Long Overdue
Today, I want to discuss an opinion piece created by NateTalksToYou (his full name isn’t publicly known) which asks whether or not Blackface is racist and how it should be “judged on a case by case basis” I am linking the video in question here:
Medium doesn’t seem to have any embedded video support that I’m aware of so bare with me here or any proper text formatting to my liking.
I ask that you watch the video and read my article afterwards.
Nathan begins his point by explaining what Blackface is as well as its origins, he goes on to showcase numerous evidence that the practice is in fact; racist and then asks whether or not it is racist, as though it were a genuine thought-provoking question made to make you rethink your bias views on life — and not even 5 seconds later (what a world record) he begins to reveal his ulterior pathology (this is important for later on) by bringing up an event that happened during October of 2013 wherein actress Julianne Hough wore blackface during a Halloween party, dressed as ‘Crazy Eyes’ a character on Orange is the New Black played by Uzo Aduba and (I also can’t believe Orange is the New Black has been out that long) this is where I’m going to address why NO context on Earth forgives the usage of blackface.
He attempts to suggest that she is merely Cosplaying as the character, it isn’t what he literally says, but it is what she’s literally doing, only — she crossed a line. She didn’t need to darken her skin and she cannot justify having done so either. There is NO instance where darkening your skin is acceptable outside of those very particular face masks and you know damn well that’s true.
This is IG (Instagram) model chub.waifu, she is currently (at the time of the photo) dressed up as Zero Two, a half-human half-dragon female from a Japanese animation known as Darling in the Franxx (an anime).
According to Nathan here, it would be fully acceptable in context for this young woman to paint her skin pale to match that of a fictional (for all intents and purposes) Japanese woman and it apparently wouldn’t carry the same connotations as Blackface or Blacking-up. A whole other kind of racist.
He’s Wrong
But why? Well because as seen above Shay (the Instagram Model) has perfectly cosplayed the character without needing to alter her face (and/or skin) in any way whatsoever. This is Zero Two:
You now know what Zero Two looks like and if you have two functioning eyes and a healthy cerebral cortex you should be able to process that Shay successively dressed up as the character known as Zero Two.
Shay used ‘visual associations’ to achieve the convincing look, such as red-horns, pink hair, white hair band and pink eyebrows too. At her core, this is all Zero Two’s design is. The uniform isn’t required to complete the Cosplay, only the appearance regarding the face/head area matters because a character isn’t recognized by their million dollar footwear, it’s their iconic looks that you remember.
You can visibly see she looks like Zero Two, you know visually who she is trying to dress up as. Therefore altering her skin’s appearance to be more “Authentic” is completely unnecessary as Shay was able to achieve the look without “Whitening up” or making her skin pale. This means that if Julianne had just oh I dunno — did her hair up, make an iconic smirk and twitch in her eye and dyed her hair black she would have been easily recognized as having dressed up as ‘Crazy Eyes’.
Nathan then questions the public outrage at the time by asking; “How is this any different from a black woman wearing a blonde wig, a dress and white face to be Daenerys from Game of Thrones?” his entire point hinges on an argument he doesn’t go on to justify or depict and he immediately skips to a new point.
But for good ol’ laughs let’s actually reply to his question. It isn’t, Nathan, they (the black community) simply wouldn’t do it, they didn’t spend the last 80 years telling you blackface was racist only to then do a white version of it. Oh and NO ‘White Chicks’ is not an example of ‘racist caricature’ for comedic purposes, it’s definitely discriminatory towards the Hollywood elite heiresses such as Paris Hilton, but the portrayal cannot be applied wholesale to all white people, they were parodying a very, very particular group of white women. Whereas blackface depicts black people as one. It doesn’t differentiate as to what kind of black person is being mocked by the caricature, rendering it racist overall.
Take that from someone who used to genuinely believe ‘White Chicks’ was a reversal of Blackface onto White people, I genuinely used to believe the Wayans brothers were getting away with racism (I was fourteen at the time), but it wasn’t a racist portrayal and the in-universe reason for them doing it is as a disguise to impersonate two people, not to parody two people for comedic value. They’re not playing the roles of two white women, they’re playing two black men working for the FBI who need to disguise themselves as two white women. It isn’t the same.
If you want to appear as a character, wear what they wear, do your hair and make-up similar enough to them so that visually others recognize who you’re trying to portray. You DO NOT spray your skin black/brown because that’s what color the character is. You can’t justify doing it.
Nathan then goes on to protest that if you subscribe to the belief that you “don’t see color” a term he grossly twists to fit his narrative — oh you didn’t catch that? Yeah, the term doesn’t mean that you don’t see racial differences biologically or physically, it means you don’t see racial differences SOCIALLY, in that you would treat a white man and black man with the same respect. Nathan instead uses it as if it meant the former and that it had always meant the former, this dear children is called bending a narrative: for a man that argued the importance of ‘context’ in this video, he knows damn well its context is social differences, in society. That you are no greater than a man of color and he is no greater than you, in your eyes at least. Whereas Nathan uses it to mean that someone ignores biological differences in race and sets up his own straw man argument on the basis that the definition and context of “I don’t see color” is the one he described, the biased narrative.
Under the falsehood that this term is erasing someone’s racial identity; Nathan continues to bang on about how we would be incorrect to be mad at Julianne for doing what she did on the basis we subscribed to his definition and context of the term.
A false “Checkmate” built entirely on the basis that his version of that phrase is and always was the correct one (for the record; that isn’t even remotely close to what the term means and he knows that), he begins to suggest that Hough wore blackface because — she knew how black the character was and wanted to be more authentic about it? Okay, firstly when did Julianne Hough become a method actor cause I must’ve blinked and missed it and secondly since when was darkening your skin considered a faithful portrayal? By this logic; when Audrey Hepburn played Cleopatra (a white woman playing an Ancient Egyptian Queen) she apparently would have pissed the black audience off less and would have been more faithful to her portrayal had she darkened her skin as well as played a woman in history who wasn’t white… This is what Nathan is arguing, it uses the same logic.
He then again… abandons this point, doesn’t flesh it out or justify it, he just straight up sets up a new point.
Apples and Oranges
Nathan has now opened a new can of worms by equating ‘drag’ the act of a man dressing up as a woman for comedic value to blackface.
Unironically and in a completely serious tone as if the two were two sides of the same coin. Am I alive?
Is this real-life? Am I awake right now? I know it’s 2:22 am as I write this specific line, but I’m not that tired, I’m not seeing things. He is genuinely equating the two. Let’s hear what he’s got to say then: “Think back for a moment to how many times you’ve seen male comedians wear drag to play female characters.” He doesn’t explain what this has to do with blackface only that he is definitely going to attempt to equate the two. Earlier on I mentioned his catalyst lying in wait, the ulterior motive he had set up, more and more he begins to devolve the meaning of things and only acknowledges context when it’s a point he wants to defend. He is now arguing that we should treat Drag and Blackface the same because at their base they are appearance altering practices. A lion attempting to eat me isn’t calculating a plan to pounce on me and hunt me as prey, no no at his base he’s just hungry and that’s life, the Lion is no different from a starving baby wanting milk. This is the logic he uses because when the two practices are boiled down (like a narrative…) they are at their core; merely dress-up to Nathan.
Tasty Crayons
Nathan has now completely contradicted his validation and confirmation… in the opening point.
We literally watched him demonstrate that Blackface is WRONG and Racist. He agreed with it, then alluded to us, like a charismatic snake oil salesman that he was only playing Devil’s Advocate for argumentative reasons; when in reality he unravels his own earlier point with “People will still argue that ‘blackface is bad regardless of intent because of the historical implications of it.” he proceeds to showcase the literal evidence used in his own opener, that validated a point he created… only to then say “However this argument is nothing more than guilt by association. There is no reason why Blackface cannot be judged on case by case basis.” Okay, you know what, let’s hear it then. Let’s hear your compelling rebellious argument that explains why we should examine and review how in some cases they aren’t Racist.
He Did It Again
Rather than explaining to us in his 4-Minute and 13-Second run-time WHY each depiction of Blackface should be given a fighting chance, why we should move from our default perception of it, Nathan immediately sets up a new point; how it’s used elsewhere in the world. Not inputting any defending argument, he then plays audio of someone else’s completely subjective experience.
And finally… Nathan closes wearing Blackface and asks if it’s racist, well that depends on the context… a move he thinks is tongue in cheek, but is actually a cheap attempt to wear the make-up — and might I add, not even in the way Julianne wore it, a version of Blackface you openly argued to defend, no the one you chose to wear was the one you openly condemned at the beginning, then dismissed at the second half, to wear it in the end. Ladies and gentlemen, his ulterior pathology shows its true colors, the real Nathan beneath.
The video was always going to end with him wearing blackface, he merely wanted to alter your perception of it, leaving you confused, he abandoned ‘context’ during his Julianne defense then dissolved his own opening statement, did you catch that? — He was never defending Julianne. He was setting up and setting up, he was defending his impending usage of blackface.
A compelling and in-depth argument isn’t 4-Minutes and 13-Seconds long, but a set up to a punchline is.
The entire video was a “fuck you”.
He was never actually arguing a thought-provoking point.
His entire channel is him ripping on anyone he doesn’t like with the same energy as a 12-year-old online telling a ‘libtard’ they got ‘owned’ by facts and logic. The two saddest parts have to be 1. He thinks the joke is really clever when he has the subtlety delivery of an autistic man staring wide-eyed at a woman’s chest and 2. He had it “approved” by a Black man he’s friends with, that was obviously meant to be perceived as a ha-ha moment… but due to your channel and behavior, it will only ever be seen as a dismissal to all criticism to the video. “How can I be Racist? A black man approved it.” because the least racist thing anyone ever did was use the actions of one black man to represent others.
So did this man spend 4-minutes arguing a pseudo-intellectual falsehood only to use that as the basis to a punchline? Ultimately, it all depends on context; that thing he abandoned and lampooned so he could paint his face black, yeah it depends on that apparently.
Was this all a shallow attempt to be Racist for a second and get away with it on the basis you’d be apparently too mentally caught up in trying to juggle his earlier points (if you can call them that), well one could say yes and one could say no.
On the basis no argument ever actually gains validity or was attempted to be further defended by him and the added fact that it’s a really short video on a channel with a library of videos “Owning SJWS” (and his massive hate-boner for the Quran which I’m sure is all for playfulness…) I’m gonna make the educated guess that under the guise of an ‘intellectual and thought-provoking argument’, he made us watch a 4-Minute and 13-Second video just so he could blackface at the end and you couldn’t be mad because it was black-approved, a black man said it was okay so any outrage you feel towards it is magically invalidated because that’s a thing now, apparently.
Ultimately, I can’t decide what you should think.
What do YOU think his point was?
