Is Blackface EVER Appropriate?

Probably not.

from JoeUser Forums

     Some people seem to have a total lack of sense. Take this couple for example. They didn't seem to pick up on the furor after Ted Danson's similar faux pas a few years back.

     Now I could understand if these two folks worked as member of the human freakshow that runs our local Mickey's convenience station but the guy is a fucking judge! Jesus to be this stupid I would be willing to bet that he does an awful lot of blow in chanbers too!

     Why is this offensive? Well Vaudeville takes the rap for that one folks. Years and years of using blackface for racial humor shows basically disqualifies it from humor for a few centuries. If you think he showed any sort of good "judge"ment here lt me hear it. I love to listen to the lunatic fringe.

Site Meter
4,125 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

In answer to your title question, yes.  it is a part of our history, and in a historical sense, it is appropriate to depict how things were. 

In answer to your question (unstated) in the text of your message, no it is not appropriate in any attempt at humor or outside of depicting how things were 70 years ago.

But then neither is White Chicks which was really a stupid movie.  If it had not been so stupid, it would have been insulting, not for caucasions, but for women.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

But then neither is White Chicks which was really a stupid movie.

Stupid yes. Offensive in the same category as Blackface? not a chance. When it comes to humor the formerly downtrodden get a liscence to poke fun back at their oppressors of old. I will take White Chicks over "reparations" any day.

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The judges judgement was sorely lacking.

Least, that's my judgement.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Favorite...emotie...ever...
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's only appropriate for chimney sweeps, wildland firefighters and coal miners. ;~D

As far as the article you cite though, while I think they were completely inappropriate, I think suspending the judge over it was just as inappropriate.

When it comes to humor the formerly downtrodden get a liscence to poke fun back at their oppressors of old.


I don't agree that the problems of the passed justify any actions of the present. That being said, I think there is a difference between racist humor and race based humor, just as there is a huge difference between laughing at each other and laughing with each other.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't agree that the problems of the passed justify any actions of the present

When it is humor and not war I think it is a good way to induce societal catharsis.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
When it is humor and not war I think it is a good way to induce societal catharsis.


Oh, I agree that humor is a great way to deal with serious issues, but I don't think that racism one direction justifies racism in the other direction. Of course, not everything raced based is racist either.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

When it comes to humor the formerly downtrodden get a liscence to poke fun back at their oppressors of old.

Excuse me?  Neither I nor any of my ancestors (post roman empire) ever owned, or trafficed in slaves.  So how did I 'downtrodden' them?

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Several years ago here in New York, several fireman wore black faces during a parade and were kicked out of the department. This draconian reaction was outrageous -- these men lost their ability to earn a living . While I personally do not think they should've received any form of punishment, a comprise of a suspension would have been more than sufficient to appease the Jesse & al crowd --the racial piranhas/racketeers/profiteers-- and would have put an end to the whole matter; but not unexpectedly, the powers that be -- the shameless political opportunist-- stomped the hell out of these poor fellas. I guess that, of course, is of no surprise to no one. The Sicilians, for example, have a saying that fits the situation: the weak get piled on.

But as for the judge, I think that suspension is too lenient. I believe he should step down from the bench and return to private practice as an attorney. As a judge, he has a responsibility to make sure that everyone in the community believes he is fair & unbiased, so as to as to maintain faith in the integrity of the justice system. Judges are like those folk who work at slaughter houses: you get used to doing something that is real nasty business; tending to stop thinking about what you're doing and just going through the motions. You grow callous. If the public believes, whether fairly or not, that the judge is bias, then the whole thing comes tumbling down. I never heard of a fireman not run into a burning building to save a person because he was black. Their instinct kicks in under the urgency of the moment. But a bad judge will take his sweet smiling (hanging judge) time give and sentence a black fella too a stiffer sentence because of his prejudice, having plenty of time to contemplate his action.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

these men lost their ability to earn a living .


because they had already demonstrated an attitude not in line with public service. If I was black I certainly wouldn't want some racist jackhole on my firedeptartment who might run in to save a white person and leave me to burn. When you air your stupidity in public there is a price to pay. Same as the judge in you second paragraph. You have never heard of an incident with a fireman because in fire dept where such attitudes are condoned or encouraged they would never say a word about it.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess the real answer to your question is when the question itself is irrelevant: that is, when the same situation no longer inspires the question, it simply won't matter; there will come a time when it simply will not register in the mind as racist; it won't invoke the racism now assoicated with it. . I do believe, however, that the country, in connection with race relations, especially blakc & white, has come along way in short period of time. In many ways, on a daily bassis, I see race relations steadily improving. I take heart in the recent press conference in which members of the black community came out and condemned the democrat machine for its constant attacks against Thomas, Rice, etc... I hold out much hope.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Our country as come a long, long way where race relations are concerned, that's true. It still has such a far, far way to go too. This judge was wrong in what he did, especially because he's a judge whose supposed to be fair and unbiased. Like Hitparade said, perhaps he's bcome too used to his job, in that case, now is the time for him to step down and do something else - because he won't be fair or unbiased. Humor is funny when it's appropriate and people can laugh together, with each other, but when it's not, and you're the only one laughing, it's like having a pie thrown in your face.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is Blackface EVER Appropriate?


No, I don't think so.


Reply #1 By: Dr. Guy
In answer to your title question, yes. it is a part of our history, and in a historical sense, it is appropriate to depict how things were.

Even as it is important to preserve history, there are plenty of pictures and written accounts depicting minstrel shows and the like already in existence; I see no reason for actual reinactments of this nature in the name of history. You didn't really mean this, did you?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Being a judge, he should have shown better judgement, yes. But then, being a judge, he's probably seen quite a few black faces in handcuffs and orange jumpsuits, accompanied by police. This doesn't make it right, of course, but it could be seen as social commentary as humor.

"White Chicks" was very funny movie, I thought, although I have to question whether two white actors would have been allowed the same leeway in the other direction.
One film dealing with race, in the last couple of years, that I found offensive was "Bringing Down the House", produced by and starring Queen Latifa. Every white person in the film was portrayed in some degree as an elitist, rich moron with varying degrees of racist attitudes. When Betty White walked out of her house holding a golf club as a weapon and said "Is everything alright out here? I thought I heard negroes!" it was all I could do to make it through the rest of the film.
If a white producer made a film depicting blacks in the same sterortypical vein, as drug dealers, pimps and welfare cheats, it would have been protested and picketed by the NAACP.

The judge was stupid for doing something so un-PC, that's all.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Even as it is important to preserve history, there are plenty of pictures and written accounts depicting minstrel shows and the like already in existence; I see no reason for actual reinactments of this nature in the name of history. You didn't really mean this, did you?

Yes.  Why deny history?  To do so is to be condemned to repeat it.  Already some are trying to deny the holocaust, and that we need not see the pictures as they are too horrorific.  Well to that I say bunk!  A picture, or re-enactment, is worth a thousand words. 

I in no way insinuated that we should glorify a reenactment.  But as a history lesson to show how far we have come, or how bad it was, yes.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
All right, I guess you did mean it; my bad. I understand what you're saying and I agree that it is not something to be forgotten. I'm all for preserving history. I, myself have never seen a live minstrel show and I think I understand quite fully, how offensive they were. It just seems (to me) that it would be in very bad taste, even as a history lesson.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought, although I have to question whether two white actors would have been allowed the same leeway in the other direction.


The Mel Brooks classic "Blazing Saddles" is the example I use on this subject. It was a great spoof on the issue of racism. It was an equal opportunity destoyer, leaving no race untouched. At the same time, it got the viewer to laugh at the whole stupidity of racism.

Westside Story was another film (and play) that took a look at the futility and waste that goes with racism.

Sadly, because of the artificially fuelled hypersensitivity in our society modern versions of them would never be allowed to be produced.

I know in the case of West Side Story, there have been school administrators that cancelled student productions of West Side Story, based on "Zero Tolerance" (Read Zero Intelligence) policies.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Mel Brooks classic "Blazing Saddles" is the example I use on this subject. It was a great spoof on the issue of racism. It was an equal opportunity destoyer, leaving no race untouched. At the same time, it got the viewer to laugh at the whole stupidity of racism.


Yeah...there's another good example. Given today's hypersensitivity, though, do you think it would've been made in the present day? I doubt it....even positive messages that need any form of racist behavior or dialogue as a conveyor are frowned upon or disallowed completely.

The "West Side Story" example is another good one. I'd never heard of that one. PC is so damn stupid.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

All right, I guess you did mean it; my bad. I understand what you're saying and I agree that it is not something to be forgotten. I'm all for preserving history. I, myself have never seen a live minstrel show and I think I understand quite fully, how offensive they were. It just seems (to me) that it would be in very bad taste, even as a history lesson.

Hampster (what a name BTW),

I never did as well.  And yes, it would be offensive.  But then sometimes we have to do a 'get in your face' or people forget it.

But it would be offensive now.  Back in the 20 and 30s, it was not meant to be, nor was it even deragotory to Blacks (at least not always).  Due to segregation, they just were not allowed so in many cases, their parts had to be played by blackfaced actors and actresses.  Some may have been very demeaning and derogatory, but not all were.  It was the sad state of our country in those times, and THAT is what we cannot forget.

Go back another 300 years and you find men playing womens parts in plays!  Same thing.  We should not forget what we did, nor condemn all who did it.  But we should make sure it never happens again.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Mel Brooks classic "Blazing Saddles" is the example I use on this subject. It was a great spoof on the issue of racism. It was an equal opportunity destoyer, leaving no race untouched. At the same time, it got the viewer to laugh at the whole stupidity of racism.

Westside Story was another film (and play) that took a look at the futility and waste that goes with racism.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on both counts!  Clevon Little was perfect as was Gene Wilder, and West side story is my favorite musical!

But I got to admit that Monk cold cocking that horse was my favorite scene!  I almost peed in my pants!

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
But I got to admit that Monk cold cocking that horse was my favorite scene! I almost peed in my pants!


Try putting that in a scene now without pissing off the professionally offended. ;~D
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Try putting that in a scene now without pissing off the professionally offended. ;~D

Oh, didnt they tell you?  They got a stunt double for the horse!

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thnx Doc, ruin the whole moment for me!!! ;~D
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hampster (what a name BTW),


Dr. Guy, yeah, we agree about the blackface. Why you gotta pick on my name AND misspell it to boot?