Support NeoGAF

[Bobby Roberts]

He made noo gaffe, he made no mistake.
Seriously if I was at a con and I overheard you giving a guy grief or questioning him about something like that I would not bother to pull you aside, and by the end of it all you would be the laughing stock of the event which is pretty ....just sad when you think about it.

This seems kind of hyperbolic. You're suggesting dude would be the laughingstock of an entire convention because he had a conversation with a guy about his costume?

Regardless of how much we agree/disagree on this particular topic, this seems more than a little unfair.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

That's not blackface, that's brownface. So many color blind people in this thread.

 

[Supermanisdead]

skin colour is not a costume, christ. you don't take on a race as a costume! put on the yellow shirt and visor = boom, you are cosplaying. don't paint your skin.

 

[Hex]

This seems kind of hyperbolic. You're suggesting dude would be the laughingstock of an entire convention because he had a conversation with a guy about his costume?

Regardless of how much we agree/disagree on this particular topic, this seems more than a little unfair.

Not at all.
People love to talk about their costumes and the work that they put into them.
But the air of derision and pre judgement that that poster has already about him, about his teachable moments, HE coule learn a thing or two.



Edit to add...
Something people are not talking about, and this could be just me but it also appears to me that he was careful to be subtle. He did not put on some kind of fro wig or dark dark skin tone. He went very low key, enough to convey what he was going for but without crossing into caricature . Again, I could be reading more into it than is there though.

 

[Ryaaan14]

After Googling for shits and giggles, I've realized that mostly black people cosplay Geordie. I guess that kinda answers the question about whether or not race is an identifiable trait for the character.

Also did the same for Lando and was really amused by the results. Haha.

I'm bailing after this post but I'll go ahead and make a closing post by saying the OP probably fucked up by saying the word blackface. I get what he's saying but honestly I think it all boils down to where we are individually in our own culture. The guy cosplaying probably had no intention whatsoever to offend anyone or even considered people getting pissed off (maybe he didn't...aside from Internet backlash afterwards...)

In my personal opinion, this is part of the reason we're stuck in this perpetual state of racism. True racists stick out like a sore thumb, so I don't feel there's any need in debating whether or not something is done with ill intent when it comes to racial sensitivity. Yep I'm white so my opinion will be disregarded too. And of course I wouldn't bat an eyelash if any black person cosplayed a white character with light paint on even though it's surely less common.

 

[effe]

kind of off topic, but I just recently watched Trekkies 2 in an american pop culture class, and this chick is crazy. barbara adams.

 

[Xzeon]

i think this topic also delves into what is and isnt 'offensive.'

if we banned every single thing someone complained was offensive, we would not be allowed to do anything.

i think Twilight is offensive cuz it glorifies being a clingy stupid woman and paints terrible characteristics in a positive light.

will i petition it to be banned? no.

should they ban all face paint, or just face paint if its used to portray another race.

what if i cosplayed as Hitler, or cosplayed as a white actor who actually did wear black face make up.

wheres the line drawn.

 

[akira28]

Not at all.
People love to talk about their costumes and the work that they put into them.
But the air of derision and pre judgement that he has already about him, about his teachable moments, HE coule learn a thing or two.

Derision and prejudgement.

I'm a pretty nice guy irl, and whenever I've felt the need to talk to people in public (and it's happened), I always do it from a non-hostile, and non-confrontational place. And all you'd see is someone having a private conversation with someone else, and trying to be mature about it. So if you want to laugh me out of the con afterward, go right ahead.

And I would draw the line at people painting themselves to look like another race. If you're going as Drizzt, then yes, you have a case. Geordi is not a dark elf. I am not a dark elf.

wheres the line drawn.

You could go as Al Jolson, but if you can't sing Mammy right, are you really going as Al Jolson?

 

[Xzeon]

Derision and prejudgement.

I'm a pretty nice guy irl, and whenever I've felt the need to talk to people in public (and it's happened), I always do it from a non-hostile, and non-confrontational place. And all you'd see is someone having a private conversation with someone else, and trying to be mature about it. So if you want to laugh me out of the con afterward, go right ahead.

And I would draw the line at people painting themselves to look like another race. If you're going as Drizzt, then yes, you have a case. Geordi is not a dark elf. I am not a dark elf.

Drizzts skin is literally black, his skin color is black. so the actual color black is ok as a skin color, but copying African american skin tones is wrong.

the color is indicative of their respective races, one race just happens to be fictional.

so if its a made up race, its ok, but a real race is not.

i dont think we are going to agree on this.

its just a color, we are the ones projecting negative connotations on to it, which is really the essence of racism in itself.

 

[akira28]

its just a color, we are the ones projecting negative connotations on to it, which is really the essence of racism in itself.

I thought it was classifying and reducing someone down to the color of their skin.

 

[Mario]

Dress as the god damned character instead of as their skin color

Are you also against people using wigs, fake beards, colored contacts, fake scars, prosthetics and other such things that alter physical appearance as part of their cosplay?

If not, why not?

 

[Xzeon]

I thought it was classifying and reducing someone down to the color of their skin.

im pretty sure its 'this person is terrible cuz their _______.'

if youre black your a terrible person.

if youre gay your a terrible person.

if youre whatever you are default this.

thats what racism/discrimination is to me.

the character of Geordi is complex, im not reducing anyone at all.

but the LOOK of his character is a black person with a visor.

im not reducing his character, thats just how he looks.

emulating an entire character vs just their looks is way different.

Supermans entire character is not being white, he has just always been white, but if i acknowledge this its like saying the only thing that matters is his skin color?

its a physical attribute that is part of the character, but is not the whole character.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Are you also against people using wigs, fake beards, colored contacts, fake scars, prosthetics and other such things that alter physical appearance as part of their cosplay?

If not, why not?

this is kinda reductionist, isn't it? Hair, beards - these are things you can change, regardless of skin color. Scars, eye color - these aren't tied to a specific race.

I guess that's another question to add to my pile: If it's possible to essay a character visually without having to color your skin, why wouldn't you?

 

[Horse Detective]

So this offends people

 

[akira28]

If he just took melanin pills and made his skin dark naturally, I probably would have no objections at all.

 

[GremlinFool]

this is kinda reductionist, isn't it? Hair, beards - these are things you can change, regardless of skin color. Scars, eye color - these aren't tied to a specific race.

I guess that's another question to add to my pile: If it's possible to essay a character visually without having to color your skin, why wouldn't you?

Why make a point of ignoring one of the most salient and identifiable parts of someone's look? As politically correct as this swarm of do-gooders parading around with their faux outrage claims to be, skin color is *gasp* a huge component of someone's appearance. Sacrificing accuracy to the point of ignoring skin color at an event that stresses accuracy seems like something much more insidious than putting some makeup on. It perpetuates the "walking-on-eggshells" complex that obfuscates substantive discussions about racism. Making white people deathly afraid of transgressing even the most innocuous rules of racial propriety isn't the way to absolve racism in this country. Instead, it quashes discussion out of fear, which was the major motivator behind racism and xenophobia to begin with.

Your argument, again, presupposes that a character's outfit can be wholly identifiable and can have the same impact even when neglecting race. What exactly is the point of neglecting race, other than "well, a costume can be adequate enough without it," a completely unsubstantiated claim that doesn't apply to so many characters whose identities are rooted in large part in their race?

 

[Parallax]

if hes supposed to be geordi, i dont see why he needed to use makeup. his visor is his most noticeable trait

 

[Horse Detective]

After Googling for shits and giggles, I've realized that mostly black people cosplay Geordie. I guess that kinda answers the question about whether or not race is an identifiable trait for the character.

Also did the same for Lando and was really amused by the results. Haha.

I'm bailing after this post but I'll go ahead and make a closing post by saying the OP probably fucked up by saying the word blackface. I get what he's saying but honestly I think it all boils down to where we are individually in our own culture. The guy cosplaying probably had no intention whatsoever to offend anyone or even considered people getting pissed off (maybe he didn't...aside from Internet backlash afterwards...)

In my personal opinion, this is part of the reason we're stuck in this perpetual state of racism. True racists stick out like a sore thumb, so I don't feel there's any need in debating whether or not something is done with ill intent when it comes to racial sensitivity. Yep I'm white so my opinion will be disregarded too. And of course I wouldn't bat an eyelash if any black person cosplayed a white character with light paint on even though it's surely less common.

This opinion is an opinion that I agree with.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Sacrificing accuracy to the point of ignoring skin color at an event that stresses accuracy seems like something much more insidious than putting some makeup on.

Well this brings up a whole 'nother set of questions - do events like this REALLY stress accuracy? I know conventions stress creativity quite a bit, and creativity towards accuracy is a part of that, but there are women who construct elaborate dresses to look like a phone box. Is accuracy to the costume such an imperative that dismissing cultural taboos is a given? What possible punishments are awaiting those who attend such conventions in costumes that aren't as accurate as possible?

What punishment exists that makes breaching cultural taboos such as skin coloration a necessary transgression?

 

[GremlinFool]

Here's another point that's relevant to this discussion: the irreconcilably contradictory nature of encouraging diversity and then selectively prohibiting people from acknowledging said diversity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Eradicating racism isn't going to come through homogenization or convergence towards one race (nor should it). People pride themselves on their distinctions. If we want to encourage diversity, it means acknowledging that everyone is different. This is perfectly concomitant with goals of eliminating racism: admitting that different people are different doesn't preclude treating people equally. Diversity is a positive thing in society, and we should be encouraging that instead of automatically eliminating race from someone's character (when it is quite often an enormous part of an individual).

As an example, Mr. T wouldn't be Mr. T if he wasn't black, point blank. It's not a racist comment but an empirical observation of much of the appeal of Mr. T as a character. Eliminating the "black" from Mr. T serves absolutely no ostensible purpose. If anything, it's counterproductive: it fails to encapsulate the endearing and positive attributes of being black that made Mr. T so endearing. Putting on a cosplay costume is paying homage to a character, and in the case of Mr. T, NOT acknowledging his race is tantamount to trivializing the importance of his heritage in shaping his character.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Here's another point that's relevant to this discussion: the irreconcilably contradictory nature of encouraging diversity and then selectively prohibiting people from acknowledging said diversity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Eradicating racism isn't going to come through homogenization or convergence towards one race (nor should it). People pride themselves on their distinctions. If we want to encourage diversity, it means acknowledging that everyone is different. This is perfectly concomitant with goals of eliminating racism: admitting that different people are different doesn't preclude treating people equally. Diversity is a positive thing in society, and we should be encouraging that instead of automatically eliminating race from someone's character (when it is quite often an enormous part of an individual).

Is the best course to eradicating prejudice/racism allowing white people to darken their skin to assume the physical characteristics of their favorite sci-fi characters? Is "acknowledgement of diversity" equal to coloring your skin to appear similar to another race?

Is that even a valid stance to take as someone who wishes racism would be lessened?

 

[GremlinFool]

Is the best course to eradicating prejudice/racism allowing white people to darken their skin to assume the physical characteristics of their favorite sci-fi characters?

Is that even a valid stance to take as someone who wishes racism would be lessened?

This is a complete distortion of the argument I'm making. The best course of absolving racism is to eliminate the fear associated with broaching the issue of race, which is what I'm driving at. Context is relevant: it may be a point of pride to black people, for instance, that this great Star Trek character is black. Why trivialize that fact by consciously failing to embrace his race out of fear or white guilt?

The question to ask here is: why shouldn't he color his skin to appear more black? The character is black, it's innately a part of the personage he's portraying. It's by no stretch of the imagination racist to presume that him being black is an integrally (or even marginally) important part of his character. Why glaringly neglect this obvious visual cue? What purpose does that serve? Will people forget that Geordi is black if he doesn't put on makeup? Is that what we're striving for?

I want substantive reasons to neglect race that don't involve the history of vaudevillian caricatures.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

This is a complete distortion of the argument I'm making. The best course of absolving racism is to eliminate the fear associated with broaching the issue of race, which is what I'm driving at. Context is relevant: it may be a point of pride to black people, for instance, that this great Star Trek character is black. Why trivialize that fact by consciously failing to embrace his race out of fear or white guilt?

I'm not distorting - I'm asking a question. Can you broach the subject of race without changing yourself to physically assume the characteristics of that race? If you can - why wouldn't you? And if it's proven that it's most effective to broach that subject BY doing so, why haven't more people?

Context is indeed relevant. I'm not disagreeing with you there at all. I'm asking why a white person who chooses to wear the gold uniform, three pips, and visor is, in your example, trivializing the race of Geordi LaForge in doing so. How much of Geordi's character was actually dependent on his race?

 

[Xzeon]

Here's another point that's relevant to this discussion: the irreconcilably contradictory nature of encouraging diversity and then selectively prohibiting people from acknowledging said diversity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Eradicating racism isn't going to come through homogenization or convergence towards one race (nor should it). People pride themselves on their distinctions. If we want to encourage diversity, it means acknowledging that everyone is different. This is perfectly concomitant with goals of eliminating racism: admitting that different people are different doesn't preclude treating people equally. Diversity is a positive thing in society, and we should be encouraging that instead of automatically eliminating race from someone's character (when it is quite often an enormous part of an individual).

As an example, Mr. T wouldn't be Mr. T if he wasn't black, point blank. It's not a racist comment but an empirical observation of much of the appeal of Mr. T as a character. Eliminating the "black" from Mr. T serves absolutely no ostensible purpose. If anything, it's counterproductive: it fails to encapsulate the endearing and positive attributes of being black that made Mr. T so endearing. Putting on a cosplay costume is paying homage to a character, and in the case of Mr. T, NOT acknowledging his race is tantamount to trivializing the importance of his heritage in shaping his character.

its ok to be different, just dont point it out or talk about it at all.

in the effort to get rid of racism somehow we made it so even noticing a persons race is now racism.

we cant talk about the positive or negative aspects of race, so we have to ignore it all.

except if youre a black comedian, then your entire shtick can be racist jokes.

 

[border]

Plenty of people come up with costumes that are intentionally incendiary and politically incorrect.

If I saw the guy pictured above at a convention (and I've seen plenty of similar outifts at cons), I guess I could lecture him about how insensitive his outfit is and how an actual victim of molestation might see it and be deeply offended to see his/her life-changing tragedy turned into a crude joke. But I won't because I'm not generally not in the business of slapping wrists and whining about outfits. Cosplay that stretches the boundaries of good taste is relatively common.

So I don't see the point in chastising someone whose poorly done facepaint contains no ill will and is not intended to mock or make a joke out of something serious.

I'd probably only say something if I thought the outfit was so offensive that it might cause bodily harm to be brought down upon the person wearing it -- like say, someone wearing Nazi regalia or something resembling a KKK getup. It's not my job to prevent other congoers from being mildly offended by brown facepaint, though.

 

[Xzeon]

my final point really is, go as White Geordi, Black Geordi, Asian Geordi, i really dont give a fuck.

i dont think what he did was racist at all.

he likes Geordi, he looks like Geordi.

thats it.

 

[GremlinFool]

I'm not distorting - I'm asking a question. Can you broach the subject of race without changing yourself to physically assume the characteristics of that race? If you can - why wouldn't you? And if it's proven that it's most effective to broach that subject BY doing so, why haven't more people?

Context is indeed relevant. I'm not disagreeing with you there at all. I'm asking why a white person who chooses to wear the gold uniform, three pips, and visor is, in your example, trivializing the race of Geordi LaForge in doing so. How much of Geordi's character was actually dependent on his race?

You're homogenizing again. "Race independence" is an illusory concept: black characters on television and elsewhere are shaped by their race. There's nothing racist about that. I go to a university that prides itself on assembling a student body comprised of a medley of races and backgrounds. It makes no pretense of ignoring these racial differences.

From its official website:

Dartmouth embraces diversity with the knowledge that it significantly enhances the quality of a Dartmouth education.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/home/about/mission.html

Acknowledging and APPRECIATING racial differences is part of a holistic education as an individual, and part of this education is learning how to understand nuance and embrace the differences that make the breadth of humanity so special.

So I think separating race from any character or person is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

If he had a problem with black people, he wouldn't dress up as one.

This is like the opposite of racism.

 

[GremlinFool]

And, Fatboy, the onus is on you to explain, explicitly, the benefits of ignoring Geordi's race and how this precedent would have positive reverberations in the rhetoric surrounding racism in America today.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

You're homogenizing again. "Race independence" is an illusory concept: black characters on television and elsewhere are shaped by their race. There's nothing racist about that. I go to a university that prides itself on assembling a student body comprised of a medley of races and backgrounds. It makes no pretense of ignoring these racial differences.

From its official website:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/home/about/mission.html

Acknowledging and APPRECIATING racial differences is part of a holistic education as an individual, and part of this education is learning how to understand nuances and embrace the differences that make the breadth of humanity so special.

So I think separating race from any character or person is fundamentally wrong.

I'm not homogenizing, I don't think. I'm asking what about appreciating racial differences mandates you color your skin to show appreciation for those racial differences? Can you understand the nuance and differences between cultures without having to imitate/appropriate those attributes? Or would you argue that you can't really get the breadth and depth of that experience without doing so?

And bringing it back to this guy, at Emerald City Comic-Con, would you argue this dude was either keeping that at front of mind, or representing that ideal in some way?

Would wearing everything he wore but WITHOUT the makeup be separating race from character, and how important was Geordi's race to his character?

If he had a problem with black people, he wouldn't dress up as one.

This is like the opposite of racism.

Did you read the thread, or simply skim the OP, and skip to the end? The thread has been operating on the assumption the nerd in question isn't racist since page one.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Did you read the thread, or simply skim the OP, and skip to the end? The thread has been operating on the assumption the nerd in question isn't racist since page one.

Is it a must to read a thread before answering to the main question the thread is posing?

And yes I read it, still doesn't change my opinion.

No he didn't do it out of any harmful reasons, question is though, if he should have done it anyway since it sort of sets up this barrier of "Geordie was the black guy"; as in "Race is what defines us".

I don't think those elements are at play here since it's a convention, and I wouldn't be surprised if this dude is just a socially inexperienced Trekkie, but it still opens some interesting debates to whether we should acknowledge race differences or not.

 

[StrangeADT]

really?

but anyway it doesn't matter if he had no ill intent. anyone with half a brain cell knows that he didn't. the point is that it's a dumb decision no matter what.

Ahh. I have indeed solved the riddle.

Everyone wanted to know who the man in this video was. Being a total douche by openly carrying a gun just to cause an argument with no real purpose. We have found him on our very own boards. No sane person that has read this thread derived any intention of racism from the costume, and you have even acknowledged that. What do you get out of being shit disturber and arguing for the sake of arguing rather than for any real purpose?

 

[GremlinFool]

I'm not homogenizing, I don't think. I'm asking what about appreciating racial differences mandates you color your skin to show appreciation for those racial differences? Can you understand the nuance and differences between cultures without having to imitate/appropriate those attributes? Or would you argue that you can't really get the breadth and depth of that experience without doing so?

I would argue that every TV personage, and every person for that matter, is inextricably tied to and shaped by their race, much more so than by any other physical attribute they possess. Who gives a shit if Geordi wears his glasses or whatever that inane thing on his eyes is (I never watched Star Trek, so this isn't really my forte)? Don't you think that a person being black is a fundamentally larger part of who that person is (given the racial climate in the world, given the painful history of black people, given the cultural traditions of this group of people) than what sort of goggles the person wears? If that's the case, then I would argue that stripping a person of their race ignores the physical attribute that most intimately colors that person's personality, both directly and indirectly. If anything, Geordi's race and role in Star Trek (whatever it may be) is a fascinating thought experiment in the future of racial politics and should be a point of pride and emphasis.

And bringing it back to this guy, at Emerald City Comic-Con, would you argue this dude was either keeping that at front of mind, or representing that ideal in some way?

How is that at all relevant? The arguments presented by you and others in this thread essentially circled around the fact that this man callously neglected the enormous weight of race in wearing the costume, an unsubstantiated conjecture predicated on one picture we have of the man. I'm not going to answer this question because making guesses about this man's motivations behind wearing his costume based on the sparse information provided about him is silly, reductive, and ignores the elephant in the room.

Would wearing everything he wore but WITHOUT the makeup be separating race from character, and how important was Geordi's race to his character?

Yes and very, as with all humans.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Is it a must to read a thread before answering to the main question the thread is posing?

It fuckin' helps, yeah

Also, at no point in the OP did I ask "Is this guy racist" but "would you have approached him to discuss what he did."

but yeah:

question is though, if he should have done it anyway since it sort of sets up this barrier of "Geordie was the black guy"; as in "Race is what defines us".

I don't think those elements are at play here since it's a convention, and I wouldn't be surprised if this dude is just a socially inexperienced Trekkie, but it still opens some interesting debates to whether we should acknowledge race differences.

Thanks man. Apologies for getting snitty. Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page before going forward.

To that last sentence of yours: Is there anything inherently wrong with recognizing the racial differences, and choosing, regardless of how much you love the character, NOT to cosplay as that character out of respect FOR those differences?

I would argue that every TV personage, and every person for that matter, is inextricably tied to and shaped by their race, much more so than by any other physical attribute they possess. Who gives a shit if Geordi wears his glasses or whatever that inane thing on his eyes is (I never watched Star Trek, so this isn't really my forte)?

Well, this is kind of a problem, as the M.O. of Roddenberry at the time of Star Trek: The Next Generation, was to present a sort of utopia: Race didn't matter, money didn't matter. I'd argue that the race of Geordi had absolutely NOTHING to do with Geordi's character, and that was done specifically to point out how far the culture in Next Generation had come. In fact, I'd argue Geordi's blindness (the reason for his inane glasses) was exponentially more important to who he was as a character on that show than his skin color ever was.

 

[Reuenthal]

It fuckin' helps, yeah

Also, at no point in the OP did I ask "Is this guy racist" but "would you have approached him to discuss what he did."

but yeah:



Thanks man. Apologies for getting snitty. Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page before going forward.

To that last sentence of yours: Is there anything inherently wrong with recognizing the racial differences, and choosing, regardless of how much you love the character, NOT to cosplay as that character out of respect FOR those differences?

Yes with the question you asked. There is not something wrong if he decides not to paint his face black but not cosplaying at all someone of a different race because of racial differences seems wrong. There are probably some exception to this but generally the idea of not cosplaying as a character because of racial differences appears to me as a self limiting idea, I would not use the word racist but seems a backward taboo to exclude yourself from characters of different races because of racial differences.

 

[GremlinFool]

And, Fatboy, the onus is on you to explain, explicitly, the benefits of ignoring Geordi's race and how this precedent would have positive reverberations in the rhetoric surrounding racism in America today.

I'm posting this again because comprehensively and satisfactorily answering this question is absolutely critical to this discussion.

 

[The Illiterati]

I'm going to cosplay at a convention as a White Jaimie Foxx from Django Unchained. This is sure to go down easily.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I'm posting this again because comprehensively and satisfactorily answering this question is absolutely critical to this discussion.

I guess I would answer, (as I did above, although my edit probably came too late for this post) that in the case of Geordi LaForge, his blindness is way more important to his character than his race ever was, and that a white person dressing as Geordi but not coloring his skin isn't equal to "ignoring" Geordi's race, but acknowledging they're not the same race, and making sure to highlight the similarities they DO have, and suggesting those similarities trump the color of their skin, which seems to me a more hopeful, understanding take on the issue than arguing one can only truly pay respect to the character by altering your physical appearance as much as possible. Choosing not to color your skin isn't ignoring race, it's acknowledging you're NOT that race, and accepting that while you can't assume that aspect of the character, there are others that you CAN assume.

I'd argue that keeping your differences visible while still maintaining a faithful homage to the character would better highlight the transcendent love for the character than artificial skin coloring would ever accomplish - and would also be appreciated by onlookers as a more creative, thoughtful homage than straight one-to-one imitation.

Obviously, this kind of shit doesn't come into play when we're dealing with green/purple/mauve people, as there isn't a complicated history of subjugation involved with those skin colors.

 

[StrangeADT]

I don't think there is anything wrong with acknowledging racial differences. I'd bet most young white children with no exposure to racism nor racist intentions would immediately think to paint their faces to become their favourite character for Halloween. They paint their faces to become imagined characters too. ALL that you can get out of such an action is that they are trying to mimic someone/something (in the case of cartoon characters) that they idolize or love. It is clearly what the guy in the OP was doing, and for something like that, IMO the only thing that matters is intention. He isn't harming anyone through his actions and considering the context, I think it's 100% okay.

Well, this is kind of a problem, as the M.O. of Roddenberry at the time of Star Trek: The Next Generation, was to present a sort of utopia: Race didn't matter, money didn't matter. I'd argue that the race of Geordi had absolutely NOTHING to do with Geordi's character, and that was done specifically to point out how far the culture in Next Generation had come. In fact, I'd argue Geordi's blindness (the reason for his inane glasses) was exponentially more important to who he was as a character on that show than his skin color ever was.

It's just a visually identifying characteristic.

The reasoning is as simple as: what is the goal? To visually mimic a character. How do you achieve such a goal? Use make-up and costumes.

That is all there is to it.

 

[MIMIC]

If he had a problem with black people, he wouldn't dress up as one.

This is like the opposite of racism.

Ignoring the guy in the OP completely: you DO understand the general concept of "mockery", right?

 

[Dead Man]

Of course Geordie is more than his skin colour. But if someone dressed up as hulk and wasn't green, or Piccolo and wasn't green, or a Klingon and wasn't brown, or any number of other characters people would say you had a bad costume. Yes, human versus non human, but if you are trying to make the most accurate costume possible, this is the shit they do.

 

[akira28]

its ok to be different, just dont point it out or talk about it at all.

in the effort to get rid of racism somehow we made it so even noticing a persons race is now racism.

we cant talk about the positive or negative aspects of race, so we have to ignore it all.

except if youre a black comedian, then your entire shtick can be racist jokes.

I feel like you're leaving with the wrong impressions.

Also, no one is calling this guy a racist. People just wish that people understood that is isn't normally cool to color yourself in pigments to portray the race of someone else. "No dude. It is. And you have to prove to me why it isn't." "....."

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It's just a visually identifying characteristic.

The reasoning is as simple as: what is the goal? To visually mimic a character. How do you achieve such a goal? Use make-up and costumes.

That is all there is to it.

I'd argue that makes perfect sense, intellectually, in a social vaccum. But "it's just a visually identifying characteristic" isn't enough in the real world, I don't think. Not yet. And not when Geordi's most identifying characteristic isn't, in fact, his skin color, but his visor.

 

[StrangeADT]

Of course Geordie is more than his skin colour. But if someone dressed up as hulk and wasn't green, or Piccolo and wasn't green, or a Klingon and wasn't brown, or any number of other characters people would say you had a bad costume. Yes, human versus non human, but if you are trying to make the most accurate costume possible, this is the shit they do.

Most succinct and best way to put it in this thread.

 

[eXistor]

People getting worked up over nothing again.

 

[StrangeADT]

I'd argue that makes perfect sense, intellectually, in a social vaccum. But "it's just a visually identifying characteristic" isn't enough in the real world, I don't think. Not yet. And not when Geordi's most identifying characteristic isn't, in fact, his skin color, but his visor.

Right, but it's not like he didn't have the visor and walked in as a black guy and was like "Hey! I'm Geordi!" He had both. It was a complete costume. In any case, I didn't state that the skin colour was the most visually identifying characteristic. Yes, I suppose for representing Geordi a visor would have been enough. I just don't see anything wrong with going further for more authenticity cosplay-wise.

 

[Vyer]

Of course Geordie is more than his skin colour. But if someone dressed up as hulk and wasn't green, or Piccolo and wasn't green, or a Klingon and wasn't brown, or any number of other characters people would say you had a bad costume. Yes, human versus non human, but if you are trying to make the most accurate costume possible, this is the shit they do.

I'm with most everyone and really don't think the guy in the picture meant anything racist or insulting, but I don't know that comparing a black man with aliens, cartoon characters and monsters as justification really helps that argument.

 

[Mario]

this is kinda reductionist, isn't it?

I was establishing where the poster I was quoting who said "Dress as the god damned character instead of as their skin color" considered the boundaries on where "the character" starts and ends.

Does it start and end at "the costume" i.e. the clothes and accessories alone, or does "the character" include physical traits, such as hairstyle, hair colour, facial hair, eye colour, etc? Or is skin colour the only thing off limits?

Hair, beards - these are things you can change, regardless of skin color.

I specifically listed things that can be altered easily and not so easily in general life for the purpose of establishing quite specifically what was mentioned above.

Scars, eye color - these aren't tied to a specific race.

I hate to break it to you, but skin colour itself isn't explicitly tied to a specific race or ethnicity either. It might imply a certain ancestry, but not explicitly so. Certainly, we now live in a society where "race" is a lot more ambiguous, both with respect to actual genetic makeup and aesthetically. You would be very hard pressed to know the specific ethnic makeup of someone through ONLY the colour of their skin. People have NEVER guessed my ethnicity no matter how many guesses they had and they typically start down the completely wrong track.

Skin colour is just another aspect of genetic variation we have as a species, along with all manner of other things including the shape of our eyes, eye colour, body hair, height, hand span etc etc. And our genetic makeup is more mixed than any time in history.

I understand skin colour of all these things has more "history" than the others mentioned in terms of it being used as a means for discrimination and segregation. But I don't agree that we should treat skin colour as "special" if it is otherwise acceptable to wear a wig, coloured contact lenses, and a prosthetic nose to look more like somebody as part of a simple costume celebrating somebody's interest or love for a fictional character.

I would agree that you start playing with fire when you start altering your skin colour to emulate a character where race and racial issues are central to the nature and story of that character/person e.g. Django, or Martin Luther King. Even then, I would say circumstance, context, and intent matter, though I wouldn't take on such a costume myself.

To my knowledge, the character of Geordi from Star Trek IS black, but he is not defined or motivated by that. IMO then, emulating his overall look including his skin colour should not be controversial if done in a respectful way with good intent.

I guess that's another question to add to my pile: If it's possible to essay a character visually without having to color your skin, why wouldn't you?

Well, I don't think anybody answered my question from a few pages back.

I intend to cosplay as Khal Drogo from Game of Thrones in about a years time. I choose the character because my girlfriend and I wanted to do something together, and her favourite character from the show is the Khalessi (his wife). I feel it necessary to grow a beard, build a more muscular physique AND get a deeper tan in order to more closely emulate the look of Hawaiian born actor, Jason Mamoa, in his portrayal of the character. I myself am caucasian of European (Dutch) descent though am of New Zealand nationality.

I personally feel recreating his look as accurately as possible, including his skin tone, will result in a superior looking overall costume. I was looking at photos of different people who had attempted the costume, and there are a number of caucasians who have tried it with very light skin and to me it just looks "wrong" or a poor effort. I know who they are trying to be, but it falls short. They do not look like the king of a plains dwelling, nomadic society.

Until this thread, I had no idea of the ethnicity of Jason Mamoa at all. It was irrelevant to what I am trying to achieve. In wanting to get a deep enough tan to emulate the skin tone of Jason Mamoa in his portrayal of character Khal Drogo, am I insulting or disrespecting Jason Mamoa, Hawaiians, or Pacific Islanders in general? You tell me.

So yes, I could choose to not "tan up", but IMO that wouldn't produce the best result for what I am trying to achieve.

If and when I actually do it, I estimate the number of people who will be offended by the nature of my cosplay will be zero.

 

[GremlinFool]

I guess I would answer, (as I did above, although my edit probably came too late for this post) that in the case of Geordi LaForge, his blindness is way more important to his character than his race ever was, and that a white person dressing as Geordi but not coloring his skin isn't equal to "ignoring" Geordi's race, but acknowledging they're not the same race, and making sure to highlight the similarities they DO have, and suggesting those similarities trump the color of their skin, which seems to me a more hopeful, understanding take on the issue than arguing one can only truly pay respect to the character by altering your physical appearance as much as possible.

I'd argue that keeping your differences visible while still maintaining a faithful homage to the character would better highlight the transcendent love for the character than artificial skin coloring would ever accomplish - and would also be appreciated by onlookers as a more creative, thoughtful homage than straight one-to-one imitation.

I was never arguing against not putting on makeup to accurately portray a character. That's perfectly okay. I was curious, specifically, how you find accurately portraying a character's race detrimental to racial rhetoric, which you at no point address.

The whole purpose of this thread was determining whether this man ought to have been accosted for his negligence of touchy racial issues. You even claimed that his costume was controversial. It might've been controversial given the bastardization of the term in modern parlance. However, you never addressed the roots of this controversy. Does this man deserve ignominy for accurately portraying someone's race?

You argue that not depicting race "better highlights the transcendent love for the character," but let's not impute your subjective values on proper homage for normativeness. I want a proper deconstruction of why his costume choices are detrimental for racial politics in America. Certainly, if you believe that the man should be taken aside and chided, he must have egregiously contributed to or perpetuated pernicious racism. Why do you think he warrants rebuffing? Why do you think his depiction of race is worthy of criticism and, by proxy, negatively hurts the racial advancement of black people? Your opinions on what constitutes worthy homage are completely tangential to the original point of your thread.

 

[akira28]

I see a white guy dressed as Geordie, I say, damn, that's cool.

Anyway, so some people think he should have done it. And some people think he shouldn't have done it.


edit:
so what if someone did take extreme offense? Would you be able to tell them that they were wrong for doing so?