StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So the nerd community over here at parts unknown is having a shitshow because criticism of blackface triggers a lot of the insular special snowflakes into costuming. Knowing some folks in those circles has led me to think about the issue.

Anyway I'm thinking it's like this new seemingly on-point view on cultural appropriation that I heard some time ago.

Okay, so those (white) people aren't doing anything criminal for indulging in something they sincerely non-maliciously appreciate. It shouldn't be forbidden, okay.

But the contention is IF for that very same reason or feature thing (religious garb, skin tone, whatever), a whole population faces chronic systemic mistreatment - which IS where the original shitshow of blackface came to be - then while malicious blackface is no longer done (at least in the mainstream, since asshole nobodies can still do it), then those minorities still enduring problems and getting the short end of the stick are going to be understandably pretty put off at the whole state of affairs, it's much larger and extends beyond the cosplay.

It's like, "I mean, good on you for that totally accurate reproduction of this feature, that color, this tone or that attire " but people who are born with such appearances, who have inherited those ways of life, etc. are facing lifetimes of mistreatment for that. They're not gonna be happy chappies to say the least. The subject's scope originates - and extends beyond - the hobbyist cosplay and nerd niche, it's a conversation that's been going on since before we were born...

I mean, I'm not living as a systematically mistreated minority. Most of us in this circle aren't. And yet we can't even properly put such circumstances into words, can't begin to describe or understand it beyond feeble approximations. So imagine what people who've been in this their whole lives must feel. They're gonna have some words about this... but it's a God-given miracle that we're just getting words, all things considered. Tea's been spilled for less.

So some sensitivity to this big issue would be nice. Especially amongst crowds that would throw ridiculous shitfits if patch #345.VXW7 of the Triple A-rated Final Bloodsouls 22 is buggy af or if the epic finale requires a super pricey DLC because the thing was actually incomplete as shit when shipped out.

It very much depends on the context of the place you are, I suppose. The context for me is of a county that has a very small black community, who are mostly fully integrated and mingling with the rest of the great unwashed.

There was bit of an outcry last year locally, as a toyshop had started selling Golliwogs dolls. The older white people didn't care, it reminded them of their childhoods.

The younger white people thought it was terribly racist, and demanded they be removed.

And to add to the confusion/hilarity: There were black mums and dads saying it was great, as it's hard to get dolls that look similar to their kids!

Cultural rereappropiation at its finest, I suppose.

I get that. Which is why IMO considerations should be shown towards the oblivious clueless non-malicious people who moved with no ill intent and even often with utmost respect. Though nonetheless consideration has to be shown to people who're still dealing with horrible things that have been done for forever, that are still being done some times, etc.

Dartzap wrote:It very much depends on the context of the place you are, I suppose. The context for me is of a county that has a very small black community, who are mostly fully integrated and mingling with the rest of the great unwashed.

There was bit of an outcry last year locally, as a toyshop had started selling Golliwogs dolls. The older white people didn't care, it reminded them of their childhoods.

The younger white people thought it was terribly racist, and demanded they be removed.

And to add to the confusion/hilarity: There were black mums and dads saying it was great, as it's hard to get dolls that look similar to their kids!

Cultural rereappropiation at its finest, I suppose.

I think the Internet is also responsible for exporting cultural issues without accounting for the specific historical and cultural circumstances of the different countries. There are people that seem to lift the entire cultural debate from the US, and use it to justify their own local social campaigns.

ray245 wrote: I think the Internet is also responsible for exporting cultural issues without accounting for the specific historical and cultural circumstances of the different countries. There are people that seem to lift the entire cultural debate from the US, and use it to justify their own local social campaigns.

To a certain degree that's true, but would you not accept that there are certain moral or ethical standards that, if they aren't, they *should* be fairly universal? Don't beat your spouse, don't show little kids obscene material, don't mock people of other races or ethnicities?

There is a norm of rushing to be recognized for "standing up for the oppressed/offended" in Internet culture.

Should we support those actually oppressed or offended by out-dated standards? Sure. But shouldn't we find out if someone actually is being oppressed or offended first? Why lend strength to a fight that isn't one?

In Dartzap's example:
"I'm offended that a minority I am not a member of is being ridiculed by this thing over here!"
"As a member of the minority in question, I'm not. In fact, it's cool I can get one of those dolls for my kid."
"SHUT UP! WE KNOW WHEN YOU'RE BEING OPPRESSED!"

Elheru Aran wrote:

ray245 wrote: I think the Internet is also responsible for exporting cultural issues without accounting for the specific historical and cultural circumstances of the different countries. There are people that seem to lift the entire cultural debate from the US, and use it to justify their own local social campaigns.

To a certain degree that's true, but would you not accept that there are certain moral or ethical standards that, if they aren't, they *should* be fairly universal? Don't beat your spouse, don't show little kids obscene material, don't mock people of other races or ethnicities?

the question however is what is obscene material (since the defination of "obscene" isn't even close to being the same for all cultures), also where's the line between mocking someone for their race and ethnicity and mocking someone who just happens to be of certain race or ethnic backround (again far from clearcut).

To give an example, nudity is seen sexual and obscene in any circumstances what so ever in the USA and should be avoided if at all possible. Where as here in Finland it's seen perfectly normal to be fully nude in sauna even if the group has both men and women (or children for that matter) and under normal conditions is not seen as at all sexual so being nude inside a sauna that's being used is not seen as obscene either.

Lord Revan wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:

ray245 wrote: I think the Internet is also responsible for exporting cultural issues without accounting for the specific historical and cultural circumstances of the different countries. There are people that seem to lift the entire cultural debate from the US, and use it to justify their own local social campaigns.

To a certain degree that's true, but would you not accept that there are certain moral or ethical standards that, if they aren't, they *should* be fairly universal? Don't beat your spouse, don't show little kids obscene material, don't mock people of other races or ethnicities?

the question however is what is obscene material (since the defination of "obscene" isn't even close to being the same for all cultures), also where's the line between mocking someone for their race and ethnicity and mocking someone who just happens to be of certain race or ethnic backround (again far from clearcut).

To give an example, nudity is seen sexual and obscene in any circumstances what so ever in the USA and should be avoided if at all possible. Where as here in Finland it's seen perfectly normal to be fully nude in sauna even if the group has both men and women (or children for that matter) and under normal conditions is not seen as at all sexual so being nude inside a sauna that's being used is not seen as obscene either.

Yeah, obviously local mores do play a part, and I won't deny that there are some things that are different anywhere you go. I'm talking about stuff that could be considered 'fundamental human rights' or whatever though, and IMO mocking people for something that they can't help (race, disability, etc) is always wrong no matter where you are.

That much is clear, after all it's easy to bully someone who is weaker (which mocking some for their race, gender, sexual preference and so forth is in the end), but that doesn't make it right, not even close.

But one must be careful that in your zeal to protect people from bullies you don't end up becoming a bully of a different sort yourself.

My chief question is why would you do blackface? How would it be funny in a non-racist way?

The only legitimate, non-racist use is if you have a non-black actor (or actor whose skin is not dark enough) acting the role of someone who has much darker skin. And perhaps making a satire of those that used black face (ie, white people spectacularly failing to be black people).

I actually have an example in mind where the reverse happened in-film, of a black guy turned into a white guy. It was Iron Sky.

I have another: White Chicks. Black men in drag and "whiteface" for humor.

How about Tropic Thunder?

Kirk Lazarus: Me? I know who I am. I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude.

Zixinus wrote:My chief question is why would you do blackface? How would it be funny in a non-racist way?

The only legitimate, non-racist use is if you have a non-black actor (or actor whose skin is not dark enough) acting the role of someone who has much darker skin.

This can very easily be a normal thing in the context of fiction. For example, a supernatural creature whose skin is literally black, as in midnight-black. They don't look particularly African, or no more so than a ghost-white ice-construct looks European.

And then you get into societies that simply do not have the same history of black/white racial politics that Europe and former European colonies do.

This can very easily be a normal thing in the context of fiction. For example, a supernatural creature whose skin is literally black, as in midnight-black. They don't look particularly African, or no more so than a ghost-white ice-construct looks European.

I wouldn't call that black-face, unless I am mistaking the definition. Then the actor isn't playing the role of what the story establishes as African-descendent people like those living in the US, but of fictional creatures.

My definition: Black-face is putting on makeup to alter the features of the actor to that of someone from African descent (black face, large lips, probably something else I forgot) and pretending to be that kind of person, used as comedy. The depictions were based racist stereotypes which is why you don't do it anymore.

Of course, that does not necessarily invalidate it as an artistic tool (or a tool of necessity, such as low-production Asian film having a story that has a black person but they couldn't actually cast a decent black person due to them being a rarity in the country). Just that unless the the black community no longer thinks or feels that blackface is inherently a mockery of them, I wouldn't try it unless I create a context in the work of art that establishes that it isn't that.

Elheru Aran wrote:

ray245 wrote: I think the Internet is also responsible for exporting cultural issues without accounting for the specific historical and cultural circumstances of the different countries. There are people that seem to lift the entire cultural debate from the US, and use it to justify their own local social campaigns.

To a certain degree that's true, but would you not accept that there are certain moral or ethical standards that, if they aren't, they *should* be fairly universal? Don't beat your spouse, don't show little kids obscene material, don't mock people of other races or ethnicities?

The problem is we don't really have a universal definition of what is "mocking". There are a lot of basic concepts that different societies could not easily agree on.

ray245 wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:

ray245 wrote: I think the Internet is also responsible for exporting cultural issues without accounting for the specific historical and cultural circumstances of the different countries. There are people that seem to lift the entire cultural debate from the US, and use it to justify their own local social campaigns.

To a certain degree that's true, but would you not accept that there are certain moral or ethical standards that, if they aren't, they *should* be fairly universal? Don't beat your spouse, don't show little kids obscene material, don't mock people of other races or ethnicities?

The problem is we don't really have a universal definition of what is "mocking". There are a lot of basic concepts that different societies could not easily agree on.

Agreed. But I do think that most societies will have a certain understanding of what kind of humour is contextually appropriate within their own boundaries, and some things even if socially appropriate aren't morally or ethically correct in a wider context such as child marriage or honour killing. Is it really 'cultural appropriation' (or whatever the proper term is) to forbid such acts?

Elheru Aran wrote:To a certain degree that's true, but would you not accept that there are certain moral or ethical standards that, if they aren't, they *should* be fairly universal? Don't beat your spouse, don't show little kids obscene material, don't mock people of other races or ethnicities?

As Lord Revan pointed out, the definition of "obscene" isn't concrete. I watched Total Recall at the age of 8-9 and the only part my mom covered my eyes was during the Tri-boobs scene. All the rest of the over-the-top gore and sexual innuendo was A-ok and that's a pretty America-Fuck-Yea view on the topic. Such as watching Romeo and Juliet in High School and the only part teachers had to censor was the underage boobs. Even then, said underage boobs got a pass because "art." The murder, double-suicide, and general mayhem was A-ok.

"The Chapelle Show" made millions (if not billions) over the years creating nothing but "obscene" content, obscene if it were created by a group of white guys. One of it's most popular skits was the "Black White Supremacist." It portrayed African-Americans poorly all the time (and everyone else), but would anyone come along and tell a bunch of black actors to stop doing what they're doing? At the end of the day, good or bad, Comedy Central was offering Seinfeld money to otherwise little-known actors for a comedy show.

Zixinus wrote:My chief question is why would you do blackface? How would it be funny in a non-racist way?

One of 30 Rocks live shows took an entire episode to get laughs out of how fucked up television is/was.

But no, you can't remove the racial component. You can only try to not be an asshole about it and you're still going to offend people. This whole skit was lampooning old-school racism on television. Hell, the whole episode lampooned how sexist and racist old-school television was. And you can get laughs off that. This whole SNL sketch (from 30 Rock, mind you) was hilarious to me. Not because "oh man, menstruation joke! Aren't women gross?" but because they were barely lampooning reality.

Racial/sexist/whatever humor can be funny. And some of it can still be incredibly offensive, but the problem is when you try to define what's offensive. And if you paint too broad of a stroke with it, you end up with an extremely risk-adverse system. So, like Video Games: publishers will just dive into "white dude shoots white dudes because the only complaint is one of omission." Yea, it's a fine line to balance, but going with the idea of "mocking a minority for being X" being totally off-limits limits your options when you CAN poke fun of white men (and white women in some instances) without pissing anyone off.

Content creators will just stick to the path of least resistance.

NOTE: I'm not saying "Aw man, I can't use blackface! What a world!" But more the idea that offensive comedy has value and what you view as offensive isn't the end-all. Even on the non-comedy front, ignoring instances of intentionally trying to be an offensive racist/sexist, shying away from an idea because someone might be offended is not a good thing.

The other issue is baggage. If you do blackface as a white guy, there is the historic baggage of other white guys doing it. If you do it, then you have to deal with that baggage. You have to say "I am not mocking or stereotyping everyone that has black skin BUT ...". That can be tricky to do, can kill something that was supposed to be funny and there is the potential risk to the comedian's reputation. If you are a unknown standup who mostly goes to redneck bars or wherever racist jokes would be accepted, that's not a problem. But if you want to get wider audience, then it is the kind of thing that can endanger a career. So why bother?

To be perfectly fair, I will note that comedy in and of itself is a special situation covering parody, mockery, and all kinds of otherwise inappropriate material. Yes, Chappelle's Show would have been highly inappropriate if it was produced by a bunch of white guys... and I think that was kind of part of the point. Comedy in and of itself can be *extremely* subjective, highly situational, and very culturally oriented. Context is critical.

I think the thrust of the discussion is towards such issues in *everyday* life though... Dave Chappelle can make a joke about liking watermelon and fried chicken with impunity, but a restaurant has an offer of same on MLK day and people get offended.

Khaat wrote:There is a norm of rushing to be recognized for "standing up for the oppressed/offended" in Internet culture.

Should we support those actually oppressed or offended by out-dated standards? Sure. But shouldn't we find out if someone actually is being oppressed or offended first? Why lend strength to a fight that isn't one?

In Dartzap's example:
"I'm offended that a minority I am not a member of is being ridiculed by this thing over here!"
"As a member of the minority in question, I'm not. In fact, it's cool I can get one of those dolls for my kid."
"SHUT UP! WE KNOW WHEN YOU'RE BEING OPPRESSED!"

Someone as in individuals because a demographic group doesn't have a hive mind.

So while one guy is thinking "hey it's cool" another might be pretty unhappy about that.

Like, Philippine media's white skin fixation. Skin whitening products. And, yes, the use of blackface in local TV serieses to portray provincials... with the skin color as some kind of plot point.

And people here still pay for this stuff. And if they want it, sure, if they like the skin products or the shitty teleserieses... sure. But obviously there's some underlying issues here, enough issues for entire sociopsychological/cultural/anthropological theses!

Shroom Man 777 wrote:

Khaat wrote:There is a norm of rushing to be recognized for "standing up for the oppressed/offended" in Internet culture.

Should we support those actually oppressed or offended by out-dated standards? Sure. But shouldn't we find out if someone actually is being oppressed or offended first? Why lend strength to a fight that isn't one?

In Dartzap's example:
"I'm offended that a minority I am not a member of is being ridiculed by this thing over here!"
"As a member of the minority in question, I'm not. In fact, it's cool I can get one of those dolls for my kid."
"SHUT UP! WE KNOW WHEN YOU'RE BEING OPPRESSED!"

Someone as in individuals because a demographic group doesn't have a hive mind.

So while one guy is thinking "hey it's cool" another might be pretty unhappy about that.

And I'm fine with that: back up someone of the affected group who takes offense, but not point out offense that hasn't been taken. It's White Knighting and only muddies the water: Stand WITH them, not FOR them.

Khaat wrote:And I'm fine with that: back up someone of the affected group who takes offense, but not point out offense that hasn't been taken. It's White Knighting and only muddies the water: Stand WITH them, not FOR them.

Is it absolutely needed to have someone from the affected group take the first step before one voices concerns about it? Especially if perhaps said person might not even want to air concerns precisely because, as we've seen, turns out some of the most touchy triggered special snowflakes are from demographics that totally were untouched by historic mistreatments and are utterly allergic to even the notion of having some consideration and concern for affected groups, so there is an understandable hesitation because receiving the reflexive response of "look it is an irritable person of color!" is pretty shit.

It's like if somebody says something stupid in a dinner conversation, but if an affected minority there chooses to just not notice it, then everyone else should let it slide?

I get that people who want to stand WITH them need to consider tactical... approaches to this, because coming in going BLARGLE BLARGLE CIS SCUM! will just muddy the water even more, being the first one to look like (or outright BE) a total ass will just lead to a shitshow.

But are... non-assholish overtures towards discussions about this, non-assholish voicing of concerns, automatically acts of "White Knighting and only muddies the water" as you say?

And let's not forget, people on the other end can be totally condescending and masking their racism - even using shitty analogies like "oh but minorities aren't outraged when non-blacks wear gangsta clothes and use gangsta speech when that's also appropriating from black traits" ( jesus right? ) - but if they phrase it pseudo-intellectually with the mindless-middle play-it-safe-centrism with large doses of politeness... nobody will mind this. But heaven forbid a minority who's being real and letting out utter frustrations.

My concern with "White Knighting" is this: white knighting can (not necessarily does, but can) imply or give the appearance of a patronizing view of the Silent Offended by the white knight. This muddies the water by becoming a distraction, suddenly the motives of the champion are (/can be) called into question and dissected, rather than the original offense. So, no, not automatically are, but can be.

Q: If none of the Silent Offended are present (or those present are not offended), can one express dissent over offense?
A: Absolutely. Again, there must be a degree of tact. Rather than addressed as a personal offense, it must be approached as an offense against equality, diversity, and inclusivity (things systemic, not native to the "victim" only.)

I think we're on the same page here? Hopefully this time I've explained myself better.

Elheru Aran wrote:To be perfectly fair, I will note that comedy in and of itself is a special situation covering parody, mockery, and all kinds of otherwise inappropriate material. Yes, Chappelle's Show would have been highly inappropriate if it was produced by a bunch of white guys... and I think that was kind of part of the point. Comedy in and of itself can be *extremely* subjective, highly situational, and very culturally oriented. Context is critical.

To be fair, I personally don't see a place where "blackface" is acceptable outside specific comedy lampooning it and old-school racism. Or just racism itself such as when Chapelle did "whiteface."

That said, even a cursory google of "cosplay blackface" brings up minorities both in support and against it. One said something to the affect of "I don't care. I care more that you think I should care and are giving me shit for said not caring." He looked at the situation and found no malice in it, so it didn't bother him. That's his prerogative as is that of a person who thinks any instance of it is offensive.

This is in the same boat as anything. I've found feminist bloggers in support of a character like Bayonetta (she's in charge of her sexuality) and those who won't touch the game at all due to sexism (skimpy outfit made of hair, the stripperific mechanics, and the innuendo). Same thing with old and new Lara Croft and even Samus Aran (pre-Other M).

You literally cannot please everyone and what one black (or other minority) person thinks is offensive may not bother the next in the slightest.

I think the thrust of the discussion is towards such issues in *everyday* life though... Dave Chappelle can make a joke about liking watermelon and fried chicken with impunity, but a restaurant has an offer of same on MLK day and people get offended.

If the place doesn't carry those on any given day? Yea. There's a few joints around here that offer half-off tacos and Margaritas on Cinco de Mayo. Then again they always sell those items.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Is it absolutely needed to have someone from the affected group take the first step before one voices concerns about it?

Maybe those people should ask the affected groups first. Otherwise, you end up with shit like Speedy Gonzales getting pulled off TV. However, this being the Internet: good luck.

I get that people who want to stand WITH them need to consider tactical... approaches to this, because coming in going BLARGLE BLARGLE CIS SCUM! will just muddy the water even more, being the first one to look like (or outright BE) a total ass will just lead to a shitshow.

For better and worse: this is the Internet. Where literally the smallest thing is blown up into possibly the worst possible explanation at a moments notice. For a non-racial example: you're playing a team game and a teammates messes up.

It's couldn't be because an otherwise good player made an honest mistake, got distracted, or was just having a "duh" moment. No, it's because he's the worst player in the world, should uninstall the game, and kill himself.

I consider myself a pretty tolerant person (even being from Texas), but even I've done and said some incredibly stupid and insensitive shit that if looked at from the outside could make me look like a monster, especially if taken out of context. Thankfully, by the time normal people flooded the Internet, I had outgrown my stupidity. This shit has to SUCK for dumbass kids growing up in the Internet age.

'Cosplay blackface' is a strange situation given that cosplay is outside the social norm to start with (except perhaps in Japan?). Part of that situation is that there simply aren't many characters of color in entertainment media other than those which are specifically made and targeted towards people of color, so you tend to see more POC's trying to cosplay white/'generic anime ethnicity' characters than vice versa. Though I've seen some ridiculous stuff like a white girl trying to cosplay a genderflipped version of a Borderlands character with a heavy tan and people went nuts because they thought she was trying to do black/brown-face...

Anyway. IMO, a black/Hispanic/whatever person wanting to cosplay an white/Japanese/generic-anime-race character should be able to do so. A white person wanting to cosplay a character from a different race should think it through before they try it maybe, but really, that goes both ways.

But yeah, you really can't please everybody. At some point either you give it up and don't bother, or you flip off the haters and do your own thing anyway. The caveat to this is that you should avoid being intentionally offensive (don't be like that starlet who did one of the black girls from Orange is the New Black), avoid making deliberate statements ("lol blackface is SO EDGY" etc) and generally don't be a dillhole about it.

As for the restaurants thing... meh. I would expect a restaurant that normally serves Mexican food to observe Cinco de Mayo. But if said restaurant suddenly starts offering buckets of fried chicken in February, something's rotten in Georgia (well, hell, something is always rotten down here anyway).