Then hopefully your sister will learn from this.Quote:
Originally Posted by 144man
CE
Then hopefully your sister will learn from this.Quote:
Originally Posted by 144man
CE
All,
Do you think I was wrong to start this thread?
No. Your thread opened up a dialog about race which is very much needed in today's society.Quote:
Originally Posted by 144man
CE
Not at all. All of this dialogue is very valuable. A lot can be learned from the conversations taking place here.Quote:
Originally Posted by 144man
Past & Present:
Attachment 9003
Attachment 9004
This thread and the 'Je Suis Charlie' thread are two of the best posts on this forum in the last year, IMO. Dialogue is good and it's good to see issues from all sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by 144man
No. It's totally fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by 144man
She hasn't upset anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by 144man
Hasn't it occured to anyone here that when Mr Cumberbatch was talking about "inequality in The U.K. acting industry" he wouldn't specifically have been talking about people who are "Black", but rather people who are "Non-White"? The vast majority of people in The U.K. who are "Non-White" are of South-Asian descent [[Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi etc.) and many of them would probably not like being referred to as being "Black".
As to the word "Coloured", in my experience [[growing up in 1960s/70s England) it was used as a general term to describe "non-white" people, and some people would use it in preference to terms such as "Black" [[even if referring to someone who would consider themselves as being "Black") as they thought the term "Coloured" was more polite.
I'm a bit surprised that Mr Cumberbatch used the term "Coloured" as to me it sounds somewhat patronising and old-fashioned, but I'm also surprised that anyone actually finds it "offensive" and I suspect the motives of those who claim that they do. Does anyone, for example, find "offence" in this hit record from 1973 where the term is used?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KaWSOlASWc
I'm wondering how much distaste of the use of the word "Coloured" by "African-Americans" [[or in The U.K. by "Afro-Caribbeans") is down to its usage in Apartheid Era South Africa where the term "Coloured" meant "Mixed-Race" and was a designated racial-category [["Coloured" people had their own neighbourhoods that they were allowed to live in, schools they were allowed to attend, etc. etc. etc.) and "Black" people and "Indian" people were decidedly NOT "Coloured".
This is the current entry on Wikipedia about "South African Coloured People" ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured
Roger
Well, there very well may be cultural differences at work here. AS you point out, Blacks and "coloureds" can mean anyone who is not white in the U.K. [[is that right?) . Here, in the U.S., it specifically means those with African ancestry. They do not call Mexicans, Indians, or American Indians [[so-called Native Americans) "colored" if they have brown skin.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger
Why did no one get upset over Lou Reed using the term? Because his use of the term fit in with the context of the song. After all, Lou Reed is gay, and he's talking about a transvestite prostitute. The lyrics were designed to amuse and shock. We know he didn't use the term in a derisive manner.
Well, I was talking specifically about 1960s and 1970s England Soulster. There were plenty of derogatory terms around used by the ignorant when talking about "non-white" people but "coloured" was considered to be polite.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Nowadays the preferred terms are "Black" to describe Africans or people of African origin who have links with The Caribbean, or "Asian" to describe people who have South Asian origin. Those two groupings would account for the overwhelming majority of "Non-White" residents here.
The term "Coloured" has generally gone out of common useage as the way of describing "Non-White" people in Britain, but if I hear someone older than me use it then I am not too surprised and I would not consider them to be using it to be derogatory.
Interesting that you state that the term "Colored" in The U.S. always meant "those with African ancestry" as in The U.K. it did include other groups.
Well then, can I assume that if Mr Cumberbatch had revealed in that interview a taste for dressing up in womens' clothes and a secret attraction to one of the cameramen then his usage of the term "coloured" would have gone unnoticed!! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Roger
[QUOTE=roger;269460]
As pointed out before, it says that they have a certain underlying negative mentality toward those races. BTW, did you ever show this thread to your sister?Quote:
... but if I hear someone older than me use it then I am not too surprised and I would not consider them to be using it to be derogatory.
That is why there seems to be a stronger reaction about this from we Americans.Quote:
Interesting that you state that the term "Colored" in The U.S. always meant "those with African ancestry" as in The U.K. it did include other groups.
Yup! There's nothing we Americans hate more than those socialist, atheist, cross-dressing homos who prey on our innocent, god-fearing youth and lead them a lifestyle of depraved homosexual sin. :)Quote:
Well then, can I assume that if Mr Cumberbatch had revealed in that interview a taste for dressing up in womens' clothes and a secret attraction to one of the cameramen then his usage of the term "coloured" would have gone unnoticed!! :)
I think you are confusing me with 144man Soulster.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Actually I think it is a very strange world we live in where people presume to be able to judge "what people are really thinking" from their usage of terms such as the one under discussion. I would have thought that the only person who would know whether "they have a certain underlying negative mentality" would be the person actually uttering the words.
Roger
[QUOTE=roger;269464]Oops! You're right.Quote:
I think you are confusing me with 144man Soulster.
Well, i've seen the pattern.Quote:
Actually I think it is a very strange world we live in where people presume to be able to judge "what people are really thinking" from their usage of terms such as the one under discussion. I would have thought that the only person who would know whether "they have a certain underlying negative mentality" would be the person actually uttering the words.
Circling back, it's very clear that Cumberbatch meant no offense with the term. If he did, he had his pick from many, less obscure phrases that he could drop. Oh, and he wouldn't have apologized which actually called attention to it. If someone called me colored, they'd probably get a 'f*ck you if you think I'm colored' response from me. If they then smiled, then so would I; no harm, no foul. If they called me the N-word or it's derivatives, it's probably cause to fight.
"Selma star David Oyelowo,...the British actor [who] plays Martin Luther King in the civil rights drama has said he would not have secured the role if it had been for a non-colour-specific character.
"...He also defended Benedict Cumberbatch's use of the word "coloured" in a recent television interview.
"He said "Everyone has ended up ignoring the issue Benedict was talking about and focusing on that one word. It's actually stopped us talking about race. Look, Benedict is a good friend. He was simply expressing, as someone who has no dog in the fight, that his friends are getting better opportunities in the US than here. That's something worth examining. Instead, we get hung up on terminology"."
[Evening Standard, 2 February]
I noticed that there are a few actors who have obtained colorless roles. Many of Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman's roles were likely written with White actors in mind. There's definitely not a level playing field but some are able to overcome the prejudices exhibited by studio executives like the Sony vice-president who suggested that Washington's films don't do well in the U.S. [[although he earns very well overseas). His last film exceeded expectations domestically.
Even though it was panned by the "critics".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Oz
And that'll be the executive's excuse the next time. If he exceeds projections at the box office [[in spite of limited promotion and releasing it during the annually slow period), they complain that he didn't do well domestically. If he does well domestically, they'll complain that he didn't do well with the critics. If he does well at the box office AND with the critics, they'll find something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Yet, their favorite whipping boy Adam Sandler continues to enjoy big theatrical releases despite how terrible the movies are, and the bad reviews they get. They always hold Black people to a different, harsher, standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Oz
Think about the love stories that have Black leads in them. After 'The Best Man' and 'Love Jones', I have to think really hard to come up with something. If it wasn't for Tyler Perry, productions with Black lead actors would probably be half of what they are. And even then - dear Lord! - those are Tyler Perry movies. His heart's in the right place, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
Apparently, our stories aren't compelling. And somebody will make the argument that if we want to star in movies, then we need to produce them ourselves. My response to that is that Black folks probably spend a larger share of their dollars on movies than any other demographic. So the success or failure of these movies depends heavily on how many of us get out to see them. Consequently, we are producing them, although only for a couple of hours of escapism, not for any true return on investment.
But, all we get about Blacks are those stupid romantic comedies, or action adventure, where someone always plays a cop. It's like years ago when the only movies with Blacks were "hood" movies, or "Blaxploitation" films.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Oz
Don't forget the hard-assed Black police lieutenants that pop up in every cop flick to give the good guy a tongue-lashing. Usually, the 'good guy' is a White smart-ass with little respect for authority or rule of law, making the lieutenant look silly by laughing off threats to 'bounce his ass off the force' if he doesn't straighten out.
And if you watch television, I'm curious as to whether there are nearly as many young Black female medical examiners in the US as there are on the three networks. Usually that's a way to 'diversify' the cast with somebody who is not critical to the ensemble.
Apart from acting appearances in movies and on TV, do you feel that Blacks/African-Americans are given a fair proportional representation on national US TV as presenters?
I do feel there is proportional representation in the area local television news programs for instance. That took years to accomplish, but I feel it is now more representative of the general population and viewing audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by westgrandboulevard
That's good to hear. Over here in the UK, there would seem to be a real effort to represent many different races, particularly Black, Caribbean and Asian, on television programmes. There will also be many who have a mixed-race background, which apparently is the fastest growing ethnic group in the UK.
Clive Myrie [[English born, to Jamaican parents) is now a journalist and foreign correspondent with a distinguished career, and who is also a presenter on BBC News Channel, and often presents BBC1 primetime news at weekends.
You also may be familiar with Sir Trevor McDonald's career.
However, there appear to be no black people here with the media profile of Oprah Winfrey. She is clearly exceptionally successful,and being black did not appear to hold her back. Maybe it was even an advantage....
I seriously do, especially on local news outlets. But, in the movies, not so much. But, here's the catch: many are bi-racial, or light-skinned. It is still rare to see a dark-skinned Black person on TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by westgrandboulevard
Here in the U.S., there has been a major effort to include other ethnic and racial minorities on TV. And, as Marv says, they may actually be over-represented in some cases. Be that as it may, there is still a pay disparity, and a glass ceiling. And, finally, the people who are in power are still mostly White males.
David Oyelowo also said, "The only way I get a leading role in a studio picture is if Ryan Gosling can't play it, which is clearly the case with "Selma". If this was a non-colour specific character, it wouldn't be me. It just wouldn't."
When Fox started their network in the '90s, they were only broadcasting on Sunday nights for two hours or week. Their shows? 'Roc', 'In Living Colour', 'Herman's Head', and 'Martin'. Three of those shows had predominately Black casts. Over the next few years, they scored hits with 'Living Single', 'The Jamie Foxx Show', '21 Jump Street', and 'New York Undercover', each of which featured Black actors in lead roles.
They also snagged viewers with late night talk shows starring Arsenio Hall and Keenan Ivory Wayans. The only show on Fox in the last five years that features a Black lead is this year's 'Empire'; the only other one with a non-White lead is 'The Mindy Project'. So, even though they proved that shows with Black leads and subject matter succeed, they are few and far between on Fox.
When my Dad wonders why there are no 'White Entertainment TV' channels to rival BET, my brother reminds him that NBC, ABC, CBS, CW, and Fox already are WET in this country.
There was a post on the main forum a few months ago that highlighted an article that suggested that a White woman may play Whitney Houston in a few years. If that's the case, then even the 'race-specific' roles may be featuring Caucasian actors.Quote:
Originally Posted by 144man
That's not surprising. Whites and other non-Black people have been playing roles meant for Blacks forever. They just don't wear blackface paint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Oz