TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Race- Privilege, Relations, Racism, etc.

Go To

First thing's first: KEEP. THIS. SHIT. CIVIL. If you can't talk about race without resorting to childish insults and rude generalizations or getting angry at people who don't see it your way, leave the thread.

With that said, I bring you to what can hopefully be the general thread about race.

First, a few starter questions.

  • How, if at all, do you feel your race affects your everyday life?
  • Do you believe that white people (or whatever the majority race in your area is) receive privileges simply because of the color of their skin. How much?
    • Do you believe minorities are discriminated against for the same reason? How much?
  • Do you believe that assimilation of cultures is better than people trying to keep their own?
  • Affirmative Action. Yea, Nay? Why or why not?

Also, a personal question from me.

  • Why (in my experience, not trying to generalize) do white people often try to insist that they aren't white? I can't count the number of times I've heard "I'm not white, I'm 1/4th English, 1/4th German, 1/4th Scandinavian 1/8th Cherokee, and 1/8th Russian," as though 4 of 5 of those things aren't considered "white" by the masses. Is it because you have pride for your ancestry, or an attempt to try and differentiate yourself from all those "other" white people? Or something else altogether?

edited 30th May '11 9:16:04 PM by Wulf

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#10226: Jan 27th 2016 at 5:54:50 PM

Making a Michael Jackson movie still seems kind of Too Soon in general.

SilentlyHonest Since: Oct, 2011
#10227: Jan 27th 2016 at 5:58:41 PM

Well consider that it's a made for TV film that won't be necessarily be about Micheal, but he's just one of three currently deceased main characters.

Imca (Veteran)
#10228: Jan 27th 2016 at 6:15:48 PM

Wouldn't finding another black man with the right build, and light enough skin for Michel Jackson later in his life be a serious issue though?

wehrmacht belongs to the hurricane from the garden of everything Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
belongs to the hurricane
#10229: Jan 27th 2016 at 6:21:59 PM

It might be, but who's obligating them to make a film about Michael in the first place?

SilentlyHonest Since: Oct, 2011
#10230: Jan 27th 2016 at 6:23:12 PM

[up]2x Micheal Jacksons build wasn't the problem, do you believe that black people and white people have mutually exclusive builds?

As for skin, I can only take that excuse so far, because concealer and foundation is a thing that is readily available at every CVS I've ever been at.

[up]It's not a film about Micheal, it's a film that he happens to be in.

edited 27th Jan '16 6:25:59 PM by SilentlyHonest

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#10231: Jan 27th 2016 at 6:36:08 PM

I would think that a black actor could do the job just fine; given that we can do pretty good work with makeup at this point. But yeah, any Jackson film was going to be awkward at best. The casting just makes it worse.

edited 27th Jan '16 6:36:51 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Imca (Veteran)
#10232: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:01:20 PM

It might be, but who's obligating them to make a film about Michael in the first place?

No one, but I did not think bringing up that he is not really the best person to make a movie about was conductive to the topic.

Micheal Jacksons build wasn't the problem, do you believe that black people and white people have mutually exclusive builds?

No I just thought that that skin condition was rare, so the odds of finding some one with the generaly the same skin tone, same build, and black might be near imposible.

Makeup can only go so far.

MrAHR Ahr river from ಠ_ಠ Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Ahr river
#10233: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:02:58 PM

I mean the dude they picked isn't exactly what I'd call good in the build area, skin area, or face area either.

Read my stories!
Victin Since: Dec, 2011
#10234: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:24:06 PM

Maybe they should just call in whomever made Gollum or the blue Avatars and make a CGI Michael Jackson. No wait, that's expensive. Maybe make a Photoshop Michael Jackson and drag the picture across the screen.

Anyways... haven't there been movies with Michael Jackson in the past?

SilentlyHonest Since: Oct, 2011
#10235: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:25:01 PM

That weren't the actual person and were released post-mortem?

edited 27th Jan '16 7:25:58 PM by SilentlyHonest

Victin Since: Dec, 2011
#10236: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:28:25 PM

That weren't the actual person and released while he was alive or post-mortem. I'm pretty sure more than one comedy movie out there have made Michael Jackson jokes in the past.

SilentlyHonest Since: Oct, 2011
#10237: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:30:23 PM

I don't know if any have been released after his death which is part of the issue I believe, definitely before however. The thing is, those were made with the intent to make fun of him, and he was alive. Speaking ill of the dead is frowned upon to say the least.

edited 27th Jan '16 7:31:21 PM by SilentlyHonest

Victin Since: Dec, 2011
#10238: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:32:48 PM

But the point here is the race of the actor portraying him, not the content of the portrayal.

SilentlyHonest Since: Oct, 2011
#10239: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:39:27 PM

Okay, how is the intent of the portrayal and the actor portraying him both unrelated? A serious portrayal is meant to be taken seriously, with regard toward the person being portrayed, while if you're lambasting or lampooning someone what does it matter who portrays him, because it's by the very nature of the performance not meant to be taken seriously.

Victin Since: Dec, 2011
#10240: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:47:57 PM

Just because it's comedy that doesn't mean you're supposed to not take it seriously. Comedy isn't a kind of free pass to "you can't judge me for what I do"-land. Making fun of someone can be taken too far, y'know. What do you think about making fun of a black historical figure by blackfacing a non-black actor? Or whitewashing the historical figure in question? It's a movie, a visual media, not a stand-up comedian narrating a joke.

And I mentioned comedy specifically because I remember seeing that kind of portrayal somewhere. There might have been non-comedy portrayals too.

SilentlyHonest Since: Oct, 2011
#10241: Jan 27th 2016 at 7:57:55 PM

I already mentioned an example of one of the times comedy isn't funny. I.E. making fun of the recently deceased, what I meant by not being taken seriously is that the person being portrayed in a comedic light is being made light of. Being portrayed in a way that they aren't made to be seriously. That's the entire point of Lampooning someone in fact it might be the actual definition. If so then your rude little attempt at scolding someone for asking you to explain your reasoning was uncalled for.

Now how is the intent of the Portrayal and the actor portraying him both unrelated?

edited 27th Jan '16 7:58:04 PM by SilentlyHonest

hellomoto Since: Sep, 2015
MousaThe14 Writer, Artist, Ignored from Northern Virginia Since: Jan, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Writer, Artist, Ignored
#10243: Jan 28th 2016 at 6:11:48 AM

Maybe I'm just young but 6 years doesn't feel like too soon.

This whole casting thing however, especially in the wake of the Oscar's controversy feels like a mistake.

Well, not a mistake, just idiotically blind to the point you have to wonder if someone actually might be doing it on purpose.

The Blog The Art
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#10244: Jan 28th 2016 at 6:13:54 AM

I will say about it does seem an odd choice — even the actor involved, Joseph Fiennes, said he was 'shocked' to be cast as Michael Jacksonnote .

Keep Rolling On
Victin Since: Dec, 2011
#10245: Jan 28th 2016 at 8:19:28 AM

[up][up][up][up]Sorry if I came off as rude.

Okay, I didn't say at any point that the content of the portrayal and the actor portraying are unrelated. I asked for examples of depictions of Michael Jackson in the past, regardless of content, because the current controversy is that there is a white actor playing him, not the content of the portrayal. And even if the content of this portrayal also is controversial, it's a separate issue.

A priori, I think that, if a white actor portraying him now is problematic now, it should have been in the past. There might be specific contents that mix things around, but in general, any given portrayal of Michael Jackson by a white actor by the industry is more likely to be problematic due to that than not (in probability space out of all possible events that could happen).

Like, given Michael's skin condition I don't really think it's a big issue to have a white actor portraying him in his later years, whether it's a serious portrayal or not. Which, by the way, the movie we're talking about doesn't seem to be. And if you have a problem with the movie for not being serious this "close" to his death, well, it's not a matter to discuss in this thread.

@Tangent: I'm reminded now of a book I read once. I can't remember if I was required to read it for school or not, but I do remember it was a... juveline book. It wasn't for young children, but it wasn't for late teens eithers. I don't even remember the name. Anyways, it's about a black kid who runs away from home in order to find a radio host that supposedly knows the secret Michael Jackson used to turn white. In the end [SPOILER ALERT (if it wasn't obvious)], the kid discovers the radio host is paraplegic, and learns the lesson that he doesn't need to give two shits about what other people think of his appearance to follow his dreams. Or something like that.

Victin Since: Dec, 2011
#10246: Jan 28th 2016 at 10:34:15 AM

Sorry for the doublepost.

A news article about Whoopi Goldberg's comment on the Oscar's Controversy happened upon me, except in Portuguese. The ones I've found in English seem to be focusing on "[the Academy] can't be racist" because "I won once." Given the difference in how both articles depicted what her said, I'm going to quote it here in full. Source: this random website.

Italicized emphasis is theirs. Bolded are mine.

Whoopi Goldberg has shared her thoughts on the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, arguing that the Academy "can't be that racist" because she is a former winner.

For the second consecutive year, all 20 acting nominees for Hollywood's most prestigious prize, the Academy Awards, are white. Speaking on US daytime talk show The View, Goldberg argued that the blame lies with film-makers who fail to cast non-Caucasian actors rather than those who vote for the annual awards.

"I won once. So it can't be that racist," Goldberg said, referring to her Best Supporting Actress win in 1991 for her performance in Ghost. "Even if you fill the Academy with black and Latino and Asian members, if there's no one on the screen to vote for, you're not going to get the outcome that you want."

"You need directors and producers who will say, 'Hey, what about so and so?' They need to be aware that the picture is not complete [without non-Causasian actors]," Goldberg added.

She also suggested that high-profile figures who have announced they will be boycotting next month's awards ceremony, such as Will Smith and wife Jade Pinkett Smith, are fighting the wrong battle.

"You wanna boycott something? Don't go see the movies that don't have your representation," said Goldberg, who hosted the Oscars four times between 1992 and 2002. "That's the boycott you want. To me, we have this conversation every year. It pisses me off."

Meanwhile, Ian McKellen has also shared his views on the ongoing debate about Hollywood diversity, suggesting that the film industry "disregards" gay people too.

edited 28th Jan '16 10:34:59 AM by Victin

nervmeister Since: Oct, 2010
#10248: Jan 29th 2016 at 10:48:35 AM

[up]So Fred is complaining that while the shaming tactics actively employed by the social justice movement are at least making some white people feel guilty, they're still not getting them to do what he wants. His frustration is understandable, I suppose.

edited 29th Jan '16 10:50:44 AM by nervmeister

wehrmacht belongs to the hurricane from the garden of everything Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
belongs to the hurricane
#10249: Jan 29th 2016 at 10:51:59 AM

In all fairness, there is something of a point there.

A lot of uncomfortable things about yourself aren't that hard to acknowledge provided the fact that you have any degree of honesty and self-awareness ("i have a drinking problem", "i am unhappy in my marriage", etc). Actually having the strength and resolve to do something about them is an entirely different matter.

MousaThe14 Writer, Artist, Ignored from Northern Virginia Since: Jan, 2011 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Writer, Artist, Ignored
#10250: Jan 29th 2016 at 10:56:03 AM

Basically people are saying the words but have little of the conviction, using the opportunity to "admit fault" to boost one's own ego or social capital and appear to be "better" without actually making any true change.

edited 29th Jan '16 10:56:54 AM by MousaThe14

The Blog The Art

Total posts: 27,667
Top