'Blackfishing'

[jellyfrizz]

www.theguardian.com/fashion/2020/apr/14/blackfishing-black-is-cool-unless-youre-actually-black

But surely this is ok if you are actually black but born with the wrong skin pigmentation?

Quarantina rather than dismissively responding with 'yawn' to my comment, I would genuinely love for you to answer my question

When someone thinks their position is unassailable, or beyond reproach or question, than they also tend to think that the same rules do not apply to them....and that engagement is not necessary.

we see it so many times on this board wit trans activists...who never engage with content or debate, they simply refute.

And no, not all women or feminists or people who post primarily on the women's rights board are in unilateral agreement with each other, either. All ideologies, no matter how comfortable one is in them, have to be up for discussion - certainly when we live in a society in which free thought and speech is permitted, and even encouraged.

I ask this as I'm a good chunk Asian but nobody would read that from me unless I told them. So I always wonder where me, and the bajillions of people like me stand on the issue. People think this is really clear cut but it isn't. The human race is really, really mixed up

But that doesn't fit conveniently into the inter-sectionalist perspective - which relies totally on Identity and the politics of identity - in which one must know one's place.

I did appreciate your point about sex being slightly different, though.......with the exception of inter-sex conditions, one is either male or female. I guess all human beings ( regardless of natal sex) do have an X chromosome, though, it's just that males also have a Y in place of an additional X. Beyond sex, or any other 'feature', we are all united by being human.

I think if we are seeing a white model or actor getting a black role in blackface, that's got to be appropriation, and racist.

I don't think the question of people performing a role is really the same question in the same way as celebrities supposedly being themselves. The assumption that a person playing a role that is a different race is some sort of appropriation is IMO an entirely American construction and one that's not particularly logically sound, or really relevant to other theatre traditions worldwide.

Goosefoot
Men user to play female parts because women weren't allowed to act.
We have black actors now, there's really no need for a white actor to black up to play a part.
And I mentioned celebrities and instagrammers separately; "being yourself" doesn't stretch to the pic attached.

I agree with you, FlyingOink. To me, culturally influential figures (like the example you've posted) need to be more aware/careful than random kids playing with fashion and wanting to look like their favourite stars.

There's still lots of tension around that though, and I know there are lots of people out there who would disagree. Which is why coming up with a "ruleset" for appropriation interests me - I don't actually think it's possible to do that, but talking about it is a good way to work through all the deeply held feelings people have around it.

I was talking with a friend of Japanese heritage recently about the term "weeb," and we were both wondering at what point British kids go from just liking anime/manga in a typical globalised teen way, to being a reviled weeb, to being a respectable connoisseur of Japanese animation. We agreed that it wasn't as clear cut as you'd think, in spite of my kids being adamant they can spot a weeb at 20 paces.

Men user to play female parts because women weren't allowed to act. We have black actors now, there's really no need for a white actor to black up to play a part.

Not quite sure what it was, but the nonsense over the actor playing "Dr. Who" seemed to touch on similar issues ...

Men user to play female parts because women weren't allowed to act.
We have black actors now, there's really no need for a white actor to black up to play a part. And I mentioned celebrities and instagrammers separately; "being yourself" doesn't stretch to the pic attached.

I'd be interesting to hear from the person in that photo what they were thinking. Was it like when an artist does a self-portrait but makes themselves look different, or you use a snap-chat filter that makes you look older or like the other sex? Was it an exercise in seeing what could be done with make-up?

As far as actors, I don't see it as anything to do with necessity or not. If an actor can convincingly play a role with theatrical make up I am fine with it, whether they are black and are playing Winston Churchill or white and playing Othello, or are a woman and want to play a man. That is what theatre is and actors change their bodies and voices all the time. Some changes of course are unlikely to be convincing.

Not quite sure what it was, but the nonsense over the actor playing "Dr. Who" seemed to touch on similar issues ...

Could the doctor regenerate into a woman rather than a man as in every other instance.

It probably would have been fairly non-controversial had it been introduced farther back as an organic concept about Time Lords, but it seemed so clearly to be invented late in the game to allow them to get onto the gender theory bandwagon it seemed contrived.

It probably would have been fairly non-controversial had it been introduced farther back as an organic concept about Time Lords, but it seemed so clearly to be invented late in the game to allow them to get onto the gender theory bandwagon it seemed contrived.

Nerds (or parents thereof) will know that Romana in the 1977 series was indeed a "female" Time Lord. So it was known they could take a "female" form for 35 years before the faux "controversy".

"female" because of course the character of "The Doctor" is not human.

TheMarzipanDildo came closest to my views on this thread.

Contrary to those claiming there are big differences between GC feminism's take on how women are treated and their take on how race is treated, I see the GC analysis covers both areas clearly.

Namely, that GC feminists would argue that it is not 'gender appropriation' for men to wear long hair, make up, etc eg Boy George, the New Romantics, etc, while making crystal clear they are men and doing it respectfully of women. But drag is offensive because it is harmfully and negatively parodying women. Also, transwomen who put on women's clothing and claim they actually are magically transformed into women are offensive because they do not have women's biology and lived experience, including of oppression.

To apply that to cultural appropriation, people of any race who want to wear street style clothes or a kimono-style dressing gown because they like the look and think it looks good are not a problem, and calling that cultural appropriation is like homophobic, very traditional right-wing men who object to men wearing 'effeminate' clothes and think men should all look like men, and women should all wear make up and never trousers etc. ie 'stay in your lane'.

What is a problem is where people wear clothes or styles of other cultures to deliberately offensive parody them, eg blackface, much as drag is offensive because it offensively parodies women.

The third category, of white people pretending to actually be black in order to benefit from it in career terms, eg Rachel Dolazel or white models darkening their skin, is also offensive, in the same way that so-called transwomen claiming they are actually women and using that to get awards, jobs, rights etc that women have fought for, is offensive.

So I think a GC lens is perfect to explain issues of cultural appropriation, actually.

Or the tl;dr (and better analysed) version is:

There are 3 levels that can be seen as 'cultural appropriation' (or 'gender appropriation', although that term is not usually used), and the GC view would usually be to be fine with (and even welcome) Level 1 but object to L2 and L3.

Level 1 - wear clothes that are similar to or inspired by those of other races or the other sex = fine, not a problem, from a GC point of view. Everyone should be able to wear what they want and not get put in little identity boxes and banned from leaving them. So New Romantics in make up or urban kids in street wear = fine.

Level 2 - wear a grotesque parody of the clothes of other races or the opposite sex = not fine from a GC perspective, eg blackface or drag.

Level 3 - pretend to literally be from another race or sex, with a history of greater oppression than your own, in order to benefit from their hard-won rights or claim their victimhood as your own, eg Rachel Dolazel or Philip Bunce = not OK from a GC perspective.

The 3 levels are not the same, in execution or intent, and I don't think that feminists or anti-racists should be demanding that people only wear the 'allowed' uniform of their sex or race, ie stay in your lane. Insisting that Level 1-type dressing is wrong seems the opposite of progressive to me - I thought we had moved beyond that in the 1970s/1980s.

To me, what used to be approvingly called multi-culturalism but is now denigrated as 'cultural appropriation' makes everyone's lives richer, and I don't want to go back to a world where different races cannot overlap or enjoy each other's cultural traditions, and men must dress like real men and women must look perfectly feminine at all times.

Sorry, my tl;dr version ended up longer than my original post!

Ha! Outed my namechange. Lol. Read all 3 posts.

Thinking about it, it is worrying that the far left and far right seem to be very close on this issue of race as on gender.

It used to be that the left saw cultural mixing as positive, while the far right saw it as dangerous and an attack on the white race. Now the far left also eschews racial mixing.

Similarly, the left used to see breaking down gender stereotypes as progressive. Now the far left argues that gender stereotypes are real, along with the far right, and that therefore men who wear women's clothing can be and are literally women.

When did the far right successfully co-opt the far left? When did the regressive become seen as progressive by some on the far left? Did they notice?

Ha, I agree with you in both your namechanges, xxyzz.

When did the far right successfully co-opt the far left?

It has been said that if you imagine the political spectrum as a circle instead of a straight line, the far right and the far left meet each other at 180 degrees.

It used to be that the left saw cultural mixing as positive, while the far right saw it as dangerous and an attack on the white race. Now the far left also eschews racial mixing.

The lefts only interest in cultural mixing was that it annoyed the right. As soon as the right twigged how easy it was to undermine any semblance of equality by repeatedly finding new differences between any given humans, their work was done. Now (some on) the left realise how they've been played, they've lost interest.

Meanwhile the right are only pursuing an agenda of cultural mixing as they've seen how toxic it's become for the left...

Just a personal opinion - if I knew anyone else that thought like that, I'd cite them ...

"Katie Price used to wear corn row plaits. She has a black child"
I dont see your point with the Katie Price thing. I have a black child. I'm not black. I wont be so insensitive as to go around wearing cornrows, dreads, box braids, or bantu knots.
Those of you saying you dont care about how black women feel really sums it up.

I'm also the mother of a mixed race child with a black DH and there's so many things I wouldn't do.. That isn't an excuse.

I wouldn't say the n word (even if it was in a song), wouldn't wear cornrows.

If you look at the official definition.

the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.

For me the key word is unacknowledged. Noone is saying cultural mixing is a bad thing but understanding the history, cultural significance and symbolism of what you are doing is important.

I went to school with girls who would openly use the p word against the very small number of Asian girls where I grew up. 10 years later I see them at Glastonbury wearing jewels as makeshift bindis and painting their hands with henna. They've decided it's a fashion statement. I believe this is wrong.

effingterrified
It's a good explanation but doesn't it still come back to intent?
Parody or claiming shared victimhood -both malicious intent. (Your options 2&3).

Also the "urban kids in street wear" thing: thinking more about it, there's also a difference between a white kid in a mixed area wearing what their friends wear and a white kid in a completely white area wearing the same thing. The former is natural and the latter is "big up to da Staines massive" a la Alistair Leslie Graham.
This doesn't mean kids in all-white areas don't get to enjoy black music, just not the full cosplay experience, because cosplay would be what it was.

I mean, Lionel Richie sold millions and millions of albums and continues to do so but I don't see millions of white people with jheri curls in his honour. You don't have to go full "Stars in their Eyes".

Joking aside, I think as a teen having the full outfit for any subgroup takes some of the worry away. If you're a goth and you have the long black coat and the boots and the dyed hair etc you're in, you've collected all the pieces and you've unlocked subgroup membership. So I do understand how taking an aesthetic to a ridiculous degree comes about. It's the same thinking behind men who buy the shirt and tie set or whatever the mannequin is wearing, it takes the thinking and the worry out of how to dress.

And let's face it, Rachel Dolezal types aside, this is about a look and music and nothing deeper.
Which is why when the aesthetic is adopted innocently by a young person it is less cynical and less offensive than when a professional exploits the look for cash.

Absolutely agree with xxyzz.

Also, not sure what all the talk about streetwear and hooped earrings are; they are fashion, not of any deep cultural significance that only one group has ownership of..

The deliberate darkening of the skin in the picture is really bizarre. It's not a shade or two darker or to look a bit tanned. Trying out certain hairstyles and clothing and accessories is not a big deal in my opinion... It can be fun to see what you might look like and experiment with different artistic influences.... but the darkening of the skin comes across as crass.

Agree, FlyingOink, that intent is what really matters and defines the difference between respectful cultural borrowing/homage, and disrespectful parody or cultural appropriation.

It can be a fine line eg Ali G trod right on it, but arguably was acceptable because he was not mocking ethnic minorities but those who pretended to be ethnic minorities.

Likewise, Eddie Izzard started off on the right side of the line, dressing in feminine clothing out of an affection and liking for women and women's clothing; but at some point over the years, without I think him noticing he'd done it, he shifted inexorably over to the wrong side of the line, and ended up claiming to be an actual woman.

I can't imagine what goes through someone's head when they wake up one day and decide they're going to either 'swap' sex or race, or take the piss out of other people's sex or race.

I guess some people are just so lacking in self-awareness they don't see the problem? Or don't care?

‘I'd be interesting to hear from the person in that photo what they were thinking. Was it like when an artist does a self-portrait but makes themselves look different, or you use a snap-chat filter that makes you look older or like the other sex? Was it an exercise in seeing what could be done with make-up?’

Emma Hallberg looks that way all the time. It isn’t a one off photo. She states she’s white but tanned.

Emma Hallberg isn't black, she's literally painting her face a different colour in this pic.