They're completely different.

Blackface depicts negative stereotypes, it mocks and degrades. It singles out a race for ridicule through mocking imitation.

Letting black actors play a "white character" who is heroic does not, it just lets black people participate in the myth as being about people rather than about a particular race of people. White people do the same thing when they insist on White Jesus, except they aren't satisfied to just let white people play Jesus, they twist history itself to claim the actual Jesus was white.

It's not like the black actor smears mayonaise all over their face and says, "Hurr durr I'm a white person! I'm so stupid!" which is what blackface does. The hero is still a hero, noble and respectable and courageous and all that jazz.

There is nothing more to talk about until you can recognize this massive difference.

blatant Eurocentrism of Hollywood

You have much to learn.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19

It came from the integration of Middle Eastern Jewish Diaspora migrants with groups in the European subcontinent.

It's not like a bunch of Jews just appeared out of nowhere in Norway. Ashkenazi have both European and Middle Eastern DNA.

Wait...what do you think Turks are...? They're exactly a mix of Eastern European, West Asian, and Arab (semitic) peoples. That's exactly what you'd expect from an area where those three worlds meet geographically.

That's not what the genetics show.

The history of Turkey is one of multiple migrations into and out of the region by groups from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

You don't get to pick one point in time and say, "This defines what the Turkish people are." You have to take the entire history into account. They're a genetic amalgam of their surrounding neighbors like almost everyone except islanders and other geographically-isolated peoples.

Turks are not "Europeans."

You said Ashkenazi Jews are European.

Then you said they're genetically close to Turks.

Can't have it both ways unless Turks are (at least close to) European.

There is nothing more to talk about until you can recognize this massive difference.

I specifically threw this at the end because this is what you do RMFN. You throw 5 arguments out, then whenever someone refutes one you just move to the other, then to the next, then to the next, then back around to the beginning again (or you post a new thread starting from square one again).

Either acknowledge my point or refute it, then we can move on to your next argument.

What you're doing is the definition of deflection. I met your point head on and described clear differences between "shoe horning diversity" and black face. What you do? Just call it "moot" (how is it moot?) then skip to the next thing. Sad showing on your part, I expect a bit more from you!

Okay. Just to clear everything up, your point again is? How are they different? Just saying its different isn't an argument...

I didn't just say it's different, I made a full argument which you ignored every word of:

Blackface depicts negative stereotypes, it mocks and degrades. It singles out a race for ridicule through mocking imitation.

Letting black actors play a "white character" who is heroic does not, it just lets black people participate in the myth as being about people rather than about a particular race of people. White people do the same thing when they insist on White Jesus, except they aren't satisfied to just let white people play Jesus, they twist history itself to claim the actual Jesus was white.

It's not like the black actor smears mayonaise all over their face and says, "Hurr durr I'm a white person! I'm so stupid!" which is what blackface does. The hero is still a hero, noble and respectable and courageous and all that jazz.

.

What is your opinion of the play Hamilton?

I only listened to an audio recording of the original cast. It was great IMO.

Blackface depicts negative stereotypes, it mocks and degrades. It singles out a race for ridicule through mocking imitation.

Is the falsity the root of the racism?

The racism is when you act out stereotypes in order to mock and humiliate a group. When you go out of your way to change your appearance to that of another race so they audience knows the commentary is about the race.

Again, a black man playing Zeus doesn't do so by putting mayonaise on his face and saying, "Dumpty doo I'm a dumb white person, I sho do loves me some avacado toast!"

He just acts out Zeus as a character in order to tell the same story it always was, not "as a white person" in order to make a commentary about white people. Black face does the opposite, it makes the story about the stereotype of a black person.

And here it becomes (even more) clear that you are not arguing in good faith.

Did you really not get my point?

That's what blackface does, that was the bad stereotyping I was talking about.

So I constructed an example of what actual whiteface would be like: a black man painting his face white and pretending to have bad grammar in order to mock white people.

In my hypothetical example, the black actor was representing White people as having bad grammar, which is exactly what these "shoe horning diversity" movies do not do, hence why they're completely unlike black face, which does do that.

Did you actually not get that point or did you think, "Oh, I can't actually disagree with his point, so I'll pretend I don't get it, call him a bigot, then run away" ?

What do you think?

It obviously is. But if the choice is all-or-nothing... non-whites would get nothing. We aren't likely to see Hollywood make blockbuster versions of non-occidental myths anytime soon. Casting non-white people in those roles is an intermediate step.

No. u/groman31 did a good job of explaining how black-face is not equivalent to a black actor portraying Zeus. There is nothing in his character that is "white", he could be portrayed by an actor of any race and it wouldn't be subversive.

[removed]

I'll give you a cheatsheet here, RMFN, because there is an interesting conversation to be had here but you miss it by a mile.

You think you have a slam dunk by comparing it to blackface, but it's a dud because there are so many differences even beyond the obvious ones. It has great shock value when you say it, but it falls apart upon even a cursory examination.

What you should be trying to compare this to is whitewashing, that is actually a comparison that is debatable. The blackface one is beyond stupid unless you're talking about White Chicks.

You only prefer it because you know that blackface is super taboo, and you want "shoe horning diversity" to be similarly taboo. You don't care that the comparison falls apart on close examination, you just want a talking point that makes an extreme claim regardless of how false that claim actually is.

Again, "whitewashing" is what you should be going for, there's actually an argument to be had there. The comparison to blackface is just pure sophistry. Clinging to it makes you look like either an idiot or an amoral propagandist.

You ask very difficult questions and I enjoy the thinking sparked by your inquiries. You get me to question aspects of society that I normally would never inspect with a critical lens. For this I am appreciative

Lol are you kidding? All of your opinions are deeply conservative and reactionary.

You're like a Monarchist in 1777 America saying, "I'm so radical! I'm challenging the status quo!"

Nothing in and of itself, but "conservative values" are literally the received values and opinions, so don't pretend like there's anything radical about being stuck in the 19th century. You're not a brave rebel, you're an anachronistic bootlicker.

"We should be more Christian, more Capitalist, less diverse, and more sexist." - You, thinking yourself a scrappy underdog on the side of liberation

Damn you're triggered now aren't ya

Can't be too chilly, because I see a snowflake melting right in front of me.

The fuck dumb angry rant did I just read?

Nothing in and of itself, but "conservative values" are literally the received values and opinions, so don't pretend like there's anything radical about being stuck in the 19th century. You're not a brave rebel, you're an anachronistic bootlicker.

"We should be more Christian, more Capitalist, less diverse, and more sexist." - You, thinking yourself a scrappy underdog on the side of liberation