I’d bet you the entire remainder of this year’s paychecks that Kelly knows exactly what blackface is.
And just because actors no longer burn cork and put the toxic charred remains on their faces, that doesn’t mean that using makeup to make your skin darker to imitate a Black or Brown person isn’t still just as offensive.
(It is.)
Lastly, emulating famous Black people or characters as a costume doesn’t have to include darkening one’s skin in order to be “recognizable.”
IMO, when people of privilege choose to do that, it’s just a lame excuse for letting their ‘inner-bigot’ show.
I think that was Clive Exton trying to be both faithful to “Thank You, Jeeves” (on which the episode was based) and historically accurate to the period setting. Wodehouse, being a product of his times, decided to use blackface as a plot device – a regrettable decision in a body of work that’s otherwise timeless in many ways.
The “problem” with other countries, is they don’t have the history of minstrel shows and black face shows to use as a reason for such things to be taboo. Combine that with a very very tiny minority population, and a sort of disregard for non-natives, and that is what you end up with. Several anime and manga characters took their inspiration from the US artwork which was inspired by minstrel shows, and thus are clearly derivative of racist caricatures, even if they aren’t overtly meaning to. Some of them, even a Pokemon, had to be reworked for American audience. Even then, they seem to like to color the lips of black characters lighter than the rest of the skin - and many times it gets too light to the point that it make me cringe. Examples would be a Garter Belt from Panty and Stocking, and this other character from a Manga that my black friend had me photoshop for him. Even in greys they had the lips light enough I felt like tweaking them.
But, again, there is some ignorance of culture here playing a big part. I honestly don’t think the anime examples nor the above skits were meant to demean and mock as the minstrel shows of the past were. (I say this not seeing the skit, and I bet you can find examples where this isn’t true.) But from the perspective of American culture it brings up very negative feelings.
I have been watching/re-watching Monty Python’s Flying Circus, and they have had a handful of skits with black face. It was all very silly and not something I would consider mean spirited (YMMV). Blackface in the UK lacks (AFAIK) the same cultural significance as it does in the US (especially in the mid 70s.) So again we have differences of culture, ignorance of culture, and differences of perspective between the US and other places. (ETA This doesn’t excuse it, but it does show there is a different weight for the level of inappropriateness. Certainly in 2018 in the UK they should know better.)
Back to the topic at hand, there are some specific examples I can think of in a professional setting where something like this worked as an artistic endeavor or entertainment with also a message. Kids and adults doing it on Halloween is going to be inappropriate pretty much 100% of the time. Some of it might be “innocent” (i.e. a kid wanting to look more like Black Panther), but more often than not it someone dressed up as a black celebrity with a mocking bent. Cosby in jail, Kirkpatrick with a “Will work for…” sign. etc.
Women wearing dresses. Dresses have tradtionally been a sexist way to separate women. Many cultures required them and some religious groups STILL require them. There is a reason that some women DONT wear dresses.
So, are dresses offensive? I could see an interpretation where they are very offensive.
Alternative argument:
Dressing as a disrespectful version of a respected figure. Is that offensive? I could see Christians being offended by a costume mocking Jesus. I know that Muslims would be offended by a costume mocking Mohamed. Are those forbidden?
While it is true that in certain scenarios dress codes have been utilized to enforce gender roles and perceptions thereof, women choose to wear dresses for many, many reasons; comfort, fashion, and yes, even societal acceptance of gender norms. The point is that the choice to wear or not wear dresses is up to the women wearing them (or not).
The portrayal of Mohammad is a much dicier issue. I am inclined to say that every religious figure is fair game, but on the other hand peoples’ deeply-held beliefs are just as valid as my non-belief and therefore deserve to be respected.
As I alluded to in the post above, this whole discussion is really muddled by the idea of offense. Honestly, someone being offended by something isn’t enough to motivate me to care about a perceived slight. If, for instance, my mother in law is “offended” by the fact that someone doesn’t believe in god (Yahweh, specifically), I don’t find myself moved to respect or honor that notion. How could I? I wasn’t born with the capacity to believe. On the other hand, there are some things that are very clearly intended to offend and were developed for that very purpose. Blackface is a very specific and apt example. Blackface was intended to ridicule, diminish and, ultimately oppress people of African descent in post-bellum America. It robbed them of their humanity, job opportunities (as entertainers, specifically) and the empathy that may otherwise be afforded them. To me the litmus test for something being “offensive” (read: racist) is; was it historically or contemporaneously used to marginalize, exploit, appropriate or oppress others? In this case there is no question.
My question to you is: What exactly is the devil advocating for?
