PlayStation Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnihilist Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowhereman Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I don't recall any hoopla over this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 ^ Just don't go full retard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Try going out dressed as a giant swastica, it should be ok right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armada Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 ^ Just don't go full retard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Where's the difference? Where's this mystical line where it suddenly become racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pibroch Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Twitter is the problem here. No tweet? No unwarranted backlash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.