megyn kelly was right about blackface

she said if all you are doing is portraying as a character someone who is black, and you have no ill will, then it isn't racist or wrong to do blackface. the main reason this is true is because there is no racist intent. in fact, it's more racist to make things that are not racist into racist problems where they don't exist. 

If a racist cop wants me to shoot a black person because that person is black. Then hands me the gun and I shoot him. But I, personally, bear no ill will toward that black person and am not racist myself, would you consider this scenario, taken as a whole, to be racist?

Are you a robot? if yes, then it is a racist scenario.

No. I'm not a robot. How does that change the outcome of the scenario, though?

Because your motives for killing someone are your own.

Right, but I'm asking to look at the scenario as a whole. Not expertly and precisely carving out just a single element of the scenario and examining only that aspect of the scenario in a complete vacuum.

To make it more palatable, let's say the officer has convinced me that this person, objectively, needs to die and I need to do it. The officer's motivations are racist, but he is clever enough to convince me that the person needs to die without invoking racism such that my motives, though influenced by the officer, don't have an element of racism.

This is such a weird hypothetical. We don't even know if the killing is murder or self-defense.

The essence is we have the prime motivation as being racist and the killing of this person is unjustified. However, through clever manipulation, the racist person has tricked another person without racist motivations into carrying out this killing. From the non-racist's perspective, the logic and argumentation presented is convincing and they have no reason to doubt the police officer.

Yet it's all a lie and a deceit and merely an excuse to rid the planet of a black person.     

I would consider the scenario racist, but I would not consider you a racist. Instead, I would consider you a coward.

Hey, fair enough. And I like and agree with the distinction.

The point I'm trying to make (albeit it perhaps clumsily) is you can have this general scenario that is racist that nevertheless contains aspects that are not racist. You can carve out and examine just those aspects and groan about how it's not racist but I don't think that is an honest analysis of the situation as a whole.

If the above scenario happened in the news, focusing just on me wouldn't be an accurate representation.

Likewise, to tie this back to the OP, blackface has a long and sullied history in this country and looking at just some modern aspect as if it exists in a vacuum and declaring it to be "not racist" isn't honest. Even if those specific individuals aren't acting with racist motivations, this humiliating practice has been passed down from racist hands.

So I'd call the entire scenario racist, but I would not consider (necessarily) these individual racists. Instead, I would consider them stupid fucking idiots.

Honestly I would never be ok with blackface untill America has at least 100 years of what South Africa is currently doing to wipepo.

Is White Chicks a racist movie?  No, it is just funny, but why is that?  It's because white people don't care.  We could get all upset about it, when they used stereotypes to poke fun, but we laugh too.  Or do white people not have stereotypes, just like black people can't be racist?

Look, I already know there are more dark skinned racists than white skinned racists in the USA, both in actual numbers and the ratios of racists to non-racist within their ethnic groups.

It's the racists that get offended by these caricatures first when it's done for entertainment and not as a tool of oppression.

But they don't have the political power yet to actually implement their policies. If anything, the last vestiges of institutional racism in the form of affirmative action are on the decline. Have you read about the Asian lawsuit against Harvard's racist admission policies?

I did hear about that.

If anyone wants to regulate minority participation in anything, and promote diversity, they should adopt a regulation that requires people to hire or accept the reflected percentages of the nation, or state, or city, or jurisdiction and the outreach of the institution . For instance, if blacks are 13% of the nation, they should be required to accept  or hire 13% blacks, if they are a nationally recognized institution.  This would promote diversity while keeping American values, helping immigrants to learn English, assimilate and at the same time expose everyone to different cultures.

But.... I don't really believe in that, it just makes more sense than any other regulation, as much as it sucks, it is a plausible solution..  If they want to regulate anything at all, it should make sense, this is the only thing, albeit still a horrible policy.   Although there are probably good outcomes like the ones I point out above, there are some disastrous consequences.   Just like socialism, communism, and the like.  They sound great, but they are far from it.  Just like any affirmative action policy, they need to go away completely.

If Harvard and other Ivy schools are completely overtaken by Asians, so be it.

And how is this at all similar to someone changing their own appearance, of their own volition, to look more similar to a person they are trying to portray? Are you trolling? Cause this doesn't make any sense as a comparison. 

"Blackface" and "minstrel shows" are, though intertwined because minstrel shows were done in blackface, separate things. You're conflating the racism of minstrel shows with blackface. 

Would a minstrel show be racist without the performers in blackface? If yes, then blackface itself doesn't have shit to do with it, it's the act, the portrayal that differentiates it. What you are doing here is comparatively as if you called a weapon scope dangerous, because it's used on a gun, and guns are dangerous, so scopes are too. 

But no, the scope itself isnt dangerous, unless you put it on the gun, it's basically just a shitty telescope. Same with blackface, unless you put it into an act or portrayal that is insulting, it's just make-up to imitate/mimic. 

Now, this doesn't matter if you think mimicry/imitation is itself can be nothing other than insulting and defamatory. But if thats the case, a discussion on blackface wouldnt get anywhere before we analyze the fundamental basics of performance arts, but also innate human behavior and how we initially learn.

But let's say the issue is the "minstrel show" a specific comedic act. Do you think minstrel shows have disappeared? No lol, they're still around and consumed by people of all varieties, races, and creeds, even you, and you probably dont realize you've consumed and enjoyed plenty of them, you bigot 😏.

Who cares?