Flap over costume party winner at Homeland Security.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Eh, since this is already a thread about race, I'll go there...

NIC is sufficient, you can leave the "white" off, as NIC groups accept people of all races.

Au contraire, I was attempting to be inclusive because 3-5 NPHC fraternities and other Latino- and Asian-interest groups are members of the NIC also. We all do not share the same traditions and nomenclature; thus just saying NIC would give a wrong impression because most would not associate its member groups with African American fraternities. That's it, in a nutshell. It's simply descriptive, not pejorative. "Historically white" may have been a better expression; but your concern had nothing to do with the point I was making at all.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Au contraire, I was attempting to be inclusive because 3-5 NPHC fraternities and other Latino- and Asian-interest groups are members of the NIC also. We all do not share the same traditions and nomenclature; thus just saying NIC would give a wrong impression because most would not associate its member groups with African American fraternities. That's it, in a nutshell. It's simply descriptive, not pejorative. "Historically white" may have been a better expression; but your concern had nothing to do with the point I was making at all.

No, you were attempting to be EXCLUSIVE...you were excluding the Latino and Asian groups who are members of the NIC. And "white" is descriptive, but certainly not accurate. Saying "what other groups call a pledge trainer" would have also worked for your point. But, the fact that my concern was not associated with the point you were making is not going to stop me from bringing it up. I and other NPC members make an attempt to use the terms that other groups (NIC/NPHC/IFC, etc) prefer, and all I ask is that you do the same. I know I'm not an NIC member, but I do see "white sororities", etc used just as much.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

No, you were attempting to be EXCLUSIVE...you were excluding the Latino and Asian groups who are members of the NIC. And "white" is descriptive, but certainly not accurate. Saying "what other groups call a pledge trainer" would have also worked for your point. But, the fact that my concern was not associated with the point you were making is not going to stop me from bringing it up. I and other NPC members make an attempt to use the terms that other groups (NIC/NPHC/IFC, etc) prefer, and all I ask is that you do the same. I know I'm not an NIC member, but I do see "white sororities", etc used just as much.

It's curious to hear someone tell me, the writer, what my motivations were, when, I assure you, that was not the case. In my line of work, imputing wrong motives to people and the like can be termed "delusional."

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

It's curious to hear someone tell me, the writer, what my motivations were, when, I assure you, that was not the case. In my line of work, imputing wrong motives to people and the like can be termed "delusional."

There's no discussion of your motivations in my post. You said you were being inclusive. That is factually incorrect, it has nothing to do with motives. If you were talking about the non-Latino, non-Black and non-Asian focused members of the NIC, you were excluding them from your statement, not including them. And, I don't think it's appropriate to be throwing the term "delusional" around, especially since in your line of work, "delusional" is most likely deemed to be pathological, which cannot be determined from a single post.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

It's curious to hear someone tell me, the writer, what my motivations were, when, I assure you, that was not the case. In my line of work, imputing wrong motives to people and the like can be termed "delusional."

It's equally curious, in the context of this thread, to see how a person can take offense at what you said (or how you said it) even when your motivation was benign, and how you suggest that anyone taking offense where none was intended might be "delusional."

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It's equally curious, in the context of this thread, to see how a person can take offense at what you said (or how you said it) even when your motivation was benign, and how you suggest that anyone taking offense where none was intended might be "delusional."

I've taken this to the level of the PM. What's important is the story in the thread, not this "aside."

[KSig RC]

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?

[Animate]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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?

I think in a lot of cases if makeup is used then the image of the minstrel show is the first thing to pop in the minds of some. I can see someone dressing up as a celebrity as halloween but how far do you really have to take your costume. I could dress up as Bill Gates. Khakis, green plaid shirt, maybe a wig, and some glasses. Done. Now I wouldn't grab some makeup and lighten my skin to really get into character because I know I would be offended if someone did something similar. I've seen white people be black celebrities for halloween with no makeup and there was no doubt who they were trying to be.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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?

K Sig...it's one of those things..."If you gotta guess...then don't mess"

Same as last year at my job...one of the white guys dressed up as Flava Flav sans the make up....some of us thought it was funny...others didn't.

Some people just cross the line and don't know nor think that what they are doing is offensive.

[Rudey]

Definitions evolve over time. The word "awesome" isn't used in the manner it was intended. There are still some morons who claim swastikas are benign because of their origin and neglect what they've become. So hey maybe putting on dark makeup isn't what it used to be. But then again, you couldn't convince me it's worth risking offending someone by doing that.

-Rudey

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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?