To find this disturbing for a number of reasons....

[Tinlegs]

Photograph, posted on Facebook (and, therefore, in my eyes, endorsed) by a teacher of a group of people dressed up for Halloween. One person, "blacked up" (face mask, brownish make up on neck etc) one person "whitened up" (face mask, White make up) and a third person, also made up but in a brown colour. "Black man" wearing track suit, trainers and lots and lots of jewellery. "White woman" in curlers, Primark hoodie, track suit bottoms, heels. "Brown person" (an adult) in a child's buggy with a bottle, dummy and carrying what looks like a lunch box.

AIBU to think that this is racist and stereotyping of the worst kind. That they are dressed as a mixed race "chav" (not a word I would use but...) low income family who bottle feeds their baby, dresses badly and pushes a very old child around, who are all overweight etc.

Now I know these people. The area we live in is NOT at all multi cultural so there is unlikely to have been anyone offended at the party. But I am offended.

FWIW at least one of these people works with children on a daily basis.

Mumsnet, over to you.

Anyhow, Night all. Thanks for the discussion and glad it has ended (at least for the moment) a bit more civaly than the bunfight it turned in to for a while!

(need to go to bed as I'm missing so many phone autocorrect typos: 'Fave' instead of 'Face' indeed! Lol)

I was going to respond to this thread yesterday but after attending a very moving remembrance service in the company of some young people about to start their careers in the armed forces and watching some of the historical programming to mark the 75th anniversary of the 1st World War, and the horrific testimony from Kristallnacht survivors on the news this week I was too sad to write.

Really learn your history guys...don't just stick a poppy on today and feel self satisfied because you've paid your respects. Think DEEPLY about the causes our service personnel have and continue to lose their lives or health for.

The freedom that we enjoy as a result of their sacrifice comes with big responsibilities. One of them is to prevent prejudice and discrimination from taking root in our country. We know where it leads to. We don't have the excuse that we couldn't imagine such horrors. We have been warned!

OP YANBU ...I'd seriously want to know if this person was teaching my children. Not just because of the sentiment which must lie behind something like this ... But putting it in FB shows a shocking lack of judgement that I can only assume reflects generally low standards elsewhere.

Very sad. I wonder if this teacher be 'leading' a special remembrance assembly in school today too.... Sigh!

dramaqueen I wasn't referring to your post, I was just thinking of some very cringey amdram productions where people have blacked up for roles. There are a million musicals out there -why would you choose one with a slave in if you had no Black actors? Personally I would steer well clear of anything with slaves in anyway. Just like I wouldn't put on carousel because it endorses domestic violence! Some musicals are just outdated. ..

And I'm laughing thinking of Micheal Jackson add a good example of a black role model...

There are lots of "authentic" ways of doing productions that are no longer acceptable. Child acting troupes, treated as slaves. Women not allowed on stage. Real canons used for sound effects. Plays performed in daylight to allow people, pre electricity, to see.

Blacking someone up comes under the heading of "Historical" and should not have a place in the modern theatre.

In many professions, you have a code of conduct and within this, there is highly likely to be a section about not bringing the profession into dispute and yes, this includes in your personal life.

Here are just a few of the above discussed professionals who are all managed by the regulatory body Health and Care Professions Council: arts therapists, biomedical scientists, chiropodists / podiatrists, clinical scientists, dietitians, hearing aid dispensers, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners, orthoptists, paramedics, physiotherapists, practitioner psychologists, prosthetists / orthotists, radiographers, social workers in England and speech and language therapists.

A senior NHS Nurse manager posted a FB photo of a black furred dog in a beret and sunglasses titled' Samuel Jackson'.

I found this .

OhMerGerd great post. I also worry about the mentality of someone thinking this is funny and their judgement in posting it, as I do about the thinking of Mylovelyboy and those she worked with who seem proud of having no understanding of respect and dignity in the workplace.

Clearly MYLOvelyBoy is insensitive and proud of it.

I need say no more.

Evidently so Mignonette

kate no worries, I wasn't really offended by your AmDram comment - I was just using it to point out that 'offence' is so easily taken and that lots of things can be offensive without meaning to be.

For a general note - 'All Male' productions of shows are still alive and popular as forms of entertainment. (And very funny and well done too I might add.). They're not done to get at women, they're just done for a bit of fun, women would be just as at liberty to put on an all female production and I have seen those too but they don't seem so common - probably because those I have seen are musicals and it's possible for men to sing alto and soprano using falsetto (a friend of a friend is an amazing falsetto soprano) but not so possible for a woman to sing bass! (Though do know a couple of female tenors.)

Also (again throwing this out there simply as debate, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the statement / question I'm about to type.)

A lot of posters on here are saying (or seem to be saying) that blacking up is more wrong than whiting up be Suse of the historical context: Would our constant banging on about the historical context not be classed as racism by the definitions given earlier in this thread? The reasons being that we look at a person with non-white skin and think 'they've had such a bad history of being prejudiced against' - we're not thinking "That individual has a history of being prejudiced against but that their race has that history so surely at that point in time we are being unintentionally racist (though with the best of intentions) as we are seeing that person as the group definition and not as an individual. I honestly do have plenty of black friends who couldn't give two hoots about if white people chose to black up, one of them even has the nickname N**r which she herself told her friends to use as her philosophy is 'hatred of a word is stupid, it's all about the context. The word 'kitten' could be an offensive term if used to insult someone.' She used to laugh at anyone who wouldn't use that word as her nickname saying they were being sensitive and if she didn't mind why should they? (She would never however laugh at anyone who did not like it as a general term - she totally understood why that was the case, it was just her personal thing.)
However saying that I would never use that word in general conversation or with any other person other than her as I am aware that not all people think like her and with so many options of words (and fancy dress costumes) why take the risk of it causing offence when a different course of action can easily be taken?!

Drama, I hope that someone since, has explained to your friend what "triggers" are.en.

My sister still reacts with anxiety when racist verbal abusive words are spoken. We both suffered racist abuse, because my Mothers first husband was from Jamaica and we are all mixed race, in some way.

Some words should die out, in the UK (I wouldn't presume to dictate what happens in the US).

What she insisted on is equivalent to being an only female in a male group and insisting on your nickname being Splitarse, or Slag.

I disagree with the outfit from the piss taking of "the underclass (as a descriptive), even if there wasn't the blacking up.

I can't believe that people who are educated don't get why this is unacceptable.

As my counter argument for the same of debate I would like to show THIS article explaining the original context of many well known and commonly used phrases that no one would bat an eyelid at now but origionaly had racist or offensive connotations. This is just one article of many that can be found by googling 'offensive origins of well known phrases'. I'm just saying that, as stated in Harry Potter with the name Voldermort, fear of a name/word only increases fear of the thing itself. If we edit language use so that people can't say certain words we are keeping the idea of racism prevalent in society and still highlighting that people are different because of the past.

(again I'm not saying of I agree or disagree with that statement, just saying it as debate. )

Yes I do realise that some of the 'definitions' in that article may be false! It's just debate. (Though for that matter, many nursery rhymes have far far more disturbing connotations which are much more widely believed by scolars to be true so.....)

Blacking up is offensive because of it's history. If you haven't already then you need to research it. It's just as offensive as the word ni**er.

@Drama black people are still prejudiced against in 2013 so you may not even have to think of their ancestors history, they have experienced it themselves. So that's not thinking of them as a group.

I am mixed raced with a Caribbean mum.

Sorry to post again but birds I am sorry for the abuse you and your family have suffered, there really is no excuse for it, especially in this day and age. Again, purely for debate sake, if the abusers had used words like 'kitten', cotton bud, overcoat, table, and other such nonsense words but in just as offensive a manner how much 'better' would it be or wouldn't it?
From my POV I see no need to be abusive to people to begin with, but if someone is abusive I don't see how words on their own can be offensive as surely the context and intent of the speaker are the biggest and only important factors? I'd never use certain words myself, but only because I see no need to as I'd never abuse someone and for descriptive uses there are plenty of other options, I just really really can't get my head round why a word in itself is offensive. (And again I'll say I've been bullied all my life and been called names that I should apparently be highly upset by but I'm not. For me it's context and intent that hurt not a collection of letters and sounds.)

knowledge yes that's true and it's a sad sad fact of society. I hardly notice the colour of my friends' skin or at least no more than I'd notice their eye or hair colour.
I'm not saying by my posts that I disagree with people finding the terms offensive personally just trying to get my head round why a word on its own means do much even when not used in an offensive manner. I think of so many words that have gone in the opposite direction (for example C* was not an offensive word at all origionaly) and just wonder why words are not allowed to go the opposite way.

I am not getting into the debate on language, I personally think that language (or the use of) is important in the fight against bigotry.

To answer your point, how do we ever really know the intent behind the speaker, or the thought process?

You probably don't see it as important, if you aren't Lilly to be attacked (or murdered) because of your racial background.

Most on here are female, we are all at times vulnerable.

Language can shape how we think, once we become deprecate (because someone is thought if as just a "nigger/paki/slut", it puts us in greater danger.

The laws around hate speech are working and are shown to be making life better for anyone who is "different".

Study the psychology behind Naxi propaganda, or even modern day advertising, the evidence is there why language and association is important, in shaping the publics thought processes and actions.

Thank you birds I've been asking the same question quite a bit on the thread and noone has been able to give me a satisfactory answer so far. I will look in to the stuff you have mentioned. as I've said I'm just trying to get a better underatand

*understanding of that which I don't fully understand. With understanding comes knowledge and tolerance in my view. Please be assured though (everyone) that why I may not understand such issues so use questioning to try to do so, this does not mean that I don't understand that there is an issue and so steer clear of such things in general usage!

Drama why has this now become all about you?

Yes, you might like to play around and have a debate, but for a lot of folk, this is their reality; facing prejudice on a daily basis.

I'm not meaning this to be all about me and apologies if it seems that way. I just saw the bunfight that this was and wanted to turn it back to civilised discussion. I guess I got carried away with my own curiosity. Apologies.

Calling people on their offensive views isn't a bunfight, Drama

Some groups in our society are still more vulnerable than others, because they are made scape goats out of (thinking of the DM).

Language categorises us, whilst we can all, at times be a,"dickhead, twat, or knobhead", we all can't be a, "nigger, paki, whore", or "Asylum seeker, single Mum, immigrant".

There was a recent experiment done where people were shown acts of violence against different groups of people. The stress and emphatic response was less if the watcher thought of the victim as different from them. They were hooked up to response readers and the physical response was different, as well as what they said.

Once we categorise people, we make negative assumptions about them, they are in some ways lesser, or to blame, so deserve less, that is when it gets dangerous.

That is why it is important not to categorise people, or allow language to continue that has negative connotations, as it will be used by people who are following an agenda, such as the BNP, which then requires really in depth thinking to not get caught up in, because it appears so reasonal, or "common sense".

If it didn't work, the government wouldn't use this tatic. Categorise benefit claimants, keep the assumptions coming and it seems reasonable that those people shouldn't have enough money to live on and decent housing, even if it is in work benefits.