Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?

poptyping said:
Yeah but you have and continue to do so.
Click to expand...

Is it possible for me to disagree with a person of colour without minimising the experience of all people of colour? What about if some people of colour agree with me? Where does that leave us?
 
Spanky Longhorn said:
Why do you think you didn't minimise the experiences of people of colour?
Click to expand...

Becasue disagreeing with anyone doesn't mean minimising their experience. In particular, disagreeing with some people of colour certainly doesn't mean minimising the experiences of people of colour more generally? How could it? And what if other people of colour agree with me, then what? The idea that the colour of the person expressing an opinion somehow trumps its content is dangerous.
 
Athos said:
Is it possible for me to disagree with a person of colour without minimising the experience of all people of colour? What about if some people of colour agree with me? Where does that leave us?
Click to expand...
should all people of colour have the same opinions and ideas then?
 
Athos said:
I agree. And she gave her reasons; essentially, that she thought Jolie the right person for the job, regardless of her skin colour.




I agree, she didn't suggest it. And I don't believe it either.




Her opinion on whether or not it can ever be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role has as much bearing as any of the opinions expressed here.




I agree (and have from the outset).




No. Racism in Hollywood (and wider society) results in discrimination against black actors (which, it goes without saying, I abhor). The principle that I argued i.e. that it is wrong to say that there are no circumstances in which it is ok for a white actor to play a non-white character, even where those circumstances include the decision not being based on racism (implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious), does not (and, as a matter of logic, cannot, in itself) lead to discrimination against black actors.


Don't get me wrong. I don't like blacking up where it's a way to ridicule black people, or where it's a way to avoid employing black people. And I don't doubt that there are contemporary instances of blacking up which fall into both of those categories, particularly the latter. And, not only do I condemn casting decision that are born out of a personal dislike of black people, but I also condemn the studios' decisions not to cast black actors because of the box-office receipts, and the audience's attitudes that produce that situation. However, notwithstanding all that, like Mariane Pearl, I can conceive of certain situations where it would be acceptable for a white actor to play a non-white role, albeit that I think it'd have to be a very clear-cut case before I personally thought that such a casting decision was justified, given the contentious and offensive history of 'blacking up'.

I understand that you disagree. But there's little point going round and round.
Click to expand...
We're talking at cross purposes.

I didn't mention your logical argument to suggest that, in logic, it leads to a world in which black actors aren't marginalised. I'm aware that you realise that.

I do understand your argument. I also agree with it. There is no a priori reason why persons of any 'race' can't portray persons of any other race - and here's the important bit -in a world that's free of racism.

The reason I think your argument is useless is because using it only serves to back up the reality, which you acknowledge, in which white actors get the parts.

As Rutita1 has said, it's annoying hypothetical bollocks that doesn't reflect the world. The unintentional (in your case, I guess) consequence is to maintain the status quo. You're not helping.

If you are truly anti-racist, then help.
 
Athos said:
Becasue disagreeing with anyone doesn't mean minimising their experience. In particular, disagreeing with some people of colour certainly doesn't mean minimising the experiences of people of colour more generally? How could it? And what if other people of colour agree with me, then what? The idea that the colour of the person expressing an opinion somehow trumps its content is dangerous.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it. It's not about disagreeing. It's about your continual focus on hypothetical situations just to prove your point that blackface is somehow justifiable.
 
Mation said:
We're talking at cross purposes.

I didn't mention your logical argument to suggest that, in logic, it leads to a world in which black actors aren't marginalised. I'm aware that you realise that.

I do understand your argument. I also agree with it. There is no a priori reason why persons of any 'race' can't portray persons of any other race - and here's the important bit -in a world that's free of racism.

The reason I think your argument is useless is because using it only serves to back up the reality, which you acknowledge, in which white actors get the parts.

As Rutita1 has said, it's annoying hypothetical bollocks that doesn't reflect the world. The unintentional (in your case, I guess) consequence is to maintain the status quo. You're not helping.

If you are truly anti-racist, then help.
Click to expand...

This. So much.
 
poptyping said:
You just don't get it. It's not about disagreeing. It's about your continual focus on hypothetical situations just to prove your point that blackface is somehow justifiable.
Click to expand...

I get it; I just disagree.

I've not said it is justifiable, but rather that it could be in certain situations.
 
Mation said:
I do understand your argument. I also agree with it. There is no a priori reason why persons of any 'race' can't portray persons of any other race - and here's the important bit -in a world that's free of racism.

The reason I think your argument is useless is because using it only serves to back up the reality, which you acknowledge, in which white actors get the parts.

As Rutita1 has said, it's annoying hypothetical bollocks that doesn't reflect the world. The unintentional (in your case, I guess) consequence is to maintain the status quo. You're not helping.

If you are truly anti-racist, then help.
Click to expand...

So you accept the truth of what I was saying, but, nevertheless think I ought not to repeat it.

Well, for a start, I wouldn't have repeated it if others had blindly insisted (at length) that it was wrong.

Secondly, I don't agree that the demise of racism will be hastened by not speaking the truth. Denying the truth of certain positions because they don't further a particular position makes it easier for that position to be dismissed.

And to deny that truth by insisting that it minimises the experience of people of colour, or hinting that it's motivated by racism (I'm not saying you've done that), is a dishonest way to close down discussion, and doesn't recognise that other people of colour have different experiences, and can hold different view e.g. Mariane Pearl.
 
how about we have a list of film roles were actors played a part where the skin colour of the character is different to that the actor was born with, and they did a good job of it, and it can be justified...obviously there are endless ones of people playing different ethnicities, but usually this skin colour is more similiar. Id be curious to see how long that list might be
 
Athos said:
So you accept the truth of what I was saying, but, nevertheless think I ought not to repeat it.

Well, for a start, I wouldn't have repeated it if others had blindly insisted (at length) that it was wrong.

Secondly, I don't agree that the demise of racism will be hastened by not speaking the truth. Denying the truth of certain positions because they don't further a particular position makes it easier for that position to be dismissed.

And to deny that truth by insisting that it minimises the experience of people of colour, or hinting that it's motivated by racism (I'm not saying you've done that), is a dishonest way to close down discussion, and doesn't recognise that other people of colour have different experiences, and can hold different view e.g. Mariane Pearl.
Click to expand...
Ok. I officially give up. You've missed the point. Again. Why blacking up is not ok. You're not helping and you're not able to see why it is that you're not.

Sorry, other people on this thread - I've only just caught up with you!
 
Mation said:
Ok. I officially give up. You've missed the point. Again. Why blacking up is not ok. You're not helping and you're not able to see why it is that you're not.

Sorry, other people on this thread - I've only just caught up with you!
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; rather, I don't agree with it. I don't think that the most effective way to combat racism is to refuse to speak certain truths; you seem to, at least insofar as this truth goes. I think that plays into the hands of those who claim that anti-racism is bad because it is anti-merititocracy. You think otherwise, and yours is a perfectly sensible position, but not one to which I subscribe. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why your now championing meritocracy. Even GCSE sociology students know that it reproduces current inequalities. Worse than that it blames people who don't rise to the top for being stupid and lazy.
 
Spanky Longhorn said:
Athos is not worth debating with, he never responds properly - he cannot defend his position or surrender it. He will never understand basic solidarity or openness to alternative points of view to the dominant narrative.
Click to expand...

I've defended my position, and responded at length to the welter of opposing views. And I've done so notwithstanding that I've been called names, lied about, had irrelevant threads resurrected to score cheap points, and even told that someone would like to do me physical harm - not especially solidaristic acts. No, I've not surrendered my position on this issue, but have changed my mind on others - I'm not too proud to change my mind when I'm shown the error of my ways; I am too proud to be bullied into it. All I've done is posit an alternative to the dominant narrative on this thread!
 
poptyping said:
I don't know why your now championing meritocracy. Even GCSE sociology students know that it reproduces current inequalities. Worse than that it blames people who don't rise to the top for being stupid and lazy.
Click to expand...

I haven't championed it. I explained that it forms the basis of a lot of criticism of anti-racism.
 
Athos said:
I've defended my position, and responded at length to the welter of opposing views. And I've done so notwithstanding that I've been called names, lied about, had irrelevant threads resurrected to score cheap points, and even told that someone would like to do me physical harm - not especially solidaristic acts. No, I've not surrendered my position on this issue, but have changed my mind on others - I'm not too proud to change my mind when I'm shown the error of my ways; I am too proud to be bullied into it. All I've done is posit an alternative to the dominant narrative on this thread!
Click to expand...
when will poor whitey catch a break?
 
Spanky Longhorn said:
actually no, that's exactly what that post deserved.
Click to expand...

Bollocks is it. I've never complained about the plight of white people. Quite the opposite: I've acknowledged and condemned the racism from which black people suffer in Hollywood. I was merely pointing out that your criticism of a lack of solidarity on my part is hypocritical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yossarian
Hollywood actors strike
Replies
13
Views
648
bcuster
bcuster
Orang Utan
Live Stand Up Comedy Recommendations
Replies
16
Views
431
Orang Utan
Orang Utan
JimW
David Attenborough's time will never be up
Replies
14
Views
464
Raheem
Raheem
scifisam
Why do so many films set in London pretend everyone relies on cars?
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
FridgeMagnet
FridgeMagnet
S
World Book Day (for the grown ups)
Replies
29
Views
752
StoneRoad
StoneRoad
Back
Top Bottom