On Television, Cinema and Race

Seth wrote:
Seth, on December 19th wrote:

haha. Cynics are already saying that the timing of his suspension -- a day before one of the biggest shopping holidays of the year -- is manipulation to sell a WHOLE LOT of Duck Dynamo stuff before Christmas, and then they'll reinstate him to the show at the end of the year to drum up more publicity so all that gift card money can go to Duck Dynamo mousepads.

That's the judgment of the cynics, anyway. :)

two days after Christmas, Phil gets his job back.

"We sure showed Hollywood by giving Hollywood millions and millions of dollars."

Paleocon wrote:
Malor wrote:

Well, the Civil War was fought about state's rights *too*, but it was a lesser issue than slavery.

Losing that concept was a high price to pay, and I wish we'd figured out how to eliminate slavery without making states quite so subservient to the Federal government. The original concept for the US was to be a lot more like the European Union, a federation of nations with a unified external front, but with different social policies... each, basically, being a separate experiment in how best to organize a (smaller) country.

That idea, sadly, died in fire, and I wish it hadn't.

See though, whenever anyone brings up the state's rights thing in my experience, it is never really about state's rights. I know this because the very same folks who scream the loudest about it now are the very same ones who want a constitutional amendment to keep icky gay folks from legitimating their sin. It's just when the feds start talking about letting those colored folks vote that state's rights falls into that category of romantic ideal again.

It was about state's rights.

The state's right to keep and maintain slaves.

On the serious tip, whenever confederate apologists suggest it wasn't about slavery I always point them to Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech (delivered at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia on March 21, 1861) in addition to the Declaration of Causes for any of the Confederate States.

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens wrote:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

Mississippi Declaration of Causes wrote:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

It's stomach turning just how disconnected the Confederacy was with the concept of blacks being human beings. It wasn't even a remote idea. Not even considered. Most of the other Confederate States' Declaration of Clauses are far more verbose than Mississippi's and just as nauseating.

FSeven wrote:

It's stomach turning just how disconnected the Confederacy was with the concept of blacks being human beings. It wasn't even a remote idea. Not even considered. Most of the other Confederate States' Declaration of Clauses are far more verbose than Mississippi's and just as nauseating.

It's not an idea you can go in on halfway. If slaves were even close to human beings, then all of the things that slave owners were doing to them made them horrible, terrible people. So they chose the option that didn't make them horrible, terrible people, regardless of the reality. I find that humans are disappointingly quick to engage in that kind of behavior.

kazooka wrote:
FSeven wrote:

It's stomach turning just how disconnected the Confederacy was with the concept of blacks being human beings. It wasn't even a remote idea. Not even considered. Most of the other Confederate States' Declaration of Clauses are far more verbose than Mississippi's and just as nauseating.

It's not an idea you can go in on halfway. If slaves were even close to human beings, then all of the things that slave owners were doing to them made them horrible, terrible people. So they chose the option that didn't make them horrible, terrible people, regardless of the reality. I find that humans are disappointingly quick to engage in that kind of behavior.

It is sickening how quickly we can justify otherwise horrific acts by dehumanizing the ones acted upon.

Nomad wrote:
kazooka wrote:
FSeven wrote:

It's stomach turning just how disconnected the Confederacy was with the concept of blacks being human beings. It wasn't even a remote idea. Not even considered. Most of the other Confederate States' Declaration of Clauses are far more verbose than Mississippi's and just as nauseating.

It's not an idea you can go in on halfway. If slaves were even close to human beings, then all of the things that slave owners were doing to them made them horrible, terrible people. So they chose the option that didn't make them horrible, terrible people, regardless of the reality. I find that humans are disappointingly quick to engage in that kind of behavior.

It is sickening how quickly we can justify otherwise horrific acts by dehumanizing the ones acted upon.

IMAGE(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002511375/5cd764846666812f9ccf9fc5f8f8f250_answer_1_xlarge.png)

Taking away people's autonomy sounds pretty horrific to me, I agree.

What the f*ck thread am I in?

Seth wrote:

What the f*ck thread am I in?

"On Television, Cinema and Race, and Passive-Aggressively Trying to Win Arguments I Couldn't Back Up in the Thread That Was About Them So I Ejected Myself From But Don't Want to be Slapped on the Wrist For Not Sticking to My Flounce Since That's Proven to be One of the Mod's Major Peeves."

Of course, we shortened it down to "On Television, Cinema and Race" for brevity's sake, but it has caused some confusion.

It's stomach turning just how disconnected the Confederacy was with the concept of blacks being human beings.

Unless it was about how many human beings lived in a state when it came time to determine representation, then we gotta count them so we don't have fewer votes in the House! *eyeroll*

For my brief time teaching, my students had real difficulty understanding this until I finally told them, look, this sh*t was stupid. Seriously stupid. Don't expect it to make sense, except in that people in states with a lot of slaves wanted to have more votes to make things their way.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:

What the f*ck thread am I in?

"On Television, Cinema and Race, and Passive-Aggressively Trying to Win Arguments I Couldn't Back Up in the Thread That Was About Them So I Ejected Myself From But Don't Want to be Slapped on the Wrist For Not Sticking to My Flounce Since That's Proven to be One of the Mod's Major Peeves."

Of course, we shortened it down to "On Television, Cinema and Race" for brevity's sake, but it has caused some confusion.

For all that this is Female Doggoy and passive-aggressive, I admit, I lol'd.

Spoiler:

Extra points for the word "flounce".

self-edit: Not necessary. Will save it for the right thread. Sorry.

IMAGE(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/fe/fe6e47d4f96b82d947c56de2fe47efa508236ba1c07998cda00bbd6ae1b010aa.jpg)

I never once even mentioned any other threads and all of a sudden there is a bunch of excitement over a post about a solid general principle about how dehumanization leads to the the justification of atrocity.

Spoiler:

Even if said post could rationally apply to the other thread it still 100% applies as well to slavery in the context of the Civil War. I made no reference to the abortion thread.

Since our Duck Dynasty talk has mostly happened here, let me give you one of the best headlines ever:

http://jezebel.com/phil-robertson-an...

NathanialG wrote:

Since our Duck Dynasty talk has mostly happened here, let me give you one of the best headlines ever:

http://jezebel.com/phil-robertson-an...

The comments focusing on how phony these guys are kinda make me laugh. I mean, anyone who thinks reality TV is actual reality isn't really here on planet Earth, but man. That's some next-level bullcrap. And the best part is that these guys keep smiling and shoveling it around even though it's plain as day it's fake. Granted, there are still people eating it up, I guess. I suppose it's not impossible all those photos were photoshopped, but I've seen plenty of people immediately say "nope, fake photos" without even taking a moment to consider the possibility they're real. They're able to somehow live with a mentality that spreading fake photos to fool people is possible, but reality TV being doctored to hell isn't. Meanwhile, these guys just keep repeating the same scripted stuff as if they're pulling off the great ruse unnoticed.

I guess it just boggles me how people just think they can just stick to such an obviously fabricated veneer when they get called on their crap.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I guess it just boggles me how people just think they can just stick to such an obviously fabricated veneer when they get called on their crap.

They think that way because it is working.

NathanialG wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I guess it just boggles me how people just think they can just stick to such an obviously fabricated veneer when they get called on their crap.

They think that way because it is working.

No, I get that part. I guess I'm just disappointed in ... I dunno. The lack of craftsmanship? Something like that. Clearly it's working, but I guess it's just more me being sad that "Well, someone noticed the lie... just keep repeating the lie," is so effective. I'm less boggled that people do it and more boggled that we're in the situation where people can think that and it's fine.

Isn't there an Eddie Murphy bit and subsequent shaggy song about that?

Is Phil in any of those photos?

Seth wrote:

Isn't there an Eddie Murphy bit and subsequent shaggy song about that?

Hiphop is like the Cliffnotes version of humanity's discontent.

4xis.black wrote:
Seth wrote:

Isn't there an Eddie Murphy bit and subsequent shaggy song about that?

Hiphop is like the Cliffnotes version of humanity's discontent.

I love this statement very much.

Bloo Driver wrote:
4xis.black wrote:
Seth wrote:

Isn't there an Eddie Murphy bit and subsequent shaggy song about that?

Hiphop is like the Cliffnotes version of humanity's discontent.

I love this statement very much.

Seriously. People act like it's JUST THE NEGROES who came up with this abhorrent "F*ck B*tches, Get Money" concept. Ignoring the hit movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio that could be fairly summed up as just that, of course.

(Seriously, click the link. It's NSFW music, but the video it's set to made my year when I found it.)

This isn't quite television and cinema, but it's something that's been bothering me lately as a kind of subterranean aspect of pop culture. Y'all know that song by Lorde? Royals? At least part of the reason the song is popular or curious or what have you is because it's a 16-year-old white girl singing lyrics more typically associated with rap culture, which in many peoples' minds is synonymous with African-American culture. I really don't like this quite clearly racialized product is exploited for commercial gain and doesn't have anything interesting or thoughtful to say about stereotypes. Plus, I'm curious about whether a young black girl who sings about yachting or colonial-style homes or 401(k)s or whatever would get the same sort of treatment.

By the way, this is a societal issue and not something to blame Lorde for at all. Indeed, I'm really surprised and heartened by her reaction to the claims of racism. She seems to welcome the discussion and admits that they reflect a more ignorant (15-year-old) self. Of course, she also says in the same interview that this realization came about because it was writers that she respects and not just YouTube commenters who were levying the complaints. One has to wonder how many of those writers were people of color.

Seth wrote:

It's a satire on hip hop culture. A pox on everyone who misses the f*cking joke.

What's the satire?

It's a satire on hip hop culture. A pox on everyone who misses the f*cking joke.

To your point: it's popular because 1) the harmonies are tailor made for popularity, 2) the bass line is catchy, and 3) it's easily parodied by college a Capella groups. Clearly, given that no one pays attention to the lyrics (see rant in previous paragraph), the words themselves are very low on the list of reasons why it's popular.

Compare it to Springsteen's song Born in the USA, and how awesomely misinterpreted that song is.

ratzofftoya wrote:
Seth wrote:

It's a satire on hip hop culture. A pox on everyone who misses the f*cking joke.

What's the satire?

Satire is actually too strong. It's a staunchly anti-consumerist song that has been wrongfully interpreted as being pro consumerist.

Seth wrote:
ratzofftoya wrote:
Seth wrote:

It's a satire on hip hop culture. A pox on everyone who misses the f*cking joke.

What's the satire?

Satire is actually too strong. It's a staunchly anti-consumerist song that has been wrongfully interpreted as being pro consumerist.

Yeah, let's take a look at this for a moment -

I've never seen a diamond in the flesh
I cut my teeth on wedding rings in the movies
And I'm not proud of my address,
In a torn-up town, no postcode envy

But every song's like gold teeth, grey goose, trippin' in the bathroom
Blood stains, ball gowns, trashin' the hotel room,
We don't care, we're driving Cadillacs in our dreams.
But everybody's like Cristal, Maybach, diamonds on your timepiece.
Jet planes, islands, tigers on a gold leash.
We don't care, we aren't caught up in your love affair.

That is pretty obviously not "yay rap lyrics hooray!"

And also, if the tension is because a white girl is skewering (or whatever-ing) rap culture, people should have been more angry about Gwen Stefani or something.

Where are you seeing tension over the lyrics or whatever?

Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:
ratzofftoya wrote:
Seth wrote:

It's a satire on hip hop culture. A pox on everyone who misses the f*cking joke.

What's the satire?

Satire is actually too strong. It's a staunchly anti-consumerist song that has been wrongfully interpreted as being pro consumerist.

Yeah, let's take a look at this for a moment -

I've never seen a diamond in the flesh
I cut my teeth on wedding rings in the movies
And I'm not proud of my address,
In a torn-up town, no postcode envy

But every song's like gold teeth, grey goose, trippin' in the bathroom
Blood stains, ball gowns, trashin' the hotel room,
We don't care, we're driving Cadillacs in our dreams.
But everybody's like Cristal, Maybach, diamonds on your timepiece.
Jet planes, islands, tigers on a gold leash.
We don't care, we aren't caught up in your love affair.

That is pretty obviously not "yay rap lyrics hooray!"

And also, if the tension is because a white girl is skewering (or whatever-ing) rap culture, people should have been more angry about Gwen Stefani or something.

I don't think it's "yay rap lyrics hooray." I do think that it's highly-commercialized cultural appropriation. I really think that it not credible to say that this girl's age and race, when juxtaposed with the lyrics, are a significant part of why this is popular or relevant.

And it's not just the appropriation that bothers me (a la Gwen Stefani). I think that there's deliberate irony at play here, whereas there isn't with Stefani. Anybody should make any kind of music they want, and exploring another music's culture through your culture's lens is really great and valuable. It's the fact that Lorde is making fun of the lyrics, which are so identified with the hip hop lifestyle. I think it's pretty analogous to the heavy use of modern urban slang, diction, and grammar by Franklin and company in GTA V, which is constantly met with ridicule by every one of the white characters in the game.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

Where are you seeing tension over the lyrics or whatever?

I think ratz if following some accusations like this one.

I don't but it and in fact think this guy has a pretty good rebuttal to the Royals is racist argument.

Badferret wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

Where are you seeing tension over the lyrics or whatever?

I think ratz if following some accusations like this one.

I don't but it and in fact think this guy has a pretty good rebuttal to the Royals is racist argument.

Not quite, although I do think this is problematic. (On the issue of the rebuttal--what? Saying that white pop artists also have similar lyrics somehow insulates this from being racist? That might make a little bit of sense if the very pop songs that he was talking were not heavily informed by hip hop culture, which is absolutely associated with a particular race. Miley Cyrus, as some writers have put it, likes to "play black" because it's fun once in a while. She can, at any time, escape this assumed identity and still be a white person and go back to singing country, no questions asked).

What I don't like is the fact that the song trades on the irony of identity juxtaposition. I just find that a little gross.