"Blackface" in Millburn causes snowflakes to melt

annielou said:

I say this all the time. The privileged among us behave as though they are center stage in some grand theater called life, and everyone else is some bit player or audience member cheering them on.

Yes.

@drummerboy - c'mon, man. You know what is acceptable and what is not. If I wanted to dress as Dolly Parton, I would don the gear, rock a fab blond wig but NOT paint my face white. I think people would get it.

We are not all one shade. Often when this is done, the offending party always seems to go for the blackest make up possible, which is offensive. Having natural black skin is NOT offensive; someone smearing their face with waxy black make up IS.

To me, this falls in the same category as whites portraying Asians or Indians (Native and from India) with make up and prosthetics. It's ridiculous looking at best and terribly insulting at worse.

I think all we need to know on this topic is when I asked -- who in this discussion would have sent a child to school in black/brown face makeup to portray MLK?  Not a single person has said they would.  There's your answer.  We all know it's something people should not do.

Yes, merely dark make up is offensive.  I thought this was common sense in today's society, but the incident in Millburn and your posts prove otherwise.

drummerboy said:

can I ask a question? Is merely putting on dark makeup so that you look like a black person simply offensive in and of itself? That apparently appears to be the position of some/many of the people upset with this.

In my mind, "blackface" and "dark makeup" are not the same thing. Blackface historically has had grossly oversize red or white lips, googly eyes, sometimes a shaggy wig.

Are the two photos below equal in their offensiveness?

Why do you say the following?

There is no rational excuse for ANYONE to paint faces a different hue to play a historical figure and I still don't get why others simply just don't GET this.
You say it as if it's a self-evident truth. I can assure you, it's not.

kibbegirl said:

When I was in elementary / middle school, we played historical figures. Our costumes deemed who we were, not our skin color. If a Latino or Black kid played Ben Franklin, no one thought to color his skin white. We knew it was supposed to be Ben by the costume and more importantly, the words said. There is no rational excuse for ANYONE to paint faces a different hue to play a historical figure and I still don't get why others simply just don't GET this. 

Fast forward: if the lesson isn't taught now, let's check the IG and Snapchat (or whatever will be used in the future) of some of these students to see how they portray themselves for Black History Month or just for the fun of it. I've seen HS and college kids in blackface on IG and I'm sure you have too. Some of them from our towns. The lesson needs to be taught that this isn't cool, it has a history, there's no need for it and to please cease and desist. 

Whatever may have been "acceptable" in the past does not mean that people should not be offended now.

Just an analogy - "Breakfast at Tiffany's" was made in 1961.  A great movie with one unfortunate casting/makeup choice which, obviously, would and should not be done today - Mickey Rooney as "Mr. Yunioshi".

or Olivier in Othello.

Absolutely true but also shows that the sands are always shifting and the norms change.  You don't always know where you stand and, at given times, what is correct/proper/sensitive isn't always settled or is a matter of disagreement.   As the OP pointed out, using dark make up to play Othello was uncontroversial until fairly recently whereas the traditional cartoonish denigrating blackface of the Al Jolson type has long been a no no. 

And Ml1 hit it on the head.  No white person participating in this thread would send their kid to the Wax Museum in black make up.  No one has said white MLK portrayers should continue to use black make up, sensitivities of black parents be damned.  In other words, we know.  So much for the rhetorical mallets about  white privilege and how it makes it impossible for us to think clearly or be sensitive.

Someone did it.  It might,as Gilgul, pointed out, have been someone from the growing population of Asian immigrants in Millburn.  Many of the parents barely speak English.  Their ignorance of "it" is more understandable and forgivable, I think.

Context and degree matter.  Some not-black parents willingly sent their child to play a black man, MLK, in an event meant to honor and respect MLK.  In the context of this largely well intended event, they did something unintentionally offensive.  As has been said, the teachers on scene should have stopped it.  But there's no ongoing controversy.  There's been no community pushback or backlash against the complaints voiced.          

pSouth_Mountaineer said:

Whatever may have been "acceptable" in the past does not mean that people should not be offended now.

Just an analogy - "Breakfast at Tiffany's" was made in 1961.  A great movie with one unfortunate casting/makeup choice which, obviously, would and should not be done today - Mickey Rooney as "Mr. Yunioshi".

This discussion started as pushback against the complaints.  And at least a couple of people heartily endorsed that pushback.

bub said:


There's been no community pushback or backlash against the complaints voiced.          


 

First, I don't think the OP is a member of the Millburn community. That's what I meant by the community.  

Second, I read the OP as reacting to overkill, which is what I was talking about:

"The town is in an uproar over this overt act of racism."

As I pointed out, there is no tradition of a "blackface" MLK at these school events.   The kid did it her parents did it, whatever.  Unless you have some basis to believe that it was some kind of sly altright racist slight, it was simply a well intended mistep.   Someone does something unthinkingly hurtful, you explain it to them  and tell them not to do it again.  Based on the article,  I'm pretty sure the admin sent the message out.

No need for shrillness.  No need for the kind of maximalist angry rhetoric present on this thread.  Save your gun powder, as they say.  If an offense is a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 and you go overboard and call it a 10, what are you going to call a real 10 when it comes along? 

South_Mountaineer said:

This really sums it up, and there did not have to be an extensive discussion beyond this.

flimbro said:

Why is this so complex to so many? Just don't do it. 

"Don't do it" is a good start and an effective end. The back-and-forth in between, however: Why not, on this issue? Nothing for anyone to gain?

so in other words, this entire thread was started based on a false premise.  I can agree with that.

bub said:

First, I don't think the OP is a member of the Millburn community. That's what I meant by the community.  


Second, I read the OP as reacting to overkill, which is what I was talking about:

"The town is in an uproar over this overt act of racism."

As I pointed out, there is no tradition of a "blackface" MLK at these school events.   The kid did it her parents did it, whatever.  Unless you have some basis to believe that it was some kind of sly altright racist slight, it was simply a well intended mistep.   Someone does something unthinkingly hurtful, you explain it to them  and tell them not to do it again.  Based on the article,  I'm pretty sure the admin sent the message out.


No need for shrillness.  No need for the kind of maximalist angry rhetoric present on this thread.  Save your gun powder, as they say.  If an offense is a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 and you go overboard and call it a 10, what are you going to call a real 10 when it comes along? 





 

Breakfast at Tiffany's Song parody: (Warning on language.)

bub said:

If an offense is a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 and you go overboard and call it a 10, what are you going to call a real 10 when it comes along? 
 

It's a cumulative scale. If I've had enough of the 2's and 3's and 4's, I can pretty much guarantee the next 1 is going to set me off.

bub said:


No need for shrillness.  No need for the kind of maximalist angry rhetoric present on this thread.  Save your gun powder, as they say.  If an offense is a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 and you go overboard and call it a 10, what are you going to call a real 10 when it comes along? 

It's probably easier to recommend saving your gunpowder when you're not the one being shot at.

That may be true but it doesn't make the 4 that sets you off a 10.  But let's put aside the numbers and use words.  Would a headline saying "Overt Act of Racism at Millburn School"  be an accurate, measured informative shorthand description of this incident?   That to me would suggest a noose on a black kid's locker or a verbal assault on a black student by a gang of white kids.  Not this.  This was an isolated, seemingly unintentional, albeit ignorant, and quickly squelched thing.  I don't think the oh so over abused word "outrage" or popular lazy slogans about "white privilege" need to be trotted out for this.

DaveSchmidt said:

bub said:

If an offense is a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 and you go overboard and call it a 10, what are you going to call a real 10 when it comes along? 
 

It's a cumulative scale. If I've had enough of the 2's and 3's and 4's, I can pretty much guarantee the next 1 is going to set me off.

bub said:

That may be true but it doesn't make the 4 that sets you off a 10.  But let's put aside the numbers and use words.  Would a headline saying "Overt Act of Racism at Millburn School"  be an accurate, measured informative shorthand description of this incident?   That to me would suggest a noose on a black kid's locker or a verbal assault on a black student by a gang of white kids.  Not this.  This was an isolated, seemingly unintentional, albeit ignorant, and quickly squelched thing.  I don't think the oh so over abused word "outrage" or popular lazy slogans about "white privilege" need to be trotted out for this.

No one, as far as I can tell, is raising the act itself to such a level. But what you're really talking about is the reaction, suggesting that the spotlight's glare is too harsh. The way I see things, it's hard for the glare to ever be too harsh.

DaveSchmidt said:

South_Mountaineer said:

This really sums it up, and there did not have to be an extensive discussion beyond this.

flimbro said:

Why is this so complex to so many? Just don't do it. 

"Don't do it" is a good start and an effective end. The back-and-forth in between, however: Why not, on this issue? Nothing for anyone to gain?

The "back and forth" as veered off (as internet discussions tend to do).  I just think that, since there are adults out there who did not think things through, and realize that the make-up was not a good idea, they probably learned that now.  It's an example to take to heart about considering how people might react.  We could discuss all types of examples, but not solve anything unless people accept the general idea of to think about others.

One of the reasons why there are still incidents like this is when they do happen many people make excuses. Stop making excuses.

yahooyahoo said:

One of the reasons why there are still incidents like this is when they do happen many people make excuses. Stop making excuses.

or saying that it's "idiocy" to be offended by it.

Well said. 

yahooyahoo said:

One of the reasons why there are still incidents like this is when they do happen many people make excuses. Stop making excuses.

For the record, the family that used the makeup is not Asian. They are caucasian.