https://news.sky.com/story/katy-per...s-taken-off-shelves-for-being-racist-11635345
they both look the same whats the issue ? I don't get it?
they both look the same whats the issue ? I don't get it?
'Whiteface' simply isn't the same as 'blackface', because blackface has a horribly racist history.https://news.sky.com/story/katy-per...s-taken-off-shelves-for-being-racist-11635345
they both look the same whats the issue ? I don't get it?
Pwahhh!Yeah, I was expecting to see a shoe resembling a gollywog. Instead I just saw hideous shoes.

'Whiteface' simply isn't the same as 'blackface', because blackface has a horribly racist history.
It's fun to pretend we don't understand, but we've had a lot of this sort of thread now, so it starts to look a bit more than simple ignorance.
It's a shoe that looks like Jim Crow. A horrible caricature of a black face. One with a history of violence and persecution against blacks.So basically we can never again have anything that resembles a blackface because of history?
It’s just stupid. They’re characterisations of two people, ones white and ones black. But one is supposedly offensive and therefore, must be removed from public view. It’s just getting utterly pathetic. If anything, we’re now refusing a black face to be seen. It’s almost as if racism has gone full circle.
no it doesn't. it looks like a **** awful shoe. as simple as that. this trying to pad things out to be something they aren't has to stop. it's a ******* shoe. a hideous shoe but a shoe nonetheless. sod all racist about it.It's a shoe that looks like Jim Crow. A horrible caricature of a black face. One with a history of violence and persecution against blacks.
It's a shoe that looks like Jim Crow.