If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I think you may be thinking of slavery as an institution in America from a purely economic perspective. Considering that aspect alone then what you have said is perfectly rational. But we can't forget that there were decidedly irrational aspects to slavery. The disdain and utter contempt that results when one is raised from birth and culturally reinforced by society at large to consider and entire group of people as sub-human. Bear in mind these were the same people who completely convinced themselves that the slaves they kept ... and black people in general for that matter ... were "lazy and shiftless" while working from sunup to sundown in the oppressive heat of American South while they sat on the porch sipping on a mint julep. And it didn't necessarily matter if a particular slave was worked incessantly into an early grave because the slave master could always have his way with his female slaves of childbearing age and produce a steady supply of replacements.
OAW
This is all true, but by no means eliminated a certain degree of rationalism in some owners based on the economic realities of the situation.
This is all true, but by no means eliminated a certain degree of rationalism in some owners based on the economic realities of the situation.
Wow, that's a degree of cynicism I wasn't prepared for: the economic reality is that it was a lot, lot cheaper for the owners to keep slaves rather than to pay sustainable wages. So yeah, it was based on economic realities — but not out of concern for the living conditions of African Americans, rather because their business model would not have worked out otherwise. CPT's comment that “blacks having had a better life a better life as slaves rather than as free men and women” makes it sound as if it was altruism. I personally think it would have been a lot better if blacks had had full rights, could have chosen their employment out of their own volition and would have gotten paid a living wage. (If you can do a job as a slave, you certainly can do it as a paid employee.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I don't disagree, but I'm not sure this an apples to apples comparison in the case of Hemings. As a former house slave to Jefferson, her prospects would have been above average. Said prospects including a decision to remainin in the Jefferson household as a freeman.
In Virginia, during that era? Are you mad? More likely someone would have thrown a sack over her soon after she left and then sold her, making her a slave again. She was much safer as Jefferson's "property".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I hadn't caught that, but I'm not sure I follow. The first terms that come to mind is activist or malcontent.
It's the tactic which earns the qualifier.
The petition starter reaps the benefit of associating the loaded term with Jefferson as long as no one takes the effort to pin him down on the fact it's accurate from only a technical standpoint.
It likewise opens up people who try to defend Jefferson to the claim they approve of the behavior unless they bend over backwards to qualify it.
If someone gets (justifiably) heated over the allegation, those qualifications are often not forthcoming.
Lacking those qualifications, the defender gets smeared as defending rape. Someone who defends rape should be ignored... or worse.
Checkmate.
This is a bloody successful tactic which is by no means exclusive to the people this thread is attempting to indict, but is inordinately common amongst them. To use an example you're no doubt familiar with, Anita Sarkeesian has made much hay with it.
Edit: just in case, I should clarify the term Sarkeesian does this with is "misogynist".
(
Last edited by subego; Oct 21, 2015 at 12:46 AM.
)
Wow, that's a degree of cynicism I wasn't prepared for: the economic reality is that it was a lot, lot cheaper for the owners to keep slaves rather than to pay sustainable wages. So yeah, it was based on economic realities — but not out of concern for the living conditions of African Americans, rather because their business model would not have worked out otherwise. CPT's comment that “blacks having had a better life a better life as slaves rather than as free men and women” makes it sound as if it was altruism. I personally think it would have been a lot better if blacks had had full rights, could have chosen their employment out of their own volition and would have gotten paid a living wage. (If you can do a job as a slave, you certainly can do it as a paid employee.)
Concern for living conditions has nothing to do with it except insofar as it would benefit the property owner.
In Virginia, during that era? Are you mad? More likely someone would have thrown a sack over her soon after she left and then sold her, making her a slave again. She was much safer as Jefferson's "property".
I feel this analysis is correct only if one assumes Jefferson would have freed her and then shown her the door.
Egg? You mean after I hit the nail on the head? Why sugar-coat it, what would be the point? If you'll take a second to take in the entire statement, instead of cherry-picking what you believe is a "zinger" (or whatever you want to call it), it makes sense. Besides, isn't that the type of behavior you were just denouncing? Yikes.
I'm not claiming the "high road", I'm just saying you can't either.
You haven't hit the nail on shit, you are just digging yourself into a deeper hole, oblivious to doing so.
Whether you think a better life would be found in being a slave is completely irrelevant. What is important is not what you (the oppressor, if you you lived in those times) think, but what they would have thought. Perhaps some would have preferred to remain under ownership (as a legal fraction of a human being), but many obviously expressed the desire to try to make it on their own, and many acted on these desires, kindly owner or no being irrelevant to many.
Do you realize how much of a douche you sound like saying this?
I mean, you seem so proud of yourself wanting us to believe that you are rich, that you run an militia, and you obviously feel it is important to own whatever guns you want. The commonality here is that you enjoy your freedom. Why would you feel that at least some African American slaves wouldn't have enjoyed the freedom of not being a slave, or they would at least have liked to choose for themselves their own destiny?
I guess you are trying to be provocative expressing your disdain in progressivism in bringing up this subject, but in doing so you are really coming across as being completely out-of-touch with modern ways of looking at the world. You are better off expressing this in the Playboy thread.
As far as TJ goes, I think all slave owners were douche bags.
I've thought about this being shaped in a modern bias, or influenced by what was normal at the time. I get it that slave ownership was common, but honestly, I can't wrap my head around my self-justifications for owning another human being. If we want to lionize TJ and others as being brilliant thinkers, we can't give him a free pass on not coming to terms with what owning a slave meant. A paid butler or somebody who voluntarily did things is one thing, owning another human being is another.
All slave owners with some intellectual capacity were douches.
That's the "beauty" of the system. Corporations can consider their lowest employees as both interchangeable and expendable.
"Beauty"? You seem to be sidestepping my point. Slaves are only valuable so long as they aren't plentiful. And when you can make your own slaves, well...
I imagine slave healthcare was a lot like how we treat the uninsured – as long as you can work, you're fine. Once you fall over, we'll take you to the emergency room and see if anything can be done.
99.9% likely, according to DNA tests, then further corroborated by statements from members of the family.
According to an initial report on the findings of a 1998 DNA study which tested the Y-chromosome of direct male-line descendants of Eston Hemings, and other related tests, there is a near 100% certainty that Thomas Jefferson was the biological father of Eston Hemings. These initial claims (that the DNA findings were definitive and conclusive proof of Thomas Jefferson's paternity) were later retracted by the lead researcher in the case, acknowledging that in fact the DNA testing itself seemed to prove only a one in eight (12.5%) genetic probability of Thomas Jefferson's paternity.
I agree that the circumstantial evidence (Jefferson was present a Monticello for the conception of all of Hemings children) point to Jefferson being the father, though there is some argument on that (due to statements by family).
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and I'm not just talking about the statue, but also his good name and reputation.
He tarnished his own name by having slaves. We're just taking historical trends to one of their logical conclusions – non-consesual relations with property.[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You're conflating things. You think I'm "deifying" him, I'm not. I'm saying we owe him respect, not worship.
Well, you're right and wrong here. While I was wrongly conflating the terms "respect" and "deifying" with you, my perspective was coming from when people take such strong defensive stands on negative interpretations of historical figures, it seems like they're taking it as if you've personally insulted someone who's legacy they worship.
This is reminiscent of the brouhaha over historical textbooks and the downplaying of some of the negative aspects of the US' history. Some people just seem to act like remembering the faults in our history somehow undermines us as a country. I find it troubling.
I feel this analysis is correct only if one assumes Jefferson would have freed her and then shown her the door.
She has to leave the house sometime; go to the market, see about some shopping, etc.. While there were examples of free blacks in the USA at that time, I can't recall many in Virginia.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'll let him speak for himself, but I didn't interpret his statement to mean this.
It didn't, that would be absurd.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
If you can't stop trying to make conversations personal and stick with the subject matter, I'm going to stop talking with you altogether.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
He tarnished his own name by having slaves. We're just taking historical trends to one of their logical conclusions – non-consesual relations with property.
Today? Yes. Back then? No. That's why you have to evaluate morality based on the norms of the day, not by what we're taught to believe now. By Colonial standards, the man was practically a saint.
Well, you're right and wrong here. While I was wrongly conflating the terms "respect" and "deifying" with you, my perspective was coming from when people take such strong defensive stands on negative interpretations of historical figures, it seems like they're taking it as if you've personally insulted someone who's legacy they worship.
This is reminiscent of the brouhaha over historical textbooks and the downplaying of some of the negative aspects of the US' history. Some people just seem to act like remembering the faults in our history somehow undermines us as a country. I find it troubling.
I refuse to be tarred with another's brush, I told you how I feel. I respect the founding fathers quite a lot, worship or revere? No.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"Beauty"? You seem to be sidestepping my point. Slaves are only valuable so long as they aren't plentiful. And when you can make your own slaves, well...
I imagine slave healthcare was a lot like how we treat the uninsured – as long as you can work, you're fine. Once you fall over, we'll take you to the emergency room and see if anything can be done.
The overall point I'm making is somewhat rhetorical.
We can't really analyze the economics of a modern slavery system without creating a legal framework for it. For example, addressing questions of whether a child born to a slave becomes a slave.
Since the group of people I'm talking about are illegal immigrants, my statement assumes the supply of slaves is on par with the supply of illegal immigrants. This is a small enough supply were our imagined system to produce similar quantities of slaves, they'd be quite expensive. Expensive enough they'd be treated as an investment worthy of maintaining.
She has to leave the house sometime; go to the market, see about some shopping, etc.. While there were examples of free blacks in the USA at that time, I can't recall many in Virginia.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the system at the time was so ****ed up, I can see a situation where even if a slave master was kindly enough to free you, it would be to your benefit to pretend you were still their slave.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the system at the time was so ****ed up, I can see a situation where even if a slave master was kindly enough to free you, it would be to your benefit to pretend you were still their slave.
Indeed, very ****ed up. Slaves were valuable, and even if you were free and had papers, what's the keep unscrupulous people from knocking you out, destroying your papers, and re-enslaving you?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I tend to think of slavery in terms of the Civil War era, where at least there were places the idea could be workable. Late 18th century, I'm not sure that place existed yet, at least not here.
I tend to think of slavery in terms of the Civil War era, where at least there were places the idea could be workable. Late 18th century, I'm not sure that place existed yet, at least not here.
Maybe New York City?
Not really, it was corrupt as hell. As some know, many Irish were slaves in NYC during that period, ancestors on my father's side entered the US there and were literally sold as they disembarked, to pay for their journey and to get food and shelter. "Oh, you guys are married? Tough shit, you're going to work the docks 14 hours /day, and your wife is pretty so she's going to the brothels. Welcome to America!"
Maybe Boston or Philadelphia?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Starting to see real backlash against the far-Left, even violence. A pair of feminists were jumped on a local campus and beaten severely, by other women, but the attackers' identities are still unknown. Words? Fine. Assault? No way. As universities further restrict speech and make unreasonable demands, this will only get worse. If you force discourse (especially if it's dissenting) out into the fringe, no one will be there to challenge the worst of it and it will spread. At least if you're able to look an adversary in the face and discuss your differences you can grow to better understand them and at least know who they are. All the "safe space" and "problematic" bullshit is leading to disaster, if our poor pampered little cherubs can't cope with disagreement, how can they handle life outside the (allegedly) protective walls of academia?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
These were addressed directly to you. Any comments?
I think we are all making things way too complicated. This entire thread is too complicated, I don't even really get the point of it.
Do people go too far with political correctness, or whatever you want to call it? Of course, but people go too far with everything, including insensitivity. There is little actionable to be taken from this, other than human beings being human beings.
That certainly doesn't mean that the concept of progressivism (or whatever you want to call it) is a cancer. Many religious people get bent out of shape when people say that "religion is a cancer", and for many of the same reasons. You could substitute many other things for the word "progressivism" in this thread title, and we could spin our tires the same way.
Hmm... I mentioned my displeasure with the term in the second post I linked. I agree we shouldn't spend time arguing over labels.
The question I posed in the second post is more direct. Should a university have an official policy of admonishing the faculty for using phrases like "America is a melting pot"?
Am I being irrational for being concerned about it? Is my concern merely "sour grapes" over underrepresentation of my pet theories? Is official disapproval of innocuous phrases in a university setting something you approve of?
As I asked in the first post, am I demonizing innocents by saying I'm uncomfortable with the examples of behavior listed by Strossen?
Hmm... I mentioned my displeasure with the term in the second post I linked. I agree we shouldn't spend time arguing over labels.
The question I posed in the second post is more direct. Should a university have an official policy of admonishing the faculty for using phrases like "America is a melting pot"?
Am I being irrational for being concerned about it? Is my concern merely "sour grapes" over underrepresentation of my pet theories? Is official disapproval of innocuous phrases in a university setting something you approve of?
As I asked in the first post, am I demonizing innocents by saying I'm uncomfortable with the examples of behavior listed by Strossen?
I don't really see the point in getting consternated over what happens in universities in general. Their administration is human just like anybody else, and if the students are the sort to become indoctrinated at a university this problem is much deeper than any campus policy.
Is university policy the focal point of this thread? It seems kind of all over the place to me.
Is this real life, or is it fantasy? Patriarchy! "But, I'm a genderqueer trans-man." Doesn't matter! Patriarchy!
So diversity.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The disdain and utter contempt that results when one is raised from birth and culturally reinforced by society at large to consider and entire group of people as sub-human.
Horses, Ox, cows, dogs, are sub-human, often used for work/slave-labor, and we dont see any tendency to treat them with utter disdain and contempt. If anything most of them get better healthcare than actual humans due to a lack of cost associated with a lack of regulations in the vet business. Animal abuse is the exception not the rule.
When it comes to slavery it would be more reasonable to assume abuse was the exception not the rule since the economics of it came 1st; and since we have more contempt for humans than animals. Personally I'd rather my master thought of me as an animal than a human... but it's easy to take a few stories here and there and run with them when nobody has a time machine to prove one way or the other.
Bear in mind these were the same people who completely convinced themselves that the slaves they kept ... and black people in general for that matter ... were "lazy and shiftless" while working from sunup to sundown in the oppressive heat of American South while they sat on the porch sipping on a mint julep. And it didn't necessarily matter if a particular slave was worked incessantly into an early grave because the slave master could always have his way with his female slaves of childbearing age and produce a steady supply of replacements.
So in other words it was like immigrant working conditions today? Or Asians who make all our stuff? The people who live, eat, and sleep at their work desk with their rape child sitting under their chair all day. Only we dont care about them because they aren't black Americans... And they produce all kinds of cheap stuff we like.
Actually Im going to go on a limb and say conditions today are worse. For all practical purposes the average American has 3 slaves, even black people. Conditions are worse for them because we can basically pretend they aren't slaves, that we've evolved beyond that. And since they're technically not property there is no loss of investment if they die. They can be replaced.
We still have slaves, we've just outsourced the effort of keeping them.
I agree, now we have them stored on an entirely different continent, so we don't have to be bothered by the poor sods. We just pay their masters for our "This is what a Feminist looks like" shirts, while complaining that the A/C is too cold.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I imagine he was trying to take that seriously, since there's a lot of $$ on the line, but the harassment was just off the scale. I don't think Richard Dawson (who would never have been able to get away with his shit today) even went this far.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It's time to run the intolerant, anti-free speech, cultural Marxists out of our colleges. Enough is enough.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Naturally CTP would be incensed that the Yale University administration would actually deign to consider the concerns of minority students who have the nerve to find these kind of racist Halloween "costumes" offensive and decidedly not funny. I suppose he considers it a tragedy to be in a social environment where one can't simply express one's racist proclivities with impunity and the acquiescence and silence of those impacted.
Why is OAW holding back? He can do better than that, didn't his Google search for "racist costumes" come up with this one too, or did he just not see it?
If you're going to play that card you might as well go all-out, right? The thing is, it's not even about the costumes being racist, inappropriate, or WTF-ever, it's about the ultra-PC, Social Justice reactionaries not even allowing discussion of the matter (or anything else they find "triggering"). Here:
Sorry snowflake, first and foremost it IS absolutely about creating an intellectual space, not about university being your "home" (especially in a competitive school like Yale). If you don't like that, then you aren't yet ready to leave your mommy, maybe try a community college instead?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Why is OAW holding back? He can do better than that, didn't his Google search for "racist costumes" come up with this one too, or did he just not see it?
And your picture of some little white kid in a Klan outfit for Halloween is making what point exactly? That some white people can even be even more over the top like this than going around in blackface and still swear on a stack of bibles that they aren't racist?
If you're going to play that card you might as well go all-out, right? The thing is, it's not even about the costumes being racist, inappropriate, or WTF-ever, it's about the ultra-PC, Social Justice reactionaries not even allowing discussion of the matter (or anything else they find "triggering"). Here:
.
Sorry snowflake, first and foremost it IS absolutely about creating an intellectual space, not about university being your "home" (especially in a competitive school like Yale). If you don't like that, then you aren't yet ready to leave your mommy, maybe try a community college instead?
Oh so pointing out instances where white people are being blatantly racist is playing the "race card" huh? I mean I realize common sense eludes you more often than not. But seriously. WTF is there to discuss about this? You seem to relish in this notion that somehow white people have a "constitutional right" to be racist not only on private college campuses but also on public taxpayer supported grounds when they as a majority want to fly the Confederate flag. And any pushback against such stupidity is progressivism run amok. Oh and let's not even mention your vociferous support of George Zimmerman who has repeatedly demonstrated his "model citizen" status ever since he murdered Trayvon Martin who ran away from him after being stalked by that psycho through his own neighborhood. Nor your support of the muscle bound white "officer" who threw a 15 year old, recently orphaned black girl across a classroom like a rag doll because she sat quietly at her desk and refused his orders to go to the principal's office over a cellphone she had already put away. I can go on and on. Your track record around here is abundantly clear. You are consistently on the side of white people behaving badly towards minorities. And the most hilarious thing about it all is that you have managed to convince yourself that somehow society at large is doing you and those of your ilk wrong because of it.
No, the most hilarious thing is that you believe I was talking about race, and you're still trying to push that it's about race, and you'll ALWAYS think of it as about race. The article is about fluffy bunnies in college being upset that someone who is part of their school's faculty dared bring up that they should be mindful of other people's beliefs and opinions too, that it isn't a one-way street. Then, to show how incredibly open-minded and tolerant she was, a girl started screaming and cursing at a member of the faculty for implying that students should even hear any other perspectives, to the approval of all her cohorts standing around her.
How did this come to be? Well, I'll tell you. They're being taught:
- "Safe Spaces" are more important than getting an education (they won't be prepared for the private sector)
- that feelings mean more than knowledge (they'll be grossly ignorant to what anyone outside their echo chamber thinks)
- and the most damning thing of all, that their perception of the world is the only one that matters
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
These are, IMO, the two most important paragraphs of the letter (here's the whole thing).
"I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.
It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue “signalling.” But I wanted to share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood."
How much, and what tenor of pushback does this statement deserve? Is what you see in the video the appropriate level of response?
There are millions of Halloween costumes and its for one night or so. I look at it as freedom of expression. I have been Walter White(Breaking Bad) 3 years in a row, but I don't condone using meth. I don't care if someone puts up an "offensive" display on their own property either for the same reasons. I consider someone being offended by words or symbols to be immature, intolerant and overly emotional.
I remember in the mid 1970's I could repeat, almost word for word, several of Richard Pryors LP's. My friends, Black & White would have me do some of his stuff at parties. Its a shame I can't do it anymore for fear of somebody over-reacting.
These are, IMO, the two most important paragraphs of the letter (here's the whole thing).
"I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.
It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue “signalling.” But I wanted to share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood."
How much, and what tenor of pushback does this statement deserve? Is what you see in the video the appropriate level of response?
The highlighted portion above is a classic "No offense, but ..." type of statement. There are minority students on college campuses who have to deal with the daily challenges of being on a predominantly white campus. And then on top of all that they are faced with racial slurs being hurled their way or nooses/swastikas being placed in their residential areas or other places they frequent. Or drunken white students who think it's "funny" to dress up in blackface and portray racist stereotypes at Halloween fraternity/sorority parties. And the vast majority of these incidents never make the news. You see for these minority students it's not a game. Their experiences on campus can at times range from being in a hostile environment all the way up to fearing for their physical safety. So the problem with Ms. Christakis' statement is that she's trying to couch this as some sort of "intellectual exercise" ...
Originally Posted by Erika Christakis
As a former preschool teacher, for example, it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is something objectionably “appropriative” about a blonde-haired child’s wanting to be Mulan for a day. Pretend play is the foundation of most cognitive tasks, and it seems to me that we want to be in the business of encouraging the exercise of imagination, not constraining it. I suppose we could agree that there is a difference between fantasizing about an individual character vs. appropriating a culture, wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick. But, then, I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if you aren’t a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18? I don’t know the answer to these questions; they seem unanswerable. Or at the least, they put us on slippery terrain that I, for one, prefer not to cross.
.... I mean seriously WTF??? The issue is the type of racist costumes I posted above ... and this woman is trying to equate that with children dressing up as Disney character! You see a little white girl can dress up like Tiana the Frog Princess but she doesn't have to be in blackface to do it. A little blonde girl can dress up like Mulan without her mother putting makeup on her face to mimic slanted eyes. Just like a black woman can put on the iconic white dress and portray Marilyn Monroe for Halloween without going in "whiteface". So the reaction we see in the video is born out of the frustration of having to actually explain such a basic concept. You see there is a big difference between dressing up as a character and dressing up as a racist caricature. And the fact that Ms. Christakis and her husband either genuinely don't get it or are just pretending not to is a part of the problem. Some argue that this is just "freedom of expression". Ok fine. But where they err is in this notion that somehow that gives them license to go around portraying racist stereotypes without consequences and repercussions.
If the admonition was simply "don't dress as a racist caricature", I'd have no argument, but the email she's responding to defines wearing a feathered headdress as crossing the line.
If there's an issue with the examples you posted, and I believe there is, does not saying a headdress falls in the same category dilute the argument?
Isn't she complaining about exactly the same thing you are? Conflating objectively bad shit with things that are not so much?
Top