General News Nick Cannon wearing White Face

Except a troll isn't a real thing...

 

I have a feeling that the majority of individuals whom equate this instance as comparable to the stigma and implications of blackface aren't very educated on the reality of that practice.

Blackface was not the practice of individuals airbrushing their skin to darker pigment tones. The objective was to morph the appearance of the white individual into an exaggerated image of a black individual in ways that would cause laughter and mockery on sight. They used makeup, and even prosthetics in some cases to, to enlarge the lips, nose, and ears to cartoon-like sizes and commonly sought to mimic ape-like characteristics. Actual tar and oil were exclusively used to represent the skin of blacks.

I would never advocate for the actions of Nick Cannon; however, the sheer fact that you disagree or feel offended racially by the actions of this individual does not mean that you have right to make claim that your victimization is on par with the far more horrid past of this issue. This instance was indeed inappropriate, but the belief that it even touches the callous present in the practice of blackface stems from nothing by pure ignorance.

 

Why are people pissed off over this? I'm white and I'll say that people saying "white face" should be considered just as offensive as black face is fucking offensive. Blackface has a history of degradation and hurt behind it, "white face" doesn't. And part of me will assume most people posting here are white as well and don't understand the concept of having privilege based on their race.

And kudos to Beetle for the post by bringing up how white people like portraying stereotypes of Native Americans.

 

@Daydreamer You asked why people get pissed off over this. I'll explain. Just remember while you're reading the opinions expressed don't necessarily reflect my own, I'm merely answering your question.

People get pissed off by it because it DOES suggest a double standard.

To quote Gen above:

" The objective was to morph the appearance of the white individual into an exaggerated image of a black individual in ways that would cause laughter and mockery on sight. "

Perfectly accurate description of where 'blackface' came from and what it was intended to do. It would be difficult to argue that this point isn't true.

Problem is it is also difficult to say that this guy isn't doing exactly the same thing. Obviously white people aren't a minority, certainly not usually a persecuted minority in most of the western world but what you see here is a guy doing exactly the same thing the people who started doing blackface did. He's selling an album called "white people party music" and proceeds to list off a bunch of phrases that appeal to the 'white' stereotype.

The usual argument goes something like this. He posted:

"#WHITEPEOPLEPARTYMUSIC #Wppm in stores April 1st!!!!!!Dude Go Get It!!!Join The Party!!!! #GoodCredit #DogKissing #BeerPong #FarmersMarkets #FistPumping #CreamCheeseEating #RacialDraft "Bro I got drafted!!" he wrote."

All the while posting pictures of himself as a white stereotype. As such, the usual counter argument to this point goes something like "What would happen if I were to do blackface, try and release an album called BlackGhettoPartyMix and then posted the following hashtags:

#BLACKGHETTOPARTYMIX #BGPM in stores April 1st!!!!! Go get it son!!!! Join the party! #PantsSagging #Boombox #GoldChainz #FistBumping #FriedChickenEating" and so on.

None of the things in the second are particularly offensive inherently, but they ARE black stereotypes and are often used to insult people.

The point being that there is a double standard where just one guy can make a joke that is essentially stupid, but nothing more, but if the equivalent white guy did it he would be blasted repeatedly because of the historical precedent that it 'started out' one way and therefore MUST be intended the exact same way forever.

That's the way it is usually seen. Black guy does it, funny joke, white guy does it, hate crime.

Again, not saying I agree with it, just answering your question.

 

Black face historically was used to deliberately mock and be demeaning toward black people, which is why it is considered to be offensive. White face doesn't have that history behind it.

But I'm hoping one day we move past that history so society can just take a chill pill about things like this and just have fun. For a person to don another race for fun's sake should be no different from a person who dons another gender for fun's sake.

I don't think anyone would argue that drag queens are offensive to women and drag kings are offensive to men.

And drag queens pretty much do play up the most exaggerated stereotypes of what it means to be a woman. But it's done in a positive, good-natured way, complimenting and admiring femininity rather than degrading it.

Donning make-up to portray another race for the sake of fun or to play a character will hopefully one day become a non-issue.

There's just a difference between good-natured humor and fun, and malicious demeaning forms of humor historically associated with black face. It is possible to poke fun at any racial group without having meanspirited racist undertones.

So it's mainly just the (unfortunately not that distant) past history that puts a stigma on black face.

Personally I'm not in the least bit offended by Nick Cannon donning white face, I think it's actually pretty cool to see what people look like when they're done up to look like another race, exposes how skin-deep race really is.

 

I recognize the final line that you stated, so I want to make it clear that I am only addressing that sentiment rather than you.

I have no doubt that his intentions were to be crass since he was previously a comedian (though hardly funny) and still considers himself to be. It's not a double standard because you don't have the bulk of society seriously claiming that his actions should be seen as absolutely acceptable regardless of whether it is meant to be comedic. It is not appropriate or PC, but it does not reach the level of its counterpart. The claim that because this man chose to do something insensitive, whiteface is automatically elevated to the level of demean and callous that comes with blackface is unreasonable.

For example: Should a racist Jewish individual lash out against a German, that would be a horrid event. However, for that one event to be elevated to be comparable to the holocaust is beyond ridiculous.

People have a tendency to leap from one extreme to the next when dealing with race and other controversial topics, but it is hardly ever justified. "It's the same thing" doesn't often hold much ground in reality. Feelings of offense, demean, and hurt should be able to be expressed without certain individuals feeling the need to compare their frustrations to struggles of races, genders, and orientations who suffered through centuries of oppression and brutality. Its not the same thing.

You can express the opinion that whiteface is inappropriate and shouldn't be tolerated without downplaying the act and effect of blackface as equal.

 

Whiteface and Blackface as makeup techniques don't seem offensive to me in the slightest. However, the history of Blackface is extraordinarily offensive and I think -- even in our current age -- it is best to be avoided. Perhaps people should avoid using Whiteface due to perceived dichotomy, but I don't really mind...

 

See this, I think, is one of the most difficult and annoying things to deal with in terms of 'PC' and what-have-you.

I mean let's take your example of the racist Jewish guy.

"For example: Should a racist Jewish individual lash out against a German, that would be a horrid event. However, for that one event to be elevated to be comparable to the holocaust is beyond ridiculous."

So our Jewish guy has just said something racist to our German guy.

It's a bad thing, we all know that. Racist jewish guy was being a dick.

Now we tell racist jewish guy he was being a dick.

"Holocaust! Fuck you!"

We are all left sitting there knowing full well that the Jewish guy is being a dick and also going to INSANE lengths to justify his actions, but what more can be said?

Let's say we politely explain to him that he shouldn't be a racist against the german guy, because he hasn't done anything to him.

Again, our Jewish guy responds "Holocaust! Fuck you!"

Which leads us to our current situation.

Black comedian does something un-PC for the attention. We all basically recognize that it was done to take the piss out of white stereotypes.

So we tell him he shouldn't be doing it.

Now all of a sudden, we have "Blackface, fuck you!" (Please note, I have written it this way to tie in to the example above, not because I wanted to imply you or anyone else who has contributed to this thread had been rude or brash about it!)

Absolutely, point made, blackface is worse and should no longer be a thing. But now the point must be made that 'whiteface' shouldn't BECOME a thing. It might not have the historical backing and the same level of historical important and offence attached to it, but we don't want it to BECOME a thing.

Yet it comes up every so often, and instead of the the reasonable message that taking the piss out of each other based on race isn't funny, we get this insane debate about which is worse.

We get "Whiteface is racists" vs "Blackface, fuck you!", when we ought to have "racism is pretty shit you guys!"

That's what bothers me at least.

PS. Once again, please please PLEASE don't think that my use of the phrase "blackface, fuck you" has any link to you guys in terms of your mannerisms. You have been perfectly polite, and I have tried to be as well, it merely fitted with the story!

 

Nick cannon doing another publicity stunt. I'm black and I'm not offended, but I honestly don't care what nick connon does.

 

so.. back in the day people put on blackface for humor yea? or was it some weird law that blacks couldn't be in movies?
Anyways if he wants to be a white guy more power to him, but by the puppet-president of Nickelodeon doing this, it should be fine for white people to parade around in blackface.
if he wants to be a white guy so badly, so be it. I don't really see the differences of him going around town as Caucasian then me wanting to be a woman... though racial tensions in the United states are way worse then Gender Tensions... so If I was him I would've thought once more about doing this...

 

I think I see what you mean.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal accountability. There will always be people who make dramatic and exaggerated complaints and excuses about what actions and comments are acceptable in regards to race, gender, and everything else. We are all completely justified in deeming whatever we please as appropriate and inappropriate in our own eyes. Had members in this thread simply shared whether they found the story offense or not, I don't believe anyone would have debated the situation. Hell, I would have been on the side of it being inappropriate.

However, the issue always arrives in these situations where people take the liberty to throw out dramatic claims that minimize the validity of terrible past events, ideals, and times. Tying things back to my example, the racist Jewish man can say whatever he wants to try to justify his actions, but do the Germans really have any justification in comparing those events to those of the holocaust? No. In no fathomable way are those situations even remotely similar.

Not to mention, what is being done in those situations is the degrading the trials and suffering of a group of people to the level of a minimal action. What I mean by a minimal action is that Nick Cannon is doing all of this and people are looking at him like he's an idiot. They may laugh, but those that do are more-so laughing at the stupidity of the situation, than at the expense of Caucasians. It does not make it ok, but the point is that this is a concentrated instance of insensitivity. This is something that, regardless of approving of or not, people can forget five minutes after reading about.

To compare instances of prejudice and insensitivity that have such minimal effect on even our day to practices that were carried out for decades to centuries. In this case to auditoriums of people across the world taking pleasure in laughing at the expense of terrible portrayals of an ethnic group; it is just not comparable. It is fine to find disgust with both. It is fine to want both to stop. But it is not fine to deem the weight and effect of both as equal.

I hope that cleared some things up.

---------- Post added 25th Mar 2014 at 05:53 PM ----------

A bit of both. Blacks weren't cast to play roles calling for black characters. When white actors would be hired to play black characters they not only covered themselves in oil and tar, but made themselves appear more exaggerated and almost animalistic physically because that was how blacks were seen in society; as sub-human entirely.

 

Sadly, that is correct. But my point lies in that, at the end of the day, it's makeup. Wearing makeup doesn't inherently say anything about you other than the fact that you're wearing makeup, for whatever reason you're wearing it for. Warpaint doesn't actually make you more aggressive or stronger. It's just colors on your face. Again, I think he might be conducting some social experiment, but who knows what he's doing, at this point? Perhaps this outburst is what he wanted to see might happen.

 

Come on Nick even i think it's messed up and I'm not white :tantrum:
then you named it white people party music and do white face . That's going a bit to far

 

It was tasteless, stupid and pointlessly provocative. I mean, seriously, what was he trying to accomplish? Connor Smallnuts. White People Party Music. White face. Really?
Did you really have to go there? The whole "They did blackface,and everyone found it funny then"argument is dumb because we're comparing different generations of people living in different eras.

Racism against black people in the past was horrific, and blackface has a much darker history, but that doesn't give him a pass. He couldn't come up with a better idea, huh...

 

Honestly, I think he's trying to send a message. What he's doing is basically a caricature of those upper-middle class white kids who say they're in "the 'hood" which, we all know is a very poor place. So to those in the actual 'hood, seeing these kids, who have a lot more privilege than they do in class and in race, it's a bit demeaning and extremely ridiculous because they're taking their culture and they're twisting it way out of context. It's actually precisely why I avoid these people like the plague (although that could really be applied to almost any person) and I'm sure that they're not being their true selves and essentially living a total lie. I think Nick Cannon might be trying to get the same exact reaction out of us as those kids have been to the culture they so claim to represent, while at the same time, sending a message to those kids who do follow him quite a bit.

That's my take on it. I'm used to that kind of thinking because I've spent about 2 and a half years interacting with people dabbling in comedy. Remembering some of the stuff Nick Cannon does, he does do comedy, and it's a very common technique.

 

In my opinion, Cannon using whiteface was probably more of a parody on people using blackface than it is anything else.

Another thing to mention is that whiteface and blackface are not on the same level. Blackface is pretty much a symbol of racism and the blatant stereotyping of black people and has been that way since its inception the nineteenth century or so. Whiteface is nowhere near that kind of degradation and racism that blackface created. So please don't go on saying things like "THIS IS RACIST TOWARDS WHITE PEOPLE" or "Well if he can use racist whiteface I should be able to use blackface". Please face the facts that institutionalized racism against white people does not and will never exist and no you still cannot sport blackface.