OK - I don't want to open a can of worms here, but I'm somewhat confused about this particular case as indicative of the larger issue of "blackface" . . . as I understand it, traditional blackface imagery is offensive because of its relationship to minstrel shows, and the Al Jolson style of open mocking of African Americans and all things stereotypically 'black.' It's a relic from an unbelievably awful and segregated era in American history, so I can see why it is dangerous, hurtful and stupid to invoke anything from that era.
I realize we've gone far beyond the need for a literal "blackface" paint job (with the oval of black paint and fake white teeth, again a la Al Jolson -
linked here) to invoke something racist or prejudiced . . . for instance, the kids at Clemson who dressed as black celebrities did it in a fashion that was beyond even parodic and into hurtful, including a full cadre of prejudicial and stereotypical elements.
Here, though, with just 'darker' makeup (not paint, not stereotypical or mocking, and apparently not all that noticeable), and going as a well-known and respected celebrity (and, apparently, without mocking), is this really the same thing? Does it automatically invoke the minstrel show every time a white guy puts on makeup to look black?
I ask because I really don't know - I know that I would shy away from any kind of makeup, because I'm white and I don't know what is or isn't hurtful. I can go as a white celebrity, I suppose, it seems easy enough. However, can a white guy ever dress as a black guy without being disrespectful? I'm not sure the thought process of "well I'll just go as white because it's easier" is really a step forward for race relations or anything, you know?
Threaded Mode
