Remove this ad
First  Prev  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next  Last
Racism, White Supremacy, Stereotypes & Hollywood
Posted 3/21/11
Calm thyself...

I am dark Irish,aka black Irish....I have green eyes, black hair AND FAIRISH SKIN....no freckles, no red hair..etc etc etc..

by bloodline runs dark and deep..

who cares...but I have to admit they screwed the story up by casting a blond!!

I look more like the girl on the bottom and I am a Kelt..
Posted 3/21/11 , edited 3/21/11

Ardorm wrote:


shinto-male wrote:



You've provided us with really interesting information.

All that is written above seems so logical... I guess Mr. Stanton knew what he was writing about.
And the hypocrisy lies in the fact that he's using his thread as a propaganda machine to divide us and Hollywood filmmakers, by labeling them as racists through steps 1 to 3. Furthermore, he had personally used step 5 to threaten alternative voice.
1347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/22/11

DomFortress wrote:

And the hypocrisy lies in the fact that he's using his thread as a propaganda machine to divide us and Hollywood filmmakers, by labeling them as racists through steps 1 to 3. Furthermore, he had personally used step 5 to threaten alternative voice.


Yup, so it seems.

By the way, is propaganda against law? Or what kinds of propaganda are against?
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/22/11 , edited 3/22/11

And the hypocrisy lies in the fact that he's using his thread as a propaganda machine to divide us and Hollywood filmmakers, by labeling them as racists through steps 1 to 3. Furthermore, he had personally used step 5 to threaten alternative voice.


Hollywood film makers are a bunch of racists the facts are easily available i was reacting to a religious post comparing people who have pre-marital sex to animals. calling a group of people "animals" is a part of the dehumanization process. in the the U.S.A racists often call blacks monkeys



Posted 3/22/11 , edited 3/22/11

Ardorm wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

And the hypocrisy lies in the fact that he's using his thread as a propaganda machine to divide us and Hollywood filmmakers, by labeling them as racists through steps 1 to 3. Furthermore, he had personally used step 5 to threaten alternative voice.


Yup, so it seems.

By the way, is propaganda against law? Or what kinds of propaganda are against?
There's no laws regulating propaganda in the US, especially when considering the first amendment. Not only that, it's a whole new level of stupidity when you consider the nature of attack ads during elections. Because they said nothing about policy making, while they themselves were filled to the rims with stereotypical soundbites taken out of context. Case to point:

shinto-male wrote:



Hollywood film makers are a bunch of racists the facts are easily available i was reacting to a religious post comparing people who have pre-marital sex to animals. calling a group of people "animals" is a part of the dehumanization process. in the the U.S.A racists often call blacks monkeys
The correct usage of "dehumanization" within the context of sociology and psychology is an institutional process of subjecting humans as nothing more than objects with no thoughts, feelings, or any trace of social behaviours associated with humanity. When biologically speaking humans are a particular subspecies of social animals belonging to the great ape family.

Also, when racism is but a cultural construct, those who are responsible with the production of racist contents in mainstream media culture, are themselves nothing but the psychosocial subjects of their own acculturation. In other words, they were assimilated into racism.
620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47
Offline
Posted 3/24/11
hollywood is full of movies which want peopleto hate white people more than any other race.
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/24/11 , edited 3/24/11
In 2000, 56.4% of people living in Manhattan were White, 17.39% were Black, 14.14% were from other races, 9.40% were Asian, 0.5% were Native American, and 0.07% were Pacific Islander. 4.14% were from two or more races. 27.18% were Hispanic of any race. 24.93% reported speaking Spanish at home, 4.12% Chinese, and 2.19% French.

According to the 2009 American Community Survey, White Americans made up 58.9% of Manhattan's population; non-Hispanic whites made up 50.7% of the population. Black Americans made up 15.5% of Manhattan's population; non-Hispanic blacks made up 13.0% of the population. Native Americans made up 0.3% of the population. Asian Americans made up 10.3% of the population. Multiracial Americans made up 3.4% of the population. Hispanics and Latinos made up 23.8% of Manhattan's population.



Japanese Americans have historically been among the three largest Asian American communities, but in recent decades have become the sixth largest group at roughly 1,204,205, including those of mixed-race or mixed-ethnicity.

In the 2000 census, the largest Japanese American communities were in California with 394,896, Hawaii with 296,674, Washington with 56,210, New York with 45,237, and Illinois with 27,702.


Chinese Americans

1,930,202–3,538,407
0.64–1.2% of the U.S. population (2007)

Korean American

1,609,980
0.5% of the US population (2008)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_Manhattan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreatown,_Manhattan



there are millions of Asians in the U.S.A and millions more here in Canada. are we to believe that racist hollywood is unable to find one to be protagonists in thier movies, they have no problem hiring them for racist roles and be killed off by the white actors. why is Anglo America tolerating this racist industry that love to complain they cannot find good non-white roles?



latest case of yellowface


“AKIRA” adaptation courts white actors
March 22, 2011

Deadline.com reports that the script for Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures’ American live-action adaptation of the manga Akira has been sent to a short list of actors. Although the characters will retain their original names — Kaneda and Tetsuo– from the Japanese graphic novels, the story will be set in “Neo-Manhattan.”

Deadline reports the names of actors currently being courted with the script:

For the role of Tetsuo: Robert Pattinson, Andrew Garfield and James McAvoy.
For the role of Kaneda: Garrett Hedlund, Michael Fassbender, Chris Pine, Justin Timberlake and Joaquin Phoenix.

(why not change the names to english/anglo/WASPs names? do they really think people will watch a bunch of white actors using Japanese names?)


Given the current lack of lead roles for actors of color in the science fiction genre, the complex characters of Akira would be a great opportunity for Asian American actors. Last year, a Racebending.com volunteer ran a count of the 241 Warner Bros movies from 2000 to 2009 and found that only 2% had an Asian first-billed lead. Aside from The Matrix trilogy starring Keanu Reeves, the majority of films with Asian leads starred Asian nationals like Jet Li and Rain.

Although Asian American actors are sometimes cast as supporting actors in films like this month’s Sucker Punch, they still struggle for representation in leading roles in Warner Bros. films. If not in a film called Akira, for characters named Kaneda and Tetsuo, when will Asian Americans get to star in a Warner Bros film?

In contrast, even though 40% of movie tickets are purchased by people of color, 90% of the films released by Warner Bros between 2000 and 2009 featured a white lead.

Because one out of every 10 modern-day Manhattanites are Asian American (Lower Manhattan is 41% Asian,) it would make just as much sense–if not more sense, given the names “Kaneda” and “Tetsuo”–for the leads to be Asian American as it would for the leads to be white. Tetsuo and Kaneda should be cast with Asian American leads.

Racebending.com will be following up on this issue. Stay tuned for more updates.

http://www.racebending.com/v4/featured/akira-adaptation-courts-white-actors/







Posted 3/24/11
Wellllll, do ya think all Irish-Americans guys are like the idiot Peter Griffin in Family Guy???
And stupid, fat, drunk with a dirty mouth??
And poor Meg,,,,,he treats her like doggy doo doo...lol
Rofl..

Well do ya??

I can't hear you??

PS...I loved the movie, Man on Fire...
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/24/11 , edited 3/24/11
you example is not the same. in racist Hollywood good protagonist roles always go to white actors. and stories which have non-white leads are replaced by white actors



Posted 3/24/11
Hmmm..I dunno...

have to study on it....

XO
Posted 3/24/11

shinto-male wrote:

you example is not the same. in racist Hollywood good protagonist roles always go to white actors. and stories which have non-white leads are replaced by white actors



Was "Blindside" leading role Quinton Aaron not white actor playing a black role? Was "Invictus" not having Morgan Freeman as the lead actor for Nelson Mandela? Are you then not being stereotypical and misleading your audiences with your exaggerated claims?
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/24/11 , edited 3/24/11
the movie Blindside is a white savior type of movie where a white protagonist save non-whites, natives and related groups from themselves similar to Avatar the movie with blue aliens

more on this white savior complex

http://spectrummagazine.org/review/2009/12/07/hollywoods-white-savior-complex

http://willcapersblaqueink.blogspot.com/2010/05/white-savior-movies-pt-i-when-blacks.html

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/mighty-whitey/

Invictus is an exception not the rule


Warner Bros. Pictures


I found that Warner Bros. Pictures distributed or produced 241 films in the years 2000-2009. Of those, 172 had a white male as the lead; 44, a white female; 10 a black male; 3 a black female; 5 an East Asian male; 3 a Latino male; 1 a Latina female; 1 a Persian male; 1 an Indian male; and 1 a multiracial female.

So in total that's 89.6% white leads in their films--71.4% white males, 18.3% white females. Blacks were leads in 5.4% of the films. East Asians got to be the lead a scant 2.1% of the time, with no East Asian female leads. Latinos were the lead in 1.7% of the films. There were no Native American leads (unless you count Johnny Depp and Mandy Moore, both part-Cherokee).

Males were the lead in 192, or 80%, of these films. Women of course were only 20% of the leads, but women of color were a miniscule 2% of the leads, getting only 5 films



20th Century Fox


20th Century Fox distributed or produced 209 films in the decade I looked at. The leads were: 133 white males; 45 white females; 16 black males; 4 black females; 1 East Asian male; 1 East Asian female; 2 Latino males; 3 Latina females; 2 Indian males; 1 Indian female; and 1 multiracial female.

So that's 85.2% white leads, with 63.6% going to white males and 21.5% to white females. Blacks got to lead in 9.6% of their films, while East Asians only 1%... and that after rounding up. Latinos fared scarcely better with 2.4% of the lead roles going to them. And Indians got 1.4% of the leads.

Men were the main characters in 154, or 73.7% of these films. Women of course therefore got 26.3%, with women of color only having 4.3% of the leads, due to 9 films.




Columbia Pictures


I counted 156 pictures distributed or produced by Columbia Pictures during the years in question. And I tallied their main characters at: 90 white males; 34 white females; 23 black males; 1 black female; 1 East Asian male; 2 East Asian females; 2 Latino males; and 3 Latina females.

Thus, in percentages, that's 79.5% white leads--57.7% white males, 21.8% white females. Blacks were the lead in 15.4% of the films, but East Asians only 1.9%. Latinos got to star in 3.2% of their movies.

Men lead in 116, or 74.4%, of the films. Women had 25.6% of the films, although women of color were the main characters in only 6 movies, a mere 3.8% of the total during this time.

Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures


Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures are different labels of the same motion picture company, so I counted them together. In total I counted 144 films produced or distributed by them from 2000-2009. The main characters were: 91 white males; 33 white females; 10 black males; 1 black female; 3 East Asian males; 1 Latino male; 3 Native American males (two of them animated and voiced by white actors); 1 Hawaiian female (also animated and voiced by a white actor); and 1 Indian male (again, animated and voiced by a white actor).

Let's divide and multiply by 100! We've got 86.1% white leads, 63.2% being white males and 22.9% white females. Black leads made up a small 7.6% of the films, East Asians an even smaller 2.1%, and Latinos less than one percent. We actually got some Native American leads from these companies, though: 2.1% of them.

Men were the main character in 109, or 75.7%, of the films for these companies. Women starred in the other 24.3% of them,and women of color in an embarrassingly small 1.4%--and half of that is Lilo. The other half is Tiana from Princess and the Frog, so there wasn't a single live-action woman of color as main character from these companies.



Universal Studios


I found a Universal Pictures and a Universal Studios on IMDb, and I couldn't tell you how they differ. But together I counted 179 films from them. I counted the stars as: 115 white males; 43 white females; 16 black males; 1 black female; 2 Latino males; 1 Latina female; and 1 Indian male. That's right--no East Asian stars.

In other terms, there were 88.3% white leads, with 64.2% of the total being white males, and 24% white females. Blacks starred in 9.5% of the films, and Latinos in 1.7%. East Asians, sadly enough, were entirely absent.

Men got the starring role 74.9% of the time, in 134 films. Women necessarily got the remaining 25.1% of the films. Women of color were the main character in only 1.1% of the films.




Posted 3/24/11
I do not find statistics without a significant analyze that attempts to explain why the stats are the way they are to be of any help whatsoever. I can understand the attempt to show that the racial/ethnic distribution of actors in lead roles does not match the total population distribution but I'd find the statistics on just the acting population to be much more pertinent.

For example: How many people who consider themselves Asian-American apply to a post secondary school for film acting? How many people apply total? Similarly asked about people in the field: How many people of each ethnicity/race consider themselves to be film actors (or are aspiring to be) and what is the total population of people who consider themselves as such?

Population distribution itself is also important to consider as well as where are the cast members for films taken from.

Sorry, I didn't find much in my own searches so I am going to put the burden of proof on the defenders of the claim. I think approaching with more specific statistics has the benefit of more accurately identifying where the problems begin. Find out what opportunities are minorities being denied (a critical aspect of my definition of racism), when they start, and where rather than just saying Hollywood is full of racists.


shinto-male wrote:

the movie Blindside is a white savior type of movie where a white protagonist save non-whites, natives and related groups from themselves similar to Avatar the movie with blue aliens


I did not see Blindside but how does Avatar fit the analogy? The antagonists are white and the natives are portrayed in much more positive light. The protagonist doesn't just join as the examples presented in your last link, he actually becomes one entirely by the end of the movie, effectively moving beyond any racial distinction.
Posted 3/24/11

kidgloves wrote:

I do not find statistics without a significant analyze that attempts to explain why the stats are the way they are to be of any help whatsoever. I can understand the attempt to show that the racial/ethnic distribution of actors in lead roles does not match the total population distribution but I'd find the statistics on just the acting population to be much more pertinent.

For example: How many people who consider themselves Asian-American apply to a post secondary school for film acting? How many people apply total? Similarly asked about people in the field: How many people of each ethnicity/race consider themselves to be film actors (or are aspiring to be) and what is the total population of people who consider themselves as such?

Population distribution itself is also important to consider as well as where are the cast members for films taken from.

Sorry, I didn't find much in my own searches so I am going to put the burden of proof on the defenders of the claim. I think approaching with more specific statistics has the benefit of more accurately identifying where the problems begin. Find out what opportunities are minorities being denied (a critical aspect of my definition of racism), when they start, and where rather than just saying Hollywood is full of racists.


shinto-male wrote:

the movie Blindside is a white savior type of movie where a white protagonist save non-whites, natives and related groups from themselves similar to Avatar the movie with blue aliens


I did not see Blindside but how does Avatar fit the analogy? The antagonists are white and the natives are portrayed in much more positive light. The protagonist doesn't just join as the examples presented in your last link, he actually becomes one entirely by the end of the movie, effectively moving beyond any racial distinction.
He's twisting the once anti-racism film to propagate his own hatred towards Hollywood, when he didn't even deconstruct racism as a cultural construct like he should be.
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/25/11
another form of racism which is tolerated in Anglo-America:

book cover white washing the act is publishers putting pictures of white models on book covers when the stories are about non-white protagonists

a google search of "book cover whitewashing" will show lots of information.



While enjoying the lovely pre-Spring weather in St. Louis last weekend, I came across a window display at a local bookseller that caught my attention. It read: Stop Whitewashing Book Covers. This immediately caught my attention and I walked inside the bookstore to get more information on this controversial topic.

The whitewashing of books is when the publisher feels it necessary to put Caucasian people on the cover of books that are about people of color. They do this in order to entice the public to buy the books. This thinking is unacceptable and undermines consumers. Why is it okay to think that books will sell more if there is a Caucasian on the cover than if it was an African American or another ethnicity?

This practice has been going on for years in the publishing sector. Recently, Bloomsbury Publishing came under fire for changing a book cover from a girl of color to a Caucasian girl to sell more books. The Australian author, Justine Larbalestie, was shocked and angered when the cover was changed and reportedly had the publisher change it back to the original.



http://thefreshxpress.com/2010/03/stop-the-whitewashing-of-book-covers/

First  Prev  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.