Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Nope, apparently not.
Because 1 guy (from what i have read) says its blackface, it is now to be taken as such. No room for questioning that either...at least according to some.
Yay.
|
Because it is defined as something, does not mean we have to treat every iteration of that thing the same or that we can’t have nuanced conversations about that thing.
It’s an odd hill to die on, fighting about what to call it just to give yourself permission to act a certain way about it.
It’s blackface, that’s what it appears to be, that’s what it’s being called. Is blackface offensive to a lot of people? Sure. Is this example of blackface the most offensive? No. But does every example of blackface fit into Cliff’s rigid definition of it being a purposely cruel act to ridicule black people? Absolutely not, and to think so is basically ignoring of the history of blackface. Regardless of intention, we look back on it and have generally agreed that it’s a sore spot in our history, even if people didn’t intend harm by doing it, we know they caused it.
Same here. I don’t think she meant any harm, but it’s one of many examples of an issue we’ve sort of silently agreed not to do.