Equal opportunity racism at UVa

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by kddani
Hypos:
What would people think if someone put on . . . red face? (american indian)

Hmmm. I pretty quickly have images of old Westerns where the cowboys or the cavalry were wiping out the "savage Injuns," the latter always being played by white men in "redface."

A more modern-day version of minstrel show mentality, maybe?

[Kimmie1913]

What exactly was the derrogatory stereotype being depicted in the whiteface incident?

I am just curious as to what other than simply the whiteface makeup, made his depiction so offensive and demeaning to white people.

[MysticCat]

Speaking only for this one white person, I find nothing inherently offensive or demeaning about it.

[tunatartare]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Speaking only for this one white person, I find nothing inherently offensive or demeaning about it.

I find it kind of funny actually? Did he pop the collar on his pink polo shirt?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
By these more restrictive definitions, only the societally-"superior" race (that is, the race with the "upper hand") or those who associate with them can be racist. Members of other races can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not racists.

Thus, if the intent of the "Hallowe'ener" was to mock or ridicule white people, he can rightfully be considered a bigot. Whether he could be considered racist or not would depend on whether one is using a more or less expansive definition of "racist."

Yes he can be considered a bigot if mockery was his intent... however I'd also argue that it was racist (consiously or not). To me the mockery is meant to deminish or lessen the status of another culture/ethnicity... which is a way of gaining an upper-hand in a social setting; which is why jokes mocking another person's ethnic background is considered part and parcel of a racist attitude.

Examined from a Socialogy or Anthropology point of view any act that is design the deminsh or weaken the standing of any group of people is an act of dicrimination, because you are reducing them to a less than equal footing... and so using "race" as the determining factor in implementing this act marks it a racist act, just as using sex would have made it a sexist act.

[MysticCat]

Unless one is operating with a definition of "racist" and "racism" that limits application of that term to members of the race with power. If one is using that definition, then, literally by definition, a black cannot be a racist, at least not an American black.

[Wine&SilverBlue]

i'm more offended by the fact that there is such a double standard than by the actual act itself. racism is racism.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Unless one is operating with a definition of "racist" and "racism" that limits application of that term to members of the race with power. If one is using that definition, then, literally by definition, a black cannot be a racist, at least not an American black.

That is a definition though that would then in a way tacitly excuse acts from one group and expect it from another... all based on the percieved power of each group in a social enviroment or society... how is that a helpful definition when it itself is discrimantory?

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Wine&SilverBlue
i'm more offended by the fact that there is such a double standard than by the actual act itself. racism is racism.

But again, if one is using the accepted definition (not the only accepted definition, but unquestionably an accepted definition) of "racism" that limits application of the word to the race with "power," it's not racism if it comes from someone not not of the race with power.

That's not a double standard; it's a precise use of language.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by RACooper
Examined from a Socialogy or Anthropology point of view any act that is design the deminsh or weaken the standing of any group of people is an act of dicrimination, because you are reducing them to a less than equal footing... and so using "race" as the determining factor in implementing this act marks it a racist act, just as using sex would have made it a sexist act.

Here's the point I'm trying to make -- white people have the upper hand in our society -- that's always been the case. There's nothing a black man at a party can do to reduce white people to less than equal footing. White people already have way more than equal footing in our country. That's why I don't find it especially troublesome if a black person dresses up in white face. I personally am not bothered by people who are not in a position of power doing things like this, but find it offensive if those in a position of power (i.e., white people) do the same thing. Feel free to disagree with me, but that's my opinion.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by RACooper
That is a definition though that would then in a way tacitly excuse acts from one group and expect it from another... all based on the percieved power of each group in a social enviroment or society... how is that a helpful definition when it itself is discrimantory?

Why is it a discriminatory definition? And how does it excuse acts from one group?

That's like saying one excuses defamatory statements that are not in writing by refusing to call them "libel." But such defamatory statements are not excused, they are just given a different name -- slander -- because they don't fit the definition of libel.

By that same token, and again assuming the more limited definition of "racism," saying that an act like the one described at the start of this thread is not "racist" doesn't excuse the act; it just says that "racism" is not the correct label for it.

Personally, I think there is some value in insisting on precise definitions of words like "racism." Otherwise, such words can become so vague and overused that they start to lose any real meaning.

[SigmaChiGuy]

Just a bunch of honkeys trying to be blacks, and a bunch of blacks trying to be honkeys.

This thread will be the first to 99,999. Dead horse, lets kick it. Whites will never prevail, we'll always be supressed. There is no such thing as a 'double standard', if you're black.

Kill whitey.

[CaliPhiSig03]

I don't find this particular incident to be racist, but it was an ill attempt at humor. However, as a tri-racial person, I see the double-standard all the time. It's sad that some people can do whatever they want, and not get punished as much as others. I was hoping racism would die out with our generation, but now that I've gone to college, I'm shocked to see it's still prevalent among our age group.

[Wine&SilverBlue]

Forget the definition of racism.

I think that if it's bad for a white person to do [xxxx] to a black person, it should be equally bad for a black person to do [xxxx] to a white person. Or an asian person. Or indian person. Etc.

I've seen plenty of situations in which a group of people of a minority race said/did things that would make headlines if the groups were reversed.

All I'm saying is that I think groups should be held equally accountable for equal actions.

Just because it was considered "OK" for white people to kill black people 100 years ago does not mean that it should be ok for black people to kill white people now. Or should it?

If groups want to be treated equally they should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

/endrant

[CaliPhiSig03]

[QUOTE]
If groups want to be treated equally they should be held to the same standard as everyone else.


Exactly!