Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well if this is racist, then Othello is racist because of black paint Olivier.

It is possible to have a black man, or arab man depending on your take, play Othello is entirely possible nowadays, since this isn't 17th and 18th century Britain. We also rarely have all male productions of Shakespeare anymore either. Just a simple google of "Olivier Othello" will net you articles from now and when it was released criticizing it. It was considered offensive enough in the US that the film only showed for two days in the US at it's release, we can still compare the difference between his makeup and others:


and this is blackface:



Just darkening one's skin is not the same thing. Perhaps many of you have not actually seen or met a person of African heritage. Even the very very dark are not actually black, and they do not have bright red lips.

Compare this:



Or this:



to this:

That last picture is already controversial in the Netherlands and most public event are starting or have dropped the earrings and overly curly wigs. The issue at hand is that current generations dont make the connection of Zwarte Piet=person of colour. WE no longer perceive it as such and see it as a fictional character for children. Just to make clear there already have been discussions on racist implications and Zwarte Piet is slowly being adapted. What pisses most people off is the UN interferring in what is essentially an internal matter that has almost no effect on people outside the Netherlands, be honest, have you ever heard of it before the UN brought it to attention.

And when we continue the debate for sake of equally changing traditions because of rascism, what about this?

Its an Iranian tradition, but the point of why we are condemned on as rascist seems to be quite similar, yet the UN isnt investigating this?

Its starting to become of a bit of a running joke on the UN in the last few days, in different forms:
UN person 1: So we have effectivly stopped those rascists in the Netherlands, whats next?
UN person 2: What about Hajji Firuz in Iran, thats seems rascist too.
UN person 1: Woah, woah, woah... Iran? Are you kidding me, that way too dangerous to visit and politically volatile. No, no... lets try something else in Europe.

The other ones are quite more offensive (Syria, Somalia etc.) or starting with 'thank god for world peace, now we have time for this important issue in the Netherlands...'. People do see the rascist side in the Netherlands (and slowly adapting because of how its perceived), but the feeling the UN is attacking us as a bunch of rascists is just achieving the opposite effect of turning public opinion against change and entrenching it in its current form. So the only efffect the UN has just achieved is that it has put the slow transformation process back by a couple of dozen years.

 Ahtman wrote:

and this is blackface:

Spoiler:

I assume you realise that the man in this picture is actually black? As in a black man in blackface.
Blackface was also used when performing certain acts, I think ones to do with negro derived culture. It wasn't seen as appropriate for a white person to perform negro derived songs and music but it was okay if done in blackface.

 Steve steveson wrote:


It matters if it is offensive in Denmark or not.

I don't think Dutch people CARE if it's offensive in DENMARK since Denmark is another country with its own issues.

Denmark and the Netherlands are two different places, separated by most of Europe. Why the confusion?

 chromedog wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


It matters if it is offensive in Denmark or not.

I don't think Dutch people CARE if it's offensive in DENMARK since Denmark is another country with its own issues.

Denmark and the Netherlands are two different places, separated by most of Europe. Why the confusion?

Sorry... My bad... Having a moment and put the wrong country. I was talking to a friend about a vaguely related subject (Specifically Danish Christmas traditions, as her mother is danish) at the same time as typing. Apologies and corrected.

Personally, I don't really give a gak whether the Netherlands continues to use blackface in a racist caricature or not. If it causes enough offence, then the people who are genuinely offended by this in the Netherlands should get that across and convince enough other people to get the festival changed or dropped. I don't think anything is helped by the rest of us getting offended on behalf of other people who may or may not be bothered, though.

Nor is it really the place of the UN to pick this one festival out and decide whether it is racist or not. The UN does plenty of good work in facilitating discussion on racism, but only in the context of raising awareness of the issue in the local population. Picking out a festival and saying 'that's racist' doesn't achieve anything, and isn't really what the UN is there for.

That said, I do find it quite fascinating that some dakkaites will honest to God sit there pretending that a really racist bit of blackface isn't a racist bit of blackface. Whether they're doing it out their constant need to complain about the UN or their constant need to complain about PC gone made I don't know, but it is incredible.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
the UN trying to ban it. It's a traditional festivity. They should just butt out.

The UN can't ban this. Surprisingly, the UN has no legal authority over local festivals in the Netherlands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
But couldn't you argue for the removal of the burqa and/or hijab on the idea that it's sexist as it dehumanizes women (removes their identity)?

Not really, because if its banned then the women who feel strong cultural pressure to wear it won't suddenly start walking around in public showing their face, arms and legs to the general public. Instead they'll just stop appearing in public.

I think there's a lot of really strong feminists arguments against the burqua, and I think the best ones go beyond just the burqua and use that as just a starting point in showing how unhealthily the female body is fetishised in much of Islam. But talk of actually banning the burqua... that's not a feminist thing, that's a 'we are afraid of Islam and feel the need to jerk them around believing that will somehow make us less afraid' thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I can understand were you guys are coming from, but the question is if we have to cancel everything even slightly offensive just to be pc.

This isn't one of the 'slightly offensive' things, though, is it? It is a guy dressed in blackface, afro wig and all.

I mean, I'm not saying whether this should be banned or not, but it isn't as though there isn't a mile of difference between this and, say, Thanksgiving.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently Othello was racist.

Are you honestly ignorant of the racism in Shakespeare?

Go off and read the Merchant of Venice, 500 word essay due this time tomorrow.

 sebster wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
But couldn't you argue for the removal of the burqa and/or hijab on the idea that it's sexist as it dehumanizes women (removes their identity)?

Not really, because if its banned then the women who feel strong cultural pressure to wear it won't suddenly start walking around in public showing their face, arms and legs to the general public. Instead they'll just stop appearing in public.

I think there's a lot of really strong feminists arguments against the burqua, and I think the best ones go beyond just the burqua and use that as just a starting point in showing how unhealthily the female body is fetishised in much of Islam. But talk of actually banning the burqua... that's not a feminist thing, that's a 'we are afraid of Islam and feel the need to jerk them around believing that will somehow make us less afraid' thing.

Yeah, you're probably right if being covered up in public is the norm in your culture you're just going to make the person feel alienated if you remove that right from them, also only a few Muslim-majority countries actually make it mandatory to wear hijab but I'll be honest having seen women in

niqabs in person before I do feel uncomfortable around them.

The numbers of muslim women wearing burquas in western countries is tiny. You might as well ban red shoes with purple polka dots on them for all the effect it will have.
It's an easy way for governments to be seen to be doing something about the more radical aspects of islam. It's like having to put all your stuff into see through bags before getting on a plane. It doesn't actually do anything to keep you safe but many obviously feel better knowing that something is being done.

They can't ban the headscarf that the women wear because a lot of females wear scarves and head coverings. I do think that banning burquas in banks, courts of law, photo id is necessary and is no different than banning people from wearing full face motorcycle helmets which are banned for the same security reasons.

 sebster wrote:
Personally, I don't really give a gak whether the Netherlands continues to use blackface in a racist caricature or not. If it causes enough offence, then the people who are genuinely offended by this in the Netherlands should get that across and convince enough other people to get the festival changed or dropped. I don't think anything is helped by the rest of us getting offended on behalf of other people who may or may not be bothered, though.

IMHO, this is the most practical and mature attitude towards the whole affair.

It's all a bit like with the old Jew-jokes in Germany and Austria: If you want to make yourself a social outcast for telling them, go ahead. Changes in society made those unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of the people, which is much preferable to any kind of legal intervention. In the case at hand, such intervention is not yet on the table, but it already happens FAR too often in Europe.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I can understand were you guys are coming from, but the question is if we have to cancel everything even slightly offensive just to be pc.

This isn't one of the 'slightly offensive' things, though, is it? It is a guy dressed in blackface, afro wig and all.

I mean, I'm not saying whether this should be banned or not, but it isn't as though there isn't a mile of difference between this and, say, Thanksgiving.

Well to be fair this isnt one indeed, I never tried to say such a thing, sorry if it could be interpeted that way. But this is a really difficult issue for us in the Netherlands, we dont see the rascism, because the tradition and the imitation have become so detached from real life that almost nobody makes the connection anymore. But people from the outside do, as shown recently. But we were slowly changing it, so this doesnt help the process. Why attack us as rascists, instead of trying to help us understand the rascist aspect, like the original investigation was trying to do.

But just to put my Thanksgiving remark into context. As a foreigner I have only the slightest idea of the concept, so to me it could also be the celebration of the start of genocide, something on which it could be attacked. And to be fair, the throwback to slavery was the reason this was attacked, while it only started in earnest when slavery was already abolished. So it only takes one person placed high enough to draw a conclusion and move in, which seems to be a dangerous trend, because there are so many things that can be seen as wrong with the Netherlands (some actual problems which they should have inspected, like Wilders and the limit of free speech).

The spokeswoman was interviewed a day after the investigation was announced by Dutch media. The things she said in that interview angered people while they were only suprised at first. She makes us seem like a bunch of rascists and her remark that we dont need two Santa Clauses show that she has no idea of our history and the tradition which predates the real American Santa Clause. The question in the Netherlands is if this isnt in some way rascist to the Dutch? Should we just join Belgium or vice versa, because we have the same costums and language? I mean we dont need two of the same countries when we already have one right? These are the only things that it has caused so far, no change, just anger and entrenchment.

 chromedog wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


It matters if it is offensive in Denmark or not.

I don't think Dutch people CARE if it's offensive in DENMARK since Denmark is another country with its own issues.

Denmark and the Netherlands are two different places, separated by most of Europe. Why the confusion?

Both start with a D. You Europeans are all the same to us TexMex eaters. Except Leichtenstein of course.

 Frazzled wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


It matters if it is offensive in Denmark or not.

I don't think Dutch people CARE if it's offensive in DENMARK since Denmark is another country with its own issues.

Denmark and the Netherlands are two different places, separated by most of Europe. Why the confusion?

Both start with a D. You Europeans are all the same to us TexMex eaters. Except Leichtenstein of course.

Isn't that where those little guys in the green hats with lots of gold come from?

I think thats Ecuador.

Blackface in the US is back in the news!

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20749699,00.html

 d-usa wrote:
Blackface in the US is back in the news!

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20749699,00.html

Don't know what "orange is the new black" is but thats what people call blackface now? jesus she looks more like a tanning bed victm

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, you're probably right if being covered up in public is the norm in your culture you're just going to make the person feel alienated if you remove that right from them, also only a few Muslim-majority countries actually make it mandatory to wear hijab but I'll be honest having seen women in

niqabs in person before I do feel uncomfortable around them.

I don't feel uncomfortable as much as I feel bad for them. It would be very strange to go through life having such a massive boundary drawn between you and society.

But I just don't see these women being liberated if it was banned, nor do I believe their liberation is at all a motivation among many of the people who argue for such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well to be fair this isnt one indeed, I never tried to say such a thing, sorry if it could be interpeted that way. But this is a really difficult issue for us in the Netherlands, we dont see the rascism, because the tradition and the imitation have become so detached from real life that almost nobody makes the connection anymore. But people from the outside do, as shown recently. But we were slowly changing it, so this doesnt help the process. Why attack us as rascists, instead of trying to help us understand the rascist aspect, like the original investigation was trying to do.

Yeah, that really gets to the core of the issue. Declaring that it's racist and must end just pisses people off and makes them defensive. Raising awareness of the issue and how ethnic minorities might see the custom, and how it might make them feel is a good way forward... provided its a genuinely open-ended conversation that genuinely considers the possibilty that this really doesn't bother local minority groups.

 sebster wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, you're probably right if being covered up in public is the norm in your culture you're just going to make the person feel alienated if you remove that right from them, also only a few Muslim-majority countries actually make it mandatory to wear hijab but I'll be honest having seen women in

niqabs in person before I do feel uncomfortable around them.

I don't feel uncomfortable as much as I feel bad for them. It would be very strange to go through life having such a massive boundary drawn between you and society.

But I just don't see these women being liberated if it was banned, nor do I believe their liberation is at all a motivation among many of the people who argue for such.

Well, I feel bad for them as well but as you mentioned before it's pretty much useless to ban burqas as those women come from a society where you shouldn't be showing your body in public and as such will just encourage them to never go out in public and yes, most people probably want

to see the removal of the burqa for ethnocentric reasons rather than because of women's liberation (which wouldn't really liberate them if you banned it in Canada), I was just trying to come up with alternate reasons even if they're quite flawed.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Well, I feel bad for them as well but as you mentioned before it's pretty much useless to ban burqas as those women come from a society where you shouldn't be showing your body in public and as such will just encourage them to never go out in public and yes, most people probably want

to see the removal of the burqa for ethnocentric reasons rather than because of women's liberation (which wouldn't really liberate them if you banned it in Canada), I was just trying to come up with alternate reasons even if they're quite flawed.

Yeah, sorry if my previous post wasn't clear - I was agreeing with everything you said and expanding on it.

I think the argument rather goes that by banning for example the burqa, you make your country a less desirable target for further immigration by fundamentalist muslims, at least here where I live.

In my opinion that doesn't touch the core of the problem, but there you go.

 sebster wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Well, I feel bad for them as well but as you mentioned before it's pretty much useless to ban burqas as those women come from a society where you shouldn't be showing your body in public and as such will just encourage them to never go out in public and yes, most people probably want

to see the removal of the burqa for ethnocentric reasons rather than because of women's liberation (which wouldn't really liberate them if you banned it in Canada), I was just trying to come up with alternate reasons even if they're quite flawed.

Yeah, sorry if my previous post wasn't clear - I was agreeing with everything you said and expanding on it.

Oh, OK that's cool with me.

 Allod wrote:
I think the argument rather goes that by banning for example the burqa, you make your country a less desirable target for further immigration by fundamentalist muslims, at least here where I live.

In my opinion that doesn't touch the core of the problem, but there you go.

Unless the core of the problem is that muslims are immigrating into your country of course.

Sorry, I don't follow?

 Allod wrote:
Sorry, I don't follow?

I feel that for a portion of the population, the imigration of Muslims into their country is the core of the problem. But legislation saying "no Muslims allowed" is usually not something that they can get away with. So they pass legislation like the burqa bans under the disguise of caring about poor suppressed women, but are really passing it as an attempt to decrease Muslim imigration.

So it doesn't touch the core of the stated problem (equal gender rights), but still touches the core of the actual problem (keep them out).

Ah, now I get it! Apologies, it's early here.

 Allod wrote:
I think the argument rather goes that by banning for example the burqa, you make your country a less desirable target for further immigration by fundamentalist muslims, at least here where I live.

In my opinion that doesn't touch the core of the problem, but there you go.

That argument is not AFAIK used in France, where a ban is in place, or in the UK, where there is some talk of a ban.

The French ban is basically ineffective and counter-productive, and has obviously failed, which I think any sensible person could have predicted on the basis of the logic that you cannot compel people to be free. Rather like the Swiss ban on minaret towers, it would appear to be a racist discrimination dressed up as good civics.

Interestingly, according to the Channel 4 FactCheck blog, the proportion of the British public favouring a ban has dropped over the past few years.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/britains-niqab-unveiling-facts-factcheck/16232

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Quite different. A burqua is a personal choice, even if it is one imposed due to ethnic/religious association. Minarets though are a form of fence. They say this is a muslim area. Minarets are where the call to prayer for the local community are sounded from, whether that is some guy actually shouting from them or a loudspeaker mounted on them. Particularly in old parts of Europe, having these minarets takes away from the traditional European feel of the towns in which they appear.
They're not necessary for a mosque to function, muslims have repeatedly shown that they can pray anywhere so having minarets serves no purpose other than to say "we're here". Historic towns have a right to protect their historic character.

cadbren wrote:
Quite different. A burqua is a personal choice, even if it is one imposed due to ethnic/religious association. Minarets though are a form of fence. They say this is a muslim area.

Do churches announce that it is a Christian area, and act as a fence. Because as an atheist I've walked through these areas and never excluded, but perhaps I was missing a bit clue in the vast religious property war raging around me.

Particularly in old parts of Europe, having these minarets takes away from the traditional European feel of the towns in which they appear.

The idea that the concrete shithole that is Geneva should worry that minarets take away from its traditional European feel is hilarious.

 sebster wrote:


Do churches announce that it is a Christian area, and act as a fence. Because as an atheist I've walked through these areas and never excluded, but perhaps I was missing a bit clue in the vast religious property war raging around me.

No, but church spires and bell towers do. These things have been part of our culture though for over 1000 years, of course you don't feel excluded because atheist or not, it's still part of your heritage. Spires traditionally were a symbol of the local christian community, they were the tallest structures in most places for generations. I'm also an athiest but I consider the church, or at least the symbols of it, to be part of my culture. Most of the symbols are of pagan origin anyway so provide a link to my ancestors even further back.

The idea that the concrete shithole that is Geneva should worry that minarets take away from its traditional European feel is hilarious.

As I understand it there are other population centres in Switzerland, aside from which, if people don't want an overt symbol of a minority religion in their nation that is up to them. It's not like mosques themselves are banned.

Personally, I don't really give a gak whether the Netherlands continues to use blackface in a racist caricature or not. If it causes enough offence, then the people who are genuinely offended by this in the Netherlands should get that across and convince enough other people to get the festival changed or dropped. I don't think anything is helped by the rest of us getting offended on behalf of other people who may or may not be bothered, though.

Yes I think so..

MotoGP rider Marc Marquez had to apologise for this helmet he wore during the Japanese GP last weekend.. again, not really sure if the people complaining were Japanese (presumably not Spanish, thinking about the basketball team-thing from some years ago at the Olympics)

 d-usa wrote:
Blackface in the US is back in the news!

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20749699,00.html

That story has me conflicted. On the one hand, I want to say that all blackface is bad, because appropriating a cultural identity for a gag as costume is patently offensive*. I think that is probably not in dispute. On the other hand - that's also sort of simplistic. This is not exactly what happened here - she dressed up as a specific character, who happened to be black. Her skin tone wasn't the costume, and her color was not a gag. This is not Ted Danson dressing in blackface and telling racial jokes for an hour.

While it might be telling that in her circle of friends - all of whom dressed up as cast members from the same show - not a single dark-skinned friend was available to play Crazy Eyes - nonetheless I think this falls into a much fuzzier area. That's my opinion, anyway.

Career-ise, she probably shouldn't have gone as Pennsatucky; but I am kind of doubtful that what she did was as offensive as some of what I have read have cast it as.

You know, there was a thread here a while back someone posted - perhaps Reds8n - in which a dark-skinned cosplayer got a lot of grief for dressing up as Asian or white characters. It seems like a fit analogy to me.


*unless it's a professional sports team, then it's just good clean fun and tradition

 Ninjacommando wrote:
[Don't know what "orange is the new black" is

It is a popular show on cable television, set in a women's prison and based on a bestselling nonfiction story. Her friends and her all dressed up as various characters.



She went as "Crazy Eyes", the woman in the center right and one of the fan favorites. It's actually a really good show, I think you can rent it on blu-ray or whatever now.