"Blackface" Discussion

No one is arguing intent doesn't matter though, we're just stressing that it doesn't magically inoculate people from responsibility for their actions or render them unaccountable from the effects of said actions. This shit doesn't exist in a vacuum and pretending it does, doesn't help anybody.

You must have missed the post I was responding to then.
 
If you are aware of what that symbol represents then you're not really ignorant though, just incredibly callous, in which case you deserve condemnation.

He's clearly arguing from the hypothetical perspective of not knowing what a swastika is. It is offensive regardless of whether you knew that or not. That is the point.
 
He's quite literally absolved Griezmann of the tag "racist" because he understands that there was no malicious intention. His point is that regardless of intention, the act itself was still racist.

In your examples, there is of course a difference between involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder, however, a person is still dead. The person responsible for that death may not have meant to do it, but they still killed someone.

Griezmann may not have meant anything malicious with his actions, but his actions can still be considered racist, without him actually being a racist.

I just used that as an example to show that intentions clearly matter. And you can cause someone's death and be found not liable too.
 
Swastika is not just a Nazi sign though. It is a very important sign of Hindu culture.

And Jippy not being Hindu and walking in a Jewish neighbourhood will make that argument difficult to sustain. But you are right to point to the different meaning in Hindu culture.
 
You must have missed the post I was responding to then.

Well, no, you've just not really read it in context.

He responded to someone completely absolving Griezmann of his actions because he didn't mean to cause any offence by saying that intention was irrelevant as the act itself was racist.

In the grander scheme of things, intention is important, which is why MoneyMay knows, hence why he went on to emphasise how you can do or say something racist without actually being a racist.
 
My honest opinion is no - I don't think he did anything wrong. I just don't live in a world where I see a problem with someone innocently dressing up as a black man.

That is wonderful for you but bares no relevance to this incident, or in fact the world we actually live in.
 
My honest opinion is no - I don't think he did anything wrong. I just don't live in a world where I see a problem with someone innocently dressing up as a black man.

Out of curiosity - was he dressed up as an individual black man, celebrity or character?

Or did he don a costume and some black paint and figure that that’s a good enough representation of black people?

Does anyone even know which Harlem Globetrotter he was meant to be?
 
Well, no, you've just not really read it in context.

He responded to someone completely absolving Griezmann of his actions because he didn't mean to cause any offence by saying that intention was irrelevant as the act itself was racist.

In the grander scheme of things, intention is important, which is why MoneyMay knows, hence why he went on to emphasise how you can do or say something racist without actually being a racist.
:lol:

Honestly didn't think it was that hard to understand.
 
He's clearly arguing from the hypothetical perspective of not knowing what a swastika is. It is offensive regardless of whether you knew that or not. That is the point.

Of course it's still offensive, and people will naturally assume that he does know what it is. But if Jippy really did not have a clue what a swastika was or what it represented, and he just accidentally wandered into a Jewish neighborhood (a fairly ludicrous example, but ok) I honestly don't think he deserves condemnation in that scenario. He deserves to be educated.
 
I just used that as an example to show that intentions clearly matter. And you can cause someone's death and be found not liable too.

And people, including MoneyMay, have said that this doesn't make Griezmann a racist. It was still a racist act though, even if it was done through ignorance. He's not on the hook for being a racist, but he still did something racist.

Just like you can not be on the hook for killing someone (i.e. be charged with murder/manslaughter), yet can still have killed someone.

Or with your other example, you can accidentally trip someone over through no fault of your own and them be entirely fine with it, but just as if you'd done it intentionally, you still tripped someone over and they may have hurt themselves in the process.
 
Swastika is not just a Nazi sign though. It is a very important sign of Hindu culture.
We actually had them on our wedding invites, which raised eyebrows in my family.
And Jippy not being Hindu and walking in a Jewish neighbourhood will make that argument difficult to sustain. But you are right to point to the different meaning in Hindu culture.
Yep, I can't rely hide behind my wife's ethnicity.

This is the Lukaku thread all over again.
 
Of course it's still offensive, and people will naturally assume that he does know what it is. But if Jippy really did not have a clue what a swastika was or what it represented, and he just accidentally wandered into a Jewish neighborhood (a fairly ludicrous example, but ok) I honestly don't think he deserves condemnation in that scenario. He deserves to be educated.
It was a pretty lame example, I'll give you that, but lack of intent isn't a licence to get away with stuff. Ignorance isn't a defence.
 
I think fancy dress is all about getting in character. If that character is typically a different colour I can't see how it's a problem.

If a black guy wanted to be Prince William I think he'd struggle to have the same effect without while makeup.

Is that offensive, hell no!

I get there is a history, etc, where this has been misused. But guns have killed people, does that make everyone in America a murderer. Penises have caused rape, does that make every man a rapist.

I know these things are not the same, but the point holds. Just because someone used something in a way that was negative does not mean someone else using that something is also using it in a negative way.

I think being overly sensitive to such things only increases the divide. Griezmann has a known public great relationship with Pogba. It's obvious he is both not racist and if anything appreciates black culture. Why can't he share that appreciation in his own way.

I think it's actually racist to suggest otherwise.

Feck me, what a post.
 
Out of curiosity - was he dressed up as an individual black man, celebrity or character?

Or did he don a costume and some black paint and figure that that’s a good enough representation of black people?

Does anyone even know which Harlem Globetrotter he was meant to be?

He was wearing this, which isn't exactly a real jersey.

s-l300.jpg
 
Jose sign him up. Hopefully at a discount now!
It was a silly mistake. Presumably someone will now educate him on the history of blackface and he will release an apologetic statement.
 
It's not that intent does not matter; it's that the act overshadows the intent - so the intention becomes a much smaller thing.

People who kill with intent are charged with murder whilst no intent is deemed manslaughter. (I think anyway)

Either way someone died & that's the important thing. Whether AG had any intentions to hurt people or not; he ended up hurting some people & if it doesn't hurt you doesn't mean it doesn't hurt others.
 
Of course it's still offensive, and people will naturally assume that he does know what it is. But if Jippy really did not have a clue what a swastika was or what it represented, and he just accidentally wandered into a Jewish neighborhood (a fairly ludicrous example, but ok) I honestly don't think he deserves condemnation in that scenario. He deserves to be educated.

I think he could rightfully be called an idiot, or labeled ignorant, which is pretty much the extent of the backlash against Griezmann on here. I'm led to believe there are people calling for his head on social media, but that happens with a lot of things nowadays and they're best left to themselves.

Jippy's point was that if he were to be blissfully unaware of the historic use of a swastika and instead think of it as nothing more than a cool looking logo, then wear a t-shirt with a swastika visibly printed on it through a Jewish neighbourhood, regardless of his intentions, the residents would have a right to take offence to his actions.

As you said, he would obviously need to be educated, as Griezmann needs to be now, but if we completely absolve people of responsibility for their actions because they've claimed ignorance then you're giving people a free pass to do and say a lot of horrible things at least once.
 
Jose sign him up. Hopefully at a discount now!
It was a silly mistake. Presumably someone will now educate him on the history of blackface and he will release an apologetic statement.

Yeah it's a bad mistake but it’s one he won’t be castigated long term for. It will all be forgotten about soon enough because he's clearly not an avowed racist.

People are sensitive to this, some with good reason, some with not. But it's worth pointing out what he did was wrong and then move on.
 
Out of curiosity - was he dressed up as an individual black man, celebrity or character?

Or did he don a costume and some black paint and figure that that’s a good enough representation of black people?

Does anyone even know which Harlem Globetrotter he was meant to be?

The black one with the afro, obviously.

He was wearing this, which isn't exactly a real jersey.

s-l300.jpg

The hair in this outfit is already toeing a line, but would likely get a pass. The blackface is just outright unacceptable.
 
It was a pretty lame example, I'll give you that, but lack of intent isn't a licence to get away with stuff. Ignorance isn't a defence.

If you're ignorant you're by definition not trying to "get away" with anything. You're just ignorant.

Griezmann (it appears) was ignorant, he intended no harm (quite the opposite it seems), and he immediately apologized when it was pointed out to him. I see no reason why he deserves any condemnation what so ever here. He made a mistake and apologized, move on.
 
Swastika is not just a Nazi sign though. It is a very important sign of Hindu culture.

Yep, but the Nazi version is an inverted form. Its' fairly common here. I myself have Swastika knick-knacks at home and even a tee, but I don't wear them or bring them with me when I go abroad. Obviously it could be misunderstood by people of other cultures and you have to respect their sensibilities when on their turf.
 
He was wearing this, which isn't exactly a real jersey.

s-l300.jpg

Precisely.
I don’t actually remember many globetrotters with huge afros, his outfit just seemed like a stereotype.

If he was actually paying homage, then I would expect an actual jersey and shorts, with the name of a particular globetrotter on the back of it. He can certainly afford it.

Instead he not only wore a basic outfit, but decided to try being black too.

Quite frankly, the guy in this pic didn’t need the Afro, anyone who takes a brief look at that picture can determine he’s impersonating the globetrotters.
No blacking up was necessary.
 
Yep, but the Nazi version is an inverted form. Its' fairly common here. I myself have Swastika knick-knacks at home and even a tee, but I don't wear them or bring them with me when I go abroad. Obviously it could be misunderstood by people of other cultures and you have to respect their sensibilities when on their turf.

yup you are right, about being sensible especially in regions where swastika is a sign of Nazi oppression.
But me personally don't care about symbols, and find them overrated.
 
The black one with the afro, obviously.



The hair in this outfit is already toeing a line, but would likely get a pass. The blackface is just outright unacceptable.

:lol: why is it unacceptable? It really isn't. I remember when my Indian friend came to a party and had whited up as an old english beach goer - he won the best dressed price. What the hell is wrong with people?! Everyone should just chill!
 
If you're ignorant you're by definition not trying to "get away" with anything. You're just ignorant.

Griezmann (it appears) was ignorant, he intended no harm (quite the opposite it seems), and he immediately apologized when it was pointed out to him. I see no reason why he deserves any condemnation what so ever here. He made a mistake and apologized, move on.
I think a lot of people are just shocked that people still do this. There have been so many instances of shitstorms caused by it. He told people to calm down before apologising, but yeah, it seems he isn't the brightest.
 
Out of curiosity - was he dressed up as an individual black man, celebrity or character?

Or did he don a costume and some black paint and figure that that’s a good enough representation of black people?

Does anyone even know which Harlem Globetrotter he was meant to be?

He looked like a harlem globetrotter. You're not gonna tell me he did a bad job? Sorry how exactly should he be representing black people? By not blacking up? I don't get it.
 
Well, no, you've just not really read it in context.

He responded to someone completely absolving Griezmann of his actions because he didn't mean to cause any offence by saying that intention was irrelevant as the act itself was racist.

In the grander scheme of things, intention is important, which is why MoneyMay knows, hence why he went on to emphasise how you can do or say something racist without actually being a racist.

Well, yes, I have read it in context. He explicitly says intention doesn't matter in response to someone saying that they do. Which is why I responded to him in the first place. Please read our exchange again.

He seems to be trying to backtrack now while accusing me of being dim for not understanding him, but his words are there for all to see.
 
eugene edgerson.

So, nobody from the classic teams from the 70s-90s?
Certainly, not someone who Griezmann was paying homage to?

He looked like a harlem globetrotter. You're not gonna tell me he did a bad job? Sorry how exactly should he be representing black people? By not blacking up? I don't get it.

:rolleyes:

Yes, by not blacking up.
Black people are not just the colour of our skin ffs.
 
Whether it's offensive or not I think we can all agree it's an astoundingly braindead thing to do given the current sociopolitical climate.
 
So, nobody from the classic teams from the 70s-90s?
Certainly, not someone who Griezmann was paying homage to?



:rolleyes:

Yes, by not blacking up.
Black people are not just the colour of our skin ffs.

Well where does it stop? hair colour? facial features? The colour of somebody's skin is a pretty big part of how they look. Why don't people just accept that?
 
Whether it's offensive or not I think we can all agree it's an astoundingly braindead thing to do given the current sociopolitical climate.

I probably agree with this - but it's unfortunate. Far too much focus on this kind of thing that has come about through actual racism. Is griezmann racist? Of course not - but he'll be judged by current society - Unfairly as it happens.
 
Whether it's offensive or not I think we can all agree it's an astoundingly braindead thing to do given the current sociopolitical climate.

I agree with you in the Angloshere, I think that, probably due to a common language with America, we are more advanced with our idea as to what and what constitutes racism and a racist post and what doesn't.

I am guessing, though I may be wrong, that he did not intend to b racist with his outfit.
 
I am a people of color as many others are and it’s funny how I mostly hear and see white people raging over this. White people telling people of color what to be offended about. Seems to me a little patronizing and racist in itself.

History is full of racism, domination and other abysmal events. It’s not exclusive to the white male, Chinese can be overtly racist towards other Asian minorities, towards blacks and yes even towards white people. And so can every other ethnicity be racist. Over the course of history many different cultures have dominated others at some point in time and oppressed and ruled with force and prejudice.

If a guy dresses up like a black nba player, why not paint yourself black then? If a black man would want to dress up like Tom cruise, why not paint himself white? Just for kicks and giggles. Having a little fun.

Reminds me of a Die Antwoord video clip shot inside of South Africa. The white girl painted black and the black guy wearing a white hood and white clothes. Just, because. Of course fake outrage everywhere over that as well, but they stood their ground, black and white together.

This age and day we live in now is the age and day of repression of thought. Institutionalized victimization seems par de course.

Great post, good to see people such as your self and Koroux putting a balance to the viewpoint mainly being pushed in this thread.
the things being jumped on these days as racism is worrying, surely it's detrimental to combating genuine racism.
 
Well where does it stop? hair colour? facial features? The colour of somebody's skin is a pretty big part of how they look. Why don't people just accept that?

If you seriously are suggesting that someone dressed in a Harlem globetrotters uniform, wouldn’t be recognised as a Harlem globetrotter unless they blacken their skin and wear an afro, then just do me a favour and stop talking to me.