I find it quite interesting in these threads.
I often see examples of people explaining that white people aren't allowed to judge what minorities can/can't get offended by. Fair enough.
Then I see following explanations telling white people what they can and can't get offended by because privilege. Surely it's down to the individual what they are/aren't offended by. If a white person is offended by racism, it's on an individual level and they can't just shrug their shoulders and say "well, my people have had it good for years so I'm not allowed to be offended"
I understand the general sentiment, but I think it's a bit of a shitty one. Of course, I'm white and middle aged so I'm practically satan.
I also find it interesting that this is causing more bad press for Trudeau than the SNC-lavalin corruption scandal. Is politics in such a state that corruption allegations from 2019 don't generate as much buzz as revelations about offensive fancy dress from 18 years ago!
I'm not sure if blackface in 2001 was considered anywhere near as racist as it is now by the general population.
@jojojo above mentioned gollywogs. Robertson's jam didn't retire that particular offensive mascot until 2002. As
@stevoc said, there was also Little Britain and Come Fly With Me where Lucas and Walliams were blacking up in 2010! This doesn't defend Trudeau's actions, but perhaps explains (sadly) a little about how more acceptable (whilst still offensive) this sort of imagery was in relatively recent times.