Black Faced Morris Dancers Banned at ShrewsburyFolk Festival

As I pointed out yesterday, Elegran, but my post seemed to fall on deaf ears...

I thought it was just me, Ana I have been in the cellar rationalising the workshop.

Threads do go round and round the same grooves, don't they?

No no-one has said that it would be a bad idea- but some are still going on about the fact there is no issue and therefore nothing needs to be done.

We are indeed going around in circles.

I thought what thatbags was saying is that no-one should get into a fankle about it, not that no-one should explain why it is done. Scolding her doesn't seem relevant.

The answer to the question in your post ( All I am saying is what would be wrong in giving an explanation - would that really upset you or anyone? ) is ?_

"All I am replying is - Really, no-one even came close to being upset about giving an explanation, and the question implies that you think they did. You were wrong."

scold? where?

Quoting greyduster ?!?

^ what would be wrong in giving an explanation - would that really upset you or anyone?^ in an unnecessarily critical tone - though it may be that I am inferring a tone that I associate with your posts, granjura. You do tend to scold those you disapprove of.

Another point entirely. granjura,if there was an issue, why has no black person complained? At all? Ever?

you are choosing to put a slant on my comments which is definitely not intended- but it is of course your prerogative. How it can be read as 'scolding' is beyond me.

Who's taking my name in vane and to what end? What am I supposed to have said that is being quoted? I thought I had said my piece and put my contributions to this thread to bed!

Your question about giving an explanation was covered in the thread earlier, gj. Very much earlier, if I remember rightly, by the OP. I think explanations of why things, such as Morris dancers' face-blacking, are done is a very good idea. Which I have also said up thread.

pen, I am not sure the Morris dancer face-blacking has anything to do with black people. See the OP's explanations up thread about that too.

Apologies if you did not mean it, granjura Putting on a slant that is not there was not intended, and I am sure you didn't intend your post to be read that the provision of information had not been endorsed.

And, pen, even IF the face-blacking in question is 'about' black people (in the sense of saying this sort of dance originated in Africa, which I don't think anyone knows for sure, but it's possible, obviously) what is there to get upset about? It's not in a way that is unpleasant or in any way derogatory.

What would people say to a group of Britons, having spent months or years learning about and practising, say, Maori dances, or Thai dances, or whatever, who then dressed up in the kind of way Maoris or Thais or whatevers did when dancing, and performed the dances for the entertainment of other random Britons? Would it be wrong? I don't think it would be any wronger than learning a foreign language and speaking it.

I did try Thai dancing. It's bloody difficult. Also Spanish. Ditto re difficulty. Also Scottish. I was good at that. I'm not Scottish.

All very silly, as I said.

Traditionally, Geishas painted their faces white. European travellers, when they were eventually accepted into Japan, could have assumed that it was a reference to the white faces of the "foreign devils", and taken it as an insult, (or perhaps a compliment), but the origin went back way before that to when a white face was a rarity. As it was in the heyday of Morris dancing.

It wasn't emulating European skin, or even totally the influence of the Chinese preference for fragile "porcelain" skin (which was itself nothing to do with wanting to ape the foreign devils). It was largely because geishas were entertainers in rooms lit only by candles, and their white makeup stood out in the dim light.
See jpninfo.com/28311

Thank you Elegran for accepting my aopology.

The only reason I continued the conversation and repeated again- is that thatbags, although agreeing an explanation would be appropriate- still goes on there is no issue and that it is all silly- again in her last post. And the examples given- like learning a foreign language, are just as said, silly and perhaps disingenious and provocative. Learning someone's language is a form of respect. Imagine that painting faces and making grimaces with slitty eyes was an old tradition in some parts of UK- wouldit be OK to repeat in a public show because it was not meant to represent the Chinese. Prince Phillip comes to mind.

If there is no issue at all, why would it be a good idea to explain at all?

I will leave it at that and withdraw- whatever the provocation.

If you or anyone can tell me what was the problem with the blackened faces, gj, I am very happy to accept that there was a problem. So far, I haven't understood what the problem was in the instance we are talking about. I do not see blackened faces or whitened faces or yellowed faces as a problem per se, which seems to be what you are saying is a problem. Forgive me if I have misunderstood that.

Why isn't learning a country's dance traditions showing respect in the same way as learning its language? When I worked in Thailand, I was asked to teach some children Scottish dance and I was taught some Thai dance. I thought that was a very good way of showing respect both ways. If I'd been any good at Thai dance I might well have showed off my prowess in Britain while dressed and made up to look as much like a Thai woman as possible. What, I ask again, is wrong with that?

If someone who is not Chinese but who is playing or performing a Chinese character/personality what would be intrinsically wrong about making the non-Chinese person look as Chinese as possible?

I do understand that excessive caricatures or stereotypes (and I mean excessive because some if not most stereotypes are actually useful; I have a vague recollection of posting an article about that not so long ago) can be seen as offensive, but as far as I could see from the video tegan posted, there was nothing of that nature in the dance in question.

I haven't said there is never an issue, only that I don't think there is one with the blackened faces of Morris dancers. They are not doing anything that in any way insults or is unpleasant about people whose faces are naturally 'black'.

thatbags I have already said I agree that IF the origin is that of disguise there is no problem &that using soot rather than full black make up would be totally appropriate.

I have said previously when I feel it is wrong to dress-up / pretend to 'be' a person from another race/ethnicity/nationality. Context/purpose and reason is all!

Why though if it is in context and has no racist element.

I go back to the point that because 'some' people deem to see prejudice/racism when there is none intended they actually cause more friction over the subject.

Why do we as individuals have a right to tell others what to do? What makes one person feel superior to another in telling them what to do?

There is undoubtedly a crossing of the Rubicon scenario that could clearly be seen as racial prejudice but it has gotten to the stage that there is no common sense nor understanding given over the matter.

Other examples would be ' just one person' finds a t.v program or advert upsets their frailty so the program is cancelled or an apology made, Why? The one person in our society has permanently got the upper hand and it is without doubt causing more harm than good, yet they get away with it. I swear some people look for the next opportunity to complain. This is what has happened to the likes of Shrewsbury Council, they have learnt to fear the repercussion of ignoring the one person as the other few thousand are known to sit back, grumble and take it on the chin.

Whilst this story is hardly on the lines of say Rotherham it is time the majority fought back against the one but political correctness has got a strangle hold and I for one find it can be very damaging to our society.

Hear hear

perhaps link to another previous thread about food and guests.

If you love liver, and you know some of your guests may not enjoy it, or find it impossible to eat and make them physically sick (like me) would you serve them liver for dinner- knowing it may upset them- and say 'I love liver, and just can't see why they can't love it too- so there'.

We live in a very different society to the one we were born in, most of us - and I think it is fair we adjust to new circumstances, and sharing our lives with different people. Even if the tradition is about soot and not about race- sadly there have been so many examples of blackened faces (gollywogs, man servant ashtrays, etc, etc) which were clearly linked to our slave owners' heritage- but there is no harm in trying to anticipate how others would perceive it.

We've agreed it was an over-reaction I think. We've agreed it would be a good idea to give an explanation about the origins- I believe.

So why keep on saying 'it's silly' and there is no issue (which I do find condescending btw) No issue for me, no issue for you- fine- but an issue possibly not just for the one who complained (over-reaction we all agreed) - but for others we now share our country with, be they citizens, immigrants or tourists.

Yes, but should your neighbour stop ever buying liver "just in case^ you should drop in and look in the fridge?

And should she stop buying kidneys too, or making a blackcurrant jelly, because at a quick glance they could be mistaken for liver?

Not a good analogy at all, IMO!

(Welcome back again, granjura...)