How is it racist?- Page 8

[newintown]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 3:49pm

Continuing to "talk" (or complain) about a problem without discussing solutions really is akin to picking at a scab so that the wound will never heal.

And as I said - anyone can complain. It's just not interesting, because it's easy and common. What's interesting it thinking a problem through and considering solutions (because it's harder and rarer).

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 4:01pm

To the contrary, Blactor's first words on this thread were "No, it's not racist."

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 5:58pm

Continuing to "talk" (or complain) about a problem without discussing solutions really is akin to picking at a scab so that the wound will never heal.

And as I said - anyone can complain. It's just not interesting, because it's easy and common. What's interesting it thinking a problem through and considering solutions (because it's harder and rarer).

newintown, sometimes the discussion IS the solution. Nobody here has suggested the government should intervene and enforce casting quotas.

The gay rights movement has made strides that were unimaginable when I came out in 1972. Why? Because thanks to Larry Kramer, Harvey Milk and many others, we simply refused to shut up about it.

Your cynicism about the benefits of free speech is rather disheartening, because as a rule I very much respect your posts.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/7/12 at 9:14am

"Benefits of free speech?" Did I mention "benefits of free speech?"

I'm all for free speech; I just have no patience for people who want to complain about life's problems and yet do nothing towards finding a solution, insisting that's someone else's job.

As for the philosophy "sometimes the discussion IS the solution;" sorry, I don't buy that. I see that in the workplace, where people mistake taking a meeting for doing work - everyone wants to be the idea man, the actual work is for someone else.

I'm all for hearing someone's objection, as long as they've thought about a potential solution (or two).

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 3/7/12 at 1:05pm

The Wayans brothers dressed up in white face and pretended to be women.

That's racist and sexist at the same time. Where is the outrage?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/7/12 at 1:16pm

Broadway Joe is right. Racism against white people is REAL problem! (Hopefully he's got some solutions!)

[3bluenight]

Posted: 3/7/12 at 2:09pm

I tend to think that being offensive in general is problematic. inequality, discrimination, bigotry, these are things we express everyday. all of us. we discriminate against this restaurant in favor of another. we unequally divide our time between work and family and personal time. and we're making judgements - who we want to spend time with and why, why this company is one i want to support, but not this one.
in this light these become tools that we use to create a life-style.

but racism, that's something is much larger, much more a cultural and/or political policy that is transmitted, infused with, permeates into our interpersonal actions.
but in my opinion, racism is structural - foundational.

Bell Hooks, Vijay Prashad, Helen Zia (ethnic studies writers and professors) have all suggested in one way or another that we look at the differences between multi-culturalism and poly-culturalism. That multi-culturalism and affirmative action, are really pathetic bones that are thrown to minority groups in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement in lieu of actual equality, because that would have meant reexamining the very structure of American Society.

It is my (very rudimentary) understanding of Physical Anthropology that one of the large driving questions is 'Why Racism?' Why did humans evolve this mechanism? (right along with 'Why Domestication?') Some have suggested that evidence of racism seems to coincides with move towards domestication.
I keep this in mind when thinking about these discussions, because these are ancient issues according to some lines of thought; to suggest we have somehow evolved beyond racism, seems insulting because to me, it's pretty clear that isn't the case.

I think that action is important. Having a plan that can be discussed is crucial. But perhaps that action is making people aware of their conditioning and assumptions and..just all of the baggage we each bring to the table. An acknowledgement opens the dialogue to a level of humility, but also shows a willingness to change and grow and want to learn new things.

I (in my brief 31 years on earth) have noticed that many people harden into the perceptions, if that makes sense. They're beliefs and ideas become much harder to change. Perhaps because they feel they have the experience to back up their assertions. But if i've learned anything from life, it's to truly not anticipate. because reality is a strange and unpredictable place.

When I hear people make comments about others whining, to me that is evidence that I as a Asian American haven't been able to frame my argument in a way that the intended audience can understand. Because I think that most modern people believe in a level of equality. and believe that because we can see a surface that appears to be equal, that we are then free from the bonds of history. But history has a way of complicating the future and i do not think we're done sorting that out.

moreover, the illusion of a "post-racial society" allows genuine and legitimate criticisms to be dismissed as "whining, liberal minorities who want a hand-out." Which is extremely degrading to suggest that everyone of an ethnicity is the same and that none of us want to earn our success.

Dialogue is important. And sometimes, that happens in concurrence with action. sometimes that is the action. it is not masturbatory. it is necessary. crucial. vital.
Shooting people's deeply personal ideas down and then to be willfully rude, or flippant is evidence to me that we are still living in a very complicated racial climate.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/7/12 at 4:42pm

"Benefits of free speech?" Did I mention "benefits of free speech?"

I'm all for free speech; I just have no patience for people who want to complain about life's problems and yet do nothing towards finding a solution, insisting that's someone else's job.

As for the philosophy "sometimes the discussion IS the solution;" sorry, I don't buy that.

The admonition, "Stop complaining and do something about it!", is often a good one. Here, however and as 3bluenight more eloquently explains, we are talking about a problem in people's perceptions. And I don't think there is a magical physical action (except for hiring more minority actors, directors, etc.) that will change how people think. (But we can't get more minority hires UNTIL we change thinking.)

You and I both know that most people in the theater tend toward the progressive side of the political spectrum and overtly racist actions and speech aren't consistent with our images of ourselves. There is no meeting of white directors and casting directors sitting around talking about how to keep blacks, Asians and Latinos out of the theater.

But those same white progressives will tend to read a character as white unless the script specifies otherwise and the character deals quite specifically with racial issues. I think that's the biggest hurdle people of color face when it comes to casting: the fact that the director automatically imagined Newspaper Reporter #1 as white when the director read the script.

The second biggest hurdle is our culture's continuing fondness for Realism, a style based in faithful replication of external appearances, in which a black Harold Hill and a white Marion Paroo are historically impossible. So it isn't just casting directors who need to think about why they think what they think, it's playwrights as well.

Discussions like this one serve to remind us to examine our own pre-conceptions. And, yes, that is supposed to be the purpose of freedom of speech: a more open exchange of ideas. The first amendment wasn't written just so everyone could vent in the town square without listening to anyone else; it was written to promote a free "marketplace" of ideas.

Such as this thread.



Updated On: 3/7/12 at 04:42 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/7/12 at 5:03pm

There is no meeting of white directors and casting directors sitting around talking about how to keep blacks, Asians and Latinos out of the theater.

Sorry to reply to my own post, but while this relates to the original topic of this thread, I think it would be confusing to add to my post above.

This thread began with the question of why one blogger might think the ethnic make-up of Academy voters tends to favor Meryl Streep. I don't know whether that blogger is black or white, but the discussion quickly shifted to claims that people of color supposedly see racism where none exists.

We of Northern European descent need to keep in mind that people of color never get to sit in on all-white meetings. So if an individual of color misunderstands how our thinking about race leads to certain results, well, how could s/he not?

There is growing scientific evidence that human beings tend to be imprinted with the images of their early caretakers (usually their parents) and then later gravitate toward people who look like those caretakers. Now that we're both older, I'm rather shocked at how much my husband looks like my maternal grandfather, the latter being the primary male role model of my childhood.

As a rule, this process is unconscious, of course, but we should be able to understand how it may appear to be a conspiracy to someone on the outside of the group wielding power.