Support NeoGAF

[Spinluck]

One of many grammatical errors in that post... But I digress. Not the point.

I don't think it's intellectually honest to argue that you can detach the meaning (or as was said earlier, context) of what blackface was and boil it down to the fact that anyone who puts on black makeup= blackface.

Yea there was. My bad, I was posting on Mobile-Gaf.

You can continue pretending you actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Big Baybee]

To the people defending it, would you go to a public event in blackface/brownface/yellowface? Serious question.

 

[Takuan]

The darkening was definitely unnecessary, and she didn't even go full blackface. She looks like a fine-ass South American girl.

 

[DY_nasty]

Blackface is only the minstrel shit.

That's the only time its blackface. Everything else is just cute.

Its a fact because I googled.

 

[Spinluck]

Blackface is only the minstrel shit.

That's the only time its blackface. Everything else is just cute.

Its a fact because I googled.

Make sure you use Webster, nothing is factual without it!!

 

[Trey]

The argument about her use of makeup making the race into a defining aspect of the character is a bit weird for me. Okay, lets step into a hypothetical world where changing your apparent race with makeup does not carry with it the historical cultural baggage that it does in ours: why does using makeup to darken her skin mean that she's making "race define the character" anymore then her wearing a (crappy) wig mean that she's making hair define the character, or the costume she's wearing making the clothing define the character?

In other words isn't race being only a visual thing kind of the big happy family egalitarian goal that a lot of people are interested in?

We don't live in that hypothetical world. The historical context does exist. And equality won't come from minorities being cool with people darkening their skin to play pretend.

Being black for white people is just white people having fun - the paint washes off and they're white again. Black people will always be black, and if they put on white face, they do not gain the inherent advantages being white carries.

So skin matters, and some people get offended when folks with all the advantages try on the shoes of being black, walk around a bit, but never have to pay for them.

 

[Shamrock7r]

A lot of people are offended on here, and I really don't think they know why, just that they think they are supposed to be. As someone else on here said, look at the context. It was a homage to a tv character. In no way whatsoever was it played up to be an insulting parody of a black person. That's really all there should be to this.

 

[Maxim726X]

Blackface is only the minstrel shit.

That's the only time its blackface. Everything else is just cute.

Its a fact because I googled.

As opposed to your facts which come straight out of your ass?

I at least have something, which I believe is infinitely more convincing than nothing.

Google that shit.

 

[Maxim726X]

We don't live in that hypothetical world. The historical context does exist. And equality won't come from minorities being cool with people darkening their skin to play pretend.

Being black for white people is just white people having fun - the paint washes off and they're white again. Black people will always be black, and if they put on white face, they do not gain the inherent advantages being white carries.

So skin matters, and some people get offended when folks with all the advantages try on the shoes of being black, walk around a bit, but never have to pay for them.

She wasn't 'being black', she was a character who happened to be black.

The fact that people can equate this to what is classically considered blackface is a little disconcerting. They're not the same thing.

 

[roosters93]

Unlike you both, I've done extensive research on the topic.

There's a lot more to it than a Webster Dictionary definition. I never claimed any authority.

But whatever, carry on.

There wasn't any explicit authority claim but bringing it up like you did and holding it over people (like in this post too) is you claiming authority on the matter.

We don't live in that hypothetical world. The historical context does exist. And equality won't come from minorities being cool with people darkening their skin to play pretend.

Being black for white people is just white people having fun - the paint washes off and they're white again. Black people will always be black, and if they put on white face, they do not gain the inherent advantages being white carries.

So skin matters, and some people get offended when folks with all the advantages try on the shoes of being black, walk around a bit, but never have to pay for them.

Great post.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

There is no reason for a person to paint their skin black when they dress up as a character.

 

[DY_nasty]

As opposed to your facts which come straight out of your ass?

I at least have something, which I believe is infinitely more convincing than nothing.

Google that shit.

Hey, its not like you're the one telling a bunch of people what they should and shouldn't be offended over because of a few internet searches.

People are offended and they don't even know why. They just feel they should be. Right on.

Edit: lmfao that literally just happened above

 

[TheKaeptain]

I don't think it's the least bit noteworthy because her intent doesn't seem the least bit derogatory. But then again I have more important things to do with my time than do debate whether or not a b list celebrity is in the wrong or the right.

I'm also humored that a certain someone got infinitely salty in this thread and bid farewell by signing off with a "retards" barb.

Why you scared to mention names?

 

[DY_nasty]

She wasn't 'being black', she was a character who happened to be black.

The fact that people can equate this to what is classically considered blackface is a little disconcerting. They're not the same thing.

Its the okay kind of blackface.

Go ahead and go into detail about how far you can go before its blackface? I mean, its just a character anyways.

 

[Jokergrin]

 

[Maxim726X]

Hey, its not like you're the one telling a bunch of people what they should and shouldn't be offended over because of a few internet searches.

People are offended and they don't even know why. They just feel they should be. Right on.

Edit: lmfao that literally just happened above

You have the right to be offended over whatever you would like to be.

Whether or not you're offended over something real or perceived is your business and yours alone. Don't be surprised when people stop and think about it for a second, though.

 

[Maxim726X]

Its the okay kind of blackface.

Go ahead and go into detail about how far you can go before its blackface? I mean, its just a character anyways.

It's not blackface.

You have Google too, right? Use it.

 

[Jest Chillin]

You have the right to be offended over whatever you would like to be.

Whether or not you're offended over something real or perceived is your business and yours alone. Don't be surprised when people stop and think about it for a second, though.

I think it's safe to say the paint on her face is real.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

Maxim is killing me right now LOL

 

[ThisWreckage]

Now I'm playing the race card?

I love how actively and intentionally partaking good old classical racism is key part of this too. For the dozenth time, people aren't even upset at her for this. Its stupid of her. Really stupid. What's pissing people off is the defense of it and the idiotic logic behind said defense.

I stand by what I said. It's only stupid if people entirely ignore intent. No one gets to dictate what a person can or can't wear based on a history they didn't have a hand in.

 

[The Technomancer]

We don't live in that hypothetical world. The historical context does exist. And equality won't come from minorities being cool with people darkening their skin to play pretend.

Being black for white people is just white people having fun - the paint washes off and they're white again. Black people will always be black, and if they put on white face, they do not gain the inherent advantages being white carries.

So skin matters, and some people get offended when folks with all the advantages try on the shoes of being black, walk around a bit, but never have to pay for them.

Which is fine. But some of the arguments don't seem to be based on that context. The ones that were purely about how the problem was her "making the race define the character" were the ones I didn't understand. Yes, the race does define the character if what we mean by "the character" includes any aspect of visual appearence at all.

 

[Jest Chillin]

I stand by what I said. It's only stupid if people entirely ignore intent. No one gets to dictate what a person can or can't wear based on a history they didn't have a hand in.

You may want to refine your stance on that because that reads as if you're saying it's ok to wear a Nazi Uniform for Halloween because you weren't apart of the actual Nazi Germany.

 

[Maxim726X]

I think it's safe to say the paint on her face is real.

If only that was the only criteria.

It isn't though.

 

[DY_nasty]

It's not blackface.

You have Google too, right? Use it.

Blackface is not simply the minstrel concoctions of wayback when.

But god forbid we think of racism, intentional or unintentional, to have more than the simple and easy to see forms present in history books. Its safely so far behind us now that we can simply tell people to stop whining about whatever has their panties in a bunch when something that doesn't involve a national headline, jail-time, or someone losing their job.

 

[Spinluck]

There wasn't any explicit authority claim but bringing it up like you did and holding it over people (like in this post too) is you claiming authority on the matter.

Ok then, my bad.

I just see no point in preaching to other posters what the meaning of Blackface is, when they clearly have a better grasp of it than you.

But I guess some people can never be wrong. Pardon me.

 

[Trey]

She wasn't 'being black', she was a character who happened to be black.

The fact that people can equate this to what is classically considered blackface is a little disconcerting. They're not the same thing.

You make it sound like she accidentally decided to paint her skin black. And whether or not it's blackface to you does not change the perceived insensitivity of a white person pretending to be a black person, all of which I've outlined already.

 

[Maxim726X]

Which is fine. But some of the arguments don't seem to be based on that context. The ones that were purely about how the problem was her "making the race define the character" were the ones I didn't understand. Yes, the race does define the character if what we mean by "the character" includes any aspect of visual appearence at all.

Right. People are arguing that it is central to the character as opposed to simply an attribute of the character.

 

[Jest Chillin]

If only that was the only criteria.

It isn't though.

So what's the criteria? The dictionary definition? Are people now required to look up the accuracy of offensive things before they can allow themselves an appropriate reaction?

 

[ThisWreckage]

You may want to refine your stance on that because that reads as if you're saying it's ok to wear a Nazi Uniform for Halloween because you weren't apart of the actual Nazi Germany.

It would be offensive to do such a thing, but I certainly wouldn't have an issue with that. It also didn't stop Prince Harry.

 

[Enzom21]

I stand by what I said. It's only stupid if people entirely ignore intent. No one gets to dictate what a person can or can't wear based on a history they didn't have a hand in.

So why not call black people niggers?

No one alive today had a history in the creation of the word and its use. So going by your logic you should be able to call us niggers right?

 

[Big Baybee]

I stand by what I said. It's only stupid if people entirely ignore intent. No one gets to dictate what a person can or can't wear based on a history they didn't have a hand in.

This is a very flawed argument.

 

[DY_nasty]

I stand by what I said. It's only stupid if people entirely ignore intent. No one gets to dictate what a person can or can't wear based on a history they didn't have a hand in.

When do I ignore intent?

When has anyone here?

Its pretty clear that she crossed the line unintentionally. That doesn't stop it from being stupid though. It also doesn't stop people from thinking that its 'okay' as long you never meant to be mean about it or something.

 

[Necromanti]

Blackface is not simply the minstrel concoctions of wayback when.

But god forbid we think of racism, intentional or unintentional, to have more than the simple and easy to see forms present in history books. Its safely so far behind us now that we can simply tell people to stop whining about whatever has their panties in a bunch when something that doesn't involve a national headline, jail-time, or someone losing their job.

It shouldn't even matter whether it is blackface or not. That is just another semantic argument that shifts away from the real issue.

It being (or not being) blackface does not change her costume, what it may represent, its relation to historical context, or how it may affect people.

 

[Maxim726X]

Ok then, my bad.

I just see no point in preaching to other posters what the meaning of Blackface is, when they clearly have a better grasp of it than you.

But I guess some people can never be wrong. Pardon me.

So we have what is historically considered blackface, the very definition of the word blackface, and the fact that what she did has nothing in common with either other than the fact that she but black paint on her skin, but we're the wrong ones?

Sounds legit.

Please show us some of these papers you righted. I would very much like to read them. Educate us.

 

[The Technomancer]

See, this is what I get hung up on: if race is important (and I think a lot of people agree that it is) then it also seems disrespectful to discount race, to say that race doesn't have anything to do with the character

Is it really just as explicit as "no-one should ever portray themselves as any other race then their own"? If so, why? Is it because all races have unique cultural identities that should not be co-opted? But then isn't that in and of itself overly simplistic and reductionist and offensive to lump things together into "races" and not "nationalities" or even distinct cultures in the first place?

 

[ThisWreckage]

So why not call black people niggers?

No one alive today had a history in the creation of the word and its use. So going by your logic you should be able to call us niggers right?

People are free to use any vocabulary they like. Racial slurs would exist with or without slavery. Racial slurs exist for all races. I don't understand your point.

 

[Shamrock7r]

So why not call black people niggers?

No one alive today had a history in the creation of the word and its use. So going by your logic you should be able to call us niggers right?

Not even remotely the same

 

[Jest Chillin]

It would be offensive to do such a thing, but I certainly wouldn't have an issue with that. It also didn't stop Prince Harry.

And that's part of what we're saying. Everybody here is acknowledging that they, themselves may not be offended but it is an offensive thing to do. So people should knock it off. It's in poor taste. And there's no logical defense for people being offensive.

"Because she wanted to" does not cut it. A single persons desires do not supersede others and the thought that it does is really corrosive.

 

[masud]

Covering yourself with paint to masquerade as a black person violates well known social norms. So this woman is either insensitive to or ignorant of that fact. That’s all people are saying, I don’t see the 'outrage'.

 

[ThisWreckage]

And that's part of what we're saying. Everybody here is acknowledging that they, themselves may not be offended but it is an offensive thing to do. So people should knock it off. It's in poor taste. And there's no logical defense for people being offensive.

"Because she wanted to" does not cut it. A single persons desires do not supersede others and the thought that it does is really corrosive.

I completely agree with you, but people will NEVER stop from being offensive. Ever. That's an unrealistic proposition. A pipe dream. People may be offended, but at the same time it's her right. It ties in to the racial slur argument posted above.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Hmm. I don't know what to say about this one.

I just don't. Crazy Eyes is a pretty awesome character on the show.

Why do why [usually white] people some times feel it necessary to paint their skin in order to be a character in a show or movie? If I wanted to go out as Neo from The Matrix, I wouldn't feel compelled to paint my skin off-white. I'd just put on the shades, secure a similar jacket and call it a day.

If I wanted to do Luke Skywalker, I'd get matching duds and a light saber; I wouldn't seek out white face paint and a blond wig. IDK.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Covering yourself with paint to masquerade as a black person violates well known social norms. So this woman is either insensitive to or ignorant of that fact. That’s all people are saying, I don’t see the 'outrage'.

Yeah, I agree with this.

 

[Trey]

Right. People are arguing that it is central to the character as opposed to simply an attribute of the character.

If you want to play that game, she ignored pretty much every single other defining trait of crazy eyes. The hair color, hair style, eye color, teeth. So it's pretty apparent her skin paint and orange jumpsuit is the link she's making to that character.

 

[Shamrock7r]

And that's part of what we're saying. Everybody here is acknowledging that they, themselves may not be offended but it is an offensive thing to do. So people should knock it off. It's in poor taste. And there's no logical defense for people being offensive.

"Because she wanted to" does not cut it. A single persons desires do not supersede others and the thought that it does is really corrosive.

Anything can be offensive to a person or group of people. I think the better question is does them being offended hold any merit in relation to the uproar over whatever the offense is

 

[Maxim726X]

So what's the criteria? The dictionary definition? Are people now required to look up the accuracy of offensive things before they can allow themselves an appropriate reaction?

I would post the definition of blackface again, but evidently that's frowned upon for some reason.

But I would argue that there is much more to blackface then painting your skin a certain color, none of which she engaged in. People keep arguing about 'context', while ignoring the fact that the context of this entire event has absolutely nothing to do with what most consider blackface.

If you want to play that game, she ignored pretty much every single other defining trait of crazy eyes. The hair color, hair style, eye color, teeth. So it's pretty apparent her skin paint and orange jumpsuit is the link she's making to that character.

Yeah. It was lazy and stupid.

No one ever denied that fact. She had a sweet ID card, though.

 

[Jest Chillin]

I completely agree with you, but people will NEVER stop from being offensive. Ever. That's an unrealistic proposition. A pipe dream. People may be offended, but at the same time it's her right. It ties in to the racial slur argument posted above.

Perhaps. Even acknowledging that people will never stop being offensive doesn't excuse being offensive. And letting offensive things happen without complaint not only doesn't fix the problem but compounds them as people begin to take more and more liberties.

 

[DY_nasty]

Anything can be offensive to a person or group of people. I think the better question is does them being offended hold any merit in relation to the uproar over whatever the offense is

In this specific thread/discussion, I think its fair to say that people are more offended by the defense mounted around the situation than the situation itself.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Which means it wasn't a big deal to begin with.

 

[Enzom21]

People are free to use any vocabulary they like. Racial slurs would exist with or without slavery. Racial slurs exist for all races. I don't understand your point.

Who brought up slavery?
Your made the argument that we should ignore the racist historical context of painting yourself to look like black people because a person now did not have a hand in starting it.

Just like a person now does not have a hand in starting nigger as a racial slur. Correct?

Not even remotely the same

How is it not the same thing?

He wants to ignore historical context for blackface which was only created and used to ridicule black people, just like the word nigger.

 

[Spinluck]

So we have what is historically considered blackface, the very definition of the word blackface, and the fact that what she did has nothing in common with either other than the fact that she but black paint on her skin, but we're the wrong ones?

Sounds legit.

Please show us some of these papers you righted. I would very much like to read them. Educate us.

*Wrote

First off, I wasn't really that offended by it.

Second, there is no point, because you seem like the type of poster who cannot be proven wrong. Despite of what's presented in front of s/he.