I do think those words are offensive which is why I would never refer to anyone as those words. I'm Asian and I do find offense to the word chink. I just can't get passed how a parody of Dream Girls is offensive compared to a parody about an Asian drama.
Okay, so HOW do you know that it's more offensive? What do you base that on?
My point here is that the n-word is offensive because of its history, even though the meaning has somewhat changed. It will most likely always be seen that way. Blackface (read: painting your face black when you are not black, and not just in theatre) is offensive because of how and why it originated; it doesn't matter the context in which it's used. It's not about "well if ____ then ____". It's inappropriate, period.
there is no such thing as "white face" in the same sense as "black face"/"yellow face"/"brown face" etc is because whites have not experienced systemic racism and stereotyping by their portrayal through popular culture/mainstream media in the developed world. also just because the actresses in this clip are asian, does not make their act of blackface anymore acceptable or less racist. it doesn't matter if their intention was not explicitly racist, the act itself is racist and always will be racist because it represents the othering of a whole group of people by essentially portraying them as a costume that can be put on at a whim.
if you're genuinely interested in issues of racial portrayal in the media (and esp the question of whether or not a racist act can be unintentional) then i urge you to read this article. it specifically deals with yellowface so that might be of interest to you: http://iheartthreadbared.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/unintentional-eating/
Thank you for the article. It was a good read. I love Crystal Renn and I don't think the tape was racist. It was for the sake of fashion. However, I do not seem to think entertainment/fashion is considered completely racist as others do.
if you enjoyed that article and read it thoroughly, then im surprised you came away with that impression. it does not matter if the act itself was ~for fashion~ or ~art~ or w.e, it is representative of the stereotyping/"othering" of P.O.C and reducing them to a costume. the fact that renn refers to the act as a ~transformation~ reinforces the implicit racism of the editorial's styling.
also in regards to comments you have made to other lj users about white face, the article itself contains a really good quote that i think is worth further thought and consideration: “It is precisely because white female bodies occupy the universal empty point which remains racially unmarked that they can play with the assigned particularity of ethnicized female bodies.”
There IS such thing as Yellowface. Have you never seen Breakfast at Tiffany's? Micky Rooney plays a Japanese man and Rooney is HELLA white. Yellowface is racist. Thank God there are sites like Angry Asian Man that actually want to point these stuff out because otherwise there would be no voice for Asians.
You need to learn your history. Do you like Abercrombie and Fitch? How about American Apparel? News flash, they hate Asians too, you ever see the t-shirt 'two wongs will make it white ? Now try and tell me that's not offensive.
Maybe there was a lack of Asian actors in Hollywood during the time of Breakfast at Tiffany's and of course Asian prejudice due to Pearl Harbor and the Vietnam War. I still see this as actors playing a role/character. I know I sound ignorant but I don't see it nearly as racist as say the Ku Klux Klan (I know I'm blowing it out of proportions comparing the two).
chuk_is_dazzled, 575 comments
My point here is that the n-word is offensive because of its history, even though the meaning has somewhat changed. It will most likely always be seen that way. Blackface (read: painting your face black when you are not black, and not just in theatre) is offensive because of how and why it originated; it doesn't matter the context in which it's used. It's not about "well if ____ then ____". It's inappropriate, period.
Edited at 2012-01-08 05:24 am (UTC)
repeating what crystalzelda says so it's more obvious that you are choosing to ignore these valid replies.
there is no such thing as "white face" in the same sense as "black face"/"yellow face"/"brown face" etc is because whites have not experienced systemic racism and stereotyping by their portrayal through popular culture/mainstream media in the developed world. also just because the actresses in this clip are asian, does not make their act of blackface anymore acceptable or less racist. it doesn't matter if their intention was not explicitly racist, the act itself is racist and always will be racist because it represents the othering of a whole group of people by essentially portraying them as a costume that can be put on at a whim.
if you're genuinely interested in issues of racial portrayal in the media (and esp the question of whether or not a racist act can be unintentional) then i urge you to read this article. it specifically deals with yellowface so that might be of interest to you: http://iheartthreadbared.wordpress.c
I love Crystal Renn and I don't think the tape was racist. It was for the sake of fashion. However, I do not seem to think entertainment/fashion is considered completely racist as others do.
also in regards to comments you have made to other lj users about white face, the article itself contains a really good quote that i think is worth further thought and consideration: “It is precisely because white female bodies occupy the universal empty point which remains racially unmarked that they can play with the assigned particularity of ethnicized female bodies.”
You need to learn your history. Do you like Abercrombie and Fitch? How about American Apparel?
News flash, they hate Asians too, you ever see the t-shirt 'two wongs will make it white ? Now try and tell me that's not offensive.
I still see this as actors playing a role/character. I know I sound ignorant but I don't see it nearly as racist as say the Ku Klux Klan (I know I'm blowing it out of proportions comparing the two).