It may well be an incongruous combination, but does it really warrant your tag of ‘racism’?
One might sell dark skinned false noses with forms that exaggerate the nasal characteristics of races familiar to the African continent – with boxes that depict their wearing by light skinned boys, or even decrepit and haggard old men with proboscitis.
Is the racism in the viewer?
How does one know a racist point is being made by the wearer, or by those who have selected the wearer as the model?
Should false noses necessarily be part of a plausible disguise?
If they aren’t, does that imply ridicule of the subject, the disguise, or the incongruity?
One might suspect that if it had been a black adult’s nose on a white boy, that the nose would be the victim, and not the wearer.
Are you always this annoying Crosbie (if that is your real name)? Or are you having a tough week?
A tough decade, Hugh. And it’s set to continue…
Yeah lose the tag of racism on this. here’s why. the contrast of the skin tones makes the nose show up a heck of a lot better.
You noticed it didn’t you? When was the last time you’ve seen a ebony witch in a movie? If anything, the nose should probably be green.
Excellent sport sir!
I actually don’t know what to make of this photo. But I’m leaving the tag “racism” because someone interested in the topic of racism might find the photo useful one way or another. Tags are ways to make items easier to find, not hard descriptors.
I don’t know what to make of it because the company must have known that by putting that Caucasian nose on that adorable African-American child, it would be obvious that the company’s idea of fleshtone doesn’t fit every tone of flesh.
Every public choice you make is speech, and as much as it communicates what you intend it also communicates things you didn’t.
If one is considering tags on their potential relevance I’d like to add tags for those investigating witchcraft and the persecution of people who practised it (or who were alleged to),
Tags are more than a dispassionate, impartial, objective categorisation. They’re more like a psychoanalytical word association game. “If I show you this picture, what words spring into your mind?” “Humour? Marketing? Halloween? Yes, good. Racism?, Hmmm very interesting Mr Weinberger. Same time next week?”
Crosbie, absolutely correct. And, as I say, I think that this picture might have relevance to those studying racism. It may be racist. It also may not be. I don’t disavow my choice of the tag. In fact, in my previous comment I affirmed it. But I do say (as you do when you talk about word associations) that tags are not simple descriptors.
In short, we’re agreeing about the role of tags, but disagreeing about the appropriateness of this one.
I think ‘disagree’ is a tad too far. I’m just querying your use of a tag, pursuing your justification for it. Much to the irritation of some.