Writes Rashaad Thomas — "a husband, father, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, poet and essayist" — in "Phoenix restaurant says this is a photo of coal miners. But I see offensive blackface."
Here's the photo that troubled Thomas so much that he doubled down even after he learned he was mistaken in not understanding that these are human beings whose faces were darkened not by their own deliberate imitation of black people but by terribly hard physical labor:
Thomas is saying the picture made him feel so bad that he wants the restaurant to proactively spare him from his own misperception. He's not taking this opportunity to reflect on his own good fortune — he is able to be a poet and an essayist — in comparison to the grinding work of coal miners. And I can see that he's getting mocked for calling attention to what is, after all, his mistake.
But if it were my restaurant, I wouldn't put up a photograph that was subject to this misperception. I like to think that if I were considering decorating my restaurant wall with this photograph, I would at least notice that some people might think this is white men in blackface and I would pick something else. Certainly, if I'd put it up and a customer confronted me with this misperception I would feel compassionate and very eager to let him know not just what the picture really was but also that I never meant for anyone to imagine that it was blackface. And, really, I would hold myself to a higher standard. Quite aside from blackface, I would ask myself whether my comfortable establishment should trade on the aura of poor coalminers. It's "poverty porn."
From the Wikipedia article, "Poverty porn":
Poverty porn... has been defined as "any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor's condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers or increasing charitable donations or support for a given cause." It is also a term of criticism applied to films which objectify people in poverty for the sake of entertaining a privileged audience.... Poverty porn is used in media through visually miserable images, in order to trigger some sort of emotion amongst its audience....Now, of course, I see that the men are smiling and enjoying the alcohol and camaraderie. That's what makes it seem like a good idea for a restaurant photograph. It says, no matter how hard your day, and especially if you've had a very hard day, it's great to spend some time hanging out over drinks.
But messages can be misheard. You could be standing on the street one day, smiling, and find out half the world reads your face as an asshole racist smirk.
246 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 246 of 246It should be opposed on anti-idiocy grounds. Put up another pic of the same thing.
Faure, premiering a new piece to the boos of the audience, repeated the whole piece again. This is what I in fact meant, get used to it.
Think it was Faure. Some French guy.
Do the Right Thing kicks off with that horrible objectification of Rosie Perez.
It's amazing how new the clothes look in that struggling neighborhood.
n.n.,
Whites are more likely to endure pizza face.
My take is that Mr. Thomas is looking for any reason to be insulted. To paraphrase Dean Wormer- "that's no way to go through life". I would add that the photograph seems to have been taken in the UK, judging by the beer signs. (Not that that would interfere with the narrative)
"Now I realize, heing sensitive, that blacks are stupider than ordinary people on the average, but this is an opportunity for them to practice being a regular Americans and practicing some discernment. Reach upwards and improve yourself. Good character is your best play."
Figure out who are the real friends of blacks.
Is it really charitable to allow people to wallow in their ignorance?
Agree with others, the picture is also not "Poverty Porn". As noted by Ann and Curious George; they are enjoying a beer after work. Not everyone that enjoys hard work and labor are poor or consider themselves poor. Just because you might not want to do the job or job for that pay; it doesn't mean they won't. After all, I think you have to have a level of depravity to want to teach at the University of Wisconsin. There are so many richer universities where one could teach. Would that make a certain avatar photo "poverty porn"?
While we are speaking of incendiary art, what's up with all the long nosed rat pictures on this blog? It feels terribly anti-Semitic to me. I feel unwelcome.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2015/nov/18/rats-the-history-of-an-incendiary-cartoon-trope
No only was this guy offended, he wrote a fucking column about it and it got published.
Rap music makes me uncomfortable, does that mean it should be banned?
There are places that have no pictures of people
It would be counter-profit and politically incongruent to hang works of selective-child and recycled-child on the walls of Planned Parenthood, which is probably why they hide their sequestered carbon-based babies in red-face behind the walls, under the floorboards.
""I'm just saying that it's a charitable act to notice what can be misunderstood and to remove obstacles that unsophisticated people might stumble over."
You mean people who aren't as sophisticated as coal miners?
Wow, what a low opinion of minorities you have. Would you be that "charitable" to your own children?
Is there any better example of the soft bigotry of low expectations?
Looking more closely at the photo, it was taken in England, which makes the objection even sillier.
Another day, another diversitist jumps the Ass through a black hole.
"Poverty Porn""
Aren't we elitist?
Somebody needs to "think more deeply".
people who aren't as sophisticated as coal miners
Optimistic, blue-collar, married, with children. Unsophisticated, deplorable, flyover people... persons.
How ignorant do you have to be to get "blackface" out of a picture of coal miners, ESPECIALLY after being told that's what it is? I see laborers who did hard, scary work for years (and still do, in far fewer numbers, in the mines that survive).
Like the original post said, he should reflect on his good fortune; he sits writing all day. Miners like those in the picture--white guys in many but certainly not all cases--had a MUCH harder way to go in life, with the specter of early death via accident or respiratory disease stalking them.
I mean, is there a competition to see how silly one can seem while saying "I'm offended"? Because it sure seems that way.
"Recall the use of the word "niggardly" in DC several years ago and subsequent kerfuffle. It's too late for our society."
"Yes, that's a good example. Knowing how it can be misread, I would never use the word, and I think everyone should just quit using that word to avoid confusing people "
Makes me thing of that time years ago when I went into a local hardware store, a black clerk came up to me and asked if I needed help.
"Yes, I need a new spade."
The guy went apeshit and chewed on me but good.
I told my story to a friend and he expressed his sympathy. "I'm sure you were sorry to have inadvertently offended the young man," he said.
But what was really on my mind was how a hardware store could hire somebody who doesn't know that a spade is a tool for digging in your garden (and who, therefore, probably didn't know the difference between a shovel and a spade).
And how many editors/friends/etc. didn't take the time to tell the author "You're going to sound like a fool here. This isn't a good idea."?
You called a spade a spade.
Maybe you're troweling us.
I mean, heaven forbid the guy just have a "teachable moment" (as they say) and just laugh at his own mistake, and move on. Let's make it a big issue, he thought. This cannot stand.
Things must be going pretty well if this rises to the level of a "problem" in his view!
Next, ask him for a linch pin.
But if it were my restaurant, I wouldn't put up a photograph that was subject to this misperception.
This is an impossible standard. There is literally nothing that is not offensive to someone and there is literally nothing that is not misperceived by someone. Also, you cannot please idiots, which this person is. He may have an IQ of 190 and have a wall full of degrees - I have no idea - but he's still an idiot.
Plus he's trying to erase the legacy of coal miners. So not only is he an idiot, he's an elitist idiot.
Those black lives don't matter.
Yes, that's a good example. Knowing how it can be misread, I would never use the word, and I think everyone should just quit using that word to avoid confusing people — once they've heard of the problem. I used to use the word "snigger," and I guess I never used it again after someone mentioned that it could upset some people.
How about having a chink in your armor? Who the hell wants a Chinese person in their armor?
"The operators of that downtown restaurant can choose to take the photograph down, leave it up or create a title card with an intention statement. No matter their decision, I think the photograph should be taken down — sacrificing one image for the greater good."
We're instructed to question the intentions of the operators of the restaurant but not question the intention of the one making the demand the photo be removed. What if the claimed offended sensitivity of the so called victim is a lie? What if the one making the demand the picture be removed has some political intention of fomenting white guilt and a belief in white privilege? What if he is simply threatened by the visual proof that not all white men have lived lives of privilege and that Western civilization was not built solely on the backs of people of color? Are we supposed to sacrifice the truth for the greater good because otherwise we are accused of racism?
Certainly, if I'd put it up and a customer confronted me with this misperception I would feel compassionate and very eager to let him know not just what the picture really was but also that I never meant for anyone to imagine that it was blackface.
Hey, it's your imaginary fantasy of servility, but IMHO it's hardly "compassionate" to cater to someone's obvious social and intellectual malfunctioning.
As a believing Christian who considers the Bible Holy Scripture, I'm offended by the stupid, sophomoric decorative signs I see advertised on Facebook. "As for me and my house, I will serve tacos." Guacamole 3:16 How much of a hearing do you think I would get if I complained to Facebook and submitted a column to USA TODAY?
Through the magic of twitter, what would previously have been a local business decision becomes a national dumbing down of the culture, a least-common-denominator, stupid-person veto.
"But if it were my restaurant, I wouldn't put up a photograph that was subject to this misperception. I like to think that if I were considering decorating my restaurant wall with this photograph, I would at least notice that some people might think this is white men in blackface and I would pick something else."
That's because you are a very sensitive person.
"Certainly, if I'd put it up and a customer confronted me with this misperception I would feel compassionate and very eager to let him know not just what the picture really was but also that I never meant for anyone to imagine that it was blackface. And, really, I would hold myself to a higher standard."
We know, we know.
But of course the problem is not any kind of "misperception." Restaurant owners only have to worry about progs turning their "misperceptions" into all-out attack. Holding myself to a standard higher even than Althouse, I feel compassion for them.
Ann Althouse@1:05PM Voluntarily dumbs down because ignorant bigots get offended. The same ignorant bigots who chafe at the word "niggard" listen to songs, movies and television sayingg "nigga" round the clock, and they sing along.
It's a prog tactic employed by Democrat party members to control people. Althouse submits. Don't be like Althouse.
"Good luck with your restaurant! Mine would have abstract art or pictures of food or landscapes."
Just hope your customers don't look up from their plates and think "I sure wish I was eating that rather than this muck!"
So now everything must be reduced to the lowest common denominator so as not to offend anyone.
This so called person is the poster child of credentialed, not educated.
I say, if life is offending you, stay home.
How many prize winning photographs would now be considered poverty porn?
How about, tragedy porn?
Disaster porn?
"Look in the background of this picture Elizabeth Warren put out on Instagram."
It's not what you think it is.
Ann thinks the author is unsophisticated. Sure that's the problem.
" I'm just saying that it's a charitable act to notice what can be misunderstood and to remove obstacles that unsophisticated people might stumble over."
So now censorship is okay as long as the "right" person is offended? What happens when the brown people start taking offense at icons of the left? The central issue is not offense, but who gets to control the conversation.
This essay attempts to remove and hide proof that more than one color of person has contributed blood, sweat, and tears to this country. The photo challenges the soft existence hypothesized by the concept of white privilege.
Would it be worse if the actual coal miners were there in person, enjoying a drink?
My grandfather and my uncle worked in the mines. I can imagine them being in the photo. So I recognize this a major blind spot for me. But...COME ON...Have we become such snowflakes as a society that EVERYTHING is offensive? smh. People are dumb.
"" I'm just saying that it's a charitable act to notice what can be misunderstood and to remove obstacles that unsophisticated people might stumble over."
The charitable act is to lift people up, not to let them wallow in ignorance.
Post a Comment