Support NeoGAF

Darth Ghandi · Feb 8, 2016

The length that some people will go to defend some outdated traditions is insane.

We had the same song and dance from majority Swedes about how it wasn't racist that we hade a pastry called a "n-word ball".

People called them out but they doubled down and claimed they weren't racist cause they don't have racist intentions.

Not cool EUgaf.

segasonic · Feb 8, 2016

Nivash said:
I was actually impressed by that. As a bonus, the 142 is even a historic Tiger that served in Tunisia, which means that the desert drab is probably a fairly authentic paint choice.

http://tiger1.info/event-page/142-Tunis-arrival

I mean they're still racist as fuck, but you have to admire that attention to detail.

They are neonazis, of course they know their shit when it comes to Nazi war machinery. They probably have wet dreams about living in that era.

1.21Gigawatts · Feb 8, 2016

Also, just to remind people.
This didn't make headlines because of blackfacing/redfacing, thats happening every year.
This made headlines because of clear rassist messages against refugees.

Doesn't matter if you think black facing is racist by default or not, it was in any case without malicious intent.
The racist anti refugee messages however where with malicious intent, so in my opinion this should be talked about.

PdotMichael · Feb 8, 2016

You need to see things in context and cultural history.

Caspar who represents Africa is on par with Bathasar and Melchior who represent Europe and Asia.
It's like the least offensive story you can teach children.

Oversoul · Feb 8, 2016

1.21Gigawatts said:
Even if there is a black kid available, its still up to the kids, who gets play who.

Over the last two years I had a group of kids at my door where a black kid played one of the white kings and a white kid played the black king. (so effectively two black kings because the black kid didn't paint its face white).
When I asked why they did it that way he told me something about only one king having a sword and he wanted to be the one with the sword.

This is adorable

Sometimes, we truly can learn a lot from children.

Principate · Feb 8, 2016

1.21Gigawatts said:
You're moving goalposts.
People are using whatever facepaint they have at hand. Sometimes they have brown faces, sometimes pitch black faces.
Its symbolical. It doesn't imply that every black person looks like that, just like the crown doesn't imply that every ancient king had a crown and coat like that.

I'm not moving any goal posts, your the one who brought a definition of racism to defend your view point. I just pointed out that specific defense is very weak.

Zaru said:
Painting someone's skin with a dark color to "represent" the non-Arabic parts of Africa is not the same as believing all people from there have that exact same skin color.
In this context, it's just an easy visual reference. We're talking about kids here.

It seems you can't understand this due to cultural differences, but if you've got a better idea on how to make one kid represent black people in a positive, kind-of-inclusive context, go ahead. Because the alternative is omitting their existence altogether.

Cultural difference. There is no cultural difference. I'm from the UK, and only even came into contact with blackface in my late teens (as in hear about it, positive or negative). Even then I could see why some people would have issue with it.

The whole concept is asinine in the first place, whole many times do you see black people or any race paint themselves white, to represent a famous figure, celebrity or what have? Have you ever thought about how riduclous that is and how much mockery such a person would get. Of course not because your talking from a place of priveledge, and are hiding behind tradition (There's numerous racist traditions that's not a defence).

Besides why must there be a black person, represented, if there's no black people around?

Flavius · Feb 8, 2016

1.21Gigawatts said:
Also, just to remind people.
This didn't make headlines because of blackfacing/redfacing, thats happening every year.
This made headlines because of clear rassist messages against refugees.

Doesn't matter if you think black facing is racist by default or not, it was in any case without malicious intent.
The racist anti refugee messages however where with malicious intent, so in my opinion this should be talked about.

Do you see how one relates to the other?

Context in silos doesn't really present the whole picture, does it?

Izuna · Feb 8, 2016

Irminsul said:
I don't think you can back up that claim.

I'm also not quite sure if I get the logic behind this. If skin colour is the biggest difference, but one that doesn't really matter, isn't that a good thing? I'm just not sure if not seeing blatantly obvious differences is so much better than seeing them but don't care for them. And yes, these are honest questions, but I don't know if it's just a matter of wording.

Well it's common sense but I'll try to back it up with some evidence.

The point is that the kids shouldn't get to grow up to be racist. The media will portray minorities in a certain way and that will be their only exposure. Are there non-racist people in rural South Korea? Maybe, but they are definitely insensitive. You don't even need to look into the far-east to see the effects of lack of diversity. Just look at how fascism tends to rise in the country-side. It's not because of the water, it's because they're segregated.

Young children who grow up in non-mixed schools may be taught to not be racist, but if left on their own they'll quickly racial profile the one kid in their class who looks different to everyone else. And I do base this on my own personal experience. Now while I have never really be subjected to harmful racism (bless the UK), it's night and fucking day difference to be a kid in London vs. a kid in Manchester. My nieces (who are mixed) are asked by their peers "why don't you act black?" That's in 2015, a few hours from London.

--

FAKE EDIT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-19834043 <-- I found this. It's pretty off-topic but it's a nice talk.

Pandy · Feb 8, 2016

izunadono said:
Try to walk outside with blackface on. Go on.

I can't wait to hear about you on local news.

Sadly, where I live even genuinely racist use of blackface wouldn't ensure that.

Again, context. When used for racist ends, it should be absolutely stamped upon.

I've never done it, but if I had a fancy dress costume that I thought was appropriate then I wouldn't hesitate if I thought I could do a good job of it. In trying to replicate the look of a famous person/character skin tone could be an important component, or it could be irrelevant.

I think the closest I've come would have been dressing as Baron Samedi from Live and Let Die for a themed event, but the actual make-up design was of a skull using both black and white facepaint. Would you have found that offensive?

On topic: oddly enough, the 'redface' in the OP is being used in a 'positive' portrayal of American Indians, but as a ridiculous example to further racism against immigrants from the middle east. Obviously they're racists, but I don't think the 'redface' compounds their racism any more than their terrible outfits do, given the context.

oti · Feb 8, 2016

I understand that what Germany does or the things that are happening in Germany are very interesting for many people outside of Germany right now and that is totally fine and makes sense. All I'm (and I'm sure the rest of GermanGAF agrees) asking is some level of openness towards German culture.

- No, racism isn't part of German culture.
- Saying Germany didn't learn from its part is quite an offensive statement.
- Karneval is supposed to not be political correct, that's the whole point. That means jokes of all nature are fine and usually those jokes focus on politicians.
- No, that Panzer IS NOT OK, why you think there's a backlash? That city's reputation is ruined and rightfully so. In case you missed it, Germany isn't as open when it comes to free speech as the US is, I guess. Remember Facebook having to delete hate posts? Consider this panzer being a hate post. It might express someone's opinion but that doesn't mean it's OK.

I'm not going to touch the blackface thing.

Irminsul · Feb 8, 2016

izunadono said:
Well it's common sense but I'll try to back it up with some evidence.

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean that, I meant painting kids' faces black being a larger part in them becoming racist. That xenophobia is biggest where there is the least diversity to fight against this is well-known, you're right. I mean, you see that very much with refugees and where in Germany they are most unwelcome.

Izuna · Feb 8, 2016

Pandy said:
Sadly, where I live even genuinely racist use of blackface wouldn't ensure that.

Again, context. When used for racist ends, it should be absolutely stamped upon.

I've never done it, but if I had a fancy dress costume that I thought was appropriate then I wouldn't hesitate if I thought I could do a good job of it. In trying to replicate the look of a famous person/character skin tone could be an important component, or it could be irrelevant.

I think the closest I've come would have been dressing as Baron Samedi from Live and Let Die for a themed event, but the actual make-up design was of a skull using both black and white facepaint. Would you have found that offensive?

Where the hell in the UK do you live? Newry?

Baron Samedi cosplay wouldn't be blackface.

Irminsul said:
Ah, sorry, I didn't mean that, I meant painting kids' faces black being a larger part in them becoming racist. That xenophobia is biggest where there is the least diversity to fight against this is well-known, you're right. I mean, you see that very much with refugees and where in Germany they are most unwelcome.

It's not MAKING them racist as much as it is making them think racist stuff is okay. It's a matter of semantics whether or not you think that constitutes being racist.

1.21Gigawatts · Feb 8, 2016

Principate said:
I'm not moving any goal posts, your the one who brought a definition of racism to defend your view point. I just pointed out that specific defense is very weak.

No you didn't. All you did was making the false assumption that painting ones face pitch means that the person thinks all black people look like that.

All the definitions of racism we discussed here talked about the idea of superiority and different abilities based on race and following that hatred, antagonism etc.
All that isn't the case when kids dress up as their favorit cartoon character who happens to be black.
Its also not the case when an adult does it, even though I would look at the instances individually here, but for the most part the only intention here is dressing up as someone and thats it.

Flavius said:
Do you see how one relates to the other?

Context in silos doesn't really present the whole picture, does it?

No I don't see how it relates.
One is about dressing up as someone. The thoughts behind that are completely innocent.
Even if you think its offensive, it isn't intended as something offensive, it isn't intented as mockery and in germanys/hollands historical context it isn't racist.
Thatswhy people who like these traditions react poorly when criticized. For them it is like criticizing a black person for wanting to dress up as Santa Claus because they have the wrong skin color.

The other is a disgusting portrayal of hate and racism.

Actual racism and hate on the one side, innocent fun on the other side, I don't see how it relates.

Oversoul · Feb 8, 2016

Irminsul said:
Ah, sorry, I didn't mean that, I meant painting kids' faces black being a larger part in them becoming racist. That xenophobia is biggest where there is the least diversity to fight against this is well-known, you're right. I mean, you see that very much with refugees and where in Germany they are most unwelcome.

It's actually the opposite here in Holland. It teaches kids black skin is normal and not a weird thing or even a big deal. It helps prevent white kids growing up feeling superior to black people. It's innocent, with a good message.

In my opinion, it's light years ahead of the racial sensitivity and emphasis on race elsewhere.

Flavius · Feb 8, 2016

1.21Gigawatts said:
No I don't see how it relates.
One is about dressing up as someone. The thoughts behind that are completely innocent.
Even if you think its offensive, it isn't intent as something offensive, it isn't intented as mockery and in germanys/hollands historical context it isn't racist.
Thatswhy people who like these traditions react poorly when criticized. For them it is like criticizing a black for wanting to dress up as Santa Claus because they have the wrong skin color.

The other is a disgusting portrayal of hate and racism.

Actual racism and hate on the one side, innocent fun on the other side.

Okay, so if we all agree that intent is an important distinction, but also acknowledge that it is damn near impossible to determine intent without reading that person's mind (unless they are explicit in their intent), then doesn't it just make sense to do away with something that will most certainly be hugely offensive to some?

Plenty of "innocent fun" can still be had without resorting to such a practice, yes?

Principate · Feb 8, 2016

1.21Gigawatts said:
No you didn't. All you did was making the false assumption that painting ones face pitch means that the person thinks all black people look like that.

All the definitions of racism we discussed here talked about the idea of superiority and different abilities based on race and following that hatred, antagonism etc.
All that isn't the case when kids dress up as their favorit cartoon character who happens to be black.
Its also not the case when an adult does it, even though I would look at the instances individually here, but for the most part the only intention here is dressing up as someone and thats it.

No I don't see how it relates.
One is about dressing up as someone. The thoughts behind that are completely innocent.
Even if you think its offensive, it isn't intended as something offensive, it isn't intented as mockery and in germanys/hollands historical context it isn't racist.
Thatswhy people who like these traditions react poorly when criticized. For them it is like criticizing a black person for wanting to dress up as Santa Claus because they have the wrong skin color.

The other is a disgusting portrayal of hate and racism.

Actual racism and hate on the one side, innocent fun on the other side, I don't see how it relates.

I factually didn't. Since I didn't even mention mention blackface before that post but ok then. Hell the intent of my arguemnt (I know how you love that word), didn't include blackface at all. I was intially just mocking your use of a wikipedia rather than a dictionary.

Kinda ironic that in this arguement that your making massive wild assumptions on my statements considering the context

cosmicblizzard · Feb 8, 2016

The idea that offensive elements with no malicious intent is the same as racism with malicious intent is such an alien concept to me. I can buy that there's a spectrum, but something from a place of ignorance will very rarely be anywhere near as harmful as something from a place of malice. Not to say the former can't be harmful of course, but it's generally pretty different.

Someone brought up the offensive nature of "PC master race" before. I never thought anything of it, and I say that as a Jew that has visited Holocaust museums in both America and Israel. Did I think the intent was to mock Holocaust victims or glorify the Nazis? No!

Meanwhile, someone in countries outside of America and UK to a lesser extent could think the same about blackface/redface/etc in that they would have little to no context for it being offensive.

SG-17 said:
You seem to be defending this from a place of moral relativism. This is incorrect. Morality is universal. What's racist is racist, universally. As much as it doesn't come from a place of malice, it is still racist. It's paternalistic racism. It's willful ignorance. It's a hill that too many here seem to be willing to die on.

I can't agree with this at all. Morality is constantly changing with the times and the region. Even if we keep things limited to America, there are going to be things completely acceptable to say now that won't be in the future.

And in some way, is it not culturally insensitive to have the cultural sensitivities of one region supersede the cultural sensitivities of another? This isn't so much a "tolerance of intolerance" thing as much as it's an acknowledgment that different places are going to have different histories when it comes to groups of people and ways of life. What happens when there's an actual culture clash in terms of what is and isn't offensive like the recent Chinese New Year controversy?

That isn't to say there shouldn't be some aspects of morality that are universal. No one in their right mind should be okay with something like the rape of young boys in Afghanistan and a US soldier being discharged when he tried to stop it. But when we're talking about depictions outside of actual human rights issues, things get a bit murkier.

Flavius · Feb 8, 2016

cosmicblizzard said:
The idea that offensive elements with no malicious intent is the same as racism with malicious intent is such an alien concept to me. I can buy that there's a spectrum, but something from a place of ignorance will very rarely be anywhere near as harmful as something from a place of malice. Not to say the former can't be harmful of course, but it's generally pretty different.

I am almost positive there is zero empirical evidence that supports you on this. If you or others happen to know of any, however, I'd love to see it.

Plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary, however.

1.21Gigawatts · Feb 8, 2016

Flavius said:
then doesn't it just make sense to do away with something that will most certainly be hugely offensive to some?

I'd have no problem with that. I hate carneval anyways and as a kid I always wanted to be a Vampire(painting face white). And since I'm not religious I also never was one of the three kings in Kindergarten.

But, some people like these traditions and they don't see anything wrong with them and the won't stop doing it because someone might mistake it for actual racism.

You won't get a rational discussion about it because these people don't feel like what they do is racist(actually, they think its exactly the opposite*) and when you alledge them of beeing racist they get defensive.
A reaction like this is probably all you'll get:
http://theshake.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/offended.jpg

*

It teaches kids black skin is normal and not a weird thing or even a big deal. It helps prevent white kids growing up feeling superior to black people. It's innocent, with a good message.

Principate said:
I factually didn't. Since I didn't even mention mention blackface before that post but ok then. Hell the intent of my arguemnt (I know how you love that word), didn't include blackface at all. I was intially just mocking your use of a wikipedia rather than a dictionary.

Kinda ironic that in this arguement that your making massive wild assumptions on my statements considering the context

Your argument was that Wikipedia isn't a good source because everyone can change it.
You didn't even refer to the point I was trying to make with the help of the wikipedia definition.
And then I used a dictinary definition that was exactly that same as the wiki definition, and then you said I should've use the other definition from the dict that was pretty much the same, too.

Yeah, I really don't know what your point is supposed to be.

User 73706 · Feb 8, 2016

Oversoul said:
It's actually the opposite here in Holland. It teaches kids black skin is normal and not a weird thing or even a big deal. It helps prevent white kids growing up feeling superior to black people. It's innocent, with a good message.

In my opinion, it's light years ahead of the racial sensitivity and emphasis on race elsewhere.

ayy lmao

cosmicblizzard · Feb 8, 2016

Flavius said:
I am almost positive there is zero empirical evidence that supports you on this. If you or others happen to know of any, however, I'd love to see it.

Plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary, however.

Give me some empirical evidence to the contrary then.

I'm not saying racism with no malicious intent isn't bad. The extreme end of it could involve shaping the opinion of a group of people that might not be very favorable.

On the other hand, the extreme end of racism with malicious intent is genocide. No matter how many centuries of mocking depictions or even hindered opportunities there could be, it will never compare to that. My people have experienced both and the former is absolutely preferable to the latter, even if equality is the ideal.

1.21Gigawatts · Feb 8, 2016

Flavius said:
I am almost positive there is zero empirical evidence that supports you on this. If you or others happen to know of any, however, I'd love to see it.

Plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary, however.

Well, people dressing up as Indians for carneval never led to any resentment towards Indians in germany.
People actually hating refugees however actually leads to burning refugee shelters, refugees beeing beaten up, hand grenades beeing thrown into refugees centers.

Principate · Feb 8, 2016

1.21Gigawatts said:
I'd have no problem with that. I hate carneval anyways and as a kid I always wanted to be a Vampire(painting face white). And since I'm not religious I also never was one of the three kings in Kindergarten.

But, some people like these traditions and they don't see anything wrong with them and the won't stop doing it because someone might mistake it for actual racism.

You won't get a rational discussion about it because these people don't feel like what they do is racist(actually, they think its exactly the opposite*) and when you alledge them of beeing racist they get defensive.
A reaction like this is probably all you'll get:
http://theshake.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/offended.jpg

*

Your argument was that Wikipedia isn't a good source because everyone can change it.
You didn't even refer to the point I was trying to make with the help of the wikipedia definition.
And then I used a dictinary definition that was exactly that same as the wiki definition, and then you said I should've use the other definition from the dict that was pretty much the same, too.

Yeah, I really don't know what your point is supposed to be.

Yes, I was simply point out what i concieve to be flaws in your arguement, notice how I didn't write a full rebutal, or much of a rebutal at all. That's why all your talk about me moving goal posts, didn't make sense to me. I didn't set a goal post in the first place, hell i wasn't even taking part in your main arguement until you brought it into our discussion. I was just pointing out one of the defences, or points you were making in regards to your arguement was flawed, not that your entire arguement was flawed. Which i lik didn't get into at all.

EloquentM · Feb 8, 2016

Flavius said:
I am almost positive there is zero empirical evidence that supports you on this. If you or others happen to know of any, however, I'd love to see it.

Plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary, however.

history has taught us that institutionalized racism is much much less damaging than a being called a racial slur outright or being lynched, or enacting Jim Crowe laws, or having a good old fashion hate parade complete with characatures of different racial stereotypes. oh wait.

Bollocks · Feb 8, 2016

different cultures have different customs, news at 11

AlphaDump · Feb 8, 2016

cosmicblizzard said:
Give me some empirical evidence to the contrary then.

I'm not saying racism with no malicious intent isn't bad. The extreme end of it could involve shaping the opinion of a group of people that might not be very favorable.

On the other hand, the extreme end of racism with malicious intent is genocide. No matter how many centuries of mocking depictions or even hindered opportunities there could be, it will never compare to that. My people have experienced both and the former is absolutely preferable to the latter, even if equality is the ideal.

"I was just joking" is a response usually resulting from someone being offended. They also tend to apologize and not do it again....

It can also be used as a way to get around being a racist.

Flavius · Feb 8, 2016

cosmicblizzard said:
Give me some empirical evidence to the contrary then.

I'm not saying racism with no malicious intent isn't bad. The extreme end of it could involve shaping the opinion of a group of people that might not be very favorable.

On the other hand, the extreme end of racism with malicious intent is genocide. No matter how many centuries of mocking depictions or even hindered opportunities there could be, it will never compare to that. My people have experienced both and the former is absolutely preferable to the latter, even if equality is the ideal.

You can find links to dozens upon dozens from authoritative sources using a simple Google search. I'm not sure of your preferred medium, however, so here's an online article with links to a few = http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/05/06/institutional-racism-is-our-way-of-life

EloquentM said:
history has taught us that institutionalized racism is much much less damaging than a being called a racial slur outright or being lynched, or enacting Jim Crowe laws, or having a good old fashion hate parade complete with characatures of different racial stereotypes. oh wait.

Indeed.

1.21Gigawatts said:
Well, people dressing up as Indians for carneval never led to any resentment towards Indians in germany.
People actually hating refugees however actually leads to burning refugee shelters, refugees beeing beaten up, hand grenades beeing thrown into refugees centers.

I'm going to assume we've reached a language barrier at this point, as the example you provide doesn't at all relate to what I've posted and is too narrowly worded to be of use to anyone. Bottom line - what you and others might see as purely in jest is most certainly construed as demeaning to others. Further, when you are culturally tone deaf to the potential negative consequences, you merely provide an excuse to those who, unlike the rest of you, do have malicious thoughts and wish to act on them. Get out of your own head and apply your critical thinking skills! No harm to one does not mean no harm to others. Let us collectively drop the charade and stop pretending that we are so far removed from our respective country's histories that not only do we no longer notice the color of each other's skin, we paint our skin different colors just to prove how little we notice it!

Pandy · Feb 8, 2016

izunadono said:
Where the hell in the UK do you live? Newry?

Baron Samedi cosplay wouldn't be blackface.

Rural Scotland.
Unless you're singing sectarian football songs or actively racially abusing someone there's not much chance of the local news taking notice. They did eventually stop a shop selling Golliwog dolls though, so that's something, but it took a tourist complaining about it to get anything done.

Awesome picture, wish my costume had looked half as good!
I know it isn't considered blackface, but it's probably the closest I've come to it. Geoffrey Holder's version is the one that people in this country are mostly inspired by, so judging by some of these comments I'd guess that a white person portraying that character might be deeply offensive too.

cosmicblizzard · Feb 8, 2016

AlphaDump said:
"I was just joking" is a response usually resulting from someone being offended. They also tend to apologize and not do it again....

It can also be used as a way to get around being a racist.

Flavius said:
You can find links to dozens upon dozens from authoritative sources using a simple Google search. I'm not sure of your preferred medium, however, so here's an online article with links to a few = http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/05/06/institutional-racism-is-our-way-of-life

Indeed.

As awful as institutionalized racism is, to compare it to the controlled and systematic massacre and torture of people is ludicrous to me.

EloquentM · Feb 8, 2016

cosmicblizzard said:
As awful as institutionalized racism is, to compare it to the controlled and systematic massacre and torture of people is ludicrous to me.

Oh did you miss American slavery or Native American genocide? Because former meets both criteria and the latter is pretty much comparable...it's just no one at the time cared.

cosmicblizzard · Feb 8, 2016

EloquentM said:
Oh did you miss American slavery?

American slavery had malicious intent. That isn't what we're talking about here.

AcademicSaucer · Feb 8, 2016

Chairmanchuck said:
Usually one is a white one with black face.

that somehow reminds me of this.

NoblesseOblige · Feb 8, 2016

Bollocks said:
different cultures have different customs, news at 11

So are you saying it's German customs to be ignorant?

EloquentM · Feb 8, 2016

cosmicblizzard said:
American slavery had malicious intent. That isn't what we're talking about here.

The only reason why malicious intent becomes acceptable and possible on a large scale is because of institutionalized racism. That's the only reason why we have this thread. Allowing shit like this and pegging it as harmless has continually allowed for much harsher acts to be acceptable throughout history.

El Topo · Feb 8, 2016

EloquentM said:
Allowing shit like this and pegging it as harmless has continually allowed for much harsher acts to be acceptable throughout history.

How would this look like, regarding German Karneval?

cosmicblizzard · Feb 8, 2016

EloquentM said:
The only reason why malicious intent becomes acceptable and possible on a large scale is because of institutionalized racism. That's the only reason why we have this thread. Allowing shit like this and pegging it as harmless has continually allowed for much harsher acts to be acceptable throughout history.

I don't disagree, but I think it's a stretch to say the German blackface posted in this thread is going to lead to malice toward black people in Germany. A case could be made for what's in the OP though.

Flavius · Feb 8, 2016

cosmicblizzard said:
As awful as institutionalized racism is, to compare it to the controlled and systematic massacre and torture of people is ludicrous to me.

Who is drawing such a comparison? Not I. Feel free to narrowly define your own suppositions, but such a ridiculous constraint makes this entire conversation worthless. Stay out of the carpool lane, I suppose, and continue to turn a blind eye to all facts but your own limited observations.

1.21Gigawatts · Feb 8, 2016

NoblesseOblige said:
So are you saying it's German customs to be ignorant?

Is it ignorant if americans use the term "race"?

| Praxis | · Feb 8, 2016

The only person I have seen black faced was someone in St Ives on New Years Eve. He was in costume as Ainsley Harriott.

NoblesseOblige · Feb 8, 2016

1.21Gigawatts said:
Is it ignorant if americans use the term "race"?

It's ignorant of us to expect 'race' to have the exact same connotation elsewhere. Just as it's Ignorant for a German to expect blackface to be acceptable because it's part of 'tradition'.

Oersted · Feb 8, 2016

Bollocks said:
different cultures have different customs, news at 11

Racism being part of german culture is the problem, not the answer, dear drivebyposter.

cosmicblizzard · Feb 8, 2016

Flavius said:
Who is drawing such a comparison? Not I. Feel free to narrowly define your own suppositions, but such a ridiculous constraint makes this entire conversation worthless. Stay out of the carpool lane, I suppose, and continue to turn a blind eye to all facts but your own limited observations.

I was responding to the idea that racism without malicious intent is the same, on an individual basis, as racism with malicious intent. I disagreed with that and we got to the topic of comparing extremes. Comparing the Native American genocide to the Holocaust is completely fair. But comparing the Holocaust or Native American genocide to blackface (or more accurately modern European blackface as classic American blackface DID have malicious intent)? As someone with family that escaped the former and still hears horror stories about it from them, yeah I'm going to speak up and disagree. I'm not sure how that's me having a limited observation when nowhere did I say racism without malicious intent can't be harmful.

Gutek · Feb 8, 2016

Oersted said:
Racism being part of german culture is the problem, not the answer, dear drivebyposter.

American style racism is a much, much smaller problem than anti-semitism and hate of specific ethnic groups in Germany (Turks, Russians, Poles), though.

1.21Gigawatts · Feb 8, 2016

NoblesseOblige said:
It's ignorant of us to expect 'race' to have the exact same connotation elsewhere. Just as it's Ignorant for a German to expect blackface to be acceptable because it's part of 'tradition'.

Thats the point. The term "race" is acceptable in the US, but not in germany.
Dressing up as Swarte-Piet or Jim Knopf or one of the three kings is acceptable in germany, but in the US.

If germans view the englisch use of the "term" in the historical context of germany, they won't understand the liberal use of the term.
Just like americans won't understand the innocence of black facing in europe when they view in the historical context of the US.
Without that context black facing it not any more or less offensive than white facing.

At the end of the day, its up to black people in europe if they find it offensive or not.
But whether its racist or not depends on the intentions behind the custume.

Oersted · Feb 8, 2016

Gutek said:
American style racism is a much, much smaller problem than anti-semitism and hate of specific ethnic groups in Germany (Turks, Russians, Poles), though.

I'm confused. Your phrasing makes it look like you are arguing against me, while actually I did not comment on the matter in the first place.

1.21Gigawatts said:
Thats the point. The term "race" is acceptable in the US, but not in germany.
Dressing up as Swarte-Piet or Jim Knopf or one of the three kings is acceptable in germany, but in the US.

If germans view the englisch use of the "term" in the historical context of germany, they won't understand the liberal use of the term.
Just like americans won't understand the innocence of black facing in europe when they view in the historical context of the US.
Without that context black facing it not any more or less offensive than white facing.

At the end of the day, its up to black people in europe if they find it offensive or not.
But whether its racist or not depends on the intentions behind the custume.

Black groups in Europe are explaining all the time why it is racist and offensive.

Racism and sexism do not need intent.

NoblesseOblige · Feb 8, 2016

1.21Gigawatts said:
Thats the point. The term "race" is acceptable in the US, but not in germany.
Dressing up as Swarte-Piet or Jim Knopf or one of the three kings is acceptable in germany, but in the US.

Okay, so congratulation, both places are ignorant. That's not exactly a new revelation. The decision you now have to make as an individual is are you okay pandering to that ignorance? Or are you better than that. Writing blackface off as tradition and treating it as being innocent means you are not. It means you are welcoming the ignorance.

Edit: The part that makes this some sort of meta-ignorant is that so many Europeans are quick to dismiss Muslim people for their traditions. Meanwhile defending their own insensitive traditions as if they were just.

Flavius · Feb 8, 2016

cosmicblizzard said:
I was responding to the idea that racism without malicious intent is the same, on an individual basis, as racism with malicious intent. I disagreed with that and we got to the topic of comparing extremes. Comparing the Native American genocide to the Holocaust is completely fair. But comparing the Holocaust or Native American genocide to blackface (or more accurately modern European blackface as classic American blackface DID have malicious intent)? As someone with family that escaped the former and still hears horror stories about it from them, yeah I'm going to speak up and disagree. I'm not sure how that's me having a limited observation when nowhere did I say racism without malicious intent can't be harmful.

You are too quick to dismiss the dangers of mass ignorance, coupled with longstanding societal norms which stem from a very different period in history.

For someone with such a personal connection, you seem fairly ignorant. There is no value in the perspective you share. But there is plenty of potential danger. How in the world do you think these atrocities were committed in the first instance?

1.21Gigawatts · Feb 8, 2016

NoblesseOblige said:
Okay, so congratulation, both places are ignorant.

In my opinion neither place is ignorant in these regards.
There is nothing wrong with usuing the term "race" colloquially in the US. Using it in a scientific context when refering to humans is wrong, but its just a factually wrong statement, nothing offensive.
Doing a black face in germany is poor taste. "Scientifically traditions are an idiot thing." So its an idiot thing, too. Whether it offensive or not depends. But its certainly not racist.

By saying everyone is ignorant, everything is offensive and everything is racist we just trivialize real racism.
Which is btw exactly what happened in this thread.
There were actual racist statements made, even some suggesting killing refugees, but all we talked about was carneval costumes and whether or not they're offensive.

cosmicblizzard · Feb 8, 2016

NoblesseOblige said:
Okay, so congratulation, both places are ignorant. That's not exactly a new revelation. The decision you now have to decide as an individual, are you okay pandering to that ignorance? Or are you better than that. Writing blackface off as tradition and treating it as being innocent means you are not. It means you are welcoming the ignorance.

Curious, how do you feel about the usage of different skin tones as a style choice around the world when the historical context comes from something completely innocuous and not cultural appropriation?

For example, ganguro in Japan. From a western perspective, it may look like blackface, but its actually based off youkai in Japanese folklore, and it's purpose is a contrast to the value placed on fair skin in Japanese culture. There are no persecuted groups involved with the style's creation, unlike blackface.

oti · Feb 8, 2016

The people behind the Panzer are being sued.

http://www.heute.de/fremdenfeindlichkeit-beim-karneval-panzer-sorgt-fuer-empoerung-42176914.html

Support NeoGAF

Members of german carnival parade use redface to spew refugee hate

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Saint Titanfall

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Saint Titanfall

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Saint Titanfall

aka Mannny

Member

Gold Member

Member

Member

Banned

aka Mannny

Banned

Member

Banned

aka Mannny

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Similar threads