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

I hate american society somtimes. Im American

Why is everyone nowadays being treated with feather touch sensitiveness? Fuck sakes.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055598]Whether or not I'm offended is wholly irrelevant. You can't seem to grasp the fact that SOMEONE could find this offensive, which I'm arguing is highly likely, and given the fact that the kid got kicked out, actually happened. This isn't a case of PC gone wrong, even though some of you seem to want that so badly. It's a case of clueless white people feeling entitled to something that has a long and dark history that they either don't know about or willfully ignore. Truthfully, I'd be willing to bet some of you feel entitled to saying 'nigger' too. "IF A BLACK PERSON SAYS IT I CAN TOO WHAT A DOUBLE STANDARD!"[/QUOTE] You did not seriously compare saying "nigger" in a racist context to an 8 year old child wearing blackface for a school project, did you? I'm sorry, but it absolutely baffles me how anyone could have been offended by this. Maybe that makes me an insensitive fuck (which I doubt, given I'm tolerant of just about everything), but there is absolutely nothing malicious about what the kid was doing. Blackface does have an awful history, as you said, but this kid actually used it for the right reason.

[QUOTE=dass;36055683]Why is everyone nowadays being treated with feather touch sensitiveness? Fuck sakes.[/QUOTE]Because political correctness.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055598]Whether or not I'm offended is wholly irrelevant. You can't seem to grasp the fact that SOMEONE could find this offensive, which I'm arguing is highly likely, and given the fact that the kid got kicked out, actually happened. This isn't a case of PC gone wrong, even though some of you seem to want that so badly. It's a case of clueless white people feeling entitled to something that has a long and dark history that they either don't know about or willfully ignore. Truthfully, I'd be willing to bet some of you feel entitled to saying 'nigger' too. "IF A BLACK PERSON SAYS IT I CAN TOO WHAT A DOUBLE STANDARD!"[/QUOTE] Got it backwards, bub. You have a right to do and say whatever the fuck you want. If someone else is offended, that's not your problem unless you're trying to make it so. This was not the case at all. A faculty member was offended, but not the kids, because the kids weren't aware that such a thing existed as black face and racial stereotypes. There's no way that this could be twisted to be intentionally offensive. And it's not my fault if someone takes offense to my actions- that's theirs. There's a point to be made if this was blackface but it's not. This is as ridiculous as people being offended by the use of the word nigger in "To Kill a Mockingbird".

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36055733]You did not seriously compare saying "nigger" in a racist context to an 8 year old child wearing blackface for a school project, did you? I'm sorry, but it absolutely baffles me how anyone could have been offended by this. Maybe that makes me an insensitive fuck (which I doubt, given I'm tolerant of just about everything), but there is absolutely nothing malicious about what the kid was doing. Blackface does have an awful history, as you said, but this kid actually used it for the right reason.[/QUOTE] Haha what? Right reason? What on earth are you talking about? You really believe that his blackface added much needed 'authenticity' to a second grade project? Would his presentation really have suffered without it? It was wholly unnecessary and you know it. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36055787']Got it backwards, bub. You have a right to do and say whatever the fuck you want. If someone else is offended, that's not your problem unless you're trying to make it so. This was not the case at all. A faculty member was offended, but not the kids, because the kids weren't aware that such a thing existed as black face and racial stereotypes. There's no way that this could be twisted to be intentionally offensive. And it's not my fault if someone takes offense to my actions- that's theirs. There's a point to be made if this was blackface but it's not. This is as ridiculous as people being offended by the use of the word nigger in "To Kill a Mockingbird".[/QUOTE] Well you are certainly a self righteous one aren't you? If the kid and the kid's family apologized for being unintentionally offensive I wouldn't have an issue. The fact that they have the gall to demand an apology from the school shows that they, like you apparently, don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks, and that they're somehow entitled to being able to be offensive. [QUOTE=Protocol7;36055805] It's an eight year old. Second grade. He doesn't know the ramifications of his actions.[/QUOTE] See above.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36055733]You did not seriously compare saying "nigger" in a racist context to an 8 year old child wearing blackface for a school project, did you? I'm sorry, but it absolutely baffles me how anyone could have been offended by this. Maybe that makes me an insensitive fuck (which I doubt, given I'm tolerant of just about everything), but there is absolutely nothing malicious about what the kid was doing. Blackface does have an awful history, as you said, but this kid actually used it for the right reason.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Yes, blackface has a nasty history. I can see how people would be offended by it under the right circumstances. In this case, he was using it to portray one of the most prominent figures in the African-American Civil Rights Movement. He was not trying to offend anyone, as blackface was originally used to theatrically depict a negative stereotype of black people. Saying that the history of blackface alone makes this offensive is completely ridiculous. It's like saying someone driving a Volkswagen today is stupid because of the mass recall in the 70's. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055791]Haha what? Right reason? What on earth are you talking about? You really believe that his blackface added much needed 'authenticity' to a second grade project? Would his presentation really have suffered without it? It was wholly unnecessary and you know it.[/QUOTE] It's an eight year old. Second grade. He doesn't know the ramifications of his actions.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055791]Haha what? Right reason? What on earth are you talking about? You really believe that his blackface added much needed 'authenticity' to a second grade project? Would his presentation really have suffered without it? It was wholly unnecessary and you know it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, right reason. You heard me correctly. The kid used blackface in order to more closely resemble Martin Luther King. How is that NOT a good reason to use it? It's a fucking costume! This isn't a political statement, it's an 8 year old child in a costume.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36055805]Exactly. Yes, blackface has a nasty history. I can see how people would be offended by it under the right circumstances. In this case, he was using it to portray one of the most prominent figures in the African-American Civil Rights Movement. He was not trying to offend anyone, as blackface was originally used to theatrically depict a negative stereotype of black people. Saying that the history of blackface alone makes this offensive is completely ridiculous. It's like saying someone driving a Volkswagen today is stupid because of the mass recall in the 70's. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] It's an eight year old. Second grade. He doesn't know the ramifications of his actions.[/QUOTE] tbh the fact it was mlk makes it worse. Blackface is something that was designed to humiliate all blacks, and to try to portray MLK in blackface is basically (in the eyes of the offended) reducing him to a "lousy nigger". extremely insulting to anyone who knows the history of blackface or has experienced it. again, i'm not insulted by it, but for everyone in this thread to run around saying "OMG how can anyone be offended by this???" is flat out asinine.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;36055846]tbh the fact it was mlk makes it worse. Blackface is something that was designed to humiliate all blacks, and to try to portray MLK in blackface is basically (in the eyes of the offended) reducing him to a "lousy nigger". extremely insulting to anyone who knows the history of blackface or has experienced it. again, i'm not insulted by it, but for everyone in this thread to run around saying "OMG how can anyone be offended by this???" is flat out asinine.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36055830]It's a fucking costume! This isn't a political statement, it's an 8 year old child in a costume.[/QUOTE] I'm thinking people trying to justify the offensiveness of the blackface are more racist than blackface itself

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;36055846] again, i'm not insulted by it, but for everyone in this thread to run around saying "OMG how can anyone be offended by this???" is flat out asinine.[/QUOTE] I would understand the outrage more if the kid looked closer to this: [img]http://theangryblackwoman.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/drawnminstrel2.jpg[/img] But as it stands, the blackface was used very modestly and the kid clearly didn't have any racist intent.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36055830] It's a fucking costume! This isn't a political statement, it's an 8 year old child in a costume.[/QUOTE] It became a political statement when they demanded an apology from the school. And just because it's a costume doesn't automatically absolve it of being potentially offensive. What kind of logic is that? [QUOTE=Protocol7;36055860]I'm thinking people trying to justify the offensiveness of the blackface are more racist than blackface itself[/QUOTE] I don't even know what to say to this.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055896]It became a political statement when they demanded an apology from the school. And just because it's a costume doesn't automatically absolve it of being potentially offensive. What kind of logic is that?[/QUOTE] Because the costume isn't a stereotype. It's not even a caricature. From the perspective of the kid, it's a low budget means to make him look more like a black man in order to more closely resemble the hero he's portraying. YOU are the one making it offensive, not the kid, or even the blackface itself.

People need to clam down and stop being hyper sensitive. It's an 8 yer old child. In his mind, he probably thought he was honoring Dr.King.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055896]It became a political statement when they demanded an apology from the school.[/QUOTE] Explain. [QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055896]And just because it's a costume doesn't automatically absolve it of being potentially offensive. What kind of logic is that?[/QUOTE] It's not just any costume, it's an 8 year olds. For a school project. Now, the definition of blackface is: [QUOTE]Blackface is a form of theatrical makeup used in minstrel shows, and later vaudeville, in which performers create a stereotyped caricature of a black person.[/QUOTE] Where is the kid doing anything that is stereotyping or offensive in this situation? Wouldn't it be more offensive that a white kid is dressing up as MLK without the face paint? It's time to stop living in the past. How will we ever integrate society if people get riled up over stupid shit like this?

[QUOTE=Sodisna;36055953]People need to clam down and stop being hyper sensitive. It's an 8 yer old child. In his mind, he probably thought he was honoring Dr.King.[/QUOTE] This would be a non-issue if him and his family apologized for the misunderstanding. [QUOTE=Protocol7;36055965] It's not just any costume, it's an 8 year olds. For a school project. Where is the kid doing anything that is stereotyping or offensive in this situation? [/QUOTE] Even if he dressed the way he did with only good intentions, it doesn't change the fact that clearly some were offended by it. Road to hell and good intentions and whatnot. And as mentioned earlier, even if he wasn't acting in the manner usually associated with blackface acts, the fact that blackface's history is tied to such offensive depictions makes it inherently offensive to many. [QUOTE] Wouldn't it be more offensive that a white kid is dressing up as MLK without the face paint? [/QUOTE] How does that make any sense?

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055598]Whether or not I'm offended is wholly irrelevant. You can't seem to grasp the fact that SOMEONE could find this offensive, which I'm arguing is highly likely, and given the fact that the kid got kicked out, actually happened. This isn't a case of PC gone wrong, even though some of you seem to want that so badly. It's a case of clueless white people feeling entitled to something that has a long and dark history that they either don't know about or willfully ignore. Truthfully, I'd be willing to bet some of you feel entitled to saying 'nigger' too. "IF A BLACK PERSON SAYS IT I CAN TOO WHAT A DOUBLE STANDARD!"[/QUOTE] If someone gets offended over some kid painting his face brown for a school project, and they can't understand why he did it, it's their down dumb ass fault. It doesn't even look like black face unless you're trying very hard to get upset over something so trivial.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055982]This would be a non-issue if him and his family apologized for the misunderstanding.[/QUOTE] They have absolutely no reason to apologize. None. The school should be apologizing for making an issue out of something that's completely harmless. Blackface itself is not racist. How it's used CAN be racist. How it was used here is not racist.

I'm talking about hypersensitivity in general.

I have no problem with him painting his face, black people are black and that is a fact. If he did a stereotypical opinionated action such as eating fried chicken or drinking grape soda than it would be a problem.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36056006]They have absolutely no reason to apologize. None. The school should be apologizing for making an issue out of something that's completely harmless. Blackface itself is not racist. How it's used CAN be racist. How it was used here is not racist.[/QUOTE] Holy shit. CLEARLY IT WASN'T HARMLESS BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE OFFENDED. Are you ignoring that on purpose or what? If you want to try to argue that nothing is inherently offensive, then go right ahead. While you're at it, try brandishing a swastika or a KKK uniform in public and see how that works out for you.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;36055339]"considering creating special classes to teach students and parents about racial stereotypes" I dont see how this is bad. Considering Martin Luther King Jr.'s importance was him standing up for Black rights while he, himself, being black.[/QUOTE] The problem is - the kid used the blackface not due to seeing it as racial stereotpye. But merely to give himself black skin. It's actually the ironic part - the only way for something to remain a stereotype is to actively label it as such. By actively telling the kid that what he did was wrong, you're effectively perpetrating the stereotype even further. He didn't do it to offend, but because he wanted to look black. On top of that, mere blackface is not primarily offending but only secondarily. Which means that once it looses historical context it no longer is loaded. There's a number of racist stereotypes which do carry a primary offending charge. Blackface is not one of them.

Why am I pretty sure that the parent who complained was actually white? Why does this shit happen?

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36056066]Holy shit. CLEARLY IT WASN'T HARMLESS BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE OFFENDED. Are you ignoring that on purpose or what? [/QUOTE] I get the feeling this is another case where people are choosing to be offended "on behalf" of black people. When in actual fact no one really cares about the issue.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36055860]I'm thinking people trying to justify the offensiveness of the blackface are more racist than blackface itself[/QUOTE] are you calling me racist here or what you're justifying blackface and the people who are against it are racist? ok

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36056066]Holy shit. CLEARLY IT WASN'T HARMLESS BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE OFFENDED. Are you ignoring that on purpose or what? If you want to try to argue that nothing is inherently offensive, then go right ahead. While you're at it, try brandishing a swastika or a KKK uniform in public and see how that works out for you.[/QUOTE] Actually, what I'm trying to say is that the person offended needs to get the fuck over themselves. As for the swastika or the KKK uniform, if they're being used in the same context as the blackface (by which I mean used in a school project in order to accurately depict an individual), then they should be treated as non-offensive. Let's use this as a hypothetical. Let's say the kids were doing a school play or presentation based on either the civil rights movement or WWII. The play calls for KKK members or Nazi's to be depicted. In order for this to be done, the kids would have to make a KKK or Nazi outfit for themselves, and in order for them to be accurate they would have to look like the actual thing. And you know what? Nobody should be offended by that. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;36056130] you're justifying blackface and the people who are against it are racist? ok[/QUOTE] Incorrect. He's justifying blackface when it's being used in a non-offensive context.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36056155]Incorrect. He's justifying blackface when it's being used in a non-offensive context.[/QUOTE] ok let me make something perfectly straight here what you think constitutes "offensive" is not universal for everyone. this is why things like sexual misconduct in the workplace exist. while a boss may think that his little joke is completely appropriate, a worker is seriously offended by this. to claim that just because the boss was making a joke that no sexual misconduct occured is incorrect and wrong. if someone - anyone - was offended by this, then it is not a "non-offensive" context. it clearly was not malicious, but lack of malice does not make something non-offensive. i'm not saying the kid did anything wrong, i'm saying the school did exactly what it was supposed to do under the circumstances. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] and let me add to this - if you're going to justify saying it was a white person who was offended by this making it irrelevant - you're wrong. I'm completely heterosexual, but if I hear someone crack a gay joke or use the word faggot I get pissed; I've got friends who are gay, and to know what they've suffered through in their lives gets perpetuated by stupid bullshit pisses me off to no end. So obviously, I call out dumbasses who run around calling each other faggots like fourteen year olds when I have the authority / ability to do so. if a white person is offended by this, it still doesn't change anything. they were offended. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] so while you and I may not find this kid dressing up like this offensive, I can certainly see why someone else would. and if someone else was, they were perfectly in their rights to voice this to the school. and under the circumstances, the school wanted to cover itself and decided to do so accordingly.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;36056256]ok let me make something perfectly straight here what you think constitutes "offensive" is not universal for everyone. this is why things like sexual misconduct in the workplace exist. while a boss may think that his little joke is completely appropriate, a worker is seriously offended by this. to claim that just because the boss was making a joke that no sexual misconduct occured is incorrect and wrong. if someone - anyone - was offended by this, then it is not a "non-offensive" context. it clearly was not malicious, but lack of malice does not make something non-offensive. i'm not saying the kid did anything wrong, i'm saying the school did exactly what it was supposed to do under the circumstances. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] and let me add to this - if you're going to justify saying it was a white person who was offended by this making it irrelevant - you're wrong. I'm completely heterosexual, but if I hear someone crack a gay joke or use the word faggot I get pissed; I've got friends who are gay, and to know what they've suffered through in their lives gets perpetuated by stupid bullshit pisses me off to no end. So obviously, I call out dumbasses who run around calling each other faggots like fourteen year olds when I have the authority / ability to do so. if a white person is offended by this, it still doesn't change anything. they were offended. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] so while you and I may not find this kid dressing up like this offensive, I can certainly see why someone else would. and if someone else was, they were perfectly in their rights to voice this to the school. and under the circumstances, the school wanted to cover itself and decided to do so accordingly.[/QUOTE] I think I summed it up perfectly here. [QUOTE=Protocol7;36055965]It's time to stop living in the past. How will we ever integrate society if people get riled up over stupid shit like this?[/QUOTE] I'm not criticizing the school, I'm criticizing the people who are supposedly offended by this. The context that made blackface offensive in the past does not exist here.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36056490]I think I summed it up perfectly here. I'm not criticizing the school, I'm criticizing the people who are supposedly offended by this. The context that made blackface offensive in the past does not exist here.[/QUOTE] On what authority can you so boldly claim that blackface isn't offensive anymore? Just because you don't find it offensive? Let me know when you declare swastikas to be culturally acceptable again. I think they look pretty neat. [QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36056155]Actually, what I'm trying to say is that the person offended needs to get the fuck over themselves. As for the swastika or the KKK uniform, if they're being used in the same context as the blackface (by which I mean used in a school project in order to accurately depict an individual), then they should be treated as non-offensive. Let's use this as a hypothetical. Let's say the kids were doing a school play or presentation based on either the civil rights movement or WWII. The play calls for KKK members or Nazi's to be depicted. In order for this to be done, the kids would have to make a KKK or Nazi outfit for themselves, and in order for them to be accurate they would have to look like the actual thing. And you know what? Nobody should be offended by that. [/QUOTE] You'd be really hard pressed to find a school that would do a play with those elements so boldly displayed. You know why? Because the schools are aware of the fact that those things are still offensive to some people and that they're better off avoiding such controversy.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;36055791] Well you are certainly a self righteous one aren't you? If the kid and the kid's family apologized for being unintentionally offensive I wouldn't have an issue. The fact that they have the gall to demand an apology from the school shows that they, like you apparently, don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks, and that they're somehow entitled to being able to be offensive.[/quote] Alright, let's use this empirically. Student was not intentionally being offensive. Therefore student was not acting in a negative way. Students were not aware of there being an offence to have been done. Offensiveness is an abstract concept determined by those who take offense, not to those acting offensively. Therefore, there is no such thing as offensive unless an individual believes there to be. It can therefore be assumed that because the nature of offensiveness is based purely off of what someone believes to be offensive by their own personal measure, then someone being offended by something is not cause for something to be measured as offensive, unless we assume that indeed everything that could potentially offend someone is therefore offensive. If this is the case then everyone is offended and everything is offensive at any given time. Calling someone a nigger? Offensive. Calling someone a douchebag? Offensive. Offering to help someone bag their groceries? Offensive. Donating to charity? Offensive. Being naked in your shower? Offensive. Because we obviously can't use this measure to determine if something is offensive or someone is rightly offended, we need to look at the intent of the action: if something was meant to be offensive. Then we need to look at if it would be reasonable by common standards and by those it was directed at, if it could be considered offending to moral taste. Since we've already covered that the children had no knowledge of blackface, it is obvious that it was not offensive to them. But the faculty member? Potentially...except when you take into account the fact that this could hardly be considered blackface and that there was obviously no offensive intent behind it, then this quite obviously is not offensive by situational and intentional regards. Want more? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v._Chicago[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_treatment[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul[/url] To put it basically, you are trying to make this kid be offensive, when he was not. Offensiveness can only be called so when there is intent to be offensive and there is common reason for it to be accepted as such, and even then [I]you have every right to be offensive. There is no right to stop you from being so. You can be a dick all you want, you can not force some one to not be a dick.[/I] To both try and portray someone's well-intentioned actions as being offensive, as we've covered meaning that there must be intent to offend, as well as then force them to apologize for it, is far more "offensive" to the basic framework of speech and liberty in this country than potentially doing something that falls outside someone's abstract idea of what is acceptable in society. Ending remarks: [url]http://6.asset.soup.io/asset/1369/5894_5246.jpeg[/url]