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.

Strange nobody says something about this in bodybuilding, because it is not "blackface"?

cadbren wrote:
No, but church spires and bell towers do.

Seriously, you see things that way? You see a spire or a bell tower and think 'this area is Christian', and then you feel like you belong there more than you would if you could see a synagogue or minaret? Wow. That's just a mile outside of my frame of reference.

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.

Of course it's up to them. Whether or not their decision is right is the question, not whether or not they get to make it.

Anyhow, I love cities. They are such a wonderful way to see how generations of people have lived in that one place. Go to the great cities of the world, like London or New York, and you see a wide variety of architecture, and you can see how that architecture came from the people who lived there at that time. Part of that are the great churches and synagogues that migrant groups built when they moved to the area.

Of course, other people love cities, but unfortunately they are other people who don't understand what it is that makes cities wonderful places. They think that it is just buildings and street that are wonderful in and of themselves, and that they can protect what they love about a city by making sure the buildings that new buildings look just like the old ones. We call these people town planners, or heritage protection boards, or a wide variety of other names, but really we just need to call them idiots. Because they don't understand that what's great about buildings is how they capture the lives of the people who lived and worked in these places.

The best example of this is when we give these people free reign to make a whole new city. Go and visit the cities that were built not because people naturally moved there, but because government said 'there will be a city there and we will give free reign to some planners to design it'. Go to Washington or Canberra, and notice that while the monuments are lovely, the city streets are boring, sterile, artificial. Then go to New York or Melbourne, and notice how every street has life and history in it.

Then consider what's being argued in Switzerland. "Yes you can move here and become part of our country, but there can be no architectural record of your presence, because we want to wrap our city up in a little time warp."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Strange nobody says something about this in bodybuilding, because it is not "blackface"?

Because it isn't being done to impersonate another ethnic group, it's just the very weird conclusion of a strange phenomenom in which people have thought more and more fake tanning products is more attractive.

 sebster wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Strange nobody says something about this in bodybuilding, because it is not "blackface"?

Because it isn't being done to impersonate another ethnic group, it's just the very weird conclusion of a strange phenomenom in which people have thought more and more fake tanning products is more attractive.

And to be fair, his face is the whitest thing in the picture...

 sebster wrote:

cadbren wrote:
No, but church spires and bell towers do.

Seriously, you see things that way? You see a spire or a bell tower and think 'this area is Christian', and then you feel like you belong there more than you would if you could see a synagogue or minaret? Wow. That's just a mile outside of my frame of reference.

I would feel more at home where there were traditional european architectural forms than obviously asian or islamic ones. I'm not aware that there is a particular style regarding synagogues, the ones I've seen tend to be pretty bland looking.

Of course it's up to them. Whether or not their decision is right is the question, not whether or not they get to make it.

The decision that is right is the one that best benefits the community in question, not some outsider's interpretation of how other people should live their lives. Holy f*** I can't believe you just said that, that's 1984, big brother garbage.

Anyhow, I love cities. They are such a wonderful way to see how generations of people have lived in that one place. Go to the great cities of the world, like London or New York, and you see a wide variety of architecture, and you can see
how that architecture came from the people who lived there at that time.

You mean fashions in architecture because the people remained largely the same until recent times. Yes London has always had a large immigrant community, but their contribution to the physical form of the city was negligible at best. Building fashions were driven from the top, not by immigrants.

Because they don't understand that what's great about buildings is how they capture the lives of the people who lived and worked in these places.

They capture popular artforms of the times in which they were built, nothing more. Anything else is us projecting our imaginations onto what it would have been like to live in a certain period. Most of the buildings you refer to have been remodelled/decorated internally countless times and certainly don't capture the lives of everyone who ever lived or worked in them.

The best example of this is when we give these people free reign to make a whole new city. Go and visit the cities that were built not because people naturally moved there, but because government said 'there will be a city there and we will give free reign to some planners to design it'. Go to Washington or Canberra,

Well designed cities, easy to navigate, very popular tourist destinations. Washington particularly has gone for a neo classical theme and it's pretty unique in having so many structures of that type in one place that are actually used.
What they lack is the chaos caused by eons of bad planning and ad hoc building. I live in a city like this, it's not that great. Many of the historic centres in Europe had the advantage of having city walls. When these were pulled down they had readymade spaces for ring roads and rail to connect the city - that was sheer luck not planning though.

Then consider what's being argued in Switzerland. "Yes you can move here and become part of our country, but there can be no architectural record of your presence, because we want to wrap our city up in a little time warp."

No, what they're saying is that people are welcome to join them in their city and partake of their culture, not that people can come and create a miniature version of the civilisation they left behind, and then use that area as a beachhead to expand their culture at the expense of the local one.

 Ouze wrote:


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.

This is pretty much my feeling on the situation.

Truth be told, when I first saw the photo of Hough, I thought she was some sort of Tanning Bed girl like Ninjacommando did. I didn't immediately associate it with blackface.

Then I read all the articles, and like you, Ouze, I was conflicted. Clearly Hough and her friends were simply doing the group costume and I like to believe there was no bad intent behind it. At the same time, I think it shows an incredible lack of judgement for her, of which she has (apparently) apologized profusely for. But I don't think this is in the same ballpark as Black Pete or the Ted Danson blackface or the Spanish Basketball team. I don't particularly think blackface is appropriate at all, but I think blackface is different than dressing up as a black person from a TV show, most particularly with intent. Blackface is intended as a charicature, whereas what Hough did here pretty clearly isn't.

I dunno. Like I said, a poor decision, but I don't think it's in the same realm as Black Pete (clearly an example of the negatively connotated blackface).

I just deleted the draft for this post, which was dripping with sarcasm, and instead ask the following: Out of a hundred or more REAL problems arising from the daily racism coloured people are facing, why would anyone chose white people wearing costumes to get worked up about? Have those guys picking on the white girl from the party or that moron from the UN already run out of meaningful grievances to combat?

I also find "all blackface is bad" to be a, mildly put, narrow-minded view that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 Allod wrote:
I just deleted the draft for this post, which was dripping with sarcasm, and instead ask the following: Out of a hundred or more REAL problems arising from the daily racism coloured people are facing, why would anyone chose white people wearing costumes to get worked up about? Have those guys picking on the white girl from the party or that moron from the UN already run out of meaningful grievances to combat?

I also find "all blackface is bad" to be a, mildly put, narrow-minded view that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't know....when one of the primary purposes of blackface was to create sterotypical charactures such as the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified [see forum posting rules]" I'd have to disagree with you.

I mean, a person from the United States might argue that your post into itself, using the phrasing "coloured people," could potentially be problematic.

I think a meaningful conversation could be had about how= a costume like Hough's differs from sterotypical blackface, but--and bear in mind I am in no way, shape, or form a PC crusader-- I think in nearly all instances blackface, as it is exemplfied in a character like Black Pete, is racist. Again, whether or not Hough's costume really qualifies as blackface could be debated (is it different from when Chappelle donned his whiteface in his skits?), but I don't know how you could argue that for her, as a public figure, it wasn't a poor decision.

 Allod wrote:
Out of a hundred or more REAL problems arising from the daily racism coloured people are facing, why would anyone chose white people wearing costumes to get worked up about?

Is this an expanded version of "first world problems"?

In any event, the answer would be the same. Just because you can't fix every single problem first doesn't mean you can't try to address any problem at all, and actual blackface, such as ill-advised college students will sometimes partake of this time of year, go a long way towards dehumanizing people that don't look like they; which is a good step on the road of how we got to those other hundred or more "real" problems you mention.

 Ouze wrote:

 Allod wrote:
Out of a hundred or more REAL problems arising from the daily racism coloured people are facing, why would anyone chose white people wearing costumes to get worked up about?

Is this an expanded version of "first world problems"?

In any event, the answer would be the same. Just because you can't fix every single problem first doesn't mean you can't try to address any problem at all, and actual blackface, such as ill-advised college students will sometimes partake of this time of year, go a long way towards dehumanizing people that don't look like they; which is a good step on the road of how we got to those other hundred or more "real" problems you mention.

[/Zimmerman's Law]

Now that's just wrong. o.O

EDIT: now how do we Zimmerwined this thread?

That was what I was thinking of, yes. This year, anyway.

 cincydooley wrote:

I don't know....when one of the primary purposes of blackface was to create sterotypical charactures such as the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified [see forum posting rules]" I'd have to disagree with you.

Yeah, I get that, and agree wholeheartedly. But is each and every costume or instance of make-up "blackface"? That's a very specific piece of American history, and one most Europeans (just for example) won't even be familiar with. Add to that that "white vs black" racism has little "tradition" outside of the former colonial nations (if only for lack of exposure), and we are in the "he said, she said" situation the Black Pete debate illustrates: your (as in American) perception vs our (as in European) intent. Of course I'm simplyfying a lot here, but I guess you will get what I mean.

I'm not saying that you won't find individuals who wear such a costume as mean-spirited parody; I just refuse the generalisation that anybody wearing such a thing, no matter the circumstances and personal intent, is guilty of using "blackface" in the minstrel sense.

I mean, a person from the United States might argue that your post into itself, using the phrasing "coloured people," could potentially be problematic.

Part of the same problem. I can't say "black" when I mean my Turkish, Arab and former Yugoslav friends because although they have a darker skin tone than most ethnic Middle Europeans, nobody would associate their ethnicities with the term. Also, it would be the term that is deemed offensive in German. I can't say African-American, because they are neither. I can refer to them as non-whites, which is a little Eurocentric, like "non-standard", don't you agree? So I'm left with "coloured", which, again, in the US and South Africa has negative connotations, although it's the term that my friends would use in German when describing themselves.

Tl;dr: context and intent matter a lot.

@Ouze:

No, it's a compressed version of "as long as it's not tangibly affecting you in any way AND not clearly meant to be denigrating (or dehumanizing, if you want to keep the wording) your ethnicity/skin colour/nationality/religion, you're as free to voice your opinion about it as the other person is to wear a stupid costume, and that's the end of the story".

cadbren wrote:
I would feel more at home where there were traditional european architectural forms than obviously asian or islamic ones.

Yeah, and I'm saying that's miles outside of my frame of reference.

Just out of curiousity, would you feel at home or not if the buildings were from an unusual form of Christianity, like say Mormonism? And would you feel less at home if the churches are of the more modern, functional variety - is it the architecture itself or the amound of comfort you feel with the religion (even though its not your own) that matters?

I'm not aware that there is a particular style regarding synagogues, the ones I've seen tend to be pretty bland looking.

Get out, travel the world. There are some beautiful synagogues.

The decision that is right is the one that best benefits the community in question, not some outsider's interpretation of how other people should live their lives. Holy f*** I can't believe you just said that, that's 1984, big brother garbage.

You're reading something really weird in to my comment. We were discussing the decision in Switzerland, and you said it was their decision to make, to which I replied that of course it's their decision to make, but that we can still discuss whether they made the right call.

It's like if we were discussing whether the pitcher should now attempt a curveball, and you said 'well it's the pitcher's call to make'... well yeah, of course its the pitcher's call to make, but we can still discuss what pitch we think he might be best to attempt. Do you get it now? There's no attempt to declare Switzerland or the pitcher's decision invalid, just a recognition that the rest of us can, and will discuss what we think of their decision, and what we might do in their place.

You mean fashions in architecture because the people remained largely the same until recent times. Yes London has always had a large immigrant community, but their contribution to the physical form of the city was negligible at best. Building fashions were driven from the top, not by immigrants.

Actually, international influence in architecture is a lot more complex than that. The churches of each religion formed their own styles, but they constantly took lessons from each other. St Petersburg wasn't built as it was because of European immigrants, but because the Tsar wanted a European style city. Brutalism didn't take off in Britain because of immigrants from Socialist Russia, but beause British architects wanted to ape socialist ideals about design (ironically the socialists were largely forbidden from using the style themselves, and instead were forced to building 'Stalinist Wedding Cakes').

The point being that cities are wonderful to study because you can point at a building and say 'that looks as it does because of this factor and that other factor', and it reflects the economic and cultural factors of the time.

They capture popular artforms of the times in which they were built, nothing more.

You don't understand. This isn't about just staring at the peak of the Chrysler building and noting what fashion was in place when it was built. It's about New York as a whole, the how any why it became a city of millions, and why Manhattan is townhouses where residents travel by subway and taxi cab, compared to the suburban sprawl of Dallas.

Anything else is us projecting our imaginations onto what it would have been like to live in a certain period.

No, that's simply nonsense. London's tight alleyways and closely packed houses are the product of much of that city being built before cars were a thing. The design of our cities is due to history.

Well designed cities, easy to navigate, very popular tourist destinations. Washington particularly has gone for a neo classical theme and it's pretty unique in having so many structures of that type in one place that are actually used.
What they lack is the chaos caused by eons of bad planning and ad hoc building. I live in a city like this, it's not that great. Many of the historic centres in Europe had the advantage of having city walls. When these were pulled down they had readymade spaces for ring roads and rail to connect the city - that was sheer luck not planning though.

And if you think whether or not a city is great begins and ends with whether or not it is easy to get around then you've simply got no interest in history, in how people have lived, and this is a total waste of time.

For people who are interested in that kind of thing, then it is fairly obvious that while the National Mall is great, the rest of Washington is kind of boring.

No, what they're saying is that people are welcome to join them in their city and partake of their culture, not that people can come and create a miniature version of the civilisation they left behind, and then use that area as a beachhead to expand their culture at the expense of the local one.

Beachhead? Clash of cultures is a stupid myth.

 sebster wrote:
Beachhead? Clash of cultures is a stupid myth.

No, it really isn't.

 sebster wrote:

Beachhead? Clash of cultures is a stupid myth.

Certainly isn't a myth for a lot people.

Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Beachhead? Clash of cultures is a stupid myth.

No, it really isn't.

So you believe in a whites only state? Desegregation of the military?

cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Beachhead? Clash of cultures is a stupid myth.

Certainly isn't a myth for a lot people.

Because as we all know, simply believing in something is what makes a thing true. That is why humanity long ago discarded the scientific method, because facts are not needed when you have strongly held beliefs.

 Ahtman wrote:
So you believe in a whites only state? Desegregation of the military?

That's a hilarious leap.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
So you believe in a whites only state? Desegregation of the military?

That's a hilarious leap.

Sebster isn't referring to the generic use of clash of cultures, but the way it is used by certain types of nationalists and others that see everything as a struggle between 'white culture' and all others in which only one can survive. They tend to use military terms, like beachhead, to describe different cultures meeting; everything is seen through the lens of us vs them. If you look at the sentence it doesn't see immigrants as possibly moving to another country for greater opportunity and expanded horizons, but describes it them as "getting a defended position on a beach taken from the enemy by landing forces" meaning they are taking away ground from the owners and infesting the area, trying to get a toe hold. I don't think you believe in a white state or a desegregated military, but when you ignore context of the statement I just made it more plane what you were agreeing with in reality. Context is important, after all.

The best military beachhead:

Where'd he get a STG???

 Ahtman wrote:

Because as we all know, simply believing in something is what makes a thing true. That is why humanity long ago discarded the scientific method, because facts are not needed when you have strongly held beliefs.

Ah right. Because that's what I said.

There certainly aren't any culture clashes going on in the world today.

 cincydooley wrote:
Certainly isn't a myth for a lot people.

If it was both untrue and something no-one believed in it wouldn't be talked about at all. It'd be the phrenology of culture conversations. The point is that a lot people believe it, despite it being nonsense. This makes it, I don't know, the intelligent design of culture conversation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
There certainly aren't any culture clashes going on in the world today.

This isn't about the time Mrs Jones found that the kid working at the hamburger store couldn't understand her very well. It isn't about the time that Hiroto found it hard to adapt to work culture in the country he's just migrated to.

It's about cadbren's statement "people can come and create a miniature version of the civilisation they left behind, and then use that area as a beachhead to expand their culture at the expense of the local one". That's clash of cultures - the idea that cultures are in battle for supremacy, the idea that when a group of immigrants move to another country then either the pre-existing culture or the immigrant's culture must perish. It's nonsense.

Tell me more!

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Certainly isn't a myth for a lot people.

If it was both untrue and something no-one believed in it wouldn't be talked about at all. It'd be the phrenology of culture conversations. The point is that a lot people believe it, despite it being nonsense. This makes it, I don't know, the intelligent design of culture conversation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
There certainly aren't any culture clashes going on in the world today.

This isn't about the time Mrs Jones found that the kid working at the hamburger store couldn't understand her very well. It isn't about the time that Hiroto found it hard to adapt to work culture in the country he's just migrated to.

It's about cadbren's statement "people can come and create a miniature version of the civilisation they left behind, and then use that area as a beachhead to expand their culture at the expense of the local one". That's clash of cultures - the idea that cultures are in battle for supremacy, the idea that when a group of immigrants move to another country then either the pre-existing culture or the immigrant's culture must perish. It's nonsense.

OK, thanks for pointing that out cause I was thinking "clash of cultures" meant conflict arising from the interaction of people with different cultural values (which does occur) but it seems it actually means something quite silly.

Culture clash is rubbish, it's bs put out by fear driven media. When you get a neighbour of a different culture do you get on with them or declare culture war and complain about them.
People are people no matter where they come from. My grandmother hated asians until some moved in next door and then all of a sudden the asians next door were "nice asians" , culture clash is fear and ignorance , nothing more.

As a proud member of the most multicultural nation on earth, people from other cultures are awesome, people who talk crap about them are sad, scared individuals. There are good and bad in every culture ....simple.

Also mosques are the most beautiful religious buildings in the world, hands down. If you are worried about having a mosque around i don't know what to say to you, possibly go see a psychiatrist about your irrational fear of people wearing long flowing clothing. .

Also if the UN keeps going like this they will soon ban the Sydney suburb name "Blacktown" which incidentally was basically the location of the biggest tribe in the Sydney basin.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Where'd he get a STG???

he got an upgrade for the culture clash

I would say Canada is just as multicultural if not more so than Australia, Canada was the first nation to officially introduce multiculturalism (Australia being the second) and many outsider's tend to view Canada as a very progressive, diverse and tolerant nation (although like all human things

we're still imperfect like many laws regarding First Nations people are dated and clunky).

Bullockist wrote:
C

As a proud member of the most multicultural nation on earth

As much as I'd love that to be true, when both major political parties for the most recent election were running primarily on 'keeping the scary boat people out', we can hardly lay claim to that title at the moment. Or in the past with the White Australia Policy. There may have been a brief gap in between the two that we did alright, but we've just started heading straight back down in the past few years, since the 'scary boat people' became such a huge threat.

Bullockist wrote:
.

As a proud member of the most multicultural nation on earth, .

I had no idea!!

I didn't realize Australia had such a robust Spanish speaking population!

 cincydooley wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
.

As a proud member of the most multicultural nation on earth, .

I had no idea!!

I didn't realize Australia had such a robust Spanish speaking population!

You know ethnic diversity and multiculturalism aren't the same thing, right?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
.

As a proud member of the most multicultural nation on earth, .

I had no idea!!

I didn't realize Australia had such a robust Spanish speaking population!

You know ethnic diversity and multiculturalism aren't the same thing, right?

But are very interconnected.

And considering the incredible levels of DIVERSITY in many places in the US, I'd say the multicultural attitudes are very open and welcoming.

I doesn't take more than a cursory glance at most major US cities to see that.