Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why is 'browning up' acceptable in Hollywood?

'Mixed' is sometimes subdivided on the forms into black and white British, black and white Irish etc to make sure nobody is able to avoid being put in some kind of category or other.
You can avoid it by leaving that question blank. It's self-identifying, too. The police have to record ethnicity in their business with people (rightly so, imo), but they have to record what the people themselves say they are, not what they (the police) think they are (also rightly so, imo).
 
Choosing an actor isn't the same process as finding the best bus driver or the best neurosurgeon. There are objective criteria for those.

An actor is chosen at least in part because the actor will best conform to the writer and/or director's vision of how the character should be portrayed. A film is a creative piece, and a determination of what elements will best enhance the creative piece will be subjective to the directing minds.

Choosing actors is like choosing tints in a landscape painting - it's possible to argue after the fact whether or not the painter should have employed different tints - but the painter chose to express herself in the manner that ultimately appears on the canvas.

"You know, dammit John!! - This is the best goddarned script I've seen since 'The Nativity 3 - Dude, Where's My Donkey', and my ass is quite literally on the line, but whatever central casting are saying, we're not having that Ejiofor idiot come in and screw this up - the writer, creative director and me ALL agree it's a blacked-up Jason Statham or nothing!!" :mad:
 
Really good article here on Charles Mills talking about why the 'ideal' approach to thinking about justice is flawed

http://www.demos.org/blog/11/20/14/charles-mills-white-liberalism
I would think that argument works really quite well for somewhere like the UK if you substitute 'working class' for 'black'. Privilege reproduces itself generation upon generation. Perfectly equal civil rights barely dent that.

For me, the word missing from this kind of debate in the US – the elephant in the room – is socialism.
 
That has to be the most long-winded, Pseud's Corner way of saying "we're not starting from scratch" that I've ever seen. :D

Yeah the kind of thing that several people in this thread have said in 4 lines or less, but it's the sort of the argument the philosopher idiots demand
 
Egypt has banned a Hollywood film based on the Biblical book of Exodus because of what censors described as "historical inaccuracies".
The head of the censorship board said these included the film's depiction of Jews as having built the Pyramids, and that an earthquake, not a miracle by Moses, caused the Red Sea to part.
has anyone seen it?
Slaves built the pyramids -id imagine that included Jews

and an earthquake is legally an act of god so....
 
Wage labourers largely built the pyramids. Among the first in history - as their anti-boss graffiti and strike record (first ever recorded) attests.
is that so! bastard hollywood tricked me on that one.

one quick google comes up with this:

"We also know quite a lot about the labor force that built the pyramids. The best estimates are that 10,000 men spent 30 years building the Great Pyramid. They lived in good housing at the foot of the pyramid, and when they died, they received honored burials in stone tombs near the pyramid in thanks for their contribution. This information is relatively new, as the first of these worker tombs was only discovered in 1990. They ate well and received the best medical care. And, also unlike slaves, they were well paid.

The pyramid builders were recruited from poor communities and worked shifts of three months (including farmers who worked during the months when the Nile flooded their farms), distributing the pharaoh's wealth out to where it was needed most. Each day, 21 cattle and 23 sheep were slaughtered to feed the workers, enough for each man to eat meat at least weekly. Virtually every fact about the workers that archaeology has shown us rules out the use of slave labor on the pyramids.

It wasn't until almost 2,000 years after the Great Pyramid received its capstone that the earliest known record shows evidence of Jews in Egypt, and they were neither Hebrews nor Israelites. They were a garrison of soldiers from the Persian Empire, stationed on Elephantine, an island in the Nile, beginning in about 650 BCE. They fought alongside the Pharaoh's soldiers in the Nubian campaign, and later became the principal trade portal between Egypt and Nubia. Their history is known from the Elephantine Papyri discovered in 1903, which are in Aramaic, not Hebrew; and their religious beliefs appear to have been a mixture of Judaism and pagan polytheism. Archival records recovered include proof that they observed Shabbat and Passover, and also records of interfaith marriages. In perhaps the strangest reversal from pop pseudohistory, the papyri include evidence that at least some of the Jewish settlers at Elephantine owned Egyptian slaves.

Other documentation also identifies the Elephantine garrison as the earliest immigration of Jews into Egypt. The Letter of Aristeas, written in Greece in the second century BCE, records that Jews had been sent into Egypt to assist Pharaoh Psammetichus I in his campaign against the Nubians. Psammetichus I ruled Egypt from 664 to 610 BCE, which perfectly matches the archaeological dating of the Elephantine garrison in 650.
"
goes on http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191
 
I don't know if this is of interest at all: http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/post/102462986268/rzzmg-via-saladin-ahmed-im-sorry-but-this

A bunch of statistics about diversity in various types of media.

For example:

Scifi-Movie-Infographic-768x1024.jpg

100 top grossing sci-fi films in 2014 or of all time?

Protagonist with a disability in the film, or an actor with an actual disability?
 
100 top grossing sci-fi films in 2014 or of all time?

Protagonist with a disability in the film, or an actor with an actual disability?
If I were to guess, it would be of all time as there is unlikely to be 100 sci-if films released in 2014. I would also guess that the disability is acted, perhaps the lead actor in Avatar who starts off in a wheelchair.
 
If I were to guess, it would be of all time as there is unlikely to be 100 sci-if films released in 2014. I would also guess that the disability is acted, perhaps the lead actor in Avatar who starts off in a wheelchair.

What about the X-Men movies? They mustn't be counting Charles Xavier as the protagonist, but come on, he's the leader of the good guys!
 
in typical sf fantasy/style the disabled xavier has magic powers that make his disability almost irrelevant
 
Just seen a rare instance of blacking up in an American tv series, ep 9 season 9 of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, in which Mac and Dee play Murtaugh and his daughter in Lethal Weapon 6. The characters are supposed to be crass, insensitive, offensive and just all round awful people though.
 
Looks like dear Apu is coming in for negative attention. There's been a documentary made about him being a negative stereotype.

I have mixed feelings, whilst I can definitely see their point, he's such a sweet loveable character. I can't say I'd be too upset if they got rid of him, as I haven't watched new Simpsons for years.
It will definitely be interesting to see what they do, as no one wants to be branded racist. However, if they removed the comical stereotypes from the Simpsons they'd have to lose a few other characters. Cletus and his family would be history
 
Last edited:
Surely - like many characters in the Simpson’s - Apu is a commentary on the stereotypes. Much like Krusty.
 
Surely - like many characters in the Simpson’s - Apu is a commentary on the stereotypes. Much like Krusty.
Plus also he's quite a nuanced character with a backstory and personal problems and definite character traits.
When they came to London they portrayed Englishmen as repressed homosexuals with bad teeth :D
 
Back
Top Bottom