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.