MovieChat Forums > Back to the Future (1985) Discussion > Al Roker explains why him dressing up as...

Al Roker explains why him dressing up as Back to the Future's Doc Brown is not similar to blackface

posted 6 years ago by TMC-4 (20488)
46 replies | jump to latest

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/10/31/al-roker-defends-dressing-white-character-amid-megyn-kelly-scandal/1840190002/

The Today weatherman was asked on social media if he was being a hypocrite for criticizing Megyn Kelly's blackface character while dressing as an iconic white character for Halloween. Roker responded: "I’m going to say this one last time, but the folks who get it, understand and the ones who DON’T, won’t. I can be Doc Brown, and I wear the outfit and wig and not change my skin color if you’re white , you can be President Obama if you want. Just don’t color your skin!"

[–] PaladinNJ (21772) 6 years ago

Roker is talking about a Halloween costume. Part of the fun of Halloween is being something you're not. If you play a character of another race and you want to color your face to match there's nothing offensive about it. Roker just proves that it's not required if the character is recognizable.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

Disagreeing is not the same as "not getting it". There's nothing wrong with coloring your face to dress up as a character who happens to be of a different race. If he had painted his face white it wouldn't have been offensive, just like painting it brown to dress up as Obama wouldn't have been offensive. It's not blackface.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

It should be aknowledged that there is a difference between blackface and dresssing up as a black character/person. Blackface was one time a specific thing used by whites in America to mock and dehumanize black people as a form of entertainment which is why it's a sensitive issue when for a white person to dress as a black person and color there skin even if it isn't explicitly "blackface" . There is no equivalent history of "whiteface" and it is disingenuous to try to create a false equivalency there.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

Maybe there's no equivalent history of "whiteface" in the US, but there is in Asia. It also doesn't mean there can't be a present-day equivalent. White Chicks comes pretty close.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

It's an important difference that can't just be brushed aside that any so called "whiteface" which was never a specific thing akin to the origins of blackface & simply does not carry along with it the historical significance the way blackface in America is historically intertwined with the systematic dehumanization and oppression of black people.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

I'm not sure why you assume that whiteface in Asia does not carry any historical significance of discrimination against white people.

Why does it matter that whiteface used in White Chicks, for example, has no historical significance? At one point blackface was also something new. Should we wait until it has evolved into something similar? And how long should we wait before it's okay to color your face brown to dress up as a specific person or character? It seems to me that the younger generations have no clue what blackface really was/is.

No, I think it's clear when coloring your face is supposed to be offensive or not. If you need to point to the past, then I think you just choose to be offended.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

I'm talking about the history of America not something that's supposedly going on in Asia which besides I'd guess wasn't tied in with the oppression of white people in Asia either. Blackface in America wasn't just "something new" and innocuous. It was part of an ongoing system of oppression to dehumanize black people. Comparing that to the movie "white chicks" is simply absurd. It's categorically different in presentation, historical relevance and intent. There is a reason why most people had no issue with Robert Downey Jr's role in Tropic Thunder despite its toying with a sensitive topic, which is more appropriate to draw comparison.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

Maybe you shouldn't be so sure about the way white people have been treated in Asia.

Mocking a race is mocking a race, it's actually more of a problem if it happens NOW. What's ridiculous is to be offended by something that happened in the past. And that's what blackface mostly is today, that's why most people weren't offended by Tropic Thunder. Although I'm not so sure if would be the same today when everything's offensive.

Coloring your face brown to dress up as Obama is also "categorically different in presentation, historical relevance and intent". No need to link it to blackface in any way.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Since you're so interested in repeatedly bringing up Asia you are welcome to provide an historical equivalent of blackface in America except for systematically oppressed & dehumanized white people in Asia..somewhere.

People weren't overly offended by Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder because it's all about context as that was not really an example of blackface.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

I simply responded to your remark that whiteface in Asia is not tied in with the oppression of white people in Asia. Well, guess where whiteface has been especially popular. Japan. If you're not aware, I'm sure you can look up their treatment of Westerners, especially in WW II.

People actually did take offense with Tropic Thunder, even moreso nowadays. But yes, Downey's character was not blackface and neither is coloring your face brown to dress up as Obama. Making any kind of connection between a harmless Halloween costume and blackface is ludricous.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Well now that you've narrowed down a country in Asia I can comfortably surmise that there is no historically comparable treatment of white people involving any apparent "whiteface" or otherwise in Japan to that of the longstanding systematic oppression & dehumanization of black people throughout the history America.

Robert Downey Jr was playing a parody of a white method actor playing the part of a black man for a film. He wasn't actually portraying a black man. The context and intent is easy to understand. Unfortunately in real life the context & intent too often ranges from questionable to blatantly offensive.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

I didn't say it was EXACTLY comparable. Different continent, different countries, different culture, different time. But it definitely carries historical significance of discrimination against white people. Why should it be EXACTLY the same for there to be a painful history??? Are you the one to decide how relevant that history must be for it to be considered offensive??? If you're not aware of the horrible treatment of white people by the Japanese (even now), then that must be ignorance on your part.

Just look at every case individually. Coloring your face to portray Obama is not offensive in itself. A black person dressing up as a white person can also have an offensive intent, even without "historical significance".

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Oh come on now. Brutal institutionalized oppression of black citizens in America throughout majority of U.S. history vs white foreigners not being treated too nice in Japan during WII? It's just objectively not in the same stratosphere. We can grasp for straws all day.

It's simply is not up to white people or anyone non black for that matter to decide how black people should feel about issues pertaining to their oppression in this country & that the longstanding legacy of blackface that used specifically to further demean an oppressed people is simply beside the point and that everything is now the same.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

Not treated "too nice" in WW II??? Dang, you really are ignorant. Just lovely how you want people to be considerate of those who have never even witnessed slavery and blackface, but dismiss those that were prisoners in Japanese camps and are still alive today to witness whiteface on Japanese tv. It's certainly not up to YOU to marginalize their feelings.

No grasping at straws. I believe you were the one making a statement about whiteface equivalents. My point was that painting his face white to portray Doc Brown would've been no different than someone painting their face brown to portray Obama. You say "It's not blackface, but...", I say "It's not blackface. Period". If someone chooses to be offended by it, then that's their problem. I'll choose to pay no attention to their supposed hurt feelings.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

All I was telling you is that it's objectively not the same in terms of scale and is ultimately a reach with vague mentions of "whiteface" in Japan or the treatment of POW's who for some reason we're assuming were all white and treated poorly because they were white unlike the Chinese who they went easy on....

I see you're just not getting it. You don't see any difference because you think the historical significance of blackface as it pertains to anti black oppression is irrelevant. Fair enough. That's your business. The fact is however that most black people and many decent non blacks including whites don't share your perspective however.

Let me make a simple comparison for objective observation.

There is no historical precedent of black people in America adorning "whiteface" to systematically demean and dehumanize white people and specifically not the character Doc Brown who has no history of being targeted with anti white racism by black people.

There is a significant historical precedent of white people In America adorning blackface to systematically demean and dehumanize black people & unfortunately former President Obama was targeted with all manner of vicious anti black racism by many white supremacist types throughout his presidency.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

You must've assumed all POW were white, because I certainly didn't. Yeah, again, you're pretty ignorant about the relationship of the Japanese with "the white man". Yep, they hated the Chinese even more. So what? Both were specifically targeted in WW II. Nothing vague about whiteface in Japan, they still love to do it, prosthetics and all. But just lovely how you dismiss the hurt of those who were victims...

So typical, I don't agree with getting hung up on the past, so I just "don't get it". It's hilarious you think you speak for "most" black people. Just don't.

I don't care about a "historical precedent", I care about NOW. There is no difference between simply making your face white to portray Doc Brown and simply making your face Brown to portray a black character (since you seem to be SO sensitive about Obama, let's go with Samual L. Jackson's character in Snakes on a Plane...) . If your mind immediately goes to blackface when seeing that as a person who has never even witnessed blackface or slavery, then that's your issue. And believe it or not, yes, I actually am decent human being.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

You're just going in circles repeating the same thing, deflecting into this straw grasping thing with Asia/Japan & repeating how the unique historical significance of the ongoing cultural sensitivities of the majority black people in America regarding this issue is irrelevant to you.

Again, fair enough but understand that your dismissive views regarding historical precedent generally isn't shared by black people along with many fair minded whites & other non blacks.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

I'm not at all deflecting with Japanese whiteface. It's a different discussion (that you created yourself by bringing up a whiteface equivalent.) You're the one who keeps making up excuses for it. It's a very nasty thing and you don't even seem willing to acknowlege it.

Again, don't speak for black or white people. Even if the majority would feel that way, it doesn't mean it's reasonable and that I should be considerate of them. But I understand very well that MOST people are not whining snowflakes.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Pivoting past your Asia deflection yet again I'll say there's a difference between speaking for someone and pointing out facts regarding how black people generally feel about issues that tie into to the long ongoing legacy of systematic anti black racism in America. I guess it's too bad for you that black people aren't just going to "get over it" because you want them to.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

Okay, so you don't want to discuss your own hypocrisy...

You bringing up whiteface in your first response to me was actually a nice deflection, because I didn't even "try to create an false equivalent history of whiteface". So thanks for your irrelevant contribution to this thread.

And AGAIN you think you can speak for a whole race of people. People can choose to get worked up about this as much as they want, I'm simply not going to accommodate them.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

There is a cultural sensitivity among black society involving issues that pertain to the unique, ongoing legacy of anti black racism in America. That's fact not conjecture. Repeatedly saying it isn't going to change that.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

Never said there wasn't. But in this case the "cultural sensitivity" equals whining. Blackface is not good, but coloring your face brown just to portray a black character is not blackface.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Enough. We get it. You don't particularly care that there is a legacy of intstationalized anti black racism related to this which makes this a uniquely culturaly sensitive issue for black people in America.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

"We get it"

Please speak for yourself.

I care about racism, I do indeed not care about whining about nothing.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Thank you for finally admitting it at least.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

What are you talking about? I already said I considered it whining!

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

We know. You don't care. As i said thank you for admitting it.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

How many personalities do you have
exactly???

Not sure why none of you figured out sooner that I don't care about people feeling offended over this particular issue. I was pretty clear about that.

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Thank you for letting everyone know yet again.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

My pleasure. If any of your other personalities needs clarification, I'd be happy to repeat it again!

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Whatever you say confused one who just doesn't care.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

Is this one of your personalities who clearly hasn't been paying attention?

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Hmm. Confused one who doesn't care with a penchant for gobbledygook.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

That's quite alright, I don't need you to repeat any of your nonsense!

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

No. You're doing perfectly fine with your own roundabout nonsense.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

Absolutely! Like I said, I'll gladly repeat if one of your other personalities doesn't quite get it!👍

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

By all means rinse, wash and repeat the gobbledygook to your heart's content.

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

Sure, if you really want me to. Good luck with you repeating your
nonsense for all eternity. I doubt anybody's going to listen.👋

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

Lol! You are just precious.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Have you two got a room yet?

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

What a stubborn and easily offended moron...

[–] BillySlater (4282) 6 years ago

In this day and age, there is no distinction between dressing up as a black person and blackface. That is the problem. If black people can dress and colour their skin aswhite people without being called racist, then the reverse should apply regardless of history. Also, Roker´s comment about Obama is stupid. If you´re a white person, how are you supposed to be recognized as Obama without colouring your skin?

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 6 years ago

A white person can easily portay Obama via mannerism and speech. Fred Armissen did it on SNL without any significant use of makeup years ago if i recall correctly. He did a decent job from what i remember

[–] Stratego (31075) 6 years ago

It helped that the guy was kinda dark anyway. But seriously, if a white person just makes his face brown without the big lips or any other exaggerated racial stereotype, what the hell goes through the head of someone who's actually offended by that? It's just a freakin tan!

[–] BillySlater (4282) 6 years ago

Im talking about if you´re some kid on halloween not some professional actor.

[–] Moonglum9 (11340) 6 years ago

There can be no debate that it is offensive if somebody does 'Tardhead' where they put on a padded helmet, squint their eyes, leave their mouth hanging open and say "Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr".