Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Leafs Bozak Takes Heat for "Blackface" Halloween Costume


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

Poll: Leafs Bozak Takes Heat for "Blackface" Halloween Costume (71 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you believe Bozaks costume is offensive?

  1. Yes (3 votes [4.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.23%

  2. No (49 votes [69.01%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.01%

  3. No, but he should have known it would offend people (19 votes [26.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.76%

Do you believe blackface is offensive?

  1. Yes (15 votes [21.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.13%

  2. No (56 votes [78.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 78.87%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 Kran

Kran

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,434 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:21 AM

God ???? damn it. If you're earning a hockey player's salary, and doing a tribute to Michael Jackson's Thriller, at least fork out the money to get a jacket that looks like the original. Don't just throw on a red jacket and pass it off.

You suck, Bozak (you're probably a fine hockey player though)

Edited by Kran, 31 October 2012 - 10:21 AM.

  • 1

#32 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,786 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:24 AM

If we're talking Al Jolson Blackface yeah, that's not right. But isn't dressing up as someone else kind of the whole point of Hallowe'en? So are we saying that a black person can't wear a cowboy outfit?

But then you wouldn't have had an epic movie like Blazing Saddles!


  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#33 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,990 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:29 AM

God ???? damn it. If you're earning a hockey player's salary, and doing a tribute to Michael Jackson's Thriller, at least fork out the money to get a jacket that looks like the original. Don't just throw on a red jacket and pass it off.

You suck, Bozak (you're probably a fine hockey player though)

seriously...
5 second search on google shopping for Thriller Jacket:

https://www.google.c...iw=1366&bih=681
Posted Image
Posted Image

how a white guy SHOULD do that costume.
  • 0

#34 Bite me Burr

Bite me Burr

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 08

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:49 AM

Double standard.
The comedy out there on tv and radio is mainly taking shots at the white male. This is perfectly ok, but this, this atrocity, is shamefull...?!

Happy f-ing Halloween.
  • 0
CHARACTER AND TOUGHNESS

#35 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:53 AM

If we're talking Al Jolson Blackface yeah, that's not right. But isn't dressing up as someone else kind of the whole point of Hallowe'en? So are we saying that a black person can't wear a cowboy outfit?

But then you wouldn't have had an epic movie like Blazing Saddles!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=493pL_Vbtnc&feature=related


But...there are/were black cowboys.

You should look up men like Nat Love.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 31 October 2012 - 10:59 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#36 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:01 AM

Double standard.
The comedy out there on tv and radio is mainly taking shots at the white male. This is perfectly ok, but this, this atrocity, is shamefull...?!

Happy f-ing Halloween.


I know the white man has had a troubled history of being denigrated simply because of the color of their skin...wait?!?

I don't think this is a big deal really but it is tasteless.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#37 Bite me Burr

Bite me Burr

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 08

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:02 AM

seriously...

how a white guy SHOULD do that costume.

you have contempt for thought if you think that
  • 0
CHARACTER AND TOUGHNESS

#38 Bite me Burr

Bite me Burr

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 08

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:04 AM

I know the white man has had a troubled history of being denigrated simply because of the color of their skin...wait?!?


in context please.
  • 0
CHARACTER AND TOUGHNESS

#39 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,990 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:07 AM

you have contempt for thought if you think that

dress up in the costume but don't put on skin paint? yeah, I feel so ashamed for thinking the body paint shouldn't be part of the costume. hell's that's how any race should do that costume, but we were talking about a white guy doing blackface, hence the white guy specification in my statement.
  • 0

#40 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:10 AM

in context please.


Seriously?
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#41 PlayStation

PlayStation

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,243 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:10 AM

Why doesn't anyone call Snooki a racist then? Her tan is darker than that!

So would a black person not be allowed to paint their face white and be a ghost, vampire or such? Clown?

Edited by PlayStation, 31 October 2012 - 11:15 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image


"Real Men" :bigblush:

#42 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,400 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:12 AM

Why doesn't anyone call Snooki a racist then? Her tan is darker than that!

So would a black person not be allowed to paint their face white and be a ghost, vampire or such?


Isn't it enough that people just call her an idiot? :D
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#43 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,459 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:19 AM

this is why blackface is considered racist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface

whether or not the person doing it is trying to be racist (usually not) it will always be associated with racism. Just like the swastika will always be associated with Natzi's, even though it, technically, has nothing to do with Natzi's, ethnic cleansing, racism, etc; they merely used it.


guilty by association. lol. obviously we don't live in an objectified vacuum, do we?
  • 0

#44 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,579 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:30 AM

Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image


I'm going to illistrate the difference between what Kane and Burish, Bozak, and Torres did compared to the girl in the 3rd photo so you can see why I do not see what the players did is racists. You may see differently, but this is how I see it:

Kane and Burish, Bozak, and Torres darkened their skin in order to look like people they idolized. These guys only darkened their skin in order to complete their costumes of people they would never mean to disrespect. Pippen, Jordan, Jay-Z, and Jackson all have (or in one case had) dark skin, so while it may not be a necessary addition to the costume, it does make it more "true to life".
This is not disrespecftul.

The girl in the 3rd photo is not idolizing anybody. She darkened her skin so she could dress up as a "gangsta" and likely fulfill all the stereotypes affiliated with it (note the tear drop tat and "bling"). There is absolutely no other reason for her to darken her skin except for the shock value of it.
This is disrespectful.

Edited by Jägermeister, 31 October 2012 - 11:33 AM.

  • 4
Posted Image

#45 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,189 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:32 AM

So Rules for Halloween are:

1. white people can't paint their face black if they want to go as a black character like MJ, Jay Z or buckwheat for example or a gangsta because that is totally racist

2. No one (especially white people) can dress as an Arab or persian or muslim because that insults their "culture" and we know when they get offended someone usually ends up dead or they burn something to the ground or both so lets be tolerant about that.

Edited by Dittohead, 31 October 2012 - 11:33 AM.

  • 0

#46 nowhereman

nowhereman

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,032 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 06

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:35 AM

IMO, intent should be the determining factor here. But it isn't and it won't be.

I highly doubt Bozak, Burish, Kane, or Torres are racist. Hell, Torres is a huge Jay-Z fan. If there's no racist intent, is it really that bad?

No, it's not. But that doesn't change the fact that "blackface" has some pretty unsavoury history. It's probably smarter to just pick a different costume and avoid any backlash from the bleeding heart, reverse-racists of the world.
  • 0
Posted Image

#47 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,990 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:40 AM

I'm going to illistrate the difference between what Kane and Burish, Bozak, and Torres did compared to the girl in the 3rd photo so you can see why I do not see what the players did is racists. You may see differently, but this is how I see it:

Kane and Burish, Bozak, and Torres darkened their skin in order to look like people they idolized. These guys only darkened their skin in order to complete their costumes of people they would never mean to disrespect. Pippen, Jordan, Jay-Z, and Jackson all have (or in one case had) dark skin, so while it may not be a necessary addition to the costume, it does make it more "true to life".
This is not disrespecftul.

The girl in the 3rd photo is not idolizing anybody. She darkened her skin so she could dress up as a "gangsta" and likely fulfill all the stereotypes affiliated with it (note the tear drop tat and "bling"). There is absolutely no other reason for her to darken her skin except for the shock value of it.
This is disrespectful.

i couldn't care less about the player's costumes as I too don't believe they were trying to be racist in the slightest. but for people to come in here and state unequivocally that no one would consider it as such is just stupid. If the players themselves didn't think there would be a backlash then they are just as stupid as the people calling them racist.
Disrespectful or not, someone is ALWAYS going to take an issue with someone going blackface, why even bother doing it, especially when you are in the public sphere.

guilty by association. lol. obviously we don't live in an objectified vacuum, do we?

that's usually how society works, yes. Try going out dressed as a giant swastica, it should be ok right?
  • 0

#48 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,990 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:42 AM

IMO, intent should be the determining factor here. But it isn't and it won't be.

I highly doubt Bozak, Burish, Kane, or Torres are racist. Hell, Torres is a huge Jay-Z fan. If there's no racist intent, is it really that bad?

No, it's not. But that doesn't change the fact that "blackface" has some pretty unsavoury history. It's probably smarter to just pick a different costume and avoid any backlash from the bleeding heart, reverse-racists of the world.

that's not reverse racism, reverse racism is when people discriminate against their own race (like a manager not hiring a person of their own race because (s)he believe people of their own race are lazy, slackers, idiots, or what have you). racism against a white person is just racism.

Edited by avelanch, 31 October 2012 - 11:43 AM.

  • 0

#49 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,936 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:46 AM

I don't recall any hoopla over this.....



  • 2
Posted Image

#50 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,189 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:48 AM

^ Just don't go full retard
  • 0

#51 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,936 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:00 PM

Try going out dressed as a giant swastica, it should be ok right?


It should be. It appeared on many Canadian stamps in the early 1900's....


For many of us the swastika is associated with some of the most tragic events that have ever occured. There was a time, however, when most people thought of that symbol in a much different light. Derived from Sanskrit, the ancient and sacred language of Hindus in India, svastika means "conducive to well-being" and for thousands of years has been used as a good luck symbol in many cultures all over the world. Many Indian nations in South, Central, and North America favoured this symbol, and several early 20th century companies featured it on their products. In Canada, some hockey teams, the symbol emblazoned on their jerseys, were called "The Swastikas." In northern Ontario, the residents of the small community of Swastika resisted pressure to change the name of their town during the Second World War, contrary to what took place in 1916 when the residents of Berlin, Ontario voted to change the name of their city to Kitchener.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that this symbol has appeared on a few Canadian postage stamps. The stamps in question are known as Air Post Semi-official issues. In the period 1924 - 1932 several private commercial airlines produced stamps to prepay the mail that they carried to areas that were inaccessible by other means. These companies operated under the strict regulations of the Post Office, and their stamps had to be affixed to the back of covers.



http://www.rpsc.org/...ka/Swastika.htm
  • 0
Posted Image

#52 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,975 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:03 PM

Anyone getting upset over this is ridiculous.

Oh! You're gonna whine about it on a forum! Good for you, you're doing so much to prevent this.

Edited by Armada, 31 October 2012 - 12:09 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
______________Eat, Sleep,Posted ImageRave, Repeat

#53 Bob.Loblaw

Bob.Loblaw

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,237 posts
  • Joined: 24-November 09

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:06 PM

It should be. It appeared on many Canadian stamps in the early 1900's....


For many of us the swastika is associated with some of the most tragic events that have ever occured. There was a time, however, when most people thought of that symbol in a much different light. Derived from Sanskrit, the ancient and sacred language of Hindus in India, svastika means "conducive to well-being" and for thousands of years has been used as a good luck symbol in many cultures all over the world. Many Indian nations in South, Central, and North America favoured this symbol, and several early 20th century companies featured it on their products. In Canada, some hockey teams, the symbol emblazoned on their jerseys, were called "The Swastikas." In northern Ontario, the residents of the small community of Swastika resisted pressure to change the name of their town during the Second World War, contrary to what took place in 1916 when the residents of Berlin, Ontario voted to change the name of their city to Kitchener.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that this symbol has appeared on a few Canadian postage stamps. The stamps in question are known as Air Post Semi-official issues. In the period 1924 - 1932 several private commercial airlines produced stamps to prepay the mail that they carried to areas that were inaccessible by other means. These companies operated under the strict regulations of the Post Office, and their stamps had to be affixed to the back of covers.



http://www.rpsc.org/...ka/Swastika.htm



The same ignorant folks here would beat that swastika guy up while having no problem with blackface.

That's human history. People would be suicidal to wear a swastika straight up in western society because of its connections to Nazi Germany. It's not irrational because of what happened. The same should apply to blackface, but there's a lack of education on that. We're taught that Nazism and Hitler are evil, and anything connected to it. Racism? People don't know anything about racial history.
  • 0
Posted Image

Hockey_Crazy is a god. But I still got dibs on Yuna.

#54 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,990 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:09 PM

It should be. It appeared on many Canadian stamps in the early 1900's....


For many of us the swastika is associated with some of the most tragic events that have ever occured. There was a time, however, when most people thought of that symbol in a much different light. Derived from Sanskrit, the ancient and sacred language of Hindus in India, svastika means "conducive to well-being" and for thousands of years has been used as a good luck symbol in many cultures all over the world. Many Indian nations in South, Central, and North America favoured this symbol, and several early 20th century companies featured it on their products. In Canada, some hockey teams, the symbol emblazoned on their jerseys, were called "The Swastikas." In northern Ontario, the residents of the small community of Swastika resisted pressure to change the name of their town during the Second World War, contrary to what took place in 1916 when the residents of Berlin, Ontario voted to change the name of their city to Kitchener.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that this symbol has appeared on a few Canadian postage stamps. The stamps in question are known as Air Post Semi-official issues. In the period 1924 - 1932 several private commercial airlines produced stamps to prepay the mail that they carried to areas that were inaccessible by other means. These companies operated under the strict regulations of the Post Office, and their stamps had to be affixed to the back of covers.


http://www.rpsc.org/...ka/Swastika.htm


yeah, i know, that's why i used it as an example. it should be fine, hell it's all over buddhist temples all over asia, but if you dare use it today, it's going to be associated with Natzi's, dispite it's innocent origins.

As for blackface, the origins were not innocent, it was wrong to start with, so it's not like it's just going to "get better" with time.
  • 0

#55 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,936 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:13 PM

^ Just don't go full retard


Where's the difference? Where's this mystical line where it suddenly become racist?
  • 0
Posted Image

#56 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,936 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:18 PM

The same ignorant folks here would beat that swastika guy up while having no problem with blackface.

That's human history. People would be suicidal to wear a swastika straight up in western society because of its connections to Nazi Germany. It's not irrational because of what happened. The same should apply to blackface, but there's a lack of education on that. We're taught that Nazism and Hitler are evil, and anything connected to it. Racism? People don't know anything about racial history.


Check this guy out.

http://www.manwoman.net/


I've known him since the mid '70s. He has over 100 swaztika tatoos on him. I met him when I lived in Cranbrook. One of the nicest guys you could ever meet. I had a few of his t-shirts back in the day. Even Dan Akroyd has bought some of his art.
  • 0
Posted Image

#57 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,990 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:21 PM

Where's the difference? Where's this mystical line where it suddenly become racist?

there was some backlash, but because he's making fun of people who would do blackface it was deemed ok, as it was satire. still, when it first came out he was going blackface for the movie it was a HUGE crapstorm until they came out and explained it.

Edited by avelanch, 31 October 2012 - 12:23 PM.

  • 0

#58 pibroch

pibroch

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:25 PM

Racism will only go away when things like this STOP being racist. Hopefully one day blackface or a giant swastika will be OK. People should and hopefully will still know the history but they will be able to say "That's ok, these things happened let's just make sure they don't happen again."

The truth is that these things should be remembered as being racist for as long as possible, but should only be considered racist by the current society for a limited amount of time. For in sense holding to these things as racist only keeps racism alive, when they are no longer racist racism becomes more difficult. I long for the day when a thrown banana will simply be a thrown banana even if it hits or lands near Wayne Simmonds.

Also, I am a white male so my opinion is what it is based on that.
  • 0

#59 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,936 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:43 PM

there was some backlash, but because he's making fun of people who would do blackface it was deemed ok, as it was satire. still, when it first came out he was going blackface for the movie it was a HUGE crapstorm until they came out and explained it.


It must have been one quiet crapstorm. I never heard a peep about it. The movie got poor reviews for the most part while Downey actually got good reviews. One critic even saying Downeys character was the only good thing about the movie. Needless to say, I didn't pay to see it.

I'd love to see a link to your claim. And were the Wayan brothers making fun of whiteface in White Chicks? Was Eddie Murphy making fun of Jewface in Coming To America? You see, I'm still wondering where this mystical racist line is.
  • 0
Posted Image

#60 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:47 PM

Twitter is the problem here. No tweet? No unwarranted backlash.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.