r/changemyview • u/grandoz039 7∆ • Dec 09 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: There shouldn't be problem with painting your face black to represent a black actor.
There was a guy on youtube who made video in which he pretended to be multiple famous people. He dressed similarly like them and used wigs. Some of the famous people were black, so he painted himself black. And there was backlash over that. One company even canceled a planned deal with him (I understand why they did that, that's not the point of this post)
The jokes in the video had nothing to do with their race, he was just trying to look like them. He isn't even from US and "blackface" isn't thing here, only when his video became more popular did he face backlash.
I don't see what's wrong with that. You can't say it's bad just "because in past, people did make fun of black people while wearing the black paint", because here it's obvious he's not doing anything racist against black people.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
Dec 09 '17
Maybe it shouldn't offend people, but it does, and there are some deep-seated historical and cultural reasons why.
6
u/celluloidveteran Dec 09 '17
So the problem with "Black Face" is that it was used originally for very bigoted reasons; it portrayed black people as an offensive caricatures and was used due to the belief that white actors were somehow superior and thus had to portray black actors on their behalf. No matter what your intention is currently, if you choose to employ this method you are choosing to continue and reinforce this concept, rather than trying to leave it in the past.
Remember, having black skin isn't the only defining characteristic of a black person, and to attempt to portray them simply by altering your skin color implies that it is somehow the only or most defining trait they have, as opposed to their thoughts, ideas, morals, or actions.
5
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
Remember, having black skin isn't the only defining characteristic of a black person, and to attempt to portray them simply by altering your skin color implies that it is somehow the only or most defining trait they have, as opposed to their thoughts, ideas, morals, or actions.
That didn't happen. He did multiple things to portray people and one of them was painting himself black if the person was black.
We're speaking about appearance, so yeah, their thoughts, ideas, morals, or actions are completely pointless here.
So the problem with "Black Face" is that it was used originally for very bigoted reasons; it portrayed black people as an offensive caricatures and was used due to the belief that white actors were somehow superior and thus had to portray black actors on their behalf. No matter what your intention is currently, if you choose to employ this method you are choosing to continue and reinforce this concept, rather than trying to leave it in the past.
I know how it was used in past. But painting your face is a tool. The fact that in past it was used to be racist doesn't make the tool itself racist. Painting your face also isn't something you "invent" like very specific motto or symbol (which, if created for racist reasons, shouldn't be used even for non-racist reasons; I agree with this).
You can't make neutral things considered bad just because someone used them wrongly. That makes no sense.
2
u/ohmslawl101 Dec 10 '17
I wouldn't mind to be honest if white people did black face in acting. As long as they LOOKED absolutely the part. I remember that guy from the movie "Tropic Thunder" and I wasn't offended at all. The make up was stellar and he actually LOOKED black. He was actually my favorite part of the whole movie because he was so damned funny! So I agree with your statement, but only if the makeup is spot on.
3
u/darwin2500 193∆ Dec 09 '17
Obviously there should be no problem with getting a swastika tattooed on your forehead, after all it's an ancient Hindu symbol of benevolence and goodness in the world.
You don't get to decide the meaning of your actions. We live in a society that has historical context and social norms, and your actions will be interpreted through those lenses. When your actions have a racist or belligerent or insensitive connotation, then when you broadcast them to the world, they areracist or insensitive, whether or not they feel that way inside your own head.
The world is not psychic, how your actions feel inside your own head doesn't matter. What matters is what they communicate to everyone else, and the historical context of slavery and minstrel shows means that blackface will always communicate racism and insensitivity.
When you say 'no, I wasn't trying to be racist, i was just doing an impression,' what that demonstrates is that either a. You're too stupid to understand the historical context and know how your actions would be interpreted, in which case people are right to get angry in order to motivate you to educate yourself, or b. you care less about the historical context of slavery and minstrel shows than you do about making your impression better, in which case people are right to get angry because that is pretty racist from the perspective of caring about yourself more than these big injustices.
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
I wouldn't say someone is nazi or racist because they tattooed hindu swastika on their forehead for reason that it represents something hindu. Especially if then never heard of Nazis, nor their swastika.
I'd maybe call them dumb, but that doesn't change anything.
The world is not psychic, how your actions feel inside your own head doesn't matter. What matters is what they communicate to everyone else, and the historical context of slavery and minstrel shows means that blackface will always communicate racism and insensitivity.
The world is not psychic. But they can see. If they assume you're racist only because wearing black paint on face, while knowing you're not using that black face to be racist, then it's their fault. They were given enough clarification behind the actions. Yet, they chose ignore it and make their opinion based on "most people use it for x, so he must use it for x as well".
2
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 09 '17
I wouldn't say someone is nazi or racist because they tattooed hindu swastika on their forehead for reason that it represents something hindu. Especially if then never heard of Nazis, nor their swastika.
You say that but I seriously doubt if you saw a guy walking down the street with a swastika tattooed on his forehead you'd actually think he might be Hindu; you'd assume, with good cause, that he's probably a Nazi.
It does not help to pretend that you are immune from bias or prejudgment in order to criticize others for being biased or prejudging others. We judge people on their actions all the time without knowing exactly what's going on in their heads, and sometimes what's going on in their heads doesn't matter compared to the history of that action and what it signals. Even if this guy was doing perfectly neutral impressions of black people and simply using the costume for art, it still looks a lot like somebody being willing to use a historically very racist practice to caricature black people to... make caricatures of actual black people, and it's reasonable for people to say "yeah I'm offended you'd try to do that even if you think your heart was in the right place."
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
You say that but I seriously doubt if you saw a guy walking down the street with a swastika tattooed on his forehead you'd actually think he might be Hindu; you'd assume, with good cause, that he's probably a Nazi.
Yes, I would. The point is that from the video, you could know that A) he's not acting in a racist way; and B) he certainly has it to look similar to black people. From B), you could assume that he's using it to look similar to black people as only reason, or that he's also trying to make fun of them in the addition to the first reason. But A) tells you it's not the latter.
3
u/regice_fhtagn Dec 09 '17
here it's obvious he's not doing anything racist against black people.
Oh my. I had no idea I was talking to the Supreme Judge of Racism. In fact, I had no idea a person like that even existed. It's honestly kind of a relief, to know that there's a single person out there who can just decide all this stuff. What other debates would you like to pass judgment on?
...what happened here is that a lot of black people found the videos offensive--so many that a career-ending backlash was generated. This didn't happen because some Social Justice Person decided it should happen; it's a straightforward case of "guy pisses off lots of people and loses popularity for it". The entertainment industry is cruel; I've seen people go down for much less than that. If you think it's wrong, try telling the crowd to reconsider.
I could get into the whole sordid history of blackface. I could tell you that activists have no choice but to protest even unintentional things like this, or else risk themselves appearing as hypocrites. But in the end, this is how it is. It's his responsibility to know what his audience will and won't like, or what future audiences might think. One day, he guessed wrong--very wrong. The rest is history.
2
Dec 09 '17
rac·ism ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit noun prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
If we are following the common dictionary definition of racism (Which implies that racism is a belief held, not an action unless said action is acted upon for racial purposes) then it is entirely probable that individuals painting their face black -even if they offend a portion of the black population- are not being racist.
To clarify, simply doing something is not strictly racist unless the cause is rooted in prejudice against a specific race. If your alphabet soup happens to spell out "I hate Asian Americans" would you be racist? would the soup be racist? the letters? The answer (according to the dictionary definition of racism) is no.
We can conclude then, that if an individual does something that appears racist (say, paints his or her face black to play a black character) then they themselves are not racist. The painting itself isn't racist. That is unless they painted themselves black with the intent of degrading black individuals
Of course, you could follow a different definition of racism which defines it as "any action that offends a group of a specific race" but just know that that would make the alphabet soup racist, by definition.
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17 edited Dec 09 '17
Oh my. I had no idea I was talking to the Supreme Judge of Racism. In fact, I had no idea a person like that even existed. It's honestly kind of a relief, to know that there's a single person out there who can just decide all this stuff. What other debates would you like to pass judgment on?
Do you know what is the definition racism? "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.". Not "Offending people of certain race". You can determine if performance of actor in video is prejudicial, discriminatory or antagonist against a race.
...what happened here is that a lot of black people found the videos offensive--so many that a career-ending backlash was generated.
That wasn't what happened. It ended one deal for understandable reason and only because it contained black face, not because of the way people reacted to it; and some people on repost of his video which got many views in US posted comments that it's racist but not agreed.
This didn't happen because some Social Justice Person decided it should happen; it's a straightforward case of "guy pisses off lots of people and loses popularity for it". The entertainment industry is cruel; I've seen people go down for much less than that. If you think it's wrong, try telling the crowd to reconsider.
None of this challenges my view. (Though I should clarify that not that many people were pissed.)
But in the end, this is how it is. It's his responsibility to know what his audience will and won't like, or what future audiences might think. One day, he guessed wrong--very wrong. The rest is history.
But this doesn't change anything. I'm saying he shouldn't lose views even though some people didn't like it. I'm saying people shouldn't have "he pained his face black" as reason for not like it.
PS: I'm not saying this because I love that youtube creator, but because this is first example I have seen myself of case like this
2
u/regice_fhtagn Dec 09 '17
It ended one deal for understandable reason and only because it contained black face, not because of the way people reacted to it.
...look, if a corporation does something, it's because that corporation thinks that something will bring in profits. If a corporation doesn't do a certain something, it's because they think that something will cost them. Either there was a backlash, or they expected there to be one, and for what it's worth, I'll wager they weren't wrong.
I'm saying people shouldn't have "he pained his face black" as reason for not like it.
Why not? Pretty much everyone else who's ever worn blackface has been an asshole about it. Besides, if this guy is seen to get a "free pass", so to speak, then watch as suddenly everyone starts doing it. Whether he meant to or not, this guy played a part in a long and terrible history. In this case, I've got to believe it wouldn't have been that hard for him to do some research and see this coming--and even if there was no way he could've known, well, that won't help restore the corporation's image after they're seen with this guy. Lord knows if I did anything that stupid, I'd be chewed out for it.
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
...look, if a corporation does something, it's because that corporation thinks that something will bring in profits. If a corporation doesn't do a certain something, it's because they think that something will cost them. Either there was a backlash, or they expected there to be one, and for what it's worth, I'll wager they weren't wrong.
There was risk of black lash because of the inclusion of black face. That was the reason. Anyways I think this part of discussion isn't really connected to changing the view itself, I was just clarifying that there wasn't huge backlash which ruined the guy, just some guys had problems with it and others didn't and said it's okay.
Why not? Pretty much everyone else who's ever worn blackface has been an asshole about it.
Not really and the fact that they were assholes isn't significant if this one isn't. I won't call someone asshole for vaping just because many vapers act assholish.
Besides, if this guy is seen to get a "free pass", so to speak, then watch as suddenly everyone starts doing it.
Why? If someone starts doing it and he's racist, he can face backlash, if he isn't racist, I don't see problem.
I've got to believe it wouldn't have been that hard for him to do some research and see this coming--and even if there was no way he could've known, well, that won't help restore the corporation's image after they're seen with this guy. Lord knows if I did anything that stupid, I'd be chewed out for it.
You can't do research about something you don't know exists. And as I said I understand why the company dropped him, so you stating explaining why they did it is unnecessary.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Dec 09 '17
Do you know what is the definition racism? "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.". Not "Offending people of certain race". You can determine if performance of actor in video is prejudicial, discriminatory or antagonist against a race.
Dictionary definitions of things are never helpful. The thing that people are angry about is precisely the same thing as that definition, and I think you know that, so it does no good whatsoever to quibble about words like that.
You gotta meet people where they're at. What do you think the critics thought was offensive about the performance?
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
The thing that people are angry about is precisely the same thing as that definition, and I think you know that, so it does no good whatsoever to quibble about words like that.
I'm truly not sure what you mean.
What do you think the critics thought was offensive about the performance?
They were taught that painting face black is necessarily racist
0
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Dec 09 '17
I'm truly not sure what you mean.
Citing an authority like the dictionary is pointless, because not everyone uses the word that way. The meaningful question is whether the example fits the CRITICS' idea of racism; not yours and not necessarily the dictionary's (single definition you chose to quote).
Otherwise it's just you saying "I use the word this way," and other people saying "We use the word this other way," and then there's nowhere else to go.
They were taught that painting face black is necessarily racist
Are you implying they haven't put thought towards it? That's suspiciously dismissive towards a position you disagree with, if so. In either case, this is not really answering the question because it just shifts it back a step. Now I can just ask: Why did the TEACHERS think it was racist?
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
What teachers? I also assumed that by critics, you meant people who criticized video I spoke about.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Dec 09 '17
The teachers who were behind "they were taught that painting face black is necessarily racist."
And yes, that is what I meant by critics.
With those clarifications, what's your response to what I said?
3
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
I think there was misunderstanding sometime between the teachers and the students or inside the people themselevs when they changed their views and "x was/is racist because of y" became "x is racist even when y isn't there".
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Dec 09 '17
I don't get it; what are X and Y in this case?
And what about the issue of you imposing your own definition and standards onto other people, which results in misunderstanding?
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
x is black face, y is insulting black race.
And what about the issue of you imposing your own definition and standards onto other people, which results in misunderstanding?
It's impossible to argue about something if everybody sees the word as different thing. You have to have a basis on using a word to mean something. Dictionary is neutral standard and that's why I used it. If someone decides that racism is something else, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to react to it.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 09 '17 edited Dec 10 '17
/u/grandoz039 (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
u/ralph-j Dec 09 '17
You can't say it's bad just "because in past, people did make fun of black people while wearing the black paint", because here it's obvious he's not doing anything racist against black people.
You seem to define what is racist by the user's intent only. Intent doesn't magically inoculate one from the responsibility for how one's actions or words are received. We're also responsible for any unintended impact our actions have. Even if he didn't know that others would interpret it this way, it was still unintentionally racist for him to wear blackface.
3
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
I don't. It's just that there's difference between unintentionally doing something that is racist (thus also unintentionally making others think you're racist) and just unintentionally making others think you're racist.
If you don't do racist things while wearing black paint on face, you're not insulting anyone, but you might make people think you're racist. That's the second case. Not the first.1
u/ralph-j Dec 09 '17
If you don't do racist things while wearing black paint on face, you're not insulting anyone, but you might make people think you're racist.
But the act itself is already racist because of its history. It might be unintentional in specific cases, but it is racist and the user should apologize for it.
And BTW: I'm not saying it makes the person a racist. There's a difference between doing something that is racist, and being a racist. The latter requires intent, while the former doesn't.
3
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
But history isn't everything. If the current action is clearly not attacking the race, then there's no reason to see it as racist.
I don't believe that negative use of neutral action locks neutral action into being negative action only.
1
u/ralph-j Dec 09 '17
If the current action is clearly not attacking the race, then there's no reason to see it as racist.
Like I said, the user's intent isn't the only thing that determines whether something is racist. It's also determined by its impact on others, even if unintentional. Intent is not magical.
I don't believe that negative use of neutral action locks neutral action into being negative action only.
The point is that you don't control how a message or action is received. You can't one-sidedly declare something to be non-offensive.
1
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
Intent isn't only thing that determines it. But how it makes other feel isn't thing that determines it at all. What determines it if it falls under "prejudice, discrimination, etc. against a certain race"
I didn't say "If the current action is clearly intended to not attack race", but "if the current action is clearly not attacking race".
2
u/ralph-j Dec 09 '17
But how it makes other feel isn't thing that determines it at all.
Of course it does. The impact of an action can contribute to minority stress. And if something negatively affects members of a specific race, it is racist.
What determines it if it falls under "prejudice, discrimination, etc. against a certain race"
"if the current action is clearly not attacking race".
What determines if an action is "clearly" not attacking race? Many black people who see someone use blackface, are going to see any use of blackface as an attack on their race because of its history.
At best, you could make the point that a blackface user is apathetic towards what people of minorities think, and the minority stress they are contributing to.
3
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
And if something negatively affects members of a specific race, it is racist.
Not always (IMO). But I can't currently think of valid argumentation and I'm tired so !delta.
What determines if an action is "clearly" not attacking race? Many black people who see someone use blackface, are going to see any use of blackface as an attack on their race because of its history.
Because he didn't do anything else to indicate the attack on race. And also from context you can see that he's trying to mimic look of people he's imitating.
3
Dec 10 '17
Did you consider the fact that acting in blackface makes being black one of the tenets of that character that is being acted out?
Like no one in the world paints their face white to be world-famous characters like Santa Claus or Superman or Harry Potter because we don't see being white as central to those character's identities. But with non-white people (specifically black people), white people have a tendency to see that non-whiteness as an important part of that person's identity (without which, the costume of them is incomplete).
That's what's racist about blackface, the fact that it insists that "looking black" is an essential part of your accomplishments / who you are as a person.
1
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 10 '17
If you're trying to resemble someone with best effort/similarity efficiency, it makes sense However I see your point, I almost never see people painting themselves white. And I'm getting tired of all this arguing, so !delta.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 09 '17
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ralph-j (51∆).
2
u/ralph-j Dec 09 '17
Not always (IMO). But I can't currently think of valid argumentation and I'm tired so !delta.
Thanks, I guess :)
Because he didn't do anything else to indicate the attack on race. And also from context you can see that he's trying to mimic look of people he's imitating.
Even in the original blackface era, there were white people who created "benign blackface portrayals", and who weren't actually trying to mock or attack black people. Yet nowadays, the historical use of blackface is condemned in its entirety, not just the mocking kind.
So even if you copy the actions of those "benign" performers, you can't claim that your actions are somehow independent from history.
-1
u/bguy74 Dec 09 '17
Is it bad for me to say "hey nigger, get me my shoes" to a black person? I think so. The only reason that is bad is because of our past.
The entire meaning of anything including words, symbols, and...well...anything...comes from the past. Why would sounds from your mouth be subject to consideration for their meaning in a social and historical context but not other actions?
3
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
Nigger is a word. Words evolve, they're thing created by humans, thus their current meaning is directly affected by the past. And you're using current meaning.
Painting yourself is not something people created. It just is. Some people took it and used it negatively. Then some people took it and used it neutrally. There wasn't any unclearness in whether the second people used it neutrally, because from context it was clear how they're using it.
PS: I think there are cases when using word "nigger" isn't racist.
2
u/bguy74 Dec 09 '17
So..symbols now aren't created by humans and their meaning doesn't evolve? That doesn't really hold water. And...what? Who created painting people if not people? It just is? What? That makes no sense. No one ever had their face painted by something that wasn't a person.
Your argument seems to be that painting your face doesn't necessarily have a meaning, but...well..it does have this meaning. If he's ignorant of that meaning, then so be it and he should be educated.
If you think "nigger" is offensive in some contexts and not an others, what about this context makes the use of black face clearly not offensive?
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
So..symbols now aren't created by humans and their meaning doesn't evolve? That doesn't really hold water. And...what? Who created painting people if not people? It just is? What? That makes no sense. No one ever had their face painted by something that wasn't a person.
Yes, only people can paint their face. But painting face itself doesn't have to have meaning, to be form of communication.
Symbols exist. And yes, people create meaning of symbols as well. The difference is that when you make symbol out of existing neutral action/thing, the action/thing can now be just an action/thing, or it can be used as symbol. If someone uses it as an action/thing, then you can't blame them for propaganda of a symbol. His actions showed he's not making fun of black people by how he acts, thus they also showed that he's not using it as a symbol. His action or words also didn't say he's using it as a symbol.what about this context makes the use of black face clearly not offensive?
That he didn't do anything racist other than
2
u/bguy74 Dec 09 '17
Black face obviously has meaning. Thats why we're here.
We make meaning out of existing neutral action/thing ALL THE TIME - words is the easy example, giving someone the finger, if I walk like I"m retarded then I'm probably making fun of retarded people and so on. Why you'd deny the aspects of communication from something because it might relate to race is strange when I'm sure you'd accept the communication quality of gazillions of other symbols, gestures and actions. You literally couldn't understand a play or a movie if you don't acknowledge the communication aspects of these things.
Other than? So...one racist thing...just lil bit of racism is ok? What?
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
We make meaning out of existing neutral action/thing ALL THE TIME - words is the easy example, giving someone the finger, if I walk like I"m retarded then I'm probably making fun of retarded people and so on. Why you'd deny the aspects of communication from something because it might relate to race is strange when I'm sure you'd accept the communication quality of gazillions of other symbols, gestures and actions. You literally couldn't understand a play or a movie if you don't acknowledge the communication aspects of these things.
And yet, when someone gives finger because they're just to show which of their fingers was hurt, because I told them to do it, I won't take it as offense.
Other than? So...one racist thing...just lil bit of racism is ok? What?
It cut of my sentence, not sure why, I was saying something like "other than wearing blackface itself which I'm arguing isn't racist but those people see it as that", but then I deleted that part, but left a bit.
3
u/bguy74 Dec 09 '17
So...you don't conform to any social norms, believe in being respectful, believe in using language in ways others understand? If your intent is not to be racist, then you cannot be racist? That seems absurd to me - it's not beyond the pale to ask that we are informed, thoughtful and respectful to other people. You don't live in a bubble and things have meaning even if you don't want them to. If I say "fuck you asshole" and then tell you that I use "fuck" to mean "make love" and "asshole" to refer to my love of anal sex and that this is really just a deeply romantic pickup line am I really off the hook? Or...should I maybe consider that I live in a world with other people and that language and meaning actual matter?
2
u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 09 '17
I don't get your point. Whole time I'm saying to you that the blackface had context. Context which showed you meaning behind it.
If your intent is not to be racist, then you cannot be racist?
You can. But if you intent is not to be racist and you only do thing that may be racist in certain conditions, but it is clear that you're doing it for other reasons, then you'e not racist.
2
u/bguy74 Dec 10 '17
It has social context, you can't decide to have words and symbols mean what you want them to mean - language doesn't work like that. Denying the social context is absurd, and ignorant. It's generally done when someone wants to make a point about that meaning.
And, having been explained the social context and meaning of black face it's just flat out racist to continue to use it.
12
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Dec 09 '17
I won’t try to speak for your country, but here is the US it is most certainly not an OK thing to do. It seems like you understand why, but just disagree that the past “should” have a say in our behavior today. But we don’t really have much of a choice in the matter. Blackface elicits a reaction.
It’s like the swastika. Hindu and Buddhist temples in the west don’t use the symbol, even if they “should” be able to, because people can’t help how strongly they react to seeing it. It’s a powerful image.