Halloween costumes -- where is the taste line drawn?

Nice!

Janx said:

Some dude dressing up as a Nazi for Halloween is not a thing worth getting upset about.

Click to expand...

If I would do it, I am pretty sure, there would be lots of people getting upset

Well, in Germany it will most probably get you arrested...

Bullgrit said:

This being the season for costume parties, I'm seeing some news items lately that show various people in what the media (or someone) label as "offensive" or "insensitive".

Where do you drawn the line for good taste in a Halloween costume? What if you went to a Halloween costume party. What would you consider a bad taste costume?

Click to expand...

It's contextual. Last time I was out in a pub at Halloween, the place was full of women dressed as "slutty ..." Which, given the context, was entirely appropriate. But if a teacher were to turn up at a school Halloween party dressed as "slutty ..." that would be inappropriate. The same costume, even worn by the same person, may be appropriate in one place and wildly inappropriate in another.

One article showed a white celebrity costumed and apparently made up to look like a black character on a TV show. Her make up was labeled "black face", but her face wasn't black, it was more like a light tan. As I don't know the celebrity, (nor the character she was portraying), before reading the article, I didn't know the color wasn't normal for her, or how accurate it was to the character. Should people stick to their own race for a character costume?

Click to expand...

In theory, one person dressing up as another specific person should be fine. And that should include the use of cosmetics to change skin tone, whether that's to lighten it or darken it.

But "blackface", of course, has a whole lot of historical baggage associated with it - specifically in its use by white performers because black ones weren't allowed to perform at all, or its use to lampoon or ridicule entire races. Rightly or wrongly, the use of "blackface" has become inextricably linked with racism.

I personally wouldn't try it. And, equally, I personally wouldn't automatically take offense at someone who did, unless the manner in which they did so was itself racist. But I'm not surprised that some people took offense.

A couple years ago, one of the British princes dressed in a Nazi uniform for a costume party. There was a lot of uproar about it. The problem struck me as odd. He could have dressed as the devil, an axe murderer, a zombie, a medieval executioner, and no one would have had a problem. But somehow Nazi is over the line?

Click to expand...

For anybody else, a Nazi would have been fine. And, even for Harry, dressing as a Nazi should have been fine - he was a young man going to a (private) costume party! But, again, it wasn't a surprise that some people took offense, and that some newspapers saw opportunity to sell manufactured offense.

(That said, I'm not 100% sure Harry didn't know it would create a stir, and chose to do it anyway. Like his grandfather, quite a lot of his popularity seems to come from his 'gaffes' - the Nazi costume, the "strip billiards"... Besides, even when he says or does something quite reasonable, it's likely to be taken out of context for outrage purposes, such as his comments about taking enemy combatants "out of the game".)

With all the stuff that a person can dress up as, why even go as something that could cross the line? You just are not thinking and kind of dumb or you are trying to cause issues.

Dannyalcatraz said:

He is a mortal man, yes, and thus, not my nor anyone else's inherent superior. Puts his pants on one leg at a time, bleeds, etc. Stipulated and not even argued.

But "Pinnacle of society" in terms of personal wealth, opportunities available just because of who he is as opposed to his merits, connections, etc.- yes, he is a 1%er. With the good comes the bad- he has restrictions on his life none of us will likely face. Despite apparently earning his way up the ranks, he was still withdrawn from deployment, seemingly much to the disappointment of himself and his fellow squad mates.

Life at that level is simply different. Like the saying goes, "The difference between rich and wealthy is that the rich make lots of money...and the wealthy sign their paychecks." My family is rich. But we still have all the concerns of my less fortunate relatives down the road, including balancing the monthly budget. The Monarchy doesn't really have that concern.

Don't pretend you don't understand that reality. Is it fair? Arguable, but I lean towards no. But this is the world we live in, not the normative one.

Click to expand...

And you kindly don't pretend you didn't see the rest of my post. You made some silly comment about what the uniform means when people who espouse Nazi beliefs wear it as though that had something to do with the prince when it most certainly did not. Remember that 'c' word I used? 'Context'? Let's talk about that.

That said, yeah, I don't care if you think he's better cuz he's rich. I don't. And, well, context. I know you don't wanna talk about that but, well, it's kinda the most important piece of this particular puzzle. He didn't wear the costume during a UN event, did he? Nope. He wore it to a costume party on Halloween. Oops! Looks like I found yet another important 'c' word: costume. You say uniform when the prince said costume. Now if you truly put all of this excellence into the man, respect your better and take him at his word. He wore it as a costume and not as a uniform. That difference is key - regardless of whether or not you believe some people deserve to live by different rules. So yeah, let's talk about that.

Umbran said:

Socio-politically, no, he's not "just a man". He is a prince - that's a very specific position within his society. It comes with responsibilities.

If he abdicates his right to the throne, he's "just a man". If he wants to stay in that office, he takes with it all the burdens of that office.

Click to expand...

Nope, he's just a man. Everything assigned to him beyond that has been assigned to him. In other words, it's not innate to him or the position. It's a construct and has no value. The reason people of that station are of that station is because people like us are all too willing to put them there.

Aside from that, what responsibility is it of his to have his Halloween costume approved by the general public? Again, this comes down to context and, for reasons unknown to me, why some of you seem hell bent on ignoring it in certain cases.

NewJeffCT said:

Sorry, just because you say it shouldn't apply does not mean that it does not apply.

It's something that has applied to humans for thousands of years. Public figures - be they politicians, kings, queens, emperors, or other celebrities - have different standards than the general public. If the Pharaoh of ancient Egypt tripped & fell down the steps of the pyramid and broke his neck, it's an event that affects the entire kingdom and most likely it would be news throughout the kingdom. If one of the slaves who built the pyramid tripped & fell and broke his neck, nobody but his immediate family would care.

Click to expand...

So ... the prince's costume had the same impact as his death would have? IMO, his death wouldn't have any real impact on the country either. It's not as though he performs any real functions. Prince is mostly a ceremonial title nowdays, ain't it? So yeah, I am right and it does mean nothing.

And, again, ya'all don't seem to give a hoot about context.

But who he is is part of the context. He himself, as a member of the royal family (and believe me, as a staunch republican - of the small "r" variety - royal families generally don't mean much to me except as something to be against) carries a symbolic weight that an ordinary person wearing that kind of outfit in public wouldn't.

If I dressed as a nazi for Halloween, that would probably be in bad taste (almost certainly), but it would just be me doing it. But when Harry does it, he represents the royal family, and thus the central unifying symbol of the British monarchy. Maybe it's not as bad as if Prince Charles had done it, but it still represents a breach of his responsibility to hold up the highest public standards of the monarchy.

But the monarchy doesn't really mean anything. And, you know, there's the intent - which is the part of the context I'm talking about. His intent was to wear a costume. People, because of this silly notion of station, have decided to ignore that intent. A Halloween party and a UN meeting or a public address or myriad other political functions are very, very different things and it's insane to act otherwise. I could agree that if the prince was caught in this uniform outside the confines of politics or a Halloween costume party that some uproar would be warranted. That's not at all what happened, though. It's incredibly obvious that he intended to wear a costume at a costume party. That's ... harmless. People need to get over royalty and get over themselves, too.