Is it OK (for white people) to use black emojis and gifs?

[warpus]

Aren't those racist though? When I imagine the "big lip" thing, the image that pops in my mind are those stereotypical depictions of African Americans that were racist in nature back in the day, and are still viewed as such today.

So I completely agree that such stereotypical racist stuff shouldn't be used, but I am wondering what other types of GIFs Traitorfish would not want to see used either.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Aren't those racist though? When I imagine the "big lip" thing, the image that pops in my mind are those stereotypical depictions of African Americans that were racist in nature back in the day, and are still viewed as such today.

So I completely agree that such stereotypical racist stuff shouldn't be used, but I am wondering what other types of GIFs Traitorfish would not want to see used either.

Sorry, I wasn't reading closely, I only saw "blackface" and missed the "or racist" part... but then you start getting a little deeper into subjective territory...

In any case, since you put it that way... the first thing that springs to mind is the "Sha-Nay-Nay" character on the 90s show Martin... another off the top of my head would be the WWE character "Booker-T" saying his trademark "Can you dig it sucka" phrase... I could see either of those being berserk buttons for folks depending on the context. Like I said, the material is literally bottomless.

 

[warpus]

Sorry I'm not familiar with the first example. I listened to the second one and I do know who Booker T is, but I don't understand why that wouldn't be cool to use as a reaction GIF. Is there a stereotype there in use that I'm missing?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I see that now. I should pay more attention.

But now I'm confused. Using that michael jackson eating popcorn GIF is bad now? It doesn't matter if he's white or black, he's just eating popcorn and the point of the GIF is to highlight the popcorn eating. Although I do not disagree that certain reaction GIFs can be offensive, to ban the usage of all black reaction GIFs seems stupid.

Warpus, if you want to see why I prefer smileys over gifs, just log on to TrekBBS and opt in to the Neutral Zone subforum. It's what CFCOT would be like without some of our more civil posters, no moderators, and it's absolutely vicious at times. People use reaction gifs to flame other people on a daily basis there (I don't; like here, when I'm really annoyed with people I'll use the :rolleye: smiley - which for some reason sets people off there far worse).

That said, a call to ban something like the Michael Jackson popcorn gif - if posted by non-black posters - is ridiculous. As someone pointed out, the woman in the video has her hair styled like white women style theirs. Maybe I should start screeching at her about "You appropriated MY CULTURE!!!!! ".

I'm not saying there are never legitimate accusations of cultural appropriation. They happen fairly often in the fashion industry, for example, and in the souvenir industry. Cheap knockoffs marketed as the real thing is what I'm talking about.

That said: I'm never going to apologize for making Navajo or Hopi-inspired needlepoint items. I sold exactly two of these items - magnet/coaster sets - to a friend for her own use, and everything else I've made is for my own use. I've never claimed that I created the patterns myself, so if anyone is going to shout about appropriation, they can go scream at the Annie's Attic craft company for selling the patterns in the first place.

 

[warpus]

People are going to get offended at all sorts of things. I agree it doesn't make sense to have blanket bans based on skin colour. But in some cases some reaction GIFs could indeed be considered racist, such as blackface, or the big lip example, or say an East Asian stereotype, or "stuff white people like" type stuff, or whatever.

Anyway that's my position, but I do want to understand why some of these more nuanced examples that might not fly with some people (like Booker T) are seen as borderline "no go". At first hand I don't see anything offensive about it, so I would like to increase my understanding of why some people might have a problem with that.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Stuff like what this thread is about make me wonder if we live in a tolerant or intolerant society.

 

[metalhead]

I get it with many of the gifs of Black people that get posted on Twitter, but I'll be forever puzzled as to why Michael Jackson eating popcorn falls in the same category. Many of the former seem to be vaguely mocking, and the fact that the preponderance of reaction gifs posted on Twitter seem to be of Black people makes it seem sometimes like they are meant to be mocking. However MJ is a famous person. His popcorn gif is most definitely not mocking.

On the other hand, I'm not sure what it says about people when a group says, "Hey a few of us find that mildly offensive, would you mind not doing that?" And despite it costing people literally nothing to stop, people's reaction is, "F off, I have every right to do this and you're nothing but a GD lowlife SJW for questioning it!" What the hell is happening to us?

 

[Hygro]

Maybe they thought they could double the views if people disagreed with the Michael Jackson part.

 

[MilesGregarius]

...On the other hand, I'm not sure what it says about people when a group says, "Hey a few of us find that mildly offensive, would you mind not doing that?" And despite it costing people literally nothing to stop, people's reaction is, "F off, I have every right to do this and you're nothing but a GD lowlife SJW for questioning it!" What the hell is happening to us?

This ten times over.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sorry I'm not familiar with the first example. I listened to the second one and I do know who Booker T is, but I don't understand why that wouldn't be cool to use as a reaction GIF. Is there a stereotype there in use that I'm missing?

Its actually "Sheneneh" now that I looked it up... There is actually a "Shanaynay" that I think is a play on the former... which is astonishingly even more offensive. As for Booker T, he's pretty much one big stereotype, or more specifically, an amalgamation of a bunch of black-stereotypes (jive-talking, Blaxploitation, angry-black-man, dreadlocked tough guy, ghetto thug, black militant, etc, etc) all rolled into one big ball of eye-rolling offensiveness... But again, that's standard fare for WWE wrestling characters. They are all a bunch of one dimensional stereotypes, and TBH, most of them are white-guy, more specifically rural/poor/blue collar white-guy stereotypes... plus its freaking wrestling... so again, you have to pick your hills, and otherwise just try to relax and enjoy the show... or change the channel and go on with your life.

People are going to get offended at all sorts of things.

That's the key right there.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I wonder what the woman in the video would say about the Neil Degrasse Tyson memes that turn up. He's generally regarded as a very intelligent man, and I don't see very many gifs or memes that depict him in a negative way.

 

[Lexicus]

What the hell is happening to us?

Nothing's happening to us. This is the same reaction that's characterized pretty much all human cultures.

 

[Kyriakos]

I get it with many of the gifs of Black people that get posted on Twitter, but I'll be forever puzzled as to why Michael Jackson eating popcorn falls in the same category. Many of the former seem to be vaguely mocking, and the fact that the preponderance of reaction gifs posted on Twitter seem to be of Black people makes it seem sometimes like they are meant to be mocking. However MJ is a famous person. His popcorn gif is most definitely not mocking.

On the other hand, I'm not sure what it says about people when a group says, "Hey a few of us find that mildly offensive, would you mind not doing that?" And despite it costing people literally nothing to stop, people's reaction is, "F off, I have every right to do this and you're nothing but a GD lowlife SJW for questioning it!" What the hell is happening to us?

Well, in what way is the Michael Jackson pop-corn gif (isn't it from Thriller?) offensive?
MJ was virtually a deity at the time of that video. Literally no one in the west wouldn't have heard of his name.

Most reaction pictures/gifs (not just having a black person; a minority of memes have black people anyway...) are mocking as well, eg ancient Aliens guy, Scumbag Steve, various teens etc. But Michael Jackson from Thriller isn't mocking at all, it just means "hehe, this is going to be interesting/watch them fight".

 

[Till]

I'm too old for whatever emojis are, but i do know what kind of races i like!

 

[Hygro]

On the other hand, I'm not sure what it says about people when a group says, "Hey a few of us find that mildly offensive, would you mind not doing that?" And despite it costing people literally nothing to stop, people's reaction is, "F off, I have every right to do this and you're nothing but a GD lowlife SJW for questioning it!" What the hell is happening to us?

I disagree.

 

[Ryika]

On the other hand, I'm not sure what it says about people when a group says, "Hey a few of us find that mildly offensive, would you mind not doing that?" And despite it costing people literally nothing to stop, people's reaction is, "<Censored, because you never know>, I have every right to do this and you're nothing but a GD lowlife SJW for questioning it!" What the hell is happening to us?

Well, you're sort of dishonest by bundling "costing literally nothing to stop" and "people" with a reaction that is completely over the top. So let's replace that over the top reaction with something more reasonable - "No, I don't see it as offensive and won't stop." - and discuss it honestly:

I don't know about this, because why mention it in the first place? If it's only "mildly offensive", and the people realize that it's only mildly offensive to "a few of them", then just ignoring it and accepting that it's a difference of opinion does seem the right thing to do. Otherwise, it seems like soon anything that is fun might be off-limits because it's certainly mildly offensive to someone out there.

I find it very questionable that in a conversation that is basically a tug of war for what is okay to say one side is allowed to tell the other side to stop instead of just ignoring the minor problem, but the other side is somehow doing something bad by not just giving in to the demand.

 

[warpus]

As for Booker T, he's pretty much one big stereotype, or more specifically, an amalgamation of a bunch of black-stereotypes (jive-talking, Blaxploitation, angry-black-man, dreadlocked tough guy, ghetto thug, black militant, etc, etc) all rolled into one big ball of eye-rolling offensiveness... But again, that's standard fare for WWE wrestling characters. They are all a bunch of one dimensional stereotypes

Ah yeah that makes sense. I guess I never really looked at him like that. I just filed him under the "screaming angry wrestler" character and didn't really get his "angle" and IIRC he was for a while in the WCW or.. I wasn't into wrestling when he was popular.. or.. something like that. Plus at the time I was still coming to terms with north american culture(s) and was still more or less used to old world stereotypes over new rold ones. Either way he wasn't really much on my radar much so I never "sat down and thought about it". If his angle is "A bunch of black stereotypes rolled into one guy" then yeah I get it

 

[Zelig]

I match emoji skin tone to the skin of the person I'm texting.

 

[Camikaze]

It's interesting to see this video coming from the BBC, and a British presenter, because often the perspective in question is heavily tinged with Americocentrism - an assumption that 'white' and 'black' are specifically American categories, imbued with American history and race relations. Of course, that's not to say that the categories 'white' and 'black' are or have been in any less of an unequal power dynamic in, say, the UK, but it does mean that 'white' and 'black' are not categories in an identical, universal dynamic, and there's far more nuance in specific cultural contexts. Wikipedia tells me that blackface, as the main example given, does have a history in the UK somewhat similar to the US (although of course it also has another history in the UK - the blackened faces of the rural peasantry inspiring the Black Act and enclosure laws which sought to force cheap labour into urban areas during the Industrial Revolution). But it certainly wouldn't conjure up the same history, or speak to the same contemporary problems. Whereas in one country the use of blackface might play into a narrative in which it's apparently routine practice for police officers to kill black people, that's not the case in the other, where it's more likely to evoke a broader narrative involving a lingering colonial attitude to immigrants of many backgrounds.

If you're a frequent and informed user of the internet, you're probably going to be aware of the specific meaning blackface has in the American context, but is there then an obligation upon you to adopt that meaning within your own very different context? To map a uniquely American dynamic onto a superficially similar non-American relation? What if you're a non-American having a non-American conversation designed for a non-American audience? Does that make a difference if the potential audience is partially American? I think there can often be a conflict of contexts with these sorts of conversations, and it's regrettable that people sometimes fail to appreciate that.

 

[Zelig]

I just assumed the OP was using "white" and "black" as convenient substitutes referring to any two non-matching emoji modifiers: https://emojipedia.org/modifiers/