Teacher suspended for talking about Jim Crow laws and Blackface to history students

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.

**d-usa**

You broke the magic.

We had the opportunity to go full "Shaft" in this thread...

I could have dug it!

**Relapse**

Just to get the magic back:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ga1FgU10E

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Well, no. Empathy is a constant in that people will tend to exhibit it. They may not exhibit it with regard to the same people over time, but the tendency will remain; as it is a human characteristic.

In other words: empathy doesn't change, what people feel empathy with respect to does.

Orlanth wrote:

Even so the golliwog should not be seen as a racist symbol from the context of its time and how it was used.

It was racist at the time it was in vogue, and is racist today. Whether or not little girls played with it is irrelevant.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

I had a golliwog when I was a kid, and I was born in the '80s. I don't know if it'd been passed down the family or something - it was hand-made, not all pretty like in the picture.

easysauce wrote:
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.

Yes, that's right! Because white people are in a vastly privileged position, so when a white person is prejudiced it forms part of a larger pattern, whereas when a non-white person is prejudiced against a white person it becomes an isolated incident that is wholly ignorable. Prejudice is different when you're punching downwards.

It's like, um, Voltron. When a white person is prejudiced against a non-white person it's like they form part of Voltron and that part combines with the rest to become Voltron and destroy everyone. If a non-white person is prejudiced against a white person it's like they form part of Voltron except the rest of Voltron isn't there so they just sort of flop around on the ground without hurting anyone. This is a good analogy, right..?

It does look like something fishy may have been going on in the event of the OP, though!

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:

Well, no. Empathy is a constant in that people will tend to exhibit it. They may not exhibit it with regard to the same people over time, but the tendency will remain; as it is a human characteristic.

Everyone has a sense of empathy, but to what degrees and to what ends varies markedly.
So I do agree with you, but the point that everyone has a measure of empathy doesn't invalidate my point that some things which a conscience might distate is wrong today may well not trigger any conscience in the past when said reaction was acceptable mainstream culture.
Empathy is a constant in that we all have it, but its measure changes in society over time. Most forms of morality are a learned response.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Even so the golliwog should not be seen as a racist symbol from the context of its time and how it was used.

It was racist at the time it was in vogue, and is racist today. Whether or not little girls played with it is irrelevant.

How come, racism is a negative for action. If an activity can be positive, even inclusive and bridge building, how is it racist.
Racism is often seen today as being defined by offense taken, when it is more realistic to look at racism by offense intended but a culture of being able to take offense and expect restitution has skewed this somewhat.

**Relapse**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I had a golliwog when I was a kid, and I was born in the '80s. I don't know if it'd been passed down the family or something - it was hand-made, not all pretty like in the picture.

easysauce wrote:
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.

Yes, that's right! Because white people are in a vastly privileged position, so when a white person is prejudiced it forms part of a larger pattern, whereas when a non-white person is prejudiced against a white person it becomes an isolated incident that is wholly ignorable. Prejudice is different when you're punching downwards.

It's like, um, Voltron. When a white person is prejudiced against a non-white person it's like they form part of Voltron and that part combines with the rest to become Voltron and destroy everyone. If a non-white person is prejudiced against a white person it's like they form part of Voltron except the rest of Voltron isn't there so they just sort of flop around on the ground without hurting anyone. This is a good analogy, right..?

It does look like something fishy may have been going on in the event of the OP, though!

What about white people in a vastly unpriviliged position, such as those in Appalachia and such places? Is it right that blacks mock them by affecting hillbilly accents and dress?

**Jihadin**

Pick and choose your battle. I remember that advice someone gave Alpharius on another thread. I avoid getting in depth on this subject It irks me at time when I want to give another "Angle" to the topic My training and experience as a EOA only works in the US Military. Let's not add more "groups" of people into the situation/topic

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Relapse wrote:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I had a golliwog when I was a kid, and I was born in the '80s. I don't know if it'd been passed down the family or something - it was hand-made, not all pretty like in the picture.

easysauce wrote:
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.

Yes, that's right! Because white people are in a vastly privileged position, so when a white person is prejudiced it forms part of a larger pattern, whereas when a non-white person is prejudiced against a white person it becomes an isolated incident that is wholly ignorable. Prejudice is different when you're punching downwards.

It's like, um, Voltron. When a white person is prejudiced against a non-white person it's like they form part of Voltron and that part combines with the rest to become Voltron and destroy everyone. If a non-white person is prejudiced against a white person it's like they form part of Voltron except the rest of Voltron isn't there so they just sort of flop around on the ground without hurting anyone. This is a good analogy, right..?

It does look like something fishy may have been going on in the event of the OP, though!

What about white people in a vastly unpriviliged position, such as those in Appalachia and such places? Is it right that blacks mock them by affecting hillbilly accents and dress?

Prejudice against white people isn't "right" either - it's just not the same thing as prejudice by white people.

**Seaward**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Prejudice against white people isn't "right" either - it's just not the same thing as prejudice by white people.

Because social justice warriors are uncomfortable confronting it? Or for actual, valid reasons that have yet to be provided?

**BobtheInquisitor**

Seaward wrote:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Prejudice against white people isn't "right" either - it's just not the same thing as prejudice by white people.

Because social justice warriors are uncomfortable confronting it? Or for actual, valid reasons that have yet to be provided?

Because it's a lot easier to shrug off? Like my old chihuahua who was insanely food aggressive: if he'd had any real teeth, we would have had to put him down.

When Eddie Murphy says racist gak, we can laugh or fume or ignore it because he's not likely to incarcerate us/our family/a disproportionate number of our neighbors. He isn't golf buddies with our employers talking about our work ethic like it's a racial stat or whatever. Generally, it goes both ways for comedians these days. If Andrew Dice Clay was actually important, people would be a lot more upset about what he says. Or Cartman, for that matter.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
We have to ask Frazz about the time period he was living through when females were not allowed on stages as actors in a play. Even dirt calls him "Dad" I heard

I much prefer it now dat da Wimmimz play Da Wimminz and not menz.

Not enough info on the article and I'm not going to go looking. Context is everything. This could have been part of a lesson plan survey (I have a visual of a string of images and vignettes about racism at the time.

Show that. Show a noose. Show sign with different water fountains. Klan marching and protests with dogs and fire hoses I think that would be an excellent start.
End it with the minutes of King's Speech at the Mall of America, and just end it with a pic of Obama being sworn in.

Frazzled Flawless Victory!

**Gitzbitah**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I had a golliwog when I was a kid, and I was born in the '80s. I don't know if it'd been passed down the family or something - it was hand-made, not all pretty like in the picture.

easysauce wrote:
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.

Yes, that's right! Because white people are in a vastly privileged position, so when a white person is prejudiced it forms part of a larger pattern, whereas when a non-white person is prejudiced against a white person it becomes an isolated incident that is wholly ignorable. Prejudice is different when you're punching downwards.

It's like, um, Voltron. When a white person is prejudiced against a non-white person it's like they form part of Voltron and that part combines with the rest to become Voltron and destroy everyone. If a non-white person is prejudiced against a white person it's like they form part of Voltron except the rest of Voltron isn't there so they just sort of flop around on the ground without hurting anyone. This is a good analogy, right..?

It does look like something fishy may have been going on in the event of the OP, though!

You and I watched very different Voltrons.

If you stand against racism, you ought to stand against all racism, regardless of its source or target. That being said, whitewashing (pun definitely intended) history by not discussing the things people did that we would find racist today is a propagation of ignorance.

It should be known that at one time, science had proven that black people were inferior to white people and indeed were a different race, and that women were less intelligent from having smaller brains. Blackface is ridiculous and offensive, and it can be funny when it is used today and recognized as such- look at Sergeant Osiris, Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder. In the midst of a hilarious satire, it dissects the issue rather thoroughly. I can't speak to White Chicks as I did not see it- but I do know the Wayans brothers are well known for a level of satire- one that doesn't appeal to me, but one that is no less valid.

We need to learn to be critical of what any authority tells us, and to look with suspicion on data presented as fact, then draw our own conclusions. Particularly when it involves declaring any group of people wholesale. If that cannot be achieved by a study of history, then we must rely on acidic humor to burn a few cracks for enlightened thoughts to pierce.

**Bullockist**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I had a golliwog when I was a kid, and I was born in the '80s. I don't know if it'd been passed down the family or something - it was hand-made, not all pretty like in the picture.

Not only did you own a golliwog, now you are saying it wasn't attractive, I am shocked and appalled at your racism

I just remembered my mum had a white golliwog, all skinny and weak looking, with straw coloured hair and blue eyes, I'm off to picket her house.

**chaos0xomega**

If its racist to show videos of blackface performers, does that also make it racist to show videos pertaining to the holocaust, or video footage of the KKK, or any of the various other hate groups that have plagued our history? something about this stinks.

d-usa wrote:
This picture is racist because he played up every possible black stereotype when he painted himself. Bit bulging eyes, big fat lips, these are no different than putting a giant fake nose on your face and saying "look, I'm a Jew" or painting yourself in red-face.

"I pay tribute to black music by stereotyping blacks when I black up" is racist, pretty simple.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to reading Black Dynamite.

**nkelsch**

Relapse wrote:

What about white people in a vastly unpriviliged position, such as those in Appalachia and such places? Is it right that blacks mock them by affecting hillbilly accents and dress?

The thing is, you lack an understanding of 'white privilege' and the discrimination happening. Being poor and in Appalachia, those people still maintain a level of privilege simply by being white in society and the institution.

A White male with a criminal record is 5% more likely to get a job than an equivalent black male with a clean record. For some reason, white men will be given a 'second chance' and employers will be willing to consider the circumstances of the record over black men who have no record.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-white-felon-same-chances-for-hire/

The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.
Racial disparities have been documented in many contexts, but here, comparing the two job applicants side by side, we are confronted with a troubling reality: Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job.

A White person has a 78% chance to be admitted to a university when compared to a black person with the exact same grades only having 22%.

These are things which even in 'poor white Appalachia' that simply being white gives those people advantages and options that 'poor black Chicago' doesn't have.

There is institutional discrimination, and has been for centuries... and even when things like blackface were started, there was institutional racism of blacks being inferior. It was degrading and based upon race then. It was not done to 'teach children that blacks are good and equal to whites, so have this blackface doll'. It was done because blacks were buffoons, scientifically inferior, and sub-human in the eyes of the people of the day, and things like blackface and golliwogs perpetuated that.

**Frazzled**

nkelsch wrote:
Relapse wrote:

What about white people in a vastly unpriviliged position, such as those in Appalachia and such places? Is it right that blacks mock them by affecting hillbilly accents and dress?

The thing is, you lack an understanding of 'white privilege' and the discrimination happening. Being poor and in Appalachia, those people still maintain a level of privilege simply by being white in society and the institution.

Thats a staggeringly stupid statement.

**chaos0xomega**

Yes, if your argument is anything to the effect of 'check your privilege' chances are you've already lost your argument, particularly when you're online and don't necessarily know the background and history of the person on the other end.

**Dreadclaw69**

If the parents and the children were not offended by this, and only the school official was it starts to look a little like this;

**nkelsch**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yes, if your understanding is anything to the effect of 'check your privilege' chances are you've already lost your argument, particularly when you're online and don't necessarily know the background and history of the person on the other end.

The issue is, in today's society... When two people are economically equal, being white gives you an advantage which is proven statistically every day in society. This is discrimination based upon race. This trotting out of 'poor Appalachians' as some how the fact there are poor white people invalidates all civil rights discussions is pointless.

Privilege isn't about being rich/poor... It is about how two people who are equal in every measurable circumstance how one is seen as superior and treated as such for something like gender/race/so on. It is about opportunities available and discrimination. Whatever your 'personal circumstances are' it doesn't change the opportunities available on average in society or the institutional discrimination which is in place. Being poor or your personal circumstances doesn't change the institutional barriers which exist out there.

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If the parents and the children were not offended by this,

Since the parents weren't there and didn't see what was presented I don't really care what they think about it. Until we know what was actually said and done it is just one emotive argument after another based on superficial anecdotal evidence. It seems everyone wants to pick sides when there isn't really enough information to do so.

**Gitzbitah**

nkelsch, do you know if that study was based off of interviews, or just submitted resumes? I didn't see it differentiated in the article. I know I've never put my race on a job application, and it isn't on my resume.

And although resumes may be equally impressive- I don't think you can ever engineer two interviewees to be equally impressive to an interviewer. I could be wrong, and I know we have some dakkanauts in hiring.

**nkelsch**

Gitzbitah wrote:
nkelsch, do you know if that study was based off of interviews, or just submitted resumes? I didn't see it differentiated in the article. I know I've never put my race on a job application, and it isn't on my resume.

And although resumes may be equally impressive- I don't think you can ever engineer two interviewees to be equally impressive to an interviewer. I could be wrong, and I know we have some dakkanauts in hiring.

Callbacks... So post-interviews

And there are also studies based upon resumes 'names' where people discount resumes because they sound or are stereotypical.

http://jezebel.com/5822293/man-takes-fake-white-name-to-test-job-discrimination

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller.

Simply being black or having a 'black sounding name' makes it harder to get a job when everything else is equal. These are things which happen inside people's brains and are sometimes subconscious... They can't explain *why* they passed over a candidate or resume... but you add it up and you see a large impact from all those micro incidents.

**Gitzbitah**

Thanks, I had heard of the study on names before. Definitely appropriate for this discussion. I wonder if we'll ever get to the point when you only see an applicant's number, and never learn their name.

The more we can do to assure that merit is the most valuable asset of an employee, the better!

**nkelsch**

Gitzbitah wrote:
Thanks, I had heard of the study on names before. Definitely appropriate for this discussion. I wonder if we'll ever get to the point when you only see an applicant's number, and never learn their name.

The more we can do to assure that merit is the most valuable asset of an employee, the better!

Interviewing is a dirty process as you are totally at the whims of the personal biases of the hiring person. I knew a woman who wouldn't hire fat people because she didn't want to look at them. Good luck proving it. When you have seemingly equal candidates, someone with a bias can always make a justification why they chose A over B and make it seem acceptable to most everyone. And we all have prejudices which impact interviews of candidates, and while some of those may not be consciously racist, some of them may be impacted by subconscious or institutional illegal discrimination.

**kronk**

Jihadin wrote:
White Chicks
Soul Man
...........

Both were gakky movies.

Also, Juwanna Man, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Tootsie.

**Frazzled**

nkelsch wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Yes, if your understanding is anything to the effect of 'check your privilege' chances are you've already lost your argument, particularly when you're online and don't necessarily know the background and history of the person on the other end.

The issue is, in today's society... When two people are economically equal, being white gives you an advantage which is proven statistically every day in society. .

And then you said it about the Appalachians, some of the poorest of the poor. When you have people who've never had running water or electricity and make some asinine statement about them being privileged, either your argument lacks coherent logic, or you do.

**Soladrin**

nkelsch wrote:
d-usa wrote:

You keep on focusing on "Jazz players liked African American culture" to defend all blackface anywhere and I think your UK experience with blackface is tainting your opinion on US blackface.

Europeans often think they can't be racist and that racism is a US only problem. Example: The Dutch and Black Pete https://www.facebook.com/pietitie

They try to claim pete is not a black person, and he is a magical elf with chimney soot on his face. But since it is based off real people, and the real 'pete' was black... any attempt to hide or remove his true origins is insulting. Why can't he be black? Why must we explain away his blackness as if a white elf with soot is ok but 'being African origin' is bad. Also... Santa claus has evolved over the years and the adition of his 'black servant' is much more recent... And started around the time of abolishing slavery. It warps, distorts and exaggerates black bodies and points to a cultural/social period in history where blacks were openly ridiculed and seen as buffoons. And Black Pete’s image was made PRECISELY in that old, racist tradition.

And the outrage of the Dutch in defending black pete is full of racism.

”All problems started when we brought you in. So if you want it to stop, get back to the dark of Africa.”
“We have to rid our country from things that don’t belong here: make a fist!!”
”You have white PEOPLE and black ANIMALS – you have to have some difference.”
”Get out of the country, give back everything you stole.”
”Those lazy [see forum posting rules] should be glad to see blacks working”
”All those [see forum posting rules] should go back to cooncountry. Netherlands is the Netherlands not a swarma country black pete isn’t black from gak like the [see forum posting rules] but from the chimney.”
“if only you’d been born white”

So even if you are naive to believe the origins are not racially motivated, today it is a rally point for bigots in the netherlands and is currently harming africans in that country who are bullied, attacked and harmed by the still current practice. You have dark skinned children being told to 'scrub away the black' because it is soot.

Blackface was racist when it started, it is racist now. There was never a point where it wasn't racist.

Lol wat. So, you managed to dig up some Dutch morons and provided them as a source for why it's bad? I was raised with this tradition, at no point in my life has it been promoted as a racial thing UNTILL people started yelling about removing it, then suddenly it became a big racist deal.

I don't really care what happens to the tradition, IMO traditions are a stupid concept for keeping dumb gak around anyway.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's like, um, Voltron. When a white person is prejudiced against a non-white person it's like they form part of Voltron and that part combines with the rest to become Voltron and destroy everyone. If a non-white person is prejudiced against a white person it's like they form part of Voltron except the rest of Voltron isn't there so they just sort of flop around on the ground without hurting anyone. This is a good analogy, right..?

I'm glad we're all just "white men" now and not individuals

If John in Tennessee is getting his ass beat one night he can rest easy knowing Jake in California can get that job easier.

**Ahtman**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I'm glad we're all just "white men" now and not individuals

Of course people are individuals and individuals vary, but when talking about systemic issues and social problems you can't use individuals as the measure as no individual makes up society. One must look at larger trends among groups of people.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:

Everyone has a sense of empathy, but to what degrees and to what ends varies markedly.

Many sociopaths don't have one at all. People tend to exhibit empathy, but they do not necessarily do so. The tendency is the human characteristic, not the trait.

Orlanth wrote:

So I do agree with you, but the point that everyone has a measure of empathy doesn't invalidate my point that some things which a conscience might distate is wrong today may well not trigger any conscience in the past when said reaction was acceptable mainstream culture.

So, cultural relativism?

Orlanth wrote:

How come, racism is a negative for action. If an activity can be positive, even inclusive and bridge building, how is it racist.

Because it involves stereotypical, and often harmful, characterization according to racial categories?

You're digging a pretty deep hole for yourself, given that the standard you just erected would label lynching as racial inclusion.