>>> And are you seriously claiming that the depiction of blacks on the Our Gang films has the same merit as the depiction of blacks in Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn”? Aren’t you playing the same game of moral equivalency that the left normally plays? Hustler and Venus de Milo are basically the same thing, too, right? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, after all, right? <<<
Are you suggesting that YOU should be taken seriously as an arbiter of what possesses artistic or literary merit? What are your credentials (aside from arrogance and a willingness to impugn the motives of others)? Your comparison of this Roach short to a pornographic magazine is both groundless and absurd. It’s obvious to me that you have not seen this movie, and are basing your judgements upon your personal ignorance and prejudice. How ironic.
“So since nobody can be an unquestioned and inerrant arbiters of what is racist or what is not, there is no such thing as racism, right? Your post-modernist deconstruction of racism is flawless and you’d make a wonderful Marxist, Comrade.”
Nonsense; since commissar-wannabes like you don’t bother to establish the credentials and bona fides of the authorities they use, I don’t see why I should take their apparent support of an argument seriously.
Viz. why should I care how Spike Lee defines “racist” in regards to film (especially since he idiotically claimed, years ago, that whether or not one could be defined as racist depends upon ones skin color)? What are his credentials? Why should I care about the judgements of nameless, anonymous corporate censors when they decide to take a particular film out of syndication? Why should I think their decision had merit? Do you have any idea what criteria they used when they made their decision?
Racism exists, but is this particular film promoting racism? Do you seriously expect me to take your word on that, especially since it is obvious to me you’ve not seen the film in question?
BTW, if you had any idea what the Marxist reaction to post-modernism has been in Europe and elsewhere, you would realize how silly your remarks about the two are.
“As for that particular character in that particular film being racist, how much more evidence do you want than that entire episode (The Kid from Borneo) being banned from television for racist content?”
Once again, you try to establish your position by relying upon nameless authorities who provide no basis for the making of their decision. One could just as easily say “Schoolboard Y banned ‘Huckleberry Finn’ for being racist, how much more evidence do you want?” Well, it could easily be that Schoolboard A is made up of fools and cowards, and should not be taken seriously as an arbiter of what is racist and what is not. It may just as easily be the case that the corporate censors are nitwits and spineless avoiders of controvery who caved in to some PC version of Mrs. Grundy. How could I know? You have provided no evidence either way.
“Yes, a character from an “Our Gang” film that’s been long banned because of concerns about racism and labeled “Obama’s Uncle George” in response to a joke by a Polish politician about Obama’s ancestry also widely seen as racist about. The foundation of the discussion is racist and the discussion itself is being built with timbers widely considered racist, yet it shouldn’t be perceived as racist, right?”
You really do live in your own world, don’t you? I responded to trickyricky’s post about “Uncle George” by writing “Ah, the Little Rascals/Our Gang. Good times!” (I know — how horrible of me to have fond memories of that perverted, racist film!). He responded to me by posting a still of “Uncle George” from the movie with the legend “Obama’s Uncle George.” I don’t pretend to know what he meant by that, and could really care less; for you to claim that it expresses some underlying racism either means that you possess some kind of long-distance telepathic ability or that you have some kind of ideological axe to grind. I think that the latter is more likely than the former. I also note that trickyricky didn’t start posting racist slurs until after you started badgering him for posting racist pictures. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was trying to get your gander. Looks like it worked.
“Out of curiosity, do you think this is racist?”
Let’s see: juxtaposition of the countenance of President Jughead with images of BBQd ribs, watermelon, and a bucket of fried chicken. In my unexpert opinion I’d say YES, a highly charged racist message is being conveyed here; the “ladies” at the Inland Republican women’s group should hang their heads in shame. No irony on my part: that’s a pretty vile mailing.
Let’s play tit for tat: out of curiousity, do you think this is racist?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=48572749
Watching “The Kid from Borneo” would take about 19 minutes of your time. Hardly a masterpiece of comedy, but it seemed quite funny when I saw it as a teenager. I hope watching it won’t make you faint. If you did watch it, at least you’d know who “Uncle George” was. As for me, the film doesn’t seem expressive of racism (except perhaps for someone’s comment that “Uncle George” “looks like a gorilla”). If I must take exception to anything in the film, it is that most of the slapstick humor toward the end of it is being made at the expense of an obvious simpleton (”Uncle George”). I didn’t find the fact that he was being abused very funny; his gluttony and the misunderstanding between him and the childen was amusing, though.
My point is that simply because there is no official arbiter or objective standard for artistic or literary merit does not mean that such merits do not exist, just as simply because there is no official arbiter or objective standard for racism does not mean that works cannot be racist. The defense being offered ("Who are you to judge?") is exactly the same defense offered by liberal moral relativists. If you had a stronger argument (and you apparently do), you should have used it from the beginning.
Nonsense; since commissar-wannabes like you don’t bother to establish the credentials and bona fides of the authorities they use, I don’t see why I should take their apparent support of an argument seriously.
And exactly what "credentials and bona fides" would you find acceptable? By current television and movie standards, whether you or I like them or not (and I'll discuss the short in question below), such portrayals are considered racist.
Viz. why should I care how Spike Lee defines “racist” in regards to film (especially since he idiotically claimed, years ago, that whether or not one could be defined as racist depends upon ones skin color)? What are his credentials? Why should I care about the judgements of nameless, anonymous corporate censors when they decide to take a particular film out of syndication? Why should I think their decision had merit? Do you have any idea what criteria they used when they made their decision?
I wasn't using Spike Lee as an authority and I, too, disagree with some of his opinions (and probably do not interpret the movie Bamboozled as he intended). I offered a montage from the end of that movie as context and it's in that context that even essentially harmless depictions of black people (and I consider several of the examples given in that montage as essentially harmless slapstick rather than any real racism) are now seen as racist. It's the same reason why many Freepers roll their eyes at yet another white racist villain in an action movie. On their own, white racists do make excellent villains for action movies but when every action movie villain turns out to be a white racist or we see the villains in book adaptations being transformed from Arabs into white racists, then the pattern makes the practice look, well, racist.
This has nothing to do with whether I personally find a particular picture or practice racist but that plenty of other people do and that it feeds into a prevailing stereotype that conservatives are racist. The left has carefully crafted a trump card that says, "You're racist!" that they use to effectively bash conservatives with such that it silences legitimate conservative arguments on a whole host of issues including affirmative action and supreme court nominees. Playing in to that stereotype is not helpful.
Having watched the film at your request (more on that below), if I had to guess I would say that the criteria by which that short was considered racist was that the wild man was essentially a stock stereotype of a dark skinned savage that followed a long line of similar portrayals in the movies of the period (and continues on in the joke told about Obama's ancestors). That was the point about the montage of clips from the Spike Lee movie. It provides context. In fact, that movie which depicts a modern-day minstrel show (with black actors in blackface playing the stereotypes) has scenes with a black person dressed not all that differently than "Uncle George" for a reason.
Racism exists, but is this particular film promoting racism? Do you seriously expect me to take your word on that, especially since it is obvious to me you’ve not seen the film in question?
My claim was not that the film promotes racism but that the depictions in the film are now widely considered racist (regardless not only of intent but sometimes even regardless of whether they match the initial perception).
BTW, if you had any idea what the Marxist reaction to post-modernism has been in Europe and elsewhere, you would realize how silly your remarks about the two are.
And it's not hard to find people on the left asking what the conflict is, too, and the Marxist doesn't have to believe in a tool to use it. What I'm referring to is specifically what Evan Sayet was talking about in his speeches to the Heritage Foundation.
Once again, you try to establish your position by relying upon nameless authorities who provide no basis for the making of their decision. One could just as easily say “Schoolboard Y banned ‘Huckleberry Finn’ for being racist, how much more evidence do you want?” Well, it could easily be that Schoolboard A is made up of fools and cowards, and should not be taken seriously as an arbiter of what is racist and what is not. It may just as easily be the case that the corporate censors are nitwits and spineless avoiders of controvery who caved in to some PC version of Mrs. Grundy. How could I know? You have provided no evidence either way.
That "Huckleberry Finn" has generated racial controversy suggests that there is something in there that sets off racism alarms and there clearly are. In the case of "Huckleberry Finn", the problem is that while the depiction has overt resemblances to racist depictions, the underlying characterizations are not intentionally racist and can actually be interpreted as being against racism. To this I would compare the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution which, to people who don't know any better, looks like the Constitution was calling black people 3/5ths of a person when in reality it was designed to weaken the representation of the slave states and was thus anti-slavery. The way things are initially perceived does matter, even if it's startlingly ignorant and wrong.
You really do live in your own world, don’t you? I responded to trickyricky’s post about “Uncle George” by writing “Ah, the Little Rascals/Our Gang. Good times!” (I know — how horrible of me to have fond memories of that perverted, racist film!). He responded to me by posting a still of “Uncle George” from the movie with the legend “Obama’s Uncle George.” I don’t pretend to know what he meant by that, and could really care less; for you to claim that it expresses some underlying racism either means that you possess some kind of long-distance telepathic ability or that you have some kind of ideological axe to grind. I think that the latter is more likely than the former. I also note that trickyricky didn’t start posting racist slurs until after you started badgering him for posting racist pictures. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was trying to get your gander. Looks like it worked.
I've been willing to give people here the benefit of the doubt and haven's said that I think for certain that anyone was motivated by actual racism. However, that is not the assumption that our opponents will make, nor is it necessarily the assumption that fence sitters will make if they've been barraged with the message that the right is racist. If you've got reason to believe the right is racist, then the assumption is going to be that stereotype, not the good will assumption that the intent was not actually racist. Thus the actual intent is irrelevant. The issue is what a person would think if this thread were linked, say, to a New York Times article making the argument that conservatives were racist against Obama. Would it support or refute that stereotype and argument? How about the threads full of Jeffersons, Good Times, and Sanford and Son stills? Anything that attacks Obama on race and relies on crude stereotypes is going to support the case that the right is racist, whether it's true or not.
And, by the way, I didn't start posting into this thread until after that picture had been posted, so if it was posted for me, it must have been some of that "long-distance telepathic ability".
Let’s see: juxtaposition of the countenance of President Jughead with images of BBQd ribs, watermelon, and a bucket of fried chicken. In my unexpert opinion I’d say YES, a highly charged racist message is being conveyed here; the “ladies” at the Inland Republican women’s group should hang their heads in shame. No irony on my part: that’s a pretty vile mailing.
Let’s play tit for tat: out of curiousity, do you think this is racist?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=48572749
Watching “The Kid from Borneo” would take about 19 minutes of your time. Hardly a masterpiece of comedy, but it seemed quite funny when I saw it as a teenager. I hope watching it won’t make you faint. If you did watch it, at least you’d know who “Uncle George” was. As for me, the film doesn’t seem expressive of racism (except perhaps for someone’s comment that “Uncle George” “looks like a gorilla”). If I must take exception to anything in the film, it is that most of the slapstick humor toward the end of it is being made at the expense of an obvious simpleton (”Uncle George”). I didn’t find the fact that he was being abused very funny; his gluttony and the misunderstanding between him and the childen was amusing, though.
OK, I watched it. My personal assessment? Not racist. In fact, I'd argue that it was, in many ways, anti-racist (as are other Our Gang shorts) in that the innocent children are perfectly willing to accept that the black wild man is their Uncle and relative. I don't even consider the "gorilla" comment to be racist in the context it was given. But I also understand why it's considered racist on that page I mentioned. It's because the depiction of George is the typical "black savage" as depicted in other less benign works. And the fact that the gorilla comment gave you any pause suggests that you know what I'm talking about. In the context of that one short, there is nothing racist about that comment but in the broader and more malicious context of black people being called names like that, it doesn't seem as harmless as maybe it should.
And that ultimately brings me back to my point which is that the pictures and stereotypes people are playing with in this thread (and others like it) are playing with stereotypes and depictions that have been (for better or worse, legitimately or not) associated with racism. And whether the people here really are racist or are just trying to be funny (or maybe they are simply trying to purposely to get someone's gander) is irrelevant to me. That it plays into a stereotype is the problem.
Again, I think you should understand what I'm saying because after telling me that I shouldn't try to divine the motives of others for what they post and joke about the idea of "long-distance telepathic ability", you then proceed to do exactly the same thing to me, considering a couple of possible motivations that I might have for complaining and then settling for the belief that I must have "some kind of ideological axe to grind". Why? Because that fits the stereotype of people who complain about racism from the perspective of the right. People tend to believe the stereotype and make assumptions based on the stereotype. That's my point. Right now, the stereotype held by all too many people, and carefully crafted and maintained by the left, is that conservatives are racist. And the more we do that feeds that stereotype, the worse it gets.