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.

 Ahtman wrote:

What horror must you have done in a previous life to deserve such punishment in this one?

I lost too many elephants going over the Alps... It's not all that bad, I'm central office; you'd have to be a truly bent individual to want to be a principal.

The only reasonable way that I see this playing out without malice and forethought is that the administrator was completing informal rounds, walked in to the room and saw what he/she immediately took to be some video unrelated to instruction being shown and depicting racist imagery and then putting a stop to it. Snap judgement and possible overreaction, yes but not necessarily with ill intent. Where this gets hazy is that when he/she spoke with the teacher later in the day, the teacher could have produced their lesson plan and tied the relevance of the video to a lesson; this assumption leads to the conclusion that the teacher should never have faced formal discipline.

If it was a formal observation, there should have been a pre-conference wherein the administrator and teacher discuss what the lesson is, how it applies to the curriculum and what teaching pedagogy will be focused on. This doesn't put the administrator in a good light because it either means that they weren't performing due diligence in holding a pre-conference or went into the room with ill intent.

In either case, I don't feel that it should have escalated to the point where the teacher was automatically suspended without the teacher being allowed to explain himself. Another thought is where was the principal in all of this? It appears that a vice/assistant principal performed the disciplining of the teacher and this just shouldn't happen, and it certainly doesn't happen without the district personnel administrator being involved somewhere along the line.

There's just way too much missing information and inconsistencies with established professional practices.

I don't know how many of the posters here are from Philly, but when I lived in that area in the 70's, the Mummers would have televised New Year's parades with groups where blackface was in large evidence.
It wasn't meant as disrespectful, however, anymore than the "Madis Gras Indians" are meant to be disrespectful. It was more tradition that ended up being phased out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummers_Parade


Mardis Gras Indians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mardi_Gras_Indians

Damn, I had a lot of spelling errors in this post!

[quote

Disagree. While the child may not have been full of hate, the child, even at a super young age would have told you that blacks were not as good as whites. That golliwog was 'funny' to the child because it was dehumanizing and turning a human into a plaything. Just because there was no overt hate doesn't mean it wasn't discriminatory or micro-aggression even at the time. To say it had zero racial connotation and was not at all insulting or racist at the time is flat out wrong. It was instrumental in dehumanizing blacks to the next generation.

Actually it's you whose incorrect, especially with regards to the Workers ON GOvt. Service part.

That appears to be a complete urban myth

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/site/comments/wog/



And I don't think what you've said here is really that relevant to the quote from the previous poster anyway..?

 d-usa wrote:
The audience thought Minstrel Shows were racist. The Performers thought it was racist. They just didn't think there was anything wrong with being racist.

The Nazis knew they were racists. They just didn't think anything was wrong with it.

I'm pretty sure most racist people don't think they're being racist.

Relapse wrote:
@Orlanth,

Any comments I have seen on the facebook link associated with this story have the parents and students upset with the treatment of this teacher.

Thanks, this confirms my position, it was the reaction to the video that was wrong, not showing the video.

 d-usa wrote:

The audience thought Minstrel Shows were racist. The Performers thought it was racist. They just didn't think there was anything wrong with being racist.

Did they, citation please.

 d-usa wrote:

The Nazis knew they were racists. They just didn't think anything was wrong with it.

Not true, the Nazis certainly knew what they were doing was wrong. For example Hitler trapped the German officer corps by forcing the oath of allegiance to be sworn to him. That meant a lot to a German officer. Also a lot of the spin surrounding Nazisim was encouraging people to do what they thought was wrong, Goebbels being the main tool of this.
So Nazis were racist in modern context.

 d-usa wrote:

Blackface was dying at the beginning of the 20th century. It was racist then, and just because people didn't think that racism wasn't wrong doesn't make it any less racist. It expired because people got tired of that crap.

Revisionism again.
For a start blackface had its zenith in the 1930's with performers like Al Jolson.
Second as shown the mainstream use of blackface did not imply racism and the performers were not racist. This doesnt account for individuals, but then you can add a hate agenda to anything, the genre of itself was not racist. We know this by looking at the life histories of the performers. As many could perform in blackface without racism then it is logical to say that the genre was not inherently racist.
You might claim otherwise, but that just a case of 'lalala not listening', which is no way to study history if you want any form of credibility.

 Orlanth wrote:
Lets put this in perspective.

Should feminists get upset when they see men in drag? Is it an insult to women for men to be in drag?

yeah pretty much shows the double standard right there...

apparently dave chappelle is a huge racist for portrayal of white stereotypes while in white face now too?

 Orlanth wrote:

Did they, citation please..

I don't make it a habit to provide citations to people who just spout "revisionist history, here is what really happened" without providing any citations themselves.

 reds8n wrote:
Actually it's you whose incorrect, especially with regards to the Workers ON GOvt. Service part.

That appears to be a complete urban myth

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/site/comments/wog/



And I don't think what you've said here is really that relevant to the quote from the previous poster anyway..? [/quote

Actually, there are multiple references to 'polliwog' being the word that author changed, and the stories that popularised the doll were based on her actual toys, so connecting it to an abusive terms isn't the recognised etymology. The quote I originally used was to refute the racist introduction of the toys, something which has been done in more recent history and was being held up as a form of historical revisionism, which was at hand when I posted.

Sources:
http://www.tourisminternet.com.au/chgolly4.htm basis of name from author

http://www.italianshop.com.au/ghistory.html Ghuliwog

I don't find golliwog a term for abuse until WW2

Those sources are fething hilarious.

Orlanth, yes the people of the past had different social norms and ideas, but we can still judge them, because they had something we had too: empathy.

In the past, people had empathy. They knew to care for each other. They knew that hurting others was wrong. Its not like human nature was fundamentally different in the 1920's. Hell, it wasn't even fundamentally different back 2000 years ago in Ancient Rome.

We can judge them for racist performances like blackface because they had empathy, which means they should've known better. It isn't revisionism to say that, given the prejudiced and hurtful nature of the performances, that they were racist.

I get the feeling some of you all would like yo wipe out portion of US history that people do not like to agree with or that it happen by today standards

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Did they, citation please..

I don't make it a habit to provide citations to people who just spout "revisionist history, here is what really happened" without providing any citations themselves.

1. The students didn't consider the video racist.
2. The paresnt didn't consider the vvideo racist.
3. Al Jolson was not racist, or at least there is no evidence of it, and he performed blackface. So at least some blackface performers were not racist, therefore it was NOT intrinsically racist.
That will be enough for now, your turn.

You see when I write off your comments as revisionist, I do so from a basis of taking a solid look at the evidence I can find, all you have posted its an unbacked assertion that 'x was racist because I say so'.

No need to get all heated up at each other over this.

Check out Eddie Murphey in one of his more famous SNL skits

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vGm5U11JTr8

Plus he did Whiteface in "Coming to America"

For a really great reversal of Blackface, I suggest the Godfrey Cambridge movie "Watermelon man", a film about a predjudice white man who one day wakes up to find he has turned black.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_Man_(film)

Stupid Wiki link won't put the word "film" in full brackets.

Why I mention earlier of
"White Chicks"
and
"Soul Man"

 Jihadin wrote:
Why I mention earlier of
"White Chicks"
and
"Soul Man"

Good examples, also.

 LoneLictor wrote:
Orlanth, yes the people of the past had different social norms and ideas, but we can still judge them, because they had something we had too: empathy.

In the past, people had empathy. They knew to care for each other. They knew that hurting others was wrong. Its not like human nature was fundamentally different in the 1920's. Hell, it wasn't even fundamentally different back 2000 years ago in Ancient Rome.

We can judge them for racist performances like blackface because they had empathy, which means they should've known better. It isn't revisionism to say that, given the prejudiced and hurtful nature of the performances, that they were racist.

I can understand where you are coming from, but note that empathy can also change. There is a lot of empowerment in todays society there was not before, this is a good thing, but there is also a sense of entitlement culture.
Racism is a good example of this, In many countries racial hatred is often weighted differently by society depending on the ethnicity of the accuser and the accused. Surely 'empathy' would remain a constant however society will weight culpability in an uneven manner. This is very visible in the UK, I dont know about the US, but as we are talking about human nature then essentially an example somewhere is a potential example anywhere.

So as empathy is not a constant there is room to suggest that people did not see anything wrong with blackface, or other things now considered offensive. This makes sense as there are clear examples of non-racist blackface, but even that likely would be consider offensive in todays society because human empathy has shifted over the years.



A Golliwog

A good example neatly ignored, because its a good example are golliwogs. Children up until the mid 20th century had golliwogs as dolls, they were very popular, amongst English girls in particular, my mother had one in the 40's. Golliwogs had a specific dress and appearance, most golliwogs were essentially standardised, no matter which company made the golliwog.
Now golliwogs are pretty much extinct, and in some instances banned, the confectionary maker Robertsons had an image of a golliwog as its trademark until they dropped that in IIRC the 80's.
Golliwogs are a caricature, this is true, but caricatures exist of pretty much anything. A good example being John Bull as a caricature of the English, it stems from Victorian England (which was I admit pretty damn racist) but the culture of caricature symbolic characters for each ethnicity covered pretty much everyone and so there was no singling out. Consequently there wasn't a hate agenda involved, many if not most girls who played with a golliwog were middle class and sheltered and had never seen an actual black man, and thus it is reasonable to doubt that racism was part of the ethos behind it.
One of the reasons golliwogs remained as a trademark and in public sight as long as they did was because of a lot of support from people who know the toy and knew that it did not stand for anything racist.

It is understandable how it can cause offense now; the last three letters of the name are offensive in current English vocabulary for a start. Even so the golliwog should not be seen as a racist symbol from the context of its time and how it was used.

http://antigolliwog.com/what-is-anti-golliwog/
These guys hate golliwogs, cant se the issue, its been a very long time since most people have seen one. They are still collectable though even now.

Golliwogs are a good example of a changing 'empathy' over time.
Thanks for your input though, and I can see the logic in what you are saying, and it can hold true, but not necessarily so.

My wife watches "who do you think you are?" (US edition).

I'm constantly surprised at how LITTLE many of these "celebrities" know about world history - let alone their OWN history - so not knowing about their own country's history, even up to 50 years ago, is astounding.

Then again, I'm often surprised at how little the current generation knows about past world events - given they have access to so much more of it at their fingertips via their phones.
How is it possible to have access to so much information and yet somehow Kim Kardashian's ass is ranked a higher importance?

Remember the little lawn statues of servants holding up glass lamps? Dressed like a butler? Some people paint them as black servants and/or white. Rolled into whoever the Caucasian that own them was considered racist

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Did they, citation please..

I don't make it a habit to provide citations to people who just spout "revisionist history, here is what really happened" without providing any citations themselves.

1. The students didn't consider the video racist.
2. The paresnt didn't consider the vvideo racist.
3. Al Jolson was not racist, or at least there is no evidence of it, and he performed blackface. So at least some blackface performers were not racist, therefore it was NOT intrinsically racist.
That will be enough for now, your turn.

You see when I write off your comments as revisionist, I do so from a basis of taking a solid look at the evidence I can find, all you have posted its an unbacked assertion that 'x was racist because I say so'.

What evidence? The only evidence you have is that you typed "he wasn't racist".

The evidence of "he painted every racial stereotype that exists about black people on his face" disagrees with your statement.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And once again:

A jazz player in blackface in 1930 also has nothing to do and is zero defense if blackface in the 1800s and minstrel shows. Which was the topic of the video.

It's like me arguing that you don't know anything about being British because Africans are poor.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Did they, citation please..

I don't make it a habit to provide citations to people who just spout "revisionist history, here is what really happened" without providing any citations themselves.

1. The students didn't consider the video racist.
2. The paresnt didn't consider the vvideo racist.
3. Al Jolson was not racist, or at least there is no evidence of it, and he performed blackface. So at least some blackface performers were not racist, therefore it was NOT intrinsically racist.
That will be enough for now, your turn.

You see when I write off your comments as revisionist, I do so from a basis of taking a solid look at the evidence I can find, all you have posted its an unbacked assertion that 'x was racist because I say so'.

What evidence? The only evidence you have is that you typed "he wasn't racist".

The evidence of "he painted every racial stereotype that exists about black people on his face" disagrees with your statement.

I even pointed to the character and gave examples of non racist blackface performers.
I also noted how black and white performers would perform together which had a point of unity notably absent in the time.
I just now noted how chidlren were given black dolls which little girls would love like they love other dolls. Parents would buy these dolls even though they were black, the imagery for the golliwog was identicle to the blackface meme. This proves that Blackface characters were or at least could be a point of affection rather than ridicule amongst the young.
And more....

Nevertheless I give up on responding to you, you haven't answered a single one of my points with anything other than a flat denial with no evidence of any kind to back it up. Please read LoneLictors posts and learn from them, he disagrees with me also but at least has thought through an opposed opinion.

 Jihadin wrote:
Why I mention earlier of
"White Chicks"
and
"Soul Man"

geese Jihadin, did you miss the memo? Its only racist if white people do it, not if its done to white people.

 chromedog wrote:
My wife watches "who do you think you are?" (US edition).

I'm constantly surprised at how LITTLE many of these "celebrities" know about world history - let alone their OWN history - so not knowing about their own country's history, even up to 50 years ago, is astounding.

Then again, I'm often surprised at how little the current generation knows about past world events - given they have access to so much more of it at their fingertips via their phones.
How is it possible to have access to so much information and yet somehow Kim Kardashian's ass is ranked a higher importance?

I was once looking for a poster of Stonehenge at a shop and the girl at the counter I asked about it looked at me in a confused fashion like I was speaking in some foreign language. She gave me an odd stare for about 4 seconds and asked, "What is that?"
I just looked at her and said not to worry about it, it was a place on the Moon.
There was another person where I work that looked like the pictures of Henry the 8th. A couple of my friends there and myself would joke about it, and then we started having people ask us who Henry the 8th was.

I am scared for our future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Remember the little lawn statues of servants holding up glass lamps? Dressed like a butler? Some people paint them as black servants and/or white. Rolled into whoever the Caucasian that own them was considered racist

There was an interesting story ( urban legend) I was told about the origin of those statues. It went that they were made in commemeration of a servant of George Washington who was so brave, he let himself freeze to death while holding a horse that was used for an escape Washington made.


Some of the back and forths in this thread helps me understand how he could have come to be suspended.

Easysauce...have to admit it was funny


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Man_%28film%29

Also have David Chapelle another good one




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets not forget the Western movies that had Caucasians playing Native Americans to

 d-usa wrote:

And once again:

A jazz player in blackface in 1930 also has nothing to do and is zero defense if blackface in the 1800s and minstrel shows. Which was the topic of the video.

It's like me arguing that you don't know anything about being British because Africans are poor.

And once again your not thinking this through.

Blackface in the 1930's is relevant as it is a direct sucessor, and an intentionally racist image cannot turn into a positive image (unlike the other way around) thus the blackface of itself was not intrinsically racist.
Even in the 1880s blackface performers were black or white and they performed together, so blackface broke through social segregation at a time when little else did..
Golliwogs date from just after this time and acording the the link were also popular in America, adn invented by an American.

Please take a little whole to think about the dynamic between a girl and her doll. Here is a logic chain for you to follow:

- How do girls play with dolls?
- Its not like us with 40K. models.
- As a rule of thumb a dolly is something to love and look after.
- Dolls are often a girls prize possessions.
- Dolls are expensive and are generally purchased buy the parent or guardian of the child.
- Parents understand the dynamic of a girl and her dolls.
- But were not upset even in the 19th century to buy a black doll for a girl to love.
- The golliwog is identical in appearance to the standised costume of the Minstrel Shows.
- A golliwog is black, as per the blackface meme, not an African skin colour, but clearly is representative of a black person.

Therefore: Here is a clear logic chain which shows the golliwog image as a positive image, as a friendly image to a child endorsed by the parent as wholesome.
Therefore: Of itself the blackface image, can be seen by people as a positive image, rather than a negative image. This cultural idiom coincided with the era of the Minstrel Shows, and long succeeded it.
Therefore: It is not of itself an object of intrinsic racism within its time and cultural idiom when the golliwog was used; though racism can be applied through it by an individual, and much later racism was assumed of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golliwogg

I remember those Blaxploitation flicks of the 70's that claimed to show the power and dignity of the Black man, but were in reality just another form of characature:


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eijnhinuEes

One of the Granddaddies, Superfly:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ufFI4-iU4


The Mack was another good un:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ePy_x8RyrGU

By that logic it is impossible to be racist today, unless the person being racist admits that he is racist. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks or what the racist person does, if he doesn't think he is being racist then he isn't,

Do you really think that nobody from 1800 through the civil rights area thought blackface was racist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I remember those Blaxploitation flicks of the 70's that claimed to show the power and dignity of the Black man, but were in reality just another form of characature:


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eijnhinuEes

One of the Granddaddies, Superfly:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ufFI4-iU4


The Mack was another good un:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ePy_x8RyrGU

Shut your mouth!

@d-usa,

Is it me you're talking to? I'll agree with full heart there were probably more than a few who found Blackface racist.

As for Blaxploitation movies, you should have seen how Ebony magazine crucified that whole genre when it came out back then.

Relapse wrote:
@d-usa,

Is it me you're talking to? I'll agree with full heart there were probably more than a few who found Blackface racist.

The first reference wasn't to you, just the second one.

And I was crossing my fingers because I figured it was an even chance that you got the reference or would consider it a Rule #1 violation../

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
@d-usa,

Is it me you're talking to? I'll agree with full heart there were probably more than a few who found Blackface racist.

The first reference wasn't to you, just the second one.

And I was crossing my fingers because I figured it was an even chance that you got the reference or would consider it a Rule #1 violation../

No problem, Shaft. I knew you didn't mean any disrespect!