Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well one would be nice because I would be hard-pressed to remember any on Seinfeld. I have to wonder do some people genuinely want to keep non-whites being featured on shows with predominantly white casts.
Do you even know what a WASP is? Jews and Italians aren't WASPs. There were Chinese, black, Pakistani, Cuban and Puerto Rican characters on Seinfeld and that's just the groups I can think of off the top of my head.
There is no quota, I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to have a show in a city like New York City where nearly the entire cast is white. That would be like having a diverse cast in a show taking place in a rural area in Tennessee, which half this forum is complaining about
Do Jews and Italians count as white? I would say that is up to debate.
Do Jews and Italians count as white? I would say that is up to debate.
WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
So basically light-skinned non-Catholic Christians of British heritage.
So no, by definition neither Jews nor Italians would count as WASPs. There is nothing to debate there.
Whether they count as white is a totally different debate. In the USA, generally the answer is yes.
Has this thread seriously devolved into counting individual characters on individual shows, even debating whether individual characters are "white"?
Incidentally, my comments earlier on segregation still stand. It's still quite possible (even if not common) to find neighborhoods in New York City or Los Angeles where all the residents are white, so an all-white cast is still somewhat realistic. Even more realistic for shows set 25 years ago such as Seinfeld. Same for neighborhoods/TV shows where the vast majority of residents/characters are Asian, or black. As mentioned, it's the artificial insertion of random ethnicities/races into locations where they would not appear in real life that is jarring.
Last edited by An Einnseanair; 06-23-2017 at 10:44 AM..
Actually, in the beginning the 'land mass we call America' was not populated by humans, and then the paleo-Indian migration took place. Populations arrived, migrated, and were displaced.
What an extremely nitpicky comment. That is a bit like saying that "actually Europe was empty before it was settled by Africans." You know exactly what was meant and chose to ignore it to act smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diws
Not at all on day 1. But then, such concepts as 'white' were far in the future.
Just because current racial concepts did not yet exist doesn't mean that there wasn't differentiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diws
Yes, for 14 years in Texas' case, and 24 years for the rest. And Mexico didn't control most of its northern frontier.
This statement isn't quite correct Mexican control of it's northern territories was hardly consistent. There were periods of stronger control and periods of weaker control. Settlement also wasn't always consistent New Mexico for example was heavily hispanic when it entered the USA while Texas was more mixed.
Furthermore I'm unsure why this matters given that the USA didn't really have strong control of large swaths of their frontier at the time either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diws
Sure, it was diverse, only not in the modern sense. There were Gaelic-speaking frontiersmen, Irish, Germans, etc. - plenty of diversity under the category of 'white'. Hell, the Confederacy had a Jewish Secretary of State. But Anglos had most of the power and were dominatingly influential in culture.
Actually it was quite diverse in the modern sense. At the time of the civil people of African descent made up half or more of the population in many areas of the south. Furthermore you have already established that modern racial concepts do not matter... America has always been diverse given the racial categorization of the time.
Furthermore your assertion that Anglo culture was dominant throughout US history is only true of certain areas like New England. There were areas of the midwest where people of Scandinavian descent, for example, made up a majority of the population and maintained their own traditions and language until quite recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diws
America was overwhelmingly 'white' both demographically and culturally. Nonwhites had a presence in culture, though. And people identifying themselves primarily by their sexuality did not happen on a large scale until the late 20th century.
I find it odd that you are proposing that there is some sort of traditional white culture given your insistence of looking at things through the perspective of a given time frame. You are certainly inconsistent with your historical relativism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diws
I think that many people object to the mandated and artificial nature of the change - it is not happening organically. Other posters earlier in the thread have done a good job of explaining some of this.
Bull****. Of coure it is happening organically. In fact immigration quotas, border walls, etc. are completely inorganic. The natural state of humans is freedom of movement and migration, a point you yourself made early in this same post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diws
So, how about this? Instead of committing historical imperialism by judging the past by the standards of the present (and a subset of the present at that), why don't we look at the past in such a way that we transcend our agendas? That we see our forbears as neither angels nor demons? And that we allow diversity now to run its course, without attempts at social engineering and manufacturing outrage? That we cease the dehumanizing and anti-intellectual practice of identity politics?
It seems to me like you are only against identity politics when it involves certain identities. White people complaining about race or straight people complaining about the gays is also identity politics.
They forget the fact that the reason most of their favorite heroes (or whoever they are whining about being portrayed as something other than carbon copies of themselves) are white males is because THAT IS WHAT SOLD. There is no key reason to the plot that most comic book heroes or whoever need to be white males; that decision was made based solely on economics
This is very much somewhat true TODAY. I would even posit it doesn't have as much to do about marketing to white men than it does to women of all races. Women of all races are almost uniformly attracted to white men, whereas men are a bit more diverse in who they find attractive. A Chris Pratt will be marketable in South America, Asia, Europe, etc, whereas a John Cho or John Boyega will not sell the same.
They forget the fact that the reason most of their favorite heroes (or whoever they are whining about being portrayed as something other than carbon copies of themselves) are white males is because THAT IS WHAT SOLD. There is no key reason to the plot that most comic book heroes or whoever need to be white males; that decision was made based solely on economics or the whims of the white male (big shock) writer... because only white male writers could get stuff published back then. Well, guess what - people other than white males can publish their works and have money now, too, so it should be no shock when characters are portrayed as something else.
I'd have some respect for them if their whining wasn't so outlandish and unreasonable. Prime example - the most recent Star Wars movies. I've run into several right-wings who are ticked off that both movies had a strong female lead. Oh, the horror! Women should clearly be barefoot and in the kitchen - or wearing a gold bikini as a slave girl - and not actually relevant to the plot. The stupid part - in both movies (Episode 7 and Rogue One), strong male leads still outnumbered women vastly, and there was only 1 or 2 non-alien, non-white guy in both movies (Finn, black, Episode 7, and the black cyborg and the Asian blind force user in Rogue One.) When they lose it over ANYBODY other than white males being shown as heroes or leaders in popular entertainment, you know it's just bigotry, and can't be respected as a serious opinion. Heck, I'd bet Lando Calrissian didn't see this level of hatred when he debuted; sad how far things have shifted back towards crazy in recent years.
IN terms of selling point, one another weird thing came to my mind is Super bowl. Brady achieving a super human comeback or his model wife on screen for a couple of seconds was profitable for both the brands than the poor Black Falcon guy winning or his normal family ( or even single mom) appearing on screen. It can
Do Jews and Italians count as white? I would say that is up to debate.
I don't think so. One defines an ethno-religious group, the other defines a nationality. Ethnicity, religion or nationality does not define race. Jews and Italians might be people of any race.
Do Jews and Italians count as white? I would say that is up to debate.
I would disagree for the most part, as Northern Italians are often blond and blue-eyed, and I have known several Jews with reddish hair and light skin.
This is another example of why I think the it is borders on silly (for lack of a better word that comes to mind) to try to label or categorize people based on skin color, or even -- often -- ancestry.
Seinfeld has been mentioned several times, but no one has pointed out a fact that I believe is very important, namely, that Seinfeld was a show made for and marketed to white people. I don't remember this idea being put forward on the thread in its full form, but all media is made for an audience. Of course, any director/actor/etc would love to see everyone in America watch (and pay for) their work, but that does not happen. Because an important part of diversity is being overlooked. Diversity is not something as trivial as the color of one's skin or the appearance of one's genitalia, it involves different culture, viewpoints, mindsets, desires, etc. To take the most talked about division in America (i.e. black/white), black and white people have different tastes in many areas including music, shows, games, food, and clothes. I, of course, am not trying to say that every individual in each group shares exactly the same tastes, but there are broad, general differences.
Going back to my point about Seinfeld, the show was made for a white sense of humor, Seinfeld's observations about life, are about white, middle to upper class, New York City life in the 90s. Putting more black, Hispanic, or Asian cast members wouldn't have changed that. Putting the main character of the new Star Wars as a black guy hasn't made the African-American population flock to sci-fi as a genre, because they, in general, don't like that kind of movie. Making shows meant for a white audience, have a diverse cast, is a way to make white people feel good about themselves. The show makers inwardly high five themselves for their progressiveness, whilst they have not affected the minority community at all. Black people will still prefer shows like Empire, Hispanics will still prefer soccer and soap operas, and Indians will still enjoy their over the top epics about Hindu mythology.
That being said, it is not generally a bad thing, it is just pointless in most regards. I recently watched Luke Cage on Netflix and really enjoyed it. White people were so irrelevant to the show, they weren't even the bad guys. The only white character was a lame, corrupt police guy. But even though I am white, I still enjoyed the story telling. I did not feel marginalized. However, when you continuously take white male characters and change them just for the sake of diversity, and perhaps to upset conservatives, it does become problematic. For example, if/when Spiderman becomes a minority or a female, the majority of superhero fans will still be nerdy white guys. You will not have helped any other race/gender, but you will have taken away a sort of proxy hero, for every nerdy, picked on, white guy who liked to identify with him.
It has generally been true in the past, and largely remains true today, that if left to their own personal preferences, many (most?) people would cleave to those of similar race and ethnicity to themselves. This could be prejudice, or circumstances of lifestyle, or some combination, or something else entirely. But the fact remains, that in a group of chess players, partiers at a bar, lawyers sitting in a conference-room, women at a ladies’ night out, guys hanging around at the street corner, etc., and so forth, well, the likelihood is that everyone in the group will be white, or everyone will be black, or everyone will be Hispanic, or everyone will be Chinese, etc.
But if we consider a TV commercial, a magazine ad and so forth, there will likely be a panoply of representatives of the various ethnicities, genders, races, national backgrounds, all mingling amongst themselves, in one group. The group, as presented, will be more diverse, than such group is likely to be in real life. Well, to some people this is indication that society is progressing, that our consciousness of what we ought to be, is advancing. To others, this is forced and phony. But whether this is an ideal towards which to aspire, or foolish idealism, it is in either case, I think, a divergence from what is actually observed in real life. This divergence between theory and practice is what in some circles triggers much animosity and vitriol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
