There’s no doubt that most of the time blackface is used these days, it’s intended to offend or at least provoke. This Alas, A Blog post where white pee-wee football fans dressed in blackface to taunt their black opponents would be an example of that sort of thing.
But what about this picture of Kate Moss?
The commenters on the Alas post all seem to agree that the picture is also offensive. To me, the picture is saying we’re all humans, so we should help our brothers and sisters suffering from AIDS in Africa. It doesn’t look like an old-fashioned minstrel show, it looks like an attractive, dark woman. The straight hair (and the fact that it’s obviously Kate Moss) is the only clue that this is a white woman painted black. Clearly in the context of a special magazine issue attempting to draw attention to AIDS in Africa, there’s no intention to offend.
There’s certainly no way the same message could have been conveyed with a black model, as some commenters seem to suggest. Perhaps Africans are offended more at the idea of being represented by druggie loser Kate Moss than at this particular application of blackface, but the response to me seems more visceral: Anyone in blackface, ever, is offensive. Even the Spike Lee film Bamboozled was widely criticized for portraying blackface as “funny” (the point there was to make us laugh and then think about why we’re laughing, and I think it was done masterfully).
There’s no doubt that the selection of blackface and Kate Moss for the Independent’s cover was intended to be provocative, but is it offensive? If so, is it offensive simply because of the fact of blackface, or because of poor execution? Could this statement have been made in a way that didn’t offend? Or, is blackface simply always bad?
In Bamboozled, Spike Lee gives us glimpses of actors from the past performing in blackface, including a particularly disturbing image of Judy Garland equating blackness with ugliness. The Independent’s cover is a long way from that sentiment, but I suppose, for some people, it evokes that sentiment. What I’m still not sure of, finally, is if that’s necessarily a bad thing.
11 Comments
But is it illegal??
If we are to ever truly get over the stigma brought on by blackface in this country, we must get to a place where it no longer offends anyone. The fact is, that it is something that was practiced and is part of our history. It can’t be erased. We don’t live in a revisionist society and should not hide things from our past because we don’t like them. While it was an insensative and cruel practise, I don’t think that blackface can ever be used in the same context as it was back in the days of minstrelsy ever again. To be offended by the mere notion of black makeup just means we still have a long way to go. We killed buffalo almost to extinction. We all but wiped out the natives of this country. We allowed slavery for many years. we have done some very bad things in this country throughout our brief history. I for one think it is time for blacks, whites, reds, yellows and purples to get over it and move on.
Due to the racist history of blackface, it is always racist when done by whites, there is no way it can been done
without racist undertones. Some people will compare it to the movie ‘White Chicks’ but whiteface does not equal
blackface, the latter has no racist history.
In anticipation of outrage. It is the intent of the role, not the color of makeup, that defines black face.
Whenever a white actor is in a role that calls for makeup-darkened skin, (i.e. Otello) there is the underlying fear that someone will cry “racism!”
From Wikipedia — “Blackface is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to affect the countenance of an iconic, racist American archetype . . .[using] burnt cork and later greasepaint or shoe polish to blacken their skin and exaggerate their lips, often wearing woolly wigs, gloves, tailcoats, or ragged clothes . . .” and “Stereotypes embodied in the stock characters of blackface minstrelsy played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide.”
Making an actor darker for a role should not be deemed offensive when none of this exaggeration or racist stereotype is present.
For the past seven years I have been doing artwork aimed at stimulating just such a dialogue.
My work has been both hailed and denounced and I’ve learned to accept peoples opinions without judgement,
realizing that each has their own threshold for tolerance. Yes, blackface is offensive, but if you read your history,
you’ll find that it wasn’t always intended to be. To the extent that it still holds such power over us, I contend
that it does more harm not to confront it on some level. It is, nonetheless a part of our history, sad but true.
My work can be seen at http://www.markstevengreenfield.com
I know this thread is old, but this article is somewhat apropos. In comedy, blackface is rarely criticized:
http://www.debonairmag.com/blackface_is_funny_-_or_else.htm
Since this is back up top, I’m wondering if you’ve seen the new Ben Stiller film: that seems to have provoked no outrage at all–and does look very funny. I shows you that some comedians/actors are just able to work their reputations just so to be that perfect combo of edgy and ok.
i dont belive it is racist. look at the greatest blackface minstrel “Al Jolson”. he was not racist at all.
i dont belive it should be took as racisme. =/
That’s a new one… Al Jolson as a beacon for racial harmony?
Offense is an emotional reaction, and offensiveness is not a quality of things or events. It is a sign of social and political immaturity. Eventually American Negroes will be able to ignore their detractors.
Fcck this bullsh!t about “whiteface has no racial history”….white people don’t you get it? Think about black people’s logic:
1) Whiteface does not have a history of being offensive.
2)Therefore, movies like “white chicks” will continue to be inoffensive until it has a long, ugly history.
(In other words, whiteface will not be deemed offensive until blacks are in a position of dominance and whites are reduced to their “rightful” place at the bottom. This means whites do not deserve the same level of respect UNTIL they are the new slaves and the blacks dominate this country, which is what they think they are going to do.) So what should any average-IQ white person take away from that? Answer: WHITE PEOPLE do not deserve respect or the same level of treatment by blacks and others, until THEY ARE ON THE BOTTOM! So now ask yourself, the blacks in this country will never be satisfied until YOU, white man/woman are under the yoke of slavery or worse (need I mention the genocide against whites in Zimbabwe?) So when are you gonna stand up for yourselves? When it’s too late, and whiteface is finally considered offensive b/c your great grandchildren are enslaved? My suggestion: get licensed to carry concealed weapon and take the war to the streets… the next time your minding your own biz and a black man wants to make you his victim, take his head off. It’s self-defense, and its within the law! Blacks can’t carry concealed weapons legally b/c most of them have a criminal record… so if a black pulls a pistol out on you, he gets arrested for possession afcf and off to a lengthy prison term, and you get off scott-free! Possibly even put one of them out of commission permanently, if your aim is right. Well anyways, that’s what I’m doing. I’m taking it to the streets. My case was dismissed, judge ruled it was self-defense and the black guy is doing 10 years in prison for possession afcf with .45 bullet fragments in his chest. Life is good!
2 Trackbacks
[...] Word Munger: Is Blackface Always Offensive? While agreeing that blackface in most cases is offensive, Dave argues that the Kate Moss cover is significantly different. [...]
[...] Hollywood has still managed to get to me with its hype machine on new movies. Per Anne’s comment, I’m kind of interested in seeing Tropic Thunder, to see what all the fuss is about. But I [...]