GI
Also,don't wear a perm or curly hair, unless you want to be accused of ''cultural appropriation''. I guess in a few years they will be firing people for this too.
Kendall Jenner accused of cultural appropriation after wearing afro in Vogue magazine https://t.co/j1S2hTEL6v pic.twitter.com/gJcvk4MRtr
— Clevver News (@Clevver) October 23, 2018
WW
We're getting a bit off-topic but here is an interesting perspective about blackface (or "blacking up") and why it's offensive. It has a lot to do with pre-civil-rights-era American history:
#MegynKelly was forced 2 #PutSomeRespecOnIt, by inviting journalists #RolandMartin & #AmyHolmes on, 2 CHECK HER about why white people wearing #BlackFace is racist!! But she is #ADayLateAndADollarShort!! #GirlBye!! #LisaDurdenTVPersonality!!#PopCultureExpert!! pic.twitter.com/Iqgi2WunIw
— Lisa Durden (@Lisardurden) October 26, 2018
MA
mannewskev
SE
Dressing as an entertainer you admire for Halloween could be well-intentioned, but at least in the US, it's very hard to divorce from a really odious history.
I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that in the American context, the division between "blackface" and "costumes that incorporate blackface" is completely inseparable. Without writing an entire essay on the history of minstrelsy in America, I do want to acknowledge that at points of the 19th Century, blackface minstrelsy was a dominant, if not THE dominant popular entertainment medium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show. A century and a half later, blackface is probably one of THE GREATEST taboos of American culture, right alongside the KKK and fascist iconography. Blackface is outside the realm of acceptability in the US, and even films that featured blackface with a degree of irony, like 2008's Tropic Thunder had to tread very carefully. I understand that blackface in other contexts and locations may be less loaded, such as Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, but in the United States it's a relatively unquestioned taboo.
I think one of the main issues people are taking with Kelly isn't necessarily what she directly said, but the fact that she is putting this up for debate, despite 60-odd years of blackface being regarded as simply beyond the pale in American society. It's a pretty well accepted "no-no", so having a mainstream, centrist network give airtime to this was enough to cause this furor, both within and outside the scope of the network. It's not a matter of "not wanting to debate both sides", blackface has been well outside the Overton Window for decades, and I think the outrage is justified.
I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that in the American context, the division between "blackface" and "costumes that incorporate blackface" is completely inseparable. Without writing an entire essay on the history of minstrelsy in America, I do want to acknowledge that at points of the 19th Century, blackface minstrelsy was a dominant, if not THE dominant popular entertainment medium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show. A century and a half later, blackface is probably one of THE GREATEST taboos of American culture, right alongside the KKK and fascist iconography. Blackface is outside the realm of acceptability in the US, and even films that featured blackface with a degree of irony, like 2008's Tropic Thunder had to tread very carefully. I understand that blackface in other contexts and locations may be less loaded, such as Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, but in the United States it's a relatively unquestioned taboo.
I think one of the main issues people are taking with Kelly isn't necessarily what she directly said, but the fact that she is putting this up for debate, despite 60-odd years of blackface being regarded as simply beyond the pale in American society. It's a pretty well accepted "no-no", so having a mainstream, centrist network give airtime to this was enough to cause this furor, both within and outside the scope of the network. It's not a matter of "not wanting to debate both sides", blackface has been well outside the Overton Window for decades, and I think the outrage is justified.
Last edited by seamus on 26 October 2018 10:00pm
WH
Thank you for taking the time to explain that. So it is seen as intrinsically linked to the blackface of old, which is why it is still found offensive.
I still think that's quite a shame because the concept of wearing a darker (or lighter) make up to look like a particular artist is not racist on face value, and the idea of something being inappropriate for one race to wear but not the other seems so divisive to me. However, you've helped me to understand why others have strong feelings about this.
Whataday
Founding member
Dressing as an entertainer you admire for Halloween could be well-intentioned, but at least in the US, it's very hard to divorce from a really odious history.
I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that in the American context, the division between "blackface" and "costumes that incorporate blackface" is completely inseparable. Without writing an entire essay on the history of minstrelsy in America, I do want to acknowledge that at points of the 19th Century, blackface minstrelsy was a dominant, if not THE dominant popular entertainment medium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show. A century and a half later, blackface is probably one of THE GREATEST taboos of American culture, right alongside the KKK and fascist iconography. Blackface is simply beyond the pale in the US, and even films that featured blackface with a degree of irony, like 2008's Tropic Thunder had to tread very carefully. I understand that blackface in other contexts and locations may be less loaded, such as Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, but in the United States it's a relatively unquestioned taboo.
I think one of the main issues people are taking with Kelly isn't necessarily what she directly said, but the fact that she is putting this up for debate, despite 60-odd years of blackface being regarded as simply beyond the pale in American society. It's a pretty well accepted "no-no", so having a mainstream, centrist network give airtime to this was enough to cause this furor, both within and outside the scope of the network. It's not a matter of "not wanting to debate both sides", blackface has been well outside the Overton Window for decades, and I think the outrage is justified.
I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that in the American context, the division between "blackface" and "costumes that incorporate blackface" is completely inseparable. Without writing an entire essay on the history of minstrelsy in America, I do want to acknowledge that at points of the 19th Century, blackface minstrelsy was a dominant, if not THE dominant popular entertainment medium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show. A century and a half later, blackface is probably one of THE GREATEST taboos of American culture, right alongside the KKK and fascist iconography. Blackface is simply beyond the pale in the US, and even films that featured blackface with a degree of irony, like 2008's Tropic Thunder had to tread very carefully. I understand that blackface in other contexts and locations may be less loaded, such as Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, but in the United States it's a relatively unquestioned taboo.
I think one of the main issues people are taking with Kelly isn't necessarily what she directly said, but the fact that she is putting this up for debate, despite 60-odd years of blackface being regarded as simply beyond the pale in American society. It's a pretty well accepted "no-no", so having a mainstream, centrist network give airtime to this was enough to cause this furor, both within and outside the scope of the network. It's not a matter of "not wanting to debate both sides", blackface has been well outside the Overton Window for decades, and I think the outrage is justified.
Thank you for taking the time to explain that. So it is seen as intrinsically linked to the blackface of old, which is why it is still found offensive.
I still think that's quite a shame because the concept of wearing a darker (or lighter) make up to look like a particular artist is not racist on face value, and the idea of something being inappropriate for one race to wear but not the other seems so divisive to me. However, you've helped me to understand why others have strong feelings about this.
RK
Just worth noting that the right most video wall in the last two pics was removed after the 2016 election and it appears that it was just placed in front of the existing screenage.
Additionally the stacked monitors the American flag are still there showing the same animation. It looks like a good divider for the video wall. Of course I assume it could be used for a seamless image.
Newscastudio has posted an article about the updates.
In this picture, where you see that tall vertical monitor in the background with the vertical US flag on the video column...well the virtual window has been extended all the way across. the back wall. The flag duratrans and those white boxes and smaller monitors have been removed. So now the window effect is even more impressive and the entire "set" can be instantly changed to suit what they need. I can imagine MSNBC using it to do display results or whatever.
In this picture, where you see that tall vertical monitor in the background with the vertical US flag on the video column...well the virtual window has been extended all the way across. the back wall. The flag duratrans and those white boxes and smaller monitors have been removed. So now the window effect is even more impressive and the entire "set" can be instantly changed to suit what they need. I can imagine MSNBC using it to do display results or whatever.
Just worth noting that the right most video wall in the last two pics was removed after the 2016 election and it appears that it was just placed in front of the existing screenage.
Additionally the stacked monitors the American flag are still there showing the same animation. It looks like a good divider for the video wall. Of course I assume it could be used for a seamless image.
BA
At the time it was shown, this was acceptable enough for breakfast TV (but isn't now as the talking heads explain):
This is more recent, and was also acceptable at the time. I think that times have changed enough that it wouldn't be now.
This is more recent, and was also acceptable at the time. I think that times have changed enough that it wouldn't be now.
MO
I think Dr. David J. Leonard sums it up succinctly:
Now I hope we can get back to tv presentation.
Quote:
The ability to be ignorant, to be unaware of the history and consequences of racial bigotry, to simply do as one pleases, is a quintessential element of privilege.
The ability to disparage, to demonize, to ridicule, and to engage in racially hurtful practices from the comfort of one's segregated neighborhoods and racially homogeneous schools reflects both privilege and power.
The ability to blame others for being oversensitive, for playing the race card, or for making much ado about nothing are privileges codified structurally and culturally."
So, maybe you don't know anything about the history of minstrelsy, and maybe you don't know anything about the pain and trauma of living in a society that imagines blackness as comical or criminal.
That, according to Leonard, is the problem.
The question, to ask yourself if you claim ignorance is, he said, "Why do you not know, and what have you done to make sure that you continue to not know?"
After all, embracing the chance to mock, dehumanize, and to dismiss the feelings and demands of others, all while re-imagining history so that only things you deem wrong are wrong, is a pretty great way to perpetuate a racist society that treats black people like crap.
Finally, if you really cannot understand what's wrong with with blackface, challenge yourself to figure out what seems so right about it. Leonard suggests that blackface fans ask themselves, "Why do I derive pleasure from this? What's the investment in doing it, and what's the investment in defending it?"
So, maybe you don't know anything about the history of minstrelsy, and maybe you don't know anything about the pain and trauma of living in a society that imagines blackness as comical or criminal.
That, according to Leonard, is the problem.
The question, to ask yourself if you claim ignorance is, he said, "Why do you not know, and what have you done to make sure that you continue to not know?"
After all, embracing the chance to mock, dehumanize, and to dismiss the feelings and demands of others, all while re-imagining history so that only things you deem wrong are wrong, is a pretty great way to perpetuate a racist society that treats black people like crap.
Finally, if you really cannot understand what's wrong with with blackface, challenge yourself to figure out what seems so right about it. Leonard suggests that blackface fans ask themselves, "Why do I derive pleasure from this? What's the investment in doing it, and what's the investment in defending it?"
Now I hope we can get back to tv presentation.
SP
Thank you for taking the time to explain that. So it is seen as intrinsically linked to the blackface of old, which is why it is still found offensive.
I still think that's quite a shame because the concept of wearing a darker (or lighter) make up to look like a particular artist is not racist on face value, and the idea of something being inappropriate for one race to wear but not the other seems so divisive to me. However, you've helped me to understand why others have strong feelings about this.
It's a difficult one. I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the Minstrel style caricature of a generic black stereotype and an impression/impersonation/cosplay of a specific individual.
The former is pretty much indefensible (through the lens of 2018). I don't think the latter can objectively be described as racist under any definition I can find. Ill-judged given the historical context perhaps, but nothing more.
Dressing as an entertainer you admire for Halloween could be well-intentioned, but at least in the US, it's very hard to divorce from a really odious history.
I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that in the American context, the division between "blackface" and "costumes that incorporate blackface" is completely inseparable. Without writing an entire essay on the history of minstrelsy in America, I do want to acknowledge that at points of the 19th Century, blackface minstrelsy was a dominant, if not THE dominant popular entertainment medium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show. A century and a half later, blackface is probably one of THE GREATEST taboos of American culture, right alongside the KKK and fascist iconography. Blackface is simply beyond the pale in the US, and even films that featured blackface with a degree of irony, like 2008's Tropic Thunder had to tread very carefully. I understand that blackface in other contexts and locations may be less loaded, such as Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, but in the United States it's a relatively unquestioned taboo.
I think one of the main issues people are taking with Kelly isn't necessarily what she directly said, but the fact that she is putting this up for debate, despite 60-odd years of blackface being regarded as simply beyond the pale in American society. It's a pretty well accepted "no-no", so having a mainstream, centrist network give airtime to this was enough to cause this furor, both within and outside the scope of the network. It's not a matter of "not wanting to debate both sides", blackface has been well outside the Overton Window for decades, and I think the outrage is justified.
I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that in the American context, the division between "blackface" and "costumes that incorporate blackface" is completely inseparable. Without writing an entire essay on the history of minstrelsy in America, I do want to acknowledge that at points of the 19th Century, blackface minstrelsy was a dominant, if not THE dominant popular entertainment medium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show. A century and a half later, blackface is probably one of THE GREATEST taboos of American culture, right alongside the KKK and fascist iconography. Blackface is simply beyond the pale in the US, and even films that featured blackface with a degree of irony, like 2008's Tropic Thunder had to tread very carefully. I understand that blackface in other contexts and locations may be less loaded, such as Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands, but in the United States it's a relatively unquestioned taboo.
I think one of the main issues people are taking with Kelly isn't necessarily what she directly said, but the fact that she is putting this up for debate, despite 60-odd years of blackface being regarded as simply beyond the pale in American society. It's a pretty well accepted "no-no", so having a mainstream, centrist network give airtime to this was enough to cause this furor, both within and outside the scope of the network. It's not a matter of "not wanting to debate both sides", blackface has been well outside the Overton Window for decades, and I think the outrage is justified.
Thank you for taking the time to explain that. So it is seen as intrinsically linked to the blackface of old, which is why it is still found offensive.
I still think that's quite a shame because the concept of wearing a darker (or lighter) make up to look like a particular artist is not racist on face value, and the idea of something being inappropriate for one race to wear but not the other seems so divisive to me. However, you've helped me to understand why others have strong feelings about this.
It's a difficult one. I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the Minstrel style caricature of a generic black stereotype and an impression/impersonation/cosplay of a specific individual.
The former is pretty much indefensible (through the lens of 2018). I don't think the latter can objectively be described as racist under any definition I can find. Ill-judged given the historical context perhaps, but nothing more.
TI
Let’s not pretend that we in the UK were above minstrel entertainment. The Black and White Minstrel Show ran for 20 years on BBC One on a Saturday evening until as recently as the late 1970’s.
:-(
A former member
There’s a real danger in saying to people that something is wrong, but that you can’t question it or even discuss the reasons why. That ultimately breeds contempt. Right now there’ll be a whole load of people looking at the consequences for Megyn Kelly after what she said who can’t understand what was so bad about it. In this incident it will only further embolden those, who probably support Trump, who now probably think a great injustice has happened.
mannewskev - the reason I challenged you on this was that you were objecting, but clearly did not fully understand why. I don’t disagree with you. Hysterical overreaction without a full grasp of the facts (not saying that’s what you were doing but want to make the broader point) is everything that is wrong with politics on both sides of the Atlantic right now.
mannewskev - the reason I challenged you on this was that you were objecting, but clearly did not fully understand why. I don’t disagree with you. Hysterical overreaction without a full grasp of the facts (not saying that’s what you were doing but want to make the broader point) is everything that is wrong with politics on both sides of the Atlantic right now.