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.
Then all of us who feel as you do should present our employers, and prospective ones when we interview, a list of all of our transgressions, at least from the age when viewed by state as adults (18) on. This should include all times drunk, how we acted, what we did, all times high on anything, same reporting, all flirting that would be construed in office as harassment, with details, etc.
That way, our employer or prospective one has all the facts on us, just like Kavanaugh or Northam.
First of all, not just like Kav.... The requirements for running for government office isn't the same. Things that matter when running for office do not matter and aren't relevant when doing most jobs. For example, if I'm a spokesperson for a company, my past will matter more as it could negatively affect the company if it comes to light; however, if I'm just a janitor who cleans the toilets, most past mistakes will not matter as much if at all. Apples and oranges.
Plus, your position has been that job performance, and not the past, should be what matters the most. Most employers would have a problem if, after the fact, they found out about a behavior may have disqualified the employee from being employed in the first place regardless of the job they're currently doing...
I am puzzled that none of Northam's classmates have come forward to discuss the photo, the party or the yearbook yet. Otherwise, can't facial recognition software or analyzing his ear lobes help identify if he is in the photo?
One of the questions that was asked was how it would be investigated and he said that facial recognition software was going to be used.
I will admit that I've known that the KKK was a bad symbol/type of people since I was in elementary school. But honestly, I didn't even know what blackface was until I got older. I don't even remember but I'd say I was out of high school. Probably once I got on the internet & read about it.
I can understand why it's not right but I do think that if I didn't know what it was through my teenage years. Is this something that would be very subjective on if a photo pops up in the future of a politician/celebrity years from now of something they did young?
For the record I'm not defending the governor. Even if I was willing to believe it wasn't him in the picture you're assuming that nobody ever reached out to him about it & then you realize his nick name in the year book too. Just seems he's dug himself in a huge hole here.
I would just hate to see a white person get destroyed if they had a photo pop up & they really had no idea about the racial impact of what they did at the time.
I had no idea what it was until I took an elective in college, and we were told that back in the day, long before color tv, actors used to dress up in black face because Hollywood wouldn't allow real black actors, nor real NDNs to play the parts. It was always white actors and they would color their faces, and hands, (or wear gloves), to pretend to be a black person or an NDN, (and by "pretend to be" what I mean to say is "act a ridiculous and insulting stereotype"). The rules have changed: It is now not legal for any studio to depict an NDN unless the actor is actually an NDN, for example.
Honestly, I don't think a lot of people were aware of what "black face" is until either a class or something happened in the media. The fact is, we still have actors and models doing it to this day. There was a magazine shoot for model Gigi Hadid where they darkened her skin and put an afro wig on her - Gigi isn't that old, so it was in the very recent past.
The celebrity and modeling world can't even get it right, how would anyone expect Joe American on the streets to know about this? It's definitely being learned now, however.
For the record: I don't think Northam should be attacked for this. It was back in the early 80s, a very different time, very different mindset. He probably didn't even think it was wrong - people are judging by what we know now, not how it was back then. There's plenty to tear Northam apart on, something he did in his college years way back decades ago, isn't it.
Did he though? I think that's part of the problem. He initially apologized for it. THEN he said it wasn't him in the photo after he apologized for it.
I think people are confused and I also think his press conference yesterday was a complete disaster.
I'm just going to play devil's advocate here because I think the whole thing is bizarre. Just want to say that lest anyone think I'm taking up for him.
It *could* be that when that picture was first shown to him he just freaked out, panicked, figured he just had to admit to it because I mean really how do you get around that. Maybe after some time and knowing he couldn't remember doing it (and hearing from other classmates) that he though he should fight it and changed his tune the next day.
I have no idea what to think. On the one hand, his "flip flop" looks terrible and really just dooms him. Yet, on the other hand, to then strongly come out and deny it, say that you've spoken to classmates about it, say that said classmates are backing you, then telling the world there is an investigation and also knowing that most of your classmates are probably still alive and likely to remember if you did such a thing is an INCREDIBLY risky thing to do if you actually were in that picture.
Plus, your position has been that job performance, and not the past, should be what matters the most. Most employers would have a problem if, after the fact, they found out about a behavior may have disqualified the employee from being employed in the first place regardless of the job they're currently doing...
In the private sector, the past does not matter-short of what appears on a background check.
IMO elected officials deserve that same treatment.
Really, is anyone even slightly offended? I couldn’t care less.
Wasn’t he dressed up as Michael Jackson, who lightened his skin to appear more white? What’s the difference?
Whites historically dressed in blackface for racist and bigoted purposes. There's historical meaning behind it that most blacks are aware of... And Michael Jackson had vitiligo... Even if he didn't, there's no historical meaning, significance, or insult to whites behind blacks lightening their skin other than them thinking black skin was unattractive...
In the private sector, the past does not matter-short of what appears on a background check.
IMO elected officials deserve that same treatment.
The past matter in both the private and public sector depending on what the job is... If a CEO of a well know "private" company was found to have had a pass that offended the company's employees and customers, the CEO would most likely be asked to step down as well..
How many people have dressed up in 'red face' to portray American Indians? If you are going to be stupid, may as well go all the way.
Really, for a politician to do red or black face if white .... is STUPID. A Democrat its like unbelievably STUPID His career seems over in Politics as a Democrat.
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.
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.
A Democrat its like unbelievably STUPID 
His career seems over in Politics as a Democrat.
