'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?

Late to this thread but wanted to add. Blackfishing is something done mainly by non-black women (as opposed to men...) to the detriment of black women.

It is awful how TRAs constantly co-opt and talk over black women to advance their own agenda.

But I see echoes of that in feminist spaces sometimes, in how concerns specific to black women are minimised or talked over.

Thinking about what FlyingOink has added above, it's also the need to try and fool people into believing you're something you're not, thereby undermining their lived experience, that's at the heart of the disrespect.

So, non-black teenager wearing urban fashion & box braids because they love them and want to emulate their favourite music stars = multiculturalism

Non-black celeb painting her skin darker is dodgy on its own, but when it's combined with certain hairstyles, plus urban fashion, plastic surgery or even poses (to emulate the shape of a black woman's body), with the purpose of being racially ambiguous to the point of "passing" as black = blackfishing and dodgy as hell.

Yes, I can see the GC parallel, too.

It's just dawned on me that Tim Westwood is the original Ali G

He would get slaughtered if he started his career today

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.

The controversy wasn't anything to do with a woman Time Lord. It was about The Doctor regenerating as a woman. Up until very recently there was no indication that Time Lords could change their sex. Given it's made up no reason to think they couldn't except it never happened with multiple regenerations that we saw. It was only introduced when the general culture started to say that sex was an interchangeable characteristic and gender and sex began to be seen as equivalent.

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.

I don't know. Kids who do that stuff whole hog do end up kind of looking like posers, but fashion has always moved up and down through class, across ethnicities, and so on. That's just how culture spreads.

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

I guess maybe that's how she thinks of it. Remember back in the 70's the way people used to tan, so they looked mahogany coloured, and they would put shiny oil all over themselves. Very weird but people can get stuck on some weird images of themselves.

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

I think that's normal for girls/women in her age group though. Back when I was a teen, all the lessons you read about make-up were matching skin tone, natural looking but better, etc.

Most of them now use contouring and such, and it's a totally different way of thinking, there is no real need to colour match, they are almost painting on a whole new skin and shadows, a new shape face, the whole lot. They can change not only the shade by the tone, from warm o cool or vice versa. It's a lot less about being yourself and more like creating something from scratch.

The idea that changing your skin's darkness, or lightening, is wrong might seem a little strange if that is how you think about make-up.

I think this is a real issue and something a lot of white people just don't get (I am white). E.g. If you're a young girl wanting to audition to play Nala in the Lion King you have to be mixed race. Why? I imagine because they think mixed race girls are more appealing to a mainly white audience/'prettier'/cuter - who knows? I don't know if they insist on Simba being mixed race too but I doubt it. It's black girls who are often regarded as 'too black'. I can't remember if it was in the article or a tweet I read about it but the line was something like 'the message is the best black women aren't black'. I saw a lot of trans parallels - e.g. transwomen taking on women's rep positions and being foregrounded in 'intersectional' women's groups. Sexism and racism run deep.

I teach mainly black African students and they come against this all the time. The darker their skin the more severe the stereotypes they face, and the less likely they are to see role models in popular culture. Again, it's not a coincidence pale skinned Halle Berry was the first black woman to win an Oscar. I can see why black women then get angry about white women claiming the 'cool' factor of being black without experiencing any of the prejudice. Again, massive parallels with trans.

@ValancyRedfern - I agree with your point that women with darker skin are often discriminated against, but I find it hard to believe that Nala in the Lion King role only can be auditioned by mixed race girls - that would be directly discriminatory (as opposed to indirect discrimination).

‘Most of them now use contouring and such, and it's a totally different way of thinking, there is no real need to colour match, they are almost painting on a whole new skin and shadows, a new shape face, the whole lot. They can change not only the shade by the tone, from warm o cool or vice versa. It's a lot less about being yourself and more like creating something from scratch.’

People used to look very orange and unnatural but have very deep tans. Is part of it that deep tan products have improved and now have a more natural hue?

Part of it is that the US definition of white is so narrow and the definition of black so broad that small cosmetic changes can make a white person read as black, while someone with genuine West African ancestry is deemed too black. Most black celebrities are really mixed race.

I do understand how annoying it is having people profit off your culture without having to have lived it. I'm Jewish and few people from other cultures want to look Jewish, so that kind of cultural appropriation isn't something I experience, and I'm not sure if I'd feel anything other than amused/flattered if they did (Madonna in a kaballah wristband is the only example I can think of).

But a few months back, a musical, Falsettos, which is about and was written by New York Jews during the AIDS era, was put on the London stage. Amazingly, the London production managed to go ahead without a single Jewish cast member or a single person involved with the production who was Jewish (even though all the cast bar one part are supposed to be). As the opening number is called Four Jews In A Room Bitching and the whole musical is about Jews being neurotic, it felt really quite uncomfortable. It felt like they were laughing at Jews as this quaint group of weirdos, like animals in a zoo. It was like laughing at Jewish jokes told by non-Jews. It left a bad taste in the mouth.

(So by comparison, the Lion King using mixed race actors looks like a big advance on that, albeit still with further to go.)

So I get the way that the inauthenticity of others dressing as black in order to profit off black culture grates.

But I think having others genuinely like and wanting to emulate beauty standards from other cultures without profiting from it or mocking it is a different matter.

To go back to beauty, as someone who never fitted into any white beauty ideal when I was growing up, I'm really relieved that young non-white women today have wider variations of beauty they can aspire to. I'm glad that women with dark hair or skin or big bums can see that they are beautiful too, and that being blonde or slim are not the only ways of looking good. I think it has to be a positive that beauty ideals have expanded beyond a narrow white stereotype, even if society still has further to go in ensuring that that those ideals are appreciated in black women themselves and not only in white women aping them.

It felt like they were laughing at Jews as this quaint group of weirdos, like animals in a zoo. It was like laughing at Jewish jokes told by non-Jews.

I know it's not the same but a similar thing...DH and I went to see Book of Mormon just before lockdown and it left me feeling really confused. I have no idea how it's made it past the censorship of wokescolds and am even more bemused at the way it's been embraced by the arts world, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and sackloads of awards.

I mean, the whole show takes the piss out of Mormons and Ugandans

I know it's unabashedly offensive comedy (and I was up for that) but given the plaudits, I thought it would be clever. But it wasnt. Just loads of jokes about Africans raping babies and Mormons being idiots with silly beliefs. I didn't know that sort of thing was allowed anymore

I know it's unabashedly offensive comedy (and I was up for that) but given the plaudits, I thought it would be clever. But it wasnt. Just loads of jokes about Africans raping babies and Mormons being idiots with silly beliefs. I didn't know that sort of thing was allowed anymore

Most supposedly clever comedy take-downs of religion I've seen are pretty bad. I think the problem is 90% of the time whoever made it has no respect for what they are trying to joke about, so they get the theology wrong or characterise it inaccurately, and they think it doesn't matter. So the jokes are about something that they've really just made up. Generally for jokes to be funny they have to be in some sense true and they have to be insightful.

!! Bit shocked by that. I've never seen the Book of Mormon, and won't be going now.

I guess that the writers, producers and audience felt the humour was OK as it was 'hitting up' at a powerful religious group?? But what's with the attacks on Africans?? (Not familiar with the musical at all, sorry.) And obviously seeing Mormons as de facto powerful and therefore acceptable butts for humour is also problematic.

Just to clarify, with Falsettos, it's not a comedy, primarily, although it has some funny moments within it - the main character dies of AIDS and it is a serious show. The reference to Jewish jokes is rather that it has the same critical look at a community that comedy does, and was originally an 'insider's show' - written, performed and (mainly) watched by largely gay, Jewish, New Yorkers, in New York. So watching it in London, in an audience with (I think) still a high gay quotient, but few Jews (which was obvious when I was one of the only people to 'get' the lines you had to be Jewish to understand) and performed by an entirely non-Jewish cast, was a really uncomfortable experience.

I'm sure it absolutely wasn't intended to be antisemitic, but it was performed by people and watched by people who were outside of the community and seeing it through their eyes meant it ceased to be a community looking wryly at it's own quirks and became others mocking Jewish characters. I don't know what the black equivalent of Four Jews In A Room Bitching would be, but try to imagine a rap song, using the N word liberally throughout, say, sung entirely by white people to an audience of white people. And as part of a musical that ends with the main black character dead. It was just in very poor taste.

There is a long history, by the way, of Jewish roles on the UK stage being played by non-Jews, and usually the Jewish community doesn't complain at all, but in this case, they did. (It went ahead anyway.) I still ended up going to see it, as I'd booked tickets long before they announced the cast, as my dd is a big fan of the musical. But...euggggggh. :(

I can see that would feel funny, but I wonder if it should? I can think of shows that are built around families or communities of other kinds where usually casting doesn't make an attempt to match up actors and characters ethnicity. Or social class in some other instances.

I wonder, if the actors had been Jewish, would it still seem odd that the audience, mainly non-Jewish, would laugh at the jokes? Maybe some shows are mainly for a specific audience? Although if people outside that audience want to see it, that seems to suggest there is a more universal appeal?

I wonder if the problem was really the writing rather than the casting?

Good point.

I don't really know, but maybe you're right. But I suppose you can't control who goes to see a show, whereas you certainly can control who you cast in it. It's not like you should start banning people from going to see representations of other cultures, surely, even if sometimes negative - that would be more problematic! And this show is not only about the Jewish community, it's about the gay community, during AIDS, so I can see that there is a value in performing it more widely, as it's a topic that needs exploring.

It's tough, but I do think that surely ensuring that at least some of the cast and/or crew are from and hence understand and respect the culture (or cultures) being represented is essential.

I saw this recently with a production of Fiddler on the Roof. The non-Jewish director was I am sure making a valiant attempt. And here the main actor was ethnically Jewish, albeit non-religious and clearly unfamiliar with the kind of community portrayed in the show. So they had tried.

It still missed the spot a lot and had really uncomfortable clunking great inaccuracies in representation throughout.

I'm not saying the shows shouldn't be performed. But it is a shame if people come away with the idea that this is what the community is like when, in many ways, it isn't.

But maybe I'm expecting too much in expecting theatre to be realistic depictions of communities!

I guess 19th century Parisians didn't all burst into song on the barricades either.

You're raising a really interesting point, xxyzz One of the sensitivities around this topic is that people within a community or cultural/ethnic group can find comfort and happiness using dodgy language and stereotypes that resonate with them, but if anyone OUTSIDE the group does the same thing (without the affection? Or the nuance?) it feels REALLY wrong.

You can see this in places like NY, where there is a strong and culturally powerful Jewish community. Injokes and references about Jewishness are woven through New York popular culture and they "right" way to read them is understood by even non-Jewish New Yorkers. (Though when it hits TV things go a bit weird - I'm pretty sure there are loads of Americans who have no idea just how deeply Jewish Seinfield was, for example.) I think some of those things (like the play you've mentioned) don't travel well as mass cultural entertainment.

Black culture has this as well, the notably in the casual (and sometimes even joyful) use of the incendiary N-word in-group. Most reasonable non-Black people have got the message that it's an entirely off-limits word, but it can be a confusing thing to parse for young teens getting into popular music when they here THAT word all over the place and see it repeated all over black You Tube and Twitter.

It's an interesting reversal of "listen to what the people with the lived experience are saying." There's nuance even in that rule to live by, too.

The controversy wasn't anything to do with a woman Time Lord. It was about The Doctor regenerating as a woman.

Spot on (my nerd senses tingled). Female Time Lords have existed for a long time, but not actually changed sex, like the doctor did. It's made up, they can do what they like, and I'm ok with it but I don't think it "needed" to happen.

I find the mixed race thing really interesting, since I'm mixed race but often people think I'm white, but often not.
There's a New Zealand comedian called Rose Matafeo, her heritage is really mixed - Samoan, Scottish and Croatian.
She does material about being aborignal and has had abuse thrown at her and been told she's not aboriginal.
She doesn't look entirely white, but obviously plenty of people think she is.

But what's with the attacks on Africans??

I know! I felt like I'd stepped into a parallel universe because the performance was in Birmingham with plenty of people of African origin in the audience, but everybody was having a great time and laughing at the AIDs based dance numbers etc. It was very odd - if Jim Davidson said half of the things in the script, it'd be all over the papers. But the show has won loads of awards and I can't get my head around it, intellectually. It's one of those things that has (seemingly) been approved by someone somewhere, and therefore it's in the funny camp and not the offensive camp. But it blatantly is offensive. (The storyline, in a nutshell btw, is that two bright-eyed Mormons get sent on their mission. They hope for Paris or Florida but end up in Uganda, and that's the crux of the comedy).

But what made me bring it up (sorry, long roundabout route to get to the point) was that I doubt anybody on stage was actually Mormon or Ugandan and I don't know whether that is problematic or not? I fully sympathise with your point, but I've always resisted that line of thought that only people belonging to certain groups can play characters of those origins.

I suppose I resist rules in this area, but I approve of an organically developed moral code about what is right and wrong. At the moment, we are in the middle of that process (by my estimations) so anomalies like Book of Mormon and 'hilarious' TV drag queens still exist.

Yes, I think that's a good way to put it. It's not that there should be rules, but there are things that just turn out to be in bad taste. Sometimes it's not until it's performed that you can see that, or when it is performed before a different audience. Usually if a lot of people feel that way about it, it will kind of fall flat and fizzle out. If a lot of people don't, they might be wrong but clearly there isn't a public consensus.

FWIW I think it's rather unwise to have words that are ok to use by certain people, but taboo for others. As long as a word is used it remains in circulation so to speak, it's in people's consciousness and it's something that can be used as a slur of the worst kind.

I agree with that Goosefoot, and by keeping it in circulation, it keeps the memory alive of 'why some can't and some can' and reinforces the 'us and them' dynamic. Better to let words become distasteful for all, or else, evolved to a difference purpose for all.

Exactly.