Quote:
Originally posted by Repo
Seeing as no one here, as far as I know, is an African tribesperson, let us not speak for them and instead talk our own points of view on the subject. We do not know if they would or would not be offended, and it is ignorant to pretend we do. They are individuals, entitled to their opinions, just like we are.
I am not offended on their behalf, I do not pretend to speak for them, I simply speak for myself and I consider this offensive. I agree it's subjective, but I do consider this offensive and there is nothing wrong with me calmly, rationally explaining why I take issue to what she did. As said, I think her heart was in the white place, but trying to represent diversity by photoshopping your face onto a bunch of other people.... is really stupid and illogical in my opinion. Just let the tribespeople's photos speak for themselves.
|
Well, for one, I'm applying context to the situation, which every critic has failed to do. Blackface was first and foremost a thing in American theater and entertainment, which trickled to some areas of Europe. Point being, the majority of Africans and Europeans aren't likely to view this within that same context, and the context is literally everything.
As mentioned before, it's not the act of painting that was the problem, it was the caricature of blacks as inferior cartoonish beings. So without acute awareness of this, there would be no offense.
And there's a gigantic difference between "I speak for myself and I consider this offensive" and " but what she did WAS offensive". The former is your opinion, while the latter attempts to be a concrete factual statement, which is why I mentioned it's actually subjective.
