Kim Kardashian's night out RUINED by attendant in BLACKFACE :biblio:
- Thread starter Booty Patrol
- Start date
- Status
Bishoptl made me go through this thread again to see all of the nonsense that was posted.
Truly a wasteland of former GAFers and deservedly so.
Truly a wasteland of former GAFers and deservedly so.
Read the thread.Is this OK?
Ninja Scooter
Member
Is this OK?
There is a difference between trying to emulate/pay homage to an established character, and painting your skin tar black and your lips bright red.
DeSo
Banned
Oh for sure, just some have said to never dress up in blackface, even when cosplaying so I was wondering if that cosplay is OK.
Moron. The timing and the delivery were asbolute shit also. Get lost Pocher!
Allthough nothing near as bad as that blackface idiot. He was clearly referenzing the Kanye song.
no, don't darken your skin to emulate a black person/character. Just...don't. no bueno.
soundscream
Member
What is gained from painting his skin?
Is this OK?
Doesn't need the paint
Turns out racism isn't acceptable in the history and context of NeoGaf.
15 at least.
RyougaSaotome
Member
I actually read through every page of this thread and goddamn it guys.
This is not a complicated topic. =(
This is not a complicated topic. =(
GringoSuave89
Banned
My sister watches KUWTK, so naturally I sat and watched a few. It's like a real world Arrested Development. I will say that shallowness aside, they aren't bad people. And Jenner is the best of the bunch.
terribletwo
Member
They present themselves rather amiably, but if the fame goes followed by the money they will eat each other alive
but I think youtube/online video will basically ensure living expenses til the end of time
BlackSalad
Member
Thank you bish for the response and topic. I think there has been a lot of good intention in this thread, so I will summarize the important themes..
1. Characterizing based off an attribute that one does not have control over is wrong. In all circumstances.
2. Being ignorant does not mean you're racist/sexist/homophobic/etc... but simply means you're (respectfully) ignorant.
3. If point 2 applies to you, and you agree with point 1, then you should contemplate what point 1 means.
4. (Just have to emphasize this again from previous posts) RDJ was playing a white man, playing a black man. This does not help the cosplay argument, watch the movie, realize what the characters are doing, and witness the conflicts that arise from RDJ's character's choice of skin color.
Also, if you have to ask "is this racist...?" Do yourself a favor and watch Silicon Valley, it will inform you and is also extremely entertaining. If you don't watch, here is another not story related spoiler..
All countries and cultures are full of different types of discrimination, the US is absolutely one of them. Being a US citizen, it pains me to be associated with a country that still tolerates the levels of discrimination that are apparent in everyday life, even when I, myself, is practicing the action ignorantly. But when I realize my mistake, I make it a point to correct it.
Unfortunately there is no defined line on the seemingly variant governance of discrimination, so one must use their morality to define that line... And that is much easier said than done, but we all must give an effort.
EDIT Please pm me for comments, criticism or compliments, the discussion is done In this thread and has been since day one. I welcome more Zwarte Piet bantering but at this point my response will be copy/pastes from this thread.
Too bad mandrake doesn't entertain these types of threads...
1. Characterizing based off an attribute that one does not have control over is wrong. In all circumstances.
2. Being ignorant does not mean you're racist/sexist/homophobic/etc... but simply means you're (respectfully) ignorant.
3. If point 2 applies to you, and you agree with point 1, then you should contemplate what point 1 means.
4. (Just have to emphasize this again from previous posts) RDJ was playing a white man, playing a black man. This does not help the cosplay argument, watch the movie, realize what the characters are doing, and witness the conflicts that arise from RDJ's character's choice of skin color.
it is not received well.
Also, if you have to ask "is this racist...?" Do yourself a favor and watch Silicon Valley, it will inform you and is also extremely entertaining. If you don't watch, here is another not story related spoiler..
if you have to ask! it's racist.
All countries and cultures are full of different types of discrimination, the US is absolutely one of them. Being a US citizen, it pains me to be associated with a country that still tolerates the levels of discrimination that are apparent in everyday life, even when I, myself, is practicing the action ignorantly. But when I realize my mistake, I make it a point to correct it.
Unfortunately there is no defined line on the seemingly variant governance of discrimination, so one must use their morality to define that line... And that is much easier said than done, but we all must give an effort.
EDIT Please pm me for comments, criticism or compliments, the discussion is done In this thread and has been since day one. I welcome more Zwarte Piet bantering but at this point my response will be copy/pastes from this thread.
Too bad mandrake doesn't entertain these types of threads...
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I actually read this whole thing
My soul hurts
My soul hurts
Is this OK?
Painting your skin for a costume is unnecessary. Unless the most defining characteristic of that person is their race, then there is no reason to paint your skin.
Here are costumes of Michonne from The Walking Dead. Are the ones with painted skin more recognizable than those without?
Didn't have to paint their skin looks fine:
Painted skin, looks ridiculous and pretty racist:
Secret Fawful
Member
Wow, I didn't expect to see this topic again after the supreme shitshow it was.
Really interesting to go back and read it now that it has been JUDGED.
Really interesting to go back and read it now that it has been JUDGED.
In the case of the Dutch tradition, the problem (apart from that he's called Black Pete, so being black is somewhat of a given) is that the parents create a fantasy for their children, where Sinterklaas and Black Pete are played by e.g. their uncles and aunts. They should be unrecognizable. So sinterklaas has a huge ass beard, black Pete is a different skin color and wears a wig. I don't really want to dress up as Black Pete, but come that time of the year, I also don't really have an alternative when my brother would ask to do it for his kids.
They should really drop the red lips and hoop earrings though. But I don't see it happening, any time soon sadly. A lot of my fellow countrymen get crazy defensive (as also seen in this thread) 'cause foreigners are ruining the most important day of our children'.
It should also be said though that there is very little opposition, even among immigrants and former colonial migrants, to the celebration. The people in the picture posted earlier are the same six persons that just yesterday picketed an annual slavery memorial because whiteys had the audacity to present. So yeah. It would probably be better if there was a broader internal discussion. Right now it's unclear whether the black population feels too intimidated to react or genuinely doesn't care.
dutchguyjack
Member
To give some context... I grew up in the Netherlands, with Zwarte Piet bringing me my favorite weeks of the year. Sinterklaas' helper was always someone I liked better than the man himself.
Years later I moved to Sweden, and then to the U.K. It was only in the U.K. that I came to know about the concept of Blackface. I had never heard of it before, and was unaware of a negative relation to black people, and didn't understand why it was considered racist until I learned more about how it was related to American history.
For as far as I'm concerned, culture determines the meaning behind imagery and concepts, which is why dressing up as a black man may be acceptable in one country, but not in another. I find it narrow minded to judge and accuse one country of being racist because their cultural values and history mismatch that of yours.
Sure Blackface may have existed in European shows, but that doesn't mean it carried the same negative weight as it did in the U.S.
Europe also isn't innocent of slave trade, but our culture was much less exposed to it than that of America.
To close this off, I'd like to emphasise that characters such as Zwarte Piet are not considered racism in the Netherlands for one simple reason - children learn to love them, and to children, they are a lot more relate-able than the white man with a beard called Sinterklaas. Likewise, a white man dressing up as Kanye West and colouring his face to finalise the look isn't necessarily racist either. If it was done out of fandom and not mockery, I feel it can actually be positive.
Years later I moved to Sweden, and then to the U.K. It was only in the U.K. that I came to know about the concept of Blackface. I had never heard of it before, and was unaware of a negative relation to black people, and didn't understand why it was considered racist until I learned more about how it was related to American history.
For as far as I'm concerned, culture determines the meaning behind imagery and concepts, which is why dressing up as a black man may be acceptable in one country, but not in another. I find it narrow minded to judge and accuse one country of being racist because their cultural values and history mismatch that of yours.
Sure Blackface may have existed in European shows, but that doesn't mean it carried the same negative weight as it did in the U.S.
Europe also isn't innocent of slave trade, but our culture was much less exposed to it than that of America.
To close this off, I'd like to emphasise that characters such as Zwarte Piet are not considered racism in the Netherlands for one simple reason - children learn to love them, and to children, they are a lot more relate-able than the white man with a beard called Sinterklaas. Likewise, a white man dressing up as Kanye West and colouring his face to finalise the look isn't necessarily racist either. If it was done out of fandom and not mockery, I feel it can actually be positive.
soundscream
Member
Still defending this I see, SMH.
Did you read the thread or Bishop's messages at all?!
dutchguyjack
Member
You mean this one?
That sounds a lot more like opinion than fact.
Racism:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
None of that applies with the examples I named. Zwarte Piet or Fandom is not prejudice against a different race. It's not discriminating or antagonizing a race. And it's certainly not saying that one race is superior over the other.
Blackface is racist because of cultural context, not because painting your face black is inherently racist.
Otherwise I might as well call the American tradition of green small men being Santa's helpers "a shitty cultural tradition", that discriminates against small people.
Necromanti
Member
So given the history behind the elements of Zwarte Piet, why would that not be racist by your definition, then? I mean, if kids liked minstrel shows, that wouldn't detach them from their racial history.
soundscream
Member
hateful racist past? At best the origins of the character are unclear.
Austriacus
Member
Wikipedia is telling me the history behind the elements is not as bad considering the time before the chained devil transitioned into Zwarte Piet was also a moment in time when San Nicholas was akin to a boogyeman
Im neutral on this whole issue but im trying to understand where is this "bad history" the folktale is based on.
Necromanti
Member
A figure that once represented an enslaved and domesticated devil is later depicted as a black slave in Moorish garb corresponding with Dutch colonial history, historically described and regarded as a "Negro" by older Dutch sources, and represented today as a Sambo-esque character (akin to something you'd see in a minstrel show) with exaggerated red lips and an afro.
I would hope that it goes without saying.
Pristine_Condition
Member
.
Cool story bro.
Now let's talk about the "Human Zoo" in Amsterdam at the turn of the 20th Century with its "Negro Village" where whites could feed African children bananas like they were monkeys.
It's from that same 19th-century mentality that your blackface tradition of Zwarte Piet sprung. So how do you reconcile that?
Seriously. Learn your fucking history. This sucks. This sucks EVERYWHERE.
...
Having said that, I think Kim needs to have a talk with her Native American "War Bonnet"-wearing sister too. Cause that's a pretty fucked up thing to do for your kid's birthday party in 2014 too.
shacklesmcgee
Member
I'm not sure if its explicitly written down somewhere, but where do big gold earrings, an afro, bright red lips and black face paint come from? If Black Peter is a slave that Sinterklaas saves, that's kinda racist. If he is covered in "soot from climbing down chimneys", why the lips? Why isn't Sinterklaas in blackface...sorry, "soot" too? There is not one explanation for Zwarte Piet that isn't shitty, sorry.
dutchguyjack
Member
I'm asking you this - if you subtract American history and cultural ideas, and think of the tradition in the context of a different culture where the imagery is not viewed as mockery but as celebration, how does it still fit within the definition of racism?
And Zwarte Piet is real?
I don't think you'll find many people claiming that the two characters don't have the same origins, just that the cultural context behind them is different. As far as Sinterklaas goes - he's not covered in soot because he doesn't climb through chimneys.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Dat OP junior'd
shade
shade
... you can't be serious.
Austriacus
Member
I completely follow and i agree that the depiction of the modern version can make people offended.
But what does that have to do with dutch colonial history?(genuine question btw, i know little of it) Both him and Nicholas in their first depiction were said to come from spain, and hes described as a servant not a slave.
Im not debating that the current Zwarte Piet can be offensive, what im trying to understand is the reasoning that its based on "bad history" for his elements
shacklesmcgee
Member
Do you think Zwarte Piet is covered in "soot"?
soundscream
Member
Elves and Black people mythical creatures in the Netherlands apparently.
dutchguyjack
Member
That's the traditional explanation yes. Mind you, the characters face wasn't always fully black. It used to be just a smudge until make up techniques improved. The explanation stuck, and whilst the character certainly looks more like blackface now than it did a 100 years ago, the reasoning behind it remains that Zwarte Piet is generally played by family members that children shouldn't recognize.
You got any suggestions how to do that? Paint them rainbow colours? What would the explanation for that be?
I don't particularly care for ideas like "remove the earrings and the red lips". Whilst I firmly believe the depiction isn't racist within the cultural context, I would be fine with modifications like that if it helps others look past the "blackface" look.
Zwarte Piet is covered in soot according to the explanation, and pushes himself through non-existent chimneys. If we make them do magic, you'd still consider them racist. If we take Elves' magic away, you wouldn't consider it discrimination.
Cultural context.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngiu...s-of-piet-ing-dutch-santas-blackface-elves/2/
Ahh that makes sense. Maybe one day a black person will move there.
Pristine_Condition
Member
As I pointed out above, (which apparently you ignored) the "cultural context" is that this character originated in the 19th Century, when the racial attitudes of supposedly "cultured" cities like Amsterdam had "Human Zoos" where Africans were exhibited like exotic animals.
That's pretty much all the "cultural context" I'd need to get a clue that this traditional blackface thing of yours is probably racist. Well...that and the fact that IT'S BLACKFACE.
shacklesmcgee
Member
So, no, traditionally, Zwarte Piet is not covered in soot.
That doesn't even make sense because there are different hierarchies of slaves...Piet's, so why would all Piet's have blackface even of they weren't the chimney Piet's?
Austriacus
Member
But the first introduction of the character to Saint Nicholas mythos was as a Spanish black moor, not an african man. Again, not saying the way he looks now is any good. But saying that the stuff he is based on originally is really shity seems to be false (according to wikipedia).
dutchguyjack
Member
I never claimed that the Netherlands or Europe has never been guilty of racism. I only claim that the cultural context is different from that in America. and blackface has different associations here than it does there.
If Blackface is such a horribly racist tradition that promotes white superiority and discriminates against minorities, which indoctrinates children from a young age to make them discriminate against blacks, why is the Netherlands one of the top 10 tolerant countries in the world? Above the US?
Except Piet is not and has never been described as a slave to Sinterklaas.
shacklesmcgee
Member
- Status