Justin "Blackface" Trudeau - Thoughts?

[Darth Wedgius]

I think intent should play a role. Robert Downey Jr. was in blackface for "Tropic Thunder" but the intent obviously wasn't to make fun of black people. If you're in an Arabian Nights party and looking more swarthy than usual, it's not necessarily to make fun of arabs. Though among certain people that will still get you into trouble on "cultural appropriation" grounds, and I'm a little surprised Trudeau hasn't been called out on that.

That someone's feelings are hurt just isn't enough for me to think something is a problem. Someone objected to a picture of coal miners in a restaurant because of "blackface" (i.e., coal dust on their faces because they'd been sweating and mining all day).

Yo, Wedge could you explain Allan what i wrote?

I think he probably understands. I think we'll have tension for a long time between the opinion that offense (or just people in group X being offended) means that some wrong has been done, and the idea that people being offended doesn't need to matter to anyone else.

[Admiral X]

It's not actually about offense, though. If it was, they wouldn't scoff at the offense of others themselves.

[Karha of Honor]

I think intent should play a role. Robert Downey Jr. was in blackface for "Tropic Thunder" but the intent obviously wasn't to make fun of black people. If you're in an Arabian Nights party and looking more swarthy than usual, it's not necessarily to make fun of arabs. Though among certain people that will still get you into trouble on "cultural appropriation" grounds, and I'm a little surprised Trudeau hasn't been called out on that.

That someone's feelings are hurt just isn't enough for me to think something is a problem. Someone objected to a picture of coal miners in a restaurant because of "blackface" (i.e., coal dust on their faces because they'd been sweating and mining all day).

Yo, Wedge could you explain Allan what i wrote?

I think he probably understands. I think we'll have tension for a long time between the opinion that offense (or just people in group X being offended) means that some wrong has been done, and the idea that people being offended doesn't need to matter to anyone else.

I meant the the guerila political resilience metaphor / comprasion....

[Darth Wedgius]

I meant the the guerila political resilience metaphor / comprasion....

Sorry, I don't think I understood that one, myself.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's not actually about offense, though. If it was, they wouldn't scoff at the offense of others themselves.

How you say it somewhat implies that you're referring to personal and/or emotional offense. As in something that provokes response from progressives, though not something that translates well to substantiate warrant as an officiated offense.

[Robovski]

Ok, so this is British TV (BBC Primetime), but this went on from 1958 to 1978, a show called the Black and White Minstrel Show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_and_White_Minstrel_Show and according to the article there was a touring live show until 1987. I have no idea if that was picked up in Commonwealth countries as a show however. So this isn't just the 20's that this was considered entertainment. Here's the article on Blackface in Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface#Canada Which I am surprised to see has so much recent material.

[AllanO]

I think he probably understands. I think we'll have tension for a long time between the opinion that offense (or just people in group X being offended) means that some wrong has been done, and the idea that people being offended doesn't need to matter to anyone else.

I understand to a degree but I think the position could be better characterized. Worrying about offense is always worrying about a legitimate versus an illegitimate offense. Otherwise it would be meaningless because your worry about one emotional reaction would be negated by another: Richard is offended that Bob calls him Dick all the time, Bob is offended that Richard tells him to stop. Some other people agree with Richard that Bob should knock it off, they deem Richard's offense legitimate and Bob's illegitimate.

Often however more is at stake than what constitutes basic politeness, but what the act says or does not say about broader attitudes, what consequences the act does or does not have.

People who worry about an act of blackface are not only worried about hurt feelings they are worried about things like promoting or embodying racist attitudes and so on. People who worry about people saying "Happy Holidays" are not just saying they have a negative emotional reaction to the words, they are saying there are broader implications about the right, respect etc. of practice of Christian faith (they think the phrase "Happy Holidays" means "We are not allowed to say Merry Christmas").

If you don't buy the larger implications being drawn you will usually not think the particular emotional reaction is worth worrying about, but that is just precisely what taking an offense at illegitimate is, your judging the various claims being made and not all those claims are just do people have a negative emotional reaction to X...

Ok, so this is British TV (BBC Primetime), but this went on from 1958 to 1978, a show called the Black and White Minstrel Show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_and_White_Minstrel_Show and according to the article there was a touring live show until 1987. I have no idea if that was picked up in Commonwealth countries as a show however. So this isn't just the 20's that this was considered entertainment. Here's the article on Blackface in Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface#Canada Which I am surprised to see has so much recent material.

I am pretty sure the British show never toured in Canada, but I was vaguely aware that black face and related stuff happened more in Quebec and that it is less of a taboo in Europe. Note that Trudeau was a school teacher in Vancouver (the West Coast, other side of country) in 2001. Note as recently as 2016 there were some St. Nicholas day festivities with black faced Zwarte Petes (Black Pete) hanging around St. Nick in a Canadian event (also on the west coast), so yeah black face happens but it often surprises and shocks people when it is brought to a wider audience (whether outside Quebec or outside whatever Dutch-Canadian community does the Zwarte Pete thing). Clearly I was underestimating how tricky public opinion was on this issue... So yeah...

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/09/19/conservative-candidate-langley-reportedly-pictured-blackface/

Even the Dutch seem to be reducing their level of blackface though...
https://globalnews.ca/news/5923815/blackface-black-pete-netherlands-parade/?fbclid=IwAR0uyUyYj2VbI9qRpdnTmp1424E6_VrM-7P9YCMjywLdDPeDZdQZhEU8XCQ

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Ok, so this is British TV (BBC Primetime), but this went on from 1958 to 1978, a show called the Black and White Minstrel Show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_and_White_Minstrel_Show and according to the article there was a touring live show until 1987. I have no idea if that was picked up in Commonwealth countries as a show however. So this isn't just the 20's that this was considered entertainment. Here's the article on Blackface in Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface#Canada Which I am surprised to see has so much recent material.

Just to be clear, it doesn't seem to be heavily relative to the country region.

[Admiral X]

It's not actually about offense, though. If it was, they wouldn't scoff at the offense of others themselves.

How you say it somewhat implies that you're referring to personal and/or emotional offense. As in something that provokes response from progressives, though not something that translates well to substantiate warrant as an officiated offense.

Nah, it's just all about power and control. The regressives are just bullies who get off on destroying peoples' lives.

[Darth Wedgius]

I think he probably understands. I think we'll have tension for a long time between the opinion that offense (or just people in group X being offended) means that some wrong has been done, and the idea that people being offended doesn't need to matter to anyone else.

I understand to a degree but I think the position could be better characterized. Worrying about offense is always worrying about a legitimate versus an illegitimate offense. Otherwise it would be meaningless because your worry about one emotional reaction would be negated by another: Richard is offended that Bob calls him Dick all the time, Bob is offended that Richard tells him to stop. Some other people agree with Richard that Bob should knock it off, they deem Richard's offense legitimate and Bob's illegitimate.

Often however more is at stake than what constitutes basic politeness, but what the act says or does not say about broader attitudes, what consequences the act does or does not have.

People who worry about an act of blackface are not only worried about hurt feelings they are worried about things like promoting or embodying racist attitudes and so on. People who worry about people saying "Happy Holidays" are not just saying they have a negative emotional reaction to the words, they are saying there are broader implications about the right, respect etc. of practice of Christian faith (they think the phrase "Happy Holidays" means "We are not allowed to say Merry Christmas").

If you don't buy the larger implications being drawn you will usually not think the particular emotional reaction is worth worrying about, but that is just precisely what taking an offense at illegitimate is, your judging the various claims being made and not all those claims are just do people have a negative emotional reaction to X...

That's fair. Irrespective of "who does this offend" there can be other factors, such as not encouraging people who might take blackface as encouragement.