| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Sheryl WuDunn | ||||
| ||||
who incorporate blackface in their programming to punctuate their views on historical and contemporary racism:
Don't do it.
End of letter.
[Edited on 9/29/2009 for further explanation.]
Why? Because you aren't that much better than the people you are mocking.
1. The majority of people who appear on your shows, meaning Mad Men and The Colbert Report, are white American men. You have a few white women and some token black people. I'd be shocked to see a Latino, East Asian, Pacific Islander, South Asian or Middle Eastern person make an appearance.
2. You don't have any black people in power on your writing staff or working behind the scenes in general. How do I know this? Because if there had been any black authority figures working on your show, those blackface scenes would not have happened. There would not have been a can of shoe polish within a mile of your studios.
Stop trying to convince yourselves and the people around you that you're "not racists" and that you're "the good guys." You do not have the awareness or the facility or the right to employ racist imagery for profit.
.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| I's on Edjukashun - Muslim Textbooks & Tony Danza | ||||
| ||||
"I mean really!?! Rude! Really!?!"
Really, NBC? I can't embed the video? I mean really!?! Rude! Really!?!
.
The Cho Show, by Katherine Wheelock, GQ via Racialicious.
When John Cho was a kid growing up in Los Angeles, seeing a face like his on TV was a cometlike occurrence. When one appeared, "we'd all crowd into the living room," Cho says. "All Asians grew up doing that." The situation has improved only somewhat in the two decades since Long Duk Dong, Cho says. "There was a while where every role I was getting offered was extremely noble—like the judge or the kindly nurse."
Lucky for us, Cho is doing some actual heavy lifting in Hollywood these days—leveling Romulans alongside Chris Pine in Star Trek ($250 million) and rolling blunts for a possible third Harold & Kumar film. His fan base of geeks and frat boys [and me!] ought to program their TiVos for Cho's latest endeavor, FlashForward, which ABC is promoting like it's the next Lost (no pressure!). Judging from the first episode, we think this one might actually deliver. [ . . . ]
Obama speech to students draws conservative ire, by Libby Quaid and Linda Stewart Ball, AP via Yahoo! News. Emphases mine.
President Barack Obama's back-to-school address next week was supposed to be a feel-good story for an administration battered over its health care agenda. Now Republican critics are calling it an effort to foist a political agenda on children, creating yet another confrontation with the White House.
Obama plans to speak directly to students Tuesday about the need to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms across the country will be able to tune in.
Schools don't have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to watch.
Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.
Some conservatives, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the boundaries of federal involvement in schools.
"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
no Asian or Asian-American women were allowed to speak on camera in The Slanted Screen. (Thanks, Margaret Cho!)
Other than actively not acknowledging half of the population, I enjoyed the film. It featured Asian and Asian-American actors talking about how Asian men have been portrayed in American media. I do understand that the film was about Asian men. However, at the end of the film, the actors talked about how change is on the horizon, and how (at the time shooting) Bobby Lee, John Cho and Margaret Cho had studio deals, so things would get better. Considering I can count five Asian characters of any gender on the upcoming fall primetime lineup, and maybe five more on cable, I do not agree that things will get better quickly at all. But if things were to get better, it would help if the film had mentioned the stereotypes that actresses of Asian descent face in television and movies. Their struggles are related and come from similar sources of prejudice and discrimination. So it would have been nice to include the women, too.
I would have been content if the film had even one Asian or Asian-American actress sitting on camera talking about anything. But the three women that were allowed to speak on camera in the film were all white, and not actors. The three women did share insightful studies of how media affects children and the problems surrounding casting and writing. One study showed that children want to see representations of themselves in their media so that they can have role models. In another study, the children expected that white people in television and movies would have roles of authority, black people and Latino people would have subservient roles, and Asian people would not be on the screen at all.
In the film, Bobby Lee told the camera, "My nickname was 'Long Duk Dong' in high school because of that character, and I think every Asian guy that ever went to an American school earned the nickname Long Duk Dong because of that character." I never thought about that when I was growing up, because I didn't have any Asian classmates until seventh grade. And then he left after eighth grade. But now, that is what I think about when some of my contemporaries laud the accomplishments of the recently departed John Hughes. They make statements like "Sixteen Candles changed my life. That's my story. I love Jake Ryan!" I don't know what a racist Asian stereotype, Molly Ringwald's panties and some naked teenage girl taking a shower had to do with your empowerment as a woman, but to each her own.
In conclusion, watch The Slanted Screen, available on Netflix. It might change your life. Probably not, but it's still good.
.
this is what comes to my mind, too:
Thomas Jefferson: The Face of a Rapist, by Renee, Feministe. Emphases mine.
Americans look at Thomas Jefferson and see the one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, a statesman, a former president and one of the founding fathers,’ however; when I look at him, I see the face of a rapist. When Jefferson first met Sally Hemings, his slave through inheritance, she would have been no more than 15 or 16 years old. It is rumoured that when she returned from France with him, that she was already pregnant with his child.
[ . . . ]
No matter how many times Black women have angrily contested the use of the term love affair between Hemings and Jefferson, it continues to be the most common descriptor by those who believe the DNA evidence. This assumes that Hemings actually had the power to deny Jefferson sexual access, or that Jefferson had a right to Sally’s body for the purposes of sexual gratification. Both suppositions are erroneous. Due to the patriarchal nature of gender relations, many men believe that they exist with the right to access women’s bodies and that is specifically grounded in the power imbalance between the genders. If we can acknowledge in a modern context that a power imbalance exists between men and women, how much more likely is it that this same imbalance existed between Jefferson and Hemings?
Some may look back at Jefferson and simply claim that he was a man of his time and that he should not be judged outside of historical context, however; in my mind a rapist is a rapist. What he did at the time may not have been considered a violation due to current race and gender relations, however; today we can correctly name his actions. Sally did not have the power to consent to his advances even if she was so inclined; this simple fact must be affirmed not only to honour the memory of Hemings but to change the social understanding that Black women’s bodies are unrapeable. We are not naturally licentious whores who exist to fulfill the sexual fantasies of depraved racist men. We are women that must be accorded the right to control over our bodies without punishment for any decisions we make in that regard.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, you are officially invited to the party in my pants.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Reform Madness - White Minority | ||||
| ||||
This week I was having a conversation with one of my new friends, which went something like this:
New friend: "Let's talk about your dating life."
Me: "Let's not. It's terrible."
New friend: "Really?"
Me: "Really. Guys aren't that into me."
New friend: "That's hard to believe. You're great!"
Me: "Yeah, I know. I am great. But . . ."
I am a dark-skinned African American woman with features that reflect my ancestry. Debates regarding Light vs. Dark and other biases have plagued our race for years and continues to impact millions of Black women. The deeply rooted intra-racial contempt that lies beneath this inane "compliment" is the reason I've chosen to spark dialogue surrounding the topic of self-hatred in our culture. It saturates every aspect of our lives, dominating the perspectives of our generation as a whole. We culturally are so influential, at times inadvertently, that we affect all with the words we utter and the images we portray. It lends to the theory of systemic racism. I'm authoring this piece because I'm miffed by this reality and would like to share my views on these subjects.
[ . . . ]
Often dark-skinned women are considered mean, domineering and standoffish and it was these very labels that followed Michelle Obama during the campaign for her husband's presidency and which she has had to work tirelessly to combat. I was appalled when I heard a Black woman refer to Michelle Obama as unattractive. The conversation turned into why President Obama picked her as his mate. No one in the witch-hunt made reference to the possibility that Michelle Obama was smart, funny, caring, a good person, highly accomplished or brilliant. Nor did they mention that she previously was President Obama's supervisor. If she were fair skinned, petite with long straight or wavy hair, would the same opinions be linked to her? I seriously doubt it. It is believed that for the dark skinned, dreams are less obtainable.
In fact, I have read similar comments about myself that I am "dark, aggressive, bossy and bitchy." It has been stated that my husband should have been with a "younger, more beautiful" woman. Astoundingly, the majority of the remarks come from African-American women and are mimicked by others. Sadly enough, I don't know nor have I met 99% of those making these assertions. Funny, how we can judge another without having personally seen, interacted with or experienced a person's character.
[ . . . ]
Reading magazines, social media sites, watching our music videos, and television shows feed our appetites for all things 'beauty". Rarely, however do I see depictions of grace and elegance in the form of dark complexioned women.
[ . . . ]
It is my hope that our First Lady and others who share in this effort will continue to be the beacon to shine a light for those who toil on America's beauty totem pole. Now don't get me wrong or take my words out of context. I truly believe that everyone has a right to delineate what they deem is attractive, but we must not confuse perceived "attractiveness" with authentic "beauty."
