Pee Wee teams to quit over racial insults

[Banana]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15433672/

HUDSON, Ohio - Teams in two Cleveland suburbs are quitting a youth football league because of racially insensitive actions by fans, coaches said.

Shaker Heights and Euclid planned to leave the North Coast Youth Football Conference after the championship game this weekend.

The president of the Hudson Hawks Youth Football Association, John Elffers, has apologized for fans who wore Afro wigs and painted their faces black at a playoff game Sunday. Shaker Heights coach Jeffrey Saffold said Hudson fans also used a racially offensive word during Sunday's game and at two other times.

Mac Stephens, the commissioner of Euclid's three teams, said they are pulling out of the league, partially because of the Hudson fans. But he said he's also unhappy with the league's board, of which he is a member, and its unresponsiveness to complaints about officiating.

"I had never seen the blackface or Afro wigs," Stephens said. "To be honest, I was a little surprised when I heard about it."

Elffers said in a written statement that the Hudson fans' actions were foolish and insensitive but not intended to insult or offend. He said Hudson's teams have played in the league for 15 years and have not received previous complaints about the costumes, even against other teams with black players.

Paul Samide, a Hudson fan, said they have worn black wigs and face paint for years because of the team's nickname, Black Hawks.

The league has 1,200 players ages 7 to 11 on 50 teams.

Wow, white people still don't get it.

[BigLew]

Wow, white people still don't get it.
Is this a suprise?

[monkeygone2]

You know some jerk's going to chime in with
'Well, Dave Chappelle wore whiteface...'

Sad but true: some people need a history lesson on blackface and minstrel shows before they 'get it'.

[snailpoo]

You know some jerk's going to chime in with
'Well, Dave Chappelle wore whiteface...'

Sad but true: some people need a history lesson on blackface and minstrel shows before they 'get it'.
Context says a lot, and judging this situation purely based upon the fact that they painted their faces black doesn't explicitly make it an insult.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41859000/jpg/_41859538_frenchpaint416.jpg

Are red, white, and blue people supposed to be offended by this?

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/stateb/media/facepaint.jpg

Or who is supposed to be offended by this?

http://web.wireimage.com/images/thumbnail/4149122.jpg

Obviously, every other color is fine, but just because it's black?

http://www.nbc11.com/2006/0329/8340691_240X180.jpg

... or is half of Raider nation racist too?


It's not the blackhawk fans with painted faces that are racist. It's whomever used the racial slur.


Symbols are only racist when they have the intent behind them. ...or would you be calling Buddhists anti-Semetic?

[monkeygone2]

All I read was black face paint + afro wigs = Black Hawks.

[monkeygone2]

"Symbols are only racist when they have the intent behind them. ...or would you be calling Buddhists anti-Semetic?"
--snailpoo

Wow, you sounded just like Tom Hanks in...
No, I would not accuse "Buddhists" and Native Americans to be Nazi sympathisers. Who would argue that?

I remember seeing the slant-eyed, buck-toothed "Asian" Halloween masks on the news last year.
I don't think the kids who bought them INTENDED Yellow Peril... but they (and their parents) should've known better.

[BeTheReds]

"Symbols are only racist when they have the intent behind them. ...or would you be calling Buddhists anti-Semetic?"
--snailpoo

Wow, you sounded just like Tom Hanks in...
No, I would not accuse "Buddhists" and Native Americans to be Nazi sympathisers. Who would argue that?

I remember seeing the slant-eyed, buck-toothed "Asian" Halloween masks on the news last year.
I don't think the kids who bought them INTENDED Yellow Peril... but they (and their parents) should've known better.


I disagree. Even if the kids didn't mean any harm, it's obvious that the masks were meant to portray Asians.

From the information we have in the article, it isn't clear that the black hawks fans meant to portray Black people, while it is certainly possible....

[eos]

blackhawks....isn't that supposed to be native american? come on, if you're gonna make a fool out of yourself at least get the image right. they HAVE to look like that dude on the chicago blackhawks jersey, or else no sale.

[monkeygone2]

I disagree. Even if the kids didn't mean any harm, it's obvious that the masks were meant to portray Asians.

From the information we have in the article, it isn't clear that the black hawks fans meant to portray Black people, while it is certainly possible....

Yes, but blackface, like the asian masks, is a very obvious image; a very racist image. So people should know better. It's not about being PC (btw, I hate that term)... ah nevermind. Buddhists are Nazis.

[VV o n g B a]

blackface might make sense in the context of blackhawks, but afro wigs? are u kidding me? how is there any doubt whatsoever that ppl wearing both intend to portray blacks?

http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/11/29/BlackfaceBetas.jpg
i suppose those auburn frat guys aren't racist or being offensive b/c no blacks were present at the parties so there's no "intent" to offend. and anyways, they're just pretending to have deep tans. those aren't faux gang signs they're throwing, they're frat brother signs... yeah.

http://radgeek.com/gt/images/au-halloween-lynching.jpg
i suppose these guys at another au halloween party aren't being offensive either b/c they're simply roleplaying a historical incident they learned about in school. who could possibly get offended at that?

so please, don't stop jumping to the defense of those completely innocent and blameless white fans who only meant well when they dressed up in blackface and afro wigs when they faced a black team. their own team's use of the oh so politically correct american indian mascot completely explains their use of those politically correct afro wigs. only the most shallow and uptight ppl could ever see anything wrong w/ that situation.

[CBC guy]

^ Liked the first pic with the white people pretending to have "deep tans" :tongue:

and about the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team... (I'm a hockey fan so yeah I know this stuff) I think it was named after an army unit in WWI which named itself the "Black Hawks" and yes its supposed to be native American. I've always liked the Blackhawks jerseys though, they look pretty sharp IMO.

[BeTheReds]

Yes, but blackface, like the asian masks, is a very obvious image; a very racist image. So people should know better. It's not about being PC (btw, I hate that term)... ah nevermind. Buddhists are Nazis.

Right, but the intent of the Asian mask is to portray Asians. We don't know what the intent of painting themselves black and wearing those wigs was. I'm not denying that it's possible that there was intent.

[BeTheReds]

blackface might make sense in the context of blackhawks, but afro wigs? are u kidding me? how is there any doubt whatsoever that ppl wearing both intend to portray blacks?

http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/11/29/BlackfaceBetas.jpg
i suppose those auburn frat guys aren't racist or being offensive b/c no blacks were present at the parties so there's no "intent" to offend. and anyways, they're just pretending to have deep tans. those aren't faux gang signs they're throwing, they're frat brother signs... yeah.


Intent! They are obviously obviously trying to portray black people.

http://radgeek.com/gt/images/au-halloween-lynching.jpg
i suppose these guys at another au halloween party aren't being offensive either b/c they're simply roleplaying a historical incident they learned about in school. who could possibly get offended at that?


That, regardless of intent represents something, flying the rebel flag and wearing the KKK outfit... Even if the kids themselves meant no harm by it, then the problem is that the image clearly represents something offensive.

so please, don't stop jumping to the defense of those completely innocent and blameless white fans who only meant well when they dressed up in blackface and afro wigs when they faced a black team. their own team's use of the oh so politically correct american indian mascot completely explains their use of those politically correct afro wigs. only the most shallow and uptight ppl could ever see anything wrong w/ that situation.

Jumping to their defense I am not. All I am saying is that it isn't clear what took place according to the article. All that it says is that they wore afro wigs (which could really just mean puffy wigs that are common at almost all sports events) and that some people painted their skin black (see the raiders example above).

[monkeygone2]

Come on, man.
Obviously the Raider pic is not the same thing and in no way can be associated with blackface.
The Raider guy, the blue/white guy, the blue/white/red guy are super fans aka face painters. This is fucking silly!
You guys should conduct an experiment this Halloween: one guy wears the Raider's face paint, while another guy wears black face paint and black "puffy wig". Trick-or-treat in NYC and see who makes it back home.

[Arex]

To those that are trying to give these guys the benefit of the doubt simply because it's possible they had no racist intent, at best you're defending them because they are ignorant.

Unlike "red white and blue face" or "seahawk face" or "silver darth maul face," blackface has a significant history behind it and is almost universally understood to be a racist caricature of an African American person.

Personally, I think it's about time we stopped giving people free passes for their offensive behavior simply because of their purported ignorance. Just because they didn't know that covering their faces with black makeup and wearing afros might be offensive doesn't make their actions acceptable. They should know better, or if they don't, they should be made to know better.

[BeTheReds]

So basically you're saying that nobody ever ever ever should wear the puffy wig if it is colored black, and nobody should ever paint their faces black.

I disagree, based on context alone. I'm not coming to the defense of the people in this particular case even, because it isn't clear even what they did from the article and accompanying video. I acknowledge that it is definately possible that they were in the wrong. I'd have to see what took place to clearly condemn or defend their actions.

-----
Somewhat unrelated event but relevant to the discussion of intent.

My mother (white) has always been an admirer of Harriet Tubman. Her church (which is majority black) had a wax museum event a couple years back, and she went as Harriet Tubman. To accomplish her costume, she wore slave looking clothes and painted her skin black. I was alarmed. Mom! Don't you know the history of Blackface? Don't you know that you could invoke a reaction you aren't intending to by dressing like that, even if you mean well? She chose to ignore my warnings and went anyway. Now, taken out of context... there's no question that my mom is intending to portray a Black woman by putting on black face. Despicable! Anyway later I learned that her representation of Harriet Tubman was well recieved by the Church body. And my expectation that she'd be labeled a racist by everyone was negated. So it is based on INTENT that this case of CLEAR blackface was non-offensive to the audience.

Different entirely from what the fans did, as first, if they are meant to portray black people, it's not out of admiration of a specific person. Next parts of the audience (the opposing team and fans) felt that their intent was to mock black people. That's where the difference lies then. Not only on intent, but on how it is recieved, and I think we are all in agreement with that. But what I am not convinced of in this case, is if the fans were trying to portray black people, or just coloring themselves black in support of the color of the team... I agree then that they weren't careful enough because the other side recieved what they did the wrong way...

[monkeygone2]

^ Oh my God.
Thankfully, your mother's church knows her and the congregation is a close family because... Oh my God.

The fact that your calling your mother's act (and the Raider's face paint) "blackface"...

[friedfishribs]

Personally, I think it's about time we stopped giving people free passes for their offensive behavior simply because of their purported ignorance. Just because they didn't know that covering their faces with black makeup and wearing afros might be offensive doesn't make their actions acceptable. They should know better, or if they don't, they should be made to know better.

I completely agree, especially since, nowadays, so many people choose to be willfully ignorant. The power of these racist caricatures isn't in their intent, but in how they dehumanize what they're portraying. They take human beings and summarize them by a few exagerrated physical features. They've turned a person into an object. Of course, white people who have grown into this society, expecting that minorities are less human than whites, are perfectly able to perpetuate this racism while having perfectly pure intentions.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I'm not sure about all the details but um...regarding whether or not the people who wore those wigs and painted their faces were ignorant or carried the intention to offend, don't the racial slurs that accompanied said costumes answer the question?

[snailpoo]

Come on, man.
Obviously the Raider pic is not the same thing and in no way can be associated with blackface.
The Raider guy, the blue/white guy, the blue/white/red guy are super fans aka face painters. This is fucking silly!

No, look at what you've done.

You've basically said that face painting is ok, being a superfan is ok, and using any color is ok... EXCEPT for black.

Now why?

You make the allowance for black face paint for the Raiders fan, yet you what? Oh right, you denied it for the Blackhawks fan.

Now, would you care to explain this dichotomy? Is it only racist if you use face paint to support little league teams? NFL teams and national teams are obviously ok in your book, but little league teams... oh horror. Must be racism.

And note the interesting thing:
Come on, man.
Obviously the Raider pic is not the same thing and in no way can be associated with blackface.

From the picture, you're able to tell me that the Raider picture "in no way can be associated with blackface."

From the article, can you say the same? The article states that "fans Paul Samide, a Hudson fan, said they have worn black wigs and face paint for years because of the team's nickname, Black Hawks." You apparently can tell the difference from a picture, so where is your ability to tell from the article?


Well, this is where your argument really dies:

You guys should conduct an experiment this Halloween: one guy wears the Raider's face paint, while another guy wears black face paint and black "puffy wig". Trick-or-treat in NYC and see who makes it back home.

Did you miss it?

Here's a hint: intent.

In your first scenario, you're dressed up as a fan. What is the intent in the second scenario? Do you not find it interesting that your second scenario was SPECIFICALLY DEVOID OF INTENT? The correct analogy for the second scenario would be to have a kid wear black face paint, a black wig, and a BLACK HAWK jersey.

You've made the allowance for face paint and for wings for the super fans. You've made the allowance for black face paint and black wigs for the Raiders fan. But you draw the line for black face paint and black wigs for Black Hawks fans.

The VERY FACT that you ALLOW Raiders super fans to paint their face black means that YOU ADMIT INTENT is a key factor in determining if racism is present in a symbol. ...and that is where you lose this argument.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Well wait, isn't one of the main factors here the idea that the people referenced in the article who wore the black face paint and black wigs were in fact not Black Hawks fans at all but instead on the opposing side? Judging from the context alone, I think we can safely assume that they had the intent to ridicule and not idolize or support, regardless of whether or not it was racially-charged ridicule or not.

[snailpoo]

HUDSON, Ohio - Teams in two Cleveland suburbs are quitting a youth football league because of racially insensitive actions by fans, coaches said.

Shaker Heights and Euclid planned to leave the North Coast Youth Football Conference after the championship game this weekend.

Shaker Heights and Euclid are quitting.


Elffers said in a written statement that the Hudson fans' actions were foolish and insensitive but not intended to insult or offend. He said Hudson's teams have played in the league for 15 years and have not received previous complaints about the costumes, even against other teams with black players.

Paul Samide, a Hudson fan, said they have worn black wigs and face paint for years because of the team's nickname, Black Hawks.

Hudson was the team wearing black, and apparently it's the Hudson Black Hawks.

[friedfishribs]

People that paint their faces black to support the Raiders aren't doing it to take on the physical characteristics of another race. They're just face painting.

It's a matter of interpretation, but painting your face black, putting on an afro wig, and using racial slurs is pretty telling. What we're debating isn't "good" or "bad" intent, only whether or not these fans were trying to dress themselves up in blackface. If they were, then intent or not, it's racist and dehumanizing. And clearly, the Pee Wee teams thought it was significant.

[BeTheReds]

Watch the video with the article and things will be revealed.

Not one person wore the wig and the facepaint together. One kid had facepaint, one teen/adult had a wig.

It isn't clear that either of them were the ones using the racial slur. Perhaps the video was not getting the full situation. I'm in no way absolving them from what happened, because even with the video we can't accurately tell what went on... but it does leave room for at least gauging intent.

[snailpoo]

People that paint their faces black to support the Raiders aren't doing it to take on the physical characteristics of another race. They're just face painting.

It's a matter of interpretation, but painting your face black, putting on an afro wig, and using racial slurs is pretty telling. What we're debating isn't "good" or "bad" intent, only whether or not these fans were trying to dress themselves up in blackface. If they were, then intent or not, it's racist and dehumanizing. And clearly, the Pee Wee teams thought it was significant.

Clearly the ones who used the racial slur were wrong.

But labeling everyone else racist for just using black face paint and black wigs? That is where you look at intent, and that is where I disagree with monkeygone who just asserts a blanket ban of that one color of face paint.

[monkeygone2]

People that paint their faces black to support the Raiders aren't doing it to take on the physical characteristics of another race. They're just face painting.

It's a matter of interpretation, but painting your face black, putting on an afro wig, and using racial slurs is pretty telling. What we're debating isn't "good" or "bad" intent, only whether or not these fans were trying to dress themselves up in blackface. If they were, then intent or not, it's racist and dehumanizing. And clearly, the Pee Wee teams thought it was significant.

It doesn't matter how many times you spell it out for some people, ignorance is ignorance.
Just goes to show that it's not 'just a white thing'.
Here, it's the interpretation not the intent. Which brings me back to my first statement: sad but true, some people need a history lesson on blackface and minstrel shows before they 'get it'.

[snailpoo]

It doesn't matter how many times you spell it out for some people, ignorance is ignorance.
Just goes to show that it's not 'just a white thing'.
Here, it's the interpretation not the intent. Which brings me back to my first statement: sad but true, some people need a history lesson on blackface and minstrel shows before they 'get it'.

Now this is interesting.

Instead of actually coming back with anything substantive, you come back and mindlessly repeat your tired argument without explaining anything, without explaining any point, or without responding to any argument.

You accuse us of ignorant, yet you preach to the the ones who agree.

Who is truly ignorant?


All of us are aware of the history of blackface. Yet YOU are the one unable to differentiate the difference between Black Hawk fans and Raiders fans. YOU are the one unable to explain your hypocrisy, in light of blackface, to allow Raiders fans the use of blackface but deny Black Hawks fans.


And the most amusing thing?


Here, it's the interpretation not the intent.
You've clearly lost your original position that black face paint is simply banned.

You're now hedging on "interpretation." What is "interpretation?" The audience's perception of the artist's INTENT.

Which brings me back to my originial question: You've obviously interpreted something from the article to say that the artist's intent was racist. Care to show us a picture of how you reached your interpretation?

Or are you just making a blanket judgment?


Try to answer with something substantive before calling people ignorant. Otherwise you just give the appearance of a little child talking his ball, and going home.

[monkeygone2]

"Yet YOU are the one unable to differentiate the difference between Black Hawk fans and Raiders fans. " snailpoo

Huh? No thats you.
That "Star Wars" Raider pic would never be associated w/ blackface.
But total black face paint w/ afro, uhh I mean black puffy wig can.
Try the Halloween experiment w/ BOTH jeresys on.
Interpretation vs intent. We live in a modern world where racism is done with a wink.

[snailpoo]

And for all your posturing, your little argument has boiled down to:

Interpretation vs intent. We live in a modern world where racism is done with a wink.

In other words:
You've clearly lost your original position that black face paint is simply banned.

You're now hedging on "interpretation." What is "interpretation?" The audience's perception of the artist's INTENT.

Which brings me back to my originial question: You've obviously interpreted something from the article to say that the artist's intent was racist. Care to show us a picture of how you reached your interpretation?

Or are you just making a blanket judgment?


Try to answer with something substantive before calling people ignorant. Otherwise you just give the appearance of a little child talking his ball, and going home.


Oh, and should you, on the off chance that you did not actually base your ASSUMPTION of racism on actual evidence, come back with something substantive, ie, some real proof of actual blackface as opposed to your term of "super fan," let me go ahead and make a further argument:

Do you then judge racism based upon the skill of the artist, keeping in mind that the Raider's fan as shown is an adult with adult artistic skill, or at least the money to pay someone with such skill, where as the pee wee football fan is a kid who may not reach that level of imagination?

Keep in mind, however, that until you actually come back with something substantive, you don't even reach this level of argument --you're still stuck looking for a substantive answer to "intent" since your "interpretation" attempt to weasel out just isn't cutting it.

[monkeygone2]

You accuse us of ignorant,

Who is "us"?
If "us" you mean you, that's on you because it wasn't my "intent".

But seriously, I didn't intend on having my first 20 yellowworld posts on this topic, make enemies on my first day, and insure my zero karma status.
It's a free country and you can paint your face black, wear an afro wig, and call it whatever you want.

http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=240
Racist Pee Wee Football Fans Taunt Black Children

[snailpoo]

Who is "us"?
If "us" you mean you, that's on you because it wasn't my "intent".

Hrm.

It doesn't matter how many times you spell it out for some people, ignorance is ignorance.
Just goes to show that it's not 'just a white thing'.

:rolleyes:

[monkeygone2]

Hrm.



:rolleyes:

Like the pee wee football fans in blackface, my intent was misread.:wink: :wink:

[snailpoo]

Like the pee wee football fans in blackface, my intent was misread.:wink: :wink:

Only if your skill in posting is comparable to pee wee fingerpainting abilities. :wink: :wink:

Or maybe we should have just not actually read anything you posted and just assumed something about you.

[BeTheReds]

Knock it off guys. Debating is fine but you guys are making it personal.

[monkeygone2]

Do we gauge a person's intent based on their level of artistic abillity in applying the face paint?
Well snailpoo, minstrel shows were considered an art form back in the day. But whether you have a steady technique in the application of black paint to your face (cleanly and evenly),or a less refined style of application (because of your age, drunken state, etc)... that's not the point.
But like I said earlier, it's a free country. You are free to wear blackface and do it with pride. Just make sure I'm not within arms length of you.
http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=240

[monkeygone2]

Knock it off guys. Debating is fine but you guys are making it personal.

you're probably right.
i thought yellowworld would be a fun distraction from work- typing on the fly, debating with my peeps...
but this wasn't fun.
i don't know... these days, public acts of racism are done w/ a wink.

[snailpoo]

Do we gauge a person's intent based on their level of artistic abillity in applying the face paint?
Well snailpoo, minstrel shows were considered an art form back in the day. But whether you have a steady technique in the application of black paint to your face (cleanly and evenly),or a less refined style of application (because of your age, drunken state, etc)... that's not the point.
But like I said earlier, it's a free country. You are free to wear blackface and do it with pride. Just make sure I'm not within arms length of you.
http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=240

And round and round go.


Since you're doing nothing but repeating yourself, I guess I will do the same for the last time:

If these kids dressed up for the purpose of taking on the physical characteristics of another race, ie blackface, then its clearly racist, especially if they were using racial slurs. In the article, there are kids who did do this, and those kids were clearly wrong.

If these kids dressed up for the purpose of team spirit, and if their team colors happened to be black, then it is clearly ok. In the article there were OTHER kids who, apparently, have done this for years, before the non-white teams were added to the league, and these OTHER kids were clearly fine.


Again, you've come up with NOTHING to differentiate black face paint from the Raiders super fan from the black face paint of the pee wee Blackhawks fan, yet you persist in your ASSUMPTION that ANY black face paint must be racist blackface WHILE you contradict yourself by making allowance for the fans of professional sports.

Things to note: since you obviously missed it, the Raiders super fan is an adult. His artistic ability in painting his face is likely greater than that of a random kid. His ability to render designs is probably better than a random kid who might have coloring in the lines. Therefore, it's interesting how absurd your standards are for your assumptions of racism, when you can see racism in 1. the lack of artistic ability, 2. pee wee vs professional sports, 3. the simple use of the color black (because, as you admit, all team colors may be used as face paint... but black).

And when your criteria for your ASSUMPTION of racism is ephemiral and irrelevant standards such as artistic ability, pro status, and arbitrary color, guess how much weight you have when you ASSERT, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT ARGUMENTS, that intent shouldn't be used in judging whether or not a fan with a painted face is racist?



I've probably wasted more time than I should on this thread, as I seriously doubt that you will break your chain of simply repeating yourself. If you are here to argue, argue with substance. Give reasons for why you assume what you assume, instead of simply asserting your empty claim of knowledge without giving anything substantive to back up your point.

[monkeygone2]

... and around we go...

Sorry snailpoo, but you are the only person here who did nothing but repeat your first post. Over and over.

After a certain point, I started repeating myself because you refused to address the real issue; instead deflecting by making BLACKFACE an issue of makeup application ability.

Instead of posting pics of Darth Maul to strengthen your arguement, why not post pics of people wearing B-L-A-C-K-F-A-C-E in an ethnically diverse American pro sports arena?

BLACKFACE (not Darth Maul, not Sea Hawks paint, not The Crow, not Kiss makeup) is the issue. And you know that (except for small closed off events or rural areas where open acts of racism are tolerated) wearing BLACKFACE can incite a riot... and for good reason.

Did the Milwaukee Braves 'update' their logo because they simply found a better drawer?

[snailpoo]

... and around we go...

Sorry snailpoo, but you are the only person here who did nothing but repeat your first post. Over and over.

Now here's a fun little exercise as to who is the one repeating their assertions over and over again without any further elaboration:

In your last post you say:


After a certain point, I started repeating myself because you refused to address the real issue; instead deflecting by making BLACKFACE an issue of makeup application ability.

But in my last post, posted BEFORE yours, I've already answered with:


If these kids dressed up for the purpose of taking on the physical characteristics of another race, ie blackface, then its clearly racist, especially if they were using racial slurs. In the article, there are kids who did do this, and those kids were clearly wrong.

If these kids dressed up for the purpose of team spirit, and if their team colors happened to be black, then it is clearly ok. In the article there were OTHER kids who, apparently, have done this for years, before the non-white teams were added to the league, and these OTHER kids were clearly fine.

Have you addressed my point? No. You've merely restated your original first post.

Have you said anything as to why intent as a criteria for judging racism is invalid? No.

Have you said anything as to why these teams would have done their black face paint team spirit costumes BEFORE the non-white teams joined the league? No.

In fact, have you said ANYTHING NEW to in YOUR last post to disprove this point in MY last post?

No.


But let us continue:


Instead of posting pics of Darth Maul to strengthen your arguement, why not post pics of people wearing B-L-A-C-K-F-A-C-E in an ethnically diverse American pro sports arena?
Funny. I asked you the very same question:
Again, you've come up with NOTHING to differentiate black face paint from the Raiders super fan from the black face paint of the pee wee Blackhawks fan, yet you persist in your ASSUMPTION that ANY black face paint must be racist blackface WHILE you contradict yourself by making allowance for the fans of professional sports.

Did you read my post? In that post, I asked you quite a few questions that destroyed your argument:

Where is YOUR proof of that the Blackhawks fans were wearing "blackface?"

What is your differentiation between "blackface" and a fan's black face paint?

Where is your PROOF that these differentiations were not present in the Blackhawks fans?

And, if you read through my post, the there's also the question as to IF these differentiations weren't there, how do you know the lack of these differentiations wasn't due to the age and skill of the painter?

Did you answer any of these questions from my last post? No. You just mindlessly restated your original position.


And finally, there's:

BLACKFACE (not Darth Maul, not Sea Hawks paint, not The Crow, not Kiss makeup) is the issue. And you know that (except for small closed off events or rural areas where open acts of racism are tolerated) wearing BLACKFACE can incite a riot... and for good reason.
To which the answer is:

Things to note: since you obviously missed it, the Raiders super fan is an adult. His artistic ability in painting his face is likely greater than that of a random kid. His ability to render designs is probably better than a random kid who might have coloring in the lines.

And this argument leads us into:


Therefore, it's interesting how absurd your standards are for your assumptions of racism, when you can see racism in 1. the lack of artistic ability, 2. pee wee vs professional sports, 3. the simple use of the color black (because, as you admit, all team colors may be used as face paint... but black).

And when your criteria for your ASSUMPTION of racism is ephemiral and irrelevant standards such as artistic ability, pro status, and arbitrary color, guess how much weight you have when you ASSERT, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT ARGUMENTS, that intent shouldn't be used in judging whether or not a fan with a painted face is racist?

To which you have no answer.

And because I can use my last post to not only match, point by point, your last post, but also show where you failed to answer arguments ALREADY MADE, you're the one mindlessly repeating your assertions.




But most importantly, let's travel a little farther back in time to an old part of the argument:


And the most amusing thing?
Here, it's the interpretation not the intent.

You've clearly lost your original position that black face paint is simply banned.

You're now hedging on "interpretation." What is "interpretation?" The audience's perception of the artist's INTENT.

Which brings me back to my originial question: You've obviously interpreted something from the article to say that the artist's intent was racist. Care to show us a picture of how you reached your interpretation?

Or are you just making a blanket judgment?


Try to answer with something substantive before calling people ignorant. Otherwise you just give the appearance of a little child talking his ball, and going home.

... and that, is where you dug yourself into a argumentative pit that you still haven't moved from. That is where you lost. Why?

If you're arguing for an absolutist binary standard against a relativist standard of intent, you've just shot yourself in the foot by moving toward interpretation.

I suspect you're smart enough to realize this, since you conveniently let this mistake of yours drop, but when you're arguing standards, and when your standards become arbitrary (see that last post to where you had no answer), you still havent found a better answer out of your pit.



This has ceased to be an argument on the issue, but more a debate clinic. Since it's not my job to waste my time teaching you how to argue, I'm going to leave it at this unless you actually come back with anything substantive and on point.

[monkeygone2]

Could you repeat that?