For those not familiar with blackface, it originated as makeup for portraying caricatures of black people. In the United States, it is generally considered unambiguously racist. While the use of blackface in the arts has largely ceased (though there is still controversy about white actors taking non-white roles) it has persisted in popular culture. It is most likely to be seen at costume parties, such as on Halloween. As might be suspected, the revelation that a public figure appeared in blackface can be a career ender. A few years ago, Mile Ertel resigned as the Secretary of State of my adopted state of Florida when photos of him in blackface surface. He dressed up as a black Katrina victim two months after the storm and his defenders argued that this past behavior should not have been held against him. While Ertel is a Republican, blackface is bipartisan.
The release of a photo from his 1984 medical school yearbook (showing one person in blackface and another in Ku Klux Klan gear) has created a bit of a problem for the former governor of Virgina, the Democrat Ralph Northam. Since the incident occurred in 1984, his defenders argued that he should not suffer the consequences of this past action.
One time-based defense for someone who used blackface is to argue they were not aware of its history and implications and did not have racist intention. People do dress up in non-racist costumes that are odd and problematic that they think are just fine, especially when alcohol is involved.
This defense is not entirely absurd. Everyone has done stupid things from ignorance rather than malice. Also, everyone has done wrong because of lapses in judgment or due influences like alcohol or peer pressure. While it would be a fallacy to argue that something is acceptable because it is commonly done, it is reasonable to argue that judgments of behavior should consider the realities of human behavior: we consistently do dumb things for dumb reasons.
While blackface is racist, if a person used it in sincere ignorance and apologize when informed of the truth, then they should be forgiven. The problem is that the history of blackface is well known in the United States. While a very young child could reasonably claim ignorance, others would be hard-pressed to claim ignorance. They could, however, use the aberration defense: that although they did not act in ignorance, they are not racist.
While it might seem absurd to say that a person could do something racist without being racist, there is an analogy to lying. While a person who lies is a liar when they lie, it would be absurd to label a person who is usually honest a liar because they have lied. Likewise, a person who is generally not racist, but has engaged in some out of character racist behavior, should not be labeled as a racist. Naturally, there would be exceptions. The key question is whether the incident is an aberration or arising from their established character. This is where time becomes a critical factor.
To steal from Aristotle, assessing a person’s actions requires considering whether they are acting from a fixed and permanent disposition. If a person has the vice of racism, they would be consistent in their racism, and it would not be an irregular or aberrant behavior on their part. Someone who is not a racist might have done some racist acts in their past, but if these acts are few and relatively minor, then they should not be considered a racist. To use an analogy, a person who has told a few lies in the past but is generally honest should not be condemned as a liar. The same works for virtues: someone who acted bravely once but is otherwise consistently cowardly would not be a brave person.
As such, while appearing in blackface would be racist, the person should be judged not by a single racist or ignorant action. The person’s reasons for the action must be considered and, importantly, their general character must be assessed. As such, while Ertel and Northam should not have put on blackface, the act itself does not suffice to determine whether they are racists who engaged in habitual racism or non-racists who did something racist. Their complete character and history must be considered.
It could be objected that the principle of judging people based on their character and broad history of behavior rather than on a single incident is unacceptable. In the case of blackface, it could be argued that the offense is so serious that it forever marks a person, rendering them eternally unfit for public office. But the idea of eternal offenses is problematic as it makes redemption impossible.
Contextual realists assert that reality and, by association, truth, is whatever-the-hell they say it is. There is a lot of that going ’round. If you are at all curious, see what Chris Crawford has offered@ John Messerley’s blog, Reason and Meaning, concerning wealth disparity: lucid and, succinct. Not bad at all.
In my comment, from March 15, 2025, I omitted an important fact. Well, I think it is important. During the time the person I spoke of went to the school mentioned, enrollment of black students there was low…probably under three percent. So, the minstrel show matter would have been of relatively low social impact, there and then. Insofar as this seems right, his feelings around the matter were overplaced. Memory, too, may be overplaced. Sure. Context changes.
Undercurrents are disturbing. Especially, in an employment environment, where I did not belong, according to the interests, motives and preferences of many. History(ies) did not surface in my consciousness, until years later. I remain, unashamed, of my ambiguity towards black colleagues, while working where I “was not supposed to be”. We had, As A Practical Matter, work goals and objectives in common…nothing more. In the workplace, AAPM, was sufficient. I did not need to “watch their backs”, they did not need to watch mine. But, you know,we DID. Sometimes. When that furthered OUR overall objectives of doing the job, and, retaining our livelihoods,thereby…we worked in a context. That was our reality, axiologically and, deontologically, at once. Assuredly, life is complex. I grew, I think, beyond histories like the blackface era. Black history,extends further backwards than that demonstrated parody, aimed at demeaning black people. When I worked, where I worked, rights were not only black and white—they applied to everyone. If someone held he or she was treated unfairly, we investigated that, made findings and recommendations. As an ALJ, I heard cases and wrote appealable decisions. Period.
There are always undercurrents…sure.
Hope things are good for you, Prof…
Someone, near to me, appeared in “blackface”, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was doing what was then permitted, without prejudice, appearing in a *minstrel show*, in high school. In blackface, he sang Old Black Joe. (He had a good voice, and, was encouraged to audition for the vocal appearance in the show. ) Being much younger, I did not understand, and attended the show with relatives. At that time, the school was *defacto segregated* and proud of it so, a person, in blackface, singing Old Black Joe, was perfectly acceptable, within that context. Years later, after 1964, he and I talked. He was ashamed of what he had, innocently, done. He wondered why he had not *known better*. But, the reality then,WAS contextual. I have pointed that out to him since, and, he has attained some comfort, therefrom: he “gets” that it was a confusing, contradictory time. All of them are.
There is a backstory to this tale, having happened, in or around, 1956, when the person, near to me, had a confrontation with black youths. So, in retrospect, I am not sure. I worked with and around black people, for thirty years. They were never people I counted among my best friends. I am not ashamed of that.