Support NeoGAF

[ThisWreckage]

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?



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.

This b actress dressing up as a television character from a terrible Netflix show has no historical context with slavery. People trying to compare this to the blackface donned in minstrel shows are clueless.

 

[Maxim726X]

*Wrote

First off, I wasn't really that offended by it. It was your scouring

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.

I'll read whatever you've got. If you have something that contradicts what I've said (other than opinion), I'll read it.

I don't pretend to be an expert on blackface. From what I know of it, blackface this was not.

 

[Shamrock7r]

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.

I can see that. I think many people on here have the same opinion, but have differing definitions on the word "offensive". For me, it when I use it it's because I feel greatly insulted. For others a small annoyance may still constitute using the term "offended".

 

[Jest Chillin]

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

I feel like this is a poor argument as well. Anyone can do anything. Yet there are still rules in place to try to prevent people from doing many things. Why? Because otherwise society turns to chaos. The very fact that there are this many people saying "It's not ok" should be more than enough to answer that question.

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.

The way you wrote "engaged in" makes it seem as if you're referencing the "shuck and jive" aspect and that's not a part of blackface as much as it's a part of a Minstrel Show. A dictionary definition does not constitute a black and white rule of what qualifies and what doesn't. Especially as a dictionary defines language (not action) and even language changes and grows. Queer today doesn't mean what it originally meant when it entered the lexicon. And while Julianne's Blackface doesn't have the tale tell signs of traditional Blackface, it's still offensive and further than that isn't even remotely necessary for her intended purpose.

 

[Spinluck]

I'll read whatever you've got. If you have something that contradicts what I've said (other than opinion), I'll read it.

I don't pretend to be an expert on blackface. From what I know of it, blackface this was not.

I don't think this was Blackface either.

 

[Trey]

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?

It's tacky when white people pretend to be black characters. For all the reasons outlined before, alongside the fact that white folks have the lion's share of characters to identify with. So when they want to portray black people, it seems like they're trying to have their cake, and eat it too. Compounded with the fact that being black is usually a central component to these characters, one feels compelled to have dark skin in order to "be authentic". And the practice of white people painting themselves black has negative connotations, regardless of the intent of the person who is painting their skin.

 

[DY_nasty]

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

It never was.

Until we got into the stupid "What is blackface really?" shit.

 

[Maxim726X]

I don't think this was Blackface either.

Okay. Nice talking to you.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

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.

C'mon Dreams.. I know you own at least one blond wig.

 

[Shamrock7r]

I feel like this is a poor argument as well. Anyone can do anything. Yet there are still rules in place to try to prevent people from doing many things. Why? Because otherwise society turns to chaos. The very fact that there are this many people saying "It's not ok" should be more than enough to answer that question.
.

I think you are misinterpreting what I said because I agree with nearly everything you just wrote

 

[Jest Chillin]

I think you are misinterpreting what I said because I agree with nearly everything you just wrote

I interpreted your question as questioning the validity of being offended by what this actress did. What that not your intent?

 

[Shamrock7r]

I interpreted your question as questioning the validity of being offended by what this actress did. What that not your intent?

But you argued the same thing. You talk about rules/laws being put in place. How do you think those rules/laws are determined? Simply saying you are offended shouldn't constitute a rule or law or a avoidance of performing the alleged offensive action.

 

[Devolution]

Sucks you can't talk about why something is kind of ignorant and messed up without people getting outraged.

 

[Enzom21]

This b actress dressing up as a television character from a terrible Netflix show has no historical context with slavery. People trying to compare this to the blackface donned in minstrel shows are clueless.

There are plenty of people in here who don't think it is blackface.

They are saying that maybe it isn't a good idea to paint your skin for a costume due the historical context of its usage.

You post suggested that we should ignore historical context because they had no hand in the creation of it. So why shouldn't the same thing apply to the word nigger?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Just don't fucking do it. Don't over analyze it. Don't bother pondering the social implications.

Just. Don't. Fucking. Do. It.

 

[MIMIC]

She's just dumb, she can't help it. It's not like she was trying to be hateful.

Summed up the situation perfectly.

You don't paint your face to resemble a black person. Period. We go through this every single year.

 

[Jest Chillin]

But you argued the same thing. You talk about rules/laws being put in place. How do you think those rules/laws are determined? Simply saying you are offended shouldn't constitute a rule or law or a avoidance of performing the alleged offensive action.

Rules and laws are put into place based on the amount of disturbance caused by the act. The amount of people who complain determine the amount of disturbance. I'm arguing against your stance because there are more than enough people offended by this.

A good rule of thumb with regards to offensiveness is asking yourself, "If I did X action in front of the people most likely to be offended, would they be ok with it?" Clearly the people most likely to be offended are not ok with this. That's all that should matter.

 

[alexthekid]

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.

If something is offensive or not is subjective to me, and you seem to agree since you say that some people might not be offended but still find it offensive. Correct me if im wrong. But what do you then mean with offensive? That someone can be offended, might be offended or that someone probably Will be offended? To me It seems very cautious change ones behaviour after any of these options. So do you suggest that offensive is indeed subjective, just like if you are offended or not? How can someone then claim to not be offended but that it is offensive?

And for that second part. Yes it most certainly does if it doesnt really affect anyone directly, and if it does, even then freedoms have to be carefully weighted avsinat responsibilies. Fun to find totalitarian thoughts in a thread concerning minorities.

Sorry to pick your post out without adding really adding anything to the discussion. Just thought that there were a LOT of jumping to cobclusion in this thread that i didnt understand

 

[Ovid]

Just don't fucking do it. Don't over analyze it. Don't bother pondering the social implications.

Just. Don't. Fucking. Do. It.

Summed up the situation perfectly.

You don't paint your face to resemble a black person. Period. We go through this every single year.

Agreed, but people are stupid.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Halloween is too emotional these days.

 

[Bricky]

I just don't get it.

She's obviously cosplaying as a character from a TV-show. I mean, the make-up and costume could be better, but I can't see in any way how this is making 'fun' of people with a dark skin color. And if the latter isn't the case, which it isn't, then what is the damn problem? There is literally nothing offensive, stereotypical, 'blackface' (have you guys even seen what 'blackface' is?) or whatever could truly be considered racist about the way she dressed up (especially in the context of other people cosplaying other characters from the show around her). She just matched the skin-color of the character she's cosplaying, that's it. This isn't racist, this is someone paying homage to a character she likes, which if anything doesn't make her a racist if the word still means what I think it means.

Now I wouldn't call it smart to do something like this, especially since she's apparently famous, because some people are obviously going to have a strong reaction to stuff like this. Which is without good reason in my opinion (even if you consider 'historical context' as some people argument here) mind you, but anyone could've seen the outrage coming. I'm not saying people can't or won't be offended by stuff like this, which is why doing things like in the OP is a dumb thing to do, just that people shouldn't be offended by this.

I'm getting sick of this whole 'racism because of racism' thing. If you want true racism to go away, which there is enough of in this world, calling everything and everyone which and who obviously aren't racist 'racist' isn't going to help.

 

[alexthekid]

Rules and laws are put into place based on the amount of disturbance caused by the act. The amount of people who complain determine the amount of disturbance. I'm arguing against your stance because there are more than enough people offended by this.

A good rule of thumb with regards to offensiveness is asking yourself, "If I did X action in front of the people most likely to be offended, would they be ok with it?" Clearly the people most likely to be offended are not ok with this. That's all that should matter.

IF things are illegal or not thankfully isnt based simply on if most people like it or not.

With the second part of your post you would likely outlaw religion and natural science at the same time, bravo! Im sure that fotball would be illegal to, hell ask Ayn Rand what she was offended by and se could outlaw most of society. And somepeople are Upset by charity lets ask the people most likely to be upset by charity if they are upset by charity!

 

[Bladenic]

This b actress dressing up as a television character from a terrible Netflix show has no historical context with slavery. People trying to compare this to the blackface donned in minstrel shows are clueless.

Terrible show? Try again.

 

[Shamrock7r]

Rules and laws are put into place based on the amount of disturbance caused by the act. The amount of people who complain determine the amount of disturbance. I'm arguing against your stance because there are more than enough people offended by this.

A good rule of thumb with regards to offensiveness is asking yourself, "If I did X action in front of the people most likely to be offended, would they be ok with it?" Clearly the people most likely to be offended are not ok with this. That's all that should matter.

I'd argue that although the population size of the people offended should be taken into account, it is also not the only determining factor. You say enough people are offended. What constitutes enough? Is there a majority or is there just a loud, smaller percentage? Is the majority always right? What does being offended mean to these people? Is it a small annoyance or highly disrespectful and outrageous?

There are many factors to determining things like this. Saying, "If enough people are offended, you shouldn't do it" oversimplifies the issue.

 

[Jest Chillin]

If something is offensive or not is subjective to me, and you seem to agree since you say that some people might not be offended but still find it offensive. Correct me if im wrong. But what do you then mean with offensive? That someone can be offended, might be offended or that someone probably Will be offended? To me It seems very cautious change ones behaviour after any of these options. So do you suggest that offensive is indeed subjective, just like if you are offended or not? How can someone then claim to not be offended but that it is offensive?

And for that second part. Yes it most certainly does if it doesnt really affect anyone directly, and if it does, even then freedoms have to be carefully weighted avsinat responsibilies. Fun to find totalitarian thoughts in a thread concerning minorities.

Sorry to pick your post out without adding really adding anything to the discussion. Just thought that there were a LOT of jumping to cobclusion in this thread that i didnt understand

I think it's quite easy to not be offended by something but still find it offensive in general. An example would be a question that was posed earlier in this thread about whether or not people would have a problem with someone tanning their skin to portray a "Guido."

It doesn't offend me at all. I'm not in the demographic being targeted. But I can easily see that such a portrayal is an offensive one. Even with the specific case of the OP, I am in the demographic that's portrayed and while I'm not personally offended (as in, I'm not angered by it), I do find it offensive in it's ignorance and insensitivity. I'm not angry because I know the intent wasn't to mock or insult.

Like others though, what I find more offensive (and I am personally offended by) is the justification used by others in defense of her actions. The idea that being black is just another piece of a costume doesn't sit well with me. The idea that I'm not allowed/shouldn't be offended by this otherwise I'm being too sensitive (especially when being presented by those who don't know what it's like to be black in the US) is aggravating. Maybe that last one is unfair to an extent because those people didn't choose their race anymore than I did but there's still a very real difference in experience that informs my feelings on the issue and I feel that that needs to be respected. Telling me I don't have a right to feel certain things because they don't agree with it is quite plainly not respecting the difference in experiences.

IF things are illegal or not thankfully isnt based simply on if most people like it or not.

Of course it isn't. What I posted was a basic outline as it would be applied to this thread.

With the second part of your post you would likely outlaw religion and natural science at the same time, bravo! Im sure that fotball would be illegal to, hell ask Ayn Rand what she was offended by and se could outlaw most of society. And somepeople are Upset by charity lets ask the people most likely to be upset by charity if they are upset by charity!

This is quite a stretch actually and starts to dip into various interpretations of ones own belief/religion in relation to others. I think it's quite obvious that I am limiting my explanation in terms of how it applies to the issue at hand in this thread. Trying to take what is obviously a simplified statement and apply it wantonly to everything else in the world is a disingenuous attempt at a counter argument and I'm not going to play that game.

I'd argue that although the population size of the people offended should be taken into account, it is also not the only determining factor. You say enough people are offended. What constitutes enough? Is there a majority or is there just a loud, smaller percentage? Is the majority always right? What does being offended mean to these people? Is it a small annoyance or highly disrespectful and outrageous?

There are many factors to determining things like this. Saying, "If enough people are offended, you shouldn't do it" oversimplifies the issue.

Well what are we discussing here? I was under the impression that we're talking about this image as it has made people feel who are taking part in this thread at this moment. If we were to expand that to all people then how far does it need to go? Because you could easily expand such a thing to the entire world and just by the targeted demographic being outnumbered by those that aren't the targeted demographic, any complaints would be in minority right?

Why keep trying to take things to such lengths in hypothetical when we have people right here in this thread that are well enough of a sample size? I'll tell you why. Because it's the only way to try to counter. Keep things vague and large. The issue isn't a complicated one at all. This girl lives and entertains in the US. The US has a intensely negative issue with people painting their skin black in a portrayal of Black people. Within the NeoGaf microcosm there are enough people from the US to reasonably gauge a response. Within this thread, there are more than enough people, Black and otherwise who have stated that her actions are at the very least insensitive/ignorant. I'm not going to put a hard number on it because it can't be done. But just because you can't place a hard number or percentage of "how many need be offended?" doesn't mean you can't gauge the response and figure it out reasonably.

I don't believe it oversimplifies the issue at all because the issue isn't complicated. There is no nuance needed. She painted her skin to portray a character. Painting her skin is both not necessary and offensive. That means it was a bad choice. People should try not to make bad choices. It's really that simple.

 

[Maxim726X]

I just don't get it.

She's obviously cosplaying as a character from a TV-show. I mean, the make-up and costume could be better, but I can't see in any way how this is making 'fun' of people with a dark skin color. And if the latter isn't the case, which it isn't, then what is the damn problem? There is literally nothing offensive, stereotypical, 'blackface' (have you guys even seen what 'blackface' is?) or whatever could truly be considered racist about the way she dressed up (especially in the context of other people cosplaying other characters from the show around her). She just matched the skin-color of the character she's cosplaying, that's it. This isn't racist, this is someone paying homage to a character she likes, which if anything doesn't make her a racist if the word still means what I think it means.

Now I wouldn't call it smart to do something like this, especially since she's apparently famous, because some people are obviously going to have a strong reaction to stuff like this. Which is without good reason in my opinion (even if you consider 'historical context' as some people argument here) mind you, but anyone could've seen the outrage coming. I'm not saying people can't or won't be offended by stuff like this, which is why doing things like in the OP is a dumb thing to do, just that people shouldn't be offended by this.

I'm getting sick of this whole 'racism because of racism' thing. If you want true racism to go away, which there is enough of in this world, calling everything and everyone which and who obviously aren't racist 'racist' isn't going to help.

I echoed similar sentiments earlier, but was told that I do not 'get it', that this was indeed blackface, and that I was insensitive for not understanding how.

Whether or not people wish to be offended by this is their business, but labeling this blackface is disingenuous, in my opinion.

Clearly, racism still exists in this country and it's something that needs to be dealt with, but blindly applying the 'racist' tag to everything puts an end to any conversation before it can even begin.

 

[MWS Natural]

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

End of thread. Why is there pages of this shit? I've dressed up as white characters for Halloween and never felt the need to paint my face white. The fact that white people always bring the out same 2-3 (White Girls movie, Dwyane Wade) examples over and over while I can give countless of example of white people painting their faces black speaks volumes.

 

[Bricky]

I echoed similar sentiments earlier, but was told that I do not 'get it', that this was indeed blackface, and that I was insensitive for not understanding how.

Whether or not people wish to be offended by this is their business, but labeling this blackface is disingenuous, in my opinion.

Clearly, racism still exists in this country and it's something that needs to be dealt with, but blindly applying the 'racist' tag to everything puts an end to any conversation before it can even begin.

I completely agree.

I'm not even American, which might be part of the reason I apparently don't 'get it' (even though I'd consider myself pretty aware of America's history and culture), and I've not read the entire thread, but from my perspective the whole thing just seems like people making a big fuss over nothing (in this specific case of course, I'm not saying racism is a non-issue. Just repeating that to be sure people don't understand me the wrong way).

If you are truly offended by this, I'd love to hear a reason why other than " 'cause racism" or "because of [insert explanation of historical context which has nothing to do with this here]". I'm just wondering how someone cosplaying someone else with a different skin-color clearly without racist intentions is something that offends you in a significant way and not just because society implies you should be offended. I'm not trying to be insensitive, just curious because it seems really weird to me.

End of thread. Why is there pages of this shit? I've dressed up as white characters for Halloween and never felt the need to paint my face white. The fact that white people always bring the out same 2-3 (White Girls movie, Dwyane Wade) examples over and over while I can give countless of example of white people painting their faces black speaks volumes.

I'm sorry, but this argument is bullshit. You're saying that because you don't feel the need to do it, it is wrong for others to do it? I'm not implying it is necessary to paint your face another skin-tone if you want to dress up as a certain character, but really, why should it be such a problem if someone wants to do so? It is, after all, more accurate. If you for example want to be Billy Mays for Halloween, I wouldn't have a problem with you putting on some white facepaint to potray him better nor would most of the 'white' population. Situations like in the OP being called racist is all because of the 'historical context' which has nothing to do with it at all (when we're talking about costumes that aren't racist on purpose, like 99% of cosplay isn't (including the one in the OP)).

Your argument at its core depends on the assumption 'white' people would be offended if 'black' people did the same, which I can almost 100% sure say isn't true (if so, where are the outrages about those situations? ).

EDIT: Allright, just to make that clear, THIS thread below gives an example of something that IS racist and disgusting:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=705088

 

[alexthekid]

I think it's quite easy to not be offended by something but still find it offensive in general. An example would be a question that was posed earlier in this thread about whether or not people would have a problem with someone tanning their skin to portray a "Guido."

It doesn't offend me at all. I'm not in the demographic being targeted. But I can easily see that such a portrayal is an offensive one. Even with the specific case of the OP, I am in the demographic that's portrayed and while I'm not personally offended (as in, I'm not angered by it), I do find it offensive in it's ignorance and insensitivity. I'm not angry because I know the intent wasn't to mock or insult.

Like others though, what I find more offensive (and I am personally offended by) is the justification used by others in defense of her actions. The idea that being black is just another piece of a costume doesn't sit well with me. The idea that I'm not allowed/shouldn't be offended by this otherwise I'm being too sensitive (especially when being presented by those who don't know what it's like to be black in the US) is aggravating. Maybe that last one is unfair to an extent because those people didn't choose their race anymore than I did but there's still a very real difference in experience that informs my feelings on the issue and I feel that that needs to be respected. Telling me I don't have a right to feel certain things because they don't agree with it is quite plainly not respecting the difference in experiences.

I still feel that my lack of understanding of what you mean with offensive, makes me unable to follow the logic in your arguing. And another example that you find offensive even though you arent offended by it doesnt help me

When you say that people are telling you that you dont have a right to feel one way, do you then mean that people said that they dont find it offensive? If so you are being offended by the fact that someone find something you(also) arent offended by, nonoffensive?

The bolded parts I have sympathy for and I would suggest that you would try to highlight that in your post from the beginning. Your feelings about the subject at hand, because that is much more likely to make us(atleast me lol) ignorant(not having walked your in your shoes) understand.

Of course it isn't. What I posted was a basic outline as it would be applied to this thread.

Ok understandable but it didnt read as if it where.

This is quite a stretch actually and starts to dip into various interpretations of ones own belief/religion in relation to others. I think it's quite obvious that I am limiting my explanation in terms of how it applies to the issue at hand in this thread. Trying to take what is obviously a simplified statement and apply it wantonly to everything else in the world is a disingenuous attempt at a counter argument and I'm not going to play that game.

"rule of thumb"?

 

[Big Baybee]

I completely agree.

I'm not even American, which might be part of the reason I apparently don't 'get it' (even though I'd consider myself pretty aware of America's history and culture), and I've not read the entire thread, but from my perspective the whole thing just seems like people making a big fuss over nothing (in this specific case of course, I'm not saying racism is a non-issue. Just repeating that to be sure people don't understand me the wrong way).

If you are truly offended by this, I'd love to hear a reason why other than " 'cause racism" or "because of [insert explanation of historical context which has nothing to do with this here]". I'm just wondering how someone cosplaying someone else with a different skin-color clearly without racist intentions is something that offends you in a significant way and not just because society implies you should be offended. I'm not trying to be insensitive, just curious because it seems really weird to me.


I'm sorry, but this argument is bullshit. You're saying that because you don't feel the need to do it, it is wrong for others to do it? I'm not implying it is necessary to paint your face another skin-tone if you want to dress up as a certain character, but really, why should it be such a problem if someone wants to do so? It is, after all, more accurate. If you for example want to be Billy Mays for Halloween, I wouldn't have a problem with you putting on some white facepaint to potray him better nor would most of the 'white' population. Situations like in the OP being called racist is all because of the 'historical context' which has nothing to do with it at all (when we're talking about costumes that aren't racist on purpose, like 99% of cosplay isn't (including the one in the OP)).

Your argument at its core depends on the assumption 'white' people would be offended if 'black' people did the same, which I can almost 100% sure say isn't true (if so, where are the outrages about those situations? ).

I'm sure that you would dismiss any opinion by anyone that is genuinely offended by this, so what's the point exactly?

 

[Trey]

If you are truly offended by this, I'd love to hear a reason why other than " 'cause racism" or "because of [insert explanation of historical context which has nothing to do with this here]". I'm just wondering how someone cosplaying someone else with a different skin-color clearly without racist intentions is something that offends you in a significant way and not just because society implies you should be offended. I'm not trying to be insensitive, just curious because it seems really weird to me.

Okay:

When people think of characters like Ned Stark, Kevin Spacey in House of Cards, Jack Bauer, Walter White, Jesse Pinkman, Agent Coulson, etc -- they're not thought of as "white characters" because in our society being white is a default and so we just think of them as "characters".

On the other hand, characters who happen to be black are considered "black characters" with them being black a defining characteristic of that character for some reason.

Instead of being instantly reverse-outraged (or whatever), pause and consider that for a moment why that is.

White people are privileged enough to inhabit a space where it's a lot more difficult to do things that are racially offensive because they've been and continue to be the dominant culture. It doesn't matter if YOU don't think it's offensive or racist for a white person to paint their face black, it is insensitive at the least considering the history of race relations in this country and even worldwide. Did she mean to be racist? I'm sure she didn't. But that's how it comes across. A lack of ill-will doesn't excuse it. The best way you could spin it is that it's displaying extreme ignorance and insensitivity.

Race isn't part of a costume. You know why you recognize a black guy cosplaying as superman? Because he's wearing the outfit. If you truly can't separate the race of the character from the costume, then maybe you should consider only dressing up as someone that wouldn't force you to do something like blackface.

For the record, I think it would look similarly idiotic for a non-white person to cover themselves in light foundation to look like a character.

It's tacky when white people pretend to be black characters. For all the reasons outlined before, alongside the fact that white folks have the lion's share of characters to identify with. So when they want to portray black people, it seems like they're trying to have their cake, and eat it too. Compounded with the fact that being black is usually a central component to these characters, one feels compelled to have dark skin in order to "be authentic". And the practice of white people painting themselves black has negative connotations, regardless of the intent of the person who is painting their skin.

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.

White folks, if you want to start dressing up as black people, get on Hollywood to start churning out magnificent minority characters that are identifiable, respectful to whichever culture they represent, yet also stand apart as their own character. We only have black characters right now, not great roles that happen to be black.

 

[Coreda]

Okay:

[quotes]

White folks, if you want to start dressing up as black people, get on Hollywood to start churning out magnificent minority characters that are identifiable, respectful to whichever culture they represent, yet also stand apart as their own character. We only have black characters right now, not great roles that happen to be black.

Best summary so far.

 

[Bricky]

I'm sure that you would dismiss any opinion by anyone is genuinely offended by this, so what's the point exactly?

I would ironically call your comment dismissive of my opinion/comment/request. Like I said, I haven't read the entire thread, but if someone can tell me he or she is offended for another reason than a) no reason (its racist because its racist) or b) historical context (which, in my humble opinion, hasn't anything to do with this specific case nor should it have with other cosplay) then I'm truly interested because I can't think of any actual reason why people could be legitematly offended by this. The point is for me to understand other people involved in this discussion, because it may suprise you but I'm not automatically going to say 'lol you're wrong' to anyone with the opinion this is racist.

EDIT: Thanks Trey, that's what I'm looking for. I don't have the time to write a big reply anymore at the moment, but here's a tl;dr version:

Your summary mostly comes down to the fact it is insensitive more than the fact that it is racist. I somewhat agree with the former which I already partially outlined in my original post, even if not all of your reasons are very good, but I think whether you see this as racist or not depends on whether you also see being insensitive as 'racism' or not. I'm still of opinion this isn't racist, but at least I kinda see why you could consider it as such, so that's something.

EE: Now that I read this back it sounds weird. Really wish I had time for a more in-depth response, but to clarify: I understand how people can feel offended because of this specific reason(s) (which was what I asked for) even though I don't agree with all of it.

 

[DragonSworne]

Okay:









White folks, if you want to start dressing up as black people, get on Hollywood to start churning out magnificent minority characters that are identifiable, respectful to whichever culture they represent, yet also stand apart as their own character. We only have black characters right now, not great roles that happen to be black.

Morgan Freeman played God.

 

[Big Baybee]

I would ironically call your comment dismissive of my opinion/comment/request. Like I said, I haven't read the entire thread, but if someone can tell me he or she is offended for another reason than a) no reason (its racist because its racist) or b) historical context (which, in my humble opinion, hasn't anything to do with this specific case nor should it have with other cosplay) then I'm truly interested because I can't think of any actual reason why people could be legitematly offended by this. The point is for me to understand other people involved in this discussion, because it may suprise you but I'm not automatically going to say 'lol you're wrong' to anyone with the opinion this is racist.

You have a wall of posts to respond to from Trey.

 

[f0lken]

It shouldn't be.

Epically in supes case, since he is an alien.

The bolded is pretty bad actually.

Yes, is pretty bad also, but my point in that post was that myself being from another culture I can testify that yes, we see a lot of characters as "white characters" as opposed to just "characters" as Korey said, which BTW I got his point and I get why in US they see them that way.

 

[Bricky]

You have a wall of posts to respond to from Trey.

I did, see edited post. Was still writing quoted post when that appeared though.

 

[Winterfang]

I find it hard to be offended but I get the side of the people offended by.

 

[Amentallica]

I don't take offense to this. Yes, you can tell just by a person's costume who they are trying to be without using skin paint, but why not? I wouldn't be the hulk without green skin, I'd just be some dumbass without a shirt.

 

[Stet]

I don't take offense to this. Yes, you can tell just by a person's costume who they are trying to be without using skin paint, but why not? I wouldn't be the hulk without green skin, I'd just be some dumbass without a shirt.

Did the girl in Orange is the New Black get her dark skin from a scientific accident?

 

[Onemic]

I don't take offense to this. Yes, you can tell just by a person's costume who they are trying to be without using skin paint, but why not? I wouldn't be the hulk without green skin, I'd just be some dumbass without a shirt.

his-tor-ical context.

damn it people, use your heads.

And besides that, the amount of people that would be able to tell that she was cosplaying as a character from a TV show would be pretty low. I think it's pretty safe to assume that most people that would look at her costume, without reading this article would think that's shes caricaturing a black prison inmate. Do you not see the problem with this?

 

[Htown]

I'm getting sick of this whole 'racism because of racism' thing. If you want true racism to go away, which there is enough of in this world, calling everything and everyone which and who obviously aren't racist 'racist' isn't going to help.

Well why don't you tell me what the actual fuck really counts as racism, because despite the fact that everyone seems to agree that racism actually exists, there is not a single racism-related thread on GAF that doesn't have a crew of people rolling up to say "how do you know it was really racism?"

It can be a blackface thread, a racial profiling thread, a thread about a slur someone said, a thread about a hate crime, a thread about a government literally discriminating against a group of people because of their ethnicity or the color of their skin, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

So you fucking tell me. What is this nebulous "racism" that apparently exists and is totally bad, but magically has no real-world examples in any specific case?

 

[Onemic]

Well why don't you tell me what the actual fuck really counts as racism, because despite the fact that everyone seems to agree that racism actually exists, there is not a single racism-related thread on GAF that doesn't have a crew of people rolling up to say "how do you know it was really racism?"

It can be a blackface thread, a racial profiling thread, a thread about a slur someone said, a thread about a hate crime, a thread about a government literally discriminating against a group of people because of their ethnicity or the color of their skin, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

So you fucking tell me. What is this nebulous "racism" that apparently exists and is totally bad, but magically has no real-world examples in any specific case?

It's quite simple. Racism doesn't exist. Quit playing the race card.

 

[Enzom21]

I don't take offense to this. Yes, you can tell just by a person's costume who they are trying to be without using skin paint, but why not? I wouldn't be the hulk without green skin, I'd just be some dumbass without a shirt.

If you were dressed as the black panther, would you paint your skin underneath the mask as well?

 

[Maxim726X]

Well why don't you tell me what the actual fuck really counts as racism, because despite the fact that everyone seems to agree that racism actually exists, there is not a single racism-related thread on GAF that doesn't have a crew of people rolling up to say "how do you know it was really racism?"

It can be a blackface thread, a racial profiling thread, a thread about a slur someone said, a thread about a hate crime, a thread about a government literally discriminating against a group of people because of their ethnicity or the color of their skin, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

So you fucking tell me. What is this nebulous "racism" that apparently exists and is totally bad, but magically has no real-world examples in any specific case?

All of the things you just mentioned? Blatant racism. The outrage over the Martin case? Racism. Voter registration laws in certain states? Racism. The story recently about the kid who was accused of stealing a belt after providing a receipt? Ridiculously racist.

This? No, I don't see it. Maybe that makes me a racist too.

It's quite simple. Racism doesn't exist. Quit playing the race card.

Because that's what everyone is saying. Or how about this for a novel concept- racism isn't inherent to every decision ever made... Since apparently we're dealing in ridiculous blanket statements now.

 

[Big Baybee]

All of the things you just mentioned? Blatant racism. The outrage over the Martin case? Racism. Voter registration laws in certain states? Racism. The story recently about the kid who was accused of stealing a belt after providing a receipt? Ridiculously racist.

This? No, I don't see it. Maybe that makes me a racist too.

If you can't see why it is offensive to some people, then it makes you ignorant. Willfully ignorant at that since there are plenty of posts detailing why this is a problem and why it should never happen.

 

[Maxim726X]

If you can't see why it is offensive to some people, then it makes you ignorant. Willfully ignorant at that since there are plenty of posts detailing why this is a problem and why it should never happen.

I can see why it could be construed as offensive, but when people label this as 'blackface' I disagree, because it really isn't.

 

[Supermanisdead]

I don't take offense to this. Yes, you can tell just by a person's costume who they are trying to be without using skin paint, but why not? I wouldn't be the hulk without green skin, I'd just be some dumbass without a shirt.

the hulk? omg

 

[tuna on toast]

If you can't see why it is offensive to some people, then it makes you ignorant. Willfully ignorant at that since there are plenty of posts detailing why this is a problem and why it should never happen.

If you can't see why people shouldn't be offended by this, then it makes you ignorant.

It isn't blackface.

It isn't racist.

 

[Big Baybee]

If you can't see why people shouldn't be offended by this, then it makes you ignorant.

It isn't blackface.

It isn't racist.

I've never called it blackface. But it is highly inappropriate. I'm not backing down from that. You may choose to ignore the many legitimate reasons that people list for why they have a problem with it. All I can do is just shrug, I guess.