UKH

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49749851

It was a fancy dress party 18 years ago. There is no racism and nothing to apologise for.

FFS!

Manna from heaven for the bleeding hearts and artists who have found another scapegoat to foist their twisted ethics upon. You can't get much more liberal than Trudeau yet you would think he was head honcho of the Klu Klux Klan going by the rabid response of some people in that article.

You're quite right. After all, back in the long ago days of 2001 nobody had realised that blacking up was offensive. And you can't go holding people responsible for silly things they did as teenagers.

Except that he was nearly 30 and 2001 is definitely not long enough ago to pull off the "standards were different back then" argument. Blacking up had been widely acknowledged to be offensive for decades by then. Somebody like Trudeau with a reputation for thoughtfulness and sensitivity must surely have been aware of that.

I'm not sure "racist" is quite the right term. "Offensive and racially insensitive" would probably be more accurate, in my opinion. But I certainly think his apology was more than necessary.

It is not at all clear to me whether or not you are being ironic.

I respectfully disagree.  2001 is long enough ago that standards were very  different.  Canadian TV had blackface on 5 years later.  

I think you are about 10 years out.  I'd say about 2010 to 2012 is when it became common knowledge that it's not acceptable.  

The teenager thing is a red herring.  It wasn't an unacceptable thing for an adult to do back then.  

It's been common knowledge for years that applying make up to alter ones racial identity is offensive. It would surely be career ending to then employ your new persona to poke fun at race specific facets of culture other than your own. 

In other news, 'White Chicks 2', sequel to 2004's 'White Chicks', has seemingly been given the go ahead.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/white-chicks-2-...

...but that's completely different, isn't it?

Racism annoys me, but of all the things to get upset about someone blacking up 20 years ago isn't top of my list. 

Yes, actually. Context matters.

I don't think blackface (ie. Minstrel shows) is at all comparable to someone dressing up as a character and changing their skin colour to match.

The efforts to connect the two are nothing but attempts to crucify people with a racism tag.

But theres something wonderful in seeing a cheerleader for that nonsense being caught out by it.

You are being too symmetrical in your reasoning (some might say)

I'm pretty sure it's worth apologising for though. The comments from the Green leader, considering Trudeau's record on being Bleeding Heart in Chief, are just f*cking stupid.

Surely they should be glad to see Aladin not being "whitewashed" for once. 

Considering historical context, it is quite, but not completely, different.

Does anyone seriously consider Justin Troudeau to be a racist?

If not, stop virtue signalling and move on.

That kind of assumes that every case of someone colouring their skin black is automatically the same as "the historical context" though. 

Surely a kid turning up to "T" themed fancy dress as Tupac isn't the same as putting on a Mibstrel show?

Sorry, what's the context of a white Canadian dressing up as Aladdin?

Ha! What about all the non-racists who you wouldn't grant that same favour to?

Are you saying it is the racist intent that matters here?

No racism at all.  I guess those people with pale skin - like me, will get called racist for trying to, and succeeding to get a brown, tanned face.

Any way if their is or was any issue, painting your face the colour of someone elses in order to mimic them possibly, may at the most may offend people.  I guess children don't play cowboys and indians any more?

I have to agree

Don't get it. Someone wants to look like Aladdin. Aladdin has dark skin. They darken their skin with makeup to enhance the resemblance and this is an 'incredibly racist act'. Laugh or cry? 

If it costs him the election he can always get a job as a Morris dancer.

Better not play the lead in Othello, eh...?

I really wish there was a bit more space left these days for "I'm sorry, I didn't give it a lot of thought at the time, didn't realise it would upset anyone, and will make every effort to avoid doing anything similar now."

It isn't possible to anticipate everything that might upset someone.

Keeping doing something you know upsets someone, without a good reason, makes you a dickhead. But simply having done some such thing, without malice, does not.

In this case I strongly suspect he is being attacked by the right-wing. That's not because they disagree with your point. It's to give him a taste of his own medicine.

As much as turning the other cheek would be nice, until such time as the people (ever-prickly to perceived racism by their political opponents) experience the witch hunt themselves they are unlikely to stop calling for them.

It's akin to sending Robespierre to the guillotine, isn't it?

I once went to a fancy dress party as the Genie, with a blue face, when the Disney film came out - does that make me racist against genies? Disappointingly, most people missed it completely and thought I was a Smurf!

There was someone recently splashed all over the media because he'd gone to a fancy dress party, with a theme of favourite actors. In his case, though, he was white and his favourite actor was Samuel L. Jackson!

Some, including me, would say that was a homage to his favourite actor - many others immediately pounced on the racism possibilities...

And then you've got the latest debacle of the Morris Dancers in Settle and one "uncomfortable" rambler...

FTFY  

I'm sorry but you must have got me confused with someone else. Someone is either a racist or they aren't and that doesn't depend upon anything else.

Of course intent matters. It wasn't the greatest thing to do and some Asian people might think about it and get a bit offended but that doesn't mean he thinks people with brown skins are in some way inferior to him.

It's a funny one. I felt vaguely ''Whatever next?'', and then thought of an Asian or Mexican person 'whiting up' as an Englishman in fancy dress, and realised I'd feel caricatured.

But the character he went as is a fictional one, which sets me wondering if it was really such a bad thing. I feel like his apology was as much about saving his job potentially...

Well yes but so what? It wouldn't spoil my day.

"I hear you're a racist now Justin, should we all to be racists now? I don't know if I'll  be able to devote myself fully to racism as the farm takes up most of my time"

No, but we're white men in a society where we're a majority race, and not discriminated against. If we were of a minority race which did encounter discrimination, the perspective might be different?

Maybe I was.  I'm used to seeing people claim something is racist, regardless of (or loosely assuming) intent, depending on the political colours or alignment of the individual being attacked.  Trudeau's supporters seem muted about his guilt on this one while I doubt they'd be anywhere near as charitable to his opponents, such is the politcisation of racism.

Agreed 100%.  

The oddest thing about the Settle business was that the mayor complained about the Morris dancers not being "progressive". Who would have thought it?

The minority-majority argument doesn't really wash in my opinion.  It is about applying a policy equally to everyone.

For example, this week an organisation I once wanted to join posted on social media about how they were finalists for a diversity initiatives award.  They themselves drew particular attention to their "code of conduct", and in bold highlighted the statement "we make it clear that our community prioritises marginalised people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort." 

This policy read pretty well...until it turns a little alarming with the introduction of that major caveat above, which goes on to say:
"We will not act on complaints regarding: // ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’. // Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts // Criticising racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behaviour or assumptions.".

You don't get much more overt than a major organisations code of conduct.  And while it may on the face of it seem positive, recognising relative power of majorities over minorities, it shouldn't take a genius to see how this could all go pear-shaped or that it seems somewhat unfair.  The implicit assumption is that because you are in a majority, normal policies don't apply to you - you are automatically "privileged" and any complaints you have are issues of "comfort" only.  To be a minority is automatically to be "marginalised" and therefore you have the full force of company code of conduct policies behind you.

Basically, a black person in that workplace could level at me all kinds of comments and I could not accuse them of racism.  All because they are seen as a minority so accorded special status.   I could be their only white/straight/male employee (therefore a minority), but because in the nation-state I am not a minority, I would still be regarded, in that workplace, as privileged.  

Surely rules should apply to all, equally?

Oh come on Tim, really?  I'd say good on you and crack on! 

Unless it was a Frenchie of course, they wouldn't be allowed to dress up as an Englishman.  Never!

God I'm such a whopping rascist, sorry everyone.

I disagree; it isn't binary. Racism is entirely a cultural phenomenon and we all are products of our culture. The fact that racist attitudes have (until recently at least) been becoming less prominent in our culture doesn't mean they don't still influence us all every day and need constant diligence to be dismissed. We can do our best to be aware of racist behaviour but it is extremely hard to condition ourselves not to have 'instinctive' racist thoughts when in certain situations. Imagine you're at a cashpoint and someone queues quite closely behind you. You may feel an 'instinctive' differential threat level based on their race, which is pretty much the definition of racism and which is very hard to condition yourself out of, but it is your subsequent conscious actions that IMO define you as racist or not.

There are two 'strands' in your post, I think.

I agree with you, that is troubling, and I'd be alarmed by it too, and I agree that the same rules or protections against isms should be there for all, I might even consult somebody within the legal profession about whether it is lawful or not.

This policy, however, doesn't disprove, or undermine, what can be seen in the statistics, that minorities do fare more badly 'on the whole' when it comes to discrimination, or having their needs met, simply from the practical fact that it's harder for everybody else within wider society to know enough about them, and to not go on hearsay, preconceptions, stereotypes and what have you.

The treatment of black people, for example, and black men as a subgroup, within the mental health system, is rather sobering (to do with rates of sectioning and other aspects). That this is true, doesn't disprove what you say about the policy where you work being rather perverse (I think), in having the potential of being discriminatory in it's aim to stop any discrimination from occurring. The policy strikes me as being rather quite nuts.

I don't understand what you mean by "entirely a cultural phenomenon" and don't recognise most of the rest of your post as being anything I recognise.

You either believe people with different skin colours to you are in some way inferior or you don't. It doesn't seem a difficult concept to me.

If racism isn't entirely cultural then what else is it? It shows itself in different ways and to different degrees in different human societies and generally is passed on within a society in a similar way as is other cultural bias. 

'Believing' is not as binary a condition as I think you're portraying it to be. You have very good reason to 'believe' that the triple-bolt belay you're clipping into with two independent leashes will do the job of stopping you falling, but that still might not stop you feeling just a little uneasy at the point at which you actually first trust it. Feeling uneasy doesn't mean you don't believe it's safe but it may mean you're having to rationalise that belief momentarily before you act on it.

I think the idea of the black and white minstrels is highly dubious, and I can only assume this all derives from that, but it is not the same thing!

In some ways I'm less concerned by the code of conduct itself than I am with the brazenness in which such a code can be created, advertised and celebrated.   It is normalised. This is a cultural change where something that looks like overt unfair treatment has become institutionalised and, connected with the blackface argument, in the interests of better treatment for minorities has crossed a tipping point. 

That's probably true.  I'd expect any minority to tend to be overlooked and certain actions to ameliorate that are required.  But that should be possible with laws and norms that are universally applied.  Not, as in this instance, where one group of people can be punished (either legally or socially) for something which others are immune to. 

Really? Where were you in 2001? I was a 15 year old spotty teenager in Manchester, and not blacking up would not have been as a result of not wanting to worsen any acne. It would have been out of common decency. 

Maybe its because teenagers become aware of these things sooner than adults.  All the teenagers ive met have a much better understanding of gender issues than most adults for example.  I'm older than you and I honestly wasn't aware of it being an issue that long ago.  

As for Canada they still had such things on TV as I mentioned so in the context it is Canada that matters not anywhere else. FWIW I was in Birmingham I think.  

I'm more troubled that nobody stopped to think that not allowing any kind of reverse ism to be brought to light could end up being discriminatory. If a culture is partly made up of actions which spark debate, and debate which leads to action, raising the content of the policy with a legal person might be a productive push towards within the context of where you work things being more balanced, and perhaps towards other people pondering more seriously about what they include in their own policies. 

Somebody with malicious intentions could exploit the policy because of how it excludes certain groups from raising issues. If I was working where that policy is, I might end up raising that it's unfair out of principle. I think talking about a cultural shift like you can when 'on the whole' straight white men still get the best hand in the UK, might be counterproductive however.

There's so many perspectives I've come across on what the culture is in the UK, I think all viewpoints are going to be subjective, and reinforced by people who think in similar ways, that policy being badly thought out seems pretty inarguable though. 

You refer to 'blacking up' as if it was a thing that racists regularly do. The only person I know who ever felt the need to do this was a guy in our climbing club who wanted to go to the annual fancy dress as Tina Turner there was nothing racist about it (would some say it was a misogynistic action too?) . There are certain theatrical parts which can't really be played without the adjustment of appearance, is this now a racist statement of intent?

The only sense of JT's character I get from this incident is 'here is a guy who likes dressing up'

Was anyone else thinking "Mama mia, Mama mia let me go!" after reading the thread title?

I do? I don't think I did.

It's possible to do 'fancy dress' without the need to mimic an ethnicity too. Remember, it's all about the fun... and if anything, remaining in your natural shade just adds to the comedic nature of the activity. As for the whole theatrical thing, let's take Bond as an example. Historically always 'white' yet Idris Elba is often touted to be the next in the role. Should he be 'whiting up' or do we accept that fictional characters are just that, and completely open to change and evolution. I'd even say that could extend to real characters in dramatisations too. A black Simon Yates in the stage version of Touching the Void.. why the hell not? 

Personally it doesn't particularly faze me either way, I'm not that soft  

There might be a linguistic misunderstanding at the root of this. There is an emerging viewpoint in America that

(rac)ism is power + prejudice.

and the combination of the two is what makes it particularly nasty in society.

thus of course you can have a black person who is prejudiced against white people, but it would not be racism or reverse racism unless you are in a society where black people have  the majority of the power. Ie reverse racism is impossible in the west.

however in the UK we tend to call the prejudice itself racism, and the power thing institutional racism,  which leads to all kinds of misunderstandings and policies that look nonsensical, and of course prejudice can happen anywhere and is bad, it just potentially needs to be treated differently from the -isms.

Aah, I think I've heard something along those lines. 

Is it really the case that this is an "American" thing?  It seems to be a generic social sciences thing and is the way race theory has been taught in universities here and in the US (and probably across much of the world) for a decade or more.  It looks less a misunderstanding and more a direct result of the way racism has been redefined relatively recently.

Something I've taken issue with is the assumption that a dominant political narrative, and the way social sciences are being taught, in universities doesn't matter and its excesses don't have real-world repercussions.  They do.  These redefinitions are being slipped in, not particularly subtly, into workplace policies.  They are being accepted as normative as a result of having come out of academic research, despite failing some obvious consistency tests.  In short they are institutionalising racism dependent on whether you can claim to be a minority identity.

I think social science theory has made it into everyday life in America more than here - certainly my American friends will say that one can be prejudiced against a race without being racist, but Brits go “huh isn’t that the definition of racist”.

I was thinking "There's no limit!"

Well, either way, it must be fantastic finding that, no matter how bigoted you are against people based on the colour of their skin, you can NEVER (outside of your home continent) be accused of racism....as social science academics have agreed amongst themselves that this is the case.

Depressing really that this is the increasing state and direction of equality, diversity and inclusion.  Positively Orwellian.

Didn't Eddie Murphy "white up" for a film role? 

Is that considered ok? 

After pondering, I'm thinking that more words is better rather than less, for defining things like prejudice and racism, and discrimination, the context in which they're happening and their implications and what have you. In how language is such an effective tool, there shouldn't be any room for doubt or misinterpretation when it comes to important things like this.

Edit: A relative once spoke of reading a book during their student years, where the first third of the book went into defining what was meant by the different terms being used, so that what followed was explicitly clear. I think that's stuck in the back of my mind ever since, to do with defining what I mean so there's no ambiguity.

Edit: I won't always manage it on first attempt, but it's got to be a positive thing.

I was taught on my youth workers course back in the 1980’s that ‘ism’ and ‘ist’ was about power.

So you could be racially prejudiced but not necessarily racist.

The same applied to sexist.

A good friend of mine of Caucasian origin went to a fancy dress party many years ago dressed as Baron Samedi from James Bond Live and Let Die https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/Baron_Samedi

The outfit may have included some face paint of a contrasting colour to his own skin.  Was he being racist?  I don't think so - merely imitating his favorite James Bond character.  He looked bloody cool so far as we were all concerned.

Racism by its dictionary definition means "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."  Does a bit of fun at a fancy dress party come anywhere close to meeting those criteria I wonder?  Or is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Seems like Trudeau is being held to account to today's standards for things that happened many years ago.  Seems also like too many people are being far too sensitive these days.

For a Halloween party entrance at uni a mate and I abseiled down the side of a house and through the window dressed as the zombie Waffen SS Nazis from 'An American Warewolf in London'. We had even had a few pints in the pub nearby beforehand dressed in our gear.

Thank Christ there was no social media back then for people to practice their grievance archaeology.

I once went to a fancy dress party as a martian complete with green painted skin. Guess I'm f*cked too.

You speciesist bastard!

A popular brand of frozen and canned vegetables wants their cultural appropriation back.

I think it's more that he's being held to account for alleged hypocrisy for someone with a "liberal" agenda.

I was under the impression that Aladdin was a fictional character, I'm not aware the story is very specific as to his ethnic origin, which makes it puzzling as to who exactly should be offended.

On the other hand, assuming Aladdin is of middle eastern origin, I think Trudeau was a bit over-enthusiastic with his pseudomelanisation.  Has there been any backlash from ethnic Persians about the cultural appropriation of Aladdin by African Americans complaining about this?   

There are accusations that one particular version of Aladdin used quite unpleasant stereotypes of barbaric men with scary features, and that Aladdin as the main character was paler.. 

https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/problem-aladdin

I think all we've seen is a black and white photo, so perhaps he was coloured purple and not black?  Does that still make him racist?  I have no idea.  Cartoonist, possibly.  Apu from the Simpsons has been banned afterall for "perpetuating racist stereotypes" or some other such truth...

Anyway, deciding to go with the "my privilege stopped me seeing blackface is racist" (#puke) response, Trudeau was clearly well advised as it seems photos have emerged of him black (or perhaps purple)-facing at two further events. 

I mean, the guy's clearly a card-carrying Klansman.  

I got the bloke from vicar of Dibley saying yes.

The Watermelon Man.

Is performing The Mikado something we have to expect apologies for now as well?

Is this offensive? Is Vic a racist?

youtube.com/watch?v=ttb1gjs8s1g&

On the one hand this all a ridiculous fuss about nothing. Blacking up in order to ridicule a whole race of people is offensive, dressing up as a fictional character at a private fancy dress party is harmless fun.

On the other hand, the reason we're having this discussion is because people like Trudeau have peddled identity politics for decades and used it as a political weapon often enough when it suits them. You can be certain that if this was a right wing politician they'd have been hung, drawn and quartered by a howling mob of self righteous, self appointed guardians of the unwritten rules they've imposed on us all.

If one of their own has been hoisted by his own petard he only has himself to blame.

What's the different between peddling identity politics for political purposes, and talking about/pushing something one finds important while in politics?

In the later, the expectation you would abide by those standards you are demand of others and claim to hold dear?

So, he's being held hostage to his past (self)? 

I'm actually not fussed about what happens to a Canadian PM, but it strikes me as interesting/slightly alarming how people's past can be dug up to haunt them. I'm not going into politics, but I'm rather glad there's no evidence online of anything I got up when I was younger.

No comment, just repeating it cause some folk really don't seem (to want) to understand. 

Yes it is alarming.  It's also alarming how someone's present, not just their past, can be used to ruin them unfairly.

But its been alarming for years and few people seemed to care when it was his political opponents being skewered. 

Notable here are the sudden awkward calls for a nuanced reading of his behaviour.  There's a hell of a lot of excuses coming out in favour of Trudeau that would not be extended to others.

His roasting is a positive thing as it seems nothing short of being a victim of a witch hunt will be enough for proponents of them to reconsider their legitimacy.

Don’t worry folks. It’s ok. His new twitter feed shows him talking to a black person. He cant be racist. He’s got a black friend!!

Read in  news.com.au: https://apple.news/AqxMt3xRgSUexhbt7OBS8tw

I'm just wondering if that's stopped witch hunts in the past from continuing being 'a thing'?

What I mean about witch hunts in the past, is ever since hearing a play by Oscar Wilde in which the line 'We all know that morality is something we apply to those we don't like' was said, I don't think there'll able be a time when this happens. 

''His roasting is a positive thing as it seems nothing short of being a victim of a witch hunt will be enough for proponents of them to reconsider their legitimacy.''

Listening to more plays by him might keep one amused at human nature rather than disheartened.