Pyrian on 12/6/2020 at 22:53
Well, I'm certainly not knowledgeable about every word in every context, but I gotta say, a buncha white folks arguing about how it isn't racist when they say it is an absolutely terrible look. These things you're saying about w** were said about n***** by people who were very much racists, and not as long ago as you'd like to think. The argument that a bunch of people say it and don't always curl their lip and spit as they do so, proves nothing. You can't see a filter when all you see is through the filter. And if you know perfectly well that someone, somewhere IS offended, to the point where it's listed as derogatory in the dictionary, how sure are you that the person you're referring to with what you know perfectly well could be a slur, isn't affected? Because for the most part they won't act offended. They don't dare.
Take Gone With the Wind. It was cited at the beginning of this thread as a product of its time. Of course, everything is a product of its time. Buuut... GWtW was widely called out and even protested for being racist as f*** back when it was released. The difference is that such observations had little power back then, largely because racism was so deeply entrenched. Where I'm going with that, is just because you think it was okay in its time, doesn't mean it was. And that's true for the present, too.
I would err on the side of caution in these matters.
Sulphur on 13/6/2020 at 02:37
Quote Posted by catbarf
I got it, yeah, fair enough.
My angle is that, relating to this thread, it's useful to apply cultural context when unpacking a work of art to determine the author's intent: whether it was designed to support racial injustice, unintentionally does so through cultural tropes, invokes language or imagery that has acquired negative connotations since when the work was made, or was written from a position of ignorance that manifests as racism. This requires acknowledging the culture that it originated in and examining it from that perspective.
To be clear, historical context doesn't excuse or justify racism, and these elements should still be called out for what they are- a slur or stereotype is still racism even if it was in casual use at the time. But I think intent can inform how to treat these now-controversial works. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? Give it a disclaimer, acknowledge the problematic aspects, and keep it in the public. Birth of a Nation? I really have no problem with it disappearing from the world,
maybe save film classes.
Yeah, and when you're talking about art, the context is different. It's a much more complex matter to deal with. We're mostly aligned on this - I'm sure you've seen posts prior talking about this.
I'm of the opinion that problematic media shouldn't just be erased; if it's acknowledged as an attitude that is not tacitly endorsed by the content provider, I don't see people having an issue with that. Gone with the Wind and Huck Finn are problematic, but important works. They also work as historical record of the prevailing attitude of the time. Pretending they don't exist would do no one any favours; it doesn't fool anyone.
The exception to this is when you have a thing like, yeah, Birth of the Nation - I wouldn't bat an eyelid if that vanished from streaming. We went over this earlier, but if it's an obvious racist propaganda piece, any content provider taking it down would be doing the right thing IMO. And even then, it's not like it disappears from public consciousness - you can still get it elsewhere if you really want to see it.
Quote:
Anyways, pretty sure it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I really like how Warner Bros handles it with their old cartoons. For those who haven't seen, (
https://i.imgur.com/sOklpJa.jpg) this is the disclaimer presented before Looney Tunes films. It makes it clear that attitudes have changed, but they still own up to the racism and don't make excuses for it, and the films are still made available.
I think that's the best compromise for older works, all said and done.
I wouldn't care if Little Britain dropped off the face of the Earth tomorrow, but it also falls under this umbrella of shitty attitudes that networks can and should acknowledge -- it's not really making any cogent points like, say, Fawlty Towers, but that's maybe an exercise for the viewer to decide. Even Fawlty Towers, which is a show I dearly love, earned an eyebrow arch for its treatment of Manuel back in the day, never mind the major and the episode with the Germans. But Fawlty Towers was also better at illustrating Basil as a terrible person and so delineated right and wrong while being funny. That doesn't excuse some of its more overt issues, but am I going to want it banned or censored for that? Please. It needs to be preserved as is so we have a record of the journey we've been taking.
The work of acknowledging what needs to change is up to what we're doing now. And if Little Britain, as an example of a show that exists in some form even as recently as April 2020, can't do that, then that's really just an indictment of the society we live in.
@heywood: I'd invite you to re-examine the context of the posts you're addressing. We're not discussing the chronology and lexicology of slang here, which would be a pretty odd sidebar; and this isn't a matter of semantic nitpicking. It's the tidbit about 'what is racist is subjective'. Let me ask you this: would there ever be a time in casual conversation where you using a phrase like 'that slant-eyed gook over there' would be considered not racist to someone from SE Asia?
There's a world of difference between how culture changes the meaning of words over time, and the context from which a
derogatory term is spawned. If you know the context and intent was racist at that point, the context and intent normalised that slur despite its racist meaning, then you also know there is no such thing as a good time to use that word
from that point on. If the intent is to other someone with a term, like say wog, or curry, no one's going to cry over it being classified as pejorative. Well, except the racists.
Mr.Duck on 13/6/2020 at 03:05
Quote Posted by icemann
There is no "you" in this anymore Sulphur. I'm not the one you need to convince this time. And secondly you do not have the right to judge my culture. That to me is racist.
Quote Posted by icemann
And sure if that makes me a racist that's fine really. Never said I wasn't.
Inline Image:
https://cdn1.uvnimg.com/95/38/6004ede0430f9b7e692751eca511/wonka.gifPigLick on 13/6/2020 at 03:23
Mr Duck, I love you like a brother, but surely you could add more here than just glib img posts? I mean you are the only mexican here I think? Having moved to vancouver I am sure there are some relevant experiences you could relate here.
Mr.Duck on 13/6/2020 at 04:03
<3 Piggeh.
My previous post was mainly for posterity's sake, seeing how icemann edited his original (now backpedaled) farewell, eliminating a bit of info that will surely age well, like milk left out of the fridge on a hot Summer day in the Sahara desert; it also served the double purpose of serving as an example of what Sulphur's said over and over again about icemann contradicting himself every five steps (or less). That doesn't mean I didn't feel like adding a wink to it. <3
As for Vancouver (or Canada, to be fair), it's as racist as the US on a systemic level (just ask most indigenous folk there, for starters), and a lot of their national identity seems to be based on saying "We're not the US, we're better!" Not everyone, of course, but just enough to make me raise my eyebrow. Oh well, Mexico (and many places in Latin America) are far worse, so la-dee-daa. And that's my bit.
<3
Sulphur on 13/6/2020 at 06:37
Okay, I missed this wodge. I don't want to be a weekend warrior, but let's address this.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Imma step in here and defend iceman on one point. It really depends on where you are whether a word is bad or not, and that goes for racism. I don't buy this bs that it's racist "wherever it is". The
obvious US to UK one is the word "fanny". If you told me your friend was rubbing his girlfriends fanny when you were at the bar it would mean a
completely different thing in the UK than in the US.
The topic is not anatomy, it is not genitalia.
I think a few of you are missing the obvious here, which is these words are not separate from the context in which they are used, especially when we're talking about their racist origins.
Quote:
I don't know where everyone is from or has lived but I grew up in Africa and lived there until I was 18. The n-word in the 90s had almost no power of abuse or offense at the time and the only way that anyone would get annoyed would be from realising that you were
trying to be racist.
And there you go: if someone was trying to be racist, and called someone the n-word, here is the context we're talking about. You've now experienced a situation where you understand the wider problem of it. Let's address the elephant in the room: if you're white, or from a certain race, and you've called somebody from another race a word knowing full well that it is racist somewhere, do you think that's okay?
Quote:
In fact the n-word was used in my school, up to the age of 18, every day, by every. single. person. And the word honkey too. These were simply descriptors, really.
So you were there when apartheid was a thing, I'm assuming.
Fair Skinned Person to Black Person: 'Yeah you know, my class is like half niggers and half chinks. 's all good.'
SubJeff on 13/6/2020 at 07:30
Quote Posted by Sulphur
So you were there when apartheid was a thing, I'm assuming.
I was, but not in South Africa.
Interesting that you made that assumption.
Also - I'm not white, I'm mixed race. Did you assume I was white all this time?
Sulphur on 13/6/2020 at 07:32
I know. That's the reason I put 'certain race' in there, because this isn't just about prevailing white attitude.
Nicker on 13/6/2020 at 07:37
Mr. Duck! We are better than the US!
Plenty of systemic and endemic racism here in Canada and yet some ongoing programs to counter racism and redress damages. Nevertheless, First Nations are neglected even as they struggle to recover from generations of genocidal policies like Residential Schools. On the other hand, First nations art, language and culture is being re-envisioned and revived while territorial greetings and acknowledgements, are a standard part of government and community events.
On the other-other hand, reserves are often places of crushing poverty where basic housing, water and food are at third world levels and diseases which are extinct in European populations, still ravage the inhabitants.
Canada prides itself as the destination of the Underground Railroad even though it was a full patch member of the Slave Owners Club even after Britain abolished the practice. Many escaped slaves established colonies here in the 1800's. Africville, in Halifax Nova Scotia was a thriving community for over a century until it was rezoned and bulldozed in the 1960's in a completely non-racist way, of course.
And don't get me started on the Chinese. We only just apologized to them for the head tax and now they are being assaulted over the COVID19 epidemic.
On topic - is it true that Net-Flix has dropped Die Hard because it stereotypes Germans? My German girlfriend says so but I can't find any news on it.
Mr.Duck on 13/6/2020 at 08:25
Quote Posted by Nicker
Mr. Duck! We are better than the US!
<3
