Probably not.
Published on December 14, 2004 By greywar In Current Events

     Some people seem to have a total lack of sense. Take this couple for example. They didn't seem to pick up on the furor after Ted Danson's similar faux pas a few years back.

     Now I could understand if these two folks worked as member of the human freakshow that runs our local Mickey's convenience station but the guy is a fucking judge! Jesus to be this stupid I would be willing to bet that he does an awful lot of blow in chanbers too!

     Why is this offensive? Well Vaudeville takes the rap for that one folks. Years and years of using blackface for racial humor shows basically disqualifies it from humor for a few centuries. If you think he showed any sort of good "judge"ment here lt me hear it. I love to listen to the lunatic fringe.

Site Meter
Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 14, 2004

In answer to your title question, yes.  it is a part of our history, and in a historical sense, it is appropriate to depict how things were. 

In answer to your question (unstated) in the text of your message, no it is not appropriate in any attempt at humor or outside of depicting how things were 70 years ago.

But then neither is White Chicks which was really a stupid movie.  If it had not been so stupid, it would have been insulting, not for caucasions, but for women.

on Dec 14, 2004

But then neither is White Chicks which was really a stupid movie.

Stupid yes. Offensive in the same category as Blackface? not a chance. When it comes to humor the formerly downtrodden get a liscence to poke fun back at their oppressors of old. I will take White Chicks over "reparations" any day.

on Dec 14, 2004
The judges judgement was sorely lacking.

Least, that's my judgement.
on Dec 14, 2004
Favorite...emotie...ever...
on Dec 14, 2004
It's only appropriate for chimney sweeps, wildland firefighters and coal miners. ;~D

As far as the article you cite though, while I think they were completely inappropriate, I think suspending the judge over it was just as inappropriate.

When it comes to humor the formerly downtrodden get a liscence to poke fun back at their oppressors of old.


I don't agree that the problems of the passed justify any actions of the present. That being said, I think there is a difference between racist humor and race based humor, just as there is a huge difference between laughing at each other and laughing with each other.
on Dec 14, 2004

I don't agree that the problems of the passed justify any actions of the present

When it is humor and not war I think it is a good way to induce societal catharsis.

on Dec 14, 2004
When it is humor and not war I think it is a good way to induce societal catharsis.


Oh, I agree that humor is a great way to deal with serious issues, but I don't think that racism one direction justifies racism in the other direction. Of course, not everything raced based is racist either.
on Dec 15, 2004

When it comes to humor the formerly downtrodden get a liscence to poke fun back at their oppressors of old.

Excuse me?  Neither I nor any of my ancestors (post roman empire) ever owned, or trafficed in slaves.  So how did I 'downtrodden' them?

on Dec 15, 2004
Several years ago here in New York, several fireman wore black faces during a parade and were kicked out of the department. This draconian reaction was outrageous -- these men lost their ability to earn a living . While I personally do not think they should've received any form of punishment, a comprise of a suspension would have been more than sufficient to appease the Jesse & al crowd --the racial piranhas/racketeers/profiteers-- and would have put an end to the whole matter; but not unexpectedly, the powers that be -- the shameless political opportunist-- stomped the hell out of these poor fellas. I guess that, of course, is of no surprise to no one. The Sicilians, for example, have a saying that fits the situation: the weak get piled on.

But as for the judge, I think that suspension is too lenient. I believe he should step down from the bench and return to private practice as an attorney. As a judge, he has a responsibility to make sure that everyone in the community believes he is fair & unbiased, so as to as to maintain faith in the integrity of the justice system. Judges are like those folk who work at slaughter houses: you get used to doing something that is real nasty business; tending to stop thinking about what you're doing and just going through the motions. You grow callous. If the public believes, whether fairly or not, that the judge is bias, then the whole thing comes tumbling down. I never heard of a fireman not run into a burning building to save a person because he was black. Their instinct kicks in under the urgency of the moment. But a bad judge will take his sweet smiling (hanging judge) time give and sentence a black fella too a stiffer sentence because of his prejudice, having plenty of time to contemplate his action.
on Dec 15, 2004

these men lost their ability to earn a living .


because they had already demonstrated an attitude not in line with public service. If I was black I certainly wouldn't want some racist jackhole on my firedeptartment who might run in to save a white person and leave me to burn. When you air your stupidity in public there is a price to pay. Same as the judge in you second paragraph. You have never heard of an incident with a fireman because in fire dept where such attitudes are condoned or encouraged they would never say a word about it.

on Dec 15, 2004
I guess the real answer to your question is when the question itself is irrelevant: that is, when the same situation no longer inspires the question, it simply won't matter; there will come a time when it simply will not register in the mind as racist; it won't invoke the racism now assoicated with it. . I do believe, however, that the country, in connection with race relations, especially blakc & white, has come along way in short period of time. In many ways, on a daily bassis, I see race relations steadily improving. I take heart in the recent press conference in which members of the black community came out and condemned the democrat machine for its constant attacks against Thomas, Rice, etc... I hold out much hope.
on Dec 15, 2004
Our country as come a long, long way where race relations are concerned, that's true. It still has such a far, far way to go too. This judge was wrong in what he did, especially because he's a judge whose supposed to be fair and unbiased. Like Hitparade said, perhaps he's bcome too used to his job, in that case, now is the time for him to step down and do something else - because he won't be fair or unbiased. Humor is funny when it's appropriate and people can laugh together, with each other, but when it's not, and you're the only one laughing, it's like having a pie thrown in your face.
on Dec 15, 2004
Is Blackface EVER Appropriate?


No, I don't think so.


Reply #1 By: Dr. Guy
In answer to your title question, yes. it is a part of our history, and in a historical sense, it is appropriate to depict how things were.

Even as it is important to preserve history, there are plenty of pictures and written accounts depicting minstrel shows and the like already in existence; I see no reason for actual reinactments of this nature in the name of history. You didn't really mean this, did you?



on Dec 15, 2004
Being a judge, he should have shown better judgement, yes. But then, being a judge, he's probably seen quite a few black faces in handcuffs and orange jumpsuits, accompanied by police. This doesn't make it right, of course, but it could be seen as social commentary as humor.

"White Chicks" was very funny movie, I thought, although I have to question whether two white actors would have been allowed the same leeway in the other direction.
One film dealing with race, in the last couple of years, that I found offensive was "Bringing Down the House", produced by and starring Queen Latifa. Every white person in the film was portrayed in some degree as an elitist, rich moron with varying degrees of racist attitudes. When Betty White walked out of her house holding a golf club as a weapon and said "Is everything alright out here? I thought I heard negroes!" it was all I could do to make it through the rest of the film.
If a white producer made a film depicting blacks in the same sterortypical vein, as drug dealers, pimps and welfare cheats, it would have been protested and picketed by the NAACP.

The judge was stupid for doing something so un-PC, that's all.
on Dec 15, 2004

Even as it is important to preserve history, there are plenty of pictures and written accounts depicting minstrel shows and the like already in existence; I see no reason for actual reinactments of this nature in the name of history. You didn't really mean this, did you?

Yes.  Why deny history?  To do so is to be condemned to repeat it.  Already some are trying to deny the holocaust, and that we need not see the pictures as they are too horrorific.  Well to that I say bunk!  A picture, or re-enactment, is worth a thousand words. 

I in no way insinuated that we should glorify a reenactment.  But as a history lesson to show how far we have come, or how bad it was, yes.

2 Pages1 2