Same for me
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Same for me
what about the latest outrage in the US? A woman in W Virginia is glad Michelle Obama is leaving the White House; "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels," she said."
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37985967
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37985967
Christ it should be an Ape, not a Ape. Stupid woman.
I'm not sure that can be widely applied to most western/dominant groups and it doesn't take into effect historical contexts of certain stereotypes and why they can be considered harmful (Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims etc)
Being stupid, ignorant, loud and trigger happy is better than being lazy, thief, criminal, rapists (most of these said by the president-elect) I don't think its as offensive as it gets, but I guess its subjective, i'd rather be considered stupid than a criminal for sure.
Plus a lot of those American stereotypes are still applicable to negative stereotypes for marginalised groups also such as being stupid, ignorant and loud.
besides the statement; that looked weird to me too.Why are you ok with her capitalizing ape?
Why are you ok with her capitalizing ape?
No, I'm not. I might not be a good judge though, I always capitalise email subject headings, which looks a bit odd, but then it looks a bit odd if I change it, so I'm not sure. Except where ape's concerned, that's open and shut.
I think its OK to capitalise titles and subject headings. But random words in the middle of sentences, not so much.
Oh god, when we had our last mag redesign, the argument about whether headlines should be capped up or down was tortuous. Capped down won thankfully- saying 'the US' when your headline is all upper case looks weird.
I don't know but it is irrelevant. It is insulting and stupid even if mildly so.
Well a) they were Mexican, you aren't and b) they were making a living pandering to the stereotype.
So? Does that make all stereotyping ok? I'm thinking not.
. So? That isn't making fun of people by dressing up as a racial stereotype.
I don't find it at all upsetting, just wrong and at best impolite and rude. You are a white bloke who comes from a wealthy country that has a national costume and you can't imagine why other people who have been traditionally insulted and discriminated against don't enjoy being mimiced and made a figure of fun?
That doesn't sound like anything or anyone was being made fun off and it was a message of inclusion- the opposite of most ethnic fancy dress.
It is just a matter of degree and who are you to tell people that they shouldn't be insulted? If Mexican or Indian or aboriginal people (or whatever) find fancy dress insulting why would you not accept that and stop it?
Except that isn't the mindset at all. It is about people adopting patronising and sometimes insulting stereotypes for people to laugh at. Who would like that especially if you experience discrimination on a daily basis.
http://blackpeopleloveus.com/
I'm not sure I can bring myself to adopt casual racism though. Which is what we are talking about with this fancy dress thing. It isn't like there are a million things that you can dress up that don't involve making fun of another culture or race. I also don't think that this has anything to do with Brexit or Trump. Political failure by all sides of politics does.
https://www.facebook.com/oustars/ - this is where the latest debate began and the examples shown there are commonly seen at fancy dress parties and range from casually racism to WTF.
Last edited:
It is amazing what you can get away with depending on your background though. Me and my technically muslim deputy -she's from a mega-liberal family, eats bacon, smokes, drinks and has tattoos- said she didn't want to hire a muslim. One applicant ran an Islamic women's faith group on the side.
I'd be crucified for saying the same.
I'd be crucified for saying the same.
'Tarts and Vicars' parties are alright though, aren't they?
Think that's most people's stance on things in this thread at least, at least you're honest in your ability to ignore what others are saying because it doesn't affect you and you get humour out of it.
On the topic of standup comedy, psychology and sociology will tell you that jokes that stipulate stereotypes don't necessarily fully endorse the stereotype, but rather recognises the stereotype. For example jokes like "there's a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim at a bar" you could imply something about the Jew not wanting to pay for the drinks in your joke, and that would be funny because you are recognising the stereotype that's there. Replace the Jew with say...an American, and because the same stereotype doesn't exist, it loses its humour.
Jokes can be funny because we see the stereotype, not because we believe it to be true. Or they can be used to exaggerate stereotypes, or point out whether its deserved or even self-inflicted - being able to toe the line carefully and cater it to your audience is what separates great comedians from ones who just say offensive things because they find it funny. This has ramifications when it comes to reinforcing stereotypes, some people may not have known that Jews are stereotyped to be stingy with their money thus by using that as a running theme can reinforce that idea where it may not have been there before.
So, no it's not the same. But you might not care or accept that argument either, who knows.
Stereotypes are odd. I know several people of assorted races/religions who massively fit their stereotypes. Never joked about it cos it'd probably go down like a knackered lift.
Yeah talking about black facing (it's that time of the year again in Belgium and Holland):
In the Middle East you have Nowruz, which is a celebration of their (Persian) New Year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowruz
Where, from what I gather, people black face themselves and dress up like this:
Yet we have the fecking United Nations who in 2009 inscribed it on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. And on the Wiki page there is a video Barack Obama wishing the Iranian people a happy celebration.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/253
http://www.un.org/en/events/nowruzday/ :
International Nowruz Day was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly, in its resolution A/RES/64/253 of 2010
What do we make of that? I'm really not sure, that's why I'm asking.
Here in the Netherlands we have changed the opening ceremony of our Santaclaus equivalent with the notorious 'Black Petes' for the first time in history this year. They now have just some black marks on their face instead of an all black painted face (because according to the story of the last 60 years, they climb through chimnies to deliver presents to the kids).
Black Petes used to look (and still 75% of the people in Holland want them to look) like this:
First it was going to be 'all colour of the rainbow-Petes', but given our colonial history with Indonesia yellow probably wasn't possible. Then there's the problem that some Dutch immigrants were probably involved in stealing the land of Native Americans, making red facing a possible issue. Then blue, probably patented by whoever owns the rights to the Smurfs. Green for some other cartoon figure. So in the end it now looked like this at the official big opening ceremony:
Any thoughts?
In the Middle East you have Nowruz, which is a celebration of their (Persian) New Year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowruz
Where, from what I gather, people black face themselves and dress up like this:
Yet we have the fecking United Nations who in 2009 inscribed it on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. And on the Wiki page there is a video Barack Obama wishing the Iranian people a happy celebration.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/253
http://www.un.org/en/events/nowruzday/ :
International Nowruz Day was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly, in its resolution A/RES/64/253 of 2010
What do we make of that? I'm really not sure, that's why I'm asking.
Here in the Netherlands we have changed the opening ceremony of our Santaclaus equivalent with the notorious 'Black Petes' for the first time in history this year. They now have just some black marks on their face instead of an all black painted face (because according to the story of the last 60 years, they climb through chimnies to deliver presents to the kids).
Black Petes used to look (and still 75% of the people in Holland want them to look) like this:
First it was going to be 'all colour of the rainbow-Petes', but given our colonial history with Indonesia yellow probably wasn't possible. Then there's the problem that some Dutch immigrants were probably involved in stealing the land of Native Americans, making red facing a possible issue. Then blue, probably patented by whoever owns the rights to the Smurfs. Green for some other cartoon figure. So in the end it now looked like this at the official big opening ceremony:
Any thoughts?
Last edited:
@vi1lain i appreciate your posts here on a topic I'm not too sure about, especially since my initial instinct was to say "safe space? What a load of shite!" - so thanks for broadening my mind a bit here. I'm still not sure how we, or who gets to, reliably define what a 'dominant'/'oppressed' group is, there's so many shades of grey, and oppression occurs within such groups as well as against them. Take the Irish - subject to some truly awful stereotyping, historically oppressed but also successful, both colonized and colonizer. Watch the reaction of any Irishman witnessing an English person making fun of his accent and you'll see how thin-skinned we can be, yet we can take that shit from just about anyone else ( obviously due to the history of power relations between us). So do we have a case to get the English to stop making fun of us, but have to accept it off, say, the Angolans?
Also by labeling a group as 'oppressed', do they ever get a chance to break free of such a category?
Sorry if these questions seem a bit amateur, your posts have me thinking (out loud in this case).
Also by labeling a group as 'oppressed', do they ever get a chance to break free of such a category?
Sorry if these questions seem a bit amateur, your posts have me thinking (out loud in this case).
Excellent question. By not labelling them 'oppressed' do we ignore past transgressions and their plight, but equally, do we keep them oppressed by referring to them as such? It makes your head explode tbh.
Was it overlooked at the time? Maybe it was by the general public but it seemed obvious as dog balls at the time to me and YMCA removed all guess work surely?
Think this fits in here
I know this person. Except he isn't stupid. He is the other things deliberately and enjoys being like that. The utter cnut.
I saw that. Kinell. So bad I was waiting for the satirical punchline but apparently it was real.
At the end of the day, stereotypes exist for a reason, it would be unreasonable to think that there aren't black people who don't love fried chicken and can run really fast, and think they're rappers (I actually fit in all three categories proudly) therefore we shouldn't talk about the issue of stereotypes because they might get offended.
It's when they are used to perpetuate the idea that they're reflective of that entire group/race/culture which then forms negative opinions and assumptions, especially in media.
I think talking about these kind of topics is much healthier than keeping it to yourself, and I would encourage more people to talk to other ethnicities about these kind of topics, you wont learn anything by surrounding yourself with likeminded people who can only see one perspective.
Thank you, it's much appreciated!
Good question and I think the answer is both subjective and contextual depending on where you are in the world. But I think it boils down to mainly power and individualism.
So you are part of an oppressed group if:
On a personal level you are able to face prejudice & bigotry (racism)
On an institutional level you can face discrimination (harder to get a job)
And on a structural level you can face oppression (poor government funding, education etc)
This is why i said its contextual because its not the same for all races, or in every country, it varies hence why there's so many shades of grey, but at it's absolute basic level thats what it boils down to.
The Irish is a good example, awful history of oppression & lots of stereotyping today - I would say that while being Irish means on a personal level you can face prejudice & bigotry, being Irish is unlikely to hinder you on an institutional or a structural level.
I don't think that's grounds to have a case to make anyone stop poking fun at you, I mean there are always going to be bigots in this world, that can't be stopped.
Second question is good too - I think as things stand labelling groups is necessary.
Labels don't cause inequality, people do. There's no point arguing about changing the names of groups if the systemic and institutional structures are still in place to oppress those very groups.
Plus without labels we lack the vocabulary to really discuss these topics.
Labels can be seen as empowering for some, can be used negatively by others but removing labels removes this option completely.
Yeah talking about black facing (it's that time of the year again in Belgium and Holland):
In the Middle East you have Nowruz, which is a celebration of their (Persian) New Year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowruz
Where, from what I gather, people black face themselves and dress up like this:
Yet we have the fecking United Nations who in 2009 inscribed it on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. And on the Wiki page there is a video Barack Obama wishing the Iranian people a happy celebration.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/253
http://www.un.org/en/events/nowruzday/ :
International Nowruz Day was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly, in its resolution A/RES/64/253 of 2010
What do we make of that? I'm really not sure, that's why I'm asking.
Here in the Netherlands we have changed the opening ceremony of our Santaclaus equivalent with the notorious 'Black Petes' for the first time in history this year. They now have just some black marks on their face instead of an all black painted face (because according to the story of the last 60 years, they climb through chimnies to deliver presents to the kids).
Black Petes used to look (and still 75% of the people in Holland want them to look) like this:
First it was going to be 'all colour of the rainbow-Petes', but given our colonial history with Indonesia yellow probably wasn't possible. Then there's the problem that some Dutch immigrants were probably involved in stealing the land of Native Americans, making red facing a possible issue. Then blue, probably patented by whoever owns the rights to the Smurfs. Green for some other cartoon figure. So in the end it now looked like this at the official big opening ceremony:
Any thoughts?
When I first came to the Netherlands as a kid I always thought Zwarte Piet (Black Pete) was a bit dodgy. (Although the black kids I knew never seemed to mind)
The fact is that Zwarte Piet is a blatant referral to dark skinned enslaves from Holland's colonial days (even though this is bizarrely denied by most white skinned Dutch) and has no place in modern society imo. I always compare it to the golly wog! Definitely not political correctness gone mad imo.
Yeah talking about black facing (it's that time of the year again in Belgium and Holland):
In the Middle East you have Nowruz, which is a celebration of their (Persian) New Year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowruz
Where, from what I gather, people black face themselves and dress up like this:
Yet we have the fecking United Nations who in 2009 inscribed it on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. And on the Wiki page there is a video Barack Obama wishing the Iranian people a happy celebration.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/253
http://www.un.org/en/events/nowruzday/ :
International Nowruz Day was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly, in its resolution A/RES/64/253 of 2010
What do we make of that? I'm really not sure, that's why I'm asking.
Here in the Netherlands we have changed the opening ceremony of our Santaclaus equivalent with the notorious 'Black Petes' for the first time in history this year. They now have just some black marks on their face instead of an all black painted face (because according to the story of the last 60 years, they climb through chimnies to deliver presents to the kids).
Black Petes used to look (and still 75% of the people in Holland want them to look) like this:
First it was going to be 'all colour of the rainbow-Petes', but given our colonial history with Indonesia yellow probably wasn't possible. Then there's the problem that some Dutch immigrants were probably involved in stealing the land of Native Americans, making red facing a possible issue. Then blue, probably patented by whoever owns the rights to the Smurfs. Green for some other cartoon figure. So in the end it now looked like this at the official big opening ceremony:
Any thoughts?
I don't personally know enough about the subject, but i'm not a fan of blackface at all - for obvious reasons.
I have known (white) Dutch people who said it wasn't meant to be offensive, but I also know Dutch people of colour (one Afghani & another Ethiopian) who said it's disgusting and they're not proud of it all, so I've remained neutral to the topic since.
I'll read what you've linked tomorrow at work before I make any comments on it.
Thanks! The reason for my second question is because I've spent a lot of time in the last few years working with refugees from some of the well known troubled war zones, one thing that's always struck me about many of them is their horror at the prospect of being automatically and permanently labeled a victim - obviously part of this is they're conscious about how they're going to be perceived in their host nation, but for many it simply boils down to pride in the former dignified life they once lived which they wish to create again, and a real desire not to pass it on to their children. But obviously that is just one element of the people I've dealt with.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. My Jewish former deputy was the only person ever in company history to expense a colleague's leaving card, but the boss is also Jewish and a very generous, charitable guy. Ditto, I'll piss through cash while my mother is stingy (similar Yorkshire stereotype).
I suppose we all know it's down to context and environment. A catholic mate jibe me about being a 'dirty prot', but there' no malice and really he's as irreligious as I am.
Yes, it undisputedly has racist origins like Rams said. Over the last 60 years or so they've slowly but steadily been trying to frame it into a more PC direction. A pretty good metaphor for what many people over here feel, would be that celebrating 'traditional Black Pete' is racism, in the same way that driving a Volkswagen nowadays makes you a Nazi (obviously Hitler was basically the man behind the Volkswagen Beetle). Many people refuse to even admit black facing is racism, that's where the 75% comes from, they're not intentionally trying to be racists at all and in general they would consider themselves very tolerant, so I guess it's very difficult for them to admit it.
It's also true that all the kids over here, of all races, hardly (or not at all) seem to make any racist connections to the black facing, with many black people growing up in Holland explaining that they really had no clue as a kid and just enjoyed the tradition (neither did I as a kid), with the character of Black Pete actually admired by us kids because he was the one bringing the presents, can you believe it.
The Pete discussion has been going on for years now, somehow it's really become a test case/metaphor for real racial issues in society, with people of all intelligence levels and societal classes being able to give an opinion about something they understand - opposed to discussing real, often complex, political problems regarding racism, which is normally mostly done by the middle and upper class and the higher educated. It's also very much become a big city vs. countryside (where have we seen this before), with the people in the big cities being more open to changing the tradition, while nearly all people in the rest of country are against the change.
Like I mentioned, in the end they finally decided to switch things up this year at the official opening celebration. I personally have no problems at all with this change, heck the last time I was involved in celebrating 'Sinterklaas & Zwarte Piet (Black Pete) was probably in the previous century. It really is meant as a celebration for the very young kids, who definitely don't seem to develop racist ideas because of the tradition. But at the same time they 100% would not care at all if Black Pete suddenly became green, that's probably my main reason for saying I'm fine with breaking with the tradition of black facing Pete.
All in all you could say this is a nice step towards a 'less racist society'. Maybe that's true, and who could be against that? But there's a catch, actually a very big one. Someone like Geert Willders (our right wing nutjob/Trump equivalent) is leading the polls. And it looks like he's having an absulute field day with this decision to change the tradition of Black Pete. I guess everything has its price, and this small victory regarding (unintentional) racism at a meaningless kid's celebration might have desastrous consequences at our elections in March 2017.
Regarding the United Nations inscribing a tradition that (possibly) involves black facing on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. - I have no idea either what to make of that, and I know way too little to be able to form a good opinion it. That's why I raised the point, though obviously I feel it looks strange.
So by that pc logic blackface should be allowed if accompanied by jazz hands. Utterly ridiculous rules.
Per the news portion on SNL, be careful if you Google "black peter".
If you synchronise two acts of casual racism they generally cancel each other out, so it's ok.
How about an actual black person blackfacing himself? Because this is literally happening up until this day in former Dutch colonies like Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and Suriname. They gained independence in 1975, but have continued with the traditional Black Pete celebration:
Blackception.
So a large part of society are bigots in the U.K. (Brexit), US (Trump) and the Netherlands (Wilders). But, we're not allowed to say that and should listen to the concerns of the silent majority... the irony hasn't been lost on me....
You should ask the Germans what happens when as a society you start blaming others for society's problems.
You should ask the Germans what happens when as a society you start blaming others for society's problems.
As the Black Pete figure seems to have some major significance to the Dutch (who are a pretty tolerant lot), I'd go along with Henrik's suggestion. If a black guy feels happy to put the costume on, that's his choice (I can't see them queuing up to do it, btw). If no black guys want to do it because of the slavery connotations, the tradition will peter out (no pun).
I think having Green or Blue Pete is a bit daft, personally, but it's not my culture. I do agree that the blackface makeup needs to quietly shuffle off forever. Reminds me of the Black and White Minstrels, who were always on TV when I was growing up. The other strange thing about them was that the only white ones were the woman wearing cabaret costumes, who weren't being minstrels at all but were there because 1960s and 70s TV variety had to have scantily-dressed woman in it.
Well said, when you think about it like that, it's pretty surreal, the whole world seems to be a big political clusterfeck at the moment. To add some more weirdness, the political succes of Geert Wilders is mainly based on his anti Islam agenda, yet at the same time he himself has Indonesian roots (biggest Muslim country in the world).
Well that's obviously the strange and confusing part for many of the Dutch people, and a big explanation of where the 75% pro Black Pete comes from. You'd figure that if anyone should have a say in this matter and knows what they're talking about, it's the black people living in the former colonies, who's ancestors have suffered from the slave trading era.
But like I've pointed out, they basically have no problems at all with the black facing, both black and white people dress up and blackface themselves over there, and have had the traditional celebration every year up until this day (as you can see in the video). When asked about the situation in the Netherlands, many of them don't understand what all the fuss is about, and it's not that they're ignorant and unaware of the history of their country/island.
Well that's confusing. They're also, presumably, guilty of cultural appropriation. A bit of vigorous hand-clapping and they'll have achieved the holy trinity...
Oh yeah for sure that's part of a mental strength, we are blessed to be accustomed to certain luxuries and not having to worry about life or death or going hungry for long periods of time. Whenever I go back to Ghana and see some of my cousins who have to go without everything but the very basics in life - they are the happiest people you'll ever meet, always willing to laugh, make jokes and hear stories of what its like in London. They wouldn't identify themselves as victims or oppressed either because that's their reality.
@Henrik Larsson
At the end of the day, blackface is racist I don't think you'll find any reasonable person who disagrees with that sentiment.
I don't know the dutch culture enough to deem whether this festival should be changed or not, it's certainly not my place. I do think that with regards to the UN, history shouldn't be erased or forgotten. Most countries have a history of brutality of some kind, so the only thing we can do is learn from past mistakes.
I will comment on a tangent because it seems a common theme. The notion that if a person of colour, or a group deems an action acceptable, then everyone else should get over it. "my black friend is okay with it so why is it an issue" the website @Wibble linked is satirical gold which I think went over a lot of people's heads.
Grouping the thoughts and opinions of one person to be reflective of an entire race/culture/ethnicity is inherently racist, we are not all the same with the same thoughts and feelings and opinions, we really are just like white people I promise, we can be very different and diverse. It's patronising to even have to mention this.
Also the need for acceptance of whiteness has roots in white supremacy. For example, my mother taught me a lot of things about racism, but she does things rooted in self-hatred, she's light skin basically looks mixed race, but still feels the need to buy skin whitening/bleaching creams and to chemically straighten her hair because she deems her natural state to be undesirable. That same attitude is what's accepted in Ghana, that whiteness is equated to things that are beautiful, pure, innocent and being darker is comparatively ugly, so you'll find a lot people who bleach their skin and rejecting the idea of wearing your natural hair because they think its ugly.
That's why it doesn't surprise me when there are people of colour like in that video from Aruba, Curacao and so on, who will prefer to align themselves to agree with ideology that is inherently discriminatory. Particularly when you are a minority it's easier to agree with what the majority group go with. Plus part of their culture involves taking part in the festivals and celebrations and the effects of colonialism are still evident today. Just because countries are no longer under colonial rule doesn't mean the entire ideology changes overnight. 1975 is nothing, there's probably a lot of people in this thread who are older than those countries have had independence.