I've heard this argument before; I think the Guardian had an article two-ish years ago that opined similarly.
I guess, by their logic, the best way for a white person to not be accused of "digital blackface" is to not post such gifs or similar media at all. And I think it is highly impractical to try to enforce such a thing.
When someone posts a gif detailing a black person (or people) expressing themselves emotionally, I have never thought of it in the context of "the person posting this is black" or is "trying to express familiarity with blackness" or that they are insinuating that "all black people act this way or are similar to this".
With real-world blackface, the (usually) white or light-complexioned person wearing it is, in fact, trying to insinuate all three things. A blackface-wearing individual is, in fact, trying to be a black person, even if his or her attempt at such is crude and pathetic. A white person trying to mimic black people is a pursuit that I feel is, at least largely, not worth trying. But posting a gif or a picture of a person, regardless of what their race is, does not mean, and is not trying to insinuate, that the posting person is trying to be that person; nor is the posting person attempting to "express [sociopolitical] solidarity" or an unearned familiarity with the person in the picture. Unless, perhaps, if the posting person is trying to say or actively insinuate that it is supposed to be a representation of themselves (for example, "This is my face when my barking dog wakes me up at 5 AM.") Even in such a situation, it is not necessarily a racial expression.
Posting a picture of, for example, a black person dancing does not inherently translate to A White Person Desperately Trying To Communicate Their Belief That Black Lives Matter. I completely understand that black people in America and Europe have faced no shortage of historic injustice. But treating them with an over-compensatory attitude of preciousness based on an illegitimate system of social hierarchy is not only the wrong way to combat racism against them, but will perhaps enforce racism and racial division.
And that is why I disagree with the premise of CNN's opinion. Because a simpler way of interpreting what John Blake is saying is, "Non-blacks who point out a black person expressing themselves emotionally can be, and often is, racist." And that, I must say, is a very high standard, even considering the insidious Angry Black Woman stereotype.
How about this (this sentence is mainly for non-black readers): treat them like human beings! Recognize and respect their complexities and what they contribute to the world. Show that you care about them and appreciate their company, without being smug about it and without tokenizing them! Ask about what they want to do in life, let them talk about it, and ask interested, engaged questions.
Articles like Blake's, thanks to the glorious academic field known as Reverse Psychology, will likely end up encouraging the behavior it tries to decry.
This is a gif of a person acting silly. He is not me, and I am not him. I absolutely respect and appreciate that his background, beliefs, upbringing, interests, insecurities, passions, values, economic properties and assets, diet, fashion, cultural tastes, politics, societal adaptability, sexual orientation, aspirations, family life, cost of living, love life, and personality may be different from mine; I understand that his lived experience is disparate from mine, and I fully understand that I don't understand what he understands as his understanding of how he understands the world. On that note, I as a white person believe I have all my bases covered.
You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
nypost.com
