What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Justin Trudeau can’t remember how many times he’s worn blackface. (1 Viewer)

His protection of SNC Lavalin is far worse imo. This should definitely help his party and reelection efforts. 

 
I listened to his press conference today. Every other word was about his privilege. Dude, this was in the 2000s not 1970. He’s younger than I am. I knew people with money and people who were dirt poor, I didn’t know anyone who did this. He’s not truly sorry, he became sorry after he got caught. If he did this 50 years ago and was 70 I could see it being something at the time not out of the norm. By the time this happened, it was. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/justin-trudeau-brownface-september-2019/index.html

At least 3 times that we know of. But dude, if you can’t remember how many times you’ve worn blackface (or brownface? First time I’ve heard that.) Then there’s a problem. Come on Canada, show us you’re better than Virginia. Get this guy the hell out of there already. 
Click to expand...
There is nothing I would like more.  But the Conservative candidate (Scheer) is just terrible.  

I’ll still hold my nose and vote for Scheer.   The prime minister in Canada is just a mouthpiece for his/her party anyway.  Especially if they win a majority.  

 
timschochet said:
You’re asking me to explain one of the worst, most embarrassing movies ever made? Ask the producers. 
Click to expand...
That wasn't my point. If that movie came out today, it would never make it into the theater.

Does that mean that a white person wearing black face makeup was, at some point, acceptable? 

 
KCitons said:
That wasn't my point. If that movie came out today, it would never make it into the theater.

Does that mean that a white person wearing black face makeup was, at some point, acceptable? 
Click to expand...
At some point? Yeah. See Al Jolson. 

ETA- actually it wasn’t acceptable even then; even in 1927, W. E.B. Dubois spoke out against it, but in white society it was thought to be acceptable. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
timschochet said:
You’re asking me to explain one of the worst, most embarrassing movies ever made? Ask the producers. 
Click to expand...
That wasn't my point. If that movie came out today, it would never make it into the theater.

Does that mean that a white person wearing black face makeup was, at some point, acceptable? 
Click to expand...
It was not acceptable and but even if it was I don't think it excuses it.   

 
timschochet said:
At some point? Yeah. See Al Jolson. 
Click to expand...


toshiba said:
It was not acceptable and but even if it was I don't think it excuses it.   
Click to expand...
I didn't say that it was an excuse. What I'm saying is that during different periods of history, we have done things that are now understood as wrong. We can't change the past. We can learn from it and not do it again. 

I think the success of the movie may be a sign that it was accepted. If it came out today, nobody would go see it. 

According to Wikipedia:

Despite the controversy the film was a box office success. On its opening weekend, it debuted at #3 behind Crocodile Dundee and The Color of Money with $4.4 million. In total, Soul Man went on to gross $27.8 million domestically
Click to expand...



 
KCitons said:
toshiba said:
It was not acceptable and but even if it was I don't think it excuses it.   
Click to expand...
I didn't say that it was an excuse. What I'm saying is that during different periods of history, we have done things that are now understood as wrong. We can't change the past. We can learn from it and not do it again. 

I think the success of the movie may be a sign that it was accepted. If it came out today, nobody would go see it. 
Click to expand...
So just because something happened, or or a small amount of people were interested in it, means that it was acceptable?  That doesn't seem accurate.

 
toshiba said:
So just because something happened, or or a small amount of people were interested in it, means that it was acceptable?  That doesn't seem accurate.
Click to expand...
How would you explain the differences if that move was to come out today? People are upset about pictures of people at a party 30 years ago. If a movie came out with a white actor wearing black face, it would have a ton of pressure. People wouldn't go and see it. 

So, yes. It was socially accepted at the time. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have made it past the early stages. Much less made it to the theater. In hindsight we now know it's wrong.  I highly doubt the movie was made with malice. If you read about it, they thought they were shedding light on a problem. 

I think it's interesting how/when people decide to throw the book at someone. If a politician wore black face 30 years ago, some want him to lose his job and have his life ruined. I've suggested that a first offense DUI should carry a much stricter penalty and it was received with a resounding "no". One isn't even a crime, while the other could have caused the loss of life. 

Odd bunch. 

 
Shula-holic said:
I listened to his press conference today. Every other word was about his privilege. Dude, this was in the 2000s not 1970. He’s younger than I am. I knew people with money and people who were dirt poor, I didn’t know anyone who did this. He’s not truly sorry, he became sorry after he got caught. If he did this 50 years ago and was 70 I could see it being something at the time not out of the norm. By the time this happened, it was. 
Click to expand...
So, the Virginia governor situation?  Or at least close to it with your timeline. 

 
KCitons said:
toshiba said:
So just because something happened, or or a small amount of people were interested in it, means that it was acceptable?  That doesn't seem accurate.
Click to expand...
How would you explain the differences if that move was to come out today? People are upset about pictures of people at a party 30 years ago. If a movie came out with a white actor wearing black face, it would have a ton of pressure. People wouldn't go and see it. 

So, yes. It was socially accepted at the time. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have made it past the early stages. Much less made it to the theater. In hindsight we now know it's wrong.  I highly doubt the movie was made with malice. If you read about it, they thought they were shedding light on a problem. 

I think it's interesting how/when people decide to throw the book at someone. If a politician wore black face 30 years ago, some want him to lose his job and have his life ruined. I've suggested that a first offense DUI should carry a much stricter penalty and it was received with a resounding "no". One isn't even a crime, while the other could have caused the loss of life. 

Odd bunch. 
Click to expand...
I think first offense DUI should carry a much stricter penalty too, not sure what this has to do with anything.

But anyway, I also think that a minority of people can find something acceptable and it not be acceptable by society standards.  And I also think that people should be held to today's standards for acts committed in the past.  

 
KCitons said:
How would you explain the differences if that move was to come out today? People are upset about pictures of people at a party 30 years ago. 
Click to expand...
One of the Trudeau pictures was from 2001.  It was totally unacceptable to wear blackface in 2001, and everyone knew it.  Or should have known it.

 
matttyl said:
So, the Virginia governor situation?  Or at least close to it with your timeline. 
Click to expand...
Yeah probably closer to that time.  It's probably a little more plausible in that time than it was when Trudeau did it.  Of course Northam either was a Klansman or wore blackface, I don't know that anyone has determined which.  

 
Are Canadians just as upset about this, or just us Americans?  Honest question - they don't have nearly the slavery history that we do here, or that pesky part of our past known as the Civil War.

 
Shula-holic said:
Yeah probably closer to that time.  It's probably a little more plausible in that time than it was when Trudeau did it.  Of course Northam either was a Klansman or wore blackface, I don't know that anyone has determined which.  
Click to expand...
You mean he was either the guy dressed up like a clansman.  Have a horrible sense of humor about a party costume doesn't make you what you dressed up as.  And an investigation couldn't determine which one he was in that photo.

 
matttyl said:
You mean he was either the guy dressed up like a clansman.  Have a horrible sense of humor about a party costume doesn't make you what you dressed up as.  And an investigation couldn't determine which one he was in that photo.
Click to expand...
Right, that's what I meant.  I don't really care too much about Northam nor Trudeau one way or the other.  I just find it interesting in Trudeau's case given the time that it occurred.

 
Shula-holic said:
Right, that's what I meant.  I don't really care too much about Northam nor Trudeau one way or the other.  I just find it interesting in Trudeau's case given the time that it occurred.
Click to expand...
Well, Northam's my governor - and a former pediatric neurosurgeon, which I have a very soft spot in my heart for after some stuff with my kid last year. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
One of the Trudeau pictures was from 2001.  It was totally unacceptable to wear blackface in 2001, and everyone knew it.  Or should have known it.
Click to expand...
Great, it was totally unacceptable in 2001. What about in 1986 when Soul Man came out. Was it totally unacceptable then? If so, how did the movie make it out of production?

So, we have narrowed it down to some time between 1986 and 2001. At which point society decided they will fight back any time someone wears black face. Can we nail it down to a specific date or time? I'd like to know when I should be angry based on when it happened. 

 
No racial legacy, no problem. Canada didn't participate in slavery, Jim Crow, has been more sanctuary for dark people than oppressor. I'm actually disappointed Trudeau responded at all because it aint his culture.

 
Seems like Trudeau is a privileged piece of work.

July 2018

Justin Trudeau is a stunning hypocrite, as well as being a fake feminist.

By now, most in Canada and around the world are familiar with the accusation that Justin Trudeau groped a female reporter at a fundraiser in Cresten, British Columbia in 2000.  The reporter was so distressed by this assault that she informed her editor and wrote an editorial that appeared in her newspaper, the Cresten Valley Advance.

Trudeau gave a half-baked apology the next day, saying that he would not have been so forward if he’d known that she was reporting for a national newspaper (The National Post), an “apology” that seemed to insinuate that female reporters who work for smaller market media outlets are fair game.

In contravention to the usual philosophy that when you’re in a hole, stop digging, Trudeau has further worsened his situation by insisting he is fairly sure, then quite sure that he did nothing inappropriate that day, but then admitting that something did happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
Great, it was totally unacceptable in 2001. What about in 1986 when Soul Man came out. Was it totally unacceptable then? If so, how did the movie make it out of production?

So, we have narrowed it down to some time between 1986 and 2001. At which point society decided they will fight back any time someone wears black face. Can we nail it down to a specific date or time? I'd like to know when I should be angry based on when it happened. 
Click to expand...
The premise of the movie Soul Man, was that the main character was not wearing black face (even though he actually was) but rather taking tanning pills to appear black to gain an advantage (a college scholarship). That is not the same as wearing black face at a party to parody or mock black people, which is a distinction you fail to grasp.

And the film was criticized and was found unacceptable by some at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Man_(film)
 

Controversy[edit]

The film was widely criticized for featuring a Caucasian actor wearing blackface.[5] When the film was released, some protests took place within the black community.[6]

NAACP Chapter President Willis Edwards said in a statement at the time, "We certainly believe it is possible to use humor to reveal the ridiculousness of racism. However the unhumorous and quite seriously made plot point of Soul Man is that no black student could be found in all of Los Angeles who was academically qualified for a scholarship geared to blacks."[7]
Click to expand...
and here are C. Thomas Howell's later comments from 2013 and 2016
 

"A white man donning blackface is taboo," said C Thomas Howell. "Conversation over — you can't win. But our intentions were pure: We wanted to make a funny movie that had a message about racism."[8]

Howell later expanded:

I’m shocked at how truly harmless that movie is, and how the anti-racial message involved in it is so prevalent... This isn’t a movie about blackface. This isn’t a movie that should be considered irresponsible on any level... It’s very funny... It made me much more aware of the issues we face on a day-to-day basis, and it made me much more sensitive to racism... It’s an innocent movie, it’s got innocent messages, and it’s got some very, very deep messages. And I think the people that haven’t seen it that judge it are horribly wrong. I think that’s more offensive than anything. Judging something you haven’t seen is the worst thing you can really do. In fact, Soul Man sort of represents that all the way through. I think it’s a really innocent movie with a very powerful message, and it’s an important part of my life. I’m proud of the performance, and I’m proud of the people that were in it. A lot of people ask me today, “Could that movie be made today?"... Robert Downey Jr. just did it in Tropic Thunder!... The difference is that he was just playing a character in Tropic Thunder, and there was no magnifying glass on racism, which is so prevalent in our country. I guess that’s what makes people more uncomfortable about Soul Man. But I think it’s an important movie.[3]
Click to expand...
We saw a real life version of Soul Man a few years back with Rachel Dolezal, a white woman, who passed herself off as an African American by use of a tanning salon to darken her skin, plus curling her hair. She lost her position with the NAACP and her teaching job because of it, but is viewed more as a sad, pathetic character than anything else.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat said:
Seems like Trudeau is a privileged piece of work.

July 2018

Justin Trudeau is a stunning hypocrite, as well as being a fake feminist.

By now, most in Canada and around the world are familiar with the accusation that Justin Trudeau groped a female reporter at a fundraiser in Cresten, British Columbia in 2000.  The reporter was so distressed by this assault that she informed her editor and wrote an editorial that appeared in her newspaper, the Cresten Valley Advance.

Trudeau gave a half-baked apology the next day, saying that he would not have been so forward if he’d known that she was reporting for a national newspaper (The National Post), an “apology” that seemed to insinuate that female reporters who work for smaller market media outlets are fair game.

In contravention to the usual philosophy that when you’re in a hole, stop digging, Trudeau has further worsened his situation by insisting he is fairly sure, then quite sure that he did nothing inappropriate that day, but then admitting that something did happen.
Click to expand...
Until the last decade or so I don’t think anyone envisioned Trudeau as PM. Wasn’t he known as kind of a Don Jr even though his dad was wildly popular and successful as PM?

 
From Bloomberg WH Correspondent Justin Sink:

Trump in Oval says he was hoping he wouldn't be asked about the Trudeau blackface controversy, adds that he was "surprised" and "more surprised when I saw the number of times"

 
I can’t comprehend how anyone could use the “privileged” argument for wearing black face in 2001.  I was so rich I like totally didn’t give a ... I mean, I... didn’t understand.

Not everybody wealthy and/or white was a spoiled, arrogant ####### who had no consequences for rampant stupidity.  Own it as an individual, not as a part of a faux mass.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
Great, it was totally unacceptable in 2001. What about in 1986 when Soul Man came out. Was it totally unacceptable then? If so, how did the movie make it out of production?

So, we have narrowed it down to some time between 1986 and 2001. At which point society decided they will fight back any time someone wears black face. Can we nail it down to a specific date or time? I'd like to know when I should be angry based on when it happened. 
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone here cares what date you choose to get angry over, but the difference between 1986 and 2001 in terms of what is and isn’t acceptable in these matters is massive.

He knew better.  He didn’t care.  He should own that.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Scott Chipman/AALM: Biden's Marijuana Pardons Will Have "No Real Impact Other Than The Headlines” (10/8/22 11:47 PST)
Replies
17
Views
543
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
GordonGekko
Mike Rowe Evaluates America's Workforce: "Your Choice Isn’t College Or Oblivion" ( 7/16/22 18:28 PST )
Replies
5
Views
487
bcat01
B
TripItUp
"San Diego's Mayor Slaps Down Newsom" - LA Times
2
Replies
76
Views
2K
Summer Wheat
Summer Wheat

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top