Red-faced over Blackface: Vogue Thailand fails with model channeling Grace Jones in blackface

[Thakkar]

Context is everything.

 

No offense was meant because the perpetrators were unaware of the context. They are guilty of ignorance.

 

For example, a swastika is just a reverse Hindu logo and would be just that if not for the fact that the Nazis used it as their symbol, and, by extension, it became a symbol of their atrocities and brutalities.

 

Because of this context, the swastika is almost universally recognized as offensive. Especially to Jews and other victims of Nazi atrocities.

 

To be historically aware, yet NOT recognize the offensiveness of blackening takes a special kind of meanness.

[mtls2005]

7 minutes ago, sanemax said:

That isnt true, The Thai Gov doesnt tell Thais which clothes they can and cannot wear (Thais can still wear Red. Yellow or Black clothes, if they want too )

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/chiang-mai-army-hunts-down-red-buffalo-t-shirts.html

 

 

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

Context is everything.

 

No offense was meant because the perpetrators were unaware of the context. They are guilty of ignorance.

 

For example, a swastika is just a reverse Hindu logo and would be just that if not for the fact that the Nazis used it as their symbol, and, by extension, it became a symbol of their atrocities and brutalities.

 

Because of this context, the swastika is almost universally recognized as offensive. Especially to Jews and other victims of Nazi atrocities.

 

To be historically aware, yet NOT recognize the offensiveness of blackening takes a special kind of meanness.

Errrm, The Swastika is offensive to some people , but the Hindu swastika is only offensive to people who cannot tell the difference between the two .

   Admittidly they are quite similar shaped , but one would have to be quite ignorant too not know the difference between the two

[mtls2005]

We're conflating many issues here.

 

The local skin-tone issue revolves around relative lightness and darkness. Hence the less than intelligent servant girl from Isaan is often portrayed by a dark-sinned (or heavily made-up) actress.

 

Light skin: good

Dark skin: bad

 

This is obviously not limited to Thailand.

 

The ignorance here of the wider issue of black-face is just down to education, knowledge, experience, or a lack thereof.

 

 

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/chiang-mai-army-hunts-down-red-buffalo-t-shirts.html

 

 

That is Political , opposition to the Gov is banned , but Thais can still wear what clothes they want , as long as it isnt a Political statement

[mtls2005]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

That is Political , opposition to the Gov is banned , but Thais can still wear what clothes they want , as long as it isnt a Political statement

 

OK, thanks for clarifying the "dress code", and supporting my statement that Thais can dress up as they please unless the Junta tells them otherwise.

 

 

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

The local skin-tone issue revolves around relative lightness and darkness. Hence the less than intelligent servant girl from Isaan is often portrayed by a dark-sinned (or heavily made-up) actress.

 

Is that not a true reflection of Thai society ?

Poor Issan people are generally darker than City dwelling Thais

Should Thai society portray Dark Issan people as light skinned ?

White them up ?

[DM07]

1) They don't get it, don't they?!

2) From the nation that brought you "being outraged about everything including a @#$%^& Buddha- image"!

3) Everyone who see's this a "mot a big thing" - google Jim Crow! Just because it didn't happen to white people, doesn't make it "okay"!

 

Just a little correction on 2) From the nation that brought you "being outraged about everything, including their beautiful and unique culture"!

Edited June 1, 2017 by DM07

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

 

OK, thanks for clarifying the "dress code", and supporting my statement that Thais can dress up as they please unless the Junta tells them otherwise.

 

 

No, they can wear what ever clothes they like, as long as there are no Political slogans on it .

   You are getting fashion and Politics mixed up

[mtls2005]

Is that not a true reflection of Thai society ?

 

Well, it's certainly a reflection. 

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, DM07 said:

3) Everyone who see's this a "mot a big thing" - google Jim Crow! Just because it didn't happen to white people, doesn't make it "okay"!

This story refers to a 20 year old Asian Woman dressing up as a Jamaican singer .

<deleted> has Jim Crow (who ever that guy is ) got to do with it ?

 

[Thakkar]

25 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Errrm, The Swastika is offensive to some people , but the Hindu swastika is only offensive to people who cannot tell the difference between the two .

   Admittidly they are quite similar shaped , but one would have to be quite ignorant too not know the difference between the two

I can't tell whether you're aware of it or not but you're basically repeating what I said, using different words.

 

I will join the fun by repeating what we both have said, using different words:

 

The Hindu symbol is *not* offensive because people are aware of its religious context. The swastika *is* offensive because of its nazi context.

 

Similarly, blackening is offensive because of the context. To NOT consider it offensive indicates either ignorance of context or mean insensitiveness.

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

The Hindu symbol is *not* offensive because people are aware of its religious context. The swastika *is* offensive because of its nazi context.

 

Similarly, blackening is offensive because of the context. To NOT consider it offensive indicates either ignorance of context or mean insensitiveness.

My point was that you have to understand and realise the context, rather than having a blanket rule that everything is wrong .

   Dressing up as a Black person in order to be offensive is wrong , dressing up to resemble a musician is OK

   Hindu swastika - Not offensive

   Dressing up to resemble GJ- Not offensive

   Nazi Swastika - Offensive 

   Dressing up to resemble a Black lynching victim -Offensive

Or should we all get offended by everything ?

   

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

My point was that you have to understand and realise the context, rather than having a blanket rule that everything is wrong .

   Dressing up as a Black person in order to be offensive is wrong , dressing up to resemble a musician is OK

   Hindu swastika - Not offensive

   Dressing up to resemble GJ- Not offensive

   Nazi Swastika - Offensive 

   Dressing up to resemble a Black lynching victim -Offensive

Or should we all get offended by everything ?

   

Dressing up to resemble a singer is one thing.

 

Using ''blackface'' in a promotional campaign to do so is quite another.

 

If they wanted a model with skin tone that reflects that of Grace Jones then Vogue should have found one.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Bluespunk

[jak2002003]

15 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Cannot agree.

 

If a company wants a model that has the skin tone of grace Jones, then find one.

 

 

But that is very raciest... to deny a job to someone because they don't have the correct skin colour!

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, jak2002003 said:

But that is very raciest... to deny a job to someone because they don't have the correct skin colour!

If you want someone to play a person you find one who resembles them.

 

If they don't resemble them exactly but they can fulfil the role then fine, but don't resort to ''blackface''.

 

It would be racist if someone was denied a role they fitted because of their colour.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Bluespunk

[sanemax]

Grace Jones . Offensive ?

[Thakkar]

12 minutes ago, sanemax said:

My point was that you have to understand and realise the context, rather than having a blanket rule that everything is wrong .

   Dressing up as a Black person in order to be offensive is wrong , dressing up to resemble a musician is OK

   Hindu swastika - Not offensive

   Dressing up to resemble GJ- Not offensive

   Nazi Swastika - Offensive 

   Dressing up to resemble a Black lynching victim -Offensive

Or should we all get offended by everything ?

   

 

The context is this:

blackface caricatures helped popularize and perpetuate racist stereotyping. People who know this—and are of normal human sensitivity—would think it offensive to blacken.

[theguyfromanotherforum]

All aboard the easily offended bus! Toot toot!

Is it offensive or just stupid?

[DLang]

17 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

They never learn.  On the plus side, no Nazi attire.

 

The charcoal donut fiasco was just 4 years ago.

 

 

What's wrong with that??

 

It's a woman painted the same colour as the charcoal donut.

 

[DM07]

55 minutes ago, sanemax said:

This story refers to a 20 year old Asian Woman dressing up as a Jamaican singer .

<deleted> has Jim Crow (who ever that guy is ) got to do with it ?

 

Effin' google it and you know!

 

[DM07]

13 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Grace Jones . Offensive ?

Yeah...because white people had to suffer so much injustice, lately!

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, DLang said:

What's wrong with that??

 

It's a woman painted the same colour as the charcoal donut.

 

Everything is wrong with it.

 

That's why the ad was withdrawn.

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Effin' google it and you know!

 

Is he American ?

I expect that he is .

I am not from the USA , neither is the model or GJ

I am living in Asia

What some American guy did hundreds of years ago is irrelevant

The world doesnt revolve around the USA

 

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Yeah...because white people had to suffer so much injustice, lately!

So, Black people have suffered injustice , so Thais cannot dress up as Jamaican pop stars ?

  Not sure that I follow that logic

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, sanemax said:

So, Black people have suffered injustice , so Thais cannot dress up as Jamaican pop stars ?

  Not sure that I follow that logic

Dressing up is one thing.

 

''Blackface'' quite another.

[DLang]

13 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Everything is wrong with it.

Such as?

 

What is wrong with a model being painted charcoal to sell a charcoal donut?

 

Or white to sell a milk flavoured donut?

 

Or yellow to sell a sunflower seed topped donut?

 

 

Did charcoal commit some atrocity or something? 

[the guest]

Nothing wrong with Thailand expressing their version of events. It's their country, so what's the fuss?

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, DLang said:

Such as?

 

What is wrong with a model being painted charcoal to sell a charcoal donut?

 

Or white to sell a milk flavoured donut?

 

Or yellow to sell a sunflower seed topped donut?

 

 

Did charcoal commit some atrocity or something? 

The whole advertising campaign was racist in nature and was withdrawn.

 

Blackface is racism.

[idman]

I remember way back in October of 1997 on my first trip to Thailand I went into a store to buy some toothpaste and came across the Darkie brand. Right on the box in more than one place was a guy in a tuxedo and in blackface. To me it looked like a rip off of Al Jolsen in the Jazz Singer. I bought two, one to use and one to bring back to San Francisco. I knew nobody would believe this outright blatant racism unless they could see it for themselves. It wasn't for another six years I believe before the company were forced to make a change due to outrage from the World community. What did they do???? Why just a simple change from Darkie to Darlie on the box. Of course they left the guy in tuxedo and black face alone. I still to this day am shocked that they are not forced to remove this symbol of racism. IMO Thailand is ONE of the most racist countries in the world and they could care less.

Sent from my SM-T805 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app