Virginia Governor to Resign over blackface pictures?

[Dr H]

Oh I know right, it's so incredibly presumptuous of me to assert that blackface might be offensive.   Jury's still out on that.

Times change and standards and mores change.  For the better, we hope, but no guarantees.
There was a time when many black performers themselves performed in blackface.

Where and when I grew up, the word "queer" used to be considered as offensive as what most people these days refer to as "the N-word".  Yet I hear the "Q-word" on the radio nearly every day, even on NPR.

There are people I know right now who would consider your earlier comment:

"Hell, michael jackson dressed like micheal jackson without blackface."

...to be racist.  I don't, because I considered it in the context in which it was made.

If 30-40 year old mistakes are only to be judged out of context by contemporary standards, and if every mistake is a life sentence, then we should all be locked up for the duration.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was an explicitly racist joke, just to remove any ambiguity. No one is locking anybody up, or delivering any life sentences..at all. That public figures public image can be damaged, and that they aren't entitled to their status is it. That's all. That's the sum total of the pc sjw libtard white genocide currently ongoing and ripping the democratic party to shreds, shreds! - and even that much is spotty. We've got a mouthy racist sitting in the oval office and a wheedling bullshit artist in virginias gov mansion, so I don't know that we poor beset upon white menfolk are actually losing much ground in the culture war.

[Aegon]

honestly do not understand this... the man should be judged on what was acceptable in 1983 not 2019. otherwise we would all be racist homophobic monsters.

Although if it ousts another dim... and shows them to be the party of the confederacy even today, then who am I to argue?

I disagree with your wording but I think we agree overall. Personally, I see no problem with judging somebody for doing something that is, in all honesty, quite explicitly racist, regardless of the year. Now, that being said, I'm still struggling with the idea of holding a person accountable for something they did 35 years ago, for the basic principle that it assumes the self is static, and that people can't see the error in their behavior, adjust accordingly, and be an even better person. 

Also, nobody is pure and literally everybody has done something that, if leaked to the public, would most likely result in America hating them. Of course, it depends on the something that they did. Some are worse than others and should be treated as such (i.e., I have no problem with those who committed sexual assault being chastised and kicked out)

I saw an article about a Republican state delegate who was outed for using blackface in 1968. 1968?! An old, white man in southern Virginia did blackface in 1968? No shit lmao. What did you expect? What did you think he thought!?

[Drich]

honestly do not understand this... the man should be judged on what was acceptable in 1983 not 2019. otherwise we would all be racist homophobic monsters.

Although if it ousts another dim... and shows them to be the party of the confederacy even today, then who am I to argue?

I disagree with your wording but I think we agree overall. Personally, I see no problem with judging somebody for doing something that is, in all honesty, quite explicitly racist, regardless of the year. Now, that being said, I'm still struggling with the idea of holding a person accountable for something they did 35 years ago, for the basic principle that it assumes the self is static, and that people can't see the error in their behavior, adjust accordingly, and be an even better person. 

Also, nobody is pure and literally everybody has done something that, if leaked to the public, would most likely result in America hating them. Of course, it depends on the something that they did. Some are worse than others and should be treated as such (i.e., I have no problem with those who committed sexual assault being chastised and kicked out)

I saw an article about a Republican state delegate who was outed for using blackface in 1968. 1968?! An old, white man in southern Virginia did blackface in 1968? No shit lmao. What did you expect? What did you think he thought!?

close enough. I think it is stupid to pretend that race relations where always this bad and I think it is even more foolish to force todays broken standards on a time where thing where much much more relaxed. to pretend the "N" word was always bad if stupid.. I remember in the 90's everyone was saying N-please..

This idea of there being a wedge between whites and blacks (where whites can't go certain places) is a new construct but it is being enforced to all of our collective history. why? to destroy the idea that there was a time did indeed get along outside a few regions in the deep deep south. The idea that the whole country acted like people in the deep south is n-please talk.

that said in 68 black face was as offensive as richard pryor doing a white impersonation 




Both sides did it as a way of humanizing and trivializing each other. it demonstertized and made fun of the flaws and common experience. Richard was in front of a mixed crowd, you can't do that if the crowd contains enemys. like wise black face was a common thing.. cant find on line examples but I specifically remember dean martin on the fryers club black faced doing an impersonation of sammy davis jr with him present. funny funny stuff. sammy also was on his back laughing.. again black face then showed comfort and ease with race relations. To do black face was to be super comfortable with black people, not what it means now.

[Dr H]

It was an explicitly racist joke, just to remove any ambiguity.  No one is locking anybody up, or delivering any life sentences..at all.

In terms of prison, no.  But a man is being pressured to relinquished his job; one he was elected to do, and one which apparently at least half his constituents -- and 58% of his black constituents -- want him to keep.

That public figures public image can be damaged, and that they aren't entitled to their status is it.

Sure.  And Northam's public image is damaged, no question about it.
He was also elected to do a job, and there is a procedure in place for having him recalled, if those who want him out are serious enough about it to initiate the process.  Cat-calls in the press, oddly enough, aren't a part of that formal procedure.

That's all.  That's the sum total of the pc sjw libtard white genocide currently ongoing and ripping the democratic party to shreds, shreds! - and even that much is spotty.  We've got a mouthy racist sitting in the oval office and a wheedling bullshit artist in virginias gov mansion, so I don't know that we poor beset upon white menfolk are actually losing much ground in the culture war.

I would say that what this situation wonderfully illustrates is that people should be a little more diligent about checking out candidates for office before  voting them into the office.  That yearbook photo didn't just magically appear in February; it was sitting there for 34 years before election day.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd be surprised if that were the only or the worst skeleton in his closet.  IDK what possesses a person to run for office, sometimes.

[Drich]

Oh I know right, it's so incredibly presumptuous of me to assert that blackface might be offensive.   Jury's still out on that.

Hell-world, dumbest timeline.

just because the world went to shit on your watch don't pretend it was always that way.

[The Grand Nudger]

See, hell-world, dumbest timeline.

[Yonadav]

I'd be surprised if that were the only or the worst skeleton in his closet.  IDK what possesses a person to run for office, sometimes.

It might be the worst skeleton in his closet. His past has been gone over with a pretty fine tooth comb. The yearbook photo was probably only discovered as a result of the nationwide close examination of old yearbooks in the wake of Yale's Halloween costume blow up about three years ago. The hunt has been on ever since for anyone who has ever worn a costume that anyone might be offended by.

[Drich]

So is robert here in this movie being a racist? his is portrayal meant as hate? if Robert downey Jr can portray a black man in a non discriminating hate filled way by putting on black face for this whole movie.. what makes you think doing so 20 or 30 years ago was beyond our ability?

this is conclusive proof that not all black face through the history of the US was considered evil. No one said 'boo' about this protrayal when this movie came out. like wise in the 80s and 90s it was just an empty gag much like black people pretending to be white

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-black...4020080811