lol, I heard the same happened in 2008 when the headlines said "Russia invades Georgia", people freaked out.


Yeah, I feel like this is different as well for some reason. This might legitimately be why I haven't seen an Asian artist getting portrayed on the show(that, and K-Pop hasn't exploded here thankfully).

H0RUS having a problem with the sunglasses of a blind man has me thinking as well. I just don't see people getting reduced to anything, more like Stevie Wonder just happens to be a blind black man(though being black is very much referenced in his songs). Having some albino dude reading music sheets while playing would make the experience seem less authentic.

I don't even mean culturally or ethnically specific. It's cheesy all over, whether it's Sambo, Charlie Chan or Elvis. It's just a very unsophisticated form of entertainment, and it's really weird to have len talk about authenticity like it's some sort of serious art.

It's fair to insist everyone, despite their country, be aware of why minstrelsy exists. It was created as a means of entertainment for people who aren't black. Essentially turning the black race into nothing more than a character used to entertain others.

I think it's fair to expect people to listen when minstrelsy is explained to them, and to expect them to change their behaviour accordingly. I don't think it's fair to expect everyone in the world to already be aware of it.

Changing the context to Halloween, or a costume party, where I don't think people are dressing up for comedic effect, or not (usually) to parody/make fun of anyone - is it OK for someone to wear a costume that changes their appearance to that of a different race?

Do masks, as opposed to makeup, change your answer?

True, however i feel people should be aware of it. It's 2017 where we can send massive amounts of information to the other side of the world with the click of a button. The fact skin color is so divisive is sad considering how far society has come information/technology wise. It's primitive imo.

Halloween is a perfect example. The characters personalities are always larger than life, their outfit embodies their persona. Its bigger than skin color. You don't need skin color to understand who the character is. Thats why costumes never come with skin paint. As a black man i dont need to paint my skin white for people to understand the s on my chest means im superman. Thats understood without skin color. Painting your skin to imitate another race is always done in poor taste and i can't see how its possible to do so without being extremely offensive in your act.

Cultures that your culture have historically colonized/oppressed aren't costumes for your amusement. In Canada, the most common example of these is probably "Indian" costumes.

I notice you've specifically mentioned skin paint. So I'm a white guy that wants to go to a costume party dressed as Obama, and I wear a suit and an Obama mask - OK, or not IYO?

Good point. Perhaps that's why I've instinctively had no desire to do this, but just haven't thought about why that is. I don't really go in for costumes in the first place, so that's why I haven't given it a lot of thought.

Masks are different as its usually harmless fictional characters. Blackface usually means charading around black culture for others amusement.

In 2016, there were a gazillion people in Trump masks at Halloween parties. I've seen at least one black person wearing one. Do you consider that to be racially insensitive?

No because costumes are part of halloween. Not sure how thats meant to discredit what i said.

This was written 21 years ago and references the black and white minstrel show that was axed 44 years ago after the BBC became increasingly aware of it's racist associations.

The BBC's Kentucky Minstrels, 1933–1950: blackface entertainment on British Radio

From wiki on that show.

To suggest that we don't know blackface is wrong is a mistake.

Trying to find non-offensive examples of impersonating an historically oppressed minority seems an odd hill to plant your flag on.

This is just wrong, like any blanket statement. You can’t divorce intent from the performance. You certainly can’t ignore location either. Another country has no obligation to follow US norms unless they are aiming for an American audience. To think otherwise is to spend your time tilting at windmills.

Feels better than accepting the cultural imperialism of forcing every other culture through the lens of US culture.

Man, as long as those people have no internet connections or newspapers or televisions/phones, sure, I guess it makes sense. But they’d be so cut off as to make it impossible for anyone who could be offended to actually see the offense.

I dunno why blackface doesn’t register the same way for some people as, say, Krusty the Klown’s Asian character, but it’s the same ****.

Sometimes yes, all the time nope.

I'm not sure that "don't do racial caricatures" is exclusively an American value.

Its not, thats why the "im not american so i don't have to find it offensive" argument is a really bad look. Its not an american issue. It's a social issue. It doesnt matter where you are located, imitating another race down to painting your skin and parading yourself around in a sterotypical fashion is disrespectful.

Minstrel shows in Australia date back to 1838. The Black & White Minstrel Show was a huge hit on the BBC from 1958 to 1978, and the theatrical version made The Guinness Book of Records as the stage show seen by the largest number of people. It's not like blackface is an American secret.

Given the treament of Australian aboriginals., im not surprised.

Forgive my gentle ribbing Horus, but despite your low post count, people are engaging with your well-informed and crafted posts on this topic.

Yeah, it's an Anglosphere thing to some extent. Blackface is definitely considered offensive in Australia, but a lot of the history isn't well known or understood. For instance, I know, barely, what Americans mean by a "minstrel show", but > 95% of people my age would not. I have never heard the word "minstrelsy" before now. This puts me in a kind of both-worlds position, where I understand why it is so offensive, but also understand that it's largely a cultural value.

But outside the Anglosphere, dressing up like someone of another race doesn't necessarily mean a "caricature". Alec Baldwin's impersonation of Trump on SNL is a caricature and is therefore exaggerated and played for laughs. But it's also possible that a later documentary or dramatization will feature someone playing him straight. Racial caricatures are inherently offensive, but the fact that it's considered impossible to use blackface as a means of just playing someone straight, that's just American culture. Anglosphere culture too, to an extent. I would say that even for impressions, not all impressions are caricatures, it depends on the tone. Baldwin's impression of Trump is exaggerated in such a way as to make Trump look like an idiot, but sometimes people also do impressions that are not intended to be offensive.

Is men dressing up like women always inherently disrespectful to women? What's the difference?

Do you think it's fair to insist that everyone in the world accept the British attitude to "spaz", once it's been explained to them? Supplementary question: What do you think the chances are like that Americans will change their behaviour for this reason?

Wait until you guys find out about Zwarte Piet, you're going to lose your minds.

Burn them all!

But I thought only ameros cared?!