Neutral

First of all, Charles Barkley was NOT being Racist. He was NOT making fun of white people, which would have been Racist. He was making fun of Sammy Sosa LIGHTENING his skin, and trying to pass it off as an accidental side effect of a skin treatment. Just as Michael Jackson did.

As for Al Jolson style "blackface" Minstrel Shows, whites entertained THEMSELVES (real blacks couldn't participate do to segregation), by making Racist fun of black stereotypes.

But this MUST be distinguished from the fact that white actors and opera singers have DARKENED their skin for centuries (and still do), to play serious black charactors in serious Dramas, such as Shakespeare's "Othello" or Verdi's "Aida", without controversy. As they are playing human charactors with the same strengths and weaknesses as other humans. And that is NOT Racist.

Reply to this Comment | Report This

Neutral

Why would any assume that Sammy wants to be White. It is obvious that he is not a White person. Being a White person goes far deeper than the external appearance. There is a trend worldwide - especially among the African American community and in Asia (Japan, Thailand, etc) where White skin or lighter skin is preferred. Anyone watching TV commercials and other programs where African Americans are used; they are usually and predominately light-skinned with chemically altered hair. Sales in skin-lighteners are up. So if you personally do "anything" to alter your natural look (such as hair, face, etc), don't point a finger at Sammy as you are no different. Be proud of your ancestry and the person you are inside. If one feels compelled to alter their natural self to look like another racial group, shows vanity and an empty or non-existent person on the inside. WE are what we are from the person within - NOT the outside in.

Reply to this Comment | Report This

Neutral

We as black folk can take IT when we dish the racial jokes. But we turn into crieing pussies when others do the same. What makes it ok for charles is the fact that every time he opens his mouth. Black people digress 200 years. he is a coon.

from a BLACK MAN!

Reply to this Comment | Report This

Neutral

While I completely agree with you, at some point we have to discuss WHY there is a tendency for people regardless of race to want to lighten their skin. Who and/or what are the definitions of beauty which therefore prescribe lighter skin as the ideal? This is the issue that I think we are missing. While Sammy Sosa, and other who lighten their skin may not want to be "White," it would seem that they want to attain a beauty which seems to be defined by a White standard. (This can also be applied to the tendency of Black women in perming and straightening their hair - not because of simple choice, but because of "necessity")

Reply to this Comment | Report This

Neutral

Its more of a historical issue of blackface than just the act itself. Blackface was originally used by Whites as a means of making fun of Blacks and reaffirming their superiority. In Blackface, they would act like baboons, fools, simpletons, etc. Basically, it was just a way to demean Blacks and once again establish Whiteness as better.
Therefore, while I don't condone ANYONE portraying any other race in this particular manner, because of the historical reference of Blackface, Barkley's antics aren't as deeply problematic although morally and ethically they are just as wrong.

Reply to this Comment | Report This

Neutral

After reading a bunch of comments, I think many of us are missing out on the real issue here - which is understanding the difference between something being morally/ethically wrong and something being racist.
What Barkley did was morally and ethically wrong. I don't condone anyone dressing up to portray any other racial group. Ever. But it wasn't racist. Before we all lose our heads, let me explain.
Racism, as we know is something that has several roots in historical references. Specifically with regards to Blackface, it was a means by which White people reaffirmed and established their dominance and superiority over Black people. While in blackface, they acted in ways to suggest that Blacks were dumb, stupid, incapable of doing anything meaningful, etc. Black face was a means by which they could suggest that Blacks were in no way equal to Whites.
This is not the case for "White face." There is no historical context which suggests that Whites are inferior. He didn't use any demeaning behaviors such as chucking and jiving, dancing, or changing his cadence to suggest an inability to speak properly. As a matter of fact, any attempts to make your skin lighter are often seen as self-hate against your own race, and an attempt to achieve Whiteness. So even the idea of putting on whiteface is negatively associated with Blackness, and, to some extent, a supporting of White dominance.
So while he is definitely morally and ethically wrong, was it racist? No. Absolutley and positively wrong? Yes. Without a doubt.

Reply to this Comment | Report This

Neutral

Yes, it is very racist of Charles to put on white face as we all know blacks used govt statutes for 350 yrs to target, harass, deny freedom, pay in capitalist system, rape, lynch and create a literal tradition of oppressing whites.

Oops, I'm sorry, I got it all assbackwards and I'm confused.

Reply to this Comment | Report This

Neutral

Oh Loordy white folks oppressed this must be reverse aparthied, huh?

Reply to this Comment | Report This