Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
He is very popular (More people know Buckwheat, than Ralph Bunch and Medgar Evers combined)


And this is supposed to be a good thing? 17

The fact that more people may 'know' Buckwheat(a bafoonish fictional character played by a child) than MEDGAR EVERS(and African who lost his life in an effort to move his people forward) or Ralph Bunch(an African intellectual and activist) is part of the PROBLEM.

I can't believe you just used that as a buttress for proving(in your mind) that Buckwheat is 'uplifting'! Eek

Seriously... 17
aye dios mio.
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:

I do understand how Ms Boykin could be offended by it, but, I do not see that as that big of a deal.



Why not? Could you elaborate on this? Are you trying to make a stretch here and say that being offended at a white politicians designation of a respected, politically active, elder blackwoman, who actually helped her campaign, indicates that somehow, the black child represented by the buckwheat character is being rejected?

Are you saying we cannot love black children and at the same time decry a white politician using buckwheat toward someone not only her equal, but also her senior?

Are you saying that to accept black children, we cannot reject white originated depictions of them?

To quote a fellow poster, I AM CONFUSED Confused


yeah

The children we love look like this...



Not like this...

quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I'm glad that you recognize that not seeing the racist intent of calling an elder black woman "buckwheat" is strictly YOUR personal application of "context". There are those black people who collect the "mammy" and "uncle" figurines depicting red lips, wide grin and rotund body. I see these frequently in flea markets and I make a point to ask the owners if they know these, and the infamous lawn jockeys are offensive to many people. As well as those people who love the memin penguin figure in Mexico, and felt it wasn't racist to commemorate him on a stamp.

If there is nothing to be offended about in the exploitation of the black child's "pickaninny" image for entertainment purposes in Buckwheat, then what could there be offensive in the imagery suggested by "Madea"?

Regarding people being offended at the time: I'm sure black people were surprised in being represented on television at all, given black imagery was limited to Buck, Mammy, Coon, and swinging from a tree prior to this...
Racist intent? Well I do not know that the intent was racist, I was not there and I did not speak.

I have a neighbor who collects Aunt Jemima figurines, and I was taken aback by it (What, you ain't got no Unca Ben ones too?), but she likes them. Because of her, they no longer offend me. If I could get a lawn jockey, I would. And put it square in the middle of my living room. Damn, that would be some conversation piece huh?


I have friend who has all the above... including the lawn jockey, SHe puts them on display with books that explain the racist characterizing that white folks used to do to demean us. She does it so we won't forget. It seems like some of us, even faced with these images... still choose to forget.
If you had the opportunity to see pictures of black children in everyday life in rural areas in 1934, you would have seen plenty that looked like Buckwheat did. yes or no?

No one forgets, because a lot do not know in the first place, and there are plenty who beleive they know, but only choose to know part of the story.

I could see if we never, ever laughed at white people. If we never mocked them, if we never had depicted them in less than favorable ways, then there would be something to argue (sorta). But we do. We have. And we will for a very long time.


We talk about their racial activity as though it were the end all, and yet ours should go unnoticed, unspoken on, especially when it directed against us? Buckwheat was a little black boy, nothing more, nothing less. How is it that he can be so reviled. He was not a slaver, he was not an overseer, he did not hire at minimum wage, he did not abuse choir girls or boys, he did not pilfer any funds, he was just a funny talking little kid.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
Well I am not offended by it. What is it about Buckwheat that is offesive? It was stupid and an insensitive way to refer to an elderly black woman, but Buckwheat is not offensive.


Wow! Yah, nothing offensinve... ek

bang"Picaninnies had bulging eyes, unkempt hair, red lips and wide mouths into which they stuffed huge slices of watermelon. The Picaninny was distinguished by its young age, male or female. They were "child coons," miniature versions of baffoons Stepin Fetchit. It also had a head of wild hair that was disheveled and dirty. "They were also half dressed and animalistic. The picaninny was seen as one of a multitude of black children – disregarded and disposable." That the pickaninny was often half-naked has been interpreted by some to have implied that black slave parents neglected the well-being of their children.






______________________________________________________

This is not "Buckwheat" - these are made up characters.
Buckwheat, (don't know his/her real name) was a real person who played a little boy/girl on the Little Rascals t.v. show.

You can assume that she never referred to white people as Buckwheat, but only she knows for sure. I still do not know why Buckwheat is offensive. He was a character in shorts (movies) played by a real person and the character was not terribly removed from the reality of depression era black children.

It appears that the people here do not know about Buckwheat as much as they beleive they do. But people perceive Buckwheat as negative. I am just curious as to why.
It appears that some of the people here do not know much about white supremacy and the perpetuation of such through the manipulation of imagery. Just as the mammy and buck were not accurate representations of black people, but rather, white distortions of real black people, buckwheat, although played by a cute black child, is the pickanniny expression of black childhood meant to entertain whites.

As for "he was treated equal with the other children", elderly whites including former president Jimmy Carter frequently regale audiences of the good ole days when they played with "little colored children" just like they were brother and sisters. So, even that aspect is still a white representation of childhood, particularly given that brothers and sisters usually don't have to avert their eyes when white women walk by and are allowed to go into the same house, use the same restroom, and eat the same food when "playtime" is over.
quote:
@ Wiz...

Nobody is saying they despise the little boy(Billie Thomas) who played Buckwheat... He was a child. We despise the pickaninny character promoted by Hollyweird(and other forms of media). We are not simpletons.

The thing is, even the most cursory view of the times would reveal that the Character Buckwheat, was as close to the the real life of many black children at the time, as Alfalfa and Spanky were to white children of the time.

While I do not like the cartoon drawings of pickaninnies, that is what rural children looked like in real life back then and so did a lot of urban children. I am sure my grandfather looked like that. I know my uncle (his youngest brother) did. What is there that should offend us? Better what about pickaninnies offends you?
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
@ Wiz...

Nobody is saying they despise the little boy(Billie Thomas) who played Buckwheat... He was a child. We despise the pickaninny character promoted by Hollyweird(and other forms of media). We are not simpletons.

The thing is, even the most cursory view of the times would reveal that the Character Buckwheat, was as close to the the real life of many black children at the time, as Alfalfa and Spanky were to white children of the time.

While I do not like the cartoon drawings of pickaninnies, that is what rural children looked like in real life back then and so did a lot of urban children. I am sure my grandfather looked like that. I know my uncle (his youngest brother) did. What is there that should offend us? Better what about pickaninnies offends you?



My mother and father (RIP) were depression era rural black children. They even referred to saving things as "rationing". Their parents managed to keep them clean, with clothing in good repair, and they did not walk around with their hair unkempt. Boys did not wear afros at this time. Girls wore braided hair and boys wore close cuts and the predecessor of the "hi top fade". Also, when they were not working in fields or on farms, they were in school, which they had to walk several miles to get to. They did not have time to play with white children.

Your attempt to paint Buckwheat's unkempt appearance as normative of black rural children in the depression era is false.
aside from the hair, it was very normal. Buckwheat was not dirty, he just had uncut hair. There were a lot of children who wore handmedowns where the shirts appeared to be dresses. Why do you assume that he was dirty? He was very much the average child of the depression. Not just the average black child either. There are children in the low end who still look like that. Will you say there are not?
Is normative really a word? Anyway, if Buckwheat is based on the pickaninny, so what. Pickaninny is a despicable (I think that fits here) word that white people used to describe black toddlers. The thing is, and you are really going to hate this, that is often what black toddlers looked like. And because white people used the word to show they depsised black toddlers, we should too? Just because they are not dressed to the nines? And look like lil white children? You do know that there was plenty of poverty in our past don't you? We ate pork. We drank moonshine. We visted jukejoints. We smelled funny. We were unkempt. We lived in shacks. We worked the farm. We picked cotton. I am not ashamed of any of that. I do not need to have it colorized (that's funny). Them was/is my people.
fro off just a little. I just found out that Bill Thomas played both female and male roles of Buckwheat. Dang! I KNEW Buckwheat originally was depicted as a girl. I just didn't realized these roles were BOTH performed by a male actor. I mean I thought a "girl" played the girl Buckwheat. Wow! You see...you learn somethin' everyday. As did I. It's never to LATE to discover new things from the past. Never. fro
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:

We ate pork. We drank moonshine. We visted jukejoints. We smelled funny. We were unkempt. We lived in shacks. We worked the farm. We picked cotton.



we loved our children. we did not allow others to demean their image, shrug our shoulders and say "so what". We did not make excuses or explain away the racist intent of politicians. We did not accept widemouth grinning charicatures of our children as truth...
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:

We ate pork. We drank moonshine. We visted jukejoints. We smelled funny. We were unkempt. We lived in shacks. We worked the farm. We picked cotton.



we loved our children. we did not allow others to demean their image, shrug our shoulders and say "so what". We did not make excuses or explain away the racist intent of politicians. We did not accept widemouth grinning charicatures of our children as truth...


Don't forget the bulging eyes, and the watermelon. They were nameless and shiftless bafoons. How someone can defend this caricature is beyond me.



17 bang

Pickanniny was not just another word for 'African/Black toddlers', it described a particualrly racist concept/archetype/carciture that white people projected onto those they oppressed.

They were child coons. What do you not 'get' about that? What's next? Are you gonna defend Black Sambo next? Roll Eyes
quote:
we loved our children. we did not allow others to demean their image, shrug our shoulders and say "so what". We did not make excuses or explain away the racist intent of politicians. We did not accept widemouth grinning charicatures of our children as truth...

ummm, yeah most of us did. As a matter of fact some of the most famous minstrels in blackface, were black outta blackface too. Racist intent of politicians, that is funny as get out, you can not even get black people to vote. Am I am willing to bet you a dollar to a dime, that nine out of ten black politicians is as bought and paid for by white people as any slave ever was. I mean have you seen the congressional black caucus? Nobody has. They voted for the freakn' war WTF.

There were black ministers in Birmingham Alabama who opposed Martin Luther King! And here in Chicago too. We had/have dirty little children, with runny noses and nappy hair. We are beautiful, just like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
aside from the hair, it was very normal. Buckwheat was not dirty, he just had uncut hair. There were a lot of children who wore handmedowns where the shirts appeared to be dresses. Why do you assume that he was dirty? He was very much the average child of the depression. Not just the average black child either. There are children in the low end who still look like that. Will you say there are not?

I would contend that it is not the case that this was normative. It is a misconception that is often perpetuated, however, as this essay points out.
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n31/

I have attached pictures of AA families, children, and youth from 1900-1940's that I maintain are closer to the norm.


Spring 1939. "Primary class in new school, Prairie Farms, Montgomery, Alabama


Class of school children posing outside with their teacher, Espy, Pa. Spring 1912.


Harlem, circa 1940. Kids playing leap frog


Colored Industrial Institute, Sewing Class World's Fair
Pine Bluff, Jefferson County, AK; photo circa 1900.


African-American family posing in front of their home
Wilson, Mississippi County, AK


Children sitting in a cotton wagon in Keiser, Mississippi County, AK


Student and teacher at a Black school in Wilson, Mississippi County, AK circa 1940


Tenant farmers Wilson, Mississippi County, AK


Unidentified workers in a cotton field near Moorefield, Independence County, AK
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
You can assume that she never referred to white people as Buckwheat, but only she knows for sure. I still do not know why Buckwheat is offensive. He was a character in shorts (movies) played by a real person and the character was not terribly removed from the reality of depression era black children.

It appears that the people here do not know about Buckwheat as much as they beleive they do. But people perceive Buckwheat as negative. I am just curious as to why.


8It's the priciple that must be dealt with here. It is fascinating to me how some of us insist on playing the "fair" card when it is hardly ever dealt to us. There are certain thangs that white people in my opinion have no right to say or do . Whether she had called her Aunt Jemima, steppin' Fletcher, BoJangles , or Pig Meat Martin....ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE GREAT BECAUSE THEY WERE DOOR OPENERS....but she is not calling you out those names because they are great.....BELIEVE ME!!!! dance
quote:
Originally posted by nehisi:

8It's the priciple that must be dealt with here. It is fascinating to me how some of us insist on playing the "fair" card when it is hardly ever dealt to us. There are certain thangs that white people in my opinion have no right to say or do . Whether she had called her Aunt Jemima, steppin' Fletcher, BoJangles , or Pig Meat Martin....ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE GREAT BECAUSE THEY WERE DOOR OPENERS....but she is not calling you out those names because they are great.....BELIEVE ME!!!! dance


So what is the principle that must be dealt with? And by the way it is Stepin Fetchit (as in Go and get it, Step and Fetch it) and Pigmeat Markham. If this lady were worth Ms Boykin getting votes for before, how is she so very different now?
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
fro In these real life photos above....I have yet to see a smilin red lip pickanny with bulging eyes. What I do see however are beautiful Black children. Alert! Real life Black children vs Massa's interpretation of real life Black children [via in blackface].....apples and oranges. Wouldn't ya say? fro
Ummm.. ain't none of the smilin. But how long you think that lasted, kids smile.

and Buckwheat did not have red lips. The people in them pictures could easily pass for Buckwheat's kin.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
Fam, we cannot convince one of our family members to be offended as we are because we take offense at being called Buckwheat. I'm cool with WIZ not being offended by being called Buckwheat that's why I say we should all call him Buckwheat, him being new to the site and all, no time better than the present to remember him by his new name. Smile

On the real WIZ, your attempt at juxtaposing being called Buckwheat with various things that are clearly worse than being called Buckwheat does not lessens what it means to be called it by someone white. So surely all the examples you gave are worse than being called Buckwheat and so is being lynched, denied a job because your black, being beat with a baseball bat, having your home foreclosed on etc.. However if we lived by the ideal that something worse could be happening or has happen we will never be offended or complain thus allowing ourselves to be walked on by any and everyone simply because something worse could be happening.



I agree.... tfro
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Ummm.. ain't none of the smilin. But how long you think that lasted, kids smile.

and Buckwheat did not have red lips. The people in them pictures could easily pass for Buckwheat's kin.


fro You miss the point completely. But I think it is done so purposely. There is a HUGE difference between those kids in the photo.....and buckwheat. Huge difference. And for you to say that makes me go 19 fro
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
If you had the opportunity to see pictures of black children in everyday life in rural areas in 1934, you would have seen plenty that looked like Buckwheat did. yes or no?

No one forgets, because a lot do not know in the first place, and there are plenty who beleive they know, but only choose to know part of the story.

I could see if we never, ever laughed at white people. If we never mocked them, if we never had depicted them in less than favorable ways, then there would be something to argue (sorta). But we do. We have. And we will for a very long time.


We talk about their racial activity as though it were the end all, and yet ours should go unnoticed, unspoken on, especially when it directed against us? Buckwheat was a little black boy, nothing more, nothing less. How is it that he can be so reviled. He was not a slaver, he was not an overseer, he did not hire at minimum wage, he did not abuse choir girls or boys, he did not pilfer any funds, he was just a funny talking little kid.


Wiz, you still don't get it. Yes, black people made fun of white people as they made fun of us. THE DIFFERENCE IS that when black folks made fun of white folks, WE DIDN'T LYNCH THEM AFTERWARDS! nono
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
fro off just a little. I just found out that Bill Thomas played both female and male roles of Buckwheat. Dang! I KNEW Buckwheat originally was depicted as a girl. I just didn't realized these roles were BOTH performed by a male actor. I mean I thought a "girl" played the girl Buckwheat. Wow! You see...you learn somethin' everyday. As did I. It's never to LATE to discover new things from the past. Never. fro


So Billie "Buckwheat" Thomas dressed in drag long before RuPaul, Martin Lawrence, Flip Wilson, Eddie Murphy and Tyler Perry.
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:

Wiz, you still don't get it. Yes, black people made fun of white people as they made fun of us. THE DIFFERENCE IS that when black folks made fun of white folks, WE DIDN'T LYNCH THEM AFTERWARDS! nono
We didn't lynch them. Did the humor have something to do with lynching? Were we ever in a position to lynch them? What has that to do with this? Can you with any degree of certainty that if we were the dominant ethnicity in america, that we would have treated people differently? Upon what would you base this conclusion? Africans?

Beyond all that, there was nothing offensive about Buckwheat, the character. If there is, can you please point it out to me. He looked like other black children of his time. The pictures posted do not show any great difference (other than the hair). His name, well compared to some of the names black children have now, not that far from the mainstream (but what white people named their kid Alfalfa?) You all are grasping at straws to come to that conclusion. I know at this point, everyone has a firm hold on their conclusion and would not have it pried from their cold dead hands. I get that a lot. Its okay, it is to be expected among people who think well of their thinking.

Yesterday, I heard a report on from the Pugh (?) Research center that broke my heart. I had seen it for a long time and I deluded myself into beleiving there was a way to avoid this. There are now, two separate and distinct black americas, this according to black americans. *sigh* I know which one y'all is in, and I do not think it is the same one I am.
fro @Wiz....no cop out. But talkin' to you is like bang When you're brainwashed....you're brainwashed. You see, Massa done good with a lot of blackfolks. White washing their minds...and even having them go against each other. What you're displaying is TYPICAL...there's a name for it...but! I'm not going there. That's why Harriet Tubman refused to tell all blackfolks what she was doin'....if she had. I shutter to think! But be assured this is no cop out. Grown folks thinkin is sometimes hard to conform especially when it's been BRAINWASHED. Soooo...no cop out... giveup trying to talk to someone who doesn't want to HEAR IT. Unlike YOU...I get it..fro
Dude, it is a cop out. I asked you many times to explain yourself, but all I got was a bunch of ad hominen(?) B.S. with you talking about me. If you do not understand what I am saying, and asked me to explain myself, I would have no problme obliging you. But since you have joined this discussion, you have done a lot of talking about me, but not a lot of explaining your point.

Buckwheat, was a character from some shorts in the 30s. You say he was offensive and for every reasonette, that you gave, I have showed you were that does not make sense to me and I have asked you for further explanation and then the name calling starts. Why don't you skip the BS and explain to me why you conclude that Buckwheat is an offensive character to black people. I will simply counter with why I beleive that to be an error. A conclusion jumped to by rote, sans thoughtful consideration.
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
Fam, we cannot convince one of our family members to be offended as we are because we take offense at being called Buckwheat. I'm cool with WIZ not being offended by being called Buckwheat that's why I say we should all call him Buckwheat, him being new to the site and all, no time better than the present to remember him by his new name. Smile

On the real WIZ, your attempt at juxtaposing being called Buckwheat with various things that are clearly worse than being called Buckwheat does not lessens what it means to be called it by someone white. So surely all the examples you gave are worse than being called Buckwheat and so is being lynched, denied a job because your black, being beat with a baseball bat, having your home foreclosed on etc.. However if we lived by the ideal that something worse could be happening or has happen we will never be offended or complain thus allowing ourselves to be walked on by any and everyone simply because something worse could be happening.


yeah
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:

Beyond all that, there was nothing offensive about Buckwheat, the character. If there is, can you please point it out to me.



No. No more time will be dedicated to explaining things, "dude". Apparently, despite links, sociological explanations, historical pictures, and a variety of perspectives, no one else's assessment of this issue is valid. Perhaps in time, while focusing on attracting grocery stores, and building vibrant communities in the Chicago area, this will sink in. Perhaps it won't. "We get this a lot". The pervasive nature of white supremacist ideology in its many forms is not instantly recognizable to all Blacks. Hopefully, there will be a time when all Black people recognize the insidious nature of white supremacy and refuse to play devils advocate for white supremacy and refuse to explain it away...for white people.
I am not/was not ever a devil's advocate. I have no need for such things. If what you say is true, concerning white supremacy, then everything white people do is solely to benefit white people. Is this your contention? Would Asians and their many varieties be the same (seeing as white people have pretty much failed in their attempts to dominate that culture)? Are we to be against everything they do?
No. No more time will be dedicated to explaining things, "dude". Apparently, despite links, sociological explanations, historical pictures, and a variety of perspectives, no one else's assessment of this issue is valid. Perhaps in time, while focusing on attracting grocery stores, and building vibrant communities in the Chicago area, this will sink in. Perhaps it won't. "We get this a lot". The pervasive nature of white supremacist ideology in its many forms is not instantly recognizable to all Blacks. Hopefully, there will be a time when all Black people recognize the insidious nature of white supremacy and refuse to play devils advocate for white supremacy and refuse to explain it away...for white people.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×