To me, the issue is trying to judge things that happened many years ago by current standards. This opens up everyone as standards change. As our society becomes increasingly sensitive, this is troubling.
During college, I went to a Halloween with a friend of mine that is Korean (he moved to the States just before High School). When I picked him up at the dorm, I had no idea what he was dressed up as. He had a pink sheet on and a pink pointed hat made from pillowcase of the sheet he was dressed in. I asked him “what are you supposed to be?”; when he responded that he was a gay klansman, beer literally shot out of my nose as I thought that this was hilarious. he thought it was funny that the real klan would hate him for both being gay (which he certainly was) and for in his own words being a “chink”.
As a 20-year-old, I thought that this was funny beyond words; now almost 30 years later should I be judged as though it was a party last weekend? I don’t think so and it seems to me that the ability to increasingly communicate to the world your opinion has been accompanied by decreasing contemplation of thought.
People keep saying this (Lindagaf not the only one), even after at least one CC member who is black has stated it most certainly WAS seen as mocking and cruel in the 80s, and every time before and since. Black Americans have been making the point for over a hundred years that blackface is mocking and cruel, and was often used as a way to exaggerate black features to the point of caricature for the sole reason of demeaning them, of making them seem less human. Ever since this discussion began I’ve been reading as much as I can find about the black POV as it relates to blackface, and it’s pretty clear that this has been a hurtful practice and seen as such practically since black people appeared on this continent, and probably in other places in the world where it has been practiced.
Maybe a better way of saying it would be that in the 80’s some white people in blackface didn’t realize their actions could be interpreted by black people as mocking and cruel (at best), and others simply didn’t care.
We can also acknowledge that there may be a difference between using blackface to represent blacks in general in an exaggerated, dehumanizing manner and wearing a costume depicting a particular individual with as much accuracy as possible.
As we all know, Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but its article on [minstrel shows](Minstrel show - Wikipedia) gives one a good understanding of why black people and others would object to minstrel show style costumes.
Before reading that article, I didn’t realize (or maybe didn’t remember) that minstrel shows existed before the Civil War.
We object to allusions to a theatrical form that depicted stupid black people and black people happy to be slaves.
Some may ask, “Why can’t I dress up as Beyonce or Martin Luther King or (pick a black person you admire)? I intend to show my admiration for this person.”
The answer is, sincere intention is not enough. For over two hundred years, white people in the US have been dressing up as black people to mock and demean them. In this context, with this history, a white person dressing up as a black person is going to be too close to an effort to mock and demean. It’s going to offend, for good reason. And by now you should know this.
I grew up in Seattle, then went into the military. I didn’t know blackface was a thing…in fact I don’t think I even had heard of it until the Ted Danson incident. I didn’t know the history, and why it would be offensive, but I would think people know by now. Hard to erase stupid things you did 30 years ago, and I’m guessing there might be nobody left pretty soon.
Yes, good point @Nrdsb4 . I agree with that and it of course it is probably indicative of my “white privilege.” I never said it was in good taste. I am saying, clearly, that we can’t accuse every person of racism, sexism, or whatever because they once did something that in 2018 is completely unacceptable.
And other things must be consdered: did someone repeatedly do this? Was it accompanied by racial slurs, etc…? Changes the story.
I am not saying it’s a good thing anyone did it. My main point is that we MUST view people and their actions in the context of time. No one here can clearly define anyone’s experience or perception of the time they lived in. Maybe the majority of people on this thread would have found minstrel attire and blackface offensive in the 80’s. Frankly, I didn’t think of it back then. It wasn’t of a concern to me AT THAT TIME. I also dressed up as an American Indian girl for Halloween back in the 70’s. Does that make me guilty of cultural appropriation?
Maybe Northam should be held to a higher standard than us regular people because he’s supposed to be leading by example. As the saying goes though, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
As said before, the fact that he denied he had anything to do with it/denied knowledge of how this came to be on HIS page, etc. is probably the biggest thing here. Remorse, when sincerely and properly expressed, often goes a long way. You can’t satisfy everyone, of course, but he didn’t even try to own it.
Careful now. If we go down that road, we might just have to rehabilitate the reputations of some of our Founding Fathers. And we wouldn’t want to do that so long as there are impressionable young minds to be molded.
Northam also talked about the blackface he admitted to in a way that failed to acknowledge it was something now regarded as shameful. There’s a big difference between the AG’s statement that he dressed as a black person when he was a teenager but he now knows this is not something to do, and the Governor’s cheery statement about how difficult it is to clean shoe polish off off one’s face.
Try this one on for size - in Asia, we used a toothpaste with a name now deemed derogatory. This toothpase was beloved by all and the most widely distributed in Asia. The packaging depicts an image of a man, not unlike Al Jolsen in ‘costume’ In the mid 80’s, a well known American company purchased the brand and continued marketing the product under the original barnd name through the late 80s early 90’s At some point, due to the fact the brand was now American owned, there was an international (USA and some parts of Eur) controversy over the name and the letter ‘L’ was replaced with a letter ‘K’ making the name less offensive (?) However, the minstrel image remains the ‘face’ of the brand; the brand is still well-known in Asia and is probably the top-seller for oral care products.
We also used toilet paper brandname - Uranus! And Robertson’s Golly was on the breakfast table each morning. I believe he was retired in the early 2000s
I think there is a difference between darkening one’s face to dress as a specific character (say, Micheal Jackson) and darkening one’s face to mock the race as a whole (as in the Governor’s year book photo.
Yep, know that brand of toothpaste. The Chinese name of the brand literally translates to ‘Black man toothpaste.’ When Colgate became a major investor in the company, that was when the English name of the brand changed. Interestingly enough though the brand did appear in a satire movie about a modern day version of the Confederacy under the original name.
A lot of stuff that one sees in Asia would raise some eyebrows. Sambo toys are still seen and Nazi chic has been prevalent in Asia. Don’t know if it’s because history is not emphasized as an academic subject in Asia or things just get glossed over.
I remember reading about it in US newspapers back in that era. Not only was the (English) name changed, but the image was changed. The Wikipedia page for the brand shows photos of both the current product and the earlier product.
WW2 history in Asia presumably emphasizes that area of conflict, where military-ruled Japan was the main villain from the point of view of most countries there, and there was little contact with Nazis.
Regarding racism in general or against black people there, it should not be too surprising that it exists.
Note that the Swastika is not automatically associated with Nazism in Asia. It’s use in eastern culture predates Germany’s by thousands of years, and continues today. It is stylistically different than the German symbol though.
I went through my 4 college yearbooks tonight and every year had a blackface picture and one with a white hood on one person. One of the captions said the ‘complexion’ of the conservative campus changed at Halloween. This was Wake Forest in the 70’s.
In elementary school we had a teacher who after somebody complained about being “copied” (not in the sense of cheating but someone following their lead) explained that it should be taken as a compliment. That somebody thought highly enough of what you had done that they wanted to do it too.
Some people need to go back to grade school and start over. And get a life.