Bananapants

 

I think I have evidence that Leslyn Lewis follows this blog. Her response here to being accused of meeting with Christine Anderson is close to what I suggested ought to have been Pierre Poilievre's response to the charge when first raised.

What I suggested:

“Christine Anderson is a democratically elected representative of the German people. Not to entertain and to respect her shows contempt for the German people, our good friends and allies. It does not mean we agree with all her views. Cooperating with those with whom we sometimes disagree, on matters of agreement, is the lifeblood of democracy. It is the lifeblood of civil society. Much of the ill-will and suffering in Canada today is caused by a Prime Minister who refuses to even speak with those with whom he disagrees, who simply calls them names and slanders them, as ‘racists or ‘misogynists’ or ‘antisemites’ and the like. 

This man who danced around in blackface with his tongue out and a banana stuffed down his trousers.

We Conservatives do not want that kind of Canada, nor that kind of world. We respect people, the people of Germany and the people of Canada, and we welcome those who come here from abroad.”

The original post is here.

Mr. Sunshine Baby liked it:

Fade to Black

Cultural appropriation.

I have been suspending judgement on whether the blackface scandal was going to sink Trudeau. A lot of commentators have been, it seems. Probably for the same reason I was: if the SNC-Lavalin scandal could not sink him, could anything? It looked as though his support might be invulnerable to scandal. Some politicians are like that: Bill Clinton, Doug Ford, Donald Trump.

But tracking the reaction since, I think he is sunk.

Not because the multiplying incidents shows he is a racist. They don’t; and as I have noted, it is arbitrary to see anything racist about blackface. And not because they show he is a hypocrite; although they do, and this does hurt him. Because they show he is a fool.

Not a clown. Donald Trump or Rob Ford or Ralph Klein are clowns. People like clowns. A clown makes us laugh.

A fool doesn't know he is funny. He is not in on the joke.

People do not like fools, especially self-important fools. Other examples: Dan Quayle; Kim Campbell; Joe Clark.

Fools are tiresome.

Trudeau is now being mocked by foreign commentators. I just typed "blackface" into Google images. The first five results were Justin Trudeau. Canadians care a lot how they are perceived abroad. My NDP friend who cannot vote for Singh was evaluating all the candidates on this one question: “Can you imagine them representing Canada abroad?”

Once you become a figure of fun, you're done.

Is the Genie Out of the Bottle?

Time's photo. Toga! Toga!.

How damaging is the Trudeau “blackface” scandal?

To me, it is trivial on its face, so to speak. It seems perfectly arbitrary to take offense at someone blackening their face; we see nothing wrong with people whitening their face, like the traditional clown, and then representing people with white faces as foolish. Why the double standard?

But initial indications are that others see it as a big deal. Time magazine first ran it; Drudge Report is headlining it—both American sources, not folks deeply interested in Canadian politics.

It shows Trudeau as a hypocrite: attacking Conservative candidates based on something in their distant past found on social media has been central thus far to the Liberal campaign. At the very least, they’re probably going to have to shut up about that stuff now. All of it backfires now. Can they quickly pivot to another strategy?

There were already signs of panic in Trudeau personally. Paul Wells has represented the Liberal campaign so far as a massive feint, in which Trudeau was largely irrelevant and ignored by his own team, making no major announcements. The real battle was the regular leaks against Conservative candidates. They may have been forced into such an odd approach in the first place because Trudeau was not up to carrying the ball; witness as well his strategically bizarre absence from the Maclean’s debate.

So what’s left if they cannot do this either?

Unfortunately, Trudeau’s expression in the photo looks slightly like a leer, as well, as he embraces some woman from behind. That it is from behind suggests visually, fairly or not, that the physical contact is uninvited.

This may evoke memories of previous accusations of groping against Trudeau. And his callous treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. It all may confirm the public impression that he is just a privileged frat boy who views women and minorities as useful tools or worse.

It even casts a worse light on his costumed clowning during his ill-remembered state visit to India. Wasn’t that a bit of blackface too, then?

It does not help Trudeau either that the leader of the NDP is rather spontaneously brown in the face. A lot of leftward thinkers may feel compelled now to virtue signal their commitment to anti-racism by voting Singh. And Singh naturally has the moral high ground to condemn Trudeau for this in the next debate. It could lead to a devastating exchange; and Trudeau already seems to fear debate. He may grow increasingly erratic now as he tries to medicate himself through the campaign—there is some video evidence that he is already doing so. Some wobbly-kneed public performances.

This sudden snapshot of the Trudeau shadow is exactly what the Tories needed to have a chance at winning the election: voters on the left moving in significant numbers from Liberal to NDP.

I feel sorriest for Pierre Trudeau, whose legacy is being damaged by the self-indulgent follies of his son—as it has been by his wife.

Yearbooks of the Damned

Virginia governor Ralph Northam is expected to resign tomorrow. Everyone is calling for it—left and right.

This is one more indication of how insane public discourse has become in the US. And in Canada.

The demand comes because a photo was found in Northam’s medical school yearbook, showing him either in blackface or wearing the costume of the KKK. The photo shows two students—nobody is clear on which one is Northam, including Northam, but it is on his personal page.

Northam himself, of course, loses a great deal from this. The sudden end of a very promising political career. His political opponents do not gain: he will only be replaced by another Democrat of similar views. The democratic process loses, in significant ways. Northam was elected; this resignation would subvert that, and overrule the democratic process. The people of Virginia will be left with a governor they had no say in choosing. And the vulnerability to petty scandals in your past is sure to discourage others from seeking public office.

And over what? Over a bad choice of dress for a costume party? At the very worst, who was hurt?

Suppose that Northam was the guy dressed in the KKK hood. Does dressing up like that for a costume party imply endorsement? Since when? Does dressing up like a witch, a vampire, or Frankenstein’s monster for Hallowe’en imply support for witches, vampires, and monsters?

Or let’s say it does. Then how can anyone be upset if Northam turns out to have been the student in blackface? That implies endorsement. Then that must necessarily have been expressing his support of blacks. Supporting blacks is intolerable racism?

It makes no sense.

Let’s even suppose, although entirely unwarranted, that it was Northam in the white hood, and this actually was meant to show his own support for the KKK. Even then, so what? That was in, what, 1983, when he was 25 years old. What sense does it make to hold anyone accountable now for their opinions 35 years ago? What politician can you name who has been in public life that long and still supports the same positions? Don’t people’s ideas change? Since when do we no longer believe in redemption? Where would Moses or St. Paul or St. Augustine be by such standards?

This really all has to stop. I think this is a good point at which to take that stand, because politically, Northam’s ideas are antithetical to mine. He believes in legal infanticide, for heaven’s sake. So I want to plant the flag here.

Megyn Kelly and Redface

Megyn Kelly is now in trouble, and has chosen to publicly apologize, for arguing on air that she saw nothing wrong with wearing blackface for Hallowe'en. Rumours are that she will be fired.

Here is another example of the clear and present danger to our democracy from arbitrary restrictions on speech. It is, surely, at a minimum perfectly reasonable to make such an argument. It must not be ruled intolerable without being addressed. Or we will never know whether it is wrong.

If it is intolerably racist for a European-American to dress as a black celebrity for Hallowe'en, is it then intolerable to dress as Mulan, because she is Chinese and your are not? Like Princess Jasmine, if you are not Middle Eastern? Like Santa Claus, then, if you are not Greek? Black dancers in New Orleans' Mardi Gras traditionally dress as American Indians. Are they being intolerably racist? Dutch Christmas festivities traditionally feature a blackface character, Black Pete. Is the Dutch nation so racist? 

I expect the response will be that blackface has a unique history of mocking and making fun of black culture. If true, this need not be obviously relevant to one's Hallowe'en blackface; it seems hypersensitive. But even this much is not obviously true, as this blog has pointed out in the past. The American tradition of minstrel shows in blackface can be at least as readily explained by a popular belief that black music and black musicianship was superior to white, as by any intent to mock blacks. Historially, minstrel shows were at least as popular among black as among white audiences. They were banned in much of the antebellum South as anti-slavery propaganda.

True, the minstrel shows featured comic characters, who appeared in blackface. But if you are going to put on a variety show, and the musicians are all blackface, and many of them also do comic routines, this is more or less inevitable, and would be awkward to avoid. To do so would seem instead to be deliberately saying something racist about either blacks or whites.

And when it comes to the tradition of comic characters on the stage, whiteface is far more common than blackface. The classic clown makeup demands both whiteface and red hair. Ethnically, whom does that suggest? Probably Irish folks, like Megyn Kelly. 

Why then are we not at least equally up in arms about this appalling racism towards historically oppressed northern Europeans? Why this black privilege?

Blackface

Some of you may have seen old movie clips of Al Jolson performing in blackface. This is a vestige of what was, for a hundred years or so, the classic American popular entertainment. It was what America had instead of opera: the minstrel show.

Nowadays, of course, it is understood to have been unspeakably racist. White performers blackened their faces with burnt cork and pretended to be black. They they would sing and dance and tell jokes, most of them nonsensical. What could be more insulting or offensive?

Or was it? Consider these facts:

1. minstrel shows were often banned in Southern cities before the Civil War. They were considered implicitly abolitionist
2. minstrel shows were at least as popular with black as with white audiences.
3. clowns always paint their faces. Far more often, they paint their faces white. Is this insulting to whites?

We seem always too eager to believe the worst of our ancestors.