8 year old boy kicked out of class for dressing as Martin Luther King Jr. for school project - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Egevened;36062263]what the fuck lankist you used to be cool it is not even blackface. it's a kid that drew a very fucking elaborate chart on MLKJ and obviously cared a good deal about what he was doing. fuck, the school told him to do it. draw a chart, dress up as him. I can completely understand the rage of the parents and the frustration of the kid. the parents possibly applied just enough paint for it not to be blackface, and all. it's a sad thing, that we're still at a point where we get stuck up on things like this. there is a saying that goes that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, but this is not one of those cases. this is almost zealotry, and in my opinion those that are ranting about how offensive this is to BLACKS and blacks and BLACKS BLACKS BLACKS are differentiating between people and I don't like that.[/QUOTE] How about if they dressed up as William Wallace and wore a kilt with nothing underneath, or did a project on Indian spiritualism and put Swastikas on everything, maybe just dress as someone from a century ago and don't bathe for a month. It doesn't matter if it's part of the costume, that element by itself should have some creative liberties taken with it. Ever since Blackface has been around it's been offensive. We're only just getting to the point where no-one wants to offend so they don't use it at all. Wait another couple of decades and we might have it lose its offensiveness, but things certainly aren't getting worse.

going with the kilt metaphor, this is exactly what I was saying. this IS dressing up as Wallace with a kilt, and pants underneath. it's not blackface, period.

[QUOTE=Egevened;36062384]going with the kilt metaphor, this is exactly what I was saying. this IS dressing up as Wallace with a kilt, and pants underneath. it's not blackface, period.[/QUOTE] It's like when people see this symbol: [IMG]http://puu.sh/whwG[/IMG] "HOLY SHIT NAZI RACIST PIG YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE" The real swastika is this. [IMG]http://puu.sh/whw5[/IMG] Subtle difference. first one is Hindu I believe. It stands for evolution. Second is, obviously, the Swastika. One is harmless but easily mistaken as the second, which is an offensive symbol. Similar but different. This similarity is actually really nice, because reading a bit tells me that the Nazis modified the Hindu symbol, since the Hindu symbol is evolution and the Nazis believed all the Aryan stuff.

[IMG]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1082255.1337654512!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg[/IMG] damn kid commit and cut that hair or something

[QUOTE=Lankist;36060606]yet again, poorly painted blackface is still blackface. the parents should have stopped that. They were there. They were given a choice by the school to either remove the blackface or leave. They decided to leave in a huff. Nobody got kicked out, the dumbass parents just got stubborn.[/QUOTE] i don't think you're giving any fair consideration into the possibility that this wasn't blackface. there was no change to the lips or eyes, its literally just some black makeup smeared across the kids face for the sake of making him look closer to MLK's appearance, but without any perpetuation of racial stereotypes. it may not have been an intelligent decision in hindsight as the parents should have predicted people would assume it was blackface even if it wasn't, but if you look at the facepaint itself and forget about the parents for a moment, is the makeup itself really offensive? ignoring the inability of the parents to predict that this would blow up and turn into a "blackface" issue do you REALLY look at this kid and say "wow thats seriously offensive"? not trying to be a dick because i'm unsure about the situation but it honestly feels like whenever you get confronted with the possibility that it really was not blackface in the way of the american symbol of racism but rather just some facepaint, you just put up a wall and say "no! its still blackface, any attempt to temporarily darken your skin with makeup is blackface no questions asked!"

It kinda looks like lipstick to me maybe it's just the light

[QUOTE=Egevened;36062384]going with the kilt metaphor, this is exactly what I was saying. this IS dressing up as Wallace with a kilt, and pants underneath. it's not blackface, period.[/QUOTE] So the racism of a Blackface is determined by the effort put into making it look realistic? I think you're missing the point of it. [QUOTE=Protocol7;36062412]It's like when people see this symbol: [IMG]http://puu.sh/whwG[/IMG] "HOLY SHIT NAZI RACIST PIG YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE" The real swastika is this. [IMG]http://puu.sh/whw5[/IMG] Subtle difference. first one is Hindu I believe. It stands for evolution. Second is, obviously, the Swastika. One is harmless but easily mistaken as the second, which is an offensive symbol. Similar but different. This similarity is actually really nice, because reading a bit tells me that the Nazis modified the Hindu symbol, since the Hindu symbol is evolution and the Nazis believed all the Aryan stuff.[/QUOTE] And you could also dress up in a white sheet with a hood and claim to be a ghost rather than a member of the KKK, doesn't make it any retarded.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;36062461]So the racism of a Blackface is determined by the effort put into making it look realistic? I think you're missing the point of it. And you could also dress up in a white sheet with a hood and claim to be a ghost rather than a member of the KKK, doesn't make it any retarded.[/QUOTE] Well, if the blackface is done in the name of authenticity for a school project rather than racism, I'd say that's being respectful, is it not? Also, kids throw on sheets and pretend to be ghosts all the time, so I don't know where the hell you're going with that.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;36062461]So the racism of a Blackface is determined by the effort put into making it look realistic? I think you're missing the point of it.[/QUOTE] no i think the offensiveness of blackface is determined by whether or not it really is blackface or just makeup i think there is a big difference between a high contrast, entirely unrealistic paint do-up that accentuates and perpetuates caricatures of black people as having big red lips, bright white eyes and pitch black skin, as if they were cartoon characters or a clown or something, and applying a light coat of makeup to create a realistic image of a black person for a presentation in which you assume the identity and overall look of a black person

[video=youtube;hdqjSwl-LP0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdqjSwl-LP0[/video]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36062499]no i think the offensiveness of blackface is determined by whether or not it really is blackface or just makeup i think there is a big difference between a high contrast, entirely unrealistic paint do-up that accentuates and perpetuates caricatures of black people as having big red lips, bright white eyes and pitch black skin, as if they were cartoon characters or a clown or something, and applying a light coat of makeup to create a realistic image of a black person for a presentation in which you assume the identity and overall look of a black person[/QUOTE] Changing the symbol slightly doesn't remove all connotations, just like the Indian Swastika is still contaminated despite its differences. You wanna know what does make it fine? Intention. Guidos who get absurdly tanned, completely coincidental that they end up looking like blackface. In Tropic Thunder one of the characters plays an actor in blackface, it makes a satire of it acknowledging the issue and mocking it. Intending to dress in blackface as a black person just to look like a black person facing the issue with denial that it's slightly different is stupid.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36062448]i don't think you're giving any fair consideration into the possibility that this wasn't blackface. there was no change to the lips or eyes, its literally just some black makeup smeared across the kids face for the sake of making him look closer to MLK's appearance, but without any perpetuation of racial stereotypes. it may not have been an intelligent decision in hindsight as the parents should have predicted people would assume it was blackface even if it wasn't, but if you look at the facepaint itself and forget about the parents for a moment, is the makeup itself really offensive? ignoring the inability of the parents to predict that this would blow up and turn into a "blackface" issue do you REALLY look at this kid and say "wow thats seriously offensive"? not trying to be a dick because i'm unsure about the situation but it honestly feels like whenever you get confronted with the possibility that it really was not blackface in the way of the american symbol of racism but rather just some facepaint, you just put up a wall and say "no! its still blackface, any attempt to temporarily darken your skin with makeup is blackface no questions asked!"[/QUOTE] Once again, I'm not saying the kid [I]knew[/I] what kind of history he was invoking. I'm saying the parents should have stepped in and didn't. And when the school gave the parents a choice between cleaning off the kid's face and leaving, the parents chose to leave. They were asked to remove the facepaint and they made an issue out of it. That implies a lot of things. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it only implies they're stubborn and disrespectful.

I think what Lankist is trying to get across is that when the school said "Mr and Mrs Smith, you will need to clean your child's face of the makeup, due to possible negative connotations of the makeup" the parents said "lol no" A reasonable parent would have said "Okay, I understand and realize the negative connotations of the makeup"

[QUOTE=Lankist;36062728]Once again, I'm not saying the kid [I]knew[/I] what kind of history he was invoking. I'm saying the parents should have stepped in and didn't. And when the school gave the parents a choice between cleaning off the kid's face and leaving, the parents chose to leave. They were asked to remove the facepaint and they made an issue out of it. That implies a lot of things. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it only implies they're stubborn and disrespectful.[/QUOTE] yeah but i pretty clearly said "ignoring the parents" ie i am not arguing with you about how dumb the parents were, i explicitly was talking about whether or not the makeup was actually blackface and thus worth getting upset over in the first place [QUOTE=Devodiere;36062587]Changing the symbol slightly doesn't remove all connotations, just like the Indian Swastika is still contaminated despite its differences. You wanna know what does make it fine? Intention. Guidos who get absurdly tanned, completely coincidental that [B]they end up looking like blackface[/B]. In Tropic Thunder one of the characters plays an actor in blackface, it makes a satire of it acknowledging the issue and mocking it. Intending to dress in blackface as a black person just to look like a black person facing the issue with denial that it's slightly different is stupid.[/QUOTE] stopped taking you seriously right about here and my point wasn't about intent but rather the idea that the makeup was entirely separate of blackface

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36062862]stopped taking you seriously right about here and my point wasn't about intent but rather the idea that the makeup was entirely separate of blackface[/QUOTE] Well aren't you a smug shit. Still missing the point that slightly different isn't the same as completely different and ignoring that it might be offensive to others just because you don't think it is. Is it really that difficult to think that the connotations of something like Blackface don't go away just because you made it less overtly offensive?

[QUOTE=Devodiere;36062935]Well aren't you a smug shit. Still missing the point that slightly different isn't the same as completely different and ignoring that it might be offensive to others just because you don't think it is. Is it really that difficult to think that the connotations of something like Blackface don't go away just because you made it less overtly offensive?[/QUOTE] uh you don't need to take it so personally, next time if you want to be taken seriously try avoiding awful comparisons like "guidos look like people in blackface". once again my POINT is that you don't need to argue about the offensiveness of blackface (we know its offensive literally nobody is saying otherwise), what you do need to do is consider a distinction between blackface and makeup. i've already explained WHY i don't think this is blackface and the only attempt at addressing it has been "the hindu swastika is still offensive because its pretty close to the nazi swastika". [img]http://i.imgur.com/oCs6c.png[/img] i just have a hard time classing this kids facepaint in the same category as this minstrel show shit is all. i can see the point you guys are making i'm just really not convinced, but i guess that's the entire point about "offensive" material is that it comes down to the majority vote on whether or not something is acceptable

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;36062785]I think what Lankist is trying to get across is that when the school said "Mr and Mrs Smith, you will need to clean your child's face of the makeup, due to possible negative connotations of the makeup" the parents said "lol no" A reasonable parent would have said "Okay, I understand and realize the negative connotations of the makeup"[/QUOTE] Holy fuck this Jesus Christ how did this go 7 pages ignored. There's no reason the parents should have thought this was a good idea, and Wouldn't remove the paint. And you guys arguing against this are arguing a really idealistic vision of racism. Clearly this offended people, and asking him to remove it was a reasonable request

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36063011]uh you don't need to take it so personally, next time if you want to be taken seriously try avoiding awful comparisons like "guidos look like people in blackface". once again my POINT is that you don't need to argue about the offensiveness of blackface (we know its offensive literally nobody is saying otherwise), what you do need to do is consider a distinction between blackface and makeup. i've already explained WHY i don't think this is blackface and the only attempt at addressing it has been "the hindu swastika is still offensive because its pretty close to the nazi swastika". [img]http://i.imgur.com/oCs6c.png[/img] i just have a hard time classing this kids facepaint in the same category as this minstrel show shit is all. i can see the point you guys are making i'm just really not convinced, but i guess that's the entire point about "offensive" material is that it comes down to the majority vote on whether or not something is acceptable[/QUOTE] Again, stop being a smug shit. When a big enough shitstorm comes of something, it gets shit over everything near it too. From Slavery to Nazis to fucking MLP and Furries, everything close to it carries the same connotations. There's a reason they haven't elected Adolf Hilter of the Naxi party yet. Blackface is one of those things and making it slightly different still carries the same connotations and still reminds people of actual racism. If it was by itself it's not offensive, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum and as long as those connotations still exist, it will face these issues. And yes, they remain even if smartasses on the internet logically prove that you should not be offended by something that you are offended by.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;36063097]Holy fuck this Jesus Christ how did this go 7 pages ignored. There's no reason the parents should have thought this was a good idea, and Wouldn't remove the paint. And you guys arguing against this are arguing a really idealistic vision of racism. Clearly this offended people, and asking him to remove it was a reasonable request[/QUOTE] maybe you should read all the posts you're rating dumb especially the parts where certain people are specifically mentioning they agree the parents were stupid [QUOTE=Devodiere;36063111]Again, stop being a smug shit. When a big enough shitstorm comes of something, it gets shit over everything near it too. From Slavery to Nazis to fucking MLP and Furries, everything close to it carries the same connotations. There's a reason they haven't elected Adolf Hilter of the Naxi party yet. Blackface is one of those things and making it slightly different still carries the same connotations and still reminds people of actual racism. If it was by itself it's not offensive, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum and as long as those connotations still exist, it will face these issues. And yes, they remain even if smartasses on the internet logically prove that you should not be offended by something that you are offended by.[/QUOTE] seriously not getting why you're so hostile and i'm having a very hard time following whatever is going on in this first sentence but apart from that i feel like you just keep missing the point and going straight for "blackface is offensive" and ignoring everything i try and say. maybe if you were spending more time reading and understanding posts before replying angrily you would have noticed that last line at the end where i conceded and essentially said "yeah you guys are right, imo its not offensive but i guess my opinion doesn't matter because its majority vote"

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36063138]seriously not getting why you're so hostile and i'm having a very hard time following whatever is going on in this first sentence but apart from that i feel like you just keep missing the point and going straight for "blackface is offensive" and ignoring everything i try and say. maybe if you were spending more time reading and understanding posts before replying angrily you would have noticed that last line at the end where i conceded and essentially said "yeah you guys are right, imo its not offensive but i guess my opinion doesn't matter because its majority vote"[/QUOTE] And you didn't address a single point I made instead being defensive and claiming I don't understand without attempting to rectify that. But I understand your point very well, so no need for that. It's partially voting, mostly in the method of "Does it offend a large portion of the population", it has some basis though. For something like this, it depends on how similar it is to the offensive subject, and how offensive that subject is. Calling someone black rather than African-American is far removed from racism and not a big deal. Calling someone a retard hits close to the mentally handicapped, but isn't as big of issue. Having Blackface slightly different with no exaggerated features is pretty close, and Blackface is still pretty offensive, see the issue?

[QUOTE=Devodiere;36063191]And you didn't address a single point I made instead being defensive and claiming I don't understand without attempting to rectify that. But I understand your point very well, so no need for that. It's partially voting, mostly in the method of "Does it offend a large portion of the population", it has some basis though. For something like this, it depends on how similar it is to the offensive subject, and how offensive that subject is. Calling someone black rather than African-American is far removed from racism and not a big deal. Calling someone a retard hits close to the mentally handicapped, but isn't as big of issue. Having Blackface slightly different with no exaggerated features is pretty close, and Blackface is still pretty offensive, see the issue?[/QUOTE] like i said, i get your point but i disagree on the basis that this makeup isn't comparable to blackface, but it's my opinion and i really doubt anyone can convince me otherwise so yeah basically you guys win, are right, etc. it comes down to me having my opinion on whether or not this is offensive, and the fact that my opinion doesn't really matter in this case

[QUOTE=Lankist;36061027]Also thanks for telling me the name of that. All this "they're covered in ashes" stuff was complete bullshit. That's blackface. The character of Black Peter is a black servant/slave, not some fucking Dutch dude covered in ash. The older versions of the holiday portray him as an incredibly inept, comic relief slave (FUCKING VAUDEVILLE). Judging by this I guess santa's elves are all african slaves in this particular mythos. And the white Dutch dudes are all uppity about having their racism questioned.[/QUOTE] There are many stories to it's origin (none being displayed on the English wiki for some reason), one being that it's an Italian chimney clear, and that is the version I was taught.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36062499]no i think the offensiveness of blackface is determined by whether or not it really is blackface or just makeup i think there is a big difference between a high contrast, entirely unrealistic paint do-up that accentuates and perpetuates caricatures of black people as having big red lips, bright white eyes and pitch black skin, as if they were cartoon characters or a clown or something, and applying a light coat of makeup to create a realistic image of a black person for a presentation in which you assume the identity and overall look of a black person[/QUOTE] Exactly. However, this point will continue to be missed. Blackface wasn't just painting the face black. The makeup was done in such a way that it created an impression the stereotype of a cartoonish black person. The person in makeup then behaved in an absolute caricature of what the stereotypes of African Americans were in a fashion that mocked their culture and demeaned them. The child's face is painted brown and he is wearing a mustache in an obvious imitation of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I doubt he or his parents were behaving in any way that could be interpreted to have stereotyped African Americans as anything but heroes - like the person he is imitating. Yes, it was stubborn of his parents to refuse to remove the makeup and leave but it isn't disrespect.

the fact of the matter is that in a world where racism didn't exist and vaudevillian blackface never happened a white kid imitating one of his black heroes like this would be the most adorable thing ever, but racism is still very much alive and well, so this kind of thing just isn't appropriate. don't blame "sensitive" people for this, especially not "sensitive" black people. blame the fucking racists who ruined it for society long ago.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;36066491]the fact of the matter is that in a world where racism didn't exist and vaudevillian blackface never happened a white kid imitating one of his black heroes like this would be the most adorable thing ever, but racism is still very much alive and well, so this kind of thing just isn't appropriate. don't blame "sensitive" people for this, especially not "sensitive" black people. blame the fucking racists who ruined it for society long ago.[/QUOTE] Right, but how long are we going to allow what happened in the past to control what happens now? Vaudeville has been dead for eighty fuckin' years. At some point, we're going to have to move past this as a society. I mean, do we really think that if blackface use of any kind becomes more accepted that black people are going to go back to being oppressed like they were in the 1920s? Of course not!

One day two friends went to school dressed (and painted) as Zulu warriors and I dressed as a klansman and nobody gave a shit. Not to mention the two guys had fucking real African spears. I don't know what would have happened to us in paranoid America.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;36066717]One day two friends went to school dressed (and painted) as Zulu warriors and I dressed as a klansman and nobody gave a shit. Not to mention the two guys had fucking real African spears. I don't know what would have happened to us in paranoid America.[/QUOTE] If you don't mind my asking, what was the context for this?

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36066744]If you don't mind my asking, what was the context for this?[/QUOTE] Some day in the year we can go to school disguised and there's a contest for the best costume.

Why didn't you go as Hitler pussy

Yeah, people could have gotten offended by it. There's plenty of things that people could get offended over. Thing is, given the context (An little kid in second grade doing a project with no malicious intent) I don't believe people should be looking too far into this. Of course there are people that WILL get offended but this shitstorm wasn't caused by people being offended - it was caused on the basis that someone COULD be offended. This would be different if he walked in with swastikas and a hitlerstache but he didn't. I understand the basis of "blackface has racist connotations" but, really, you're trying to take this out of the context this should be considered in.