|
I need to ask for some clarification of the argument(s).
So please consider this post carefully and give me a thoughtful reply.
There seem to be to arguments here, one leading from the other:
1. Is the issue of the offensive nature of "blackface".
2. What should be done, if anything, in punishment. And by Whom. (I'll adress point 2 in a subsquent post. )
Starting with 1.
The reason I asked for the historical antecedents of "blackface" is to clarify what blackface actually is, and give a hint why its such a sore topic in the argument of Racism.
Now here is some of my thoughts as a neutral reader.
These cases aren't in the historical vein of the traditional "blackface". Neither the intention or the actual make-up design is there.
That forced me to redefine the argument in my mind and say that darkening the face in an effort to ridicule or create a situation of riducule of Blacks was in the spirirt of "blackface" and therefore bad.
Clearly Auburn, from the facts presented, would fall into this category. The whole noose around the neck and clan motiff looks kind of bad for those fellows. So in this case almost everyone seemed to be united on the fact that it was BAD, but disagreed about punishment (argument 2 above).
Tennessee doesn't seem to be the same at all, however people are equally offended.
So I am forced to redefine the argument in my head again and come out with a new rule to understand people's positions:
Any, darkening (lightening) or changing of the appearance of the face or body, to mimic a different ethinicity, for whatever purpose, good or bad, in whatever context, entertainment notwithstanding, is INHERENTLY BAD and is both unacceptable and inexcusable.
Would that be a fair representation of the argument against Blackface?
Because that is the only argument that I can see that fits the position that seems to be failry common on here, that darkening of the face in these contexts are automatically a negative.
Thank you.
|