Who determines what's offensive? Coal miners at a pub, or offensive blackface? (1 Viewer)

[trouble13]

Let me try to stimulate more thought. How does a pre-Civil Rights picture of poor Whites contradict the notion of White privilege? Are you saying that White coal miners didn't have more privileges than Blacks?

I think every rational person admits that White privilege used to exist before Civil Rights. The only question is to what extent does it still linger?

I'm not a historian expert but I do know a little about it and yes the concept of white privilege is exaggerated.

To be clear what I challenge isnt that blacks were treated unfairly but rather that all whites were granted an unspoken advantage because they were white or that it currently happens.

Poor is poor and affluent is affluent. The affluent have inherent advantages that the poor dont. It's not racism it's a different prejudice at play.

Think of it this way....
Say you get sick and need a doctor. Are you more comfortable and willing to pay more to the doctor who graduated john Hopkins or the doctor who has a medical degree from Gernadia?

My position is that none of it matters. What matters is you go to who your most comfortable with. It does need to be fair. The consumer is always right.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[lwf]

Offended is one thing, but the author of the editorial said he felt "threatened" by the picture of white coal miners. That isn't rational, and his explanation as to why he felt threatened seemed disingenuous. On the other hand, I can see how anything that undercuts the historical "white privilege and power" worldview he's promulgating could be a problem to the point of editorializing about it.

Offended is another word for threatened. "I'm offended" is just an easy way of saying "my understanding of acceptable social mores is threatened by your behavior."

From the article:
"A business’ photograph of men with blackened faces culturally says to me, 'Whites Only.' It says people like me are not welcome."

Sounds like he felt threatened to me. And he gave good reason why: Blackface has historically been a source of humiliation and abuse in the black community. He mistook a picture of white coal miners covered in coal dust for white men in blackface. At first glance, I might have thought the same thing. That it turned out not to be the case is a relief. That the store owner was aware of how the picture was being perceived and chose not to take it down says a lot more about the store owner than it does about the offended patron. He wasn't inconsiderate in hanging the picture initially. He was inconsiderate in not taking it down when he realized it was making patrons uncomfortable.

 

[lwf]

Anyone being offended by coalminers with coal dust on their faces, is an idiot, a real fool. My advice is to not patronize that establishment anymore or face the other direction or get help.

Anyone offended by a child seeing an adult woman's nipples on television is an idiot. A real fool. Is that any different?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

To be clear what I challenge isnt that blacks were treated unfairly but rather that all whites were granted an unspoken advantage because they were white or that it currently happens.

Logically, if you admit that Blacks were treated unfairly doesn't that mean that Whites at least had the advantage of not being treated unfairly?

I totally agree that the poor suffer a disadvantage but have you considered that being poor and Black in the 1950s was a double disadvantage? I don't deny that things have greatly improved but has the disadvantage been completely erased? I say take a look at the criminal justice system (especially in the South) and you'll have your answer.

 

[pinqy]

You are a very intelligent person, so you know very well that this thread is discussing what may be offensive to (currently) minority ethnicities.

You know that Irish people are part of the (currently) majority ethnicity.

I’m sorry, are you saying it’s ok to offend some people but not others? I disagree.

 

[veritas1]

Anyone offended by a child seeing an adult woman's nipples on television is an idiot. A real fool. Is that any different?

Of course it's different. People may or may not want their kids to see certain things at certain ages. This is a grown man who can't look at a picture of coal miners. He really does need psychiatric help.

 

[lwf]

Of course it's different. People may or may not want their kids to see certain things at certain ages. This is a grown man who can't look at a picture of coal miners. He really does need psychiatric help.

Why would a grown adult be afraid of their child seeing a topless woman?

 

[Ahlevah]

You call it "boiling their philosophy down." I call it stuffing a straw man with a lot of nonsense. Do you think putting words in your opponents mouth is a proper way of discussing issues?

Well, my intention is not to put words in my opponent's mouth. What I'm trying to do is come to terms with a basic question: why did a presumably rational black essayist and poet in 21st Century America feel threatened by a photo on the wall of a Phoenix restaurant depicting Welsh coal miners circa 1912 hoisting pints of ale in a pub? As I said, I found his explanation disingenuous. I took it as a clue to his true intent when he wrote: "The larger issue is the lack of representation of marginalized people and their voices in Phoenix." That prompted me to offer my own theory concerning his motivation for writing the essay. I must say that he does present himself as someone who is, shall I say, especially marginalized or aggrieved:

White institutions police and kill Black art like America polices and kills Black bodies. White institutions strip Black art of its social and economic capital, and leave Black souls murdered at the bottom of white supremacy’s hierarchy. Naked Black canvases are forced onto white gallery auction blocks, analyzed as objects, and commodified to neutralize their humanity. White men examine teeth to determine overall health. Touch and squeeze breasts. He moves Black genitals around to ensure they have the ability to propagate lustful art that will continue to increase the wealth of the white institution. Pound their bones and squeeze their muscles. Bend them over to look inside their bowels. Today, Black art, like enslaved Black Africans, is policed, objectified, and demonized to control its power. Why is white America so afraid of Black art’s power?

They respond to it, calling my art “raw, provocative, angry, unpatriotic and anti-white.” But, when a white poet writes with similar bravado and content it’s deemed “progressive, solution-based” and even “patriotic.” When I reference in my poetry that Black folks rise up against injustices they experience, people suggest that it “advocates looting, rioting, violence, and it’s un-American.” But, when white poets evoke similar sensory imagery of a celebration after the big game, turn over, and burn a few cars their audience calls it, “funny, all-American boys being boys, and honest.”

MULTITUDES: POLICING BLACK ART

Yeah, whatever, dude. :roll:

And what is the social justice movement? Can you name me one of its leaders?

I take the "social justice movement" as a catch-all term used to describe various activist movements representing particular "marginalized" populations or groups within the country. Two of the most prominent organizations would be the Women's March and Black Lives Matter, with other lesser-known groups, such as The Black Youth Project, scattered across the country. So I can't point to a single voice or even group of voices representing "it." Some of these groups can't even agree among themselves who speaks for them, as in the controversy surrounding Tamika Mallory's involvement with the 2019 Women's March. Frankly, I'm less interested in these groups and their leaders than I am the people, many of them in the academy but some who are or were not, who have instructed and inspired them. One person who comes to my mind is U.C. Santa Cruz's "Distinguished Professor Emerita" Angela Y. Davis.

 

[Ahlevah]

Offended is another word for threatened. "I'm offended" is just an easy way of saying "my understanding of acceptable social mores is threatened by your behavior."

From the article:
"A business’ photograph of men with blackened faces culturally says to me, 'Whites Only.' It says people like me are not welcome."

Sounds like he felt threatened to me. And he gave good reason why: Blackface has historically been a source of humiliation and abuse in the black community. He mistook a picture of white coal miners covered in coal dust for white men in blackface. At first glance, I might have thought the same thing. That it turned out not to be the case is a relief. That the store owner was aware of how the picture was being perceived and chose not to take it down says a lot more about the store owner than it does about the offended patron. He wasn't inconsiderate in hanging the picture initially. He was inconsiderate in not taking it down when he realized it was making patrons uncomfortable.

Sorry, but I'm not buying into an argument that being offended is in any way synonymous with being threatened. Being "offended" implies an affront to one's feelings or sensibilities, while being "threatened" implies a sense of being under possible future assault on some aspect of the person's being. He acknowledged the context of the photograph but dismissed it as irrelevant. Well, it is relevant. You can't just assign the photo a meaning that was never there or intended. Thus, I conclude he's either a loon or an SJW looking to do his part to change the world. :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

Saw this on Tucker Carlson's show tonight. Another example of just how far off the deep end some SJWs have dropped:



And why shouldn't it remain on the wall, Rashaad? It's part of history, idiot.

Welsh History Month: How the pub played a crucial role in working-class Welsh life

if it is infact miners then i personally take zero offense to it, why would i ever :shrug:
others are allowed to be offened if they want no matter how illogical
in this case (no laws are broken) the owner is allowed to choose to ignore the offense or cater to it

 

[AGENT J]

Two queers getting married perhaps? Glad to know you have your thumb on what is important in this world.

LOL classy and very telling:applaud

 

[HumblePi]

A few months back we had the Laura Ingalls Wilder controversy because she described a minstrel show in one of her books. Then I watched a movie starring Burt Lancaster that had a minstrel show in it.

I am not offended by either, let alone coal miners. People really need to lighten up, and I don't mean coal miners.

From my own experience, I don't have to go way back to the days of Laura Ingalls Wilder to know about minstrel shows. I remember going to a church affair with my friend who was Russian Orthodox, their church put on a show once a year for church members, it was a minstrel show. I never in my life saw anything like that and it was only because I was young and oblivious to the Civil Rights movement that I was confused about it but not angered by it. We live in the North so it wasn't like we were in one of the southern states that were still segregated. There's just no excuse for human ignorance no matter where you live.

Back in the 50's there were a few comedy shows on television like Amos and Andy, and we loved them because they were funny. The entire cast was black and there certainly was some stereotyping of blacks that would be very controversial today.

 

[Ahlevah]

Anyone offended by a child seeing an adult woman's nipples on television is an idiot. A real fool. Is that any different?

How about a father who takes his young daughter on camping trips and sleeps in the same tent with her? Who's the fool here? The "creepy" father or the Me Too moms who find him creepy?

 

[btthegreat]

I agree, he has a right to be offended and never patronize that bar again. I have the right to think he's a dick and make weekly reservations at the pub.

ETA: My maternal grandfather was a coal miner in Scotland and had several pictures similar to this one.

I think we can both agree that his rights in this circumstance, are more extensive than a right to refuse to patronize. He has a lot of rights that can show the owners what a REAL dick can do to a restaurant with persistence and a tactical mind, by exploiting entirely legal means.

 

[marke]

I think we can both agree that his rights in this circumstance, are more extensive than a right to refuse to patronize. He has a lot of rights that can show the owners what a REAL dick can do to a restaurant with persistence and a tactical mind, by exploiting entirely legal means.

Real dicks think hats can be racist. Be careful of offending a thin-skinned dick. Some of them have been motivated to kill their opponents simply for opposing their views.

 

[Xelor]

I can on two hands count the quantity of folks whom I've come by who have remarked one way or the other about blackface and who also have any idea of what it is and what it is not. Among the defining qualities of blackface itself is artifice applied to fair skin such that it misrepresentationally exaggerates those African Americans outwardly physical traits that whites summarily deemed as ugly and/or indicative of Black's being an inferior form of human, though plenty of whites construed Blacks as simian more so than human. In short, blackface is artifice applied to define qualities of "otherness" with regard to humanity.

• Representations of Blackface and Minstrelsy in Twenty First Century Popular Culture
• American Negro Minstrelsy: Good, Bad, or Somewhere In-between?
• Love and Theft: The Racial Unconscious of Blackface Minstrelsy

But that's' just the application of the makeup itself, and historical inaccuracy in its application does not make modern manifestations of blackface any less opprobrious. It doesn't because, as is explained in the three documents above, there's so much more to it than just makeup applied to fair skin.

Among folks who understand the multiple manners making blackface "20 kinds of wrong," it's unsurprising and not necessarily unnatural that they'd see soot-covered white guys from days gone by and have come to mind minstrelsy, its blackface characters, and all the baggage that comes with it; moreover, it's fitting that one should find such notions repugnant. Accordingly, it strikes me as reasonable that upon seeing the photo of the miners that someone might say, "That photo, even though it depicts miners covered in coal grime, evokes images and notions of minstrelsy and blackface, and I don't enjoy coming to a restaurant and being beset with imagery that does that."


As for what's offensive, well blackface damn sure is. Who decided that it is? Well, one'd think that each of us has individually come to do that of our own cognition; thus the answer is "everyone individually whereupon such a conclusion is arrived at collectively yet, by now, 2019 concurrently." If one isn't among the folks who've come to that comprehension, one should read the above linked-to documents.

 

[Mason66]

This is 2019.

We should all be careful not to unwittingly offend/embarrass people of various ethnicities.

If an African American went to that bar, I can understand why s/he might feel uncomfortable.

The bar owners should remove the image, I feel.

Why would that black person be offended? Would it be because the guy in the picture has a job?

It can't be because there is coal dust on his face.

 

[Ahlevah]

Among folks who understand the multiple manners making blackface "20 kinds of wrong," it's unsurprising and not necessarily unnatural that they'd see soot-covered white guys from days gone by and have come to mind minstrelsy, its blackface characters, and all the baggage that comes with it....

"Not necessarily unnatural"? What does that even mean? Instead of being buried in victimhood and having it drilled into their brains that wealthy, heterosexual, white males are out to screw them, maybe it would do them some good to see that life wasn't always a bed of roses for working-class whites, who never had much hope of going to college where they could become tools of progressive morons who believe that, like Neverland, Utopia can be real. :doh

(M)oreover, it's fitting that one should find such notions repugnant. Accordingly, it strikes me as reasonable that upon seeing the photo of the miners that someone might say, "That photo, even though it depicts miners covered in coal grime, evokes images and notions of minstrelsy and blackface, and I don't enjoy coming to a restaurant and being beset with imagery that does that."

In the present context, which isn't in any way, shape, or form related to minstrels or race, it isn't fitting or reasonable to find a photo of white coal miners with coal dust on their skin "repugnant." But I do find that suggestion repugnant.

As for what's offensive, well blackface damn sure is. Who decided that it is?

I suppose the same people who decided what obscenity is. They can't define it, but they know it when they see it. :shrug: That's fine. We had a "national discussion," so to speak, on blackface and came to the conclusion that maybe it wasn't a good idea. Knowing what know now, we can agree to find blackface offensive. I suppose that's progress. That doesn't mean we should toss The Jazz Singer on a pyre. It's part of this nation's history, and it should be preserved as a noteworthy work in cinema.

 

[TheParser]

Why would that black person be offended?

It can't be because there is coal dust on his face.

The member in post #66 has given all of us a very thoughtful answer.

 

[holbritter]

This is 2019.

We should all be careful not to unwittingly offend/embarrass people of various ethnicities.

If an African American went to that bar, I can understand why s/he might feel uncomfortable.

The bar owners should remove the image, I feel.

The African American should avoid going to that bar, imo.

 

[holbritter]

I can on two hands count the quantity of folks whom I've come by who have remarked one way or the other about blackface and who also have any idea of what it is and what it is not. Among the defining qualities of blackface itself is artifice applied to fair skin such that it misrepresentationally exaggerates those African Americans outwardly physical traits that whites summarily deemed as ugly and/or indicative of Black's being an inferior form of human, though plenty of whites construed Blacks as simian more so than human. In short, blackface is artifice applied to define qualities of "otherness" with regard to humanity.

• Representations of Blackface and Minstrelsy in Twenty First Century Popular Culture
• American Negro Minstrelsy: Good, Bad, or Somewhere In-between?
• Love and Theft: The Racial Unconscious of Blackface Minstrelsy

But that's' just the application of the makeup itself, and historical inaccuracy in its application does not make modern manifestations of blackface any less opprobrious. It doesn't because, as is explained in the three documents above, there's so much more to it than just makeup applied to fair skin.

Among folks who understand the multiple manners making blackface "20 kinds of wrong," it's unsurprising and not necessarily unnatural that they'd see soot-covered white guys from days gone by and have come to mind minstrelsy, its blackface characters, and all the baggage that comes with it; moreover, it's fitting that one should find such notions repugnant. Accordingly, it strikes me as reasonable that upon seeing the photo of the miners that someone might say, "That photo, even though it depicts miners covered in coal grime, evokes images and notions of minstrelsy and blackface, and I don't enjoy coming to a restaurant and being beset with imagery that does that."


As for what's offensive, well blackface damn sure is. Who decided that it is? Well, one'd think that each of us has individually come to do that of our own cognition; thus the answer is "everyone individually whereupon such a conclusion is arrived at collectively yet, by now, 2019 concurrently." If one isn't among the folks who've come to that comprehension, one should read the above linked-to documents.

Then don't go there. Simple, right?

 

[Bum]

Really, at this point, I dont know what offends me more....blatantly racist images, or people actively looking for perfectly innocent things in life to be offended over.

Blackface!



Damn kids in blackface...how unfeeling!!



Not blackface...but, come on...how insensitive to Orcs!!



Clearly this woman is making fun of people with Fugate Disease.

 

[btthegreat]

Real dicks think hats can be racist. Be careful of offending a thin-skinned dick. Some of them have been motivated to kill their opponents simply for opposing their views.

at your age, you haven't figured out that 'real dick' status is not codified by their thoughts on any topic including hats or racism at all. It is codified only in what they say or what they do

 

[tres borrachos]

Saw this on Tucker Carlson's show tonight. Another example of just how far off the deep end some SJWs have dropped:



And why shouldn't it remain on the wall, Rashaad? It's part of history, idiot.

Welsh History Month: How the pub played a crucial role in working-class Welsh life

It sure looks like coal miners to me. He's certainly free to see what he wants. And the restaurant owner is free to decorate his walls with pictures as he sees fit.

 

[tres borrachos]

I'm not a fan of calling people snowflakes and can see how some may be offended by it but I would not try to ban people from using it or even selfcensor myself from using it if I felt it was applicable to the context of the situtation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Did you type this with a straight face? Or did you just think your ignorant hypocrisy would go unnoticed?

On the same day you said you weren't fond of calling people snowflakes in this thread, you made this post in another thread calling a woman with a rare form of dwarfism a snowflake for objecting to her boss moving boxes she needs to access every single day up and out of her reach.

Newbold sounds like a snowflake

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk