Thread: Hallowe'en costumes Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005614
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
If this is okay, then blackface is too.
'Indian Princess' Halloween costumes
Unbelievable. Racist.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
"It's offensive, stereotypical and Disney-like." Yes. Yes it is.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
How dare children like and want to emulate someone who doesn't share their skin colour!
White children should stay white. Don't mix cultures, kids. Know who you are and be proud of it.
[ 22. September 2016, 22:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Maybe Dirty Jew costumes would also be nice. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe Dirty Jew costumes would also be nice.
No, they wouldn't. But maybe Jewish costumes would be okay.
That's rather my point.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
So, a schmatta and a very short tunic with maybe some spangly prayer tassles in strategic areas and a big glitter mogan david in the middle. That's about the equivalent as far as authentic cultural representation.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
What KA said. That is part of what you are missing, orfeo. That indian costume is not a bridging of cultures, but a parody.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Fine, be all concise and succinct and stuff.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Sorry, I was focused on the Disney story, not the other one. Should have made that clear. The Disney one has been in the news a bit.
[ 23. September 2016, 03:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Like the Fighting Whities I wonder if a counter parody would be in order. Maybe something like an unwashed alcoholic trapper with syphilis sores as a "Pioneer Royalty".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I like how you think.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I think the Fighting Whities aren't trying hard enough, though. Why have a guy that looks like Bob from the Church of Bob as a mascot? They should have some dude that looks like Jim Gaffigan in a stained undersized tee shirt and elastic cuff sweatpants. White athletic socks and zoris. Box of wine in one hand and Doritos in the other.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
What's it got to do with Halloween anyway?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
What's it got to do with Halloween anyway?
In the UK, not much. But I understand that in the US Halloween costumes are considerably more diverse than our usual selection of ghosts, ghouls, vampires and zombies. And they seem to be worn by far more people than just trick-or-treating children.
Basically, Halloween in the US seems to have turned into a nationwide all-age fancy dress party with no discernible theme. Which is why, every year, there is some controversy or other about some of the costumes shops try to sell. I seem to recall one year we had a thread about the proliferation of "sexy" Halloween costumes.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Somewhere along the line we picked up on the All Saints Day varient that we need to confuse the spirits of darkness by disguising our identity on the night before All Saints Day. I want to blame the Catholics, but I defer to the historians.
Also, specifically in the San Francisco Bay Area, Halloween can be translated as " costume based Bacchanalia". Know your subset.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Those costumes aren't just sexualising the indigenous women. They are doing the same to the wearers, aren't they? Wrong all round.
And as for the Maui. Words fail.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
What's it got to do with Halloween anyway?
In the UK, not much. But I understand that in the US Halloween costumes are considerably more diverse than our usual selection of ghosts, ghouls, vampires and zombies. And they seem to be worn by far more people than just trick-or-treating children.
Basically, Halloween in the US seems to have turned into a nationwide all-age fancy dress party with no discernible theme. Which is why, every year, there is some controversy or other about some of the costumes shops try to sell. I seem to recall one year we had a thread about the proliferation of "sexy" Halloween costumes.
IMO, one reason this is different in the US is that they do not seem to have the same affinity to year-round fancy dress as does the UK.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
Though we do have our own line in classy Hallowe'en costumes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24278768
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Though we do have our own line in classy Hallowe'en costumes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24278768
Oh yes, that is certain. Note: The last link might not be one you wish on your work computer.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Somewhere along the line we picked up on the All Saints Day varient that we need to confuse the spirits of darkness by disguising our identity on the night before All Saints Day. I want to blame the Catholics, but I defer to the historians.
Also, specifically in the San Francisco Bay Area, Halloween can be translated as " costume based Bacchanalia". Know your subset.
In San Francisco and other large cities, there was a tradition of large drag dances that were tolerated while cross dressing was illegal the rest of the year. I can't remember which city but in one there was a tradition that the Chief of Police would drive the Queen of the Ball to the party. A cross gender feast of fools.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
The one time I went to the Castro Street Halloween Street Party, it was like if you let a bunch of university theater majors take over Mardi Gras, and added some disco. Unreal. Magical. Unforgettable.
Lilb, you deserve combat pay for wading into that trench of cyberpuke to fetch up those... Things.
[ 24. September 2016, 07:36: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Lilb, you deserve combat pay for wading into that trench of cyberpuke to fetch up those... Things.
Unfortunately it did not take much of an effort. Fancy dress is a bigger offender than Hallowe'en as it has a longer season.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
About a month ago in Western Australia a mother helped her nine-year-old son to dress as his football hero for a school function. She added to the boy's football jumper and shorts a wig of dreadlocks, and because the boy's hero is of Fijian descent, she painted the boy's face, arms and legs brown.
The boy won a prize, and the mother posted photographs on Facebook. The comments she received ranged from vilification to support, such as you may read here. (The article is hostile to the mother, but the comments below the line - scroll well down - are largely supportive.)
If you would admonish the mother, what would you say to the boy about wanting to identify with his hero?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
About a month ago in Western Australia a mother helped her nine-year-old son to dress as his football hero for a school function. She added to the boy's football jumper and shorts a wig of dreadlocks, and because the boy's hero is of Fijian descent, she painted the boy's face, arms and legs brown.
The boy won a prize, and the mother posted photographs on Facebook. The comments she received ranged from vilification to support, such as you may read here. (The article is hostile to the mother, but the comments below the line - scroll well down - are largely supportive.)
If you would admonish the mother, what would you say to the boy about wanting to identify with his hero?
I don't know that I'd admonish anybody. I might say gently (if I were a friend of the family) that I feared the skin painting in particular was going to be taken badly by some people. In the case of the child, I'd probably try to use the situation as a teaching moment about how people see things differently and why we always try to think twice to avoid offending people inadvertently. (I'm certain the kid had no idea it would be an issue.)
The mother, being older, should have had more of a clue. But it doesn't sound like it was badly intended, so if she'd been my friend and I'd known about it before it hit the media, I would have done the "word to the wise" thing.
I recall being about 5 or so and desperately jealous of my Asian friends for their beautiful eyes, so much more attractive than my plain old boring round eyes. I recall trying to alter the shape of mine with my fingers. It seems to me a wholly innocent thing among the very young, and not something to inject adult attitudes into until it's absolutely necessary (as it will be at some point, since they must grow up in this world).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
If someone painted themselves blue to better resemble one of the Na'vi from Avatar, or a Smurf, I would not expect there to be a reaction.
So why is there a reaction when a Disney costume enables a child to look more like a character that has brown skin and tattoos? Does it become offensive because that character is representative of a recognisable human being?
It's precisely any examination of intent that seems to be missing from the outrage merchants. I've got no argument against the proposition that costumes that are seeking to make fun of someone are a problem.
But now we're getting outraged about costumes that don't, as far as I can see, seek to make fun of someone, and even a case of a boy who was quite clearly seeking to honour someone.
"Cultural appropriation" has become such a confused notion that it now seems to equally cover both cases of genuine appropriation - taking something away from the original owner - and any case of referencing that has no intention of taking away, and indeed may be designed to celebrate.
It's getting to the point where imitation by a white person is not capable of being a sincere form of flattery, that there's something intrinsically wrong with a white person indicating that they like something from another culture enough to try it out themselves.
Meanwhile, there is no equivalent movement to ensure that people of African or Asian descent don't use European forms of dress. Because European forms of dress are "normal" in our societies. So it's cool if a non-European engages in European culture. And it's also cool, a little exotic, if a non-European instead engages in culture that comes from their homeland or the home of their ancestral roots.
I recognise that this is largely because of historical power imbalance. But addressing imbalance is one thing. Going apeshit over a child wanting to look like a character or person that has a different skin tone is quite another.
[ 29. September 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I've got to stop reading threads backwards.
[ 29. September 2016, 14:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Except there is this whole thing where people used to darken their skin and act out cartoonish versions of people of color as a form of entertainment. For about a hundred years in the US.
Yeah. Used to being the operative phrase.
Judging an Australian kid who is a football fan on the basis of what people used to do and why they did it makes about as much sense as assuming that if I say "bless you" when you sneeze, it must be because I genuinely believe your soul is in danger the way that people used to believe that. Or that if I eat fish on a Friday it must be because I believe it's a religious requirement.
Ascribing a motive to people for an action that has multiple possible motives is stereotyping. It doesn't become any better just because the people being stereotyped come from the dominant group of society. Not all men are pigs and rapists. Not all white folk are racists. Not all American tourists are loud ignoramuses.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's getting to the point where imitation by a white person is not capable of being a sincere form of flattery, that there's something intrinsically wrong with a white person indicating that they like something from another culture enough to try it out themselves.
"Getting to the point"? It's already way past the point, if you ask me. I reached that conclusion the first time I heard someone claim that white people shouldn't be allowed to have dreadlocks.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
You know me, Marvin. A model of caution and weasel words.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It's a failing, but at least it's one you're aware of.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Proud of, it seems.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If someone painted themselves blue to better resemble one of the Na'vi from Avatar, or a Smurf, I would not expect there to be a reaction.
So why is there a reaction when a Disney costume enables a child to look more like a character that has brown skin and tattoos? Does it become offensive because that character is representative of a recognisable human being?
Because this. It applies to the UK, Canada and Australia as well.
When people of colour have equal treatment, the outrage will die down.
Intent should modify reaction to specific cases, but it doesn't change the effect.
Appropriation v. adoption will never have a clean differentiation.
The child dressing as his favourite footballer did not need the brown skin to make the connection to the footballer. And few acts sit in isolation. That many people still do blackface should be enough to cause pause even if intention is pure.
orfeo, if a depressed time-traveler from the late 19th C was walking around saying 'I hate gay people', you might not vilify him. But it is very likely you would let him know why this might be considered offensive in the 21st C.
[ 29. September 2016, 15:34: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The problem with the First Nations (Indian) costumes in the Canadian context is the ongoing problem of "missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls", about which there is now a National Commission constituted by the government of Canada. The link between sexualization and violence with our indigenous peoples is pretty clear already in Canada.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The link between sexualization and violence with our indigenous peoples is pretty clear already in Canada.
Not to me. Three times as many aboriginal men are missing or murdered than women, and that's not due to sexualisation. (Of course, the murder of men and boys is much less newsworthy than the murder of women and girls.) Also, from the same article:
quote:
the RCMP recently confirmed Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt’s claim that 70 per cent of indigenous women’s murderers are indigenous men.
[...]
Its report found that 62% of perpetrators were either spouses (29%), family members (23 per cent) or intimate partners (10%). 30% were acquaintances and 8% were strangers.
I don't have much of an opinion on the rights or wrongs of non-indigenous girls wearing these fancy dress costumes, but linking them to the murder of aboriginal women seems a big stretch.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
You don't understand the Canadian context. The whole of the indigenous issues: Indian Residential Schools, missing and murdered, treaty land entitlements, the 60s scoop, high profile serial killings of prostitutes, substance use, third world housing conditions - all of it is part of it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The child dressing as his favourite footballer did not need the brown skin to make the connection to the footballer.
Didn't he?
People wear football shirts with the numbers of favourite players on them all the time. Certainly with soccer/association football. I'm not actually certain whether or not AFL jerseys available for sale have numbers on them in the same fashion, but let's just assume for the moment that they do.
Does this constitute a costume?
Do you see people wearing football shirts walking around and think "it must be Halloween today" or "gee, there's a lot of people going to a fancy dress event tonight"? Do you perceive wearing a football shirt as having "dressed up" as their favourite footballer?
I'll wager a decent sum that you don't think that. I'll wager that people would have to do something more than that for it to register as "I'm dressing up as this footballer". A wig or something to convey a similarity in appearance to the footballer.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That many people still do blackface should be enough to cause pause even if intention is pure.
Thinking carefully about my own mental state isn't enough. Apparently I have to think carefully about the mental state of everybody else as well.
No doubt this is why many Americans managed to be offended by an Australian KFC ad that only depicted Australians and West Indians (the West Indian cricket team being sponsored by KFC) and that was broadcast in Australia. We made sure that the ad wasn't offensive to West Indians who understood the context.
But unfortunately we COMPLETELY forgot to check whether or not Americans would be offended. You see, we forgot to think about them. The ad wasn't broadcast in America, and didn't have any Americans in it, but we really should have remembered that Americans have racial associations about fried chicken and therefore everything about fried chicken is inherently about Americans.
The next time I eat Chinese food, I will think carefully about whether there are any Chinese people peering through my window that might be offended by the deeply ignorant way I am mishandling my food.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
This was a very popular accessory at one point, along with a Dutch national team shirt.
I can't remember it being called out as racist.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The child dressing as his favourite footballer did not need the brown skin to make the connection to the footballer.
Didn't he?
No, he didn't.
quote:
People wear football shirts with the numbers of favourite players on them all the time. Certainly with soccer/association football. I'm not actually certain whether or not AFL jerseys available for sale have numbers on them in the same fashion, but let's just assume for the moment that they do.
Does this constitute a costume?
Fancy dress is a child's delight year round, that does not disqualify any of those same outfits being costumes at Hallowe'en.
May I speak to the voice in your head that at least occasionally uses the brain cells contained therein, because the one that wrote these posts doesn't seem to.
Austalia has a blackface problem, in some ways worse than the one the US has. At least they generally acknowledge there is an issue, even if some of them continue to do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This was a very popular accessory at one point, along with a Dutch national team shirt.
I can't remember it being called out as racist.
Yeah, the Dutch.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, the Dutch.
No, this was in England. You're probably going to say now "oh, the English".
We loved Ruud over here. One of the most easily recognisable, famous sportsmen on the planet. Apparently, he didn't try and patent the wig either.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, the Dutch.
No, this was in England. You're probably going to say now "oh, the English".
We loved Ruud over here. One of the most easily recognisable, famous sportsmen on the planet. Apparently, he didn't try and patent the wig either.
Sorry, not a massive football fan. I like it, but don't follow anyone so did not recognise the name. Dreads are not inherently racist, it depends how they are used. But blackface is a problem in the UK, though not as bad as the Americans or Australians.
Sport is weird. I've run into racist bellends who talked up players of colour because they helped their team win.
But racism isn't only about hate. It is reducing someone to their colour. Or associating that colour with an attribute, positive or negative.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It's a freaking CHILD. I myself didn't know blackface existed until I was what, thirty or so? That's what comes of growing up in a multi-racial neighborhood.
Was I being deeply offensive by poking my fingers into the corners of my eyes and attempting to stretch them into a slant when I was seven? It was wholly motivated by frustrated envy and desire. Should I have been castigated because others elsewhere used the exact same gesture to make fun of Asians?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's a freaking CHILD.
No, it is a parent
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Austalia has a blackface problem, in some ways worse than the one the US has. At least they generally acknowledge there is an issue, even if some of them continue to do it.
Do you actually read the articles you link to?
Quote: "it's fair to say the history of blackface has been largely confined to the US. Maybe because of this we are able to think of blackface as a US cultural export, like MTV and ice hockey, and not something that's bound up with a system of oppression."
The reason many Australians don't get inherently outraged about someone painting their face is because we don't have American cultural history that turns this into an immediate signal of racism. In EXACTLY the same way that we don't have American cultural history surrounding fried chicken and so we don't associate fried chicken with poor black people.
I'm not going to pander to goddamn American sensitivities here in my own country. Americans sure as hell don't pander to Australian cultural sensitivities.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
And let me echo one of the comments on the article: "blackface" consists of dressing up as a generic stereotypical black person and using that as a caricature.
Dressing up as a specific person who is black IS NOT BLACKFACE.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
lilBuddha: To say ‘No, it is the parent.’ is to ignore the question that I introduced up-thread, which is ‘what would you to say to the boy about wanting to identify with his hero?’
I remember in the early 1950s seeing the movie Les sept péchés capitaux [The seven deadly sins], which ends with an episode covering the eighth sin: that of perceiving evil where none exists.
Intention matters in both legal and moral senses: the actions of the mother and the boy were their expression of admiration and affection. There is no evidence of malice.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But racism isn't only about hate. It is reducing someone to their colour. Or associating that colour with an attribute, positive or negative.
I didn't notice this specific bit of one of your posts before, but it serves nicely to reinforce my point. Dressing up up as a specific person is NOT associating a colour with an attribute. There's no stereotyping involved. There's merely the accurate observation of an attribute of an individual person.
A week ago I witnessed a male comedian dressed as a female Australian politician. Not a generic woman, a specific woman. He was brilliant. Are you going to declare he was sexist?
He wasn't trying to create a comic version of women in general and stereotype their behaviour, he was creating a comic version of a specific person who is female.
And alongside him a female comedian was creating a comic version of another specific female Australian politician.
Believe me, I'm using my brain cells. That's not code for "agreeing with lilbudhha" by the way. Using my brain cells means analysing things vigorously and showing you exactly why lumping a whole pile of things together and declaring them to all be the same is intellectually lazy and the source of a lot of needless grief.
[ 30. September 2016, 05:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not going to pander to goddamn American sensitivities here in my own country. Americans sure as hell don't pander to Australian cultural sensitivities.
See, one of the reasons I deleted the fucking post you reamed me out about is that I realised the subject had been covered, and that blackface hadn't necessarily traveled to the UK or Australia the way it developed in the States. That was me trying to adjust to your goddamn Australian sensibilities.
But hey, I guess it's other people's job to respect YOUR opinion and viewpoint, a big bad Hellion like you can snatch up that respect with one hand and slap tne giver's face with the other. Because Winning.
[ 30. September 2016, 05:30: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you actually read the articles you link to?
Yes. Evidently more than you do before you pull quotes from them.
Here is the bit preceding the quote you used which changes the context.
quote:
It's a great example of transnational racism - why it's misleading to argue the offensiveness of blackface begins and ends at the territorial border of the United States, or with African-Americans. It also helps explain why Australians keep wearing blackface.
As our race relations professor - Dr Yins Paradies from Deakin University - pointed out, racism is a transnational entity. It flows like money.
"It wouldn't exactly be the first time racial ideas have come from the US or vice versa," he said.
In a globalised world it's a hard argument to make that you can't be racist here because we haven't got the same history."
It is not a problem because it panders to American sensibility. It is because it is an
Australian problem.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dressing up as a specific person who is black IS NOT BLACKFACE.
Yes, it is. Nothing exists in a vacuum. You might not have an intention to be insulting, but the act is still tied to those acts that are so intended.
You might like to wear black clothing and give tribute to Brahman, but you are an idiot if you don't understand why that might be considered offensive.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
lilBuddha: To say ‘No, it is the parent.’ is to ignore the question that I introduced up-thread, which is ‘what would you to say to the boy about wanting to identify with his hero?’
He could do this without the paint.
quote:
Intention matters in both legal and moral senses:
Try that excuse accidentally doing 20% over the speed limit.
I'm not supporting castigating wither the mother or the child. But educating both is not out of order.
[ 30. September 2016, 05:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
*shrug* Kelly, my response to your post had nothing to do with blackface being US-specific.
Because I'm perfectly happy with the proposition that Australians also do, or have done, spectacularly inappropriate caricatures of darker-skinned people.
What I'm not happy with is a proposition that every reference to a darker-skinned person is an inappropriate caricature and should be judged as such. The article that lilbuddha linked to (apparently without reading very much beyond "quick! I need to find an article on blackface in Australia!") explains why Australians don't have a kneejerk reflex reaction to the topic.
By all means, call out examples of Australians being racist arseholes who've darkened their faces as black clowns. They exist. Just don't confuse that with a kid who wants to look like his football hero who happens to be black.
To put it another way, I don't have a problem with saying that Australia has a blackface issue. What I have a problem with is lilbuddha's stance of reasoning that Australia doesn't recognise its blackface issue, based on Australians failing to reflexively condemn all face paint.
Your stance wasn't the same as lilbuddha's stance. What my response to both had in common is an argument that a particular case shouldn't be judged by stereotyping. I seem to make that argument a hell of a lot around here. And yeah, I was actually conscious that I was stereotyping Americans in the process. Conscious choice.
[ 30. September 2016, 05:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You might not have an intention to be insulting, but the act is still tied to those acts that are so intended.
Oh what bullshit. What utter, utter bullshit.
Let's convict all policemen who kill a black person with murder, because the act is tied to whichever policemen had an intention to kill.
Let's deport all Muslims, because, y'know, we have evidence that some of them intend to harm us.
That is your argument. That is where your guilt by association line of argument leads to. You just can't see it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm beginning to understand why, during law school, the lecturers set so many exam questions with the same trap: let's see how many students say "this case looks a lot like a case we learned about in class, so the answer must be the same as the answer in that case we learned about".
It was so I would be trained not to say bullshit things like "your act is connected to the separate act over here that looks kind of similar".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
[ Crosspost fun!]Well if you are responding to me, orf, you managed to completely bypass my point, which was that, after I realised I had posted without really considering some of the other posts on the thread, I withdrew my comment and admitted my need to read up. In other words, I had no " stance"
But I can see how the idea of someone deciding they might need to see things from another person's point of view might be a baffling concept to you. Winners don't do that! No retreat, no surrender!
For instance, lilb just laid out a great case that she is not the one grabbing at snatches of the article you posted.
[ 30. September 2016, 06:00: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Gee. She quoted one bit of the article, which I read. And I quoted another bit of the article, which came just after it I seem to recall.
And yet what she does is not equivalent to what I do. She supports her point of view by using the article. I, on the other hand, selectively quote.
Meanwhile it seems that the solution to fighting against the stereotyping of black people and their behavioural traits is to stereotype the behaviour of white people. Well that is SUCH an improvement, I'm sure.
[ 30. September 2016, 06:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
See, when you cherry pick comments for that one sentence you can thumb your nose at, it makes me less inclined to suspend judgement and consider your opinion, and more inclined to go with my instincts, which tell me you are most likely completely full of shit.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Is it OK to dress as a specific person of another ace?
It probably depends on where you live, culture differs around the world. Listen to people of the culture that is being represented. If they find it offensive then it is offensive.
End of.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See, when you cherry pick comments for that one sentence you can thumb your nose at, it makes me less inclined to suspend judgement and consider your opinion, and more inclined to go with my instincts, which tell me you are most likely completely full of shit.
It's almost as if you have no idea how conversations actually work.
It also reminds me of the client I had a couple of years ago who, on every draft, would write "we are comfortable with this provision" against every single bloody provision they didn't want me to change, instead of just telling me the ones that they had reacted to and wanted to do something about. Towards the end, when 95% of the provisions were settled, I finally snapped and told them how difficult it was to wade through to find the stuff that they wanted me to act on.
Listen, if you want to sit at your computer formulating a response to every single sentence you read, struggling to prevent each post in the chain of conversation becoming longer and more elaborate as you painstakingly ensure that nothing is left out, go for it.
Here in the real world I'll be picking and choosing what to respond to. I also won't be writing a comment under every Facebook post I read to say "I read this". I'm so daring, sometimes I won't even touch the fucking Like button.
[ 30. September 2016, 06:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Gee. She quoted one bit of the article, which I read. And I quoted another bit of the article, which came just after it I seem to recall.
Read the thing in its entirety and it supports the bits I quote more than the bits you quote.
quote:
Meanwhile it seems that the solution to fighting against the stereotyping of black people and their behavioural traits is to stereotype the behaviour of white people. Well that is SUCH an improvement, I'm sure.
The solution to fighting stereotyping is to understand why people of colour think what you are doing is stereotyping.
I'll quote yet another bit from the same article.
quote:
In any case, we don't need studies to re-affirm that Indigenous Australians find blackface - benevolent or not - racist and offensive.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Well, that's fine and dandy so long as we all know and agree what blackface is.
Oh wait.
PS You do comprehend that the footballer in question is not an Indigenous Australian? Or do they all look alike to you? You know, he's got dark skin, he's from Australia, so he must be indigenous!
[ 30. September 2016, 06:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See, when you cherry pick comments for that one sentence you can thumb your nose at, it makes me less inclined to suspend judgement and consider your opinion, and more inclined to go with my instincts, which tell me you are most likely completely full of shit.
It's almost as if you have no idea how conversations actually work.
It also reminds me of the client I had a couple of years ago who, on every draft, would write "we are comfortable with this provision" against every single bloody provision they didn't want me to change, instead of just telling me the ones that they had reacted to and wanted to do something about. Towards the end, when 95% of the provisions were settled, I finally snapped and told them how difficult it was to wade through to find the stuff that they wanted me to act on.
Listen, if you want to sit at your computer formulating a response to every single sentence you read, struggling to prevent each post in the chain of conversation becoming longer and more elaborate as you painstakingly ensure that nothing is left out, go for it.
Here in the real world I'll be picking and choosing what to respond to. I also won't be writing a comment under every Facebook post I read to say "I read this". I'm so daring, sometimes I won't even touch the fucking Like button.
Dude, actually in the real world conversations involve listening at some point. If the whopping five sentence post I just wrote is something you had to " wade through" I don't think I'm the problem.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, that's fine and dandy so long as we all know and agree what blackface is.
Oh wait.
PS You do comprehend that the footballer in question is not an Indigenous Australian? Or do they all look alike to you?
sigh You cannot be this stupid. Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you truly not understand?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[qb] Gee. She quoted one bit of the article, which I read. And I quoted another bit of the article, which came just after it I seem to recall.
Read the thing in its entirety and it supports the bits I quote more than the bits you quote.
He doesn't like reading things in their entirety. That's the paralegal's job.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
As is comprehending what is written, apparently,
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
It depends on where you are. Black people whiting up as zombies, as happens in some Caribbean countries is not offensive because white people do not find it offensive. A man dressing as a female politician is not offensive because women do not find it offensive. However if it is the dark skinned people who object to a child dressing as a Fijian footballer then it is offensive, even if no offence was intended by the child or his parents.
However if the offence is that of left wing idealists who are speaking on behalf of people they have not spoken to on this topic (and it grieves me to say this as I lean to the left politically) then ignore the stupid bastards.
Political correctness is about respecting people.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, that's fine and dandy so long as we all know and agree what blackface is.
Oh wait.
PS You do comprehend that the footballer in question is not an Indigenous Australian? Or do they all look alike to you?
sigh You cannot be this stupid. Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you truly not understand?
I understand plenty. I just don't agree. I don't agree with your ludicrous position that all people ought to be tarred with the intention of some people. If you're going to quotemine badly, I don't agree that this is okay for you and that you can't be criticised for it.
I don't agree that the very real problems of racism and sexism and homophobia and stereotyping are solved by treating all straight white men alike. I don't agree that racism is solved by failing to distinguish between different cultures.
I don't agree that a generic Amerindian costume in the 1st post of this thread can be lumped together with the costume of a specific Polynesian character in the 2nd post of this thread and treated as if there's no distinction between them.
I don't agree. I don't agree. I don't agree. This has nothing to do with me not understanding, and everything to do with me despairing about intellectual laziness in exactly the same way that I've despaired about the same kind of surface analysis on may topics on the Ship over many years. I am never going to be happy with a line of argument that, quite literally, divides the world into two black and white camps and reduces all the complexity of people and cultures and histories and interactions into a simplistic bunch of rules about how dressing up as someone who looks different to you is inherently wrong.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It depends on where you are. Black people whiting up as zombies, as happens in some Caribbean countries is not offensive because white people do not find it offensive. A man dressing as a female politician is not offensive because women do not find it offensive. However if it is the dark skinned people who object to a child dressing as a Fijian footballer then it is offensive, even if no offence was intended by the child or his parents.
However if the offence is that of left wing idealists who are speaking on behalf of people they have not spoken to on this topic (and it grieves me to say this as I lean to the left politically) then ignore the stupid bastards.
Political correctness is about respecting people.
See, this is the kind of common sense I can respect.
Getting the feedback of a few Fijans would strike me as the first step in the whole process, rather than a bunch of honkified blathering about what is clearly offensive and what is obviously oversensitive. It doesn't matter what we do or don't, don't, don't agree with, what matters is listening to the people it directly effects.
And again, since what I began to write a page back struck me as honkified blathering, I deleted it. I don't like being dragged up to the front of the class as an example of an argument I took back.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It depends on where you are. Black people whiting up as zombies, as happens in some Caribbean countries is not offensive because white people do not find it offensive. A man dressing as a female politician is not offensive because women do not find it offensive. However if it is the dark skinned people who object to a child dressing as a Fijian footballer then it is offensive, even if no offence was intended by the child or his parents.
Trying to look like a zombie isn't trying to look like a white person.
quote:
However if the offence is that of left wing idealists who are speaking on behalf of people they have not spoken to on this topic (and it grieves me to say this as I lean to the left politically) then ignore the stupid bastards.
Id certainly rather be spoken to and understood, but I find it difficult to be angry with people who are trying.
quote:
Political correctness is about respecting people.
Respect is what this argument is about.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Dude, actually in the real world conversations involve listening at some point. If the whopping five sentence post I just wrote is something you had to " wade through" I don't think I'm the problem.
Regarding Sentence Two: I'm discussing a general principle, not one specific post of yours. I have a tendency to be an abstract thinker like that. Which is kind of why I get so worked up about a lack of analysis.
Regarding Sentence One: What would you consider to be evidence of me listening? Does it involve me changing my mind? If so, that's a real problem because it would appear that only one of us can listen to the other unless we swap positions. Does it involve me responding to everything you say? I've already explained why, as a general principle, I don't think that's viable.
Additional point: Observe how much longer this post has become as I attempt to include my reaction to everything that you wrote and the possible implications I could think of.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Well, since I fucking stated three times that I had reconsidered the blackface argument ( as I just said to Balaam), evidence of listening for me would be if you STOP FUCKING ACTING LIKE I AM ARGUING WITH YOU ABOUT BLACKFACE WHEN I AM NOT.
"Change your mind?" I wasn't disagreeing with you! I was pissed that you were misrepresenting me! And along the way you started pulling your Daniel Webster and F,Lee Bailey Make A Porno routine, and your shrill defensiveness started tilting me toward the sneaking suspicion that you are full of shit. It's hard to be convinced by someone who hops up and down and throws papers around by way of building a defense.
God bless you, Balaam. We needed someone sane to wander by. Breath of fresh air you are,
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It may or may not interest any of you (please, by all means, respond by explicitly telling me whether or not it interested you, I'll be unable to cope until I know, how many Shipmates browse this thread anyway?)...
That this afternoon I've found myself censoring and rewriting several of my posts.
Why? Because I was going to write something that indicated the gender of other Shipmates.
I mean, heaven forbid. Mustn't do that. If I demonstrate that I've actually noticed the gender of someone, it's a short and slippery slope to proving that I treat someone differently based on their gender. Which of course is a bad thing. It's sexist. There's no reason in a conversation like this one to treat Shipmates differently based on their gender.
And so I rewrote things and avoided any sign that I believed that the 2 people I was largely exchanging barbs with were women. I gave up at one point and used "she", perhaps I could have gone for the singular "they" but to me that's for when you genuinely don't know the gender of a person.
So well done. You've made me sufficiently edgy about perception that I wanted to avoid the conclusion that, if I noticed someone's sex, my intentions must be sexist.
Not the particular prejudice that you wanted to make me touchy about, right? I know. But take your hypersensitivity where you can find it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Well, since I fucking stated three times that I had reconsidered the blackface argument ( as I just said to Balaam), evidence of listening for me would be if you STOP FUCKING ACTING LIKE I AM ARGUING WITH YOU ABOUT BLACKFACE WHEN I AM NOT.
This is what I mean about abstract thinking. For me this stopped having anything to do with your deleted post ages ago.
Whereas you think this is still about that because I haven't explicitly said WE'RE NOT ARGUING ABOUT YOUR DELETED POST ON BLACKFACE ANY MORE.
Right now, as far as I'm concerned, we're arguing about your need to have every point you make explicitly acknowledged in a way that is going to become very tiresome. No, wait, not going to become, it's tiresome now. It's developed into an argument running over several posts.
EDIT: Looking back up the page, you made a post complaining about "cherry picking". That was most definitely the point where there was no content about blackface whatsoever. We each wrote several posts quoting each other after that. None of which, as far as I'm concerned, were posts about blackface.
[ 30. September 2016, 07:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I don't think you are even reading what you write anymore.
You. Asked. Me. If . I. Needed. You. To. Change. Your. Mind. About. The. Costume. Issue. To .Prove You. Were. Listening.
I. Said. That. Question. Itself. Shows. You. Haven't. Been. Listening.
So, I guess the only reason you ask questions is to set people up for your brilliant rebuttals. Now I have a question: don't you realize how gamboling around like that might reduce a person's ability to take what you are saying seriously?
I mean, if all you care about is scoring points and demonstrating your brilliance, that's one thing, but if you actually care about what you are discussing, why undercut your credibility with silly word games?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
You. Asked. Me. If . I. Needed. You. To. Change. Your. Mind. About. The. Costume. Issue. To .Prove You. Were. Listening.
No, I didn't.
Read. The. Post. I. Didn't. Mention. The. Costume!!!!
See? Your mind put that in there. I can completely understand why your mind put that in there, but to declare in capital letters that I asked you that specific thing... no, that isn't what I asked. I couched it in more abstract terms because I was thinking in general about whether "listening" could be demonstrated by a changed mind.
[ 30. September 2016, 08:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
What. Else. Was. There. For. You. To. Change. Your. Mind. About? What. Did. That. Specific. Question. Refer. To?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What. Else. Was. There. For. You. To. Change. Your. Mind. About? What. Did. That. Specific. Question. Refer. To?
I've edited my post in the meantime. The whole point is that I don't need a specific thing to be referring to.
[ 30. September 2016, 08:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
( Christ Almighty, it's like arguing with a chihuahua puppy.)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What. Else. Was. There. For. You. To. Change. Your. Mind. About? What. Did. That. Specific. Question. Refer. To?
I've edited my post in the meantime. The whole point is that I don't need a Specific Question.
I award you the last word. It's past 1 am here.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I know very little about Chihuahuas. But, if they think very quickly and abstractly I might have to get one.
I'm about to drive home, so I won't post anything else for... at LEAST half an hour. That should give you enough time to write quite a long post. One. Capitalised. Word. At. A. Time.
Your. Typing. Skills. Are. Up. To. It. I. Hope.
Personally. I. Can. Do. About. Seventy. Words. Per. Minute.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Kiss. My. Ass.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I do care about what I'm discussing by the way.
Demonstrating my brilliance is an accidental by-product of bringing all my intellect and skills to the discussion. Which I wouldn't bother doing if I didn't care.
In short, I'm not a troll. You didn't use that word, but it feels like that's where the substance was going.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Didn't you just go into a bit of a flap a few posts up about me putting words in your mouth? I never called you a troll. I just don't think your rhetoric is as brilliant as you think it is. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has ever said that.
Chihuahua puppies, by the way, introduce themselves by jumping straight for your face, over and over again, with very little space in between jumps for you to take a breath. Sometimes it's cute, sometimes it's annoying as fuck.
I will donate $15 to the Organ Fund if you make that last sentence your sig for a week.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Did. I. Miss. Out. On. The. Memo. Where. We. All. Have. To. Type. Like. Shatner. Speaks?
(obligatory Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!)
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
orfeo, do you know who you are reminding me of? IngoB when he was determined to be Right™. Just saying.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
[...] Chihuahua puppies, by the way, introduce themselves by jumping straight for your face, over and over again, with very little space in between jumps for you to take a breath. [...]
What? From the ground?? 5ft up? Like the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog? - Now, that is rather worrying!!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Oh, snap! LVER. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Orfeo: I'm. Going. To.Bed. Now. And.I'm. Not. Shatner. I'm. Hal.
ETA : Oh, sorry, that was for Doc.
Wes: you'd be amazed.
[ 30. September 2016, 09:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
orfeo, do you know who you are reminding me of? IngoB when he was determined to be Right™. Just saying.
I'm flattered that anyone thinks I have his stamina.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I am never going to be happy with a line of argument that, quite literally, divides the world into two black and white camps and reduces all the complexity of people and cultures and histories and interactions into a simplistic bunch of rules about how dressing up as someone who looks different to you is inherently wrong.
That's not an argument anyone is making though.
Their argument is that dressing up as someone who looks different to you is inherently wrong if you're white. Black people can do it all they want.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
True. Got to fix the power imbalance by creating a new one.
I'm actually quite in favour of what is sometimes (often disparagingly) known as "reverse discrimination". But not as a universal principle.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Getting the feedback of a few Fijans would strike me as the first step in the whole process, rather than a bunch of honkified blathering about what is clearly offensive and what is obviously oversensitive.
This, but also getting the feedback of Australia's Aboriginal people too.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
orfeo, do you know who you are reminding me of? IngoB when he was determined to be Right™. Just saying.
I'm flattered that anyone thinks I have his stamina.
You don't seem to have his gift of brevity.
Tubbs
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dressing up as a specific person who is black IS NOT BLACKFACE.
Yes, it is.
I'm a LARPer. One of these days I might decide to play a Dark Elf character. Dark Elves, in the system that I play (although not all fantasy continuities) have black skin.
Do you think that wearing black face paint for that purpose is 'blackface'? Is it racist?
Or is it just harmless dressing up? Because it seems to me that if you accept that it isn't racist (which, IMAO, it clearly isn't) you can't convincingly maintain that the respectful counterfeiting of a Fijian footballer's skin tone for similarly frivolous reasons is. There's no moral difference between the two.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
orfeo, do you know who you are reminding me of? IngoB when he was determined to be Right™. Just saying.
I'm flattered that anyone thinks I have his stamina.
You don't seem to have his gift of brevity.
Tubbs
Nope. He gave that away to someone else. He sure as hell didn't have it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
True. Got to fix the power imbalance by creating a new one.
Riiiiight. People of colour expressing their offence at people of no colour pretending to be them changes the power balance? How exactly?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Or is it just harmless dressing up? Because it seems to me that if you accept that it isn't racist (which, IMAO, it clearly isn't) you can't convincingly maintain that the respectful counterfeiting of a Fijian footballer's skin tone for similarly frivolous reasons is. There's no moral difference between the two.
Um, dude, elves aren't real.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Getting the feedback of a few Fijans would strike me as the first step in the whole process, rather than a bunch of honkified blathering about what is clearly offensive and what is obviously oversensitive.
This, but also getting the feedback of Australia's Aboriginal people too.
(Highfives Tubbs while stepping over chihuahua puddles)
Exactly right. I mean, seriously, it is beyond arrogant to tell people of color what they are allowed to find uncomfortable.
[ 30. September 2016, 16:55: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Um, dude, elves aren't real.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
"You People are great, you have night vision, you can detect ghosts..."
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The article that lilbuddha linked to (apparently without reading very much beyond "quick! I need to find an article on blackface in Australia!") explains why Australians don't have a kneejerk reflex reaction to the topic.[/qb
There are reasons why Australians don't have a knee-jerk reaction and. if you'd read the article completely and comprehended it, you would see that they do not comprise an excuse.
quote:
To put it another way, I don't have a problem with saying that Australia has a blackface issue. What I have a problem with is lilbuddha's stance of reasoning that Australia doesn't recognise its blackface issue, based on Australians failing to reflexively condemn all face paint.
One of the problems in Australia is exposure.
From this article:
quote:
While the practice of blackface for entertainment has died out in America, it continues to happen in Australia. Elder believes this is due in large part to the population difference between Indigenous Australians and African-Americans.
“Literally the demographic difference is between a large African-American minority population in the United States where the power of criticisms of a big group has a lot more power,” she said.
“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people only make up 2–3% of the population. So in that sense, their voices are not heard as much when they do critique blackface.”
“It also means that lots of white people in Australia can go through life without thinking much or knowing much about what it means to be racist or do that type of performance.”
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb] You might not have an intention to be insulting, but the act is still tied to those acts that are so intended.
Oh what bullshit. What utter, utter bullshit.
Let's convict all policemen who kill a black person with murder, because the act is tied to whichever policemen had an intention to kill.
Let's deport all Muslims, because, y'know, we have evidence that some of them intend to harm us.
That is your argument. That is where your guilt by association line of argument leads to. You just can't see it.
That is not my argument, you are actually an idiot.
[ 30. September 2016, 17:34: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
But really, do you expect him to consider every last little thing you say? He doesn't have to respond to your actual point, all he has to do is filter out sound bites that give him a good set up.
Haven't you ever watched Law and Order? Tsss.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Lilbuddha,
You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your mind. You will continue to link acts by different people into one narrative, and I will continue to insist on individualised consideration of the merits of each case. We're done here.
Kelly,
I just wrote something that would have just made you even more of a cranky child than you are now. Let's just leave it.
[ 30. September 2016, 22:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Oh, thank you. The sense of relief at being spared is palpable. I shall sleep well tonight.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions.
I think many of us win and lose simultaneously without realising it.
I am curious though. Why is white classified as non-colour?
If we classify it as a colour, doesn't that then ascribe similar respect to all colours- without setting it apart?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions.
I think many of us win and lose simultaneously without realising it.
I am curious though. Why is white classified as non-colour?
If we classify it as a colour, doesn't that then ascribe similar respect to all colours- without setting it apart?
Seriously, WTF? SO, if we reclassified you as pink, all the history disappears? All the current inequity is rectified and racists suddenly go, "Oh, now that we are a colour as well, the scales are dropping from my eyes! We are all as one"!
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Um, dude, elves aren't real.
Icelanders will disagree.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions.
I think many of us win and lose simultaneously without realising it.
I am curious though. Why is white classified as non-colour?
If we classify it as a colour, doesn't that then ascribe similar respect to all colours- without setting it apart?
Seriously, WTF? SO, if we reclassified you as pink, all the history disappears? All the current inequity is rectified and racists suddenly go, "Oh, now that we are a colour as well, the scales are dropping from my eyes! We are all as one"!
Why do you assume I'm white? Is it because of my avatar? What inference should I make from your avatar?
Culture change takes ages. There is no easy fix. But one of the fixes is to stop reinforcing inequality. So no, my question does not make everything magically alright. And I am not stupid enough to think that it does. But why should we see the world as coloured/non coloured? It is one way, among many, that may improve the future.
I hope this explanation makes more sense.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
Patdys: You must understand that attempting to engage with the offenderati is an exercise in futility. To them all is black and white. The idea that circumstances alter cases is alien to their comprehension.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The problem with the attitude that circumstances alter cases is that groups can get very settled into actions that may not be offensive to anyone in their current circle, but very offensive if things change just slightly.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But racism isn't only about hate. It is reducing someone to their colour. Or associating that colour with an attribute, positive or negative.
I'm not sure that a white person blacking up to look like a black person is about "reducing them to their colour"; it's recognizing that the black person is black. One could argue;
- that merely recognizing that the black person is black is racist (although that would be a pretty shallow argument.)
- that a white person blacking up to represent a black person is not "reducing them to their colour"; it is representing one important aspect of who that person is.
- that representing a black person without blacking up is racist, since it ignores an important aspect of who that person is; it doesn't "reduce them to their colour" but removes even their colour.
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
If they find it offensive then it is offensive.
I am, when I read comments like this, inclined to respond:
quote:
Originally uttered by Stephen Fry:
Oh you're offended are you? Well so fucking what?
It comes down, I suppose, to "right". People have "the right" to be offended, but that's not the same as being right to be offended; people seeking reasons to be offended deserve to find what they seek. So, you're quite right, if somebody finds something offensive then it is offensive. Being offensive, though, isn't necessarily a Bad Thing™. We all have the right to be offended but none of us has a right to be "unoffended". More importantly, perhaps, none of us will remain unoffended. Offence is a two-way street; for everybody giving offence there needs to be someone to take offence. Some take it more easily than others but we all take it to some degree and it is, surely, always about choosing to take it?
"If they find it offensive then it is offensive" is true enough, but equally if "they" choose not to be offended then it's not offensive.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Has anyone thought to ask the sports player in question whether he was offended? If he wasn't, but was for instance, flattered, what does that say?
I'm dubious about the "if anyone is offended, it's offensive" line. It sounds nice until you look at real-life examples. Are the harry Potter books offensive because they portray witchcraft in a positive light? Some would say yes.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Has anyone thought to ask the sports player in question whether he was offended? If he wasn't, but was for instance, flattered, what does that say?
Again, if I were reporting on the story, this would be Step 2 after interviewing the kid.
However, one problem is the player has a vested interest in being kind to his fans, so no matter how he really feels, he is almost guaranteed to make light of it. That's why I thought getting a few more folk of the same background to respond would be important.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
I'm not sure that a white person blacking up to look like a black person is about "reducing them to their colour"; it's recognizing that the black person is black. One could argue;
- that merely recognizing that the black person is black is racist (although that would be a pretty shallow argument.)
Ridiculous is the word, not shallow.
quote:
that a white person blacking up to represent a black person is not "reducing them to their colour"; it is representing one important aspect of who that person is.that representing a black person without blacking up is racist, since it ignores an important aspect of who that person is; it doesn't "reduce them to their colour" but removes even their colour.
It is funny, but a white athlete, actor, politician etc. is seen as being an athlete, actor or politician first. Race isn't part of the description. Add some melanin, and that is suddenly the most important thing.
There is a massively popular American play called Hamilton. In it the white historical figures are played by non-white actors. And it works magnificently because whiteness isn't seen as an essential part of who they were. There whiteness is merely the default, the background.
Perhaps, someday, one could cast Roots without regard to the colour of the actors, but it wouldn't work now.
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
If they find it offensive then it is offensive.
I am, when I read comments like this, inclined to respond:
quote:
Originally uttered by Stephen Fry:
Oh you're offended are you? Well so fucking what?
That quote, out of context, is meaningless. Here is a brief snippet from the interview that the quote came from. The full segment gives a more nuanced view the the short quote, though it is not completely satisfying.
He is speaking of the religious' right to be offended by disparaging comments, that offence itself is not enough. And yet, make an antisemitic or homophobic comment and he is immediately livid.
Yes, some people are more easily offended than they should be. But waiving off all offence because of that is stupid.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Why do you assume I'm white? Is it because of my avatar? What inference should I make from your avatar?
It is because you presented what appeared to be an overly-simplistic solution that I most often hear from white people.
But it still is an assumption and I shouldn't have done.
quote:
Culture change takes ages. There is no easy fix. But one of the fixes is to stop reinforcing inequality. So no, my question does not make everything magically alright. And I am not stupid enough to think that it does. But why should we see the world as coloured/non coloured? It is one way, among many, that may improve the future.
I hope this explanation makes more sense.
That does make more sense. However, it isn't seeing the world as coloured/ none coloured, but in the values we assign to the particular labels. And the inequities of the past cannot simply be ignored. For one, they have created the inequities of the present.
You are right, it is a long process. And, yes, changing what we think skin colour means is an important first step.
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
Patdys: You must understand that attempting to engage with the offenderati is an exercise in futility. To them all is black and white. The idea that circumstances alter cases is alien to their comprehension.
Right. Oppress people for a couple of hundred years and when they complain, they are offenderati.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is funny, but a white athlete, actor, politician etc. is seen as being an athlete, actor or politician first. Race isn't part of the description. Add some melanin, and that is suddenly the most important thing.
Is it? I don't know where you live so perhaps you see it that way, but I don't see it at all. By which I mean that I don't see reports on the news about "black athletes", "black actors" or "black politicians". Perhaps your news bulletins are different to mine. The only times I see reference to "black anybody" on TV is when being black is the point of the story. (E.g. An Olympic gold medal was won by Mo Farah, not "black athlete Mo Farah", but I do hear about "American police officers shooting dead black youths.")
I'm well aware of the original context of Fry's comment, but it's not meaningless used in other contexts. Why would it be? If it only applied in relation to "the religious right", it would be "stupid" (although I don't think that is ever a helpful description - if it were, it would, in itself, be "stupid".) And, to be fair, I didn't claim that Fry had used it in a general context; I said that "I am inclined to respond..."
Perhaps it's important that Fry goes on to say, "I'm sorry; you get some of my sympathy but your self-pity gets none of my sympathy because self-pity is the ugliest emotion in humanity." That, I suspect, is what "being offended" is about more often than not. It's self-pity and Fry is right; it is ugly. Or as you might say, "It's stupid." quote:
Yes, some people are more easily offended than they should be. But waving off all offence because of that is stupid.
It's that word again - "stupid". Why is it "stupid"? Is it not just as "stupid" to take offence as to wave it off? It is only "stupid" to wave off offence if taking offence is rational, but taking offence isn't rational; it's personal, it's subjective, it's selective, but it's not rational.
In terms of the Australian mother who blacked up her son to imitate his Fijian hero, the footballer in question was interviewed. I found his response disappointing. He said, "The young blood’s innocence merely attempting to emulate his hero hurts my heart... Honestly I’ve encouraged this mistake in the past but I’m now educated of it’s origins." So he's offended (or "his heart is hurt") not because it is offensive, because he has been told that it is offensive. You want to know what's "stupid"? THAT is stupid.
Where does it become "stupid"? With comments such as this:
quote:
Originally posted by you:
Right. Oppress people for a couple of hundred years and when they complain, they are offenderati.
If you call me a dick, I might have grounds to be offended because you've called me a dick.
If that were the grounds for offence, I'd expect those around me to say, "Ooh that's not nice. Never mind. You're bigger than that," or some such.
I don't, though, have any grounds to be offended because your ancestors were beastly to my ancestors, or because "your people" have been "oppressing my people" for generations. If that were the case, I'd expect those around me to say, "Fuck right off and get over it."
There are plenty of reasons for people not to be racist (or sexist or homophobic or bigoted in any way); other people being "offended" is not one of those reasons.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
And FWIW:
In the case of the Australian mother who blacked up her son to imitate his footballing hero, the Fijian footballer was interviewed and said:
quote:
The young blood’s innocence merely attempting to emulate his hero hurts my heart... Honestly I’ve encouraged this mistake in the past but I’m now educated of it’s origins."
So-o-o-o... he was offended (or "his heart was hurt") by what happened not because he was offended by what happened but because he has been told that what happened was offensive. You want to talk about "stupid"? THAT is "stupid".
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
lillBuddha: You persist in seeing this particular case as having some general application. The costume of the boy has nothing to do with any act of oppression: it is play-acting in an individual act of homage from the obscure to the (relatively) famous; from the poorer to the richer; from the fan to the star.
Is it perhaps that you believe that - although the original act is innocent - you are obliged to protest on behalf of 'the principle of the thing'? I would suggest that your role as Saviour of the Oppressed would be better played in another setting.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
Apologies - I decided not to include the point about the Fijian athlete in my post, but then did and then decided I ought to and forgot I already had.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Or is it just harmless dressing up? Because it seems to me that if you accept that it isn't racist (which, IMAO, it clearly isn't) you can't convincingly maintain that the respectful counterfeiting of a Fijian footballer's skin tone for similarly frivolous reasons is. There's no moral difference between the two.
Um, dude, elves aren't real.
Yes! And so you recognise that it would be fucking stupid to imagine that dressing up as one is a racist act.
I think it is exactly that fucking stupid to imagine that a kid dressing up as an admired sportsman is a racist act. It's just obvious to anyone who thinks for a second about why people dress up, and what they are trying to do, and why they might find it fun, that there's another, more likely, explanation that covers all the facts, and is completely inoffensive.
Now either you disagree with that, and think the kid's actions were an expression of racial hatred (in which case you're delusional), or you realise that that it wasn't, and there was no malice or prejudice or insult at all - and still choose to be offended by something that you know to be innocent.
That makes absolutely no sense to me. I suppose have the right to feel that way if you choose to, but since it's entirely your choice, I don't see that any one else has the obligation to give your self-inflicted hurt feelings a second's thought.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
By which I mean that I don't see reports on the news about "black athletes", "black actors" or "black politicians". Perhaps your news bulletins are different to mine.
I think it is my perspective that is different.
quote:
I'm well aware of the original context of Fry's comment, but it's not meaningless used in other contexts.
I did not say that, exactly. Using the quote in an "ooh I'm so terribly clever" fashion is merely attempting to shut down a conversation.
quote:
Perhaps it's important that Fry goes on to say, "I'm sorry; you get some of my sympathy but your self-pity gets none of my sympathy because self-pity is the ugliest emotion in humanity." That, I suspect, is what "being offended" is about more often than not.
I am offended with just cause.
You have some reason for offence, but are being a bit precious.
They are being self-righteous whingers.
quote:
It is only "stupid" to wave off offence if taking offence is rational, but taking offence isn't rational; it's personal, it's subjective, it's selective, but it's not rational.
So Fry should "fuck off" when someone makes Jews in the oven jokes? When told that Hitler was a quitter?
If I walked up to you with a smile and said a word in a language you did not understand and you were not offended, hurt, angered, etc., that would be normal. If you later learned that it was a word* that was derogatory towards you, that might well engender negative feelings in you.
And understandably so.
But the blackface issue is not whether or not a particular individual is offended or not.
Let me put it another way. The swastika is a symbol in many cultures. American Indians, various Asian cultures, even in some European cultures.
Still, most people would agree that white people using a swastika is not advisable, regardless of their intent.
*Perhaps one meaning stupid, as that seems to flummox you. Which is infinitely amusing given that you are posting in Hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
Is it perhaps that you believe that - although the original act is innocent - you are obliged to protest on behalf of 'the principle of the thing'? I would suggest that your role as Saviour of the Oppressed would be better played in another setting.
Saviour of the Oppressed
I shall have that emblazoned on a banner that I may announce my new position to the world.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
'... shall have that emblazoned ...'?
I assumed that such a banner had long been hanging in your closet alongside your armour of self-righteousness.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But the blackface issue is not whether or not a particular individual is offended or not.
Let me put it another way. The swastika is a symbol in many cultures. American Indians, various Asian cultures, even in some European cultures.
Still, most people would agree that white people using a swastika is not advisable, regardless of their intent.
The swastika is so closely associated with the Nazis that you don't need to be deluded or uncharitable to think that the negative meanings it conveys might be intentional, if you have no other information. Few white people other than white supremacists would wear a swastika armband. It's entirely reasonable to be suspicious of someone wearing one, even before you know for certain why they are doing it.
But suppose a white guy has a swastika on his arm for an entirely innocent purpose - perhaps he's an actor in a play, or something like that. As soon as you know that, then your reason to take offence vanishes. The only reason ever to be offended was that you might have thought the guy was advertising his racist views, and now that you know he isn't doing that, that reason is gone. If you still choose to be offended, that's really your problem, not his.
[ 01. October 2016, 22:17: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it is my perspective that is different.
But you didn't speak of "perspective". You have changed your argument from being of a specific "I hear them say..." to one of a vague perspective; "I interpret what they say as meaning..." And you don't see that this is your problem as opposed to "theirs"?
quote:
I'm well aware of the original context of Fry's comment, but it's not meaningless used in other contexts.
I did not say that, exactly.
Forgive me, but you did. "That quote, out of context, is meaningless" is what you said. If it's meaningless out of the context in which it was spoken, then it is meaningless in any other context.
quote:
Using the quote in an "ooh I'm so terribly clever" fashion is merely attempting to shut down a conversation.
I don't agree either that I would use it either in such a manner or to such an end. Perhaps I should take offence at your presumptuous stereotyping?
quote:
But the blackface issue is not whether or not a particular individual is offended or not.
So what is the issue? It seems that you want the issue to be whether or not "somebody" has decided that a whole class of people should be offended by something, whether they are actually offended or not. How amusingly, hellishly "stupid".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But suppose a white guy has a swastika on his arm for an entirely innocent purpose - perhaps he's an actor in a play, or something like that.
Not a god comparison. A better one would be a person, completely ignorant of history, who encountered the symbol and decided to wear it. Upon learning of the history, a better reaction would be to stop doing it, not start complaining that Jewish people were unnecessarily offended by it.
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
'... shall have that emblazoned ...'?
I assumed that such a banner had long been hanging in your closet alongside your armour of self-righteousness.
The armour. No, I sold that on eBay; too heavy, all the straps and the polishing...
And the chafing, oooh the chafing
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
Well, this has been a bit of a sad read, really. Why are all these people I respect savaging each other like this? It's hard to see where it started to descend, but I couldn't read it without wondering what folk in the rest of the world would make of some things I encounter regularly. Also, it has raised questions of what are the intersections between 'costume' and 'performance' and 'participation' and 'cultural appropriation'.
With that in mind, what do people think of the following things?
[What follows is very link-y, but given that a picture is worth a thousand words, it will actually save you all time.]
I watched a rugby game this afternoon. It's a thing we do here, y'know. An English game that the colonials (and ha, ha, the Welsh) have kind of taken and run (away) with. Anyway; what do people think?
Should this guy, our current captain, who, let's face it, is basically a Viking, be allowed to front this, which has nothing whatever to do with his own cultural tradition? Or is that cultural appropriation? Or is it mocking the heritage of say, this guy , given that the thing itself never had anything to do with rugby, or any kind of sport, in the first place, and if it belongs to anyone, it is to the descendants of this guy. (Who have, as a matter of fact, expressed some concern over its use in this matter, but NOT concern of the nature "Hey, why is a white guy doing this thing?", and much more of a "Hey, why is a corporate behemoth more closely associated with this thing than we are?" nature.)
Following on from that, how about kapa haka? It is, in a sense, a traditional art form - although as practiced today, it's often quite different from its origins (polyester costumes, petroleum-based make-up, poi crafted from dacron and supermarket-shopping bags, regional competitions sponsored by banks) Are these the things that matter? And who gets to say? It's a very popular activity among primary-aged children here. Oh, look, here's a charming photo! Or is it cultural appropriation? Or mockery? And who gets to say? One of those blue-eyed blondies could be my daughter. As far as intent goes, I can testify that for kids that age, the art form is interesting because it involves singing and dancing, not because it is a window into another culture. Is this a problem? Who gets to say? Is it a problem for me as a non-indigenous adult, to have a position, any position at all, on any of this stuff? Who gets to say?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A better one would be a person, completely ignorant of history, who encountered the symbol and decided to wear it. Upon learning of the history, a better reaction would be to stop doing it, not start complaining that Jewish people were unnecessarily offended by it.
But there is such a thing as unnecessary offence - and you are taking it.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended by actual racism or malice. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended by things that you could reasonable take to be malicious. I'm saying that you shouldn't be offended - that it is stupid and uncharitable to be offended - by something which you know to be of innocent intent.
That's why the swastika is really a good comparator at all. A swastika is, in my culture, primarily a statement, which communicates support for the cause of Nazism. It has a meaning, and that meaning is a statement of racial hate. It can, of course, mean something else in a particular context, and so there is scope for genuine misunderstanding and miscommunication. That can be minimised with good will on all sides - and part of that good will include not using the symbol where it would inevitably communicate hatred, whether or not that is intended.
A children's fancy dress costume is not a statement of that sort. And no one thinks that it is. No one thinks that a child who wants to dress up as an (Indian) Princess, or a (Fijian) Footballer, or a (Roman) Legionary, or a (French) Musketeer, or an (American) Astronaut is doing so in order to make a statement of hatred, mockery or oppression about people of that ethnic or cultural group. There's no misunderstanding or miscommunication, as there was with the swastika example - what we have are people who understand the innocent intent of the costume perfectly well, were never under the least misapprehension about it, and yet still want to take offence.
That is unnecessary offence-taking, and it is quite reasonable to point out to you that that is exactly what you are doing, and that wilfully choosing to be offended by what you know to be innocent is stupid and wrong.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
anoesis,
Who gets to say? The people being affected.
The All Blacks began as an all Maori selection, have had Maori in participation throughout their history and do the haka is done respectfully. It was begun as a team chant by the Maori. As I understand it, the Maori are protective of their culture and they approve. It is considerably different to blackface.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But there is such a thing as unnecessary offence - and you are taking it.
I do not think I ever said I was offended.
And I do believe I acknowledged the mum and her son had good intentions.
I am saying that blackface is offencive. I am saying that the mum should have known better and it is sad that she did not. And she should now understand why people are offended. I do not think any vitriol should be directed towards her or her son.
quote:
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended by actual racism or malice. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended by things that you could reasonable take to be malicious. I'm saying that you shouldn't be offended - that it is stupid and uncharitable to be offended - by something which you know to be of innocent intent.
This does not mean that the history of an act should not be noted or that the act should be deemed as fine to continue.
quote:
That's why the swastika is really a good comparator at all. A swastika is, in my culture, primarily a statement, which communicates support for the cause of Nazism. It has a meaning, and that meaning is a statement of racial hate. It can, of course, mean something else in a particular context, and so there is scope for genuine misunderstanding and miscommunication. That can be minimised with good will on all sides - and part of that good will include not using the symbol where it would inevitably communicate hatred, whether or not that is intended.
How is this different to blackface?
quote:
A children's fancy dress costume is not a statement of that sort. And no one thinks that it is. No one thinks that a child who wants to dress up as an (Indian) Princess, or a (Fijian) Footballer, or a (Roman) Legionary, or a (French) Musketeer, or an (American) Astronaut is doing so in order to make a statement of hatred, mockery or oppression about people of that ethnic or cultural group.
It is not the child, but the parents and other adults whose position matters.
A person's child could innocently wear a Nazi uniform. Doesn't mean it is bad form to point out why it is not in the best taste.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it is my perspective that is different.
But you didn't speak of "perspective". You have changed your argument from being of a specific "I hear them say..." to one of a vague perspective; "I interpret what they say as meaning..." And you don't see that this is your problem as opposed to "theirs"?
No. I am saying that my perspective as a person affected means I notice things that you might not.
Regarding the Stephan Fry comment. I did not say out of the context. But I can see how that might not be clear. What I mean is that the quote needs some sort of context or it is just an insult. Your use seemed to imply that the quote could appropriately be used without any context and it is to that I am objecting.
quote:
Perhaps I should take offence at your presumptuous stereotyping?
How is that sterotyping? Assumptive, yes. Perhaps even rude or dismissive, but not stereotyping.
quote:
It seems that you want the issue to be whether or not "somebody" has decided that a whole class of people should be offended by something, whether they are actually offended or not.
No, a whole class of people were offended, I'm explaining why.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
I realise that we are potentially streaking away from the point of the original post, but there are one or two things here that want answering, so;
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
anoesis,
Who gets to say? The people being affected.
This presumes that there is a unitary Māori voice with regard to such topics, which there most assuredly is not, or potentially that there is a unitary voice within Ngāti Toa (Te Rauparaha's iwi) - at least in that case there exists a hierarchical structure for making 'on behalf of' decisions.*
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The All Blacks began as an all Maori selection,
This is news to me, I must say. It could be so, but the following photograph of the first touring test team seems to suggest not.
(the link does work when copied and pasted but will not code with the ship's URL function, nor will tiny url accept it, for some reason)
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?BU=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aucklandcity.govt.nz%2Fdbtw-wpd%2FHeritageImage s%2Findex.htm&AC=QBE_QUERY&TN=heritageimages&QF0=ID&NP=2&MR=5&RF=HIORecordSearch&QI0=%3D%22NZG-19051216-39-1%22
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
have had Maori in participation throughout their history
Certainly I am not aware of their ever having been prevented from participating - unless South Africa was involved, of course. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
and do the haka respectfully.
Well, as it happens, I would agree with you that it is done respectfully, but I am apparently not one of those who gets to say whether this is the case, and, respectfully, neither are you.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is considerably different to blackface.
Sure it is. I didn't mention blackface in my post. I was discussing cultural appropriation, and trying to distill what makes something a genuine expression of a cultural tradition, albeit with alterations to detail** and/or context, and what might render a thing a mere pastiche. I think we have established that my own views are of limited value in this context, but for what it's worth, my concerns with the use of the haka at rugby matches, and of schoolchild kapa haka competitions, are that they allow us (the corporate us) to tell ourselves the comfortable lie that we are basically a nation of jolly decent blokes who are pretty tolerant after all, because, look - and also, see! the bilingual street signs and so on, and that this makes us less, rather than more, likely to actually attempt to explore and understand the very real differences between our two cultures. It has overtones making everything shiny with a bit of Māori varnish, and expecting all concerned to see that as the best way of doing things. And if that is indeed the case, then I am one of those who is affected. Though obviously the effect is not exactly the same for me as it is for any, or all, Māori.
*In fact, Ngāti Toa do have a [relatively recent] agreement with the NZRU regarding the use of ka mate
**such as costume, or the gender/ethnicity of participants
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
So now we have lB explaining the New Zealand rugby team to a New Zealander.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
This presumes that there is a unitary Māori voice with regard to such topics, which there most assuredly is not, or potentially that there is a unitary voice within Ngāti Toa (Te Rauparaha's iwi) - at least in that case there exists a hierarchical structure for making 'on behalf of' decisions.*
No one body gives the opinion of all its members. However, it seems a good rule the what the majority feel about such things should be the guide. I do not presume to speak for them, but my mate Google suggests that the majority of Maori are not offended by the All Blacks haka.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The All Blacks began as an all Maori selection,
This is news to me, I must say. It could be so, but the following photograph of the first touring test team seems to suggest not.
I see your one photo and raise you an article. It even includes the very same photo.
BTW, when the Ship's software fights a url, I use tinyurl to beat it into submission. Not being a smartarse, just a helpful hint.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
have had Maori in participation throughout their history
Certainly I am not aware of their ever having been prevented from participating - unless South Africa was involved, of course.
They were still part of the team. Didn't say there were no shameful bits of the All Blacks past.
Regarding the last bit of your post, it is a bugger of a thing. Cultural appropriation vs cultural appreciation/blending vs patronizing. There will always be some contention as to where the borders are. And everyone involved should be part of the conversation.* But those who have the most skin in the game should have the greater voice.
*As long as it is a conversation, not merely people shouting "get over it".
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So now we have lB explaining the New Zealand rugby team to a New Zealander.
Cute, but weak. Randomly poll in any country and you will find loads of people who haven't a clue about their own history and none who have complete knowledge of everything.
Whilst the results will likely run the range between, I'd wager the balance would weigh more towards the generally ignorant than those with comprehensive knowledge.
I am not saying anoesis is ignorant or that I have greater knowledge of New Zealand than she/he. In fact, I would wager that I do not.
But I do know how to type words into this website and then read the results. I still might be incorrect, waiting for you to show me where I am.
In regards to the All Blacks, that is. The Ship hasn't the server space to list everything.
[ 03. October 2016, 01:13: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
lillBuddha, you do not say that that you were offended, but you insist that blackface is offensive, and the mother should have known better.
Are you then taking vicarious offence? And whose ‘better’ is this? What you demand is in no way better for the mother and her son. Are you suggesting that the mother should have said to her son: ‘No. If you want to go as a footballer, you must go as a white footballer.’?
Some seventy years ago when I was the age of the boy footballer I was cast as Melchior in our Sunday School Christmas pageant, and I was fitted out with a splendid costume that included a swarthy makeup. There were at the time in Melbourne no magi whose opinions might be canvassed. In later years in the course of school and university theatricals I directed two separate productions of The Mikado, and played the part of Ko-Ko in a third. I did not then - and would not now – think it necessary to canvass the opinions of any Japanese. Play-acting is part of my culture, as I suppose it is for the young footballer, but you apparently refuse to distinguish between playfulness and reality.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is that sterotyping? Assumptive, yes. Perhaps even rude or dismissive, but not stereotyping.
"Tr.vb. To believe unfairly that all people [who use the Fry quote] are [Using the quote in an "ooh I'm so terribly clever" fashion] and are [merely attempting to shut down a conversation.]" Sounds a fairly convincing instance of stereotyping to me.
quote:
No, a whole class of people were offended, I'm explaining why.
Were they and are you, though? Or are you explaining why you think they ought to be offended? As previously mentioned with regard to the Oz rules footballer; the man who had the right to be offended wasn't - or at least he wasn't until somebody told him he ought to be. The whole class of people who you assert were offended - were they? Or were they just looking for offence where they had been told it was to be found? You assert the former; I disagree.
We have been told that "if someone finds it offensive, then it is offensive," but what if they only find it offensive because they have been told they should find it offensive?
What of this? Why do they do it? Nobody really knows but there are four theories about how this custom started in the UK in the 1600s, one of which is that it might be blacking up to look like Barbary pirates. Of course, it might not. Should it banned in case someone from the region's black community (or even somebody on the end of a computer line on the other side of the world) chooses to be offended by what it might represent?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The issue of blacking up in Morris dancing is very much a live one. It's almost impossible to disentangle its past meanings with its present one - it's almost certain it has nothing to do with Moors, which was a convenient retcon.
Black people have been on these islands for millennia (some of the auxiliaries on the Wall were from Africa). They're part of our story, and always have been. Black people have both attacked and defended the practice. So if you're part of a traditional Morris side, whose opinion do you take? Those black people who believe it's too freighted with the Black and White Minstrels to be acceptable now. Or those who acknowledge that white people going out poaching at night would black up in order to avoid detection, and Morris blackface is a descendant of that?
But I'm lB will be along in a minute to explain my heritage to me.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I have a problem with people who do not live in an area insisting that a team name be changed because they find it insulting.
In the 1930s the Blacksburg High School adopted the name 'Indians' for their sports teams. About ten years ago, it was changed to 'Bruins' because outsiders considered the name Indians offensive.
Many local Indians said they liked the name, and if any Indians objected, they didn't speak up. There were two letters to the editor of the paper written by Indians who had been students at the school when the name was first adopted. They said they considered it an honor, and their fellow students appeared to see it that way also.
However, local opinion was ignored, and the name was changed.
Moo
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Sounds a fairly convincing instance of stereotyping to me.
Leaving aside that people who quote Stephan Fry aren't a generally recognised group, you left out the bit about context. Generalisation. Is that the word you were looking for? It could be considered a generalisation.
quote:
quote:
No, a whole class of people were offended, I'm explaining why.
Were they and are you, though? Or are you explaining why you think they ought to be offended?
There were loads of people actually offended and that is why the story was in the news.
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
lillBuddha, you do not say that that you were offended, but you insist that blackface is offensive,
So, you are saying blackface isn't offensive?
quote:
and the mother should have known better.
Yes. And reading more, it appears she did, but chose to do so anyway.
quote:
Are you then taking vicarious offence? And whose ‘better’ is this? What you demand is in no way better for the mother and her son. Are you suggesting that the mother should have said to her son: ‘No. If you want to go as a footballer, you must go as a white footballer.’?
It was her idea to paint him. The jersey and dreads would have been enough.
And, given that she apparently recognised that her choice would cause a stir, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that an explanation would be forthcoming regardless.
quote:
Some seventy years ago when I was the age of the boy footballer I was cast as Melchior in our Sunday School Christmas pageant, and I was fitted out with a splendid costume that included a swarthy makeup.
Because the audience would be too stupid to know you were a wise man had you left off the paint? Funny that no one fails to recognise Jesus though he is almost invariably played by a white man who has not blacked up.
[ 03. October 2016, 16:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Generalisation. Is that the word you were looking for? It could be considered a generalisation.
No, I think I have quite a good grasp of English vocabulary. If I'd meant "generalisation", I'd have used "generalisation".
"Generalisation: N; A general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases." (OED)
"Stereotype: Tr. vb. to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same."
If you think there is much of a difference between those two it must lie in the inclusion of "unfairly". Since your assumption was unfair, I think we can agree that you were stereotyping.
quote:
There were loads of people actually offended and that is why the story was in the news.
That's where I don't agree with you. Were they actually offended or did they really not care much but assumed offence because they have been led to believe it was offensive? Your merely stating over and over again that "loads of people were offended" doesn't address the issue I raised.
[ 03. October 2016, 16:45: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have a problem with people who do not live in an area insisting that a team name be changed because they find it insulting.
Is this is the same sort of thinking that allowed Confederate flags to be accepted for so many years?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
No, I think I have quite a good grasp of English vocabulary. If I'd meant "generalisation", I'd have used "generalisation".
"Stereotype: Tr. vb. to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same."
How is people who quote Stephan Fry's bit from that particular interview a characteristic?
quote:
That's where I don't agree with you. Were they actually offended or did they really not care much but assumed offence because they have been led to believe it was offensive?
So you, from 9,000 miles away, are somehow qualified to judge that what people say is either an outright lie or self-deception?
Though I am also not in the proximity of the particular incident, so I choose to take the word of those who are unless you can show me that they are disingenuous.
[ 03. October 2016, 17:59: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
Some seventy years ago when I was the age of the boy footballer I was cast as Melchior in our Sunday School Christmas pageant, and I was fitted out with a splendid costume that included a swarthy makeup.
Because the audience would be too stupid to know you were a wise man had you left off the paint? Funny that no one fails to recognise Jesus though he is almost invariably played by a white man who has not blacked up.
Laud-able was blacked up to play Melchior so that the audience knew, not that he was a wise man, but that he was Melchior.
Or are your panties so bunched that you're going to take offence at a 70 year old casting call?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, you are saying blackface isn't offensive?
I think there are several issues surrounding blackface.
One issue is the "let's make a mockery of your ethnicity" issue, which neatly covers minstrels in blackface, "Sexy Indian" Hallowe'en costumes and the like.
There's an entirely separate issue to do with actors - having a caucasian actor wear makeup to play the part of an ethnic minority person is a problem because it ties in to racism in hiring. In some hypothetical world where there was no racial discrimination in hiring, and it was just as common for, for example, a black actor to wear makeup to play the part of a white person as vice versa, this wouldn't be a problem, but the first sort still would.
(Of course, on the stage, "accurate" makeup is often not required. Films are a much more "realistic" medium, though.)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
Some seventy years ago when I was the age of the boy footballer I was cast as Melchior in our Sunday School Christmas pageant, and I was fitted out with a splendid costume that included a swarthy makeup.
Because the audience would be too stupid to know you were a wise man had you left off the paint? Funny that no one fails to recognise Jesus though he is almost invariably played by a white man who has not blacked up.
Laud-able was blacked up to play Melchior so that the audience knew, not that he was a wise man, but that he was Melchior.
Or are your panties so bunched that you're going to take offence at a 70 year old casting call?
I did not say I was offended. I know that you are not required to read for comprehension, but it would be ever so nice if you tried.
Melchior Is a fictional representation of a person/people/idea who had no physical description in the source material. Unless you think 'from the east' imparts such. If the magi existed, none would likely be white. So why is it an important characteristic in the play that Melchior be dark skinned when none of the other people are? And when who the hell was which wise man isn't important.
Oh, but you say, our apocryphal description says he might be. There are depictions from the "there were three blokes" tradition that have them all white. Way longer ago than 70 years.
Am I offended by a 70 year old incident? No. It was less likely to be a consideration then. Does that mean it was right back then? No.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Some of the theatres I frequent practise colour blind casting*, which can be fascinating. Last year's Measure for Measure with a black actor playing Angelo was amazing. Yesterday I saw a production of Cymbeline with a white actor playing Cloten, strutting his bad boy stuff, and a black actor playing Posthumus. It did rather make Imogen crying over Cloten's body dressed in Posthumus' clothes less believable.
* Not black actors using white make up, just the best actor playing the part.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Melchior Is a fictional representation of a person/people/idea who had no physical description in the source material. Unless you think 'from the east' imparts such. If the magi existed, none would likely be white. So why is it an important characteristic in the play that Melchior be dark skinned when none of the other people are? And when who the hell was which wise man isn't important.
There you go yet again. You have a complete tin ear when it comes to a centuries-old tradition. You have no idea of what source material they were using. You have no idea why Melchior is black, when others aren't. You have no idea why which Wise Man was which is important. Utterly, painfully, culturally ignorant.
I'm not surprised, however. You have form.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Enlighten me. Why is it important that Melchior be dark skinned?
[ 03. October 2016, 19:41: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It was centuries old tradition to beat children. Beating the bounds in some areas included beating the apprentices on the boundary stones. We seem to regard that tradition as something to be discarded now. Are all traditions worth keeping?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It was centuries old tradition to beat children. Beating the bounds in some areas included beating the apprentices on the boundary stones. We seem to regard that tradition as something to be discarded now. Are all traditions worth keeping?
Or defending?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Enlighten me. Why is it important that Melchior be dark skinned?
Because he's a black man? Geez.
But you're not interested in enlightenment. You're interested in petty point scoring and controlling the conversation. Go away, and look up the script of a Mystery Play or five. Actually do some work that doesn't involve your knee jerking.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
Some seventy years ago when I was the age of the boy footballer I was cast as Melchior in our Sunday School Christmas pageant, and I was fitted out with a splendid costume that included a swarthy makeup.
Because the audience would be too stupid to know you were a wise man had you left off the paint? Funny that no one fails to recognise Jesus though he is almost invariably played by a white man who has not blacked up.
Laud-able was blacked up to play Melchior so that the audience knew, not that he was a wise man, but that he was Melchior.
Well, if the audience was at all knowledgeable about the tradition, they assumed he was Balthazar, not Melchior.
Of course, if the audience was knowledgeable about the tradition, which of the three magi he was could also have been conveyed by his age (young) and by the gift he carried (myrrh).
[ 03. October 2016, 20:19: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Enlighten me. Why is it important that Melchior be dark skinned?
Because he's a black man? Geez.
No, he is fictional.
quote:
But you're not interested in enlightenment. You're interested in petty point scoring and controlling the conversation. Go away, and look up the script of a Mystery Play or five. Actually do some work that doesn't involve your knee jerking.
Again, all I am asking is a simple explanation as to why Melchior must be black. What part of his blackness is intergral to the part?
I've a couple more questions if this one isn't too taxing for you.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Why must he be black? He's been black for at least 500 years.
Or are you suggesting - I'm guessing you are - that black people don't belong in European history, European stories, European religion, and should be erased because you don't like them being there. A black man, worshipping the infant Jesus, equal to his light-skinned colleagues, a Wise Man, a Magi? No, the past is racist. Only you are enlightened.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
If I'm not mistaken the idea behind one of the wise men being from Africa is that there were wise men from each of the then-known continents, Africa, Asia and Europe, symbolizing the whole world coming to worship the baby Jesus. Therefore it is, symbolically, very important for one of the three to be black.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
No, no, no. You've got it wrong. We did it to mock black people.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Why must he be black? He's been black for at least 500 years.
He's been fiction for over 2,000. Nothing in the Bible says anything about colour or even number of magi. Somebody at some time decided to give them characteristics and in some of them one is black. Not likely out of inclusion, but to demonstrate God's reach and power.
quote:
Or are you suggesting - I'm guessing you are - that black people don't belong in European history, European stories, European religion, and should be erased because you don't like them being there. A black man, worshipping the infant Jesus, equal to his light-skinned colleagues, a Wise Man, a Magi? No, the past is racist. Only you are enlightened.
You are seriously trying to tell me that Mustery Plays are actually subversive attempts to give black people their due? What the Hell are you smoking? I do hope you are not driving or operating any heavy machinery.
And the past contains one hell of a lot of racism. There is argument as to which bits truly are and which bits are perceived, yes.
The initial inclusion of a black character in the Mystery Plays might not have had racist overtones. Blacking up 70 years ago certainly did. You want to be inclusive, there are real black people who could be involved. Some of them can even act!
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have a problem with people who do not live in an area insisting that a team name be changed because they find it insulting.
Is this is the same sort of thinking that allowed Confederate flags to be accepted for so many years?
I don't see the parallel. In the situation I described all the local Indians who spoke up were opposed to changing the team name. Many of them said they were proud of it.
I don't think there has ever been a situation where local blacks said they wanted Confederate flags to be freely displayed in their area.
Moo
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Enlighten me. Why is it important that Melchior be dark skinned?
Because he's a black man? Geez.
No, he is fictional.
Yes...?
Buffy Summers is fictional. And white. Mulan is fictional. And Asian.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
And going back a few posts...
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
I'm not sure that a white person blacking up to look like a black person is about "reducing them to their colour"; it's recognizing that the black person is black. One could argue;
- that merely recognizing that the black person is black is racist (although that would be a pretty shallow argument.)
Ridiculous is the word, not shallow.
quote:
that a white person blacking up to represent a black person is not "reducing them to their colour"; it is representing one important aspect of who that person is.that representing a black person without blacking up is racist, since it ignores an important aspect of who that person is; it doesn't "reduce them to their colour" but removes even their colour.
It is funny, but a white athlete, actor, politician etc. is seen as being an athlete, actor or politician first. Race isn't part of the description. Add some melanin, and that is suddenly the most important thing.
I wouldn't say race is an important part of the description - unless the description is about how someone LOOKS, in which case it is. If you're dressing up as someone, how they look is rather essential. (Should the boy have been dressing up as his hero's soul?)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Some of the theatres I frequent practise colour blind casting*, which can be fascinating.
Sure - theatre doesn't attempt photorealism. If you can cope with an empty stage with a couple of polystyrene blocks being a castle, you can cope with Hamlet being played by a black man.
If what you're making is a TV drama, then more realism is called for. Casting a short actor to play Henry VIII on stage is fine. Casting a short actor to play him in a TV drama wouldn't work.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the past contains one hell of a lot of racism. There is argument as to which bits truly are and which bits are perceived, yes.
The initial inclusion of a black character in the Mystery Plays might not have had racist overtones. Blacking up 70 years ago certainly did. You want to be inclusive, there are real black people who could be involved. Some of them can even act!
Coming from you, that's almost an admission of being wrong. I'll take it as the first signs of nuance breaking into your impregnable binary worldview, and consider it a win.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
]Coming from you, that's almost an admission of being wrong. I'll take it as the first signs of nuance breaking into your impregnable binary worldview, and consider it a win.
So, instead of addressing the relevant questions, you claim that you are "winning". I think I have discovered Doc Tor's Real Identity.
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Buffy Summers is fictional. And white. Mulan is fictional. And Asian.
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, would it have changed the part no. Mulan. Yeah, no one has ever cast a white person as an Asian. The public would never see such a film.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If what you're making is a TV drama, then more realism is called for. Casting a short actor to play Henry VIII on stage is fine. Casting a short actor to play him in a TV drama wouldn't work.
By that logic Tom Cruise would not have a career.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
If I'm not mistaken the idea behind one of the wise men being from Africa is that there were wise men from each of the then-known continents, Africa, Asia and Europe, symbolizing the whole world coming to worship the baby Jesus. Therefore it is, symbolically, very important for one of the three to be black.
Yes, and for a similar reason they were depicted as old, middle-aged and young. Of course, all of this is extra-biblical, including the idea that there were three of them. But yes, I'd agree that some of these traditions developed to convey theological ideas, including the idea of inclusion of the Gentiles/all nations.
But even given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to question the tradition, particularly for a church. Does the tradition, or how the tradition is carried out, include or exclude? Does it convey or get in the way of the Gospel? Does it send the right message to those outside the church? Does the unspoken message actually drown out the intended message?
And if there is agreement that the tradition is worth keeping, then I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether, in a multi-cultural 21st Century society, the tradition should still be kept by having Balthazar wear black make-up, or are there other, better ways—such as maybe having him clothes made of wear distinctively African materials. Or, of course, actually having a black man play him.
I know that where I live, there would pretty much be no way that portraying one of the magi in dark make-up would be at all acceptable. (Then again, the idea that one of the magi was African isn't nearly as common here as it may be elsewhere.) Ditto a white person wearing make-up to emulate a celebrity. Given our history, anything approaching black-face is simply unacceptable, and rightly so, I think.
I fully recognize the answers may be different in Britain, or Europe or Australia, where histories and cultural considerations are different. But the conversations are worth having. As in most instances, "we've always done it this way" likely won't get very far.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is people who quote Stephan Fry's bit from that particular interview a characteristic?
The things people say and the reason they say them is part of their behaviour; behaviour is a characteristic.
quote:
So you, from 9,000 miles away, are somehow qualified to judge that what people say is either an outright lie or self-deception?
And you from thousands of miles away are somehow qualified to judge that what people say is [b]not[i] either an outright lie or self-deception?
quote:
Though I am also not in the proximity of the particular incident, so I choose to take the word of those who are unless you can show me that they are disingenuous.
And I, having seen how quick people can be to assume offence without just cause, choose not to take their word. Whilst you're quick to demand that I provide evidence of their being disingenuous, meanwhile, your own argument is still based on 'your merely stating over and over again that "loads of people were offended"'.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, would it have changed the part no.
And we were actually making progress when you nearly admitted that having a black Magi was kind-of-okay.
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, of course it would have changed the part. Don't be such a fucking muppet.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
lilBuddha:
Doc Tor’s comment above regarding nuance touches the heart of the matter.
You wrote earlier ‘However, it seems a good rule that what the majority feel about such things should be the guide.’ Does this imply that the ‘wrongness’ or 'rightness' of blackface might vary according to the circumstances? If this is so, then there is no argument between us.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I didn't know that the wise men went trick or treating. Who knew?
If anyone dressed up with a black painted face as a wise man in western Canada, it would be very inappropriate. There's absolutely no tradition of that. At all.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, would it have changed the part no.
And we were actually making progress when you nearly admitted that having a black Magi was kind-of-okay.
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, of course it would have changed the part.
OK, genuinely interested in how you think it would.
This is a description of her character.
quote:
Buffy Summers (played by Sarah Michelle Gellar) is "the Slayer", one in a long line of young women chosen by fate to battle evil forces. This mystical calling endows her with dramatically increased physical strength, endurance, agility, accelerated healing, intuition, and a limited degree of clairvoyance, usually in the form of prophetic dreams.
What part of that precludes black or is changed by it, Fozzie?
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
your own argument is still based on 'your merely stating over and over again that "loads of people were offended"'.
No, it isn't. There was a lot of backlash. I choose, based on my own experience, to believe that they were genuine in their expressions. You choose not to.
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
lilBuddha:
Doc Tor’s comment above regarding nuance touches the heart of the matter.
You wrote earlier ‘However, it seems a good rule that what the majority feel about such things should be the guide.’ Does this imply that the ‘wrongness’ or 'rightness' of blackface might vary according to the circumstances? If this is so, then there is no argument between us.
If you accept that those potentially being negatively portrayed have the greater weight of judgement, then yes. In this Australian case it would be the opinion of the Aboriginal Australians which mattered more than the white people.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, of course it would have changed the part. Don't be such a fucking muppet.
How? What about the part says "white"?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, would it have changed the part no.
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, of course it would have changed the part. Don't be such a fucking muppet.
Because her name would have had to have been Kendra?
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you accept that those potentially being negatively portrayed have the greater weight of judgement, then yes. In this Australian case it would be the opinion of the Aboriginal Australians which mattered more than the white people.
Given that the footballer in question is Fijian, how are Aborigines the ones "being negatively portrayed"?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you accept that those potentially being negatively portrayed have the greater weight of judgement, then yes. In this Australian case it would be the opinion of the Aboriginal Australians which mattered more than the white people.
Given that the footballer in question is Fijian, how are Aborigines the ones "being negatively portrayed"?
Because it is in Australia and blackface has never been to concerned with the origin of those its mocking as much as the colour.
[ 04. October 2016, 02:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Addressing the historical reasons given above, I saw the York Mystery plays in York Minster this summer. There was no-one blacked up there. Lucifer's fallen angel status did have him charred and burnt, but that was more the wings than anything else and he ended up in red paint along with the other hellions (including Judas). The Mystery Play I saw before that was Isango's Mysteries based on the Chester Plays, where the entire cast was black and their devil was dressed in red.
The Mystery Plays we have now are revivals of ancient traditions - with long gaps and adaptations. The York Mystery Plays were revived in 1951 having been suppressed in 1569, Chester's were suppressed in 1575 and revived in the 20th century. With those gaps, what we have now cannot be accurate recreations.
We can't know how many black participants appeared in the community events that were the Mystery Plays, but there are paintings dating back to the 1700s of London street scenes showing the full palette of skin colours including black footmen, street vendors and entertainers. The Death of Major Peirson, 6th January 1781 has a black soldier depicted centre left and was part of the exhibition illustrating this point at Tate Britain last year.
And to return to the presumptions of colour of characters, why should a statesman in Venice not be black? Casting Angelo as black made me think of trade routes around the Mediterranean. Why shouldn't there be black characters in a play set in Roman Britain, when we know there were African soldiers manning Hadrian's Wall?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why shouldn't there be black characters in a play set in Roman Britain, when we know there were African soldiers manning Hadrian's Wall?
There may certainly be black soldiers in a Roman legion, but it's unlikely that there were any black Iceni, and Boudicca wasn't black. Nevertheless I see no reason that a black actress couldn't play Boudicca on stage.
But not on TV, unless she had really good makeup.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
lilBuddha: You had written earlier:
‘And I do believe I acknowledged the mum and her son had good intentions.’
and
‘Respect is what this argument is about.’
and now you write:
‘Because it is in Australia and blackface has never been to[o] concerned with the origin of those it’s mocking as much as the colour.’
The Fijian footballer was not mocked (unless you are harking back to the old sense of imitated or copied). The boy was making a compliment, and the school that ran the parade thought so well of his efforts that they awarded him a prize.
I cannot comprehend your refusal to recognize a sincere act of homage - the epitome of respect. Nobody was harmed. Nobody had any reason to be offended. Why do you insist on raining on the boy’s parade?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Laud-able--
lB can certainly speak for herself.
But FYI: in the US, with our history and culture, for a white person to put on black face is always a very, very bad idea. No matter how innocently it might be meant. You (gen.) will offend people, stain your reputation long-term, etc. If white people around you are all egging you on, and think that it's absolutely ok and hilarious, you might consider getting new friends and neighbors.
There may be a few exceptions in cross-racial makeup and costuming. For Mardi Gras festivities, New Orleans has a tradition of costuming as "Indians". I don't know the culture, nor how Native Americans feel about it.
As to a dark-skinned wise man: if you're set on having one, then get someone with dark(er) skin to play him.
There's just too long a history here, of slavery, minstrel shows, and prejudice, for putting on blackface to ever be ok.
Much worse than when Prince Harry dressed up as a Nazi for a costume party, and caught a lot of heat for it.
[ 04. October 2016, 06:22: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But not on TV, unless she had really good makeup.
Why though? Years and years of white people on the telly and on the silver screen playing historical people of colour so why not the reverse?
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
I cannot comprehend your refusal to recognize a sincere act of homage - the epitome of respect. Nobody was harmed. Nobody had any reason to be offended. Why do you insist on raining on the boy’s parade?
The woman did not intend insult*
The footballer was not being mocked.
These are true.
It doesn't change that blackface isn't the best way to go as there is a history of mocking with blackface in Australia.
I'm not raining on the boy's parade, I doubt he reads this website.
I am saying the mother made a poor choice.
*Though it appears she was aware there might be a problem before she did it, not no quite ignorant of the negative connotations of blacking up.
[ 04. October 2016, 06:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
All ye who read: This is primarily a reply to lilBuddha, which would be more immediately apparent if the nested quotes hadn't been irreparably stuffed up by yours truly...
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I do know how to type words into this website and then read the results. I still might be incorrect, waiting for you to show me where I am.
In regards to the All Blacks, that is.
Right, then. Seeing as you asked, and all.
First let's note that I'm in general agreement with you on most topics across the boards, and also in general agreement with you here. Still can't understand why this particular issue is bringing out the shitty in everyone either, but it seems I'm in now, and starting to feel a tiny bit shitty myself.
Also, I find I simply cannot manage to weed little phrases out of all this nested coding and get them to look exactly right, with a glass of wine inside me. I couldn't manage yesterday evening either - I'm drowning out the stress of the school holidays. So I'm going for you said, I said instead.
You say: Google suggests that the majority of Maori are not offended by the All Blacks haka.
I say: my daily experience here suggests very much the same thing, so no problems with this. Although it should be noted that I don't exactly have scores and scores of friends who identify as Māori.
You say: The All Blacks began as an all Maori selection.
I say: I can see how you might have got that impression from that particular Wikipedia page - however, it is not the case for a number of reasons. Most crucially, this particular team are not the antecedents of the All Blacks because they were not a test team. I'm guessing this is much less of a thing in other sports/countries/jurisdictions, but it's a very important point in this instance. The team to which you refer were a team comprised of New Zealanders, rather than a New Zealand team, which was something not even a possibility until 1892, when the NZRFU was formed.
You say: I see your one photo and raise you an article. It even includes the very same photo.
I say: It most assuredly does not include the same photo. Check again. And also, tell me why on earth I should provide more than one photograph when referring to one test team? So we can appreciate their mustachios in profile as well? Now I must climb down off my high horse, having just been informed by Wikipedia that the 1905/6 team were NOT in fact the first test team, and a test side played Australia in Sydney two years earlier.
You say: BTW, when the Ship's software fights a url, I use tinyurl to beat it into submission. Not being a smartarse, just a helpful hint.
I say: I tried that. It told me it wasn't a valid URL, which I found odd, given that it, y'know, worked. In the spirit of helpful hints and being alive to the sensitivities of minority cultures, etc., here [remove the dots] [&.#.2.5.7.;] is the HTML/unicode you need for the ā in Māori.
You say: Regarding the last bit of your post, it is a bugger of a thing. Cultural appropriation vs cultural appreciation/blending vs patronizing. There will always be some contention as to where the borders are. And everyone involved should be part of the conversation.
I say: I've spent longer than I'd like to admit in marriage counselling, and it took quite a long time before I realised that simply the fact that we were talking, and continuing to talk (ie: having a conversation), was something to hang on to in itself. Obviously I only speak as a representative of the non-indigenous majority in saying this, but: hey, at least we are still having the conversation.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, of course it would have changed the part.
OK, genuinely interested in how you think it would.
Are you? I hope so, because I'm about to waste some time where I could be working explaining Character 101 to you.
Characters in fiction - if they are written well, and by well, I mean believably - are not just cookie-cutter characters whose physical, emotional and spiritual characteristics are merely swappable window dressing.
For this reason: the characters should alter the plot. Whether they're tall (and find it difficult to find cover when they're being shot at) or pretty (the strategy of working a room is going to be significantly different) or old (can an old man be an astronaut?) or disabled (I'm giving chase at the top speed of my mobility scooter) or Muslim (prayer time again?) or gay (hello, main protagonist!). Or black.
And if you're not altering your plot because your characters are reacting differently (like genuinely real people would), then you're doing it wrong.
So, would Buffy have been different if Buffy had been black? Yes, of course it would. And not just because you've picked on one show that was notoriously, almost irredeemably white, where for 7 seasons there were 3 significant black parts. Because a black girl's experience of High School in an overwhelmingly white, upper-middle class suburban school is going to be different to that of a white girl at the same school.
I could go through a list as to how Buffy's blackness would have changed how the writers approached her character. But almost as important would have been the viewer's reactions to her. If the default is a white character, if that's what we're expecting, then a black character is, by definition, going to be different.
Simply put: a black Buffy would, while retaining the same foundational elements as white Buffy, have been a completely different tv show. (And, frankly, on my part, more interesting. I was never into the Buffyverse in the same way that some of my friends were). If would have been different if the Gate to Hell had been under a white, working class district, or a black neighbourhood, or a hispanic one. And it ought to have been different.
As an aside, my last book was traduced in the Daily Mail for being 'dutifully multicultural' because I dared to have an almost entirely non-Anglo cast of Londoners. That's something I wear as a badge of honour (and I'm seriously thinking of having it made into a t-shirt). Would it have been a different book if I'd picked the Pevensies* to go through the portal? Damn right it would. Same world. Entirely different story.
Same with Buffy.
(*The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Buffy and ethnic diversity:
However, the pre-historic First Slayer wasn't white, though she did wear white, ritual (?) face paint. And the actress who played her is Jamaican and dark-skinned. At the time, I thought the character might be Australian aboriginal, back in the Dream Time. But that first link identifies the shamans, who forced her to become the First Slayer, as African.
And, IIRC, one of the potential Slayers who was activated at the very end of the series was dark-skinned.
Plus Willow was Jewish, so a little diversity there.
FWIW.
[ 04. October 2016, 09:06: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
It's also worth noting that Buffy was conceived as a character to deliberately subvert a stereotype. The stereotype being "that blonde girl" that always gets killed early on in a horror movie. The idea being that when the monster chases her down a dark alley she trounces it rather than the other way around.
In order to subvert the stereotype you have to be able to identify it - so Buffy was a blonde valley girl.
Now that was mostly for the movie. The TV show developed the character differently and didn't need to play up to the stereotype quite so much. The TV show was less about that simple inversion and more about showing the tension between the normal life of a high schooler and this mythic supernatural demon-fighter role. As such you could have re-cast Buffy as any ethnicity although it would have changed the show (but not necessarily in a bad way). Maybe if the movie had been a bigger success then the show could have been a spin-off in the sense of a story taking place in that established world, rather than a re-telling and then expansion of the same story.
Also IIRC the idea for the TV show came from a producer who still owned rights relating to the character from the movie. They approached Whedon thinking he wouldn't want to do it only to find he did. So whether the project would still have gone ahead if the response had been to essentially re-invent the character who knows?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Doc Tor: quote:
As an aside, my last book was traduced in the Daily Mail for being 'dutifully multicultural' because I dared to have an almost entirely non-Anglo cast of Londoners.
I read that book and completely failed to spot the dutiful multiculturalism... it sounded like a fairly typical mix of modern Londoners to me...
In fact, I would have been surprised (and irritated) if you'd done anything else. How likely is it that a random group of Londoners would be composed entirely of white Anglo-Saxons? Well, OK, maybe if you were looking in the House of Lords - but that's not a random group, is it?
quote:
That's something I wear as a badge of honour (and I'm seriously thinking of having it made into a t-shirt).
Or you could just buy one of these.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
If I'm not mistaken the idea behind one of the wise men being from Africa is that there were wise men from each of the then-known continents, Africa, Asia and Europe, symbolizing the whole world coming to worship the baby Jesus. Therefore it is, symbolically, very important for one of the three to be black.
Parenthetically, that's also why the Magi were upgraded to kings, symbolically they represent the homage of the world to Jesus.
My maths isn't brilliant but if this happened seventy years ago, that puts it in 1946. At this point in history we were still occupying the Indian Sub-Continent, the Democratic Party was about to split because northern liberals thought lynching was a bad idea, Verwoerd was putting together a political movement to campaign for more racism in South Africa and the Germans had only recently been forcibly restrained from exterminating the Jews and the Poles, who hadn't got the memo, held the last pogrom (to date) on European soil.
So on any list of Racist Things That Happened In The 1940s, a kid blacking up in a nativity play is probably not going to make the top ten million.
[ 04. October 2016, 12:18: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
The TV show was less about that simple inversion and more about showing the tension between the normal life of a high schooler and this mythic supernatural demon-fighter role.
I think it's fair to say that the premise of the TV show was simpler even than that, at least in the first seasons. The premise was simply "high school is hell." The demon-fighting was metaphor for the ordinary horrors of high school, and there's a reason that the hellmouth was directly under the high school.
quote:
Also IIRC the idea for the TV show came from a producer who still owned rights relating to the character from the movie. They approached Whedon thinking he wouldn't want to do it only to find he did.
Probably worth noting that Whedon didn't like what was done with Buffy in the movie.
/supertangent
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Also IIRC the idea for the TV show came from a producer who still owned rights relating to the character from the movie. They approached Whedon thinking he wouldn't want to do it only to find he did.
Probably worth noting that Whedon didn't like what was done with Buffy in the movie.
True but what I said about the Buffy of the movie was based on what he himself said about the origin of the character, not on how the movie turned out. (I'm pretty much paraphrasing one of the DVD extras)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
True but what I said about the Buffy of the movie was based on what he himself said about the origin of the character, not on how the movie turned out. (I'm pretty much paraphrasing one of the DVD extras)
Right. I was trying to add to what you said, not contradict it. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
Ah OK. Thanks.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If Buffy had been played by a black actress, of course it would have changed the part.
OK, genuinely interested in how you think it would.
Are you? I hope so, because I'm about to waste some time where I could be working explaining Character 101 to you.
You explained absolutely nothing in relation to Buffy. Buffy was in a controlled universe. As far as I can tell, that universe was Generic Hollywood High School, California variant.
They could have made the characters a rainbow of colour and it would have changed nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For this reason: the characters should alter the plot. Whether they're tall (and find it difficult to find cover when they're being shot at) or pretty (the strategy of working a room is going to be significantly different) or old (can an old man be an astronaut?) or disabled (I'm giving chase at the top speed of my mobility scooter) or Muslim (prayer time again?) or gay (hello, main protagonist!). Or black.
Being black does not impart any physical characteristics other than being more resistant to damage by the sun. It does not create any inherent behaviour patterns, it does not have any inherent cultural attachment.
Film and television haven't given one single shit about the authenticity of "ethnic" characters in the past. Why is the reverse so important?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
so Buffy was a blonde valley girl.
Black valley girls? I've met some. And, like, oh my God! It is, like, so totally hard to talk to them, like, I don't even try. Gag me with a spoon.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
lB. I'm sorry. You're officially Too Stupid To Breathe.
If you don't think being black changes anything, how government officials, cops, shop assistants treat you, and how you act around them, then ... I suggest you open a newspaper sometime. You have all the imagination and empathy of a 3/8" wingnut, and I hope to God you never put pen to paper.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
so Buffy was a blonde valley girl.
Black valley girls? I've met some. And, like, oh my God! It is, like, so totally hard to talk to them, like, I don't even try. Gag me with a spoon.
I'm sure. The point is though, black valley girls having sex then dying in the first reel were not a trope of horror movies.
Oh I'm sure there are a few examples but that's not the stereotype.
And btw, I think a black Buffy would have been fine. It could have been a great show. But it would have been different. That's all.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But not on TV, unless she had really good makeup.
Why though? Years and years of white people on the telly and on the silver screen playing historical people of colour so why not the reverse?
"Unless she had really good makeup".
TV dramas are much more of a realistic medium than theatre. If you have an actor playing the part of Boudicca on TV, she has to look the part. If she's a black actor, looking the part takes quite a lot of makeup. I don't have a problem with a black actor playing a white character, but I have a problem with a black actor playing a white character on TV whilst looking black.
And you're right, the history of film and TV is full of white actors in dubious body paint playing black parts, and they're not very convincing at all. But, of course, they were produced for white audiences who didn't have much experience of actual black people, so they didn't need to be very convincing. Plus racism, of course.
And then there are biblical films, where the Bible is clearly full of nothing but white people. Probably white people who speak Elizabethan English.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
lB. I'm sorry. You're officially Too Stupid To Breathe.
If you don't think being black changes anything, how government officials, cops, shop assistants treat you, and how you act around them, then ... I suggest you open a newspaper sometime. You have all the imagination and empathy of a 3/8" wingnut, and I hope to God you never put pen to paper.
So, let me get this straight. You are telling me what it is like to be black? Seriously?
Have you ever been stopped by the police for just your colour? Have you been followed through a store by security because of the way you look? Have people surprised that you can speak articulately and on on and so on just because of the colour of your skin?
Step the fuck off, bitch.
On the slim chance there is something redeemable about you, back to the discussion.
I've never written a novel, but I have worked with character and story development and world creation. Context fucking matters. And in a Buffy context colour would not matter because nothing related to that was remotely part of the fucking point. That some of you think so betrays your ignorance at best.
Buffy is not set in a realistic world. Not even fucking close to it.
There is a Richard Gere film called An Officer and a Gentleman. The part of the drill instructor was originally thought of as white. When Louis Gossett Jr. was cast, he won a fucking Oscar with an unchanged script.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
And btw, I think a black Buffy would have been fine. It could have been a great show. But it would have been different. That's all.
Still not sure how. The real world isn't intersectional to every fantasy world.
And, I would argue that putting people of colour into "default" character roles helps normalise race relations.* Not that real tensions should be ignored. There is room and, IMO, need for both kinds of depictions.
As much as people like to, we cannot be neatly packaged into how we should act or how people respond to us.
*Star Trek is a good example. Race relations were tackled, mostly with aliens, but the crew accepting each other with no colour issue was ground-breaking and, IMO, very helpful. Especially for its time.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
TV dramas are much more of a realistic medium than theatre. If you have an actor playing the part of Boudicca on TV, she has to look the part. If she's a black actor, looking the part takes quite a lot of makeup. I don't have a problem with a black actor playing a white character, but I have a problem with a black actor playing a white character on TV whilst looking black.
If I'm honest, a Black Boudica** on the screen would bother me because of the historical inaccuracy, but on the stage it would be delightful. But I am not sure this is right.
*Though, damn, such an awesome role to play.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, let me get this straight. You are telling me what it is like to be black? Seriously?
Why not? You're telling us what it's like to be Australian.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, let me get this straight. You are telling me what it is like to be black? Seriously?
Why not? You're telling us what it's like to be Australian.
No I am not, not even close. I said there were Australians of colour who were upset.
I explained why blackface is upsetting.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If I'm honest, a Black Boudica** on the screen would bother me because of the historical inaccuracy, but on the stage it would be delightful. But I am not sure this is right.
Yes, that's my opinion as well. And it's purely one of appearance - if you want to take a black actor and make her up in whiteface to match the historical descriptions of Boudicca that we have then I don't care, but on TV, she has to look the part.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I do not think she would need whiteface on the stage. We accept so many conditions, substitutions and stylizations on stage it would be unnecessary as well as award.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, I would argue that putting people of colour into "default" character roles helps normalise race relations.
FWIW I agree with this. I just don't think the Buffy character was a "default" in that sense.
But I don't really have the heart to try to explain why, again. It's a picky technical point really and a bit of a tangent to the thread.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not think she would need whiteface on the stage. We accept so many conditions, substitutions and stylizations on stage it would be unnecessary as well as award.
We're violently agreeing with each other. Stage and TV aren't the same.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Step the fuck off, bitch.
So far on this thread, you've managed to explain things to everyone else who knows more about what they're saying than you do. Read the responses to you. You're telling people about their own lives and how to interpret them because they're doing it wrong.
I say something that's actually true in your own experience and suddenly you can't stand it.
Get off your nose-bleed high horse. You're coming over as an insufferable bore, tedious and vexatious. If that's not what you are, you might want to change the record.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Are you both dressing up as Buffy for Hallowe'en?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It's as likely as anything.
Do you need anything about Canadian culture explaining to you while you're here? I'm sure our resident expert will take your questions.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, let me get this straight. You are telling me what it is like to be black? Seriously?
Why not? You're telling us what it's like to be Australian.
No I am not, not even close. I said there were Australians of colour who were upset.
I explained why blackface is upsetting.
Couple questions:
1. Can you remind me where to find the relevant article in which Australian people of color gave their reasons for being upset? So far I've only seen the rugby guy being quoted as having what appears to be mixed feelings. (I do note nobody seems particularly concerned that his feelings were mixed )
2. If Australian people of color are on record as expressing difficulty with the issue, the fact that their opinions are virtually absent from this mostly white bread discussion strikes me as rather... meta.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Step the fuck off, bitch.
So far on this thread, you've managed to explain things to everyone else who knows more about what they're saying than you do. Read the responses to you. You're telling people about their own lives and how to interpret them because they're doing it wrong.
No.
Much of this has been white people explaining why brown people should not be upset about blackface. Which is them telling other people how to interpret their lives. The very thing that you seem to be upset by, yet is OK from them.
I've been saying why I think they are wrong to do this.
I did tell anoesis that s/he was wrong about the All Blacks and it appears I misinterpreted part of their history. Not sure how much of anoesis life the All Blacks represent.
quote:
I say something that's actually true in your own experience and suddenly you can't stand it.
Yeah. They were saying other people don't know their own experience and you said I do not know mine. Wow, you are correct, there is no reason for me to be annoyed with you.
You know where I think you can put your high horse.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
1. Can you remind me where to find the relevant article in which Australian people of color gave their reasons for being upset? So far I've only seen the rugby guy being quoted as having what appears to be mixed feelings. (I do note nobody seems particularly concerned that his feelings were mixed )
The reactions began on Facebook, but here is an overview.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's as likely as anything.
Do you need anything about Canadian culture explaining to you while you're here? I'm sure our resident expert will take your questions.
What adjective would you use for someone who discusses the people and circumstances of a different country as if they knew more about it than someone who lives there does?
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
To Golden Key:
Thank you for your reference to the New Orleans Mardi Gras ‘Indians’: they look splendid. I am surprised that they have not been condemned for cultural misappropriation. I regret that in all my times in the US I did not get further south than Williamsburg in Virginia.
To Callan:
Yes, I took the part of Melchior in 1946.
To Kelly Alves:
I note that lilBuddha has given you the newspaper reference that I provided in my first post on this thread. I pointed out at the time that the article is hostile to the mother, but the comments below the line (scroll well down) are largely supportive of her. If it helps to understand the character of the newspaper, it is – while much diminished in its old age – something like the UK Guardian.
The footballer plays Australian football, which dates from 1859.
And to answer your question in the post above, you might use the adjective lilBuddhist.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That article didn't strike me as helping me sort out the information I was looking for, as both the "Too PC" folk and the " social justice " folk seemed to be white, for the most part. Judging by the profile pics, at least.
I'm still trying to sort out whether or not the average Kiwi indigenous person would tweak out at a white person putting on dark makeup, but I do think I understand what the mom was thinking, at least. She was trying to honor her kid's wishes. Whether or not I would have taken e same route, I get why she decided to err on tne side of letting him sort out hiw he wanted to honor his hero.
As for the comment I aimed at Doc--in the past, when I gave an example of how a particularly horrible and perniscious aspect of American culture affected me personally-- in a way that involved the death of two minors-- he pretty much laughed about it.
Yeah, I'm still sore. And even if it turns out lilbuddha is pissing off the toilet in this case, the stuff she us saying is practically like a Sondheim musical compared to the stuff he said to me. So, no, I think she's got a lot of competition in terms of dismissing people's experience of their culture in favor of demonizing it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
To Golden Key:
Thank you for your reference to the New Orleans Mardi Gras ‘Indians’: they look splendid. I am surprised that they have not been condemned for cultural misappropriation. I regret that in all my times in the US I did not get further south than Williamsburg in Virginia.
I love the Mardi Gras Indians. My understanding of their history is that local Indian tribes were actually allowing escaped slaves to join their tribes, and that they sort of approved of the practice of slaves disguising themselves as Indians to confuse the "patterollers." ( private scouts who were paid by individuals to locate their escaped/ off- curfew slaves.)
So if it was appropriation, it was a sort of certified appropriation. The local tribes knew just what was going on, and they encouraged it.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
Thank you for your posts. What irks me in all this is the refusal of some people to accept the possibility of nuance. Tributes are not insults. In 1985 I saw a beautiful production of The Mikado at the Lincoln Center by the New York City Opera in honour of the centenary of the show, but in 2014 there was an idiot journalist whingeing about the Seattle Gilbert and Sullivan Company committing ‘ýellowface’ by announcing their production of The Mikado. It’s called acting.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I'm all for embracing nuance, but I guess I am enough of a guilty lib to really, really want a few more voices of those directly affected in my ear. Until then, I think it's safest to say it's just not my call at all.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
As for the comment I aimed at Doc--in the past, when I gave an example of how a particularly horrible and perniscious aspect of American culture affected me personally-- in a way that involved the death of two minors-- he pretty much laughed about it.
We all get it wrong sometimes. I'm not immune to it, and whatever shitty things were happening in my life at the time, I got that wrong.
Apologies.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
{From my American point of view.}
lB--
Thanks for that link. I think the kid was innocently trying to look like his hero. But this was Book Week, and he was supposed to be a character from a book. So why was he allowed to portray a real person?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It seems like this sort of thing has been a volatile issue there for some time, per the article. IMHO, it would've been much wiser for the mom to help her son find a fictional character to portray, as he was supposed to. Failing that, she shouldn't have painted him. But she was quoted as saying there's too much political correctness...
What a mess.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If I'm honest, a Black Boudica** on the screen would bother me because of the historical inaccuracy, but on the stage it would be delightful. But I am not sure this is right.
Yes, that's my opinion as well. And it's purely one of appearance - if you want to take a black actor and make her up in whiteface to match the historical descriptions of Boudicca that we have then I don't care, but on TV, she has to look the part.
Unless the actress concerned is going to be a celtic-speaking Iceni, I don't think that a black Boudicca is anymore unrealistic than an English Boudicca. (IIRC, the TV series 'Warrior Queen', with Sian Phillips as Boudicca cast a (light skinned) Asian guy as one of the Iceni.)
It's like the complaints, years ago, that Marlon Brando played Mark Anthony with an American accent. The correct answer was given by Quentin Crisp who pointed out that as none of the characters were speaking Roman it didn't much matter.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But this was Book Week, and he was supposed to be a character from a book. So why was he allowed to portray a real person?
Mission creep.
When my kids did Book Character Day, they'd had access to plenty of books over the previous year, and time to choose. Most of the kids (and tbf, the kids' parents) translated it as a generic dressy up day, so we had video game characters, super heroes and celebrities in the mix too.
That's simply what happens, and the teachers have to roll with it.
(One Y5 did once come in dressed as the Witch King of Angmar, and was delighted when I said "It's the Witch King of Angmar!" because I was the only person who could identify the costume unprompted.)
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...he was supposed to be a character from a book. So why was he allowed to portray a real person?
Real people appear in books too. Perhaps his favourite book is the Australian Rules Football Annual.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The more I think of it, the more it seems that portraying the entire bunch of Iceni as black would be a very good idea, as it would bring out some aspects of the story which may hide behind the red hair. You wouldn't need to change the facts at all.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The revolt of the Iceni is one of our foundational myths. It's a shame we somewhat glossed the meaning of that myth when we subjugated half the globe.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Much of this has been white people explaining why brown people should not be upset about blackface. Which is them telling other people how to interpret their lives. The very thing that you seem to be upset by, yet is OK from them.
I've been saying why I think they are wrong to do this.
You seem to take it for granted that all non-white people have had the same experiences and have the same attitudes. And that you have the right to speak for them.
Moo
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That's still one step closer to finding out how the situation might appear to other people of color than a bunch of white folk arguing over their heads like they weren't there.
[And Doc-- thank you. Sincerely.]
[ 05. October 2016, 13:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...he was supposed to be a character from a book. So why was he allowed to portray a real person?
Real people appear in books too. Perhaps his favourite book is the Australian Rules Football Annual.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
You seem to take it for granted that all non-white people have had the same experiences and have the same attitudes.
Not even close to the truth. Even within the same community, there will be variation in experience and how those experiences are viewed. But there are commonalities in some of the general experiences and blackface to ticks that box.
quote:
And that you have the right to speak for them.
Moo
Yeah, funny though that this exchange was begun by a whitefella and yet I am speaking for people who are not mine.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Unless the actress concerned is going to be a celtic-speaking Iceni, I don't think that a black Boudicca is anymore unrealistic than an English Boudicca.
You have to make allowances for your audience - in this case, the vast majority of viewers who are unable to speak the Brittonic or Latin of two millenia ago.
quote:
(IIRC, the TV series 'Warrior Queen', with Sian Phillips as Boudicca cast a (light skinned) Asian guy as one of the Iceni.)
And there's probably nothing wrong with that. I don't care about the ethnic origins of any of the actors - I care that their appearance doesn't jar me out of the sense of immersion that a good TV series should provide. Which means Boudicca has got to look like Boudicca (tall, long red hair,...)
quote:
It's like the complaints, years ago, that Marlon Brando played Mark Anthony with an American accent. The correct answer was given by Quentin Crisp who pointed out that as none of the characters were speaking Roman it didn't much matter.
Well, sure - there's no reason to prefer an English accent over an American one when portraying a Roman. I'd find a particularly strong regional accent distracting enough to jar me out of the sense of immersion - I imagine I'd have difficulties with a Marc Antony who spoke with a broad Glaswegian accent - but most accents would be OK.
As far as Boudicca's accent goes, I'd probably find an American drawl distracting, because one somehow expects Boudicca to sound like a modern day Southern Briton, even though she obviously wouldn't have.
On a similar topic, here is a report that Bristol University has cancelled a student production of the Elton John / Tim Rice musical Aida because it would have featured white students playing the lead roles. (For those unfamiliar, Aida the musical is based on a Verdi opera set in Ancient Egypt, and features Egyptian and Nubian characters.)
Music Theatre Bristol, the theatre society that was proposing to put on the show, seems to consist almost entirely of white students, so they don't have black people available to play all the lead roles.
[ 05. October 2016, 20:16: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I imagine I'd have difficulties with a Marc Antony who spoke with a broad Glaswegian accent - but most accents would be OK.
Yeah, Sean Connery is lucky he's from Edinburgh then, aye?
quote:
On a similar topic, here is a report that Bristol University has cancelled a student production of the Elton John / Tim Rice musical Aida because it would have featured white students playing the lead roles. (For those unfamiliar, Aida the musical is based on a Verdi opera set in Egypt, and features Egyptian and Nubian characters.)
Music Theatre Bristol, the theatre society that was proposing to put on the show, seems to consist almost entirely of white students, so they don't have black people available to play all the lead roles.
The problem here is the disparity of black people in higher education. I think the uni would have been OK doing the production as long as they didn't black up, but perhaps it is best they chose another play. Not like there isn't a plethora of all white productions to mount.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, Sean Connery is lucky he's from Edinburgh then, aye?
Well, quite.
quote:
The problem here is the disparity of black people in higher education. I think the uni would have been OK doing the production as long as they didn't black up, but perhaps it is best they chose another play. Not like there isn't a plethora of all white productions to mount.
Bristol University is about 20% BME (Black and Minority Ethnic - UK government-speak for "not white"). That's lower than it "should" be, but not terribly far off the proportion of the UK population who is BME (about 25% in the university-going age range). There are plenty of black students in Bristol - it just seems that not many of them are interested in musicals.
(And I agree that there is no need to black up in theatre, quite aside from any of the racist associations of blackface.)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re "Aida":
I wonder...would it be acceptable to have all the performers wear masks? As with Greek theater, or Venetian masks??
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But this was Book Week, and he was supposed to be a character from a book. So why was he allowed to portray a real person?
After last year's controversy they banned golliwogs.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Batman. Batwoman. We all should be Batpeople, and just quite the other nonsense. Who wants to be anyone else if you can be Batman/Batwoman? Or maybe a pirate, but that's a different holiday.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I have a great Batwoman costume. It is made out of two leotards seamed together, plus a Bat cape.
I recommend to you however a Jedi cloak. Covers almost all sins, and if you are very short you could be an Ewok instead.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, Sean Connery is lucky he's from Edinburgh then, aye?
Well, quite.
Wonder if someone could get comparable work these days with his attitude towards accents?
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
The question of why the boy was ‘allowed to play a real person’ is irrelevant. It may well be - as Teekey Misha suggested – (and as did some of the comments below the line in the newspaper article that I originally posted) that his choice was inspired by the Australian Football League Record. The source of his inspiration does not matter. The fact is that his school not only accepted his choice, and allowed him to enter the parade: they also awarded him a prize.
Some posters who have chosen to take offence at this incident have written that the mother needs to be ‘educated’, that she should have ‘known better’. What condescension! People may take what offence they please, and voice their disapproval as loudly as they can, but the mere fact of their being offended - however deeply - does not give them any authority over other people’s actions.
In the 2011 movie My Week with Marilyn there is a moment when Sir Laurence Olivier - exasperated by the difficulty of teaching acting technique to Marilyn Monroe – exclaims ‘It’s like teaching Urdu to a badger’. I share the feeling.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
The question of why the boy was ‘allowed to play a real person’ is irrelevant. It may well be - as Teekey Misha suggested – (and as did some of the comments below the line in the newspaper article that I originally posted) that his choice was inspired by the Australian Football League Record. The source of his inspiration does not matter. The fact is that his school not only accepted his choice, and allowed him to enter the parade: they also awarded him a prize.
Some posters who have chosen to take offence at this incident have written that the mother needs to be ‘educated’, that she should have ‘known better’. What condescension! People may take what offence they please, and voice their disapproval as loudly as they can, but the mere fact of their being offended - however deeply - does not give them any authority over other people’s actions.
In the 2011 movie My Week with Marilyn there is a moment when Sir Laurence Olivier - exasperated by the difficulty of teaching acting technique to Marilyn Monroe – exclaims ‘It’s like teaching Urdu to a badger’. I share the feeling.
I don't know, calling yourself a badger is a tiny bit ungenerous.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
The only possible reply to that is 'Whoosh!'
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And people underestimate Marilyn's intelligence. I once saw a biographical segment about her. Showed her bedroom or dressing room. There was a close-up of her bookcase. If she was reading those books, no way was she unintelligent.
(And no, I don't remember the titles. But I was impressed, at the time.)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
The only possible reply to that is 'Whoosh!'
Do you speak any Urdu?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
On a similar topic, here is a report that Bristol University has cancelled a student production of the Elton John / Tim Rice musical Aida because it would have featured white students playing the lead roles. (For those unfamiliar, Aida the musical is based on a Verdi opera set in Ancient Egypt, and features Egyptian and Nubian characters.)
Music Theatre Bristol, the theatre society that was proposing to put on the show, seems to consist almost entirely of white students, so they don't have black people available to play all the lead roles.
There is a story of the US Black Opera company Opera South that was doing a production of Verdi's Otello when the lead became ill. They did manage on short notice to find a substitute of adequate quality but who was white. It lent a photographic negative quality to the production. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
mdijon:
I have a very modest vocabulary as in, for instance, avatar, bandanna, bungalow, chutney. cunmmerbund and dekko, but my pronunciation is - I have to admit - sadly inauthentic.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
That'll be because you're a badger.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
Not at all.
Badgers, as Sir Laurence clearly demonstrated, have no capacity for learning Urdu.
I know some words of Urdu.
Therefore, I am not a badger.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But this was Book Week, and he was supposed to be a character from a book. So why was he allowed to portray a real person?
After last year's controversy they banned golliwogs.
There's often a storm in a teacup over Book Week. My favourite was the lad who was sent home from school after turning up in a smart suit with cable ties and a mask.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
Not at all.
Badgers, as Sir Laurence clearly demonstrated, have no capacity for learning Urdu.
Not at all.
- Sir Laurence asserted that teaching acting technique to Marilyn Monroe was difficult.
- Sir Laurence implied that badgers have limited capacity for learning Urdu.
- Sir Laurence clearly demonstrated only his own inability to teach Marilyn and his alacritous facility for metaphor.
Sir Laurence did not clearly demonstrate anything at all about either badgers or Urdu.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But this was Book Week, and he was supposed to be a character from a book. So why was he allowed to portray a real person?
After last year's controversy they banned golliwogs.
There's often a storm in a teacup over Book Week. My favourite was the lad who was sent home from school after turning up in a smart suit with cable ties and a mask.
I was joking, but never mind Book Week. Then there was that time when a kid made a clock and the bomb squad was called in. He was suspected of being inventive while of Muslim background.
One of the major ways that adults teach kids how to "grow up" is to project all their adult issues onto kids.
[ 06. October 2016, 13:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
If some kid shows up dressed as Patrick Bateman, that's really time for a parent/ teacher conference.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Why, precisely?
I note in passing that my nephew, when he was younger, used to be full of a surprising amount of information about books he'd never read and movies he'd never seen. He'd keep wanting to confirm various plot points with me.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
It. Was. A. Joke.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Are. We. Back. To. Deliberately. Slowing. Down. Our. Typing. Speed. Again?
You. Seem. To. Think. This. Achieves. Something. Other. Than. Entertaining. Me. Quite. A. Bit.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Jokes. Are. Meant. To. Entertain.
Unless. You. Are. Stuck. With. A. Big. Fat. Stiff.
(This. Would. Also. Be. A Joke. Of. The. Running. Variety. Need.Any. More. Help?)
( Christ, that's a pain in the ass.)
[ 06. October 2016, 13:54: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
You missed a space.
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
But where Christ is, there is extra space.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You missed a space.
Doing. This. With. One. Finger. Dickhead.
(And color me shocked that I type the phrase "Big. Stiff." and Wes comes breezing in, as if on cue. There's no Y at the end, Wes.)
[ 06. October 2016, 14:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I preferred it when we were talking about badgers.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I preferred it when we were talking about badgers.
A topic best avoided; the badgers were becoming very upset at unfair generalizations about their linguistic abilities.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You don't know that. You're not a badger.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If some kid shows up dressed as Patrick Bateman, that's really time for a parent/ teacher conference.
When I was nine I read, for some reason, my mother's copy of Doctor Faustus. I would have definitely gone as Mephistopheles, had we had such a thing as World Book Day. Unfortunately my mother would have drawn the line and insisted I show up dressed as Rupert the Bear.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You don't know that. You're not a badger.
The badgers told me. In broken Urdu.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Yeah, you can stay... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Poor badgers! Who broke their Urdu?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You missed a space.
Doing. This. With. One. Finger. Dickhead.
Well that's not my fault, is it? I mean, if you want to unnecessarily handicap yourself in that way, or haven't bothered getting a decent typing education, why should proper typists like me make any allowance for you?
Next you'll be telling me that you're a badger and your native language is Urdu. Nothing to do with me.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
No, no! Badgers do not speak Urdu, apart from that which they have acquired by assimilation. They certainly are averse to/incapable of learning Urdu: a fact which is the point of the Olivier/Monroe reference. Whatever creature addressed Teekey Misha in broken Urdu, it was not a badger.
The Badger, as we know from Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows, speaks flawless English (Received Pronunciation). I would be happy to represent Badger. The role is suited to my age, build, and temperament. Of course, I would have to be in blackandwhiteface, which would cause endless offence to the wowsers.*
*wowser: Oz slang for killjoy
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You missed a space.
Doing. This. With. One. Finger. Dickhead.
Well that's not my fault, is it? I mean, orf! Orf, orf, orf! Orf, orf! Orf, orf orf orf orf!
Orf orf, orf orf orf! Nothing to do with me.
Guess. Which. Finger. I'm. Using.
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
No, no! Badgers do not speak Urdu, apart from that which they have acquired by assimilation... The Badger, as we know from Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows, speaks flawless English (Received Pronunciation).
You are basing your argument only on The Wind in the Willows? A novel? Based solely on Badger's later life? Why are you choosing to ignore Badger's earlier years, when he was serving as a sapper with the Royal Engineers in the Raj and learned to speak Urdu like a native, which he spoke in a flawless RP accent?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Guess. Which. Finger. I'm. Using.
So long as you washed it first.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
A mere novel! I assure you that it is unvarnished history.
I love the idea of Badger in his youth as a sapper with the Royal Engineers, but surely with his organisational and leadership skills, and his family connections, he would have been quickly promoted to the officer class as, say, Adjutant.
He must have bravely endured the heat in all that fur. And I have grave doubt about that Urdu!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
No no. I am sure he had native adjutants and assistants to do the Urdu for him. A mongoose, let us say -- Rikki-tikki-tavi is clearly in need of a further career.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Guess. Which. Finger. I'm. Using.
So long as you washed it first.
Actually I picked with it first. All this talk of Monroe made me go all Method.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
To Brenda Clough:
Yes: Badger and Rikki-tikki would a formidable pair: thunder and lightning.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Gosh, it almost writes itself.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
Perhaps you might consider giving it a whirl, as we say in Oz.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
It appears the dressing up as a clown and scaring the crap out of people craze has gone beyond fun here in UK.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
It's gone beyond fun here, too. One example: someone dressed as a clown tried to take a woman's baby away at a bus stop, here in the SF Bay Area.
ETA: And, of course, it was only ever fun for the scary clowns, not their victims. As with bullying.
[ 11. October 2016, 19:30: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I imagine some of these clown chasing stunts end up on on the Net like the old Happy Slappys. Which is a pretty good way to incriminate oneself, although being dressed up as a clown does provide some disguise.
Seems that our police have issued clown curfew as from tonight. Is it just me or does World feel as though it is becoming stranger with each passing day?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have a problem with people who do not live in an area insisting that a team name be changed because they find it insulting.
Is this is the same sort of thinking that allowed Confederate flags to be accepted for so many years?
I don't see the parallel. In the situation I described all the local Indians who spoke up were opposed to changing the team name. Many of them said they were proud of it.
I don't think there has ever been a situation where local blacks said they wanted Confederate flags to be freely displayed in their area.
Moo
You have this backwards. People who find the Confed flag offensive.
Further on sports teams names: Jays announcer won't say Cleveland team name. The CBC news did a short piece on it, wondering how it would be to have a caricature of a Jew and a team named, say New York Jews.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
You might also find this parody instructive:
Cleveland Caucasians which changes the "Indians" name to caucasians, does a feather for dollar sign exchange, and whitens the face of the "chief".
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I don't see the parallel. In the situation I described all the local Indians who spoke up were opposed to changing the team name. Many of them said they were proud of it.
I don't think there has ever been a situation where local blacks said they wanted Confederate flags to be freely displayed in their area.
Moo
You have this backwards. People who find the Confed flag offensive.
Further on sports teams names: Jays announcer won't say Cleveland team name. The CBC news did a short piece on it, wondering how it would be to have a caricature of a Jew and a team named, say New York Jews.
The important word here is 'caricature'. The team symbol was a very dignified Indian chief. If it had been a caricature, the local Indians would have objected years ago.
I realize that some teams have degrading icons. I don't see this as a good reason for forbidding icons that are not degrading.
Moo
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The Cleveland symbol is dignified? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Cleveland symbol is dignified?
I think he meant the logo of the local team he was talking about.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The Cleveland baseball team is playing the Toronto Blue Jays. There is quite a bit about the inappropriateness of "red sambo" on the 'net. Not that I like baseball very much.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
I've told my ten-year old that Scary Clown is out of the question as a Hallowe'en costume. His alternative proposal? Donald Trump.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
So he's going as a scary clown?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Yeah. Inconsistent mummy. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I was thinking, for full horror value, he could be carrying a nuclear missile...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Real or fake?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Ten year olds aren't allowed to have nukes round my way. They probably would be in Trumpworld though. Right to bear arms and all that.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I've told my ten-year old that Scary Clown is out of the question as a Hallowe'en costume. His alternative proposal? Donald Trump.
"Did I not make myself clear about scary clowns?"
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I've told my ten-year old that Scary Clown is out of the question as a Hallowe'en costume. His alternative proposal? Donald Trump.
"Did I not make myself clear about scary clowns?"
Yeah, that was kinda the angle I was shooting for too, but my attempt fell flat.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0