point
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No, it isn't. Because, as noted earlier, one could satirise him without any reference to his ethnicity.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't the real question is whether we regard Kim Jong Un as so objectionable that any satire of him is such fair game that it trumps other issues of taste, not causing offence etc.
quote:It is certainly possible to caricature Kim Jong Un without representing his ethnicity, but the Walliams get-up doesn't look like a caricature to me at all. A caricature would pick out and exaggerate identifiable aspects Kim Jong Un's appearance to make them look ridiculous. The haircut would be the obvious thing to focus on, and from the photos I've seen, Walliams hasn't tried to exaggerate or ridicule that or any other feature. It looks to me like simple dressing up, which is not the same as a caricature.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As explained, yellowface isn't necessary to caricature Kim. The outfit and haircut would suffice.
quote:Thank you Eliab. You've expressed the core of what I was trying to say much, much better than I did, especially in the bit I've selected above.
Originally posted by Eliab:
... The attack element of the representation seems to me to be not that it portrays Kim Jong Un's race, but that that it portrays him as a fit subject specifically for a Halloween costume - ie. one that's meant to be scary. The message (to any fair-minded observer) is "Kim Jong Un, portrayed with reasonable accuracy*, is someone who terrifies me". ...
quote:Bullshit.
Originally posted by Eliab:
The message (to any fair-minded observer) is "Kim Jong Un, portrayed with reasonable accuracy*, is someone who terrifies me". Which is not a racist message. No fair-mined observer would look at Walliams' costume and conclude that his intended message was "Hey, Korean people look funny".
quote:There are two different things here which I think bears some expansion.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yellowface has been used to insult and replace Asians with attempts at accurate makeup.
quote:What part of that are you saying is bullshit? That a Halloween costume is (usually, in England) represents something meant to be scary? Or that David Walliams' costume looks to a fair-minded observer like a caricature of Korean people generally?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Bullshit.
Originally posted by Eliab:
The message (to any fair-minded observer) is "Kim Jong Un, portrayed with reasonable accuracy*, is someone who terrifies me". Which is not a racist message. No fair-mined observer would look at Walliams' costume and conclude that his intended message was "Hey, Korean people look funny".
quote:Question it, yes. And, having questioned, it is also reasonable to consider fairly the evidence.
Given Walliams history of less than sensitive portrayals, it is entirely reasonable to question his intentions.
quote:These are different things. We're agreed that insulting an ethnic group is wrong, absolutely. I'm assuming that "replace" here refers to casting non-Asian actors as Asian characters, and using make-up to make them look Asian, with the effect that Asian actors don't get hired. I'll provisionally agree* that this is wrong too, because it's discriminatory.
Yellowface has been used to insult and replace Asians with attempts at accurate makeup.
quote:If you'd said "expected reasonable reactions" I might have agreed with you. It is often going to be uncharitable to do something that a reasonable observer would think was racist, even if you didn't intend to be racist.
Intention is secondary to reasonably expected reaction.
quote:Ascribing a racist motive to conduct which is fully explained, and better explained, without racism, is also unnecessary. So why the fuck do that?
Once again, the makeup was necessary, so why the fuck do it?
quote:Different icing, same cake. They are both based on the dismissal of the worth of brown people.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are two different things here which I think bears some expansion.
There's yellowface used to replace Asians - this is your typical casting of white actors in makeup as Asian characters in films, which contributes to a discriminatory failure to hire Asian actors.
There's yellowface used to mock Asian people, which is something different, and is closely related to white kids pulling their eyes with their fingers to look "slitty-eyed".
quote:Right, except that is not what I was doing.
Repeated assertions do not make an argument.
quote:Because someone might wish to get every detail doesn’t mean it is necessary.
People do costumes in different ways. For some, the idea is to lampoon a particular person, and all that matters is that other people know who you are supposed to be. And in that case I agree that makeup serves little purpose. Other people aim for accuracy in costumes. If these people were going as some tinpot dictator, they would study photos of the person and ensure that they were wearing a uniform with all the correct braid and medals. They're getting a wig with the hair length just right. They're wearing false teeth, cheek pads, and false noses. If you're that kind of person, getting the skin tone right would be very much part of costuming yourself as a particular person. Thus I refute your "it doesn't matter" assertion.
quote:This is why any fair-minded observer would conclude that Walliams cocked it up.
The question is whether you can do this kind of costume as a person of another race without giving the appearance of racism (we'll stipulate that you don't intend to be racist). And I tend to think that the answer is "no" - somebody will always take it the wrong way, and so you are best off choosing a different costume.
I don't think this should be true, but until we have largely eradicated racism from our societies, it will continue to be true.
quote:You seem to assume an identity between “pretending to be an ethnicity” and “doing a racist thing”. This is question-begging, since that’s the precise point that’s in dispute.
Originally posted by AmyBo:
it's a white person pretending to be an ethnicity or race that white people treat like crap. Not all white people, sure, but not saying racist things doesn't give you a free pass to do racist things.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:The sketch obviously isn't racist (no reasonable person could think that Mitchell and Webb intend any racial insult).
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So, is this racist ? Are the comedians involved in the sketch racist because blackface occurs ? Or is the fact they are mocking its existence relevant ? And is the Larp racist because it involves blackface, or because of the way blackface is done ?
quote:Any reasonable person (Hell, anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex) would understand that lack of intent doesn't preclude harm.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:The sketch obviously isn't racist (no reasonable person could think that Mitchell and Webb intend any racial insult).
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So, is this racist ? Are the comedians involved in the sketch racist because blackface occurs ? Or is the fact they are mocking its existence relevant ? And is the Larp racist because it involves blackface, or because of the way blackface is done ?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don’t accept that pretending to be a different ethnicity (in circumstances where it is clear that no insult or mockery of that ethnicity is intended) is racist. I’m not remotely racist, and I do it regularly.
quote:No, you want the exception. You need to prove why it should be so.
If you want to asset that it is, you have to do better than asserting that some (other) white people have done some (different) racist things.
quote:I think this one of the sources of confusion/disagreement on this thread. In the sense that most people think of racism as a moral offence, they tend to transfer rules of thumb from how we evaluate crime.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Any reasonable person (Hell, anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex) would understand that lack of intent doesn't preclude harm.
quote:I would not dispute this, the British Empire was built of the back of criminal and viscious exploitation. But the history of Britain is not identical with the US.
Originally posted by simontoad:
The other thing I suppose is that we British (and I include myself because Australians like me are just British colonials) are hardly the leaders in inclusivity and what we do needs to be viewed having regard to our tradition of considering ourselves the naturally superior race. Slavery, apartheid, forced labor, white Australia policy are all par for our course. We can't forget this when we think about race.
quote:We’ve identified three sorts of harm. Exclusion, deliberate insult, and apparent insult.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Any reasonable person (Hell, anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex) would understand that lack of intent doesn't preclude harm.
quote:No. I think the general rule is “don’t treat people less favourably on racial grounds - otherwise, wear whatever the fuck you like”.
No, you want the exception. You need to prove why it should be so.
quote:Yep, racist.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So, is this racist ? Are the comedians involved in the sketch racist because blackface occurs ? Or is the fact they are mocking its existence relevant ? And is the Larp racist because it involves blackface, or because of the way blackface is done ?
quote:Racism is bias based on race. Anyone can be racist, with or without any oppression.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I recall Twitter exchanges where Americans have argued it is impossible to be racist to white people - on the grounds it doesn't form systemic oppression -
quote:This is something that any reasonable person will recognise.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
but it might be reasonable to assert that blackface is a form of systemic racism regardless, because it creates a hostile atmosphere for folk of the race imitated.
quote:When what one does causes harm, one should feel the need to understand why. I don't see that here. I see people hanging their hat on intent.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You appear to be implying that the presence of harm is evidence of moral offence.
quote:I really like this post, especially the bit where you review your actions with humility. I would say that racism isn't
Originally posted by AmyBo:
quote:Yep, racist.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So, is this racist ? Are the comedians involved in the sketch racist because blackface occurs ? Or is the fact they are mocking its existence relevant ? And is the Larp racist because it involves blackface, or because of the way blackface is done ?
I don't think racist is a huge moral failing; I think it can be that we jut missed the mark. I've missed the mark all the time. But then I look at what I did.
In the context of American history especially, Blackface was used to denigrate, ridicule, and reinforce institutional racism, and carries those values with it. It's still really loaded. Race isn't shoe polish, and to try to change one's race with paint reduces the experience of people of color -that white people cannot fully understand - to costume. That's rude.
I've seen a LARPer in shoe polish or whatever they've used, and it was cringeworthy at best. I avoided him; it wasn't my space to challenge him (it was my first time); however, I couldn't look him in the eye and it was part of my reasoning for not going back.
quote:For clarity, are you saying that Mitchell and Webb are being racist, or that the (fictional) re-enactors that they are sending up are racist?
Originally posted by AmyBo:
Yep, racist.
quote:I do think that being racist is a huge moral failing.
I don't think racist is a huge moral failing;
quote:For sure. But we aren't taking about denigration, ridicule or reinforcement of institutional injustice. Everyone on this thread, as far I can see, agrees that dressing up as another race for that sort of purpose would be wrong.
In the context of American history especially, Blackface was used to denigrate, ridicule, and reinforce institutional racism
quote:And a sheet of clingfilm stretched over a gap in silver coloured fabric won't keep you alive in the cold vacuum of space.
Race isn't shoe polish
quote:It's trivially true that a white person can't fully understand the experience of a person of colour, because no one can fully understand anybody else's experience. SFW?
to try to change one's race with paint reduces the experience of people of color -that white people cannot fully understand - to costume.
quote:Superior...
Originally posted by Eliab:
And I think that this a mark of superiority for my position over yours.
quote:A more correct way of constructing that sentence would be 'we aren't talking about intentional denigration, ridicule or reinforcement of institutional injustice.'
For sure. But we aren't taking about denigration, ridicule or reinforcement of institutional injustice.
quote:Of course it is possible. Is it reasonable? From a photograph one cannot know his intentions. His behaviour would give more clues, however, barring descriptions of that surfacing we do not know those.
We aren't even talking about cases which could easily be misconstrued as that. I don't think it's possible to look at Walliams' costume and honestly think that he dressed up like that to take the piss out of Korean people.
quote:No one said anything about Congolese people or M&W taking the piss out of a nationality.
I don't think it's possible to watch the Mitchell and Webb sketch and honestly think that they wrote it to take the piss out of Congolese people.
quote:What a moronic statement. No, not accurate: Your post is an advanced stage, syphilitic moron with severe oxygen deprivation. If it were not for the history of blackface, the sketch would not have happened. It needs that history to make sense.
Well, maybe it is possible, but the viewer would need to be phenomenally obtuse, and grossly unfair. There really isn't any reasonable way to confuse what those performers are doing with the sort of racism that gave us blackface, and I think it's disingenuous to argue as if there was.
quote:Holy shit! And I though the last statement daft. It isn't trivial. That you think it is underscore how little you appear to comprehend racism and its legacy.
It's trivially true that a white person can't fully understand the experience of a person of colour, because no one can fully understand anybody else's experience. SFW?
quote:Slow your roll. Writing ≠ LARP.
Can we agree that if I, a person of race A, had the talent to write a story in which the lead character was a person of race B, that would not, in itself, be racist?
quote:No it isn't. It is a bunch of grown-arse people who still wanna play dress-up.
LARP is a form of story-telling.
quote:And all that is necessary.
but essentially the costume is the signal.
quote:No, the fuck, it isn't. Black people aren't fictional, for one. Literature has its own problems with racist caricatures and inauthentic characters. But we needn't go down that tangent.
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.
quote:It's all racist. Doing racist things to send up racism is still racist.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:For clarity, are you saying that Mitchell and Webb are being racist, or that the (fictional) re-enactors that they are sending up are racist?
Originally posted by AmyBo:
Yep, racist.
quote:I am little offended by this; I will endeavor to stay in purgatory though. I think it can be a spectrum. Some of it is a huge moral failing, but it's not all so. Such as a tacky sketch.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I do think that being racist is a huge moral failing.
I don't think racist is a huge moral failing;
And I think that this a mark of superiority for my position over yours.
quote:I think you just called me obtuse?
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:For sure. But we aren't taking about denigration, ridicule or reinforcement of institutional injustice. Everyone on this thread, as far I can see, agrees that dressing up as another race for that sort of purpose would be wrong.
In the context of American history especially, Blackface was used to denigrate, ridicule, and reinforce institutional racism
We aren't even talking about cases which could easily be misconstrued as that. I don't think it's possible to look at Walliams' costume and honestly think that he dressed up like that to take the piss out of Korean people. I don't think it's possible to watch the Mitchell and Webb sketch and honestly think that they wrote it to take the piss out of Congolese people.
Well, maybe it is possible, but the viewer would need to be phenomenally obtuse, and grossly unfair. There really isn't any reasonable way to confuse what those performers are doing with the sort of racism that gave us blackface, and I think it's disingenuous to argue as if there was.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:And a sheet of clingfilm stretched over a gap in silver coloured fabric won't keep you alive in the cold vacuum of space.
Race isn't shoe polish
But it'll do if you're dressing up as an astronaut.
quote:I'm really struggling with this. To write and to mock a person's appearance are such different things that I'm not seeing the connection. And the act of writing does not shield oneself from racism any more than sexism; but that's a different topic.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:It's trivially true that a white person can't fully understand the experience of a person of colour, because no one can fully understand anybody else's experience. SFW?
to try to change one's race with paint reduces the experience of people of color -that white people cannot fully understand - to costume.
Can we agree that if I, a person of race A, had the talent to write a story in which the lead character was a person of race B, that would not, in itself, be racist?
quote:I apologise. I think the position you are arguing for is flawed, but you are quite right that it doesn't need to be personal.
Originally posted by AmyBo:
I'm not responding to the rest because I think we're getting too personal.
quote:OK - the reason you're struggling is that you don't seem to get that I deeply disagree with this:
I'm really struggling with this. To write and to mock a person's appearance are such different things that I'm not seeing the connection.
quote:You seem to think that this is obviously true. To me it seems obviously wrong.
Originally posted by AmyBo:
The act of putting on makeup to look like another race is in and of itself a denigrating act.
quote:Which Is why I'm against those who mock the size of Trump's hands. He has absolutely no control over that and it's offensive. There's enough to criticise about what he says without geting into this area.
Originally posted by AmyBo:
]I'm really struggling with this. To write and to mock a person's appearance are such different things that I'm not seeing the connection. And the act of writing does not shield oneself from racism any more than sexism; but that's a different topic.
quote:Though I've done this, I agree with you. But if you are attempting to claim parity with black/yellowface, we part.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Which Is why I'm against those who mock the size of Trump's hands. He has absolutely no control over that and it's offensive. There's enough to criticise about what he says without geting into this area.
quote:There is a difference and no one thus far is arguing there isn't.
There seems to me to be an enormous difference between black-face or yellow-face on the one hand and caricaturing Kim on the other.
quote:No. We have one (ONE 1 UN UNO) aspect of him from that night. His image which, granted, isn't a caricature. Even supposing he did not do a typical Walliams performance, the makeup is enough to warrant the accusation.
Walliams gives every appearance of attacking Kim and not being at all racist.
quote:Except that Walliams hasn't been criticised for his words or behaviour in his Kim-persona. He's been criticised for the costume.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Of course it is possible. Is it reasonable? From a photograph one cannot know his intentions. His behaviour would give more clues, however, barring descriptions of that surfacing we do not know those.
I don't think it's possible to look at Walliams' costume and honestly think that he dressed up like that to take the piss out of Korean people.
quote:So humour this moron and refute it with an actual argument?
What a moronic statement.
quote:I'm happy to discuss this here, but if you'd be more comfortable doing it in Hell, then go for it.
Your post is an advanced stage, syphilitic moron with severe oxygen deprivation.
quote:Yes! It's a joke about racism. Obviously it could only be made in a world in which racism is a thing. That does not make the sketch racist. It just doesn't.
If it were not for the history of blackface, the sketch would not have happened. It needs that history to make sense.
quote:I didn't say that it was. 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.
Writing ≠ LARP.
quote:And here's me doing it for thirty years, and all this time I've though that the "RP" in "LARP" stood for role-playing, and that it was a direct descendant of the sort of interactive story-telling games known as RPGs. Guess not.
quote:No it isn't. It is a bunch of grown-arse people who still wanna play dress-up.
LARP is a form of story-telling.
quote: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.
If blackface were truly ancient history, then your "respectful" re-enactment argument might have legs. As it is not, it does not.
quote:Why would I find that weird? I've said already that authenticity in portraying a character is not a fixed standard. Presumably the way in which the Merrick character appeared to other characters in the play was signalled by some other means than costume.
A related anecdote. I once watched a production of The Elephant Man in which the man playing Merrick wore no prosthetic at all. The play was brilliant.
And no one was at all confused. Weird, huh?
quote:Making the effort to imagine yourself into a character of another race, in order to write fiction that encourages others to do the same, sounds to me like an action that will tend to reduce the amount of racial prejudice in the world.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Can we agree that if I, a person of race A, had the talent to write a story in which the lead character was a person of race B, that would not, in itself, be racist?
quote:I suspect that to lilBuddha the idea that race might be a lesser factor (in who the character is) might be hard to swallow.
I would imagine how that character would think and act, taking into account the personality I had written for him of which his membership of race B might be a greater or lesser factor
quote:What I am saying is that there is one piece of evidence and not the preponderance you keep referencing.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Except that Walliams hasn't been criticised for his words or behaviour in his Kim-persona. He's been criticised for the costume.
quote:Which appears to be projection as far as I can tell.
And we do know - to a high level of certainty - that the costume is not intended to mock Koreans in general,
quote: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.
quote:So humour this moron and refute it with an actual argument?
What a moronic statement.
quote:That reply was within Purgatorial Guidelines, exactly the same as your "any reasonable person".
quote:I'm happy to discuss this here, but if you'd be more comfortable doing it in Hell, then go for it.
Your post is an advanced stage, syphilitic moron with severe oxygen deprivation.
quote:No, it isn't. It is a joke about re-enactors. More specifically, it is a typical M&W absurdist tableau which uses re-enactors as a foil.
quote:Yes! It's a joke about racism.
If it were not for the history of blackface, the sketch would not have happened. It needs that history to make sense.
quote:This is an assertion, not a reasoned argument.
Obviously it could only be made in a world in which racism is a thing. That does not make the sketch racist. It just doesn't.
quote:Fairly certain this is not what she is saying. She appears to be saying that it is offencive because it is blackface and modern versions, despite good intent, carry the weight of negative history. Largely because the negative isn't just history, but present reality.
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.
quote:Writing is a considerably more complex issue than LARP. And, as I said has its own issues. Especially the one where black authors writing black characters have a much more difficult time getting contracts than white authors writing about black characters.
Fiction writing shares with LARP the quality of a person representing the thoughts, actions, words and character of another (imagined) person with different experiences. If attempting to cross the racial divide is wrong, because it is impossible, in one instance, it is wrong in the other, for the same reason.
quote:Children playing dress-up generally role play as well. It is kinda the point.
And here's me doing it for thirty years, and all this time I've though that the "RP" in "LARP" stood for role-playing, and that it was a direct descendant of the sort of interactive story-telling games known as RPGs.
quote:So they are disrespectful you admit?
quote: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.
If blackface were truly ancient history, then your "respectful" re-enactment argument might have legs. As it is not, it does not.
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.
I am arguing that if something is not malicious, and cannot reasonably be taken to be malicious, it shouldn't be viewed as such.
quote:Well, then you are arguing against no one on this thread. Because this position has not been stated.
I am arguing against the view that would say, for example, "I'm pretty sure that David Walliams wasn't mocking Korean people or intending to express any other racist message, but that doesn't matter - I'm going to be just as offended as if he was".
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.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Do you think, for example, that if the Mitchell and Webb sketch were reversed, and a group of black re-enactors were dressing up as roundheads and cavaliers, that would be racist? Even if they were as comically bad at it as the white actors were at dressing up as Congolese soldiers?
quote:It hurts people who *do* experience racism *now*. And a joke about racism should only be done by someone who and/or whose people have been on the receiving end. Otherwise, it's just more insensitive treatment, at *best*.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Yes! It's a joke about racism. Obviously it could only be made in a world in which racism is a thing. That does not make the sketch racist. It just doesn't.
If it were not for the history of blackface, the sketch would not have happened. It needs that history to make sense.
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?
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think it's possible to watch the Mitchell and Webb sketch and honestly think that they wrote it to take the piss out of Congolese people.
quote:The difference is that black people exist. TTBOMK, there've never been goblins nor green humanoids on this planet. So putting green paint on your face is unlikely to hurt/offend anyone, unless it's a sickly green. Depending on the goblin get-up, you might offend/hurt someone, if you go with the traditional interpretation of them as short, ugly, and deformed--because those conditions do happen among humans, and the people with them are subjected to a lot of crap.
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.
It seems to me that if it isn't racist to imagine and portray a character of a different race through a written medium, it isn't racist to do so through an improvised dramatic medium either. Your complaint that we can't fully understand another race's experience is as nonsensical to me as an objection to LARP as I hope it is to you as an objection to novels.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote: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.
quote:So humour this moron and refute it with an actual argument?
What a moronic statement.
quote:That is pretty much exactly what she said, except she used “people of color” rather than “black”.
quote:Fairly certain this is not what she is saying.
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.
quote:Well, sometimes sun, and sometimes (like last weekend) rain and mud. It’s all good.
Dungeons and Dragons in the sun; does that work for you? Ren faire for people who can't get laid?
quote: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:So they are disrespectful you admit?
quote: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.
If blackface were truly ancient history, then your "respectful" re-enactment argument might have legs. As it is not, it does not.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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”.
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.
quote:Go ahead. Any-fucking-colour-you-like-splain how that’s not racist.
Go ahead, though, whitesplain some more.
quote: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"?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But equally obviously, the sketch isn’t making any negative comment about anyone based on race.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
I think a “ren faire” is mostly a US usage,
quote: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.
I just think “respectful” is completely unworkable as a standard of behaviour in this area.
quote:Yes, and then an explanation of why said thing is reasonable could be required to defend that determination.
In my usual form of discourse (UK legal practice) “reasonable” is the word commonly used to make that distinction.
quote: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.
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: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.
quote:Go ahead. Any-fucking-colour-you-like-splain how that’s not racist.
Go ahead, though, whitesplain some more.
quote:Pretty much this, from what I can tell. LARP is OVERWHELMINGLY white.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
(b) not participate in LARP at all?
quote: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.
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.'
quote:No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
Should we stop performing these works because Puccini and Verdi were Europeans writing about different races?
quote:Again, it isn't American. Racism in the UK isn't identical to that in the US, but this isn't one of differences.
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.
quote: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'?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote: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'?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
quote: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.
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?
quote:Blackface as a caricature isn't strictly tied to slavery.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:But the protest tradition doesn't encompass all of Morris or blackface dancers.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
True, but the but the protest tradition has nothing to do with race and everything to do with disguise.
quote:Well said. Walliams is very clearly targeting Kim as Kim, and not Koreans generally. No possible suggestion of the latter.
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?
quote: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 ?
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.
quote:I had to look that up. Seems to mean early 1800s "frontier" America, but in mountainous terrain rather than cattle plains ???
My experience is with rendezvous-era re-enactment.
quote: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 ?
I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of such appropriation.
quote:This is even more dismissive and arrogant a statement than Eliab's "reasonable".
Originally posted by Gee D:
No possible suggestion of the latter.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote: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.
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?
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: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).
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"?
quote: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.
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.
quote:Culture comes into play as well. It is inter-related, but not identical.
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.
quote:No, her subculture, not her ethnicity.
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.
quote:There is not the same the history of oppressing royalty, except by other royalty and nobility, as there is of brown peoples.
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?
quote:I did not say looking like her was out of the question, but that it is unnecessary.
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?
quote:Actually, yes, because they haven't been so far. If they were, we would not be having this conversation.
Are we saying that we shouldn't consider people, in general, clever enough to know what it is they're being presented with?
quote: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.
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.
quote:You have to wear *some* makeup on stage, or you look like a corpse!
No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Which is why I said “to portray other groups”.
Originally posted by Jane R:
lilbuddha:quote:You have to wear *some* makeup on stage, or you look like a corpse!
No, but stop wearing makeup to portray other groups.
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...
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.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote: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*.
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...
quote: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.
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
quote: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.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:...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.
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.
quote:Surprisingly, fairly close. Except that I'd argue out of respect rather than utilitarianism.
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 ?
quote: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.
The alternative might be that you're saying that trying to look like someone else is an inherently disrespectful action.
quote:Disrespecting him for what has has done is fine, disrespecting him for what he is (by birth/culture) not so much.
And that while you're quite happy for anyone to disrespect Glorious Leader,
quote:Go on then, tell me how disrespecting Koreans is beneficial.
you think it's wrong to disrespect Koreans in general, regardless of how beneficial it may be in other ways.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
In fact, you yourself seemed to see the ambivalence of male impersonation of female (a maligned group?) involving much make-up.
quote:”much-stated principle”? I said one time that I didn’t care for it. And that is a personal thing, not a principle thing.
And you seemed quite able to rationalize a view which might excuse that, despite your own much-stated principle against it.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote: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.
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.
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?
quote: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 ?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Surprisingly, fairly close. Except that I'd argue out of respect rather than utilitarianism.
Originally posted by Russ:
The loss being the risk that someone of the ethnicity portrayed will be offended thereby. Is that it ?
quote:That's an answer.
I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful.
quote:Why would a decent person want to do something disrespectful, simply because the persons disprefected mightn’t see it? Seems disrespectful all the same.
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.
quote:That's an answer.
I'm saying that using makeup to impersonate another group which has been maligned by doing so is disrespectful.
quote:Not sure what this means. If someone were ignorant enough to not know the backstory, a decent person would apologize for inadvertently offending.
I think you're saying that the issue isn't really about makeup at all.
It's about awareness of the backstory.
quote: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.
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.
quote:This discussion isn’t about cultures which don’t have a history of Blackface. It is primarily about the UK, which does.
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.
quote:It is the combined British histories of oppression and of mocking the *appearance* of ethnic minorities that means it particularly grates.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This discussion isn’t about cultures which don’t have a history of Blackface. It is primarily about the UK, which does.
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.
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...
quote:What I really don't understand is how that's a useful response to my point.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But equally obviously, the sketch isn’t making any negative comment about anyone based on race.
quote:Because:
quote:Sorry, you'll have to explain this one a bit better. Why shouldn't respect be part of it?
I just think “respectful” is completely unworkable as a standard of behaviour in this area.
quote:That's not my argument. It is, at most, the starting point of my argument.
quote:Yes, and then an explanation of why said thing is reasonable could be required to defend that determination.
In my usual form of discourse (UK legal practice) “reasonable” is the word commonly used to make that distinction.
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:Yes, what you said was 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.
quote:M&W are doing black face.
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.
quote:This is a cop out. "There will never be perfect agreement with everyone so fuck trying"?
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;
quote: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.
b) I don't think it's part of a comedian's job to be respectful;
quote: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.
It's not any the less racial because you only directed it at one person.
quote: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.
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.
quote:A decent person would indeed apologise if they realised that they'd inadvertently offended someone present.
If someone were ignorant enough to not know the backstory, a decent person would apologize for inadvertently offending.
quote:You don't seem to find any difficulty with quantifying people's artistic freedom to use or not use makeup as something insignificant.
small things add up, so it is difficult to quantify things as less significant.
quote:And Ireland ? If the Sligo amateur dramatic society are putting on The Mikado, are they allowed makeup so as to look more oriental ?
This discussion isn’t about cultures which don’t have a history of Blackface. It is primarily about the UK, which does. [/QB]