The fact that ORSON WELLES appeared in blackface might be an indication that the society of that time was indeed very racist.
Is a Orson Welles racist then? is that film racist? is Othello racist, does it stereotype arabs or promote hate against arabs?
I will be honest I dont think it does any of those things, I dont think it is a stereotype as it is just an attempt to make a white actor look arabic, it doesnt really add on any negative tropes particularly.
I get that society was unconcerned about minorities feelings then but I dont see the portrayal itself as racist
The depiction of Othello, or any Moor, as black is quite racist. Moor was a derogatory term used to describe Muslims or sometimes just not "white" people. The "moors" entering Europe at this time would've been a mix of North Africans, Berbers, Anatolians, and people from the Levant.
Europeans just referred to moors as "black" because they were not quite what they considered white and it was meant to be a negative description that lumped all foreigners together into one negatively described group.
Now modern theatre has adopted that negative description and uses black actors to portray Othello. It would be much more accurate, and less racist, to use someone with a slightly darker than European skin tone.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
The depiction of Othello, or any Moor, as black is quite racist. Moor was a derogatory term used to describe Muslims or sometimes just not "white" people. The "moors" entering Europe at this time would've been a mix of North Africans, Berbers, Anatolians, and people from the Levant.
Europeans just referred to moors as "black" because they were not quite what they considered white and it was meant to be a negative description.
Now modern theatre has adapted that negative description and uses black actors to portray Othello. It would be much more accurate, and less racist, to use someone with a slightly darker than European skin tone.
*Moop.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
The depiction of Othello, or any Moor, as black is quite racist. Moor was a derogatory term used to describe Muslims or sometimes just not "white" people. The "moors" entering Europe at this time would've been a mix of North Africans, Berbers, Anatolians, and people from the Levant.
Europeans just referred to moors as "black" because they were not quite what they considered white and it was meant to be a negative description that lumped all foreigners together into one negatively described group.
Now modern theatre has adopted that negative description and uses black actors to portray Othello. It would be much more accurate, and less racist, to use someone with a slightly darker than European skin tone.
I have to admit my first thought was Olivier from '65, hadn't remembered how bad it was from A level english lit when I was 17
Which of these statements is "racist" and which is a neutral observation:
a) Asians are good at math
b) Asian cultures tend to put a strong emphasis on education, and mathematics in particular
I see what you're trying to get at, but I don't think either are racist. Both are broad generalizations and both can be correct or wrong, depending on context and intent. That is always missing when people claim racism, the context and the intent which clearly makes a comment racist or not.
Racism is such a vile thing and the outcome from such a claim can be so damaging, extreme care should be made when making the charge. I think there are a lot of over used tropes that have been claimed by SJW as racist, when they aren't because of context and intent, and then others that clearly are racist but ignored because of the social group they are associated with. Best to understand the context and the intent of the speaker before slapping a claim of racism on their back.
It was why the "white privilege" comment was toss in the ring. That is a trope that depending on context is a great point of discussion, because it definitely exists - for some people and classes of people. It can also be a highly racist term when used against white people in certain situations. The context and the intent can make the use of the term racist even if it has a different and more general term.
I see what you're trying to get at, but I don't think either are racist. Both are broad generalizations and both can be correct or wrong, depending on context and intent. That is always missing when people claim racism, the context and the intent which clearly makes a comment racist or not.
Racism is such a vile thing and the outcome from such a claim can be so damaging, extreme care should be made when making the charge. I think there are a lot of over used tropes that have been claimed by SJW as racist, when they aren't because of context and intent, and then others that clearly are racist but ignored because of the social group they are associated with. Best to understand the context and the intent of the speaker before slapping a claim of racism on their back.
It was why the "white privilege" comment was toss in the ring. That is a trope that depending on context is a great point of discussion, because it definitely exists - for some people and classes of people. It can also be a highly racist term when used against white people in certain situations. The context and the intent can make the use of the term racist even if it has a different and more general term.
The point isn't whether "Asians are good at math" can be correct or not situationally, the point is that one is based on an in-born trait while the other is a social trait.
Racism focuses in on "biological/in-born" traits (positive or negative).
"White Privilege" is the result of hundreds of years of historical precedence, subjugation and and media domination, not a result of a biological trait. Pointing out that White people have cultivated a world in which they benefit from being culturally blind to injustice is not Racist, just as it isn't Racist to say that Asian societies put a higher impetus on Education.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
Last edited by PsYcNeT; 02-09-2023 at 06:41 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
It’s not as hard to tell the difference between racial stereotypes and fact-based observations.
Comments like, “He probably loves money because he’s Jewish” or “She’s probably good at math because she’s Asian” or “They are probably good at basketball because they’re Black” are all potentially harmful racial stereotypes. They aren’t fact-based observations. They are examples of prejudice.
Noting things like the existence of white privilege or that visible minorities are more likely to experience racism are not racial stereotypes, they’re fact-based observations. Noting that Black kids are left behind in the American school system is not racist, but saying that Black people aren’t as smart as white people is.
People can disagree with the established definitions of racism, stereotypes, or other far more simple words in the dictionary if they want, but that doesn’t make their opinion valid.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
It’s not as hard to tell the difference between racial stereotypes and fact-based observations.
Comments like, “He probably loves money because he’s Jewish” or “She’s probably good at math because she’s Asian” or “They are probably good at basketball because they’re Black” are all potentially harmful racial stereotypes. They aren’t fact-based observations. They are examples of prejudice.
Noting things like the existence of white privilege or that visible minorities are more likely to experience racism are not racial stereotypes, they’re fact-based observations. Noting that Black kids are left behind in the American school system is not racist, but saying that Black people aren’t as smart as white people is.
People can disagree with the established definitions of racism, stereotypes, or other far more simple words in the dictionary if they want, but that doesn’t make their opinion valid.
what if Asians are good at math because they invest in it more and Blacks are good at basketball because they value it more, not necessarily because of any biological traits.
I think food is the most slippery slope.
"I don't like chicken feet, I think it's gross, how could any one eat that?" Is that racist because it insinuates that the group of people who eat chicken feet are gross. I've gotten a few looks over food either my own statements or others about Chinese food.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
what if Asians are good at math because they invest in it more and Blacks are good at basketball because they value it more, not necessarily because of any biological traits.
I think food is the most slippery slope.
"I don't like chicken feet, I think it's gross, how could any one eat that?" Is that racist because it insinuates that the group of people who eat chicken feet are gross. I've gotten a few looks over food either my own statements or others about Chinese food.
As I noted on the last page, those would be bigoted statements, not racist ones.
Racist would be assuming that every [x] eats [y] and enjoys it because of a genetic/racial predisposition to it.
The point isn't whether "Asians are good at math" can be correct or not situationally, the point is that one is based on an in-born trait while the other is a social trait.
So observing that Asians have slanted eyes (displaying an epicanthic fold) is racist in your books, regardless of context? Pointing out that the Irish tend to burn and blister at the slightest exposure to sun is going to be racist? Trying to understand where the lines are drawn here, because there are so many people that scream racism for the slightest reasons.
Quote:
Racism focuses in on "biological/in-born" traits (positive or negative).
Traditionally, yes, but not always these days. Almost anything the SJW set doesn't like is lumped in as being racist. This site has seen plenty of screams of racism where none existed and only based on the minority was feeling marginalized or attacked. Some of the most obviously racist comments have come from some of those minorities as they defended what they believed to be disenfranchisement. So while you can say that everything is focused on "biological/in-born" traits I would argue that perceptions and feelings also come into the mix and drive charges of racism.
Quote:
"White Privilege" is the result of hundreds of years of historical precedence, subjugation and and media domination, not a result of a biological trait. Pointing out that White people have cultivated a world in which they benefit from being culturally blind to injustice is not Racist, just as it isn't Racist to say that Asian societies put a higher impetus on Education.
I acknowledge your definition of white privilege but white privilege is not there for all white people. The "system" does not work for all white people which is why the term is considered a cooked up concept. I tend to believe that white privilege exists to some extent, but also recognize that there are more poor white people that the system doesn't work for, and more than all other races. When minorities throw white privilege in the face of white people they themselves are making a predetermination of benefit based solely on association toward "biological/in-born" traits - you're white so not only does the system work for you, but you need to apologize for it. That is racist by your own definition and the very definition you use for white privilege falls apart. "White privilege" does not benefit all white people equally nor does it guarantee them benefit. So when it used as a generalization to isolate, blame a white person for some action, or insult their place in society, it can be racist and just as ugly as any comment about someone's eyes or hair or a statement about their culture.
So observing that Asians have slanted eyes (displaying an epicanthic fold) is racist in your books, regardless of context? Pointing out that the Irish tend to burn and blister at the slightest exposure to sun is going to be racist? Trying to understand where the lines are drawn here, because there are so many people that scream racism for the slightest reasons.
Traditionally, yes, but not always these days. Almost anything the SJW set doesn't like is lumped in as being racist. This site has seen plenty of screams of racism where none existed and only based on the minority was feeling marginalized or attacked. Some of the most obviously racist comments have come from some of those minorities as they defended what they believed to be disenfranchisement. So while you can say that everything is focused on "biological/in-born" traits I would argue that perceptions and feelings also come into the mix and drive charges of racism.
I acknowledge your definition of white privilege but white privilege is not there for all white people. The "system" does not work for all white people which is why the term is considered a cooked up concept. I tend to believe that white privilege exists to some extent, but also recognize that there are more poor white people that the system doesn't work for, and more than all other races. When minorities throw white privilege in the face of white people they themselves are making a predetermination of benefit based solely on association toward "biological/in-born" traits - you're white so not only does the system work for you, but you need to apologize for it. That is racist by your own definition and the very definition you use for white privilege falls apart. "White privilege" does not benefit all white people equally nor does it guarantee them benefit. So when it used as a generalization to isolate, blame a white person for some action, or insult their place in society, it can be racist and just as ugly as any comment about someone's eyes or hair or a statement about their culture.
At my organization, we're currently doing a very good equity and diversity course run out of University of Dalhousie. We had a chapter on White privilege and some of the key points is that the recognition and acknowledgement of white privilege shouldn't have a component of blame to it. It's the recognition and acknowledgement that all people have similar challenges in life, but on top of those challenges, non-white people have additional barriers and issues that exist solely due to them being non-white. Someone posted earlier that it's like a video game difficulty lever. You shouldn't have to apologize for being born white and or having had any of the benefits in life because of it, but to acknowledge a white male is the default difficulty level, and as you start adding other equity dimensions (gender, sex, attraction, ethnicity, neurodivergence,...etc), the more difficult life becomes.
So yes the system doesn't work for everyone and there are white people who are struggling in society. However being white doesn't significantly add additional challenges as it does for non-white individuals, and that's what makes it a privlege.
Hope that makes sense
LChoy
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to LChoy For This Useful Post:
At my organization, we're currently doing a very good equity and diversity course run out of University of Dalhousie. We had a chapter on White privilege and some of the key points is that the recognition and acknowledgement of white privilege shouldn't have a component of blame to it. It's the recognition and acknowledgement that all people have similar challenges in life, but on top of those challenges, non-white people have additional barriers and issues that exist solely due to them being non-white. Someone posted earlier that it's like a video game difficulty lever. You shouldn't have to apologize for being born white and or having had any of the benefits in life because of it, but to acknowledge a white male is the default difficulty level, and as you start adding other equity dimensions (gender, sex, attraction, ethnicity, neurodivergence,...etc), the more difficult life becomes.
So yes the system doesn't work for everyone and there are white people who are struggling in society. However being white doesn't significantly add additional challenges as it does for non-white individuals, and that's what makes it a privlege.
Hope that makes sense
LChoy
Makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, yes, but the point is still being missed here. White privilege is a term that cannot be applied to all white people equally. Some work at a disadvantage as well. To inject a humor-based example into this, watch this short video.
Not all white people are created equal and get to start on third base. There are a lot of people who don't even get to the plate and face similar impedances that minorities can feel/experience. Try coming from the sticks of West Virginia and all the baggage that comes with. You're not getting much privilege being white when you look and sound like a #### kicker that is married to their sibling. You're getting much of society looking down their nose at you too. White privilege exists, but it doesn't exist for everyone who is white. You have to dress, act, and speak certain ways to have the full benefit.
White privilege is also a weapon used to beat white people over the head with. When I was in higher education I routinely ended up on a lot of grievance committees and disciplinary panels. Students would register grievances against professors, many times for ridiculous claims. The thing that would be routinely trotted out was "white privilege" and how the instructor was using their whiteness to hold back a student - usually a student who was not doing the work in the class or the work was substandard. Of all the complaints only one was upheld and resulted in discipline and training for the instructor. All others held no merit and were attempts to social engineer a path to a passing grade in the class. The term has become as much a weapon as it has a truism. This is the part about the term I'm trying to expose here.
One last point on your post, in the current context it isn't much fun being a white male in a position of authority or power. With force DEI programs and the me too movement, every word that comes out of your mouth has to be measured and free of anything that could possibly offend. With forced affirmative action the hiring process is crazy difficult for the public sector. We now have to submit detailed explanations why candidate A is superior to candidate B prior to extending an offer, especially if you are choosing a white male candidate. I support both affirmative action and DEI, but the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction IMO. These processes must be explored and allowed to develop organically or they can do as much damage to the organization as they provide benefit.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
At my organization, we're currently doing a very good equity and diversity course run out of University of Dalhousie. We had a chapter on White privilege and some of the key points is that the recognition and acknowledgement of white privilege shouldn't have a component of blame to it. It's the recognition and acknowledgement that all people have similar challenges in life, but on top of those challenges, non-white people have additional barriers and issues that exist solely due to them being non-white. Someone posted earlier that it's like a video game difficulty lever. You shouldn't have to apologize for being born white and or having had any of the benefits in life because of it, but to acknowledge a white male is the default difficulty level, and as you start adding other equity dimensions (gender, sex, attraction, ethnicity, neurodivergence,...etc), the more difficult life becomes.
So yes the system doesn't work for everyone and there are white people who are struggling in society. However being white doesn't significantly add additional challenges as it does for non-white individuals, and that's what makes it a privlege.
Hope that makes sense
LChoy
I'm not sure that's so true anymore. 40 years ago when our parents came to Canada sure, but even then, they were given language classes so get back on their feet. Our parents generation worked labor jobs because there were very few foreign-education equivalent programs, you know, the Indian doctor having to drive taxis. They worked labor jobs so their children (us) could get an education. I don't think our kids (Canadian born non-whites) have any disadvantage at all. And immigrants coming today, there are much more programs out there, Immigrant services, Center for Newcomers, CIWA etc.. and also education equivalents, high school and university marks abroad actually count for something, sometimes more!
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Attributing a character trait to someone or a group of people based on their ancestry or skin colour is racist. This isn't difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
To the best of anyone's knowledge Orson Welles wasn't a racist, when he filmed Othello in blackface in the 50's no one considered it racist, blackface has become offensive but it isnt inherently racist, that said there are forms of blackface that have always been racist.
I'd actually argue that blackface at is most basic level is one of the most purely racist acts there are, by the definition of racism as systemic oppression of a people based on their ethnicity. It is actively taking employment from that community by having someone pretending to be a part of that community instead, and stems from all sorts of racist ideas.
But I'd also argue that rube cube's note is too broad to apply to racism. Attributing traits due to skin color, sure. But attributing attributes to ancestry is different, and doesn't have to be racist depending on context. If you know someone's ancestry (ie their specific culture), you may make an improper assumption about someones skill at something, but without being racist.
I'm European Canadian. Is that enough for someone of a different background to assume I play hockey, or can skate, or ski? If that assumption is incorrect is it racist? Most would say no purely based on my ethnicity having literally zero historical oppression. But that doesn't make that assumption correct. it also doesn't make it insulting.
It's also all in the context of North America. If I go live in Japan or China or Saudi Arabia, I would certainly be subject to stereotyping that doesn't exist for me here. I would likely be skipped over for work, have people refusing to help me, or even target me, because of the color of my skin or language(s) I do or do not speak. It's not rooted in something awful like slavery or subjugation though, so it does feel...I dunno...maybe tamer? Or more understandable given the history of "white people"? If I was to tell a Japanese person struggling with English to "learn the language" I'd be considered a bigot at best. If a Japanese person in Japan told me to learn Japanese as I struggled to order something or whatever, it'd probably just be a laughing matter. I'm not saying that would insult me at all, just that context plays a big role here, and our context as North Americans is a big part of that.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
what if Asians are good at math because they invest in it more and Blacks are good at basketball because they value it more, not necessarily because of any biological traits.
I think food is the most slippery slope.
"I don't like chicken feet, I think it's gross, how could any one eat that?" Is that racist because it insinuates that the group of people who eat chicken feet are gross. I've gotten a few looks over food either my own statements or others about Chinese food.
I'd say yes. That's pretty insulting to a race to speak like that and I would stop if I were you. Making derogatory statements about a race or people because of what they like to eat isn't a good look.
