Are the look-a-like posts on CB racist?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by nikuman

I've never even seen Little Rascals (much too young), so all I know is that (1) they have the same hairstyle and (2) well, that's about all I know. Given Donuthole's background and age, I would assume the same about him. If it is racist, it's unintentionally so.

Actually, I don't think you can be unintentionally racist since it's fundamentally a belief. This thus isn't racist at all (unless Donuthole and I actually do harbor such a belief), and, given the response to the poll and this thread, I don't think the caricature is so well known as to make it obvious by any stretch.

In poor taste? Maybe, but we didn't know that at the time, did we? A simple "hey, did you know X" would have been enough for me to take it down.

So you can do and say what you want as long as you don't know better?

I totally disagree.

[nikuman]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

So you can do and say what you want as long as you don't know better?

I totally disagree.

Disagree then. I couldn't care less.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I just think you're the kind of person who would defend it by saying things to the effect of "they're making fun of white people too."

That's not the way this stuff works.

Our nation killed many and enslaved so many more of these people and then proceeded to treat them like crap for another century. Perpetuating racist caricatures is harmful, and I think we Mormons ought to go above and beyond in avoiding this kind of crap. We ought to be the greatest advocates against even the appearance of racism.

Well, I didn't say anything about white people, I just pointed out that the basis for making fun was simply the hairstyle.

If he had posted an Al Jolson picture, then maybe you'd be onto something here.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

It's a well known racist caricature.

So if I think those two have the same hairstyle, that means I think I'm better than blacks?

What would you say if, perchance, we learned that the guy liked Buckwheat as a kid, and intentionally patterned his hairstyle after him? Would the comparison still be racist?

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

And it's the last thing that members of a Church trying to rid itself of its racist past should be doing.

And if you start busting out revelation bull shit, let me remind you that President Kimball was my dad's uncle, and I happen to know for a fact that even he considered the Church's former policy regarding blacks to be nothing other than pure, uninspired racist policy.

Well that just came out of left field.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I just think you're the kind of person who would defend it by saying things to the effect of "they're making fun of white people too."

That's not the way this stuff works.

Our nation killed many and enslaved so many more of these people and then proceeded to treat them like crap for another century. Perpetuating racist caricatures is harmful, and I think we Mormons ought to go above and beyond in avoiding this kind of crap. We ought to be the greatest advocates against even the appearance of racism.

Well, I didn't say anything about white people, I just pointed out that the basis for making fun was simply the hairstyle.

If he had posted an Al Jolson picture, then maybe you'd be onto something here.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well that just came out of left field.

More like a call up from the Rookie League bullpen.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

So if I think those two have the same hairstyle, that means I think I'm better than blacks?

Buckwheat=racist caricature. There are all kinds of physical features specific to African-Americans and also ethnic issues (style) that matter, and mocking them (especially using a racist caricature) is wrong.

This week the missionaries came into our primary and started talking about the "big black man" to whom they gave the Book of Mormon donated from primary.

This kind of talk reflects a larger problem, where people focus on skin color rather than the people themselves. Why is it necessary to specify that they're teaching a "big black man?" No other good adjectives for him? Unnecessarily pointing out the fact that he is black is a learned racist behavior, and it's not necessary. If you see a person and think about his skin color before you think about who the person really is, then you're already in racist territory.

This stuff is learned. If you put a few three year olds of various races in a playpen together, within minutes they won't think twice about the skin color of their playmates. We grow up learning to focus on skin color and racial features, and that focus in and of itself is racist. Even if you don't think you're better than someone of a different race, focusing on racial features causes problems. It's not just about how you feel. It's also about how someone of a different race might interpret it. Our nation's history (and our religion's history) have put us in a position where we especially ought to know better.

[Donuthole]

Originally Posted by nikuman

In poor taste? Maybe, but we didn't know that at the time, did we? A simple "hey, did you know X" would have been enough for me to take it down.

Sorry. I'm not even going to concede that the post was in poor taste. SoonerCoug can read into it what he wants, but I am an equal opportunity mocker. Let him bitch for reparations while the rest of us enjoy a snicker at some completely harmless opponent smack.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Buckwheat=racist caricature. There are all kinds of physical features specific to African-Americans and also ethnic issues (style) that matter, and mocking them (especially using a racist caricature) is wrong.

This week the missionaries came into our primary and started talking about the "big black man" to whom they gave the Book of Mormon donated from primary.

This kind of talk reflects a larger problem, where people focus on skin color rather than the people themselves. Why is it necessary to specify that they're teaching a "big black man?" No other good adjectives for him? Unnecessarily pointing out the fact that he is black is a learned racist behavior, and it's not necessary. If you see a person and think about his skin color before you think about who the person really is, then you're already in racist territory.

This stuff is learned. If you put a few three year olds of various races in a playpen together, within minutes they won't think twice about the skin color of their playmates. We grow up learning to focus on skin color and racial features, and that focus in and of itself is racist. Even if you don't think you're better than someone of a different race, focusing on racial features causes problems. It's not just about how you feel. It's also about how someone of a different race might interpret it. Our nation's history (and our religion's history) have put us in a position where we especially ought to know better.

This is bull. Skin color is an attribute, just like blue eyes and moles. If I identify someone as the "black guy over there" I'm not automatically being a racist. I'm describing him so you'll know which guy I'm talking about, just like if I said, "the guy with red hair."

It's this kind of hypersensitive garbage that perpetuates racial disharmony. Racism is when I believe my skin color makes me superior. There's no evidence of that here, or in a thousand other cases where it's alleged. And when you use the word frivolously it cheapens REAL racism.

To quote Seinfeld, "Someone asks me which way is Israel, I don't go flying off the handle!"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

It's a well known racist caricature.

Sooner is absolutely correct. Even the term "Buckwheat" is considered to be a racial slur by many. Google it if you don't believe us.