Josiah Duggar: Part 5

[singsingsing]

-There's a difference between blackface and having a black face. Zwarte Piet, for example, is blackface. If you don't understand why that's racist and extremely problematic, educate yourself.

-A lot of the claims that these 'black face' traditions go back several centuries are bullshit. Zwarte Piet appears to have arisen in its current form sometime in the 19th century.

-Older traditions can be perverted and take on a new meaning. Perhaps there was a 1000-year-old tradition of 'blackening' your face to evoke the image of being burned or covered in ash, but with colonialism and especially the racism of the last couple centuries, this tradition, if it ever did exist, has been subsumed by something else. The swastika used to be a sacred symbol. The nazis co-opted it for evil. It may not be fair to its previous meaning, but would you fly a swastika flag from your house? March in a parade carrying a swastika banner? I sure as hell hope not!

 

[Cleopatra7]

Racism in the US and racism in Europe is a matter of degree rather than kind. Until the end of World War II, the main difference was that white Americans lived in the same country as their colonized subjects (ie blacks and Native Americans), whereas Europeans had the luxury of keeping their colonized out of sight and out of mind in their overseas possessions. It wasn’t until large scale immigration happened after decolonization that most Europeans had to deal with the practical effects of living no next door to large numbers of people from different races (there have been non-whites in Europe since day one, obviously, but nothing like in the US where blacks actually outnumbered whites in some areas of the South).

Blackface imagery has a tangled history. If you look at artwork from the medivel and Renaissance period, African people do occasionally pop up, and they aren’t rendered in blackface; rather, they look like regular people who just happened to have a darker skin color. Blackface and it’s resultant stereotypes only became pop culture fixtures after it became necessary to justify the Atlantic slave trade and colonization. Because the devil  had been traditionally portrayed as being black in premodern religious art, it was easy to conclude that Africans were cursed and disgusting due to their skin color. Writers from the nineteenth century, both American and European, frequently wrote about how the dark skin of blacks filled them with a visceral disgust. Europeans may have had a different set of encounters with blacks than white Americans because their blacks were “out there” in the colonies, but they still relied upon blackface stereotypes to inform themselves about what blacks were supposedly like and whether they were deserving of any kind of rights (spoiler: they weren’t). Blackface is inherently dehumanizing, because it portrays blacks as essentially being another species than whites. If a good portion of the Dutch don’t realize it, then they aren’t as enlightened as they may believe themselves to be. The website of the museum of Jim Crow provide valuable information on the origins and continuing effects of blackface imagery:

https://ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/antiblack/index.htm

ETA If you look at the link from the Jim Crow Museum, you’ll see just how ubiquitous blackface/Jim Crow imagery was. It was on kitchenware, lawn ornaments, advertising,  postcards, famous cartoon characters (there’s a notorious blackface scene in a particular Bugs Bumny cartoon that is just one of the most egregious examples), food products, etc. If your only contact with blacks is from these racist images and no one in society is challenging the veracity of said depictions, it’s next to impossible that you can form a positive impression of people of African descent.

[Georgiana]

My opinion:

The history of race and race relations in each country are slightly unique.  That means that racism, to the extent which it exists, is also slightly unique or tends to be expressed uniquely.  In fact, you could go further and say that even WITHIN a group, if there are certain areas with different racial histories, racism may be expressed differently between subgroups (see: Racism of the PNW vs Southern Racism).

For example: China.  China has a LONG history of race relations ("Barbarian Studies" is a FASCINATING Chinese academic sub-discipline), but, as you would expect, it bears absolutely NO resemblance to the West.  While racism is a definite and somewhat overt problem in China, it's not the same racism as you see in the West, so many people miss it.  China is SUPER racist, y'all.   

My personal experience with Europeans is the same.  I have heard many, many Europeans express problematic views, and I think even the most cursory glance at current events and issues in Europe CLEARLY shows that Europeans have a race issue.  However, many Europeans also genuinely believe they do NOT have a race issue.  My personal experience (and this is purely anecdotal though I do have a fairly large sample size I'm pulling from) is that Europeans tend to be more equitable on a POLICY level, but more discriminatory on a personal level.  This is the opposite of American racism which tends to be enforced on a more systematic level, while people often make grand gestures on a PERSONAL level to show THEY PERSONALLY are not racist (if you are attached to the benefits of systematic racial oppression, you absolutely are).  

The result of living in a more racially homogeneous society (which is generally the case when comparing Euro countries to America) is that you may have less opportunities to confront your race issues every day in the way Americans do.  This, I believe, leads people to believe they are BETTER at dealing with racial issues than they actually are.  But when forced to operate in an integrated society, many people have more issues than they are often willing to admit.  I have a black sister, so it's hard to fool me.  We can see the fact that you are treating us differently. 

But if you are setting American-style Racism as the "definition" of racism, you might be able to exonerate yourself because that's not what you're doing.  

However, just because your racism doesn't look like American racism, isn't expressed like American racism, or doesn't function identically to American racism doesn't mean it's not racism.  It is.  And it's still damaging.  Microaggressions are still damaging.  Black face is still damaging.  It's not OK to mock someone's nose, skin, eyes, hair, whatever.  That's shitty behavior, full stop.  And there is no context that exonerates that behavior.  

Sorry you don't want it to be like it is, but it do.  

[Knight of Ni]

A little bit late but the post about Holland, Michigan being mistaken for the country reminds me of the time when my husband was wearing a shirt that said “Welcome to Tatooine.” A woman asked him if it was nice there and that she had never been there. 

[just_ordinary]

I cannot say anything about the Sinterclaas/Zwaarte Pete issue in the Netherlands. I can only speak about the German traditions I am aware of.

Knecht Ruprecht ain’t black normally. Basically he is a grumpy middle old white man that scares children (but sometimes has a good heart) and assists St. Nicholas. The Krampus is different. Firstly it is not human, it’s storyline is first found in writing in the 17th century. I think the ties to St. Nicholas came shortly after. In general we have a large tradition in using hellish demons in folklore. The whole carnival was around it at one time (getting rid of bad spirits). It dates back a long long time (sometimes even as far as celtic origins).

While I would never deny that Europe has a problem with racism (really, point out one country in the world that hasn’t) I think not every instance with a painted blackface or a black character plays into racism. The black wise men being one example. When children go from door to door and sing there normally are all three wise men present. Making the character white feels wrong too. The well known story of the „Little Blackamoor“ is another. He is made fun of and on the end St. Nicholas paints his bullies black too to teach them a lesson. The story has been heavily discussed in recent years, but I see the story as a strong message against making fun of POC.

It is good to have those discussions though, but I feel they have a strange taste when only white people are discussing it.  Let the POC tell us what they think about it and don’t patronise them.

@Georgiana I think your explanation about the difference in how racism is lived and expressed in the USA and Europe might be quite accurate.

[singsingsing]

10 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I think not every instance with a painted blackface or a black character plays into racism.

Blackface is always racist. It's an inherently racist thing.

10 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

The well known story of the „Little Blackamoor“ is another. He is made fun of and on the end St. Nicholas paints his bullies black too to teach them a lesson.

So the bullies are made black as well as a punishment? Sure, that doesn't sound racist at all!

11 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

Let the POC tell us what they think about it and don’t patronise them.

Why are you assuming that everyone involved in this discussion is white? Also, I'm sorry, but this comment smacks of 'this discussion makes me uncomfortable so I'm going to conveniently decree that only people of colour can comment on this issue, thereby absolving myself of responsibility and invalidating the arguments of the people who disagree with me.'

[Jinder Roles]

@singsingsing and @Cleopatra7 thank you for clearly expressing what I had trouble saying! 

As other commenters have said, some of the 'blackface' or animistic traditions do not necessarily originate in racism, but meanings change and evolve over time. And quite frankly, I am tired of giving white people  the benefit of the doubt. 

In addition to Cleopatra7's insights on the origins of blackface and Africans, I'd like to add that Moors, often referred to as 'blackamoors,' were also demonized, othered and portrayed as savages since the Renaissance era. I did quite a lot of research in my Shakespeare seminar last semester that points to this. It's largely due to the Moor rule of Spain and European powers feeling threatened by the then expanding Ottoman Empire. 

[Rachel333]

I had never seen blackface in person until I went to New Zealand and attended a huge costume party. A bunch of people thought it was just fine to have a "jungle" theme and paint themselves black to look like Africans. It was pretty shocking to me since Americans usually know better than to do that, but white New Zealanders seemed a lot more oblivious to racism.

I'm a white southern American and when I meet people who grew up outside of the American south they will very frequently bring up the South's history of racism. I've gotten teased a lot for it outside the south; for example, I remember once saying that I would take the white plate, as opposed to the blue plate or whichever else it was, and I got "Oh, of course you want the white plate, you're from Arkansas!" Just silly stuff like that. It doesn't feel personally offensive to me at all, just maybe trivializing the reality of racism, and when the topic of racism comes up I will take the opportunity to talk about the South's ugly history of racism because it is important.

The thing is, racism exists everywhere, not just the American South, and what does bother me is that a lot of people kind of project it all on their stereotypes of American southerners while ignoring the racism in their own area. In the US it happens with Northerners thinking racism is a Southern problem, and more broadly I've met a lot of people from outside the US, like Europe or New Zealand/Australia, who talk about racism as if it's just an American problem and they're in the clear because things are different in their country.

In France, for example, I've heard people talk about how they can't believe Americans talk about race at all and how they would never use such a word. (It's kind of an error in translation since in French -- and I believe several other languages as well -- "race" has similar connotations to "breed" in English and is really just used for animals, so when they hear people talk about "race" in English about humans it sounds wrong.) There's a ton of racism in France, but it seems like there's a tendency to think that it's just an American problem.

I don't know what I'm trying to say exactly, but in general I just want to see more people acknowledge the racism in their own areas and countries rather than thinking of racism as someone else's problem.

[KelseyAnn]

2 hours ago, Georgiana said:

 

For example: China.  China has a LONG history of race relations ("Barbarian Studies" is a FASCINATING Chinese academic sub-discipline), but, as you would expect, it bears absolutely NO resemblance to the West.  While racism is a definite and somewhat overt problem in China, it's not the same racism as you see in the West, so many people miss it.  China is SUPER racist, y'all.   

 

2

Do you have any book recommendations for Barbarian studies?

I just looked up what a polliwog is and all I can say is Oh my God, how horrible that they were actually toys. 

[AprilQuilt]

6 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Because the devil  had been traditionally portrayed as being black in premodern religious art, it was easy to conclude that Africans were cursed and disgusting due to their skin color. Writers from the nineteenth century, both American and European, frequently wrote about how the dark skin of blacks filled them with a visceral disgust.

Dark skin was also sometimes interpreted as the Mark of Cain, which added a convenient religious justification to the enslavement of black Africans. 

A number of memorials to baptised slaves in Britain refer to the expunging of their black skin - that it is a flaw that will be rectified in the perfection of Heaven, eg this for 18-year-old Scipio Africanus buried in Bristol:

'WHAT THO MY HUE WAS DARK MY SAVIORS SIGHT
SHALL CHANGE THIS DARKNESS INTO RADIANT LIGHT'

...so it would be hard for blackface in many parts of Europe to escape carrying certain connotations.

I think what you say about blackface being a specific Othering  is actually particularly pertinent with ref to the UK, which as you rightly say did not have visible large-scale slave industries on its soil. However, this is not the same as saying there were no black people in the UK or in Europe. London in the eighteenth century had a black population of at least 3000 (some estimates go up to 15,000 but this is doubtful), almost none of whom were slaves (broadly speaking after 1772 the state of slavery was not possible in Britain, but the law had been differently debated and interpreted for 100 years). Some were relocated in schemes like the Sierra Leone project, but most intermarried with the white population and had ordinary jobs. Those who did work as servants or still considered themselves enslaved, were intimately involved in a household: they could not help but form relationships with their colleagues, employers or 'owners'.

All this is to say that at least in cities, plenty of people were exposed to PoC; for a few generations they were not a segregated, othered group, but individuals who engaged in everyday life and were part of its fabric. There weren't a lot of them, but if you lived in a city they wouldn't be all that unusual. It put a human face on slavery, which was still often seen as a necessary evil, even still part of the 'natural order' - but it's very hard to wish abuse and enslavement on an individual who stands in front of you, with their humanity acknowledged. No wonder it took so much longer to end slavery in the colonies: all we saw were the profits. Clearly there was still racism, but the 'mob' - the working classes - were often instrumental in helping individual slaves achieve their freedom, and disapproved of the state of slavery for the individuals they saw.

There is such gymnastic cognitive dissonance in the othering of PoC after the second half of the eighteenth century, during which time black men like Olaudah Equiano, Ottobah Cugoano, and Ignatius Sancho all had platforms by which to express their intelligence and humanity, to tell their stories in a compelling manner; during which time black businessmen like Cesar Picton prospered, and Francis Barber was made the heir and executor of Dr Johnson; during which time black men with their white sweethearts were not such an unusual sight, and their biracial children received good educations. We granted individuals humanity, but continued to treat the larger group as rightless aliens, and, within a few generations, forget them altogether... It's a conscious, expedient choice based on empire-building: the Victorians particularly understood that to gain power for themselves they had to diminish the power of other people, which meant erasure and belittlement.

Blackface as we know it today is a result of calculated nineteenth-century Imperial thought; it is not entirely a naive blunder. We could have known better, we just chose not to.

[sansan]

On 2/16/2018 at 11:30 AM, halcionne said:

Life's gotten busy and fundies have been boring, I'm sorry to say. Do you follow the Maxwells? There was a surprise wedding that had my attention for a bit, but Duggar social media, etc, aren't doing anything for me. I do check in, but there's just not much to comment on, these days.

But wait.....all the drifts......nothing to do with fundie stuff and it goes on for daaaaaays. Don't leave us, please.

[Georgiana]

51 minutes ago, KelseyAnn said:

Do you have any book recommendations for Barbarian studies?

I just looked up what a polliwog is and all I can say is Oh my God, how horrible that they were actually toys. 

A good place to start is to study the various non-Han (and usually Turkish or Steppe) societies that flourished around the Han empires.  You'll necessarily get Chinese perspectives, because that's a good chunk of preserved sources.  My favorite are the Xiong Nu, the Jurchen (who form the Jin empire), and the Khitan (who found the Liao).  Studying the history of border provinces like Gansu and XinJiang will also get you started.  What you'll find is that not all barbarian groups were the same to the Han.  They generally divided them into two types: "Cooked" barbarians, who had assimilated and adopted Han culture to some extent (Jurchen Jin, Manchu Qing) and "raw" barbarians, who held on to their non-Han cultures (Xiong Nu for the most part, Mongol Yuan, various Muslim Turkic Peoples).  And then of course there's everything in between.  But what you find is that the LESS culturally Han the people are, the MORE friction they have with China.  If they assimilate, to a certain extent the Han will tolerate them no matter their race.  Assimilate past a certain point, and the Han may even see them as cultural defenders or having the Mandate of Heaven (Manchu Qing for certain, the Li Tang possibly).  

Books on this topic directly are hard to come by as it's understudied.  It hasn't been until fairly recently that non-Chinese scholars have really asked the question of whether barbarian groups warrant study on their own independent of the Chinese narrative (traditionally, the Chinese have been of the opinion that they largely do not).  So while the information is there in primary sources, few people have collected, translated, and done an examination on the topic itself.  I got my info largely from a course taught by a Ph.D. candidate, and he would just direct us to primary sources to supplement his lectures.  

I don't remember any books off the top of my head, but there are MANY books written about the history of Islam in China, which is definitely a topic I would recommend.  This will naturally lead you to the Uyghurs, their empires, and is topical as this is a struggle still going on today.  And again, you will see the contrast between those who choose to fully assimilate (Hui) and those who do not (Uyghurs).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Persian_relations is also an interesting topic.  The communication between empires is...something else, and much of it focuses on the management of the various "barbarian" tribes in between the two.  And most people were unaware they had diplomatic relations!  

I also enjoy the Secret Mongol History, if only because the Mongols wrote it themselves. Genghis Khan was afraid of dogs!

Another fun topic: the An Lushan Rebellion, where the strongest empire China has ever known was temporarily hijacked by a Chinese general of Persian descent.  (An Lushan is how the Chinese referred to him. It was not his actual name, and while my professor did present us with his actual surname, I have forgotten it as he is always referred to by his Chinese designation.  'An' is the modern reading of a character which at the time would have been pronounced "Fan/r*" and was an abbreviation for "Fan/r xi" aka "Farsi".  Lushan is an approximation of his given name Rokshan.  So An Lushan literally means "The Persian, Rokshan" and is pretty much par for the course with how the Han tended to officially refer to people of non-Han descent (see: surname Ma, which is short for the approximation of Mohammed/Muslim).)

*It's either Fan or Far...I forget when the pronunciation switch happened, though I do believe at one time this character had the reading "far", but either way you can see that it sounds like Farsi 

[KelseyAnn]

5 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

 

I don't remember any books off the top of my head, but there are MANY books written about the history of Islam in China, which is definitely a topic I would recommend.  This will naturally lead you to the Uyghurs, their empires, and is topical as this is a struggle still going on today.  And again, you will see the contrast between those who choose to fully assimilate (Hui) and those who do not (Uyghurs).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Persian_relations is also an interesting topic.  The communication between empires is...something else, and much of it focuses on the management of the various "barbarian" tribes in between the two.  And most people were unaware they had diplomatic relations!  

I also enjoy the Secret Mongol History, if only because the Mongols wrote it themselves. Genghis Khan was afraid of dogs!

Another fun topic: the An Lushan Rebellion, where the strongest empire China has ever known was temporarily hijacked by a Chinese general of Persian descent.  (An Lushan is how the Chinese referred to him. It was not his actual name, and while my professor did present us with his actual surname, I have forgotten it as he is always referred to by his Chinese designation.  'An' is the modern reading of a character which at the time would have been pronounced "Fan/r*" and was an abbreviation for "Fan/r xi" aka "Farsi".  Lushan is an approximation of his given name Rokshan.  So An Lushan literally means "The Persian, Rokshan" and is pretty much par for the course with how the Han tended to officially refer to people of non-Han descent (see: surname Ma, which is short for the approximation of Mohammed/Muslim).)

 

 

Thank you. I'm a History major and want to teach History at a college someday. I'm always happy for books that aren't written about popular cutlure. 

[singsingsing]

2 minutes ago, KelseyAnn said:

Thank you. I'm a History major and want to teach History at a college someday. I'm always happy for books that aren't written about popular cutlure. 

I have nothing substantial to add, I just want to give a shout-out to a fellow History major! 

[Georgiana]

2 minutes ago, KelseyAnn said:

Thank you. I'm a History major and want to teach History at a college someday. I'm always happy for books that aren't written about popular cutlure. 

Oooooooh!  Yes!!!!!  Really interesting topic!  For example, a main source of cultural friction between the Han and Muslim peoples was...PORK!  In Han culture, pork is your default meat.  It's so ingrained that if you just say "meat" without modifiers, you mean pork (whereas you have to say "chicken meat", "cow meat", etc.).  So the Han would invite Muslim dignitaries on the frontier to meals as a show of friendship, as one does.  And, being Han, they would kill their biggest pig/put pork in EVERYTHING, which is a very polite and honorific gesture towards guests.  And then, of course, their guests would be unable to eat.  So these big friendly overtures would turn into giant messes where the Muslims would be pissed off at the Han ("They made a feast that WE COULDN'T EAT, those rude bois") and the Han would be pissed off at the Muslims ("They didn't eat a single thing we made, and we put meat in EVERYTHING, those rude bois").

Other areas of contention were the Mandate of Heaven vs the Umma, the Mandate of Heaven vs Islam (when your civil society is based upon recognition of a God-emperor, it makes it hard to tolerate religions within your civic boundaries that don't recognize your ruler as divine...even if they are willing to fully grant him civil authority), and scholarship primacy.  

(P.S. I didn't define this, but the Han are the largest ethnic group in China.  USUALLY when you say "Chinese" you mean "Han".  But it's important NOT to conflate the two here because there are OTHER legitimately Chinese minority groups that are non-Han, and their erasure is a real problem.)

[ven]

Mmmm , it depends on the people a bit . I feel dutch people ( netherlands) feel much much more obliged to do the political correct thing ( i am married to a dutch guy) , the dutch speaking belgians not so much  ... we hate at least half of our country ( the french part) and are very vocal about it to . We hate our old german monarchy who doesnt even speak our language ,and any person of color is likely to never get a job here . And 90 percent of us does not even care one bit nor looses sleep about it . We are still much more socialist compared to the dutch . So there are vast differences between europeans . Bulgaria , chech and poland do not take in any refugees , nor would that be livable for said refugees. Again very very big differences .. ( disclaimer this is not necessarely my personal view on things, just honestly thecway things are)

[Don'tlikekoolaid]

I hate racism in all forms

Celebrate the difference !

[laPapessaGiovanna]

3 hours ago, Georgiana said:

My personal experience with Europeans is the same.  I have heard many, many Europeans express problematic views, and I think even the most cursory glance at current events and issues in Europe CLEARLY shows that Europeans have a race issue.  However, many Europeans also genuinely believe they do NOT have a race issue.  My personal experience (and this is purely anecdotal though I do have a fairly large sample size I'm pulling from) is that Europeans tend to be more equitable on a POLICY level, but more discriminatory on a personal level.  This is the opposite of American racism which tends to be enforced on a more systematic level, while people often make grand gestures on a PERSONAL level to show THEY PERSONALLY are not racist (if you are attached to the benefits of systematic racial oppression, you absolutely are).  

The result of living in a more racially homogeneous society (which is generally the case when comparing Euro countries to America) is that you may have less opportunities to confront your race issues every day in the way Americans do.  This, I believe, leads people to believe they are BETTER at dealing with racial issues than they actually are.  But when forced to operate in an integrated society, many people have more issues than they are often willing to admit

I live in Italy. In my region there are officially 10% of residents who are foreign born. Since I live in an affluent area in the planes, in my local council 20% of residents are foreign born. At least half of them have dark to black skin, a quarter of them have almond shaped eyes. With this I just mean to say that my local council's racial make up resembles more that of an American town of nowadays than of an European village of the 19th century.

In such a situation race issues are definitely a thing, especially when you consider that the vast majority of foreigners came here after 1990. It has been a major change in a short time.  But they came here of their own volition, not sold as slaves (the numbers I wrote are referred to documented foreigners with jobs and all their papers in orde, there are many "illegals" but their numbers are difficult to assess correctly) so that's a big difference. Laws are equal for everyone and they work, pay taxes, use the NHS and the public school system. Is everything ok? No, not at all, for example children born here from foreigners don't have a right to citizenship, because we are a ius sanguinis country. Those who have lived here and have been law abiding residents for more than 10yrs can ask to become citizens. Then they can sit down and wait cos paperwork can take 5yrs. I don't think it's fair, especially for children who were born here, went to school here, practiced sports here, they already are Italians at very least culturally, our laws should recognise it.

Our prisons are full of foreigners and no our judiciary system isn't skewed towards foreigners, it's more complicated. Many foreigners come here hoping for a job and a decent living, of course they don't find it. They end up being pawns of criminal organizations and earning long stays in prisons. This is a huge problem and a big cause of social tensions. We don't seem to be willing to go to the root of the problem.

My admittedly anecdotal (but my sample is huge) experience about racism in Europe seems to be exactly the contrary of yours. People rant about *insert stereotype about a nationality*, but don't dare to touch their best friend/coworker/neighbour who happens to be originally from that other culture. But that person is totes ok cos he/she is their friend. Oh and they aren't racist cos see they have a black/Asian/Eastern European friend. They are racist as they come of course.

Racism is racism everywhere, whatever the races, the cultures and the colours involved. But the world isn't the US, there are different issues in different countries and cultural differences are a thing. Things that have racist undertones in my country are perfectly fine in the US (ie in Italy none will ever ask you what race you are, because we perceive it as an horribly racist question, we just assume you belong to the human race and if we are curious we may ask about your ethnicity, whoever does otherwise believes in Nazi concepts about race meaning that there are different races of humams and that some are better) and things that are as racist as possible in the US have little meaning here, ie if I see someone painted black I may assume that either he's playing Othello or he is dressed up for Carnival. We don't have a history of blackface shows stereotyping PoCs. I know that this will send some of you through the roof but that is, we didn't have Jim Croow laws nor Jim Crow imageries and all their legacies. 

For a comparison, once I saw here on FJ the word "spastic" used as an epithet I actually dropped the phone. Here it is extremely offensive, but you Americans said that in your country it isn't, quite the contrary it can be used as an endearing and cute way to describe someone. I don't see how it is possible but I have to trust you on that one. In my culture we have lots of collective guilt for how disabled and especially mentally disabled people were treated, they were sent in asylums that were worse than hell, and the awfulness of that tragedy lingers in our collective psyche.

This post is getting long. TL;DR racism in Europe exists and is a thing, just not exactly the same thing. Is it better? Absolutely not. Different in part, for some aspects, for others it's the same. We Europeans can't hide that we have a big problem that will probably get worse very soon as it seems we are heading towards a period where right wing parties will be more powerful. Surely being mindful of other countries' experience can help us see our problems, but neglecting to notice our racism peculiarities because we watch it through the wrong cultural lenses isn't a good idea.

BTW I have never ever seen anybody with  their faces painted black nor irl, nor in movies nor anywhere in my country, it's never been a thing. We have black masks tied to local traditions (like Pulcinella or the mamuthones) but none of them have racial undertones afaik.

4 hours ago, Georgiana said:

 

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

15 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

In France, for example, I've heard people talk about how they can't believe Americans talk about race at all and how they would never use such a word. (It's kind of an error in translation since in French -- and I believe several other languages as well -- "race" has similar connotations to "breed" in English and is really just used for animals, so when they hear people talk about "race" in English about humans it sounds wrong.) There's a ton of racism in France, but it seems like there's a tendency to think that it's just an American problem.

I can't speak for France, just for Italy. We don't use the word race for humans. The problem isn't the word, it's the concept. When you apply the concept of breed to humans there's a problem and it doesn't matter if instead of saying breed you say race. There aren't different human races, we are all homo sapiens sapiens, there are just different ethnicities. I get that American perspective on this is different and I use the word race here on FJ to convey my message, but I would never use it in my language and when I use it here I really mean ethnicity.

Our cultural repulsion for the word race doesn't come out of nowhere, it's not a nose up in the air towards Americans. The word is loaded with an historical baggage that's just too heavy. The very concept of race was used to single out Jews and gipsies and to justify the "final solution". Both Jews and gipsies are virtually indistinguishable from the wider Italian population and yet the racism fuelled crimes we committed towards them are the worst part of our history as a country.

This doesn't mean that not using the word race prevents racism, this would be an enormous lie. But it is a way for our whole society to reject the idea that some people are ontologically better than others. 

[samurai_sarah]

8 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

(snip)

We Europeans can't hide that we have a big problem that will probably get worse very soon as it seems we are heading towards a period where right wing parties will be more powerful. Surely being mindful of other countries' experience can help us see our problems, but neglecting to notice our racism peculiarities because we watch it through the wrong cultural lenses isn't a good idea.

(snip)

So much this! As Europeans, we can't deny that we have a problem. We can learn from other societies' experiences, but they are not universally applicable in the same way. The subtleties are so different.

Spoilered, because not everyone wants to read rambling stories that make the same point.
 

Spoiler

 

A long time ago, an American friend of mine was on an exchange to France. The only black person in his group saw another black person on the tram and greeted him with "hello brother". Only to be rudely rebuffed by this very French person, who did not appreciate being called "brother" at all, by an American, purely on the basis of looks. The American was shaken that a fellow would be rather rude to him.

Point of the story being that the history of racism in the West is rather similar, and then it isn't. And then it gets more complicated.

Being half S Korean has always made me "a good foreigner" in Germany. I'm not a foreigner, but that's besides the point right now. I always rather wondered why my mum, when in S Korea, was at pains to point out to people that I was German. Why would she "other" me like that?

As a child and a teenager, I didn't get that she was protecting me, and herself. After the Korea war, and in subsequent decades, having a mixed-race child usually resulted from a Korean woman and an American soldier. American soldiers were looked down upon. Mum went to Germany as a nurse, in a nationally recognised drive to aid the economy. Germany helped out, when it was perceived that America didn't.

What mum was saying was that she was thoroughly respectable, and so was I. Because marrying and starting a family with a German, was respectable. By continually going "this is my German daughter", mum was protecting herself and me from racist attacks. Goodness help us, if dad had been a black German. That would have opened another tin of worms.

 

 

[just_ordinary]

21 hours ago, singsingsing said:

Blackface is always racist. It's an inherently racist thing.

So the bullies are made black as well as a punishment? Sure, that doesn't sound racist at all!

Why are you assuming that everyone involved in this discussion is white? Also, I'm sorry, but this comment smacks of 'this discussion makes me uncomfortable so I'm going to conveniently decree that only people of colour can comment on this issue, thereby absolving myself of responsibility and invalidating the arguments of the people who disagree with me.'

I was thinking a long time whether I should reply to your reply or not. I decided to because I feel misunderstood but I fear this post might not clear it up. 

Re: black characters played by white people- I feel like there is a difference between the underlying concept to what blackfacing means in the US. Maybe I am wrong but I see a difference between the silly black helper and the black wise men.

The story about the blackamoor is heavily discussed in my country for exactly that reason. You can interpret it as punishment or as showing them that colour doesn’t change who you are- a human. Which brings me to my last comment. I didn’t speak about the discussions here. I have no idea about all your backgrounds. But in my country a lot of those discussions that are held publicly are highly dominated by white people. If there is one POC that is a lot. I find it sad that not more raise their voice. Because their voice matters. Only a POC can tell me how it really is to be a POC in our society. So I am not assuming anything in this cases so am aware of.

And lastly- what other FJs said about using the word “race” is true. In a lot of European countries no one but right-wing Nazis use the word. I had a hard time getting used to it on this forum and it was even harder to type it myself. So if you use the word in Europe people would very easily assume (general) you have some racist problems yourself. A lot gets lost in translation so I hope my words were clearer this time.

[HereticHick]

22 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

 

It is good to have those discussions though, but I feel they have a strange taste when only white people are discussing it.  Let the POC tell us what they think about it and don’t patronise them.

 

We ARE here and we ARE telling you what we think.  Why on earth do you think everyone on FJ is the same ethnicity as you????

[just_ordinary]

3 minutes ago, HereticHick said:

We ARE here and we ARE telling you what we think.  Why on earth do you think everyone on FJ is the same ethnicity as you????

If you read my last comment you would have realised that I haven’t been talking to the discussions here!

Sorry, I didn’t make that clear in the previous comment.

[singsingsing]

4 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

If you read my last comment you would have realised that I haven’t been talking to the discussions here!

But this is a discussion about racism in Europe, which is taking place on a forum with members from all different countries and races participating. People do understand what you're saying, they just disagree with it.

[Rachel333]

5 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

I can't speak for France, just for Italy. We don't use the word race for humans. The problem isn't the word, it's the concept. When you apply the concept of breed to humans there's a problem and it doesn't matter if instead of saying breed you say race. There aren't different human races, we are all homo sapiens sapiens, there are just different ethnicities. I get that American perspective on this is different and I use the word race here on FJ to convey my message, but I would never use it in my language and when I use it here I really mean ethnicity.

Our cultural repulsion for the word race doesn't come out of nowhere, it's not a nose up in the air towards Americans. The word is loaded with an historical baggage that's just too heavy. The very concept of race was used to single out Jews and gipsies and to justify the "final solution". Both Jews and gipsies are virtually indistinguishable from the wider Italian population and yet the racism fuelled crimes we committed towards them are the worst part of our history as a country.

This doesn't mean that not using the word race prevents racism, this would be an enormous lie. But it is a way for our whole society to reject the idea that some people are ontologically better than others. 

Right, but to English speakers "race" and "ethnicity" mean basically the same thing. We don't associate "breed" with "race" at all and would feel similarly repulsed if someone used the word "breed" for humans, as racists have done in the past. We don't associate different races with different species either, like it sounds like you do with the "we are all homo sapiens sapiens" comment (which is absolutely true!). What I'm getting from your post is that you have a very different connotation to the word "race" than English speakers typically have, which is where a lot of the misunderstanding comes from. And that goes in both directions--it's not fair to say, for example, that Europeans not using the word "race" is the same as people saying that racism doesn't exist as long as we don't talk about it. I'm sorry if I suggested that Europeans should be using the word "race," because it is totally valid that Europeans want to avoid it given its connotations in their languages.

It's just different. The first time I heard people talking about the "race" of dogs in French it sounded bizarre to me because that's just not a word we apply to animals. When English speakers talk about race we really don't mean to imply that there's something as genetically fundamental about different races as there is about different species. I think it's a much softer word in English.