Although we covered this ground 4 months ago:D ...

It's very propable that many, if not most black folks have no idea as to the historical significance of blackface (as many white and otherwise people don't know either).

Does that make it "less bad"? I don't think so.

Especially for these guys who are in the process of recieving a college education.

The leaders of tommorow. Makes ya proud.

I am a student at UT right now and I have never seen this. I assume you graduated quite a while ago because I have been here for awhile and this is not the case, at least it hasn't been in the last four years. In fact a group of African-American males did portray N'sync in a talent competition just a few weeks before this incident occured and they managed to do it WITHOUT painting their faces. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The fact is that these guys knew they were in the wrong because when they were confronted they said, "Don't make this into an Auburn" they had knowledge that this was not the best thing to do. There was also a meeting at the beginning of the semester in which the Dean of Students told ALL members of IFC that this was NOT ACCEPTABLE because of the Auburn incident and they STILL chose to do it. I have no sympathy for them.


And by the way the person who said that KS should handle it and not UT. That did happen. The KS national office has officially suspended their chapter.

The funny thing is that this same discussion occurs everytime a blackface incident occurs.

WHITEface is DIFFERENT than BLACKface in this way: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. And INTENTIONS do not MATTER. The act in and of itself is OFFENSIVE to many people. If you want details, please pm me or check the plethora of threads regarding pasts incidents of blackface.

ktsnake, how many black people have you ever met? Because to say that "many" or "most" don't know the history is a gross overgeneralization. Maybe you get around though, and have actually encountered 12% of the population of the United States. I don't know.

scpiano, James - Way to evade the argument. Discounting an argument by calling it "emotional" sort of implies that an emotional reaction to blackface is not rational.

Also, scpiano:

I just feel this country has become too sensitive of a population

Really? So when people dress up in blackface we should just ignore them? Why not ignore the history and legacy of blackface as well? I mean gawd, it was so long ago! Can't people just get over it?

Those who forget history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it. That's why we have morons running around in blackface now.

Some things never change
 

scpiano:
I think one important fact that you are missing is that you do agree with the majority. Many people feel that this act was totally innocent, and that most of us are over reacting. It is the minority voice that is screaming, "This is not acceptable behavior!" When people dress up as other races in films and TV, it is only acceptable IF it is done purely for entertainment or education and w/o malicious intent to degrade and insult a group of people. I am not convinced that this was the intent of these young men. Since none of us truly know what their intent was, I am shocked that so many people are blindly standing behind them. As for SNL, I will not defend their sketches, b/c they often can be offensive. I've seen them mock characters and portray images that could be considered offensive to every imaginable group of people. So I guess they are simply an exception.

What I find interesting is that everyone is so proud of the diversity of America; the great "Melting Pot". Yet they are not willing to be more sensitive to the concerns and feelings of members of another race. I'm not syaing you don't have the right to be offensive (1st Amendment gives us all that). But why in this "great nation" are we not more understanding and tolerant of the past and present feelings of all of America's citizens?

Marie

Re: Some things never change
 

the minority voice is the one of dissent? of course, it's because the minority is being the one degraded. the majority isn't being poked fun at, the majority is the one poking the fun. of course you're not going to be offended, you're part of the majority. but i can sit there and guarantee to you that the MAJORITY of the MINORITY is offended, and personally....their opinions are the only ones in this matter that counts. and i'm pretty sure you can figure out what i'm talking about here.

I'm sure that you'd probably win the "how many black people do I know" contest:D

However, I'm sure that if we're talking about a statistical sampling compared with 12% of the entire population of the US and all the different backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses that we both probably don't have daily access to I'd say whatever sample we have would be pretty difficult to generalize.

So some hard facts about folks not knowin' much about history? An article in Newsweek dated 09/15/97 talks about a survey conducted of 159 upper-classmen at Stanford University (yeah the one that costs $100,000 to go to for 4 years) the survey found that "one-third of those surveyed believed that the Enlightenment preceded the Renaissance. Two-thirds could not name the sixteenth-century scholar who first proposed that the earth revolves around the sun; many confused Galileo with Copernicus. Approximately 72 per cent failed to credit Gutenberg with the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century. And the date of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor eluded a full three-quarters."

I'd say my argument that most people out there don't know even the simplest facts about history probably don't know a hell of a lot about a people's struggle for equality, let alone some of the trials it faced 50+ years ago.

I'll state this again so no one gets me wrong: I think what these guys did was pretty stupid. But my position all along was that UT had no business censoring their speech. Government institutions have no business doing that no matter how inflammatory or offensive the speech may be. Their HQ on the other hand responded appropriately. I applaud them for yanking that charter -- those guys had no business representing their organization.

ok, i wasn't going to even respond to this. you're asking specific things in history. there are a lot of people who probably don't know off of the top of their head certain things. asking an african american if they're offended by blackface and asking them what time of the day MLK was shot is two totally different things. they both have to do with racial injustice, but one's a specific incident, the other's an action in which people are still offended by it. regardless if folks know the historical connotations, it's still offensive and to this day, i'll challenge anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with it to roll into a black cultural center with it on.

say a black man in an African-American fraternity paints his face white and portrays say, George W. Bush. Does he have any business portraying his organization? Yes, it's the same thing. People just don't like things like this to be turned around to the reverse scenario.

has that happened anytime lately? because seems to me that probably doesn't happen NEARLY as often as when white people do it. either way it's still wrong.

I didn't say it happened often. It was a hypothetical situation.

Please provide me with links/info that shows the deep historical imprint of whiteface on today's media and society at large.

I bet you can't. The reason why blackface is offensive is the H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.

And WHITEface does NOT SHARE THAT HISTORY.

Your situation is hypothetical. The one at Tennessee is real. So was the one at Auburn. Let's not play apples and oranges.

ktsnake, I actually agree with your thoughts about this topic. However, to assume that MOST blacks are uaware of the history of blackface is wrong. Anyway, I think the ramifications are what really matters and I don't think ANYONE misunderstands that.

Who actually gets offended when white people pain their faces black? Which population, and which percentage of those populations?

I was just wodnering. Maybe that is not germane though . ..

trying to turn this into a numbers game is absolutely asinine. we really don't know the actual percentage of black folks who are offended by blackface, nor do we know the actual number of white people who are offended by it as well. what's relevant is that regardless of what a certain percentage white people think of blackface, if a black person is going to offended then that's all that really counts, because those are the people who are being mocked.

It matters very much.

the basis of this whole thing is that someone is ALWAYS going to be offended by something but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something. I mean people getting offended is apart of life because we don't live in the Garden of Eden anymore.

no it doesn't. but for the record, the fact that there hasn't been one black member on GC who said they didn't find blackface offensive might tell you a few things. in fact, i'm quite offended by it, and i'm not even black.

like i said before, i challenge anyone to roll into the nearest BCC with blackface on. after you see what happens, let me know if you think you should do it again.

Actually whiteface does not have the same history surrounding it as blackface. Scpiano, would *you* actually be offended by this?

There's a long history of white-on-black oppression. Blackface is part of it (although I'd argue many aren't aware of this -- in the case we're arguing they apparently were though). The trauma of history is deeply inscribed on the collective consciousness of at less some of the black population.

It's just polite.. if you know something offends someone, don't do it!

scpiano, are you actually arguing that you think blackface is okay?

I was wondering the same thing.

James, why are you trying to turn it into a numbers game? I don't think it matters. If YOU are not offended by blackface, that is fine. But the fact is that MANY PEOPLE are. And if you want to take a nationwide survey to find out exactly how many people are offended by this, knock yourself out, but I really don't know how relevant it would be.

How about this...how many people find blackface INOFFENSIVE?

I fully expect James and scpiano to speak up, otherwise every post you have made until this point pretty much becomes obsolete.

I am not offended by a group of guys that I have never met who decided to dress up as the Jackson 5 for Halloween. I could care less. They were not trying to be offensive, it was just a Halloween party. It's no worse than Michael Jackson dressing up as a white person.

has anyone considered the fact that they may have been making fun of the jackson five, and not the entire black culture and our countries painful points of history? if you think about it, the jackson's are a pretty f-ed up family. i don't find them in anyway to be representative of the black community, and i would not associate them with so many black people that are admirable in our society.
would i take offense if someone else dressed up like bill clinton or the back street boys. no b/c i think both are horses' a$$es, and deserve ridicule. would i be offended if someone dressed up like the pope, in order to ridicule catholics? yes.
i find when we lable everything as offensive then we lose focus on everything that is truly offensive. now the guys last year that dressed up as a lynching party, offensive. dressign up like the jackson five, probably not the best idea, but did they deserve to lose their chapter over it?

Sigh
 

People do not read before they post. Or maybe they do and choose to ignore it?

Let me break it down, real slow, mmkay?

IT DOES NOT MAT-TER ANY-ONE'S IN-TEN-TION, WHAT MAT-TERS IS THE HIS-TOR-I-CAL SIG-NIF-I-CANCE OF THE ACT IT-SELF.

Madmax, your post made no sense. First of all, it did not answer the question. Allow me to repeat it for you:

How many people find blackface INOFFENSIVE?

Also, the whole Michael Jackson thing is ludicrous and a terrible analogy. Only when a white person chooses to voluntarily darken their skin, texturize their hair and have plastic surgery to augment their features THEN you will have something comparable to Michael. But he doesn't DRESS UP as a white person.

Starang21

I really don't understand your post. I am an African-American who is quite disgusted by the behavior of these fraternity men. My post was making a point to scpiano that she was making herself out to be the victim and the free-thinker, when in fact she is not. I'm not sure how I could come off as saying anything other than that. Of course the majority isn't offended. Why would they be, when they aren't being humiliated and degraded. I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying. Feel free to re-read my post to clarify our miscommunication.

Marie

that's what confused me, the first part of your post said one thing...the second said another. that's what effed me up a little.

Public Service Announcement
 

To add to what my sistah librasoul eloquently posted:

Blackface is not, nor was it ever intended to serve as a compliment towards African-Americans. It was offensive back then, and it will continue to offend us!!!!

Got it? Good!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

IMO all other explanations and defenses of this offensive and crude behavior is moot.

libra,
thank you. hypenating your point really made it much more poignant. wow, since you said it slowly for me i really understand your point much better.
besides, you're wrong. read immanuel kant. he proved a long time ago that it is all about intentions and not consequences.

it's all about intentions? like i've said before in previous posts, roll into a BCC with it on and proclaim you love black folks, then tell me that it's all about intentions. sorry, billy bob, you're wrong. the internet gives people big nuts sometimes.

Teke4life,

Libra's point is that regardless of their intentions their actions are still offensive. Consequence is irrelevant in this situation. Blackface has a historical significance that is obviously lost on you. That doesn't mean it's significance is lost on others.

Regarding your comments about the Jacksons, do you know any of the Jackson family? Are you familiar with any members other than Janet and Michael? Did you bother to get to know the family before saying that the whole family is "f-ed" up? FYI, the Jackson family is more than just the public persona known as the Jackson 5 or Janet and Michael. There are some really terrific people who were born into that family. Try getting to know a few of them before making classless generalizations about them.

Laura

I don't find it offensive and if one is dressing up for a HALLOWEEN party then yes it IS ok!

to be honest, no one really cares what YOU think on blackface.

Well the fact that you don't find it offensive kind of explains your prejudiced viewpoint. Not that it was unclear.

teke, immanuel kant can write 832 novels about intentions and I wouldn't care. If he writes one about blackface and its legacy of racism and oppression, then we'll talk. Until then, he really has no place in this discussion.

racism is wrong

my god, i wish everyone would just stop WHINING about some guys dressing up as black people for halloween. get the hell over it!! get a life while youre at it! historical significance my a$$, i do not care, why does anyone? should i hate all people from england cause they treated americans badly when we were a colony? everyone is just bitching and moaning and the fact that they were punished at all is REDICULOUS.