Video surfaces of Canadian Prime Minister in blackface

I was talking in general terms, as my later reference to native Americans should indicate. To the extent I meant a certain word it would have been “negro” which I was afraid to even spell out, but apparently is still somewhat acceptable.

The context was cosplay, not stereotyping. I thought I had made it clear I didn’t like people dressing up just to mock black people. You seem to focus on misunderstanding just so you can be properly upset.

You tell me, I think we have established that I don’t really understand what makes black people upset. What would happen if a white American politician started talking about “negroes” in Congress?

Wikipedia has a passage about how acceptable words have changed over time. There was a time when “black” was considered the more offensive term.

This is a great argument for not making racial skin color a part of a kid’s Halloween costume.

Good point!


Maybe it would help to think about this in a different way.

Putting greasepaint on your kid would not actually make him look like Geordi La Forge. He would look like a kid in greasepaint. If your kid really wanted to look just like Geordi La Forge he would have to wear a latex mask, or one of those horrible plastic injection masks – and even then he would look like a kid wearing a mask with Geordi’s face on it.

When we dress up in costume we know that we are not going to actually end up looking exactly like whomever. What we try to do is convey what we think are the important aspects of that person (which would obviously be Geordi’s eye-visor and a star trek uniform – you got those two things and anyone would know who you were meant to be). Suggesting that one would need to resort to greasepaint to convey who a character was who happened to have dark skin suggests that the colour of their skin is actually the most important thing about them. You can see why that’s problematic.


Ignoring the last 300 years of American History isn’t the way to address the problem.

Imagine your daughter is going to attend her best friend’s bat-mitzvah at the local temple and wants to wear these cool earrings a pen pal sent her from India:


Do you A) Figure “eh, no harm intended” and let her wear the earrings without warning her why they might a bad idea, or B) Explain that the specific historical context behind this symbol would make those earrings likely to cause offense regardless of her personal intent?


That was me. I did the same search. You get the difference between pale makeup for vampire/zombie/alien/clown/Queen Amidala/Queen Elizabeth is different than a Mediterranean-complexioned person using pale makeup to look Scandinavian, right? Because that search brought up hundreds examples of the former and zero examples of the latter. So, no, you didn’t get results of people with one skin tone trying to look like a generic real person with a different skintone.


When talking about the term historically, it’s fine. I would not suggest calling the black folks you know IRL “negro” however.

There is no reasons to use blackface. None.

That can come through, even if it’s not the intent. Again, if your concerns about people being able to do what they want is more important than how your actions creates a more hostile world, you really should think about that. I’m very certain that dressing like La Forge does not need blackface, that the visor and uniform are more than enough.

Don’t give me that bullshit.

You seem to feel like they are out to get you.

Maybe read a book, maybe listen to what African Americans say about this and other issues that impact their lives, like blackface. The answers are out there, for people who want to better understand, but given your responses to me and others here, you do not seem genuinely interested in learning.

You do realize that black kids get “dragged into racial tensions” no matter what? That black children are punished at higher rates from pre-school, that they are more likely to grow up in impoverished conditions, more prone to environmentally based illnesses (Flint, Newark are but two examples), are more likely to be tried as adults… etc. Black kids get “dragged into racial tensions” in a way that their parents do not have the PRIVILEGE of protecting them from. But you clearly have no interest in addressing that.

Once again, IGNORING RACISM will do nothing to fix it. That’s like saying that ignoring a cancer diagnosis will lead to remission. Ignoring the past and the current racial situation WILL NOT FIX IT. All it does is make white people feel more comfortable. Well, guess what - racism does MORE than make black people feel uncomfortable. It impacts every aspects of their lives in ways that can’t be avoided. if you’re not willing to be part of the process of helping to correct that, then at least acknowledge that and stop getting the way of people who want to fix it by constantly belitting the real struggles of oppressed peoples.


Obligatory for this thread:


Not sure if it was said. But another amazing factor was DS9 brought in the dirty non-utopian parts of society too. You had back alley deals and weapons dealing and all sorts of fun real time 20tg century type happenings.

I liked that because it felt more real to me as a result.


I think this can be distilled down into two words I don’t think I’ve seen in this thread yet…


Racism is systemic, fueled by bigotry and the personal biases of a sufficient number of people in a society, mainly in the effort to maintain control over those we wish to exploit and/or harm. In our current timeline, the oppressors are generally white.
Racism is a method, bigotry the tool, and blackface is the symptom.


What? NO! That doesn’t exist! We’re all equal, and we know that because the constitution says so, and that is the only reality that matters! /s


Paul Mooney very apt disappointed face.



The best Mooney is a Full Harvest Mooney


Then we are back to my original point: the meaning of words changes. What was a perfectly acceptable word, better than the alternatives, is now something you are not supposed to use except possible as a quote from historical times.

You really can’t get over trying to change the meaning of what you quote. When I talk about dressing up as a black person in cosplay, you change it into dressing up to stereotype black people, when I point out that this wasn’t the context you now turn it into blackface rather than clothes.

You might also consider if you think a genuine white racist would like his kids to have black idols and dress up like them, or would he be just as offended as you are?

I’ve already brought up several of the issues you mention to Kuna as real problems that need to be solved, but I still have problem comparing someone finding many year old photos of a politician with being poisoned by lead because no one cared about the water supply. Now, if Trudeau had been responsible for Flint and those photos turned up you might have worried about a connection.

Now you’re getting into the realm of cultural/racial appropriation, if you’re looking foe suggested reading.

Racism isn’t as much about personal attacks on color (bigotry), as it is for maintaining control, in the case of blackface (making it about something white people feel entitled to do to make the rules about how they interact or engage with POC).

edited for grammar


So much fresh sea air in this thread. Breathe it in…


Reminds me more of this video:


Let’s break this down nice and simple:

White person + dark skin tone makeup = blackface

Not blue, not green, not grey, not purple. Not Klingon.

It’s not cosplay. Cosplay is dressing up as a particular character. You don’t need the makeup for that, as has been pointed out upthread a hundred times.



Dressed up for charity event = racist x white male.

1 Like