"does every show have to have equal screen time for men, women, whites, blacks, asians, gays, transgendered, handicapped, overweight, etc, etc, etc?" One poster from SRSer answers and gets linked to SRSSucks (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
117 ups - 67 downs = 50 votes
439 comments submitted at 14:23:12 on Jun 9, 2014 by 6086555
YOU are the one saying blacks can't be "represented" by anyone on tv unless the person has their color skin.
Um. Well. They can't be racially represented if the person has a different skin color...that's the entire point of racial representation, yeah?
Is he suggesting blackface as an alternative to casting black people? I honestly can't tell.
No, I think he just thinks that all people should consider themselves 'represented' by the default, the white male. If they don't feel that an all-white cast represents their background and perspective, they are the real racists!
Exactly. It's the "we're all people, skin color doesn't matter!" idea. Why would you have trouble relating to a white man, are you racist?? This reminds me of a friend of mine from high school...she was sweet person but had some prejudiced ideas learned from her parents, and one day before class I heard her say (about Black people) "How can they be upset about not seeing ads about them? They already have their own channel!"
Of course I've yet to find a satisfactory answer to 'If it doesn't matter, why do you care so much arguing against it?'
I think this presents the arguments somewhat well.
It uses the term "make it pop" which sort of proves that the person writing it knows shit-all about design and the creative process, because that is a meaningless bullshit bingo phrase on the level of "touch base" or using the word "action" as a verb.
It completely misrepresents the writer/artist's position in a number of other ways as well, but that's not uncommon of these "make the other side look like exaggerated jerks" comics, even if this is more subtle than most.
These comics are always about strawpeople though because they literally have to invent a character out of whole cloth who always makes the right points so that they can spiel the author's argument out in reply. Like, no person in an argument of this type would just HMPH at someone or make all the ridiculous exaggerated smugfaces, and you can't guarantee someone would look favourably on having their vision fucked with. It's not like diversity is some auto-good that some people are too blind to see and if you just colour in one of their characters they'll be instantly converted.
Strawmen? In my images?
Instead of rudely altering potato head's creative vision why doesn't one eye cat make its own thing and show potato head his vision of how things should be?
I watched two movies this weekend, Martyrs and Collateral. I'm a white dude form Canada but I still connected with the characters in those movies because they are more than just their nationality and race. In collateral I identified with Jamie Foxx's character because he was a hard working dude struggling to follow his dreams. The fact that he is black and I am white didn't matter at all.
My favorite movie of all time stars a middle aged Austrian women. I didn't have to have the same background and life experiences to identify with and care about her struggle.
And I relate to Pam Grier in Jackie Brown in terms of her fortitude and love of the Delfonics, but I'm privileged in that the majority of the characters I see are White like I am (though not as much in terms of female leads). I think it's easy to say "I can relate to this Black character, so there's no problem!" when White characters are treated as a default.
Its not that I can relate to black characters its that people in general should relate to characters based on their actual character traits not their skin color. If you want to watch a movie specifically about a person overcoming racial discrimination that's cool there are movies that do that but that can't be every movie.
>Its not that I can relate to black characters its that people in general should relate to characters based on their actual character traits not their skin color.
I know it sounds harsh, but I'm saying that's an easy standpoint to take when you're represented as the default in TV and film. I can relate to most of the leads in films (and most are men) but that doesn't erase the fact that I don't see a lot of female leads. Kids who grow up seeing certain groups represented as the powerful majority learn that stuff, it becomes normal to them.
I think your missing the point of what I'm saying entirely. People aren't defined by their race they are defined by the content of their character. Do you really think i have any more in common with typical American macho man military action hero than any of my black friends? None of the films in theaters right now have characters that represent me and that's perfectly fine, I go to movies to see other peoples life stories not my own.
No, I'm not missing your point--you have not addressed my point and keep writing the same thing over and over again.
And there's also the totally fucking absurd idea that some people enjoy consuming media about people who are completely different from them. I mean, I didn't enjoy the Godfather because I'm a mobster in real life. I enjoyed it because I'm not.
My favorite movie stars Vin Diesel, who actually directed his own short film meditating on race, Multi-Facial. Link provided so you don't have to google it.
Bingo
He has a point. If you get down into studying Asian art, a lot of which depicts very pale and white people, you can see something of a culture that hasn't been heavily exposed to white/Western conceptions of beauty still expressing themselves in ways that could be considered racist if you didn't understand the context. The only thing is that even though, say, Japanese geishas or some magna cartoons prefer a very white looking appearance no one in Japan complains that Asians aren't being depicted. It's because race simply isn't part of the conversation. Magna cartoon? Japanese dude. Or Chinese. Even if the guy kinda looks like me. It's partly why American characters are so outlandish (guns! cowboys! flags!). There's no real pull to make the Asian characters very racial, or the Americans really racial, such as we see in American art.
Does that make anyone in this conversation 'racist,' like he's implying? Not really, but you can kinda see what he's getting at. If we're going to reduce racist down to 'uses race as the primary lens to view social stuff' (regardless of whether or not that's justified) then yes, people who see white characters and go 'they cannot be talking about me' are racist. But that's not a useful definition. Racist is usually something... More?
You sure are making a lot of very dumb and incorrect assumptions.
The reason cultures such as those in China and Japan value white skin is because farming rice is extremely labor intensive, as a result, farmers and laborers are outside all day and develop dark tans.
Those from privileged and wealthy social groups stay indoors and remain pale.
Ergo, pale skin is more rare and a sign of status/class/wealth.
Oh god it hurts it hurts
I bet they're going for the "YOU'RE the one saying we're all so different!!!! YOU'RE the problem!!!!". Yeah, I'm sure black people relate to characters of different races on TV a lot but that doesn't mean racial representaion isn't important.
>"YOU'RE the one saying we're all so different!!!! YOU'RE the problem!!!!"
This is a really good point. It's really easy for him to say that when the majority of the people on TV and in movies and in advertising look similar to him.
He's saying that it's insulting (or racist, maybe) to imply black people can't identify with a character unless he's also black. This knife cuts both ways though, and you could argue in favor of more diversity using the same argument.
Unless they're being portrayed by one dude playing a dude disguised as another dude.
I think the entertainment industry believes that black people and women have an easier time relating to white men then vice versa. You could argue that isn't true or that it's true for racist/sexist reasons, but for the most part sales seem to follow that trend.
I happen to believe it's due to the lack of cultural touch stones found in white men. A nondescript white guy doesn't carry any preconceived baggage in a lot of the population. So the character is a blank slate, allowing easier self involvement.
That is for racial bias reasons though. A white guy can be anything, a top level executive, a poor college student, a gang member and so on.
But a black character has to be a "black character" they can't just be a character. If you catch my drift.
Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying, but I think the term racial biases comes off strongly even though it's accurate. If I say picture a black barber shop you probably have something very specific in mind, but if I say picture a white barber shop it's much more generic. You probably wouldn't call yourself racially biased for believing in a specific barber shop, it's more akin to pattern recognition.
Yeah but it's shitty for anyone who wants to have a different barber shop. Because everyone will assume they will be a cliche black barber. Also someone who wants to pursue becoming a barber in a role that's not cliche black will have no role model and think "oh black people can't do that".
Bias does not need to be conscious.
As with SRSSucks I'm not sure if I'm allowed to respond to my own post being linked (I posted the diversity links) but that person was the strangest troll I've ever dealt with.