U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:20 AM
 
17,297 posts, read 25,694,164 times
Reputation: 8567

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Dude, calm down!

Context is important here.

Tosh and Cannon AREN'T EVEN CLOSE to being the same type of entertainer.

Besides, blackface and whiteface simply aren't the same things given our history in this country.

You can argue that it should be, but it ain't.

Regardless, it's no big deal.

And again, "the history of blackface" literally has ZERO impact on how people should react to it today.


It is precisely my argument that context matters - be it white face, black face, Asian face.... whatever!


I just find it silly that people actually use "historical implications of blackface" as the reason they are offended by its use, often regardless of ANY context whatsoever.


Cause let's face it: Sometimes it's funny when a white person dons a black persona, and vice versa. White Chicks, for example. Or RDJ in Tropic Thunder. But the academic sociology victimization complex thrives on perpetuating "Absolute Truths(TM)" about race that people parrot as if they are true:


1) Black people can do white face but white folks can't do black face because history of minstrelism.

2) Black people can't be racist because they don't have power
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:23 AM
 
Location: USA
13,266 posts, read 10,388,759 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
And again, "the history of blackface" literally has ZERO impact on how people should react to it today.


It is precisely my argument that context matters - be it white face, black face, Asian face.... whatever!


I just find it silly that people actually use "historical implications of blackface" as the reason they are offended by its use, often regardless of ANY context whatsoever.


Cause let's face it: Sometimes it's funny when a white person dons a black persona, and vice versa. White Chicks, for example. Or RDJ in Tropic Thunder. But the academic sociology victimization complex thrives on perpetuating "Absolute Truths(TM)" about race that people parrot as if they are true:


1) Black people can do white face but white folks can't do black face because history of minstrelism.

2) Black people can't be racist because they don't have power
I didn't know there was a historic "White Face."



And yes, black people can be racist. I know racist black people.





I think what your missing is the historical context. And its really an issue you can't understand if your not that race.



Why can't you use the N word around black people? Why don't black people use certain terms around white people?


Historical context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:25 AM
 
17,297 posts, read 25,694,164 times
Reputation: 8567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
Personally, I don't really care about people's feelings, regardless of their race or sex. My concern is: Will this encourage non-whites to be violent toward whites? Will this reduce available jobs for whites? How could this harm white people? I can't think of a reason why it would...although, I haven't heard the song lyrics.
"Harm" is an amorphous concept.

Is it harm if this would create a situation where a white student is made fun of or bullied by a group of black students? Is that enough "harm" for the analysis?


Discrimination in housing or jobs is really not perpetuated by someone making racial jokes. People who discriminate in such a way tend to be beyond influence of comedic portrayals of the people they dislike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:27 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,908 posts, read 10,072,115 times
Reputation: 7456
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
And again, "the history of blackface" literally has ZERO impact on how people should react to it today.


It is precisely my argument that context matters - be it white face, black face, Asian face.... whatever!


I just find it silly that people actually use "historical implications of blackface" as the reason they are offended by its use, often regardless of ANY context whatsoever.


Cause let's face it: Sometimes it's funny when a white person dons a black persona, and vice versa. White Chicks, for example. Or RDJ in Tropic Thunder. But the academic sociology victimization complex thrives on perpetuating "Absolute Truths(TM)" about race that people parrot as if they are true:


1) Black people can do white face but white folks can't do black face because history of minstrelism.

2) Black people can't be racist because they don't have power

1) Is hypocrisy, and a total double standard!

2) Is totally false. Any sort of discrimination toward someone due to their skin tone can be construed as racist.

Though I'm pretty sure this is where you were going with these 2 points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:28 AM
 
Location: 60630
12,247 posts, read 17,989,797 times
Reputation: 11674
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960 View Post
Nick Cannon is facing a wave of controversy after wearing whiteface in a new photo.

The 33-year-old "America's Got Talent" host is about to release his first album in 11 years, "White People Party Music," and he took a unique approach to promoting his latest work.

Nick Cannon dons whiteface to promote "White People Party Music" album - CBS News
he looks like he is black but albino.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,290 posts, read 11,531,083 times
Reputation: 4315
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Daniel Tosh is irreverent. It's his schtick.



The reaction - over or otherwise - is to the double standard.

Personally, I don't care at all. But this is the same Nick Cannon who was outraged over Google being "racist" and then pulls a stunt like this.


And frankly, it's more harmful when a person in Nick Cannon's position (a celebrity) is racially insensitive than an average Joe, or even a whole school full of frats doing a racist party, because Nick Cannon has a national stage, and an impressionable young audience.
The entire argument of a double standard is that the 2 situations are one in the same. They are not.

The frat boys you mentioned earlier dressed up in and where pictured portraying negative stereotypes of African Americans. Can you honestly say Cannon was doing the same ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:34 AM
 
17,297 posts, read 25,694,164 times
Reputation: 8567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
I didn't know there was a historic "White Face."
Actually, there is:

Blacks performing as whites - Evolution of whiteface - Wayans brothers White Chicks



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
And yes, black people can be racist. I know racist black people.
No race is immune from some form of discrimination against "the other."





Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
I think what your missing is the historical context. And its really an issue you can't understand if your not that race.



Why can't you use the N word around black people? Why don't black people use certain terms around white people?


Historical context.

The entire excuse of "historical context" is tautology. Again, we accept it as "the reason" without asking whether in fact that is the real reason why we are - or should be - offended by something. People have double standards based on "historical context" without asking whether it actually makes sense.




Frankly, I think it is enough and entirely reasonable for white people to refrain from using the N word or putting on black face because it makes black people uncomfortable based on whatever reason makes them not like it. (Though see my qualification that INTENT and context should always matter). My beef isn't with Nick Cannon per se, it's that people will make excuses for Nick Cannon while putting a blanket prohibition on other races putting on black face, and then calling it history. Either it's wrong for everyone, or it's wrong for no one. This is what we must do in a pluralistic society if people want to be taken seriously when they complain about treatment against their own)



But to turn around and say blacks can use terms against whites that whites find offensive, or that blacks can put on white face because there "isn't a history" behind it... is just... excuse making.

Again, it neglects the fact that we live in the HERE and the NOW and people judge their interactions with others based first and foremost on their PRESENT dealings with people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,881 posts, read 10,381,846 times
Reputation: 8050
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan View Post
Who cares? I mean, Dave Chappelle for example made fun of white people from time to time (as well as just about every culture) and I find him absolutely hilarious! What did Dave say about white people being able to dance? Provide music with plenty of electric guitar.
Haha, very true. Maybe I just don't like Nick Cannon-always found him so corny and lame.

I'm sure if Dave Chappelle did this, there would not be an uproar and most would find it hilarious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:39 AM
 
17,297 posts, read 25,694,164 times
Reputation: 8567
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan View Post
1) Is hypocrisy, and a total double standard!

2) Is totally false. Any sort of discrimination toward someone due to their skin tone can be construed as racist.

Though I'm pretty sure this is where you were going with these 2 points.

Precisely, but this is not what is taught in the prevailing (dare I say, pop-sociology) thought on these subjects.

And personally, I reject it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,881 posts, read 10,381,846 times
Reputation: 8050
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Precisely, but this is not what is taught in the prevailing (dare I say, pop-sociology) thought on these subjects.

And personally, I reject it.
True, if we're ever going to truly move forward as a people we need to stop only gradually improving on what "used to be racist".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top