Not if it is willful. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. Neither is this.

Paul1977:

 

MikeB4: This is racist absolutely and disgraceful. Anyone who believes it is not is compounding it and need to learn the history.

 

I can see what @MikeAqua is saying though. Of course, in this instance it would show a tremendous level of ignorance to claim that they didn't know it would be perceived as racist.

 

As a less extreme example I know some older people who will refer to a black person as a "negro" or "dark fellow". They mean no offense by it at all, they just seem completely unaware that these are no longer appropriate terms. However, they know that the other N word is racist and they would never use it.

 

So it does raise the question - is genuine ignorance a defense?

 

I think it's very hard to believe they wouldn't have known what they were doing would offend people.  As I said earlier I think caricaturing an ethnicity other than your own is bound to cause offence. At a minimum it is extremely tone-deaf.

It is possible to believe the organisers had never heard of black face.  I'm mid 40s, educated, professional, travel, read a lot, have lots of lefty friends and have only ever seen about 3 or 4 articles referring to back face and didn't know there was such a thing until 2 years ago.  Of course once you read the history, you can see immediately how utterly offensive/hurtful it is.

I don't really think that there's too much argument to be had that "black face" is insulting and hurtful, and to promote or partake in such caricature is unadulterated racism.  Furthermore, those who might be ignorant of its history and naively mimic it should be shown the error of their ways.  (Preferably in a non-confrontational manner, rather than with threats of violence!)

However...  I'm not convinced that this should automatically be taken to the logical extreme that any instance of someone applying black to their face in automatically means that they are engaging in racist behaviour.

Eg.

I tend to think that there needs to be some level of intent to demean or insult or oppose or suppress before we start calling behaviours "racist".

@6FIEND did you see it? if so you would realise what was done was totally different to what you are depicting here. 

MikeB4: It dates back to slavery and segregation in the US. It is utterly racist and offensive. I find it impossible to believe they did not know unless they have never attended school, read a book, watch a movie.

I never heard about black face at school (1980s and 1990s).  I discussed this with the kids. The two still at school had never heard of it.

I have never seen it mentioned in a book.

It might have been depicted in Black Clansmen, which I saw this year.  Other than that possibility I've never seen black face depicted in a movie.

I'm aware of about three instances of outrage over people doing black face making the media, all within the last couple of years.

MikeB4:

 

@6FIEND did you see it? if so you would realise what was done was totally different to what you are depicting here. 

 

The issue as I see it was they were dressed as minstrels, which can be interpreted to directly reference those derogatory minstrel shows. 

If they were dressed as chess pieces or a Darth Vaders and Storm Troopers ... no cause for anyone to be offended.

I only saw the one picture in a news article, but will admit that I didn't pay particularly close attention to it.

I'm happy to hear that circumstances and behaviours are recognised as having a bearing on the judgment being made :-)

Out of interest, what was it that made the Hawera incident different to the above examples for you?

@6FIEND the Taranaki incident was depicting the black faced actors and entertainers from the US during slavery and prohibition. During this period the white actors would blacken their faces to depict and to mock and racially slur  Black Americans who at the time were prohibited from acting or entertaining on stage. When the Black Americans allowed on stage they had to blacken their faces so they could not be recognised as non white actors. 

MikeAqua:

 

I think it's very hard to believe they wouldn't have known what they were doing would offend people.  As I said earlier I think caricaturing an ethnicity other than your own is bound to cause offence. At a minimum it is extremely tone-deaf.

 

I agree that it is very hard to believe they didn't know they wouldn't cause offence.

MikeB4:

 

the Taranaki incident was depicting the black faced actors and entertainers from the US during slavery and prohibition. ... 

 

From the limited reading that I've done on this, I haven't gleaned any sense that this was the case.  Rather, the Lions club gave an altogether different explanation:

For goodness sake, we're a Lions club, we put a float in every year, we didn't have a theme this year, so we decided to go black and white, and they had face paint because they were painting kids faces and the rest of it, so we painted our faces.

As I said, I haven't looked into this in any great depth, but is there any evidence or commentary from the organizers that they actually set out to depict the black faced actors and entertainers?

(EDIT to say that, if so, then that would indeed be terrible.)

Again, it is not the intent that matters. It is the effect on those who witness it. Because of the history and everything else, most black people will feel deeply offended. According to the RNZ article, all the people watching the parade, whatever their colour, fell silent when they saw the float. That would strongly suggest they thought there was a problem with it. The only ones who didn't see a problem were those on the float with their faces painted black.

Rikkitic:

 

Again, it is not the intent that matters. It is the effect on those who witness it.

 

I'm not arguing that the float was "ok". 

But I disagree with your statement above.  The intent matters a great deal.  It would/should determine which of two types of responses are made:

1) Your behaviour is ignorant and insensitive to many people and is no longer tolerated in our society.  Please remedy this ASAP!

2) You're a racist and you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Most of all, I feel for the children who appear to have been inadvertently caught up in this :-(

Rikkitic:

 

Again, it is not the intent that matters. It is the effect on those who witness it.

 

I see this phrase (not really an argument) trotted out as established wisdom a lot and I see it as facile bunkum.

If we focus on effect, then anyone who (re)tweeted or (re)posts about others' offensive behaviour has spread the hurt to a new audience and therefore are also guilty of causing offence.

If we look at intent we can see that people who post offensive behaviour are often looking to discourage it, and that can be seen as a good thing to do. 

MikeAqua:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Again, it is not the intent that matters. It is the effect on those who witness it.

 

 

I see this phrase (not really an argument) trotted out as established wisdom a lot and I see it as facile bunkum.

 

If we focus on effect, then anyone who (re)tweeted or (re)posts about others' offensive behaviour has spread the hurt to a new audience and therefore are also guilty of causing offence.

 

If we look at intent we can see that people who post offensive behaviour are often looking to discourage it, and that can be seen as a good thing to do. 

 

That is truly facile bunkum. This is not about tweets or posts. It is about (white) people blackening their faces and parading.