Seattlest Asks: Is It OK to Use Blackface in Your Halloween Costume?

http://union-bulletin.com/articles/2006/11/09/local_news/local01.txt

Dressing up as Mr. T is a far cry from dressing up as Hitler. I think we just tripped over Godwin's Law here.

That said, I totally agree Seth, if it is offensive to someone I would totally respect that.

The history of blackface--white or black performers mimicking a stupid/farcical character--is what makes a white person putting on black makeup offensive to some people.

Is it ok? Depends on the context.

It's like--you might dress up as Hitler as a ha-ha joke among your friends, but you wouldn't trick or treat at the Jewish rest home.

You might say the word "fuck" to your friends, but you wouldn't say it around your grandparents.

Not offending is really about politeness, as far as I'm concerned.

Probably because of the blackening your face part.

Dressing in minstrel-style blackface is wrong (of course you should feel free to do it and face the consequences) but dressing up as one of your favorite characters who happens to require a different color skin to complete the costume is NOT the same as blackface.

I don't understand why people equate the two.

Just in case it's not clear and it matters: Jules was not in classic Dansonesque minstrel-style blackface. He just wanted to look like Samuel L.

It was still jarring, but not as jarring as the guy from Pulp Fiction jonesing for chicken and watermelon would've been.

So there's something "wrong" with someone who takes offense at blackface? Spoken like a true Seattle-ite who probably doesn't even know a black person.

But I've seen them on television.

I spoke with one of my Black Friends on this matter, and he said that though he has a high tolerance for offensive humor, blackface is pretty much where he draws the line (as mentioned previously, see Ted Danson). However, he also said that he'd let me get away with it if I went as a Sexy Lawn Jockey.

It's wrong.

Given the context of the movie -- it's Vincent who goes out with Mia Wallace, not Jules -- I'd guess, he wanted to go with the black face and got his girlfriend to go as Mia Wallace to soften the blow.

In my opinion, we haven't advanced enough in race relations where whites can freely use the word "Nigger" regardless of context or manner -- hip hop homies or ironically, e.g. -- or wear black face without causing offense.

My (white, blonde, 10 year-old) niece wanted to dress as one of her heroes - Bob Marley - one year. She was going to paint her face black and get the dreds, etc. The only thing that stopped her was not being able to find an adequate dred wig. Sort of the same thing, right? I don't think anyone would have taken offense to that, so what's the difference? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this guy isn't racist, but just figured it was part of the costume.

Emailed to me anonymously:

Ask the white guy dressed up as Samuel Jackson to go into a black bar and see what the reaction will be.

>> Seattle can be a pretty knee-jerk town when it comes to stuff like race. I vote that there's nothing wrong with the costume, but something wrong with those that feel differently.

So there's something "wrong" with someone who takes offense at blackface? Spoken like a true Seattle-ite who probably doesn't even know a black person.

My wife and I dressed as Jules and Vincent the year that Pulp Fiction was released, but I didn't actually darken my face for Jules. Also, I'm a person of color myself, so I might enjoy some leeway that a white person wouldn't.

This kind of reminds me of the current phenomenon of "ghetto" parties that take place at predominantly white colleges where white students dress in blackface, 'fros, chains, grills, etc. to play at being gangstas. The fact that these parties don't take place at more mixed campuses probably says a lot about whether it's a good idea or not.

Finally, for a very instructive and hilarious take on using blackface in blogs, you can't go wrong with this site. Those of you who are all too ready to give blackface a pass, take heed.

should I use blackface on my blog?

the dude was obviously pushing the envelope, but what were his intentions, really? i agree with donte. maybe i would even secretly want to kick his ass. also, did he really need the blackface to hone the point, or was it just to be over the top?

Its ok but like the previous poster stated

1. You also have the right to get your ass kicked

2. It displays your total ignorance of history and the true story behind minstrel shows. Don't believe me, well go ask Ted Danson.

Corking the face was meant to mock AA as ignorant and unsympathetic beings. I can't not fathom how in 2006 we have to actually debate this topic. I think its more telling of seattle than anything else.

but to more directly answer the question, the individual in question is more than free to dress in blackface, but they have to realize other people are free to want to kick their ass for it (note, i said free to want to, not free to do so). my guess is they wouldn't go for a casual stroll through the c.d. dressed that way.

Seattle can be a pretty knee-jerk town when it comes to stuff like race. I vote that there's nothing wrong with the costume, but something wrong with those that feel differently.

threads like this are always hilarious. race is the ultimate taboo topic in seattle, despite the fact that we've definitely got some issues. liberal guilt is fun!

About as funny as a guy dressed as superman in a wheelchair or a golfer half charred holding mini airline bottles...

So i guess pretty dang funny.

Well as a white guy I probably don't have the right to be offended. I'd know I'd think it was freaking funny if someone non-white dressed up as a pasty white guy.

Well I would never want those pictures to come back and haunt me should I ever run for office. One costume idea that my girlfriend wants to do some year is She wants to go as Jackie-O with a bloodstained dress and I would go as Zombie JFK. However I don't see this going over well in Democratic Party circles that actually remember 1963.