Why blackface (and brownface) offend

A more challenging case of blackface occurred earlier this year, when a Hungarian journalist Boglarka Balogh photoshopped her own face onto portraits of black women.

Boglarka Balogh posted the project I Morphed Myself Into Tribal Women To Raise Awareness Of Their Secluded Cultures in late December, writing that the portraits set out to celebrate “stunning tribal beauties at the brink of extinction”. But her actions were widely condemned.

So what about people who say they are using blackface as a form of homage?

Here again, we should return to the question of power and control.

Regardless of intent, you can’t separate blackface from its colonial history – because the negative effects of this history still shape people’s lives today. And should people have the right to take someone else’s ethnicity for a day, use it for their own purposes and then drop it?

The dominant (white) culture has, for so long, taken things from people of colour – whether it be stories or treasures – because it could. In the case of the Maui outfit, for instance, culturally significant tattoos have a very specific meaning.
Indeed the co-leader of New Zealand’s Maori Party Marama Fox, accused Disney of aiming to “make a profit off the back of another culture’s beliefs and history”.

The history of blackface has shown us that, regardless of intent, this practice cannot be seen as respectful and will offend people.

As indigenous affairs reporter Allan Clarke responded when challenged by Steve Price on The Project for getting upset about Kunek’s blackface photos:

Let the people of colour define what’s racist. Let them define what’s offensive to them.

I use the history of blackface as an important example when teaching allied health professional students about cultural safety.
If we want to have a more harmonious society then we should stop doing these things as they are offensive and distressing to some citizens.