"Blackface" Discussion

[Andycoleno9]

It's the default "joke" in many discussions, @Andycoleno9. Anything to do with Christianity always seems to come back to a comment of that nature. Anyway, you and I no doubt enjoyed celebrating the Feast of Epiphany at Mass yesterday.

Yes, of course i enjoyed it but for me it is also a sad day because you remove your christmas tree.
And you are right about those comments. Today you can't make a "joke" about many things( which is ok, don't get me wrong) but hey, lets all laugh to catholics and religion. Classic case of double standards

 

[2 man midfield]

In The Netherlands, the knowledge of blackface being racist is quite easy to discern. It's when the controversy over Sinterklaas started.

Thing with racism is that the victim decides when it's racist not the perpetrator of said racism. That's where some of us seem slightly confused.

In this case I suspect it's no harm intended by Iniesta, but he should be told, as a global public figure, that it's not cool to blackface. Or as is more standard on the interwebs, post his phonenumber, homeadress and the shop his wife does groceries.

Haha imagine the wife of a multimillionaire footballer doing her own groceries

That’s the thing, I genuinely have no idea. If it’s considered racist over there, and black people over there would find it offensive then Iniesta should definitely take a look at himself in fairness.

 

[2 man midfield]

Yes, of course i enjoyed it but for me it is also a sad day because you remove your christmas tree.
And you are right about those comments. Today you can't make a "joke" about many things( which is ok, don't get me wrong) but hey, lets all laugh to catholics and religion. Classic case of double standards

I’ve definitely questioned this before. It’s frowned upon to make jokes about so many things these days, religion included, but it’s fine to tar all catholics with the same brush based on the actions of a few. Isn’t that exactly why people don’t like Islamic jokes?

 

[fergieisold]

In The Netherlands, the knowledge of blackface being racist is quite easy to discern. It's when the controversy over Sinterklaas started.

Thing with racism is that the victim decides when it's racist not the perpetrator of said racism. That's where some of us seem slightly confused.

In this case I suspect it's no harm intended by Iniesta, but he should be told, as a global public figure, that it's not cool to blackface. Or as is more standard on the interwebs, post his phonenumber, homeadress and the shop his wife does groceries.

Haha imagine the wife of a multimillionaire footballer doing her own groceries

This is the problem with the whole thing. Intent is above all the most important. I'm not having a group of people telling me blackface is racist because they've decided it is. I think people need to stand their ground a bit more on this one and if the intention is good (e.g. dressing up as your favourite black actor), then go for it. This whole blackface outrage thing just magnifies racial differences rather than just getting on with life and accepting them!

 

[Tarrou]

Yeah this is why I’m hesitant to call everyone who does it a cnut regardless of where they are geographically. Without social media, (which people from the US seem to forget doesn’t revolve around the US) we probably wouldn’t know about this stuff, so I think you have to be a bit more patient when people don’t see stuff the same way you do. Maybe that’s controversial, I don’t know.

Yeah I agree with this, and I expect most would. If you genuinely had no idea, then fair enough - you made a mistake, learn from it and move on. If at that point though they start doubling down then obviously it's different.

Sometimes people seem to want to double down on their right to offend others, as if being called on it is some serious affront to their freedoms.

 

[HarlanEiffler]

This is the problem with the whole thing. Intent is above all the most important. I'm not having a group of people telling me blackface is racist because they've decided it is. I think people need to stand their ground a bit more on this one and if the intention is good (e.g. dressing up as your favourite black actor), then go for it. This whole blackface outrage thing just magnifies racial differences rather than just getting on with life and accepting them!

So if I'm catcalling a woman but without meaning it in a bad way, I should stand my ground against her calling me out on it? Because she should know that I didn't mean it in a bad way (or is she supposed to ask me if I meant it in a bad way before she can righteously call me out?) and there is a lot more important sexism going on? Or me calling a gay man a 'f*ggot', but not in a derogatory way, but humerously and in a nice way? Suck it up, buttercup, would be your advice to them?

KirkDuyt is exactly right. It is the victim that is deciding whether it is racist or sexist.

 

[fergieisold]

So if I'm catcalling a woman but without meaning it in a bad way, I should stand my ground against her calling me out on it? Because she should know that I didn't mean it in a bad way (or is she supposed to ask me if I meant it in a bad way before she can righteously call me out?) and there is a lot more important sexism going on? Or me calling a gay man a 'f*ggot', but not in a derogatory way, but humerously and in a nice way? Suck it up, buttercup, would be your advice to them?

KirkDuyt is exactly right. It is the victim that is deciding whether it is racist or sexist.

I'm sorry but what exactly do you think the intention of cat calling a women is? and calling someone a f**ggot? You've picked two examples there that have limited intentions. Wearing a blackface has many. Some racist, some not.

 

[Cloud7]

This is the problem with the whole thing. Intent is above all the most important. I'm not having a group of people telling me blackface is racist because they've decided it is. I think people need to stand their ground a bit more on this one and if the intention is good (e.g. dressing up as your favourite black actor), then go for it. This whole blackface outrage thing just magnifies racial differences rather than just getting on with life and accepting them!

Intent is not above all the most important thing. If it was then the expression “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” would not exist and would not be so true.

Regardless of what your intentions are, you can’t tell someone that they have no right to be upset about something because you didn’t mean to offend them. If something bothers a person then they are within their rights to be offended about it, not just get on with life and accept it. If we all just “got on with life and accepted things” then the world would still be stuck the way it was in the 50s, but hey, you stand your ground mate. You stand strong.

 

[HarlanEiffler]

I'm sorry but what exactly do you think the intention of cat calling a women is? and calling someone a f**ggot? You've picked two examples there that have limited intentions. Wearing a blackface has many. Some racist, some not.

both can have many, you just chose to ignore that it was the victims calling out the homophobia and the sexism behind both that changed our perspective on cat-calling (used as a flirting method, attention-seeking among other things in the past) and calling someone a f*ggot (which could also be used in a humorous context if you are a person with that kind of humour, some men like to call their friends 'faggot' in jest). So you can see, intent can never be used as a shield against calling something out. It is the victims that first problematize it, and then society following by shunning a certain behaviour. It is the same with language, and with folklore.

Edit: also, what @Cloud7 said.

 

[fergieisold]

Intent is not above all the most important thing. If it was then the expression “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” would not exist and would not be so true.

Regardless of what your intentions are, you can’t tell someone that they have no right to be upset about something because you didn’t mean to offend them. If something bothers a person then they are within their rights to be offended about it, not just get on with life and accept it. If we all just “got on with life and accepted things” then the world would still be stuck the way it was in the 50s, but hey, you stand your ground mate. You stand strong.

From my perspective I think intent is incredibly important. Anyone has the right to be upset or offended but that means little when it comes to an actual offence being committed - remember racist behaviour is considered a crime.

 

[Cloud7]

From my perspective I think intent is incredibly important. Anyone has the right to be upset or offended but that means little when it comes to an actual offence being committed - remember racist behaviour is considered a crime.

No one is saying that people like Griezmann or Iniesta should be prosecuted in court, but if it is something that will offend people, then it’s worth pointing out to them that, especially as global figures, they might want to not partake in that again, especially if they don’t actually know that it’s offensive to some groups of people.

 

[fergieisold]

both can have many, you just chose to ignore that it was the victims calling out the homophobia and the sexism behind both that changed our perspective on cat-calling (used as a flirting method, attention-seeking among other things in the past) and calling someone a f*ggot (which could also be used in a humorous context if you are a person with that kind of humour, some men like to call their friends 'faggot' in jest). So you can see, intent can never be used as a shield against calling something out. It is the victims that first problematize it, and then society following by shunning a certain behaviour. It is the same with language, and with folklore.

Edit: also, what @Cloud7 said.

Slightly off topic (re society) but some good stats here https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...tunsh/tabs_HP_Offensive_Costumes_20151028.pdf

I don't think the public is calling out black face. Even black people aren't exactly sold on it being racist. Personally I think it is racist under certain circumstances but someone dressing up as Mr T down the local pub fancy dress night is not racist in any way and shouldn't be seen as such.

 

[Bury Red]

I’ve definitely questioned this before. It’s frowned upon to make jokes about so many things these days, religion included, but it’s fine to tar all catholics with the same brush based on the actions of a few. Isn’t that exactly why people don’t like Islamic jokes?

If it's muslims in an Islamic country making those jokes then it's the same issue, if it's Tommy Robinson or Bernard Manning then it's clearly not. Christianity, and in particular catholicism have held sway over Europe for 2 millennia and in that time carried out witch trials, inquisitions and the persecution of other religions, denunciation of science and deliberately peddled misinformation and lies on homosexuality, womens rights, birth control, abortion, AIDs and countless other things whilst maintaining a stoic silence over the litany of child abuse that has been documented within their cloisters. Surely those of us who have grown up within this Christian sociiety should be allowed to have a pop at the things we see as being wrong within it?

 

[HarlanEiffler]

Slightly off topic (re society) but some good stats here https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...tunsh/tabs_HP_Offensive_Costumes_20151028.pdf

I don't think the public is calling out black face. Even black people aren't exactly sold on it being racist. Personally I think it is racist under certain circumstances but someone dressing up as Mr T down the local pub fancy dress night is not racist in any way and shouldn't be seen as such.

I don't doubt it that you don't see it as racist. But unless you are a victim, you deciding that it is not problematic doesn't concern me at all in my perception of the tradition. I think that it is a stupid tradition that will die away soon enough, sooner if more people get invested in putting it to its grave, later if not. Nothing to do with it being criminal or anything, just good old harmless day-to-day racism in Europe (which doesn't have to have bad intent for it to be racist).

 

[onemanarmy]

Well yeah I guess I really meant the black people of Spain. Is blackface as offensive in Spain as it is in the UK?

It isn't. Not in the countries I know of. I doubt anyone in my family bar one or two have ever heard the term blackface or why it's wrong to paint your face black. There were some news items about the Sinterklaas event earlier in 2018, but that's about it. I consider myself rather knowledgeable but the first time I heard the term blackface was on the Caf, couple of years ago. So I can agree with some posters above that I really doubt it was Griezmann or Iniesta's intent to actually racially abuse people. Is it ok what they've done? No, but there is definitely a difference in knowledge/perception between Spain, France, Belgium... and the UK/US about the subject.

 

[DouLou]

Regardless of what your intentions are, you can’t tell someone that they have no right to be upset about something because you didn’t mean to offend them. If something bothers a person then they are within their rights to be offended about it, not just get on with life and accept it. If we all just “got on with life and accepted things” then the world would still be stuck the way it was in the 50s, but hey, you stand your ground mate. You stand strong.

Blackfacing as an act in itself, devoid of any historical connotations, is obviously not offensive. But then again I realize this is as silly as saying "n*gger" is just a word.

But what i mean is should we condemn an act that has no ill intent because of historical/cultural significance. And in the age of "global culture" this becomes even more complex when some countries may never have had the racist roots of said acts.

Should we take a poll from black people and just go by a majority opinion? IMO intent is indeed a huge factor. And drawing comparisons to the 50s when intent was indeed malicious is just being silly.

 

[oates]

It isn't. Not in the countries I know of. I doubt anyone in my family bar one or two have ever heard the term blackface or why it's wrong to paint your face black. There were some news items about the Sinterklaas event earlier in 2018, but that's about it. I consider myself rather knowledgeable but the first time I heard the term blackface was on the Caf, couple of years ago. So I can agree with some posters above that I really doubt it was Griezmann or Iniesta's intent to actually racially abuse people. Is it ok what they've done? No, but there is definitely a difference in knowledge/perception between Spain, France, Belgium... and the UK/US about the subject.

It is interesting that as usual the US and UK are Leading the Way.

 

[KirkDuyt]

This is the problem with the whole thing. Intent is above all the most important. I'm not having a group of people telling me blackface is racist because they've decided it is. I think people need to stand their ground a bit more on this one and if the intention is good (e.g. dressing up as your favourite black actor), then go for it. This whole blackface outrage thing just magnifies racial differences rather than just getting on with life and accepting them!

I agree intent is important, and if you say something offensive in ignorance once, I doubt anyone can really fault you for it. After being told that it's offensive and more importantly, why it's offensive, you should stop though.

 

[Cloud7]

Blackfacing as an act in itself, devoid of any historical connotations, is obviously not offensive. But then again I realize this is as silly as saying "n*gger" is just a word.

But what i mean is should we condemn an act that has no ill intent because of historical/cultural significance. And in the age of "global culture" this becomes even more complex when some countries may never have had the racist roots of said acts.

Should we take a poll from black people and just go by a majority opinion? IMO intent is indeed a huge factor. And drawing comparisons to the 50s when intent was indeed malicious is just being silly.

First of all I should preface this by saying that I’m not black. To be honest prior to the Griezmann incident I didn’t even know Blackface was a thing, and only since then have I learned about it by reading stuff online, so at the end of the day my thoughts on it will be different to black people’s.

As I said in my previous post, no one is saying that Iniesta should be tried for racism. No one is emailing that Japanese club he plays for to say that he is a racist and should be fired. People are just pointing out that “hey, this is kinda offensive to some”

Much like with Griezmann, I have no doubt that their intentions were completely benign, and they probably just didn’t know the negative connotations of it. Pointing said negative connotations out to them so that in future they won’t repeat the same mistake, and it might prompt other people to maybe think twice about doing that, is not the same as condemnation. There’s nothing wrong in pointing out something that offends other people, so that if you care to, you can avoid the same thing happening in the future.

 

[villain]

Give me strength.

Blackface is racist - there's just no discussion to be had about the topic.

If you do something racist, but your intent was pure - guess what? It's still racist. Learn from it and don't do it again, it's not hard.

Being black isn't a costume - so if you want to 'dress up' as a character who happens to be black, you don't need to paint your skin.
If your costume is that sh*t that you need to black up in order for people to know who you are, then that says more about your crappy costume, and your lack of imagination on top of your lack of judgement in choosing to black up in the first place.

Tradition/culture isn't a reason to still practice blackface to this day, neither is religion - given that there are dozens of other countries who practice the same holidays without blackface.
By relying on tradition/culture as your defence all you're saying is that, that particular tradition/culture didn't consider the degradation of black people in the past as an important topic to address (fine, most cultures in the past didn't) however, in 2019 there's no reason to continue to paint your face in order to uphold old racist cultures/traditions & if it's that important that the character is black, then maybe get actual black people to do it.

If after all that you still decide that blacking up is fine and you don't see anything wrong with it, then don't get mad when you get called out as a racist.

Once again - blackface is racist, that's it. That's all there ever is, that's all there ever will be.

Thank you to @Cloud7 & @HarlanEiffler for having more patience than I could.

 

[KirkDuyt]

I’ve definitely questioned this before. It’s frowned upon to make jokes about so many things these days, religion included, but it’s fine to tar all catholics with the same brush based on the actions of a few. Isn’t that exactly why people don’t like Islamic jokes?

Let me just clarify that in my post where I called Catholic jokes understandable, that I didn't mean Catholics shouldn't be offended. However, in most of the worlds history Catholism has been the persecutor, not the persecuted, they're not a marginalized minority. I'm not saying, oh well, it's fine to bash 'em then, but it's the way the world works. Roman Catholocism is religion's white man, at least, in the western world.

What irks me about religion in general and why I can't help but have a little bit of schadenfreude is that in most religions the prominent people literally stand on a pedestal in a church and tell you how to live your live and what values you should strive to have. For people like that to get caugh with their pants down, well, it's understandable people make jokes.

PS: The fact that some very prominent Christian politicians in the Netherlands just signed the Nashville Statement condemning homosexuality isn't exactly scoring them any points in my book either.

And on the topic at hand

If you do something racist, but your intent was pure - guess what? It's still racist. Learn from it and don't do it again, it's not hard.

This.

 

[Cloud7]

If you do something racist, but your intent was pure - guess what? It's still racist. Learn from it and don't do it again, it's not hard.

This is all there is to it. The whole “well was their intent really bad” argument should be shut up with this one line.

If I accidentally run over someone while driving home, does that mean that what happened wasn’t bad, because I didn’t mean to do it? That is literally how the “intent” people sound in this thread.

 

[KirkDuyt]

This is all there is to it. The whole “well was their intent really bad” argument should be shut up with this one line.

If I accidentally run over someone while driving home, does that mean that what happened wasn’t bad, because I didn’t mean to do it? That is literally how the “intent” people sound in this thread.

While I agree with your point (as you can see in my post above), accidently running over a pedestrian is not the same as ignorantly saying something racist. Unless there are people that run someone over without knowing that being run over can be rather painful, but I doubt anyone is that thick

 

[MTF]

This is all there is to it. The whole “well was their intent really bad” argument should be shut up with this one line.

If I accidentally run over someone while driving home, does that mean that what happened wasn’t bad, because I didn’t mean to do it? That is literally how the “intent” people sound in this thread.

A court of law will attempt to assess your intent in the act and the degree of your punishment will vary accordingly. The severity of the victim's injuries will also probably matter.

Intent is built into most western justice systems, and reflects that over time most western societies have regarded it as relevant.

 

[Cloud7]

A court of law will attempt to assess your intent in the act and the degree of your punishment will vary accordingly. The severity of the victim's injuries will also probably matter.

Intent is built into most western justice systems, and reflects that over time most western societies have regarded it as relevant.

Fair point, and perhaps I did choose a bad example. I probably went a bit off topic there, especially considering my previous posts were all talking about no one actually accusing Iniesta of committing a crime.

CC @KirkDuyt

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Uh oh ,Iniesta..

First reply is great.

 

[DouLou]

Give me strength.

Blackface is racist - there's just no discussion to be had about the topic.

If you do something racist, but your intent was pure - guess what? It's still racist. Learn from it and don't do it again, it's not hard.

I guess the word racist has evolved beyond meanings such as "prejudice or superiority based on another persons race" then?

Tradition/culture isn't a reason to still practice blackface to this day, neither is religion - given that there are dozens of other countries who practice the same holidays without blackface.
By relying on tradition/culture as your defence all you're saying is that, that particular tradition/culture didn't consider the degradation of black people in the past as an important topic to address (fine, most cultures in the past didn't) however, in 2019 there's no reason to continue to paint your face in order to uphold old racist cultures/traditions & if it's that important that the character is black, then maybe get actual black people to do it.

Was it racist for RDJ to blackface in Tropic Thunder, or does it get a pass for being clear satire/comedy?

Once again - blackface is racist, that's it. That's all there ever is, that's all there ever will be.

Yeah saying it doesn't make it fact.

This is all there is to it. The whole “well was their intent really bad” argument should be shut up with this one line.

If I accidentally run over someone while driving home, does that mean that what happened wasn’t bad, because I didn’t mean to do it? That is literally how the “intent” people sound in this thread.

That really is the best example you could have thought of to argue for intent because it's quite clearly a huge difference

 

[Cloud7]

That really is the best example you could have thought of to argue for intent because it's quite clearly a huge difference

I made my points already. This was just a bonus post that failed

 

[villain]

I guess the word racist has evolved beyond meanings such as "prejudice or superiority based on another persons race" then?

If you rely on a dictionary to be the moral compass on whether something is racist or not, you'll only be left at things like the KKK and the N word being racist in society.
So yes, racism is a much more complex and nuanced subject that covers everything from systemic racism through to representation in media - if you aren't aware of this, then google is free and I suggest you start reading.

Was it racist for RDJ to blackface in Tropic Thunder, or does it get a pass for being clear satire/comedy?

It being satire was an inherent admission that blackface is offensive - in fact the movie makes multiple references to this and the racism tied into his character blacking up, Alpha chino in particular literally made multiple references to this.
The fact that RDJ in blackface is almost always brought up in this topic (about 20 times in this thread alone) as if it's a great defence of blackface, misses the mark every time.

Yeah saying it doesn't make it fact.

How is it not racist?
In fact how about you underline the history of blackface, what it represents, why it was used and then try and say it has no ties to racism.

 

[Snafu17]

There's a bar in Valencia called "Negrito" on the Negrito plaza next to another cafe called "Negrita". There's a black man with exaggerated features painted on the exterior walls of the bar and there's an selection of ornaments with the same exaggerated features on the inside. I don't really have any context but considering this Iniesta picture and what Griezmann did, I'm going to assume that the attitude in Spain is a bit more relaxed towards black caricatures than in the US.

So you know, ignorance, different cultures etc.

 

[DouLou]

If you rely on a dictionary to be the moral compass on whether something is racist or not, you'll only be left at things like the KKK and the N word being racist in society.
So yes, racism is a much more complex and nuanced subject that covers everything from systemic racism through to representation in media - if you aren't aware of this, then google is free and I suggest you start reading.

It being satire was an inherent admission that blackface is offensive - in fact the movie makes multiple references to this and the racism tied into his character blacking up, Alpha chino in particular literally made multiple references to this.
The fact that RDJ in blackface is almost always brought up in this topic (about 20 times in this thread alone) as if it's a great defence of blackface, misses the mark every time.

How is it not racist?
In fact how about you underline the history of blackface, what it represents, why it was used and then try and say it has no ties to racism.

Well then, if racism is suddenly an umbrella term for acts that aren't actually racist (As in, no ill will based on superiority), but can flippantly be used to describe something as harmless as applying a bit of facepaint, then yep blackface is definitely racist by that definition.

Thing is it's not the act of blackface that is the issue it's the cultural/historical significance, right? So if some cultures have never used it to degrade black people then it doesn't hold negative connotations to them, so how can you be so obtuse as to define an act as racist (bad) without accepting that if it's all down to specific cultures history, then their must be an air of moral relativism to said act, and maybe our current attitudes and intent should mean more than those of the past?

In the end, you choose to define the act as racist based on the connotations of the act and the ill-will of the past, but I place more value on the modern intent of the act. So basically, racist or not, semantics aside, on a moral level I see nothing wrong with it and I'll stand by that.

 

[villain]

Well then, if racism is suddenly an umbrella term for acts that aren't actually racist (As in, no ill will based on superiority), but can flippantly be used to describe something as harmless as applying a bit of facepaint, then yep blackface is definitely racist by that definition.

Thing is it's not the act of blackface that is the issue it's the cultural/historical significance, right? So if some cultures have never used it to degrade black people then it doesn't hold negative connotations to them, so how can you be so obtuse as to define an act as racist (bad) without accepting that if it's all down to specific cultures history, then their must be an air of moral relativism to said act?

In the end, you choose to define the act as racist based on the connotations of the act and the ill-will of the past, but I place more value on the modern intent of the act. So basically, racist or not, semantics aside, no a moral level I see nothing wrong with it and I'll stand by that.

So you didn't actually look up blackface then, did you?
Racism isn't about intent - how many times must this be said?

You can't "apply a bit of face paint" and say it's not degrading to black people - it is. Our skin colour is not paint, it's not a costume and it's not for you to wash on and wash off when you want. Having black skin can be the difference between being seen as as a criminal, being followed in a store, or being turned down for a job - it's not for your entertainment to dress up as.
Also - it's not just the paint, it's the exaggerated features such as huge lips and watermelon smile - all done to represent black people as caricatures, not people.

Can you point out a culture which uses it to not degrade black people? You're saying this but yet to give examples (having a character represented 'positively', such as a King doesn't qualify, especially if the character has pitch-black skin & red lips for example)

"The ability to be ignorant, to be unaware of the history and consequences of racial bigotry, to simply do as one pleases, is a quintessential element of privilege. The ability to disparage, to demonize, to ridicule, and to engage in racially hurtful practices from the comfort of one's segregated neighborhoods and racially homogeneous schools reflects both privilege and power. The ability to blame others for being oversensitive, for playing the race card, or for making much ado about nothing are privileges codified structurally and culturally."

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-j-leonard/just-say-no-to-blackface-_b_1752139.html

In fact just read this while you're at it; https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7089591/why-is-blackface-offensive-halloween-costume

You keep referring to blackface as something that only caused offence in the past - while actively choosing to ignore it's current offence to this day, purely because your posts indicate that you don't understand racism unless someone is actively saying "i'm white, and I think i'm superior to black people".
You place more value on your own feelings, and place no value on how offensive it is to black people who are mocked and dehumanised with blackface - this isn't semantics.

 

[Eckers99]

Doesn't seem to matter how many time this type of thing is discussed, or how clearly it's expressed, for the penny to stay resolutely un-dropped.

 

[fergieisold]

Give me strength.

Blackface is racist - there's just no discussion to be had about the topic.

If you do something racist, but your intent was pure - guess what? It's still racist. Learn from it and don't do it again, it's not hard.

Being black isn't a costume - so if you want to 'dress up' as a character who happens to be black, you don't need to paint your skin.
If your costume is that sh*t that you need to black up in order for people to know who you are, then that says more about your crappy costume, and your lack of imagination on top of your lack of judgement in choosing to black up in the first place.

Tradition/culture isn't a reason to still practice blackface to this day, neither is religion - given that there are dozens of other countries who practice the same holidays without blackface.
By relying on tradition/culture as your defence all you're saying is that, that particular tradition/culture didn't consider the degradation of black people in the past as an important topic to address (fine, most cultures in the past didn't) however, in 2019 there's no reason to continue to paint your face in order to uphold old racist cultures/traditions & if it's that important that the character is black, then maybe get actual black people to do it.

If after all that you still decide that blacking up is fine and you don't see anything wrong with it, then don't get mad when you get called out as a racist.

Once again - blackface is racist, that's it. That's all there ever is, that's all there ever will be.

Thank you to @Cloud7 & @HarlanEiffler for having more patience than I could.

Some of it is, some of it isn’t. It’s as simple as that really.

 

[stevoc]

There's a bar in Valencia called "Negrito" on the Negrito plaza next to another cafe called "Negrita". There's a black man with exaggerated features painted on the exterior walls of the bar and there's an selection of ornaments with the same exaggerated features on the inside. I don't really have any context but considering this Iniesta picture and what Griezmann did, I'm going to assume that the attitude in Spain is a bit more relaxed towards black caricatures than in the US.

So you know, ignorance, different cultures etc.

Is Suarez setting up some businesses to prepare for life after football?

 

[Pagh Wraith]

I remember a Halloween house party we had with a group of friends back in 2013. It was at this English bloke's flat who lived here in Germany at the time. His best mate is a black American who was staying with him at the time. The English guy dressed up as his mate with black face and some hip hop clothes. We were all cracking up and thought it was hilarious as he got his mate's mannerisms spot on as well. His mate loved it as well. It would never have occured to me that that could be considered racist in any way. And I don't mean as in weighing up the pros and cons and then deciding it wasn't. That whole idea just didn't enter anyone's mind. We were a group of like 30 international people with very diverse backgrounds who were all hanging out regularly at the time.

Now that little anecdote shall not determine what is right or wrong but it goes to show that you cannot assume everyone is familiar with this whole blackface controversy. I had never heard of the term and the debate around it until this thread popped up.

 

[4bars]

Yeah this is why I’m hesitant to call everyone who does it a cnut regardless of where they are geographically. Without social media, (which people from the US seem to forget doesn’t revolve around the US) we probably wouldn’t know about this stuff, so I think you have to be a bit more patient when people don’t see stuff the same way you do. Maybe that’s controversial, I don’t know.

Is what I tried explain in previous pages having a bit of backlash. Basically I was ignorant of the term blackfacing and origins (and at the same time aware of the very recent debate in Spain about why not chose black people to portrait a black character). Some people understood that not everybody have to know it and understand it and others, more selfrcentered in their culture, didn't. In Spain there still a vast majority that they don't know it, but the debate in another way is starting to be there (but non related with the US blackface) and it has a positive acceptance and understanding, but it has not the negative connotations as blackfacing, so it would not occur to me to accuse them of racism even if now I know. I think everybody should understand that context is important, and US/anglosphere context, as much influence they have globally, is not the same context like another country

 

[MoskvaRed]

Is what I tried explain in previous pages having a bit of backlash. Basically I was ignorant of the term blackfacing and origins (and at the same time aware of the very recent debate in Spain about why not chose black people to portrait a black character). Some people understood that not everybody have to know it and understand it and others, more selfrcentered in their culture, didn't. In Spain there still a vast majority that they don't know it, but the debate in another way is starting to be there (but non related with the US blackface) and it has a positive acceptance and understanding, but it has not the negative connotations as blackfacing, so it would not occur to me to accuse them of racism even if now I know. I think everybody should understand that context is important, and US/anglosphere context, as much influence they have globally, is not the same context like another country

It would be interesting to hear the views of a Spanish black person - are any of them offended by what appears to be fancy dress in someone’s house? Is he portrayed as a fool like Black Pete in the Netherlands or does it merely follow the tradition in Western art of portraying one of the three kings as black? If it is another example in the long list of blacking up for comic value, then this tradition should be pensioned off. If not, then it seems a case of the US, through social media, projecting its own Jim Crow cultural neuroses on the rest of the world, faithfully supported by parrots in the UK who repeat anything crossing the Atlantic without regard to context.

 

[4bars]

It would be interesting to hear the views of a Spanish black person - are any of them offended by what appears to be fancy dress in someone’s house? Is he portrayed as a fool like Black Pete in the Netherlands or does it merely follow the tradition in Western art of portraying one of the three kings as black? If it is another example in the long list of blacking up for comic value, then this tradition should be pensioned off. If not, then it seems a case of the US, through social media, projecting its own Jim Crow cultural neuroses on the rest of the world, faithfully supported by parrots in the UK who repeat anything crossing the Atlantic without regard to context.

You are absolutely right that we should take in account those people. My 2 cousins don't care, but is only 2 of them. But that is why there is a debate NOW, because 20-30 years ago, subsaharian immigration was practically non-existant. Still, most likley (and that is just my guess) black people in Spain, like it or not, would not be for the same reasons as black facing in US that was (if I understood right) a derrogatory way to portrait black people as slaves and dumb. While the black wise man is nothing of the like.

https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/re...lgata-pintado-madrid-carmena_0_433606957.html

I did a quick search and in the link above (sorry, in spanish) the founder of this association (I understand one of the pioneers) started with the fight for non blackfacing baltazar just 11 years ago and their point of view is because is a matter of not feeling represented in the society in a clear opportunity to do so (being insulting and humiliating and with which I agree), but nothing on the same terms as blackfacing means from people of US.

It might be, of course, other opinions and associations

This debate had been very recent on the main stream and very mildly. I would say in the last 5 years (?). This year really peaked and lots of city halls used a black race person in the parade. And I think people reacted very positively but don't condemn the ones that they still using a white guy (also, some small towns they do not have black people and limited resources)

 

[Welsh Wonder]

A travelling band of paedophiles.