First  Prev  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next  Last
Racism, White Supremacy, Stereotypes & Hollywood
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/19/12

Catz1297 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Catz1297 wrote:

I've seen black protagonists... quite a lot, but in my opinion, I think Asians are the most under-represented group... Yes there's Jackie Chan, but the bad english ( don't get me wrong, I love him, Hong Kong Pride ) and kungfu just adds to the stereotypes regarding us.


As an Asian, I know that your statement is unfounded. For one, Jackie Chan and Jet Li are particularly famous within the United States, and, while their English may not be at the level of native speakers, that is to be expected, they aren't native speakers, as well as many other Asian Actors- including Japanese, Korean, Indian, South East Asian, etc. Really, why do people always assume that to be Asian you have to be East Asian?


I have been asked "do you know kungfu" when I was little, I have a feeling it's from these false underlining stereotypes.


It is a legitimate question to ask- akin to asking if someone knows martial arts, these are usually the things kids take interest in.


Also, I believe the Dragon Ball Z movie should have had an asian play it... not that I've seen it, but I think it would have been a lot more successful.


I think that a disaster would be a disaster even if you included an Asian. Can't people watch a film without trying to spot every ethnic minority within this nation? Nobody would mind if we didn't have a black man in nineteenth century Denmark performing a sixteenth century play, what the viewer is interested is in the acting, the performance, the delivery, the plot, and the art of the film. If I were to choose between a superb all white film, and a mediocre but racially diverse film, the superb all white film trump the racially diverse one.


I am looking forward to a day where there can be an Asian protagonist in a major movie that is not Jackie Chan.



Have you tried Jet Li? Or the plenty of films that does not include Mr Chan?



LOLOL of course I know of Jet Li -.- I just didn't want to complicate things since he's not as big as Jackie Chan... Why do I feel like you're trying to attack everything I said?

And really? I'm not stupid I know there are other "types" or asians and many people who are in the entertainment industry. But have you seen HUGE big names? have you seen many Asians (ALL TYPES) as protagonists of a huge movie? I only stated the Chinese side since I am more experienced with my culture and entertainment industry rather than in other races.

If so, good for you, the rest of the world probably hasn't seen the movie.

I'm sure there are exceptions. But I'd like to state that I am talking about the majority of the time...
I'm not sure if you think I'm being racist or what? but I was stating what I have noticed and what I have seen personally.


Yet, you insist on using the word 'Asian' to represent the 'Chinese'. Have I seen famous people among Asians, acting as a protagonist in 'Huge Movies'- yes, I have. There is a whole movie industry native to Asia, such as Bollywood, HK, and Japanese, and, within America, there is a host of Asian Actors. You are only familiar with the Chinese, and you then rail at Hollywood for 'failing to include more Asians' when, your gripe is with Hollywood's failure to include more Chinese people. Have you actually considered the reason why that may be so? As you are as I am, Chinese, consider this: Chinese parents do not often encourage their children to go into acting and all such petty dream following reserved for other parents ready to send their wide-eyed, naive children off into the world to live the rest of their live in destitute between poorly paying contracts. The lack of 'Asians', as you call them, is only symptomatic of the community's pragmatism.

But, does that matter? No, because the quality of the film does not depend on whether they can fill a racial quota, whether black people or white people or yellow people or whatever coloured folks are overrepresented or underrepresented. Only petty people watch films to spot ethnicity.

Posted 8/20/12 , edited 8/20/12

longfenglim:
But, does that matter? No, because the quality of the film does not depend on whether they can fill a racial quota, whether black people or white people or yellow people or whatever coloured folks are overrepresented or underrepresented. Only petty people watch films to spot ethnicity.


While I agree that the quality of a film doesn't depend on the ethnicity of the cast, I disagree that it's "petty" to point out the issues of ethnicity and racism in Hollywood. I don't watch movies to spot racism or an overall lack of diversity in the casting, but I am conscious of it.

It isn't (always) blatant racism. It's institutionalized racism. White heterosexual males (and, in some cases, white heterosexual females) have been made the "norm." If it's a white heterosexual male lead, ANYBODY and EVERYBODY can relate to this character (sarcasm)! The character and his journey are "universal" - cast a person of color in the lead role and suddenly it becomes "ethnic" or "made for a niche audience/market" (the same could be said about women and sexism in Hollywood, but we'll save that for another thread).

Look, I ain't saying Hollywood writers and execs are sitting at a conference table saying deviant shit like, "How could we make this film promote white supremacy??" It isn't your straight-forward "jap/nigger/spic" brand of racism - that's why it's called institutionalized (or institutional) racism.

My biggest argument for why this isn't "petty": Hollywood has a huge platform of influence. Well, they're just movies, right? I'm not saying that movies brainwash or manipulate people, but to say that the media and entertainment industries have no affect whatsoever on us is, in my opinion, naive. For this reason, the images and characters that Hollywood in specific (and the media in general) presents should be a bit more thoughtful, no? Perhaps the sexual objectification of women or perpetuation of impossible (and/or warped) standards of beauty, or common portrayals of dark skinned folks as primarily terrorists/gangsters/etc are all harmful to society?

There's definitely more diversity in Hollywood than before, but to say that the problem is fixed is like saying "we're in a post-racial, color-blind society... we have a black president!"
Posted 8/20/12

josephkamiya wrote:


longfenglim:
But, does that matter? No, because the quality of the film does not depend on whether they can fill a racial quota, whether black people or white people or yellow people or whatever coloured folks are overrepresented or underrepresented. Only petty people watch films to spot ethnicity.


While I agree that the quality of a film doesn't depend on the ethnicity of the cast, I disagree that it's "petty" to point out the issues of ethnicity and racism in Hollywood. I don't watch movies to spot racism or an overall lack of diversity in the casting, but I am conscious of it.

It isn't (always) blatant racism. It's institutionalized racism. White heterosexual males (and, in some cases, white heterosexual females) have been made the "norm." If it's a white heterosexual male lead, ANYBODY and EVERYBODY can relate to this character (sarcasm)! The character and his journey are "universal" - cast a person of color in the lead role and suddenly it becomes "ethnic" or "made for a niche audience/market" (the same could be said about women and sexism in Hollywood, but we'll save that for another thread).

Look, I ain't saying Hollywood writers and execs are sitting at a conference table saying deviant shit like, "How could we make this film promote white supremacy??" It isn't your straight-forward "jap/nigger/spic" brand of racism - that's why it's called institutionalized (or institutional) racism.

My biggest argument for why this isn't "petty": Hollywood has a huge platform of influence. Well, they're just movies, right? I'm not saying that movies brainwash or manipulate people, but to say that the media and entertainment industries have no affect whatsoever on us is, in my opinion, naive. For this reason, the images and characters that Hollywood in specific (and the media in general) presents should be a bit more thoughtful, no? Perhaps the sexual objectification of women or perpetuation of impossible (and/or warped) standards of beauty, or common portrayals of dark skinned folks as primarily terrorists/gangsters/etc are all harmful to society?

There's definitely more diversity in Hollywood than before, but to say that the problem is fixed is like saying "we're in a post-racial, color-blind society... we have a black president!"
Indeed, when scientific methods have established the influence of propaganda on our subconsciousness sense of "truthiness".

Scientists discover the truth behind Colbert’s “truthiness”

A picture inflates the perceived truth of true and false claims

Trusting research over their guts, scientists in New Zealand and Canada examined the phenomenon Stephen Colbert, comedian and news satirist, calls “truthiness”—the feeling that something is true. In four different experiments they discovered that people believe claims are true, regardless of whether they actually are true, when a decorative photograph appears alongside the claim. The work is published online in the Springer journal, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

“We wanted to examine how the kinds of photos people see every day—the ones that decorate newspaper or TV headlines, for example—might produce “truthiness,” said lead investigator Eryn J. Newman of Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. “We were really surprised by what we found.”

In a series of four experiments in both New Zealand and Canada, Newman and colleagues showed people a series of claims such as, “The liquid metal inside a thermometer is magnesium” and asked them to agree or disagree that each claim was true. In some cases, the claim appeared with a decorative photograph that didn’t reveal if the claim was actually true—such as a thermometer. Other claims appeared alone. When a decorative photograph appeared with the claim, people were more likely to agree that the claim was true, regardless of whether it was actually true.

Across all the experiments, the findings fit with the idea that photos might help people conjure up images and ideas about the claim more easily than if the claim appeared by itself. “We know that when it’s easy for people to bring information to mind, it ‘feels’ right,” said Newman.

The research has important implications for situations in which people encounter decorative photos, such as in the media or in education. “Decorative photos grab people’s attention,” Newman said. “Our research suggests that these photos might have unintended consequences, leading people to accept information because of their feelings rather than the facts.”
And just what can this means, when our subconscious decision-making process is being manipulated by for-profit corporate institutions?

Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the driver's seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.

Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
-Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?
Posted 8/20/12

DomFortress wrote:


josephkamiya wrote:


longfenglim:
But, does that matter? No, because the quality of the film does not depend on whether they can fill a racial quota, whether black people or white people or yellow people or whatever coloured folks are overrepresented or underrepresented. Only petty people watch films to spot ethnicity.


While I agree that the quality of a film doesn't depend on the ethnicity of the cast, I disagree that it's "petty" to point out the issues of ethnicity and racism in Hollywood. I don't watch movies to spot racism or an overall lack of diversity in the casting, but I am conscious of it.

It isn't (always) blatant racism. It's institutionalized racism. White heterosexual males (and, in some cases, white heterosexual females) have been made the "norm." If it's a white heterosexual male lead, ANYBODY and EVERYBODY can relate to this character (sarcasm)! The character and his journey are "universal" - cast a person of color in the lead role and suddenly it becomes "ethnic" or "made for a niche audience/market" (the same could be said about women and sexism in Hollywood, but we'll save that for another thread).

Look, I ain't saying Hollywood writers and execs are sitting at a conference table saying deviant shit like, "How could we make this film promote white supremacy??" It isn't your straight-forward "jap/nigger/spic" brand of racism - that's why it's called institutionalized (or institutional) racism.

My biggest argument for why this isn't "petty": Hollywood has a huge platform of influence. Well, they're just movies, right? I'm not saying that movies brainwash or manipulate people, but to say that the media and entertainment industries have no affect whatsoever on us is, in my opinion, naive. For this reason, the images and characters that Hollywood in specific (and the media in general) presents should be a bit more thoughtful, no? Perhaps the sexual objectification of women or perpetuation of impossible (and/or warped) standards of beauty, or common portrayals of dark skinned folks as primarily terrorists/gangsters/etc are all harmful to society?

There's definitely more diversity in Hollywood than before, but to say that the problem is fixed is like saying "we're in a post-racial, color-blind society... we have a black president!"
Indeed, when scientific methods have established the influence of propaganda on our subconsciousness sense of "truthiness".

Scientists discover the truth behind Colbert’s “truthiness”

A picture inflates the perceived truth of true and false claims

Trusting research over their guts, scientists in New Zealand and Canada examined the phenomenon Stephen Colbert, comedian and news satirist, calls “truthiness”—the feeling that something is true. In four different experiments they discovered that people believe claims are true, regardless of whether they actually are true, when a decorative photograph appears alongside the claim. The work is published online in the Springer journal, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

“We wanted to examine how the kinds of photos people see every day—the ones that decorate newspaper or TV headlines, for example—might produce “truthiness,” said lead investigator Eryn J. Newman of Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. “We were really surprised by what we found.”

In a series of four experiments in both New Zealand and Canada, Newman and colleagues showed people a series of claims such as, “The liquid metal inside a thermometer is magnesium” and asked them to agree or disagree that each claim was true. In some cases, the claim appeared with a decorative photograph that didn’t reveal if the claim was actually true—such as a thermometer. Other claims appeared alone. When a decorative photograph appeared with the claim, people were more likely to agree that the claim was true, regardless of whether it was actually true.

Across all the experiments, the findings fit with the idea that photos might help people conjure up images and ideas about the claim more easily than if the claim appeared by itself. “We know that when it’s easy for people to bring information to mind, it ‘feels’ right,” said Newman.

The research has important implications for situations in which people encounter decorative photos, such as in the media or in education. “Decorative photos grab people’s attention,” Newman said. “Our research suggests that these photos might have unintended consequences, leading people to accept information because of their feelings rather than the facts.”
And just what can this means, when our subconscious decision-making process is being manipulated by for-profit corporate institutions?

Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the driver's seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.

Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
-Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?


DomFortress, have you seen the BBC documentary series Century of the Self?
Posted 8/21/12 , edited 8/21/12

josephkamiya wrote:



DomFortress, have you seen the BBC documentary series Century of the Self?
Just finished part one, which gave me a greater insight on how modern marketing had ultimately took the concept of authenticity as a branding tool/hoax, through symbolic interaction and memory priming.

The Authenticity Hoax.mp4
In his latest book, The Authenticity Hoax, Andrew Potter describes the search for authentic products and experiences as a romantic rebellion against a cold and complex modernity. But authenticity is not just a consumer trend. According to Potter many political statements - from Al Gore's Earth in Balance to the terrorist Unabomber's Manifesto - are also nostalgic protests against a civilization that has run wild. They apply a surprisingly similar rhetoric -- try this quiz and guess who said what.

In this video the author discusses authenticity with Professor Søren Askegaard at the University of Southern Denmark. Andrew Potter was invited to give a talk at a conference organized by the Innovations network for Market, Communication and Consumption.

Not only that, modern marketing had been molding and shaping younger generations' mind into uncritical consumers, in order for them to build brand loyalty from cradle to grave, by themselves manipulating children's developmental need for intimate emotional attachment.

Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood
Consuming Kids throws desperately needed light on the practices of a relentless multi-billion dollar marketing machine that now sells kids and their parents everything from junk food and violent video games to bogus educational products and the family car.

Drawing on the insights of health care professionals, children’s advocates, and industry insiders, the film focuses on the explosive growth of child marketing in the wake of deregulation, showing how youth marketers have used the latest advances in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience to transform American children into one of the most powerful and profitable consumer demographics in the world.

Consuming Kids pushes back against the wholesale commercialization of childhood, raising urgent questions about the ethics of children’s marketing and its impact on the health and well-being of kids.

But what the broader challenge here is the existential problem with ourselves living in a worldview of symbolic cultural meanings. And how universally easy we can become prone to organized violence, whenever our own collectively shared worldview, that serves as our guideline of values and meanings for our sense of self-worth, could be wrong and unrealistic. Whenever that happens, we're subjectively experiencing a symbolic social death, and that would trigger our own biological death anxiety because our own bodies won't know the difference between the two.

Flight from Death
Flight from Death (2003) is a documentary film that investigates the relationship of human violence to fear of death, as related to subconscious influences. The film describes death anxiety as a possible root cause of many human behaviors on a psychological, spiritual, and cultural level.Flight from Death is a seven-time Best Documentary award-winning film.

The film's purpose is to investigate humankind's relationship with death, and is heavily influenced by the views of cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker. In addition to interviews with a number of contemporary philosophers, psychiatrists and teachers such as Sam Keen, Robert Jay Lifton, Irvin Yalom, Merlyn Mowrey and Daniel Liechty, the film introduces the viewer to a group of social psychologists, who conduct research in support of what they call Terror management theory (terror in this case not being terrorism, but rather emotional and psychological reaction to mortality awareness). Over the last twenty-five years, proponents of terror management theory have conducted over 300 laboratory studies demonstrating that subtle reminders of death on a subconscious level motivates a statistically significant number of subjects to exhibit biased and xenophobic type behaviors, such as gravitating toward those who they perceive as culturally similar to themselves and holding higher negative feelings and judgments toward those they perceive as culturally dissimilar to themselves.

In a recent study, the research team discovered that reminding Palestinians of their own death through subconscious means inspired conscious shifts in opinion towards wanting to become suicide bombers.This subconscious death reminder inspired the subjects to act aggressively against differing others, even at the risk of losing their own lives. Terror is the result of deep psychological forces the research described in Flight from Death suggests that these forces can be explained, yielding information about personal anxiety and the motivation of social violence.

And while we're shortchanged by ourselves relying on these illusions to sustain our considerably hollowed-out existence, we're mismanaging our demeaning and shallow worldview's demands, within the capitalistic values of more, bigger, and faster.

TEDxMidwest - Tony Schwartz - The Way We're Working Isn't Working
Time is finite. Tony Schwarz debunks the myth that "We are meant to run like computers; at high speeds for long periods of time". He eloquently outlines how the reality of renewing our personal energy is just as important as expending it. This discipline grants value to rest which ultimately allows us to manage more skillful lives.

So now, I'm constantly reminded on these practical wisdom on holistic and courageous spiritual healing.

I kind of understood, this is what shame is, this is how it works. I wrote a book, I published a theory, but something was not okay -- and what it was is that, if I roughly took the people I interviewed and divided them into people who really have a sense of worthiness -- that's what this comes down to, a sense of worthiness -- they have a strong sense of love and belonging -- and folks who struggle for it, and folks who are always wondering if they're good enough. There was only one variable that separated the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging and the people who really struggle for it. And that was, the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging believe they're worthy of love and belonging. That's it. They believe they're worthy. And to me, the hard part of the one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear that we're not worthy of connection, was something that, personally and professionally, I felt like I needed to understand better. So what I did is I took all of the interviews where I saw worthiness, where I saw people living that way, and just looked at those.

What do these people have in common? I have a slight office supply addiction, but that's another talk. So I had a manila folder, and I had a Sharpie, and I was like, what am I going to call this research? And the first words that came to my mind were whole-hearted. These are whole-hearted people, living from this deep sense of worthiness. So I wrote at the top of the manila folder, and I started looking at the data. In fact, I did it first in a four-day very intensive data analysis, where I went back, pulled these interviews, pulled the stories, pulled the incidents. What's the theme? What's the pattern? My husband left town with the kids because I always go into this Jackson Pollock crazy thing, where I'm just like writing and in my researcher mode. And so here's what I found. What they had in common was a sense of courage. And I want to separate courage and bravery for you for a minute. Courage, the original definition of courage, when it first came into the English language -- it's from the Latin word cor, meaning heart -- and the original definition was to tell the story of who you are with your whole heart. And so these folks had, very simply, the courage to be imperfect. They had the compassion to be kind to themselves first and then to others, because, as it turns out, we can't practice compassion with other people if we can't treat ourselves kindly. And the last was they had connection, and -- this was the hard part -- as a result of authenticity, they were willing to let go of who they thought they should be in order to be who they were, which you have to absolutely do that for connection.

The other thing that they had in common was this: They fully embraced vulnerability. They believed that what made them vulnerable made them beautiful. They didn't talk about vulnerability being comfortable, nor did they really talk about it being excruciating -- as I had heard it earlier in the shame interviewing. They just talked about it being necessary. They talked about the willingness to say, "I love you" first, the willingness to do something where there are no guarantees, the willingness to breathe through waiting for the doctor to call after your mammogram. They're willing to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. They thought this was fundamental.
-Brené Brown: The power of vulnerability

We smirk because we believe that synthetic happiness is not of the same quality as what we might call "natural happiness." What are these terms? Natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted, and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don't get what we wanted. And in our society, we have a strong belief that synthetic happiness is of an inferior kind. Why do we have that belief? Well, it's very simple. What kind of economic engine would keep churning if we believed that not getting what we want could make us just as happy as getting it?

With all apologies to my friend Matthieu Ricard, a shopping mall full of Zen monks is not going to be particularly profitable because they don't want stuff enough. I want to suggest to you that synthetic happiness is every bit as real and enduring as the kind of happiness you stumble upon when you get exactly what you were aiming for.
-Dan Gilbert: The surprising science of happiness

The year is 2010. Just as the women in Hawaii that raised me predicted, the world is in trouble. We live in a society bloated with data, yet starved for wisdom. We're connected 24/7, yet anxiety, fear, depression and loneliness is at an all-time high. We must course-correct. An African shaman said, "Your society worships the jester while the king stands in plain clothes." The link between the past and the future is fragile. This I know intimately, because even as I travel throughout the world to listen to these stories and record them, I struggle. I am haunted by the fact that I no longer remember the names of the winds and the rains.

Mau passed away five months ago, but his legacy and lessons live on. And I am reminded that throughout the world there are cultures with vast sums of knowledge in them, as potent as the Micronesian navigators, that are going dismissed, that this is a testament to brilliant, brilliant technology and science and wisdom that is vanishing rapidly. Because when an elder dies a library is burned, and throughout the world, libraries are ablaze.

I am grateful for the fact that I had a mentor like Mau who taught me how to navigate. And I realize through a lesson that he shared that we continue to find our way. And this is what he said: "The island is the canoe; the canoe, the island." And what he meant was, if you are voyaging and far from home, your very survival depends on everyone aboard. You cannot make the voyage alone, you were never meant to. This whole notion of every man for himself is completely unsustainable. It always was.
-Elizabeth Lindsey: Curating humanity's heritage

And it happens when you're in a new or unfamiliar situation. Your habitual response patterns don't work. Your personality and morality are disengaged. "Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing more difficult than understanding him," Dostoyevksy tells us. Understanding is not excusing. Psychology is not excuse-iology.

So social and psychological research reveals how ordinary, good people can be transformed without the drugs. You don't need it. You just need the social-psychological processes. Real world parallels? Compare this with this. James Schlesinger -- and I'm going to have to end with this -- says, "Psychologists have attempted to understand how and why individuals and groups who usually act humanely can sometimes act otherwise in certain circumstances." That's the Lucifer effect. And he goes on to say, "The landmark Stanford study provides a cautionary tale for all military operations." If you give people power without oversight, it's a prescription for abuse. They knew that, and let that happen.

So another report, an investigative report by General Fay, says the system is guilty. And in this report, he says it was the environment that created Abu Ghraib, by leadership failures that contributed to the occurrence of such abuse, and the fact that it remained undiscovered by higher authorities for a long period of time. Those abuses went on for three months. Who was watching the store? The answer is nobody, and, I think, nobody on purpose. He gave the guards permission to do those things, and they knew nobody was ever going to come down to that dungeon.

So you need a paradigm shift in all of these areas. The shift is away from the medical model that focuses only on the individual. The shift is toward a public health model that recognizes situational and systemic vectors of disease. Bullying is a disease. Prejudice is a disease. Violence is a disease. And since the Inquisition, we've been dealing with problems at the individual level. And you know what? It doesn't work. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says, "The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." That means that line is not out there. That's a decision that you have to make. That's a personal thing.

So I want to end very quickly on a positive note. Heroism as the antidote to evil, by promoting the heroic imagination, especially in our kids, in our educational system. We want kids to think, I'm the hero in waiting, waiting for the right situation to come along, and I will act heroically. My whole life is now going to focus away from evil -- that I've been in since I was a kid -- to understanding heroes.

Banality of heroism is, it's ordinary people who do heroic deeds. It's the counterpoint to Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil." Our traditional societal heroes are wrong, because they are the exceptions. They organize their whole life around this. That's why we know their names. And our kids' heroes are also role models for them, because they have supernatural talents. We want our kids to realize most heroes are everyday people, and the heroic act is unusual.
-Philip Zimbardo: The psychology of evil
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/21/12 , edited 8/21/12

josephkamiya wrote:


longfenglim:
But, does that matter? No, because the quality of the film does not depend on whether they can fill a racial quota, whether black people or white people or yellow people or whatever coloured folks are overrepresented or underrepresented. Only petty people watch films to spot ethnicity.


While I agree that the quality of a film doesn't depend on the ethnicity of the cast, I disagree that it's "petty" to point out the issues of ethnicity and racism in Hollywood. I don't watch movies to spot racism or an overall lack of diversity in the casting, but I am conscious of it.

It isn't (always) blatant racism. It's institutionalized racism. White heterosexual males (and, in some cases, white heterosexual females) have been made the "norm." If it's a white heterosexual male lead, ANYBODY and EVERYBODY can relate to this character (sarcasm)! The character and his journey are "universal" - cast a person of color in the lead role and suddenly it becomes "ethnic" or "made for a niche audience/market" (the same could be said about women and sexism in Hollywood, but we'll save that for another thread).

Look, I ain't saying Hollywood writers and execs are sitting at a conference table saying deviant shit like, "How could we make this film promote white supremacy??" It isn't your straight-forward "jap/nigger/spic" brand of racism - that's why it's called institutionalized (or institutional) racism.

My biggest argument for why this isn't "petty": Hollywood has a huge platform of influence. Well, they're just movies, right? I'm not saying that movies brainwash or manipulate people, but to say that the media and entertainment industries have no affect whatsoever on us is, in my opinion, naive. For this reason, the images and characters that Hollywood in specific (and the media in general) presents should be a bit more thoughtful, no? Perhaps the sexual objectification of women or perpetuation of impossible (and/or warped) standards of beauty, or common portrayals of dark skinned folks as primarily terrorists/gangsters/etc are all harmful to society?

There's definitely more diversity in Hollywood than before, but to say that the problem is fixed is like saying "we're in a post-racial, color-blind society... we have a black president!"


A work of art derives its meaning from its audience. Gender issues, racism, class conflict are all simply projections of the audience, and is not inherent within the work itself, and seeking them detract not only from the enjoyment of the work of art, it also turns the work of art no more than a tool of social criticism, to simply provide fodder for an a priori view held by the viewer. True, some judgement may be better founded than other, however, these judgements are still simply a matter of individual interpretation. Therefore, the racism that one finds in a piece is not a manifestation of something institutionalised within society (though there may be institutionalised racism within society), it is simply a projection of what the viewer wants to see, that is, that there is institutionalised racism within society.

We enjoy narrative art, not out of the ethnicity of the protagonist, but for the character himself. We admire him for his personality, his actions, we sympathise with his struggle, we are able to see beyond him as a ethnicity, and see him a a person. Everyone is invited to cheer when Bruce Lee destroys the park sign in Fist of Fury, because, at that moment, he represents a universal that can be admired by everyone, an oppressed willing to stand against the oppressor. Only the petty viewer sees him narrowly as simply a Chinese fighting against a group foreigners, that the entire basis of the film is racist, a xenophobic piece of propaganda.

If one says that Hollywood's influence may create 'an impossible image of beauty', or 'create a racist image of normal', one makes the mistake of confusing Hollywood's influence upon Society, and Society's influence upon Hollywood. The image of normal and beauty is simply a mirror of society's view of normal and beauty, Hollywood draws from Society's expectation to craft an image to sell back to society. Is Hollywood, then, at fault for providing a looking glass to American Society? These, however, only provide the superficial trappings of the film over which only the petty viewer concern themselves. True art lies in how far it can supersede society to create immortality for itself.

When one searches for persecution, one's mind can fashion it out of anything. It sees what it wants to see, it creates what it wants to create. It is a superior man who looks beyond this to admire the art.
Posted 8/22/12

longfenglim wrote:


josephkamiya wrote:


longfenglim:
But, does that matter? No, because the quality of the film does not depend on whether they can fill a racial quota, whether black people or white people or yellow people or whatever coloured folks are overrepresented or underrepresented. Only petty people watch films to spot ethnicity.


While I agree that the quality of a film doesn't depend on the ethnicity of the cast, I disagree that it's "petty" to point out the issues of ethnicity and racism in Hollywood. I don't watch movies to spot racism or an overall lack of diversity in the casting, but I am conscious of it.

It isn't (always) blatant racism. It's institutionalized racism. White heterosexual males (and, in some cases, white heterosexual females) have been made the "norm." If it's a white heterosexual male lead, ANYBODY and EVERYBODY can relate to this character (sarcasm)! The character and his journey are "universal" - cast a person of color in the lead role and suddenly it becomes "ethnic" or "made for a niche audience/market" (the same could be said about women and sexism in Hollywood, but we'll save that for another thread).

Look, I ain't saying Hollywood writers and execs are sitting at a conference table saying deviant shit like, "How could we make this film promote white supremacy??" It isn't your straight-forward "jap/nigger/spic" brand of racism - that's why it's called institutionalized (or institutional) racism.

My biggest argument for why this isn't "petty": Hollywood has a huge platform of influence. Well, they're just movies, right? I'm not saying that movies brainwash or manipulate people, but to say that the media and entertainment industries have no affect whatsoever on us is, in my opinion, naive. For this reason, the images and characters that Hollywood in specific (and the media in general) presents should be a bit more thoughtful, no? Perhaps the sexual objectification of women or perpetuation of impossible (and/or warped) standards of beauty, or common portrayals of dark skinned folks as primarily terrorists/gangsters/etc are all harmful to society?

There's definitely more diversity in Hollywood than before, but to say that the problem is fixed is like saying "we're in a post-racial, color-blind society... we have a black president!"


A work of art derives its meaning from its audience. Gender issues, racism, class conflict are all simply projections of the audience, and is not inherent within the work itself, and seeking them detract not only from the enjoyment of the work of art, it also turns the work of art no more than a tool of social criticism, to simply provide fodder for an a priori view held by the viewer. True, some judgement may be better founded than other, however, these judgements are still simply a matter of individual interpretation. Therefore, the racism that one finds in a piece is not a manifestation of something institutionalised within society (though there may be institutionalised racism within society), it is simply a projection of what the viewer wants to see, that is, that there is institutionalised racism within society.

We enjoy narrative art, not out of the ethnicity of the protagonist, but for the character himself. We admire him for his personality, his actions, we sympathise with his struggle, we are able to see beyond him as a ethnicity, and see him a a person. Everyone is invited to cheer when Bruce Lee destroys the park sign in Fist of Fury, because, at that moment, he represents a universal that can be admired by everyone, an oppressed willing to stand against the oppressor. Only the petty viewer sees him narrowly as simply a Chinese fighting against a group foreigners, that the entire basis of the film is racist, a xenophobic piece of propaganda.


Agreed. Narrative art is meant for us to follow and admire the character as a person, regardless of ethnicity or gender. As I mentioned before, I agree that the quality of a movie (or any form of narrative art) isn't based on the ethnicity or gender of the character. The problem, though, is that there's a very limited slate of characters and stories that are being portrayed because "white" is seen as the norm and any deviation from that norm is seen as risky business (another issue worth of discussion: the balance of "art" and "business" and the instances where "business" completely takes over). The problem isn't with each individual movie, but rather the industry that's producing them.

Bruce Lee, I feel was an exception (as there are always exceptions). But had he lived long enough to further develop himself not only as a martial artist but also as an actor, would execs see him as a bankable actor in anything other than a martial art film? Obviously, this can't be answered. The point being, the Bruce Lee's and Will Smith's of the industry are exceptions because for every Lee and Smith, there are dozens of Cruise's, Pitt's, Depp's, Bale's, DiCaprio's, Clooney's, Hanks', Gibson's, Geer's, Travolta's, Sandler's, Willis', Crowe's, etc.

Ethnic/gender/sexuality-specific film festivals were born out of this lack of diversity. Our faces or stories aren't "universal" (see also: "marketable") enough for you? Fine. "For us, by us, and about us" because the white-washed and male-dominated Hollywood industry ain't doing jackshit for us.


longfenglim wrote:
If one says that Hollywood's influence may create 'an impossible image of beauty', or 'create a racist image of normal', one makes the mistake of confusing Hollywood's influence upon Society, and Society's influence upon Hollywood. The image of normal and beauty is simply a mirror of society's view of normal and beauty, Hollywood draws from Society's expectation to craft an image to sell back to society. Is Hollywood, then, at fault for providing a looking glass to American Society? These, however, only provide the superficial trappings of the film over which only the petty viewer concern themselves. True art lies in how far it can supersede society to create immortality for itself.

When one searches for persecution, one's mind can fashion it out of anything. It sees what it wants to see, it creates what it wants to create. It is a superior man who looks beyond this to admire the art.


I don't consider society itself as an individual entity -- I believe it's made up of elements which includes art, entertainment, and media. Everything influences each other, regardless of what came first. Fashion, music, film, photography, advertising -- they're all capable and are constantly creating and re-creating trends, fads, beliefs, opinions, norms. Everything is interconnected here. I see the argument of something "being fucked-up because society is fucked-up" as an excuse and evasion of responsibility.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/22/12 , edited 8/23/12

josephkamiya wrote:

Agreed. Narrative art is meant for us to follow and admire the character as a person, regardless of ethnicity or gender. As I mentioned before, I agree that the quality of a movie (or any form of narrative art) isn't based on the ethnicity or gender of the character. The problem, though, is that there's a very limited slate of characters and stories that are being portrayed because "white" is seen as the norm and any deviation from that norm is seen as risky business (another issue worth of discussion: the balance of "art" and "business" and the instances where "business" completely takes over). The problem isn't with each individual movie, but rather the industry that's producing them.



The meaning of any work of art is derived from the interpretation of the audience. You choose to interpret the work of art racially, and to fit in with an a priori conception of Hollywood (i.e. Hollywood is full of Racists), and contrive evidence from the film itself. You choose to see it as a symptom of institutionalised Racism. You choose to see them as proof of your grand theory. Ultimately, such interpretation derives more from yourself than from the film. The problem, then, is not that 'white is seen as the norm' or that 'there is a vary limited slate of characters and stories portrayed because Hollywood is racist', it is that you choose to see them as proof of racism, when, in fact, they are not in themselves racist. It is, then, that we have to different mode of watching a film, you choose to watch it to give proof to your own pet theory, with the artistry of the film being secondary, and I choose to focus on it solely as a work of art, rather than be bothered by petty things such as the ethnicity of the cast.



Bruce Lee, I feel was an exception (as there are always exceptions). But had he lived long enough to further develop himself not only as a martial artist but also as an actor, would execs see him as a bankable actor in anything other than a martial art film? Obviously, this can't be answered. The point being, the Bruce Lee's and Will Smith's of the industry are exceptions because for every Lee and Smith, there are dozens of Cruise's, Pitt's, Depp's, Bale's, DiCaprio's, Clooney's, Hanks', Gibson's, Geer's, Travolta's, Sandler's, Willis', Crowe's, etc.

Ethnic/gender/sexuality-specific film festivals were born out of this lack of diversity. Our faces or stories aren't "universal" (see also: "marketable") enough for you? Fine. "For us, by us, and about us" because the white-washed and male-dominated Hollywood industry ain't doing jackshit for us.



You missed the point about Bruce Lee. In any good film, such as Bruce Lee's Fist of Fury, or, to bring in modern examples, Infernal Affairs and its American adaptation, The Departed, while we have a cast of particulars, within a particular culture, facing particular problems within a particular setting, such as Bruce Lee's all Asian protagonists fighting against foreign oppressors, Infernal Affairs Chinese Policemen and Triad members, or the Departed all White, Bostonian Paddy cops and mobsters (with the Token Black thrown in), they are transformed into universals, their problems transcend their particularities, and we are able to sympathise and relate with their problem and admire or despise them as people. We sympathise with King Lear, for example, because his problem and his character transcend his particulars, and becomes something universal. Akira Kurosawa's Kagemusha, too, was able to transcend its exotic Feudal Japanese Setting, it becomes universal, we are all able to admire it. However, when a film made by a particular group for the consumption of a particular group, a 'for us by us' sort of film, it usually never rises beyond its particularities, because the basis of the film is its particularities. It doesn't matter who the cast are, what race they belong to, their genital grouping, or whatever else petty and superficial viewers think is important, what is important is the quality of the film.






I don't consider society itself as an individual entity -- I believe it's made up of elements which includes art, entertainment, and media. Everything influences each other, regardless of what came first. Fashion, music, film, photography, advertising -- they're all capable and are constantly creating and re-creating trends, fads, beliefs, opinions, norms. Everything is interconnected here. I see the argument of something "being fucked-up because society is fucked-up" as an excuse and evasion of responsibility.


While fashion and fads, derived from society's want, are sold to the public, it is, however, the public's fault if they buy into it. Blaming this vague entity Hollywood, a mysterious and, apparently, racist creature, for the public's willingness to give into the mode of the time is also an evasion, it seeks to place blame elsewhere for one's own stupidity, rather than own up to it. Hollywood sells to the public, you have the choice of being part of it, or washing your hands of it, you are solely to blame if you decide to give into it.
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 8/27/12
Pretty rich white tourists are more important that the suffering of south east Asians in the 2004 Tsunami disaster in "the impossible" which is about the 2004 disaster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI6rUOnOGuw&feature=player_embedded

Based on the true life events of the 2004 tsunami that devastated South East Asia and killed over 200,000 people, Hollywood has decided to make a film called The Impossible that stars Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts as wealthy European tourists caught in the disaster. If I can summarize this film in a nutshell, it would be: “A touching film starring white people who survive while seeing the poor dying brown people around them and realize how fragile life is.”



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1663662/

link to the casting

Upcominbg whitewashing "Pacific Rim"

Pacific rim (2013) according to the racist makers is supposed to be a homage to Japanese Giant monster films. Typical of racist Hollywood they can’t bother to hire more than one qualified Japanese actors and actresses. They only hire one Asian actress, a Japanese actress Rinko Kikuchi. a white German Mexican actor Clifton Craig Collins, Jr is playing a character called “Tendo Choi”. Tendo is a Japanese family name, the Choi name is both a Chinese and a Korean family name.




2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 9/12/12



racist asshole Jim Sturgess calling yellowface and blackface lovely
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 10/8/12
Boycott Django Unchained

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk2tsKoPeh4

This Christmas don't give your money to KKKuentin Tarantino

Don't give your money to Columbia Pictures or Jamie "wanda" Fox

2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 10/14/12
Hollywood's latest white savior complex movie production is delayed

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter star Benjamin Walker has landed a role in The Great Wall.

He’ll co-star with the new Superman, Man of Steel’s Henry Cavill in the period horror, reveal Variety. Walker, an acclaimed stage actor who’s also appeared in Kinsey and Flags of Our Fathers, beat True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard for the role. The Last Samurai, Blood Diamond and Glory director Edward Zwick is shooting a story by writer Max Brooks (World War Z).

Cavill and Walker will play 15th century British soldiers who stumble upon the construction of the Great Wall of China, which contains a supernatural presence the builders are trying to contain. Zhang Ziyi (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) has been approached for a role.

Deadline now report production in China and New Zealand has just been pushed back from autumn to spring, with Legendary Pictures citing weather issues. Ironically, Walker was set to star in Alex Proyas’ film adaptation of Paradise Lost, but Legendary pulled the plug on the project in February.

Walker landed his first leading film role in Timur Bekmambetov’s Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, adapted from Seth Grahame-Smith’s genre mash-up book. It hits UK cinemas 20th June. He’s currently filming HBO pic Muhammad Ali’s Greatest Fight for Stephen Frears.

http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/articles/film/benjamin-walker-joins-henry-cavill-in-the-great-wall-production-delayed/

http://screenrant.com/great-wall-edward-zwick-zhang-ziyi-sandy-178651/



they can't find asian male leads but have no problem finding Asian actresses that are willing to sell out just like in the racist movie cloud atlas where white males are dressed up in yellow face and the Asian women are all sex slaves, sex objects and love interests for the white men and i still want to know that is a comfort hive.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/15/12
I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I don't think Hollywood is the only guilty one. If you look at the other side of the spectrum white people in Asian cinema are extremely stereotypical as well. At the end of the day you can't blame the industry because the industry revolves around appealing to the masses and the fact of the matter is the majority of people find the stereotypical "strong chinned white male" a more comfortable fit for lead rolls. To change the industry you have to first work on what the audience expects from an Asian male character, (or any character from any ethnicity/nationality for the matter.)
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 10/15/12 , edited 10/15/12
White people are worshipped as gods in East Asia. in the ESL industry in Asia white English teachers are preferred and hired first Asian American ESL teachers often complain of discrimination. , in advertisements white people are often hired pictures of white people are often seen on billboards. and recently China started to hire white actors/actresses. and in 2010 companies in China started to rent white foreigners Bollywood the Indian movie industry in recent years is started to hire white actors many of them from Britain.

stop this "asia do it too" excuse they don't sink to the same level dressing up asians in prostethics to look white. they have no problem finding actors unlike racist hollywood dress up white actors in yellow-face


Flowers of War


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-2182964/The-Flowers-War-review-Christian-Bale-film-proves-China-Hollywood-run-money.html



Most negative feedback from critics were similar to that from Toronto Star, which gave the film 2.5/4, and said that "the drama is often weakened by the penchant for creating spectacles."[45] Roger Ebert, who gave the film 2 out of 4 stars, took issue with centering the story around a white American, "Can you think of any reason the character John Miller is needed to tell his story? Was any consideration given to the possibility of a Chinese priest? Would that be asking for too much?




Cultural Exchange: Jonathan Kos-Read is 'the token white guy' in Chinese cinema
The native of Torrance has used a telegenic face and deft Mandarin skills to carve out his niche: playing the foreigner.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/16/entertainment/la-ca-cultural-exchnage-20110116


Indian nationalist politician tired of Bollywood hiring white actresses and ignoring home grown Indian talents

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/bollywood/7465541/White-British-actresses-told-to-leave-Bollywood.html


Indians like their east Asian counterparts in the white world can't find acting roles in Hollywood but whites go just take a plane to Asia and easily find lead roles in their home countries? this is outrageous

7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/15/12
I think pop culture is changing slowly but surely but I think until all the old age thinkers are out of the picture it won't change completely. What people don't realize is it's not an us vs. them or some horrible injustice controlled by the entertainment industry but rather a stubbornness to stick to the same mindset. Someone can rant and rave about how the industry is choosing foreign talent over the talent in their own back yard and automatically point the finger at the industry or western society as the one to blame. However at the end of the day you can't blame a foreign entertainment industry for doing this if films from western countries are more well received than their own. I myself watch a ton of foreign films thanks to the aids of subtitles and I see plenty of white "stereotypes" in these productions. Most the time they aren't "gods" but they are usually mindless thugs or the really unnecessary loud friend in the background. or the rich "super model" types strapped to the "cool" guy's arm. Or the "black guy" stereotype in Asia where every black guy is huge and into hip hop, case in point G Dragon's "One of a Kind" video in which he manages to find the only three black kids in Korea to appear in his video. However does any of the white western stereotypes bother me? No they don't (I'm actually a huge Big Bang fan.) because I don't let them. I think that the people who yell raciest discrimination every five seconds are just as guilty as the ones being raciest for keeping racism alive. The best person should get the part and if your keeping tally on how many people they cast of said race or origin your raciest too. If people could just relax and enjoy good entertainment without bringing up this political bullshit the world would be a better place.
First  Prev  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.