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.
One Youtuber commented a interesting point then I thought it might be worth to share.
Quote:
@johnbabylon7626
It could have been funny... In another time. Like, back in the 90s when we could all make fun of each other and everyone just laughed.
I wasn't going to comment on this because I'm not going to see it unless it comes to Netflix or Hulu, but I'm seeing general articles about how bad it is. And on IMDB.Com it's got a 2.6 out of 10 (Ghostbusters 2016, albeit with an all-star cast, has 6.8 out of 10). All the reviews seem to be overwhelmingly negative, like the movies' only chance is to become a "so bad it's good" cult classic, but that's probably a stretch.
The subject of race relations can be handled in a thoughtful way, as with 1995's White Man's Burden.
Eh, I think that kinda misses the point. The point as I understand it is to show the degree of psychological accommodation required by Black people to fit into a society where they are seen as an "other." The whole idea is to expand the conception of "violence" beyond the literal violence where people are getting blasted with water hoses, extra-judicially murdered, etc. Though you could also say that there is a literal violence (i.e., police brutality) that this accommodation helps Black people escape as well.
Gen Z and Millennial blacks are also pointing out that the protagonist isn't black anyway. The new thing for their generation is to deny "blackness" to biracial people. That's becoming a bigger and bigger issue, and many of these young people reject the movie for that reason.
As a Boomer, that strikes me wrong...but that's because times have changed, and I acknowledge the factors younger black people are pointing to.
When I was young during Jim Crow era biracial people were relatively rare. Interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states and discouraged by the strongest social measures everywhere else. White people who married black essentially lost their "white cards" and were treated by society as though they were black. Their children were considered black, period--no question, no argument, that's the way it was. "Biracial" had no social meaning in America.
That didn't begin to change until after Loving v Virginia made interracial marriage legal in all states and the general Civil Rights Era changes began to take hold. White mothers married to black men got to keep their "white cards," and by the 1980s they decided they didn't want to call their children "black." It was only in the latter 80s and into the 90s that "biracial" came to have a social meaning in the US, and that was propelled by white women.
What young black people today have recognized is that "biracial" has become "black" in many settings, particularly in the media but also in the corporate world. "Biracial" is turning into a "buffer race" between black and white, and a lot of young black people are protesting it.
So, those young black people reject the premise of this movie based on the protagonist. First, why should he be uncomfortable to the point of ineffectiveness around white people...when half his family tree is white? Maybe that is a story in itself (the actor Jesse Williams has such a story), but it can't be an automatic assumption.
What young black people today have recognized is that "biracial" has become "black" in many settings, particularly in the media but also in the corporate world. "Biracial" is turning into a "buffer race" between black and white, and a lot of young black people are protesting it.
Interesting. I can see that they have a smidgen of a point, but ...
What is the solution? Do we go to the opposite extreme and deny biracial people their blackness? Or do we start calculating the percentage of everyone's heritage? That seems ... creepy. And weird. And wrong. When you start treating people like dogs and race horses to determine their "acceptable purity," something has gone seriously wrong.
As an amateur student of history, I admit I find our culture's obsession with race very strange. It isn't without precedent in history, but it is always a symptom of a deeper disease.
Interesting. I can see that they have a smidgen of a point, but ...
What is the solution? Do we go to the opposite extreme and deny biracial people their blackness? Or do we start calculating the percentage of everyone's heritage? That seems ... creepy. And weird. And wrong. When you start treating people like dogs and race horses to determine their "acceptable purity," something has gone seriously wrong.
As an amateur student of history, I admit I find our culture's obsession with race very strange. It isn't without precedent in history, but it is always a symptom of a deeper disease.
Deny biracial people their blackness? Young biracial people mostly deny their own blackness. That is, they deny being categorized as black. It's been noted that the tendency for a biracial person to identify as black depends first on age (over 50...childhood before "biracial" had any social recognition) and then whether the mother was black (biracials with black mothers are more likely to identify as black). Only about 3% have black mothers (based on the percentage of black women married to white men).
Most young biracial people themselves don't identify as black. And, as I mentioned, the American majority is not consistent about it, either.
My daughter has an interesting perspective. She's as light-skinned as most biracials, but with two unambiguously black parents (my wife and I both have fairly recent white ancestors. I'm 20% Scottish, my wife is 25% Scottish. The genetic dice roll that way sometimes). Her facial features and hair are, however, firmly African-American. Even then, she had issues in high school in the early 2000s from unambiguously black classmates who presumed she was biracial.
In the past, black people could have light skin just as my daughter does and not be presumed biracial because, as I've said, interracial marriage was extremely rare and we all understood the genetic dice sometimes rolled that way. Today, the first presumption is that they're biracial, and this presumption is made by both black and white people.
And it does make a difference...biracial people are treated differently today in social settings by both whites and the unambiguously black. It's been that way all this century. My daughter has noted, to her chagrin, that she has been given "biracial privilege" in her workplace, the presumption that one of her parents is white, so therefore she's "closer" to being white herself. I guess the fact that we've spent our lives in mostly white settings as a family obscures it even more in her demeanor and behavior.
So, it makes a difference in how this movie is perceived as well. The writer tries to glide over the biraciality aspect as though it's the same as being unambiguously black...but it isn't. At least, that premise is not acceptable at all to young unambiguously black people.
The writer wants to take the old-school view of the One Drop Rule (an intent clearly visible...look at the difference between the protagonist and the rest of the unambiguously black Association members), but a large portion of the audience of all colors isn't buying it.
There is probably a great story to be told about different aspects of biraciality...an update, perhaps, of "Imitation of Life." Maybe there is a good romcom out there about a biracial man whose mother is white meeting a biracial woman whose mother is black, and something novel can be told about how a black-identifying biracial gets on with a non-black identifying biracial that would be an eye-opener for all of us mono-racials. Now that I think of it, in the hands of a good writer, that premise might be as successful as "Crazy Rich Asians."
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 03-22-2024 at 09:45 AM..
And you have the right to do so. But you're also 1 of 46,936,733 Black Americans. There is no one opinion on the matter.
And so, where does the concept of "expansion of violence beyond literal violence" ultimately take us? Let's apply it across the board.
We put people in prison for literal violence...do we do the same when we expand the concept of violence beyond literal violence? Britain already does so...and has actually imprisoned people for social media tweats. Is that where we go?
Deny biracial people their blackness? Young biracial people mostly deny their own blackness. That is, they deny being categorized as black.
Really??? I find that very surprising --- but that is because it is so beyond my experience. Growing up, I knew exactly one person with a black father and white mother. All of the other biracial friends I had were half Mexican and half white. (And before the progressives chide me for using the word "Mexican," that is what my friends called themselves. They get rather humorously offended when people call them "Hispanic" or "Latino." Their heritage is Mexican and they are proud of it.)
Thanks for sharing your experience. Extremely interesting!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
There is probably a great story to be told about different aspects of biraciality...an update, perhaps, of "Imitation of Life." Maybe there is a good romcom out there about a biracial man whose mother is white meeting a biracial woman whose mother is black, and something novel can be told about how a black-identifying biracial gets on with a non-black identifying biracial that would be an eye-opener for all of us mono-racials. Now that I think of it, in the hands of a good writer, that premise might be as successful as "Crazy Rich Asians."
All of the other biracial friends I had were half Mexican and half white. (And before the progressives chide me for using the word "Mexican," that is what my friends called themselves. They get rather humorously offended when people call them "Hispanic" or "Latino." Their heritage is Mexican and they are proud of it.)
That's another complex story. And down here in Texas I know some "Tejanos"--Mexicans whose families were here when the land was still Mexico--and they have a whole different story.
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.
