Quote :

"Obviously black guys didn't paint their faces so that they represent..."black guys.""

You could not be more wrong.

5/20/2012 2:22:34 PM

^ yeh, that was pretty much what they were doing and what they were expected to do by white audiences. In Racechanges: White Skin, Black Face in American Culture by Susan Gubar, one historian describes blackface minstrelsy as "negrophobia staged as negrophilia." Blackface made African Americans appear to be funny, safe, harmless to White audiences.

5/20/2012 2:41:08 PM

Did you just quote a book to make a point in Chit Chat?

5/20/2012 3:19:25 PM

yup, apologies for not including a proper citation with page numbers

5/20/2012 3:37:13 PM

^^^, ^^^^ well goddamn, if you want to distort what I'm clearly saying and say that black guys were painting themselves in blackface to represent "black guys", implying the caricatured stereotype characters, then of course you are exactly right--to which I would reply that this little boy is obviously not even close to comparable.

The reason I gave the example of black people painting themselves in blackface was to prove false this notion that applying black makeup to oneself in order to appear black is always equal to blackface. Obviously there is no need for a black guy to paint himself up in order to appear black--it was done to play a disparaging role--which, as stated above, is the exact opposite of what this kid was doing.

So which is it? Either way you want to argue that is completely asinine.

5/20/2012 8:21:51 PM

^ people have been distorting my words throughout this thread also. what i've been saying from the beginning is that NO i don't think the kid wore blackface to be intentionally offensive. HOWEVER, given the history of blackface and its intent to oppress and subjugate, i can absolutely understand how/ why people were offended and asked him to remove the paint.

does that work? so, once again, for the millionth time, I DO NOT THINK THIS KID WAS INTENDING TO OFFEND ANYONE. but given the fact that people were offended, does it not seem logical (from a human decency perspective) that he be asked to wash the facepaint off? if someone gets offended by something on a student's t-shirt, the student is sent home and asked to change shirts. same should apply here.

also, something that hasn't been mentioned enough (or at all) in this thread---> how much harder would've it been for his parents to buy skin-tone BROWN makeup rather than straight up BLACK makeup? how many Black people do you know whose skin is straight up BLACK? yeh, me niether...

[Edited on May 20, 2012 at 9:31 PM. Reason : g]

5/20/2012 9:26:34 PM

^^Yeah, I get what you're saying. In my previous post, I wasn't disagreeing with you, by the way...just expanding...so your response about being "besides the point" is kinda weird.

^That's just thing. If somebody is offended by a t-shirt, you shouldn't have to take it off just cause they're offended. One middle school kid wanted to wear his GWB/cocaine shirt to school once a week...the school tried to stop him, and the Supreme Court (I believe) defended his right to political speech at school. He did not have to take his shirt off just cause people thought it was obnoxious.

Furthermore, it isn't clear that anybody was offended by this kid's face paint. It sounds like the teachers preemptively addressed the situation before anybody could even possibly get offended.

And you've already addressed the fact that public education supposedly sucks when it comes to racial issues...so how many people, really, are that sensitive to a kid in black face paint? OMG, that's so reminiscent of a topic I've studied in extreme depth. IT'S THOMAS RICE ALL OVER AGAIN!!!! We must put a stop to this clueless child!

[Edited on May 20, 2012 at 9:55 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2012 9:55:22 PM

Quote :

"what i've been saying from the beginning is that NO i don't think the kid wore blackface to be intentionally offensive. HOWEVER, given the history of blackface and its intent to oppress and subjugate, i can absolutely understand how/ why people were offended and asked him to remove the paint. "

Then I think we're largely on the same page except that:

1. The kid wasn't in blackface; he had his face painted black. There is a meaningful difference.

2. I don't really think that it should be incumbent upon the kid to remove the makeup (or upon the teachers to force him to), because like ^ said, if he isn't doing anything wrong, it's not his fault if a bunch of people without a fucking clue get bent out of shape about it. If he had actually shown up in blackface, for any reason other than demonstrating what blackface was, with an accompanying message of how that wasn't right and we've made a lot of progress since then, then yeah, I would agree--there would be no place for blackface in school--but again, there is a meaningful difference.


I will agree that they should have just got some brown makeup, but fucking-A, they probably weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, and might not have had the greatest means to go all-in on a costume, nor might they thought that an elementary school presentation warranted more than the effort they gave. I'm sure mom & dad sent little Johnny to school that day thinking they'd done well.

...but then again:

Quote :

"Now, I would say that while not wrong, the parents should have recognized that most people are extremely ignorant AND have an awfully low capacity for critical thinking, and would likely misinterpret it and get up in arms for no reason whatsoever. They should have considered whether or not the juice was worth the squeeze. ...but then again, most people are extremely ignorant AND have an awfully low capacity for critical thinking. "

^Sorry, I thought you'd missed the point I was getting at when I brought up black dudes in blackface.

[Edited on May 20, 2012 at 10:31 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2012 10:31:11 PM

5/20/2012 10:45:51 PM

5/21/2012 10:46:36 AM