The Point of Anti-Racism Movies

[TheArsenal]

What is the Point?
Racists will not listen because racism is irrational. Its a small form of madness.

And Non Racists Already know about equality.

[0Megabyte]

So, I guess you don't care all that much about personal artistic expression?

You know, expressing a viewpoint that's important to you through an artistic medium?

I mean, many people do so badly, sure, but it's rather ignorant of you to blithely dismiss an entire form of human expression because you don't believe anyone is ever changed through art.

I'm also assuming you've never had a piece of art change your viewpoint on something? I have. Artistic expression is one of the most powerful ways humans have, if not the most powerful, of showing another viewpoint, or eloquently explaining an idea you've never thought of before.

There's a reason some people burn books they disagree with. There's a reason many countries censor their artistic output, and will even imprison someone who creates a work of art they disagree with. Dictators know how powerful art is. Why don't you?

[Forum Explorer]

What is the Point?
Racists will not listen because racism is irrational. Its a small form of madness.

And Non Racists Already know about equality.

They do make a small difference. There are a few racists who are racist due to being raised in that enviroment and have never questioned it. Basically it rubs it in the face of people and says this is unacceptable. Non-racists don't need it, but hopefully the movie has more depth then that, racists will likely ignore it, but there is the (now admittly very small) group of people who haven't thought about how they treat people.


I agree though that those movies will likely need to be cut down on in future years.

[Coidzor]

The young. The storytelling experience. To let people know that we're at least somewhat better now. To remind people not to be lax or let things ever backslide to be that way again. To tell a story of triumph against adversity. Money.

Various reasons. Various goals. Various purposes.

[Sarco_Phage]

If something needs to be said, is it devalued by saying it over and over?

Anyway this probably trips the forum politics line.

[averagejoe]

Such a point of view - that the only types of people which exist are racists and non-racists - is already so vast an oversimplification that any conclusions drawn from such premises are not to be trusted.

Even beyond that, however: the function of stories in society is, at their most basic, to show people life that they may learn how to live. Stories about racism are important because people experience racism, and seeing a story about it lets them know they're not alone, and perhaps shows them how they might deal with it.

They're also important because racism is apart of our history, and to forget that would be foolhardy and dishonest.

You seem to think that it's about converting people to a way of thinking, but it's not. Okay, sometimes it is, but those are rarely good films. And, of course, it doesn't help that critics are quick to praise any film of barely passable quality that seems to be making anything vaguely like a progressive statement. But, at their core, stories about racism are just stories. This happened. My life is average. All stories draw from things that happen in life, and all things that happen in life are made into stories.

There are, of course, situations where racism is a theme shoehorned in to provide false drama, or a centerpiece for a director who wants to appear bold and artistic, but these cases say nothing about the value of the concept as a whole.

[Serpentine]

What's the point of fantasy movies? Dragons don't even exist, so why bother talking about them?

What's the point of movies about sport? The people who like sport already know all about it, and the people who don't won't start liking it just because of a movie.

What's the point of movies with an environmental theme? Environmentalists already care, and anti-environmentalists won't be convinced.

What's the point of movies about space? Only astronaughts will ever go there. So why bother?


Aside from what everyone else has said, because it makes a good story, or can do so. Films are entertainment, conflict drives most stories, and racism is a form of conflict. So there are movies about racism. Because it makes for stories that are good to watch.

[Yora]

There are racists who just want to hate someone for some reason, and then there's a huge number of normal people who cling to very unfair stereotypes about certain groups that makes them treat said people in ways they don't deserve.
In the later case, such people might become aware of their misconceptions and help to get people getting along with each other better.

[TheArsenal]

So, I guess you don't care all that much about personal artistic expression?


Uh, YES I DO! Im saying that this form of expression is rather pointless in our current environment. I just feel i had my head hammered in with a hammer a 100 times OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
And im saying "OK I GET IT!".



Aside from what everyone else has said, because it makes a good story, or can do so. Films are entertainment, conflict drives most stories, and racism is a form of conflict. So there are movies about racism. Because it makes for stories that are good to watch.

I just find the stories annoying. Their very repetitive.


This would be a holdover from your District9/Avatar thread, yes?

Heads up, bro, you're not the only movie watcher in existence. You don't HAVE to watch it if you don't want to.

Sigh....Yes.

Edit:
I should stop posting ever. I suck at non verbal explanations.

[Sarco_Phage]

Uh, YES I DO! Im saying that this form of expression is rather pointless in our current environment. I just feel i had my head hammered in with a hammer a 100 times OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
And im saying "OK I GET IT!".

This would be a holdover from your District9/Avatar thread, yes?

Heads up, bro, you're not the only movie watcher in existence. You don't HAVE to watch it if you don't want to.

[0Megabyte]

Uh, YES I DO! Im saying that this form of expression is rather pointless in our current environment.

Calling the personal expression of some artists pointless doesn't help your case.

Regardless, what makes you think it's pointless? As I've said, movies have changed my views on things. Do you think no movies with a racism theme will affect anyone's views?

So you get it. That's nice. Others may not get it. Racism is still a real and serious thing in the United States, and talking about it in films is one of the strongest ways a person has of expressing their view on it.

Just because you "get it", and I won't ask in what way you do as that would be talking about politics itself, doesn't take that away. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it pointless.

You get irritated by this sort of thing a lot, man. Maybe you should just chill out.

[Coidzor]

Uh, YES I DO! Im saying that this form of expression is rather pointless in our current environment. I just feel i had my head hammered in with a hammer a 100 times OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
And im saying "OK I GET IT!".

Okay, that's you. What about (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nohamotyo) everyone else (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Theory_of_mind)?

[Killer Angel]

I just feel i had my head hammered in with a hammer a 100 times OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
And im saying "OK I GET IT!".

I just find the stories annoying. Their very repetitive.


You can find this specific argument boring and repetitive, but almost every film based on a moral pov, it's "repetitive". Any anti-war movie, will show how senseless war is, and so on.


I should stop posting ever.

Don't do it. :smallwink:

[TheArsenal]

I suck at using text to express my opinions...Il try to make a video explanation next.

[Mathis]

That is a good idea actually, I'm looking forward to it! Videos are a nice way of expressing oneself, they have a small personal artistic twist to them usually.

[Eldan]

There are racists who just want to hate someone for some reason, and then there's a huge number of normal people who cling to very unfair stereotypes about certain groups that makes them treat said people in ways they don't deserve.
In the later case, such people might become aware of their misconceptions and help to get people getting along with each other better.

Yup. It's what I call "casual racism". My grandmother is a good example. She can, calmly and seriously, explain that all members of ethnicity X steal, all members of ethnicity Y are dumber than other people etc. And yet, she wouldn't call herself racist. She donates a lot of money, she loves watching movies about foreign people, she traveled a lot and every foreign person she actually meets, she likes. I.e. "That nice Chinese man who has the restaurant down the street." or "Those Turkish people who just moved in across the street". She just never bothers to think about her stereotypes.

[kamikasei]

Racists will not listen because racism is irrational. Its a small form of madness.
Movies don't generally present arguments. They affect people emotionally. Sounds like an ideal match to me.

I suck at using text to express my opinions...Il try to make a video explanation next.
Have you allowed for the possibility that your arguments are being understood, and rejected on their merits?

[TheArsenal]

Movies don't generally present arguments. They affect people emotionally. Sounds like an ideal match to me.

Actualy no. True racists, will not except changes. Stating facts or trying to emotionaly manipulate them doesnt work. People who have been misinformed change thier mind after being informed. No movie is necessary.


Have you allowed for the possibility that your arguments are being understood, and rejected on their merits?

Yes, but at the same time I noticed that I couldnt accuratly state my opinion in text.

[Eldan]

Are you sure about that? You can't just throw all racists in the same bag. There are degrees of racism, from fanatical hate-mongery all the way down to mild dislike. Some may very well just never have considered their ideas. A movie might get them thinking. The situation of a racist meeting a person they are biased against and then changing their ideas does come up in real life from time to time.

[Killer Angel]

There are degrees of racism, from fanatical hate-mongery all the way down to mild dislike. Some may very well just never have considered their ideas. A movie might get them thinking.

Even with mild racists, or "casual" ones, I don't think you can obtain much.


Yup. It's what I call "casual racism". My grandmother is a good example. She can, calmly and seriously, explain that all members of ethnicity X steal, all members of ethnicity Y are dumber than other people etc.

Example: your grandmother's hypothetical reaction, with a movie condemning the discriminations of ethnicity X.
"Well, those were horrible things, but that's a movie, it was an exaggeration. And it didn't show that Xs steal, which, frankly, they do. But yeah, good film, but too much made-up".

Those kind of films, imo are more made to serve as a reminder for the peoples, regarding the dangers of extremisms, prejudices, etc. (so their educational value, is unchanged).

[Jan Mattys]

Such a point of view - that the only types of people which exist are racists and non-racists - is already so vast an oversimplification that any conclusions drawn from such premises are not to be trusted.

This.
The vast majority of people has shifting opinions about touchy subjects, and mixed feelings too. Some of them are young and can be taught, some of them are timid and need to be led to stand for things they somewhat feel are *right* but they are not prepared to stand bravely for.
Really, there's so many "some of them" that you can't really make a dichotomy out of pretty much anything. Let alone racism.

[kamikasei]

Actualy no. True racists, will not except changes. Stating facts or trying to emotionaly manipulate them doesnt work. People who have been misinformed change thier mind after being informed. No movie is necessary.
Do you have any evidence to back that up? Not only is it a false dichotomy ("true" racists versus the merely misinformed), but I strongly doubt the assertion that there's no group of people whose racist attitudes are more effectively combated by emotional appeals than by reasoning.

Yes, but at the same time I noticed that I couldnt accuratly state my opinion in text.
Honestly, I find it very implausible that you have a great argument you're incapable of making in written form. It's much, much more likely that you have a weak argument which, in text, has no extra presentation to conceal its weakness.

But hey, if you think you can make a better case via video I'll be interested to see it.

[Erts]

{Scrubbed}

[Killer Angel]

{Scrubbed}

:smallconfused:
Actually, we're discussing the effectiveness of movies, as an educational instrument in regard of peoples with preconceptions and prejudices.
TheArsenal thinks that, with racists, you'll obtain nothing.
The argument can be dangerous, but it's still in the rules.

Of course, if you believe we're steppin' out of line, i think the proper behaviour is to report the thread.

[ThePhantasm]

I don't get the point of the OP.

Ok, so racism is irrational. But presenting a stance against it through storytelling is not to provide a "rational" argument to irrationality. That's not what stories do. Stories (good ones) aren't debates where people trade arguments. Stories get up under people's skin and try to give them a fresh set of eyes and force them to stand in the shoes of others. Doesn't mean they'll absolutely sure-fire work to undercut said irrationality, but it doesn't mean they are pointless or doomed to fail.

[Gaius Marius]

Yes, but at the same time I noticed that I couldnt accuratly state my opinion in text.

You just need some basic argumentative tactics. Lay out your justifications properly. I don't want to sound rude or anything, but how old are you? It's possible that you haven't had the classes that helps you shape up your argumentation skills.

On the other hand, I know soooo many people who simply skimmed over these classes and never bothered to learn anything because they didn't figured how useful it'd be to properly put down your arguments in writing.

As for your question, I believe that while indeed, I might agree with you that irrational behavior steeming out of environmental conditions (like upbringing) or pure xenophobia (natural behavior) is not going to change overnight just because a nice tale is told to them saying that racism is bad.

However, Rome wasn't built in a day. You might consider 2 elements:

1- People who don't have the misluck of having prejudice brainwashed into them as they were young. These people still need to have a morality shaped up according to a certain set of value, for I believe that moral instinct isn't something innate (yhea, I'm a big Heinlein fan).

2- You need to constantly remember that prejudice still exist. A highly regarded politician said that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". Wether or not you agree with that statement of Blood for Liberty is irrelevant to this conversation. What is important is:

"From time to time". An ideal, any ideal, that has managed to establish a hold over a society and became the situation De Facto isn't going to remain there by pure social inertia. When you start taking it for granted, any element of good morality about a society, be it racial equality, sexual equality, sexuality equality, etc.. etc... are going to be weakened by fringe elements demanding compromise, trying to rationalise their prejudice with any ways necessary.

Because that's how you destroy a value of society: you compromise it. When you gained an inch, you take a mile.

So, it might be argued that we always will need remember of why Evil is Evil, why Good is Good. It might be cheesy for someone, like you, who already accepted the morality they are trying to hammer into your head. But I'd say if only 1 person put his actions and view into perspective because of 1 corny anti-racism movie, it was probably worth it.

[Kato]

Well... pretty much everything I was going to say has been said already...

For the records: Yes, it might get annoying but a) the artists are allowed to include whatever message they want into their movies; b) there are irredeemable racists (I guess that's what you mean by 'True racists) but there are also a lot of people such movies can influence so they are not pointless. c) There are only so many ethical topics to treat in a movie if you say we only need X movies with this message we should have probably stopped making movies with a meaning 50 years ago, should we? :smallwink: Or we just make meaningless movies, that's the other way to go...

On the whole... well, I guess most people just don't agree with you but that's not bad. There's also a lot of stuff I know people wouldn't agree on with me a well.

Though, if you think you can make a more compelling argument with a video, go ahead. I'd love to see it.

[Killer Angel]

Though, if you think you can make a more compelling argument with a video, go ahead. I'd love to see it.

Although it would be ironic, to use a video for showing how pointless can be a movie... :smallwink:

[Weezer]

The thing that I get from these kinds of anti-racist movies is a reminder that everyone is biased, everyone has some manner of prejudice. As Avenue Q said ''Everyone's a little bit racist''. These movies serve to make people aware of how their social, cultural, ethnic and political environment have shaped them.

[kamikasei]

On the whole... well, I guess most people just don't agree with you but that's not bad. There's also a lot of stuff I know people wouldn't agree on with me a well.
Well...

"These movies annoy me because I feel like I've heard the same message a million times" is an emotional response. It's not a big deal if the response is unusual. As a question of taste, there's not a lot to do with it other than agree to disagree.

"These movies are pointless and can't accomplish anything worthwhile to justify their existence and the annoyance it causes me" is a question of fact (pinning down a standard for "worthwhile" aside). It is, in fact, possible to be wrong about it. And raising a question of fact, receiving arguments that suggest you are wrong, and then turning around and treating it as a question of taste instead of engaging with those arguments is, in fact, bad. (Not that the OP has actually done that, but that's how your comment above frames the discussion.)

[Killer Angel]

Of course, if only films could become reality, we would enter a fifth dimension, in the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition... we would have a Dante's scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone:_The_Movie#First_segment_.28.22Time_ Out.22.29), with the law of retaliation.

I wonder if that could serve... :smallwink:

[averagejoe]

Well...

"These movies annoy me because I feel like I've heard the same message a million times" is an emotional response. It's not a big deal if the response is unusual. As a question of taste, there's not a lot to do with it other than agree to disagree.

"These movies are pointless and can't accomplish anything worthwhile to justify their existence and the annoyance it causes me" is a question of fact (pinning down a standard for "worthwhile" aside). It is, in fact, possible to be wrong about it. And raising a question of fact, receiving arguments that suggest you are wrong, and then turning around and treating it as a question of taste instead of engaging with those arguments is, in fact, bad. (Not that the OP has actually done that, but that's how your comment above frames the discussion.)

The problem with that is it really isn't a provable fact, to such a degree that it might as well be an opinion. The idea of something having a, "Point," and something, "Justifying," something else especially are so highly that they almost necessarily turn such a statement into an opinion (which depends on your opinion of the other two elements.)

Look, I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just saying that it's often very tempting to call something a statement of fact when things are rarely so cut and dry. I'll agree that when talking about media, it's almost always just kind of a weasely thing to say, "This thing is a matter of opinion," but at the same time it tends to be a pretty severe over-simplification to call something, "A matter of fact," in the same context. Talking about media is tricky, and there are very few people who are any good at expressing what they mean when they talk about it. Heck, there's very few people who realize when they are expressing something inadequately or simplistically.

Edit: To be clear, or at least less obtuse: A lot of what I'm talking about has to do with the assumptions and sorts of conversations that go on when it comes to informal criticism, but I'm also trying really hard not to digress onto that topic.

[kamikasei]

The problem with that is it really isn't a provable fact, to such a degree that it might as well be an opinion. The idea of something having a, "Point," and something, "Justifying," something else especially are so highly that they almost necessarily turn such a statement into an opinion (which depends on your opinion of the other two elements.)
No. That's just straight-up false.

The OP says movies combating racism are pointless because racists won't be persuaded by them and non-racists (or people who recognize the problem of racism, more properly) are already persuaded.

This is not simply an opinion. This is a claim about reality. It can be disproven simply by producing someone who was persuaded of the evils of their racism by a piece of entertainment.

(Furthermore, it implies that nothing at all can change a racist's mind, since apparently racism is irrational and therefore not amenable to argument, but also - for some reason not specified - also not amenable to emotional appeals. The simple existence of anyone, anywhere who has renounced racist attitudes for any reason disproves that.)

edit: Actually, you're right that the statement as I phrased it - "these movies don't accomplish enough to justify the cost of their annoying me" - is too nebulous to treat as a statement of fact. It's a pretty good litmus test for worth as a human being, though, if someone's willing to claim that real, effective measures to combat racism are bad because they result in too many samey movies.

[RPGuru1331]

THe OP's premise is inaccurate; Most racism, as with other -isms, is best combated by familiarity and knowledge. Hollywood rarely helps on the latter, but the former is within the power of movies as we generally understand them. It can also provide juxtaposition; when Guess Who's Coming To Dinner was released, at least some of the viewers realized that they would be just as stupid. People don't like to be ridiculed, and ridiculing their beliefs can make them look back on why they took them. It also exposes them to social pressure to, even if they don't change their beliefs, stop acting on them.


It's also worth noting, however, as some have seemed to imply, that racism isn't 'finished'. It's not like it's just a few discrete racists, and everyone else is fine. No, everyone is somewhat racist, no exceptions. We still live in a deeply racist society; While it's true that hollywood doesn't do a whole lot to combat that, anti-racism movies also have another point, even if they never once changed anything else (but they do); they (typically) help the folks who are discriminated against feel less alone. If racism were actually a thing of the past, then the OP would perhaps have a point, but that day isn't today.

[BRC]

Alright, here's the thing.

Just saying "Racism is Bad" does not make a good movie. If you watch a movie, and all you take away from it is "Racism is Bad", if the movie does not move you emotionally, or entertain you, or teach you something new, get you invested in it's characters or impress you with it's artistry, if the only purpose a movie has is to tell you that Racism is Bad, then it's little more than a PSA.

That said, few movies do that. There are few great stories about Racism, there are, however, countless great stories that Address Racism. They are stories about a person struggling against Racism, or seeing Racism in action, or watching good people be brought down by racism. In the end, they are stories about People, and that's what makes them so effective. They don't tell us that Racism is bad, they show us what it does to people.

Do me a favor, go watch or read, To Kill a Mockingbird, or Twelve Angry Men, or The Color Purple. Then tell me the anti-racist message in those stories makes them worthless.


Edit: That said, saying "all anti-racism movies are the same" is such a gross oversimplification. It would be like saying Kill Bill, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Three Musketeers are all the same because they all involve Swords.

[Serpentine]

(Furthermore, it implies that nothing at all can change a racist's mind, since apparently racism is irrational and therefore not amenable to argument, but also - for some reason not specified - also not amenable to emotional appeals. The simple existence of anyone, anywhere who has renounced racist attitudes for any reason disproves that.)I've seen a couple of interviews with a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. You don't get much more racist than that, and you don't see much more dramatic a turnaround.
Premise disproven.

Dunno if it's particularly relevant, but I don't know if that change of heart was due to an emotional appeal or a logical argument. Rather (from what I remember), it was simply due to one person's relentless bravery in the face of his bigotry. I guess it was more emotional, but it wasn't so much "you should feel bad for being racist! Look how bad the minorities have it!" as "you're an idiot, but I love you anyway".

[averagejoe]

No. That's just straight-up false.

The OP says movies combating racism are pointless because racists won't be persuaded by them and non-racists (or people who recognize the problem of racism, more properly) are already persuaded.

This is not simply an opinion. This is a claim about reality. It can be disproven simply by producing someone who was persuaded of the evils of their racism by a piece of entertainment.

(Furthermore, it implies that nothing at all can change a racist's mind, since apparently racism is irrational and therefore not amenable to argument, but also - for some reason not specified - also not amenable to emotional appeals. The simple existence of anyone, anywhere who has renounced racist attitudes for any reason disproves that.)

edit: Actually, you're right that the statement as I phrased it - "these movies don't accomplish enough to justify the cost of their annoying me" - is too nebulous to treat as a statement of fact. It's a pretty good litmus test for worth as a human being, though, if someone's willing to claim that real, effective measures to combat racism are bad because they result in too many samey movies.

Ah, I misunderstood you. I took what you said by itself and didn't realize you were being pointed. :smallredface:

[TheArsenal]

Anyway Watch my Video Here:
Its Just Mostly My Rambling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3iisn-36nk)

Dont Kill Me.

[Gaius Marius]

Anyway Watch my Video Here:
Its Just Mostly My Rambling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3iisn-36nk)

Dont Kill Me.

:smallconfused:

Tracking your IP adress at the moment...

You better run...


(Joke, Will watch the video in a minute during my lunchbreak)

[RPGuru1331]

Your video is just... wrong. I got to "Racism against Indians was in the past" before just stopping. There is not a single accurate thing up to that point in your video, with the possible exception on How To Train Your Dragon as being anti-racist. I'm skeptical, but seeing as I didn't see it, whatever.

However, aside from that, every single fact based claim or attempt at describing racism or how to fight it is demonstrably, factually inaccurate. Racism can and has been fought. If you're american, look to your history. It used to be a much more racist place, and although it still is deeply racist, it is less so. And we're talking about America, which doesn't exactly prize its intellectuals - very little racism was based on what you call logic. It was just gut feeling hatred. A lot of it still is, but most of it is a vague feeling of "Everything's fine" combined with blindness to the plight of others.

This idea of 'logic based racism' is flatly wrong as well. It isn't, ever. You can't draw from single representations, or even statistics, to any given other individual. Attempting to do so is never logical, it's just a leap of induction taken out of laziness.

And racism against native americans is in the past? Do you have any idea what native people have to go through? In the USA, still, now?

I'm sorry, you have a lot to learn, and I would start here. (http://www.ted.com/talks/aaron_huey.html)

[Sarco_Phage]

Anyway Watch my Video Here:
Its Just Mostly My Rambling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3iisn-36nk)

Dont Kill Me.

Aw man, bro.

Anyway, one of your base points is that you can't "unconvince" a person whose conviction is not based on facts.

I will provide the counterpoint that you can't "unconvince" people who are convinced they are right, regardless of factual basis or not.

For example, we've been trying to convince you that you're, well, wrong on this count, in every possible way.

We are unsuccessful - because you do not wish to be convinced, because you believe you're correct.

And vice-versa.

[TheArsenal]

Ok I got It Im A ****ing racist. I shouldnt insult movies, got it.

I got that Im not making any sense.

[kamikasei]

Its Just Mostly My Rambling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3iisn-36nk)
Okay, you make several points there that you didn't make here, and it's a little clearer where you're coming from. However, on the whole I suspect if you'd actually tried to set those thoughts out in writing they wouldn't have become less coherent.

First off, you seem to have a rather blinkered view of racism in cinema in general. If you ask me to name some anti-racist movies, I'm not going to say "Avatar" off the top of my head. No, a summer blockbuster which rehashes a pretty standard plot framework where there's broad cultural agreement that one side was in the right in the historical events (not that Avatar even quite managed that...) is not likely to open many eyes. On the other hand, movies addressing actual contemporary issues of prejudice and discrimination don't even seem to be on your radar.

Secondly, do you really divide racism and racist attitudes into "rational" and "irrational"? Do you base this division on... well, anything? Because I would have thought that "it makes perfect sense to view individuals primarily as members of groups based on involuntary characteristics like race, and then to treat them well or badly based on what I think of their group as a whole, regardless of their individual actions" would be the first casualty in any sort of enlightenment regarding racism that you seem to think you possess.

Racism is not a rational thing. There's no division between people who are prejudiced against this or that group because of fear of The Other and people who calmly make a conscious assessment that, well, demographic X are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than others for their presence in the population, so I'd better assume that member of demographic X over there is a criminal. Racism is: that person is Not Like Me in some visible way. Since she's Not Like Me, she's one of Them. They might be one whole mass of dangerous Other, or maybe I recognize distinctions between the various heads of this alien hydra, but the important thing is that I always see them as The Other rather than themselves, and I fear and revile them.

Ok I got It Im A ****ing racist. I shouldnt insult movies, got it.

I got that Im not making any sense.
Take off the martyr's robes for a sec and try actually processing the points being made.

You do seem racist, yes. When you talk about racism, you seem ignorant of its realities and how it affects people all around you every day. You seem ignorant of how it works. You classify it in a way that lets you excuse whole swathes of it as "rational", regardless of the real harm they cause. The mature response to discovering you're ignorant of something important isn't to get angry at others for noticing it and pointing it out, but to educate yourself. This is, in fact, not hard to do.

I don't think anyone in the thread so far has much cared that you insulted any movies. Speaking only for myself, I care that you've shown a profound blindness to real problems that, if you're ignorant of them, you'll generally end up contributing to.

You have two options here: throw a huff at having had your racism pointed out because that means you have to recognize a flaw within yourself, or google "racism 101" and work on being a better person.

[VanBuren]

Ok I got It Im A ****ing racist.

I do believe that this claim has not been made.

[TheArsenal]

Its only Until I rearead and listen to what I said then I realize what an idiot I am.

Im sorry. I still dont understant to whom anti-racism movies are aimed at but I understant that I was talking nonsense.

[HalfTangible]

What is the Point?
Racists will not listen because racism is irrational. Its a small form of madness.

And Non Racists Already know about equality.

Movies that are made purely to stop it? Very little point.

Movies that include an element of racism, ie, 'race X does bad things to race Y because they're Y'? To provide a form of conflict.

[Gaius Marius]

Racism is not a rational thing. There's no division between people who are prejudiced against this or that group because of fear of The Other and people who calmly make a conscious assessment that, well, demographic X are convicted of crimes at a higher rate than others for their presence in the population, so I'd better assume that member of demographic X over there is a criminal. Racism is: that person is Not Like Me in some visible way. Since she's Not Like Me, she's one of Them. They might be one whole mass of dangerous Other, or maybe I recognize distinctions between the various heads of this alien hydra, but the important thing is that I always see them as The Other rather than themselves, and I fear and revile them.

So.. I mean, I think I understand what he's trying to say about "irrational" and "rational", albeit I find his choice of words doubtful. One one hand, you have pure xenophobia that is present in certain people, or others that have been brought up to believe that Demographic X is Bad. Either way, they use whatever facts they can get their hands on post-jugement to justify and rationalise such jugements.

On the other hand, you have people who have developped an opinion on Demographic X through either experience or social circumstances (the example of a war is a good one, but you could also bring up people who believe they are losing their jobs due to the inflow of a certain demographic providing cheap labor into their locality).

The argument provided (again, please stop me if I am wrong) is that while it's not possible to convince the 1st group of prejudiciers of their wrongthinking save a complete brainwash, there is a sociological reason that provoke the prejudice within the 2nd group. One could believe that by removing or actually dealing with said sociological reason, whatever it may be, would be more efficient at dealing with prejudices than simply giving out a nice aesop about racism in movies. The example provided by How to Train your Dragon is that the two demographics didn't stopped hating each other because somebody told them it's not nice to hate each other, but because the problem that caused the source of the prejudices was tackled and dealt with (with huge prejudice)


TheArsenal, please slap me if I articulated this wrong, I don't want to put words into your mouth.

[kamikasei]

Its only Until I rearead and listen to what I said then I realize what an idiot I am.
Don't worry about it, man. Well, I mean, worry about it, you're in error and should work on that, but it's natural to be in error some of the time. The important part is to recognize it and address it, rather than getting defensive and compounding your error to avoid admitting it.

I still dont understant to whom anti-racism movies are aimed at but I understant that I was talking nonsense.
The thing is, if you're talking about movies like Avatar, I think you're mistaken in assuming the race issue is even a major part of the movie. Yes, sometimes movies get lazy and use frameworks as simple as "colonization, boo" or "holy crap, genocide" as cheap ways to make it clear who the audience should be comfortably rooting for. I don't want to say that Avatar had no good effects on racism in the world - it probably had some, though I have no idea how that weighs up against the racism it itself contained - but I wouldn't class it as an "anti-racist" movie intended to change people's minds. But there are a lot of movies and other works out there where one character overcoming prejudice and recognizing another as a person and not an instance of The Other really is the core of the story, and really are emotionally affecting rather than cheaply manipulative.

[TheArsenal]

The thing is, if you're talking about movies like Avatar, I think you're mistaken in assuming the race issue is even a major part of the movie. Yes, sometimes movies get lazy and use frameworks as simple as "colonization, boo" or "holy crap, genocide" as cheap ways to make it clear who the audience should be comfortably rooting for. I don't want to say that Avatar had no good effects on racism in the world - it probably had some, though I have no idea how that weighs up against the racism it itself contained - but I wouldn't class it as an "anti-racist" movie intended to change people's minds. But there are a lot of movies and other works out there where one character overcoming prejudice and recognizing another as a person and not an instance of The Other really is the core of the story, and really are emotionally affecting rather than cheaply manipulative.

I Think We Finaly Got each other:

I like movies that contain an element if racism in them. I think they make good storytelling ideas. But Avatar was just lazy rehash. And So was The Last Samurai (Tom cruise showing off).

I guess Im against lazy rehash.

[VanBuren]

Don't worry about it, man. Well, I mean, worry about it, you're in error and should work on that, but it's natural to be in error some of the time. The important part is to recognize it and address it, rather than getting defensive and compounding your error to avoid admitting it.

The thing is, if you're talking about movies like Avatar, I think you're mistaken in assuming the race issue is even a major part of the movie. Yes, sometimes movies get lazy and use frameworks as simple as "colonization, boo" or "holy crap, genocide" as cheap ways to make it clear who the audience should be comfortably rooting for. I don't want to say that Avatar had no good effects on racism in the world - it probably had some, though I have no idea how that weighs up against the racism it itself contained - but I wouldn't class it as an "anti-racist" movie intended to change people's minds. But there are a lot of movies and other works out there where one character overcoming prejudice and recognizing another as a person and not an instance of The Other really is the core of the story, and really are emotionally affecting rather than cheaply manipulative.

I'd like to suggest Crash at this moment as an explicitly anti-racist movie. That, and American History X, though the latter is certainly not for the faint of heart.

[Syka]

It's aimed at culture as a whole.

A Patch of Blue is one on my favorite movies. Like, ever. It was filmed when color was popular, but done in black and white to emphasize the racial aspects of the film.

It was made in the 1960's when racial issues were HUGE in the U.S.

As a standalone, ignoring the time period, it is a brilliant film. Heck, it handles not only racism but also discrimination based on ability, alcoholism, and other issues. Does it hit you over the head? Maybe, but sometimes it takes an informal setting such as film to make people sit back and go "Huh..." Even today, it says a lot about our society in that it still happens. I've seen it happen to customers (white woman with a black man was asked by a police officer if she needed help in my town) and friends (my friend is with a black man, who is spectacularly wonderful...pretty sure she's still experienced issues). It might make people who make this unconscious assumptions realize that THEY do the same thing and recognize that it is wrong.


Also, I didn't watch the video, but you come across as very absolutist and- if someone disagrees with you- you automatically take it as a personal criticism. It isn't personal, we're just trying to help you understand a little bit more about the world.

[Sarco_Phage]

God, American History X was amazing. I'd definitely recommend it.


I like movies that contain an element if racism in them. I think they make good storytelling ideas. But Avatar was just lazy rehash. And So was The Last Samurai (Tom cruise showing off).

Just for the record, the eponymous last samurai was Ken Watanabe, not Tom Cruise.

[RPGuru1331]

The argument provided (again, please stop me if I am wrong) is that while it's not possible to convince the 1st group of prejudiciers of their wrongthinking save a complete brainwash,
This is demonstrably wrong. Mere exposure can (But not always will) help cause some forms of overt racism to go away. If you get used to dealing with people you were previously xenophobic against, that xenophobia tends to break down. While it might have been a little 'easy' within the movie, a good example of this is shown in Gran Torino; Clint Eastwood could only hate the Hmong until he was forced to deal with one, and by extension, his family, slowly softening up to like them just fine as he realized that they weren't actually very different from himself.

Even if it were true, that doesn't change that by applying social pressure, you can still get good results; even if you could never make some blatant racist stop THINKING blatantly racist things, you can establish that acting in blatantly racist ways is wrong. It won't entirely fix things, but it does HELP people who are discriminated against when most people think the most blatant actions of an -ism are wrong.


One could believe that by removing or actually dealing with said sociological reason, whatever it may be, would be more efficient at dealing with prejudices than simply giving out a nice aesop about racism in movies.
But this still gives into the narrative that it's okay to judge an entire race because of a perceived problem that members of that race cause. It doesn't solve the problem at all, it just delays it until the next weird thing comes along.

[VanBuren]

God, American History X was amazing. I'd definitely recommend it.



Just for the record, the eponymous last samurai was Ken Watanabe, not Tom Cruise.

Yeah, but only one of them survives getting hit with a machine gun, and it ain't the asian guy. :smalltongue:

[Sarco_Phage]

Hey, that part worked. I'd have counted it as a happy ending if Tom Cruise got shot to death, but it became tragic and dramatic because it was an actor I liked! Haha

Also, Tom Cruise did show some legitimate acting chops there, which saves him some of the problems.

[TheArsenal]

Just for the record, the eponymous last samurai was Ken Watanabe, not Tom Cruise.

Yet tom Cruise lives....There is no goodness left in the world.

I hated how it forgot that Samurai where in fact AS brutal as White men. They also had a messed up honor system. But they where SO cool. The fights took place in seconds, they where that good. It took them entire lifetimes to perfect their art. Tom cruise should have been dead.

I liked when he was getting the **** beat out of him.

[VanBuren]

Hey, that part worked. I'd have counted it as a happy ending if Tom Cruise got shot to death, but it became tragic and dramatic because it was an actor I liked! Haha

Also, Tom Cruise did show some legitimate acting chops there, which saves him some of the problems.

Ha, fair enough. Actually, I really did enjoy the movie overall.

But nothing is safe from some fun-poking!

[Sarco_Phage]

I hated how it forgot that Samurai where in fact AS brutal as White men. They also had a messed up honor system. But they where SO cool. The fights took place in seconds, they where that good. It took them entire lifetimes to perfect their art. Tom cruise should have been dead.

You forget that Algren is characterized as a more than just a drunkard Chuck Norris. He's an exceptional warrior. The fact that he showed more skill and strength than Wellington's man Sergeant Ewing at Waterloo (for the record, Ewing was 6'6" and is recorded as having killed three men in a row with his saber - on foot - while charging the French standard. One of them was on horseback. The other one, he cut his head in half from chin to crown, which is disgusting) proves that non-Japanese swordfighters of that era were just as frightening.

Also, this had better not lead to that damn "Katanas are underpowered in d20" copypasta, because it looks like it's headed that way.

[HalfTangible]

As a standalone, ignoring the time period, it is a brilliant film. Heck, it handles not only racism but also discrimination based on ability, alcoholism, and other issues. Does it hit you over the head? Maybe, but sometimes it takes an informal setting such as film to make people sit back and go "Huh..." Even today, it says a lot about our society in that it still happens. I've seen it happen to customers (white woman with a black man was asked by a police officer if she needed help in my town) and friends (my friend is with a black man, who is spectacularly wonderful...pretty sure she's still experienced issues). It might make people who make this unconscious assumptions realize that THEY do the same thing and recognize that it is wrong.

I witnessed a black woman screaming at a white man for asking her if she was going follow through on her threat to shoot him, and trying to make it sound like he was assuming all black women carried guns. (she also called him an atheist as she walked away, even though religion never even came up in the discussion)

An hour later, a white woman who destroyed store property (in a very deliberate manner - can't go into detail) was yelling at our front end manager, using words i'm not allowed to say or type, because we were refusing to sell her anything because of aforementioned destroyed property.

And both ticked me right the f*** off.

Something that disturbs me, though, is that often discrimination is only looked at from one direction (in this case, the latter) and the other direction isn't even considered possible, let alone represented. Has anybody else noticed this, or is it just me?

[TheArsenal]

The other one, he cut his head in half from chin to crown, which is disgusting) proves that non-Japanese swordfighters of that era were just as frightening.

Also, this had better not lead to that damn "Katanas are underpowered in d20" copypasta, because it looks like it's headed that way.

I dont play d20 Modern.

But Still, the Samurai WHERE the chuck Norris of the battle. The fought in LETERAL seconds. They could kill any non samurai with no effort at all.

[kamikasei]

I'd like to suggest Crash at this moment as an explicitly anti-racist movie. That, and American History X, though the latter is certainly not for the faint of heart.
Crash was exactly the prominent contemporary race-issue movie I was thinking of, but I haven't seen it and have a vague sense that it's a bit overly-didactic and Oscar-baiting, so I didn't want to recommend it. I have no excuse for forgetting American History X, though.

I did remember Gran Torino, but just didn't want to get in to naming examples because I'm not all that well-versed in modern cinema myself.

On the other hand, you have people who have developped an opinion on Demographic X through either experience or social circumstances (the example of a war is a good one, but you could also bring up people who believe they are losing their jobs due to the inflow of a certain demographic providing cheap labor into their locality).
Fair point, but I don't think the distinction really holds up. Yes, some people are prejudiced against those who they were raised to be prejudiced against, while others develop prejudice against different groups during their lifetimes. The problem is still prejudice, and the habit of viewing people as members of groups rather than as individuals, of othering and all the cognitive bias tricks that lead to, for example, this (http://xkcd.com/385/) kind of behaviour.

[Gaius Marius]

But this still gives into the narrative that it's okay to judge an entire race because of a perceived problem that members of that race cause. It doesn't solve the problem at all, it just delays it until the next weird thing comes along.

I guess in that argument, my cynico-materialism is showing. I don't believe that appealing to a people's better nature can actually work in solving social problem. the only way you can resolve matters is to address the sociological problem that caused the situation.

I find racism abhorrent, but not because it's immoral. Just because it's a big waste of ressource for a society to devolve into pointless race-based infighting. I'm weird that way. Thing is, sometimes, there is a valid reason behind the natural resentment of a people toward a certain demographic, and ruling the whole thing as being "immoral" is simply sticking an ideological label on the situation, bypassing the concern that the resenting people have.

they aren't necessarely bad people we are dealing with, and their prejudice more likely steem from a genuine reason.

Now, this isn't an apology for some crimes commited against many demographics in history. I find these things a huge waste. But there is a clear difference between open resentment and outright racism-sourced criminality/murder/etc...

[Sarco_Phage]

I dont play d20 Modern.

But Still, the Samurai WHERE the chuck Norris of the battle. The fought in LETERAL seconds. They could kill any non samurai with no effort at all.

Yep.

Yep, we just hit "katanas are underpowered in d20" territory.

Anyway they fought in literal seconds because their main weapon was the bow, not the sword.

It was a social class. You would have samurai that were weak and ineffectual just like you would have knights who were weak and ineffectual, or cavalry officers who were promoted based on their heritage rather than merit (i.e. most of them).

Samurai: not as cool as you think.

For example, face a samurai from the sengoku period against a knight in full plate in a sword fight.The samurai gets stabbed to death. Their swords were brittle and couldn't penetrate heavy armor, and their training aims for spots that are vulnerable due to lighter samurai armor. They were remarkably adapted for their time, but faced against any coeval european warrior, they would be hard-pressed for victory.

Hell, they'd probably have a hard time in a swordfight with my own native peoples' swordfighting style.

[TheArsenal]

Hell, they'd probably have a hard time in a swordfight with my own native peoples' swordfighting style.

I guess I shouldnt trust my Drama Class then...=(

But I dont play d20 modern! I dont!

[Coidzor]

Well, generally it does only take seconds to deliver a mortal blow, yes. To have a blanket belief that the Samurai were invincible warriors in battle is a bit flawed, especially in the context of saying we've moved past the point where we need to be called on our racist tendencies as a society or as individuals.

Chauvinism is often mentioned as a form of racism as well, not just persecution of others for being other.

[Gaius Marius]

How did we leaped from intense sociological discussion about racism to Katana's sharpness?

[Sarco_Phage]

I guess I shouldnt trust my Drama Class then...=(

Never trust a Japanophile, Medieval-Europhile, or really any kind of phile to put out an unbiased assessment.

[comicshorse]

I won't comment on movies abilities to convert racists into non-racists but speaking from personal experience I know my sister was inspired by a film (Cry Freedom, for the record) to actually do something about it. Getting involved in protests and joining Amnesty International

[Gaius Marius]

Never trust a Japanophile, Medieval-Europhile, or really any kind of phile to put out an unbiased assessment.

Meh. the Roman Army in my time would crush them all anyway.

[Sarco_Phage]

I'll see your "Roman Legions" and raise you a "Parthian army". :smallamused:


How did we leaped from intense sociological discussion about racism to Katana's sharpness?

I blame Tom Cruise.

[RPGuru1331]

I find racism abhorrent, but not because it's immoral. Just because it's a big waste of ressource for a society to devolve into pointless race-based infighting.
It's good to know your priorities are in the right place.


Thing is, sometimes, there is a valid reason behind the natural resentment of a people toward a certain demographic
What, pray tell, did you have in mind, as a 'genuine reason'. There is only one I can think of, and I sincerely doubt you the sort to offer it.


But there is a clear difference between open resentment and outright racism-sourced criminality/murder/etc...
Not when it's practiced by the people in power.

[comicshorse]

I believed Hannibal demonstrated the Roman armies weaknesses when faced by heavy cavalry at Cannae

[kamikasei]

Thing is, sometimes, there is a valid reason behind the natural resentment of a people toward a certain demographic, and ruling the whole thing as being "immoral" is simply sticking an ideological label on the situation, bypassing the concern that the resenting people have.
I find it implausible that there's any example you could give where developing a prejudice against a race or class or whatever is a useful, sensible response, as opposed to an expected, typical response. Nor did I, at least, deny that prejudice may have causes. I just don't think it has justifications. (Incidentally, I'm not sure anyone mentioned morality before you brought it up.) *amended - see below (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10701892#post10701892).

they aren't necessarely bad people we are dealing with, and their prejudice more likely steem from a genuine reason.
Racism isn't something done by bad people. Thinking that is a dangerous mistake. Racism, like just about any prejudice, is a bad thing done by all sorts of people. You don't have to be a bad person to be racist. You may, in fact, on balance (however such things are measured...) be a good person. But you're a worse person for your racism than you would be without it.

[The Big Dice]

I believed Hannibal demonstrated the Roman armies weaknesses when faced by heavy cavalry at Cannae

Yes, the Romans had a weakness to war elephants. Just like everyone else.

Of course, Hannibal eventually was defeated and Cathage crushed under Roman sandals...

[averagejoe]

(Incidentally, I'm not sure anyone mentioned morality before you brought it up.)

It's probably a bad place to go anyways. This thread's about racism in films. Let's keep it there, eh?


Yes, the Romans had a weakness to war elephants. Just like everyone else.

:smallbiggrin: This quote just brightened up my day.

[Sarco_Phage]

Yes, the Romans had a weakness to war elephants. Just like everyone else.

That was the pre-Marius Roman citizen army.

GM is talking about the post-Marian reform Legions, which were a ruthlessly efficient fighting machine.

Which still couldn't deal with cavalry archers.:smalltongue:

[comicshorse]

Yes, the Romans had a weakness to war elephants. Just like everyone else.

Of course, Hannibal eventually was defeated and Cathage crushed under Roman sandals...

I was actually referring purely to his horse cavalry that drove off the roman cavalry and then closed the trap on the infantry.

But this may be getting slightly off topic

[Gaius Marius]

I believed Hannibal demonstrated the Roman armies weaknesses when faced by heavy cavalry at Cannae

Last time I checked, Hannibal existed before Gaius Marius, hmmm?


And as for "Parthian Army beat Roman Army", that's just because of Crassus' incompetence while not properly preparing strategically for his army's logistic necessities. If the Parthians had a genuinely superior armed force, they would have managed to conquer Syria in their counterattack, but they didn't.

Parthians and Roman worlds were separated by a natural border that simply was too inconveniant to circumvate.


What, pray tell, did you have in mind, as a 'genuine reason'. There is only one I can think of, and I sincerely doubt you the sort to offer it.

I can't go into specifics for fear of brushing real-world politics too close, but the example I have in mind is the fear a people would have to losing it's identity and relevance because it's sourrounded and outnumbered more than 200:1 by what can be considered a very aggressive and dominant culture.

And resentment behavior toward the members of that dominant culture while in their territory comes from the fact that they don't want to see their territory culturally assimilated. They know that it will never lead them to complete assimilation, but it will render their culture basically irrelevant in the Grant Scheme of things, just one more piece to add to the massive Imperialistic Culture, rather than an people's identity that is rather distinct and unique.

Luckily for everybody involved, any demonstration of resentment have been mostly nonviolent in the past 50 years, and I sure hope it'll stay that way.



It's good to know your priorities are in the right place.

I put them where I darn feel, thank you very much. If you wish you challenge my views on what is considered to be the highest moral priority pecking order, please open a thread about it.

[Gaius Marius]

GM is talking about the post-Marian reform Legions, which were a ruthlessly efficient fighting machine.

Which still couldn't deal with cavalry archers.:smalltongue:

As said in my post before, Cavalry archer wasn't anything invulnerable on the long run. Otherwise, can you point me the Roman territory conquered by the Parthians? :smallbiggrin:

Logistics and just sheer lack of strategic thinking was the source of Crassus and Antonius' defeats against the Parthians. Just as Logistics was the source of the Parthians' defeat in their own invasion of the Roman world.. 'cause, you know, they were defeated by the local militias, which was pretty shameful.

[Sarco_Phage]

Now now, I wasn't suggesting that the Parthian forces were capable of conquest, but rather that the infantry-heavy post-Marian legions, with their lack of materiel and cavalry to threaten the Parthian archers in turn, made for a massive stalemate.

For example, Mongolian forces were extremely powerful on the open field, but worthless for the most part in urban combat.

[kamikasei]

I find it implausible that there's any example you could give where developing a prejudice against a race or class or whatever is a useful, sensible response, as opposed to an expected, typical response.
Actually, a friend pointed out that this should be more nuanced. There are cases where pre-judging someone based on involuntary group membership is a useful and healthy response - generally to an unhealthy reality. The example is of women who, as a matter of self-preservation, guard against the possibility that any given man they encounter may assault them. The likelihood that any individual will actually be dangerous may be low, but better safe than sorry and all that.

The distinction I'd draw here is between irrational prejudice and playing probabilities where you're dealing with an attribute that is a real predictor of a real threat. Gender and sexual assault is, unfortunately, the big, glaring example that I can think of in modern society, but of course there are others today and in history where a marginalized group was safer acting on prejudice against others likely to threaten them. I'm very confident that the false positives way outnumber the real, justified instances, though.

(Plus I'm talking about pre-judging as it affects actions. Just being generally resentful of a group or bigoted against it in unrelated matters doesn't get a pass.)

[Gaius Marius]

Now now, I wasn't suggesting that the Parthian forces were capable of conquest, but rather that the infantry-heavy post-Marian legions, with their lack of materiel and cavalry to threaten the Parthian archers in turn, made for a massive stalemate.

For example, Mongolian forces were extremely powerful on the open field, but worthless for the most part in urban combat.

A heavier use of Scorpio ballista might have done the trick. I believe that was Caesar's strategy to face the Parthians.

[Coidzor]

How did we leaped from intense sociological discussion about racism to Katana's sharpness?

Because anyone who is going on about how awfully sharp and superior Katanas were to those of any other race of human's weaponry is either trying to sell you something by playing off of racist sentiments they believe you to have or dabbling in racist sentiment, I believe was the point being made.

[Serpentine]

Yes, the Romans had a weakness to war elephants. Just like everyone else.

Of course, Hannibal eventually was defeated and Cathage crushed under Roman sandals...Only cuz he had seriously bad luck with the weather, and his deadbeat superiors didn't back him up and send him reinforcements :smallannoyed: He got extremely close to destroying the Roman Empire with a decimated army and no back-up. Imagine what he could've done if he wasn't screwed over...
Second from the top of my "List of Historical "What-ifs" is "What if Hannibal hadn't been hit with freak weather in the mountains?"

[SuperPanda]

Uh, YES I DO! Im saying that this form of expression is rather pointless in our current environment. I just feel i had my head hammered in with a hammer a 100 times OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
And im saying "OK I GET IT!".


Actually, you don't. The reason you don't is because the human brain isn't equipped to ever really "get it" and needs to be reminded to keep trying.

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

The human brain can only process a tiny portion of the human population within your immediate surroundings assuming an Urban or even suburban environment. Outside of that processed population it uses cognitive prototyping to project its predictions and assumptions onto the rest of the population though several illogical but very basic conditions. Appearance is a major condition in prototyping.

For an example of your brain's prototyping activity at work ask yourself the following question: How often to you ever check the structural stability of a chair before sitting down?

The answer is probably in the neighborhood of never. We see a chair and virtually all of the chairs we sit in support out weight without problem, therefore this chair will do so as well. We don't need to check the chair out first because we have a body of experience which says "chairs don't break when sat on."

Another example is that if someone told you there was a bird outside your door and you looked out to find a penguin, you would probably feel as though you have been deceived. There was nothing false in the statement but while a Penguin is a bird it is not what we expect when someone says "bird". Penguin does not conform to our prototype of the word "bird."


So how does this all work? In order to combat negative typing (prototyping, stereotyping, archetyping, typing on a computer...) we must present ourselves with a body of experience which causes us to question, challenge, and reevaluate our own stereotypes. It sounds simple but it is against the very core of human nature to do this. Its like walking up to a chair in the middle of a restaurant and doing stress tests before sitting down everyday for a month.

Humans don't, on the average, challenge their stereotypes on their own. Stories have long been a powerful tool for sharing experience, wisdom, and knowledge and so there are a great many stories to help us continue to challenge these same cognitive prototypes. When we encounter films based around counter examples to the prototype we automatically find ourselves questioning our own prototype if the story is done convincingly and or movingly enough. Some stories do this better than others. Many times this sort of story fails to reach members of the audience because someone in the audience is thinking "year the antagonists are jerks, good think I'm not. Glad they all suffered some bad consequences of their jerkism." and in the process completely missed the point that they themselves were doing the exact same thing themselves.

Some stories do it better than others.

Personally I'm beginning to enjoy stories that trancend this particular conflict to just present strong characters in roles regardless of precieved types attached to that character's race, gender, orientation, mental capacity, physical capacity and instead challenge the viewer to accept that this person is capable. This is a model Star Trek employed for addressing social issues though it can be too subtle for some and its most valuable after society has a firmly held belief that judging a person "lesser" do to afore mentioned conditions is bad.

For me personally shows like BBC's Merlin (2008) which, has Gwen be black despite a very big character in a medieval European world and never stops to allow itself or anyone in the world question why, do alot more to show advancement in the battle against racism than just showing examples of "bad racists" do.

Thats me. (not touching the Samurai vs Roman katana stuff... The Last Samurai fits far less with "anti racist" to me and is more in line with "only white people - usually Americans - save the world" which has annoyed me since I noticed it around the launch of "Last Airbender").

[The Big Dice]

Thats me. (not touching the Samurai vs Roman katana stuff... The Last Samurai fits far less with "anti racist" to me and is more in line with "only white people - usually Americans - save the world" which has annoyed me since I noticed it around the launch of "Last Airbender").
The thing of "Only Americans save the world" is far, far older than you might think. John Wayne single handedly won every single war America fought up to and including Viet Nam. For both sides in the case of the civil war. And aliens only seem to invade LA or New York.

[Serpentine]

This (http://www.youtube.com/user/Shyaporn#p/c/8ACEED3E934DC7F8/7/N9CGD_db48A) works as well for Last Samurai, as well as various others.

[Yora]

And aliens only seem to invade LA or New York.
That's because there are only two settled places in america.

[Gaius Marius]

The thing of "Only Americans save the world" is far, far older than you might think. John Wayne single handedly won every single war America fought up to and including Viet Nam. For both sides in the case of the civil war. And aliens only seem to invade LA or New York.

Yet, when they go to Johannesburgh instead, it's taken as racist...

:smallwink:

[HalfTangible]

That's because there are only two settled places in america.

You forgot Texas :tongue:

[Gaius Marius]

You forgot Texas :tongue:

When you call it the "Wild" West, it won't qualify it as "civilized" :smallbiggrin:

[HalfTangible]

When you call it the "Wild" West, it won't qualify it as "civilized" :smallbiggrin:

Yora said 'settled.' not 'civilized'

And that's a dirty stereotype! :tongue:

[Gaius Marius]

Yora said 'settled.' not 'civilized'

And that's a dirty stereotype! :tongue:

Not as dirty as a Texan's boot... :smallamused:

[pendell]

Well, the mods haven't scrubbed this thread, so I'm going to *try* to participate in it without breaking the forum guidelines.

Reading this argument that anti-racism movies aren't effective is false, I believe, because it misses one of the fundamental underpinnings of racism.

Why does one group of people believe they are better than another group of people?

Well, most of the time people believe they're better than another group because they've been taught to. Why? Because the teachers want to foster Esprit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morale)



Morale, also known as esprit de corps when discussing the morale of a group, is an intangible term used to describe the capacity of people to maintain belief in an institution or a goal, or even in oneself and others. The second term applies particularly to military personnel and to members of sports teams, but is also applicable in business and in any other organizational context, particularly in times of stress or controversy. While the term is often used by authority figures as a generic value judgment of the willpower, obedience and self-discipline of a group tasked with performing duties assigned by a superior, more accurately it refers to the level of individual faith in the collective benefit gained by such individual sacrifices.

According to Alexander H. Leighton, "morale is the capacity of a group of people to pull together persistently and consistently in pursuit of a common purpose".[1]


Esprit is one way humans set themselves apart from the common herd and from animals. To say 'we are a special people with a special mission'. It's what makes the French Legionnaires at Camaron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camerone) fight to the last man when surrounded by a hundred times their number. It's what makes the Marines at Tarawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarawa) push forward and conquer even when slaughtered by the thousands. Because teenage boys who may never have heard 'marine' before they enlisted have been caught up into this mystique, this belief that they are not normal humans, but part of something bigger, something grander than themselves. As they say, there are no ex-marines.

Racism is one way esprit is built, one way to lift the heads of humans out of the dust. You read the history of racism, you'll see it's most common and holds on longest amongst poor people, because it's all the pride they have left. A man who has no money and has no fortune and lives in a trailer can still take pride in the color of his skin, and no one can take that from him.

There are people who are racists for that reason. They need something to take pride in.

And if they are racists for that reason, they can made into something other than racists by teaching them to draw their pride from something else .

A man can be brought to see that a flag, or a religion, or a set of ideals, is more important than the color of his skin.

And the way to instill pride in a man is to show him something to be proud of. Show him an example, tell him that he's from the same line of people as those who set this example, and tell him to live up to it.

Case in point: The movie Glory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_%28film%29), one of my favorite all-time movies.

A person who watches such a movie can see people of different races fighting together, united by their blue uniforms and by their flag.

It gives him something to take pride in that is larger and more important than the color of his skin.

So: Yes. Racism can be fought by anti-racist movies. And it isn't fought by preaching movies or lecturing movies or finger-wagging. It's fought by setting an example. Give men something to be proud of other than the color of their skin, and you can win people over. But if all you can do to attack people's ideas is to attack their pride, you'll lose every time.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Gaius Marius]

Dude, I don't want to piss on your otherwise very well thought-out and written post..

but it's Moral. Not Morale.

Morale is exactly what you said.
Moral is (from Latin morālis) is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event.

I think of the two definition, Moral is what concerns us mainly, no?

[pendell]

Dude, I don't want to piss on your otherwise very well thought-out and written post..

but it's Moral. Not Morale.

Morale is exactly what you said.
Moral is (from Latin morālis) is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event.

I think of the two definition, Moral is what concerns us mainly, no?

Possibly. But I was trying to drive at the idea that racists can't be converted. And that is an incorrect idea. I'd like to believe I know something about racism.

Racism derives from pride, and pride is not always a bad thing. Racism is a form of 'esprit de corps', where the 'corps' is a skin color rather than a nation or a religion or a school. As such, the best way to attack it is to give humans something else to take pride in besides their skin color, which is a pretty pointless thing, really. Movies can be a part of that, but the most effective movies are those without an obvious moral, which you mention. People don't derive pride from their brains, so lectures aimed at the brain bounce off. Pride comes from the heart. Movies with morals don't work to touch the heart. Movies that show examples and stir emotion do.

I hope I'm explaining myself clearly.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Serpentine]

Uuuuuh... Is there a specific use of "morale" that you're taking issue with? :smallconfused: Cuz the only way I can see him using it is specifically in the context of esprit de corps to which it is relevant. He's talking about morale, not morals, regardless of its context within a discussion on morality.

[HalfTangible]

Not as dirty as a Texan's boot... :smallamused:
At least living here is pleasant and don't sue 10 grand for losing our pants :smallamused::smalltongue:


Dude, I don't want to piss on your otherwise very well thought-out and written post..

but it's Moral. Not Morale.

Morale is exactly what you said.
Moral is (from Latin morālis) is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event.

I think of the two definition, Moral is what concerns us mainly, no?

Actually, i think you missed the point =/ 'Morale' fit fine in the role he was describing.

[Gaius Marius]

All right then, I withdraw my comment. As said, I thought it was a very good post.

I just thought he based it all on a grammar error regarding the topic of conversation. Since we started talking about morals in story regarding racism, and his first argument was giving us the definition of morale, I was afraid he was mistaken.

Move along, people. Nothing here to see except a very silly roman.

[Gaius Marius]

At least living here is pleasant and don't sue 10 grand for losing our pants :smallamused::smalltongue:


I have to be 100% honest with you. I have no idea what you mean about losing pants.

[Serpentine]

No, he was saying that a root of racism is a form of morale-building.

[Gaius Marius]

No, he was saying that a root of racism is a form of morale-building.

I got that. You must have missed the part where I admited I was mistaken. It's about 3 posts above

[HalfTangible]

I have to be 100% honest with you. I have no idea what you mean about losing pants.

There was a national news story a few years ago about some guy in manhattan losing a fifty dollar pair of pants at the cleaners, so he sued the small business for ten grand. He refused to drop the charges even after the company offered to pay him 200 in damages. Obviously he lost, but it just made me laugh SO HARD...

It's a joke, just roll with it =P

[Gaius Marius]

There was a national news story a few years ago about some guy in manhattan losing a fifty dollar pair of pants at the cleaners, so he sued the small business for ten grand. He refused to drop the charges even after the company offered to pay him 200 in damages. Obviously he lost, but it just made me laugh SO HARD...

It's a joke, just roll with it =P

National News, eh?

Must have been quite the un-eventful day in the US :smallbiggrin: That makes me think of a South Park episode, where the newscaster mentionned "Nothing else happened today"

[Serpentine]

I got that. You must have missed the part where I admited I was mistaken. It's about 3 posts aboveNo, I saw it - was responding to it. I was just making sure you knew why you were wrong :smalltongue:

[HalfTangible]

National News, eh?

Must have been quite the un-eventful day in the US :smallbiggrin: That makes me think of a South Park episode, where the newscaster mentionned "Nothing else happened today"

I think the person who sued was a celebrity :smalltongue: and if not, it's just stupid enough to warrant the entire country laughing at :tongue:

[Gaius Marius]

I think the person who sued was a celebrity :smalltongue: and if not, it's just stupid enough to warrant the entire country laughing at :tongue:

Define "Celebrity" for me. 'cause you seem to have very flexible meaning of the word in the US. Is it "Celebrity" like "Paris Hilton" is a celebrity, or more like "Conan O'Brian"? Or maybe even "Joe the Plumber"? :smallwink:


Maybe That Guy With The Glasses? :smallbiggrin:

[HalfTangible]

Define "Celebrity" for me. 'cause you seem to have very flexible meaning of the word in the US. Is it "Celebrity" like "Paris Hilton" is a celebrity, or more like "Conan O'Brian"? Or maybe even "Joe the Plumber"? :smallwink:


Maybe That Guy With The Glasses? :smallbiggrin:

'A lot of people knew the guy'. That's all celebrity really means here.

[Mistral]

Define "Celebrity" for me. 'cause you seem to have very flexible meaning of the word in the US. Is it "Celebrity" like "Paris Hilton" is a celebrity, or more like "Conan O'Brian"? Or maybe even "Joe the Plumber"? :smallwink:


Maybe That Guy With The Glasses? :smallbiggrin:

It was a law judge in DC, hence why it was so weird that he was filing such a suit over a suit. Somehow, the case made it to trial, ended up in favour of the defendant, and he ended up losing his job afterwards for demonstrating a lack of "judicial temperament." One might suspect it may have ended up in trial just so the judge could hammer him even harder, if one were feeling less than generous. :smalltongue:

[Gaius Marius]

It was a law judge in DC, hence why it was so weird that he was filing such a suit over a suit. Somehow, the case made it to trial, ended up in favour of the defendant, and he ended up losing his job afterwards for demonstrating a lack of "judicial temperament." One might suspect it may have ended up in trial just so the judge could hammer him even harder, if one were feeling less than generous. :smalltongue:

Seems to me the judicial system actually did the decent thing then, no? By allowing that person to go through the whole process, they exposed him for the silly man he was, and that allowed them to sack him.

[HalfTangible]

", in a verdict that surprised [I]no one..."

-Actual news cast...

But this is off-topic.

Racism in movies. It's done for conflict.

[pendell]

It was a law judge in DC, hence why it was so weird that he was filing such a suit over a suit. Somehow, the case made it to trial, ended up in favour of the defendant, and he ended up losing his job afterwards for demonstrating a lack of "judicial temperament." One might suspect it may have ended up in trial just so the judge could hammer him even harder, if one were feeling less than generous. :smalltongue:

I have lived in this city for twenty years and I don't recall this case. Can you provide a link?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[druid91]

Yep.

Yep, we just hit "katanas are underpowered in d20" territory.

Anyway they fought in literal seconds because their main weapon was the bow, not the sword.

It was a social class. You would have samurai that were weak and ineffectual just like you would have knights who were weak and ineffectual, or cavalry officers who were promoted based on their heritage rather than merit (i.e. most of them).

Samurai: not as cool as you think.

For example, face a samurai from the sengoku period against a knight in full plate in a sword fight.The samurai gets stabbed to death. Their swords were brittle and couldn't penetrate heavy armor, and their training aims for spots that are vulnerable due to lighter samurai armor. They were remarkably adapted for their time, but faced against any coeval european warrior, they would be hard-pressed for victory.

Hell, they'd probably have a hard time in a swordfight with my own native peoples' swordfighting style.

And a samurai from the Late Tokugawa would have shot the knight with a gun.

Personally I dislike it when people ignore what samurai got when modernization came into play.

[Sarco_Phage]

And a samurai from the Late Tokugawa would have shot the knight with a gun.

Personally I dislike it when people ignore what samurai got when modernization came into play.

Medieval Knights as a warrior class had, of course, stopped existing precisely due to the fact that ranged weaponry had become increasingly effective, naturally.

A samurai coeval with a knight would lose; the last phase of samurai, with their modern equipment and tactics, likely had weaponry that would defeat full plate from yards away.

(this is actually my biggest issue with The Last Samurai: Ken Watanabe's men are depicted as traditional warriors, rather than a modernized, if sometimes ragtag, military force)

[druid91]

Medieval Knights as a warrior class had, of course, stopped existing precisely due to the fact that ranged weaponry had become increasingly effective, naturally.

A samurai coeval with a knight would lose; the last phase of samurai, with their modern equipment and tactics, likely had weaponry that would defeat full plate from yards away.

(this is actually my biggest issue with The Last Samurai: Ken Watanabe's men are depicted as traditional warriors, rather than a modernized, if sometimes ragtag, military force)

That was a bit annoying. But people will do stupid things for honor, or to make a point.
Unfortunately for him his point was wrong.

With some training those skittish commoners with modern equipment could beat the traditional samurai. Even with the scenario favoring the samurai.

Though it did say at one point that they had guns, they just didn't use them.

EDIT: Also this vaguely fits in because it was samurai racism towards other classes. Sorta?:smalltongue:

[Sarco_Phage]

That was a bit annoying. But people will do stupid things for honor, or to make a point.
Unfortunately for him his point was wrong.

With some training those skittish commoners with modern equipment could beat the traditional samurai. Even with the scenario favoring the samurai.

Though it did say at one point that they had guns, they just didn't use them.

EDIT: Also this vaguely fits in because it was samurai racism towards other classes. Sorta?:smalltongue:

I think it depends on what you think his point was. The dichotomy in the movie isn't really a stark "progress v. tradition" one, or even a "western colonial interests v. eastern cultural integrity" one. The inscription on the sword Ken Watanabe gives to Algren was, if I remember, "this belongs to the warrior in whom the old ways have met with the new", possibly indicating that progress isn't necessarily bad, as long as it keeps the positive parts of the old.

Charging headlong into machine guns isn't exactly positive, but it was a nice scene at the very least.

[Mistral]

I have lived in this city for twenty years and I don't recall this case. Can you provide a link?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I think I can find something. Here (http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/05CA4302PearsonFindings.pdf) is the findings document from the website for the DC court system. It's drier than sin, but it's as painfully thorough as any official court document.

[druid91]

I think it depends on what you think his point was. The dichotomy in the movie isn't really a stark "progress v. tradition" one, or even a "western colonial interests v. eastern cultural integrity" one. The inscription on the sword Ken Watanabe gives to Algren was, if I remember, "this belongs to the warrior in whom the old ways have met with the new", possibly indicating that progress isn't necessarily bad, as long as it keeps the positive parts of the old.

Charging headlong into machine guns isn't exactly positive, but it was a nice scene at the very least.

I thought it was more of the point that He was trying, to the very end, to show the one advisor who was advocating all this... was not a good guy.

Whereas I think he would have liked a simple update to new things. As opposed to a whole new chassis for society.

From my understanding of japanese history that was the big issue. Part of it was the samurai losing everything they had in the changes... And part was idealogical. They didn't want to see the west copy and pasted over japan.

[kamikasei]

I have lived in this city for twenty years and I don't recall this case. Can you provide a link?
I believe this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung) is the case in question.

[pendell]

Thank you, kamikasei and Mistral.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[VanBuren]

That's because there are only two settled places in america.

Excuse me, just because we never see the sun in Seattle doesn't mean we aren't settled!

We gave you Jimi Hendrix!

[thompur]

Excuse me, just because we never see the sun in Seattle doesn't mean we aren't settled!

We gave you Jimi Hendrix!

Good point. Thank you.

[The Big Dice]

Excuse me, just because we never see the sun in Seattle doesn't mean we aren't settled!

We gave you Jimi Hendrix!

Who had to come to Britain to get any recognition.The US music biz left him playing as Jimmy James and the Blue Flames until Chas Chandler discovered him in NYC. Seattle has a lot to answer for. For every Hendrix or Alice In Chains, there's a Nirvana and Queensryche.

[VanBuren]

Who had to come to Britain to get any recognition.The US music biz left him playing as Jimmy James and the Blue Flames until Chas Chandler discovered him in NYC. Seattle has a lot to answer for. For every Hendrix or Alice In Chains, there's a Nirvana and Queensryche.

Unless your point was to say that Seattle produces amazing music consistently, then I'm afraid you've made a grievous error.

An example of bad music would have done far more to support your goal. :smallbiggrin:

[Gaius Marius]

If you want to consider where talent gets together to create awesome things, a a proof of civilisation, then it's Montreal who is the New Rome, no? :smallcool:

[The Big Dice]

Unless your point was to say that Seattle produces amazing music consistently, then I'm afraid you've made a grievous error.

An example of bad music would have done far more to support your goal. :smallbiggrin:[/QUOTE]
Ahh, yes. The mysterious appeal of a heroin addict that would have faded into obscurity if he hadn't shot himself. Seriously, what is the deal with Nirvana? The songs aren't great, the early 90s weren't all bleak and miserable (I was there and having a blast) and the videos were dreadful.

And as for Queensryche, they did one good album. And that was only good, not great. Then vanished into a world of pompous prog rock and leather pants combined with expanding waistlines. Which isn't a good look or sound.

[VanBuren]

Ahh, yes. The mysterious appeal of a heroin addict that would have faded into obscurity if he hadn't shot himself. Seriously, what is the deal with Nirvana? The songs aren't great, the early 90s weren't all bleak and miserable (I was there and having a blast) and the videos were dreadful.

I disagree. I rather like the music. Frankly, I find it better than Alice in Chains.


And as for Queensryche, they did one good album. And that was only good, not great. Then vanished into a world of pompous prog rock and leather pants combined with expanding waistlines. Which isn't a good look or sound.

Mileage May Vary.

[The Linker]

Growing up in Montreal and going to church every Sunday, mixed with more african americans than caucaisans, I really had no concept of 'people with different skin are different kinds of people'. Movies like Remember the Titans (which I had the pleasure of watching in school like six times gaaaah) had the effect of teaching me that horrible conflict comes from mixing different races. As someone who's very averse to that kind of social conflict, the opposite of the intended effect was had on me. Suddenly I see someone with a different skin color and jump to thinking "Oh nooooo this'll get ugly". Cause that's what happens in those movies, right? Some foreign guy walks in and a fight breaks out. :smalleek: That peaked when I saw Crash, with the amount of gut-wrenching tension that movie managed to create in me at so many points...

It was a temporary attitude. But horribly ironic.

[HalfTangible]

Growing up in Montreal and going to church every Sunday, mixed with more african americans than caucaisans, I really had no concept of 'people with different skin are different kinds of people'. Movies like Remember the Titans (which I had the pleasure of watching in school like six times gaaaah) had the effect of teaching me that horrible conflict comes from mixing different races. As someone who's very averse to that kind of social conflict, the opposite of the intended effect was had on me. Suddenly I see someone with a different skin color and jump to thinking "Oh nooooo this'll get ugly". Cause that's what happens in those movies, right? Some foreign guy walks in and a fight breaks out. :smalleek: That peaked when I saw Crash, with the amount of gut-wrenching tension that movie managed to create in me at so many points...

It was a temporary attitude. But horribly ironic.

Such movies taught me that white people were universally hated. Reality has taught me that that can apply about half of 23% of the time.

Reality has also taught me that 25% of people are stupid half of the time, and the remaining 2% left over are people like me, who stay on the internet making bad jokes and comments when we SHOULD be doing our f*****g homework!

[Gaius Marius]

Such movies taught me that white people were universally hated. Reality has taught me that that can apply about half of 23% of the time.

Reality has also taught me that 25% of people are stupid half of the time, and the remaining 2% left over are people like me, who stay on the internet making bad jokes and comments when we SHOULD be doing our f*****g homework!

I personally learned that 57% of people believe anything you say as long as you cite a percentage. Sounds more scienc-y.

It raises to 68% with a 2nd one, and to 82.8% at the 3rd. By then, better include a comma to look more precise.

[The Glyphstone]

71.462% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Adding numbers after a decimal point makes them look even more scientific, though.

[The Linker]

Repeating, of course.

[Gaius Marius]

71.462% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Adding numbers after a decimal point makes them look even more scientific, though.

Thing is, the moment you know a tad about statistics, you realise that no statistic is that precise except if you happen to have a ludicrously large and precise sample.

[HalfTangible]

71.462% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Adding numbers after a decimal point makes them look even more scientific, though.

99.99999% of people who know a bit about statistics stopped caring about their statistics being accurate long ago =P

[The Glyphstone]

99.99999% of people who know a bit about statistics stopped caring about their statistics being accurate long ago =P

Out to how many standard deviations, though?

[HalfTangible]

Out to how many standard deviations, though?

I don't know what that means.

Seven.

[Gaius Marius]

You gotta give your confidence threshold. P>0.05?

[HalfTangible]

You gotta give your confidence threshold. P>0.05?

CT = f''(x)

f(x) = a^4 + 2bQ^7c/2c + 7

In other words, CT is...

undefined.

...

:smalltongue:

Now can we get back to movies? Or move this to the Random Banter thread?

[Killer Angel]

CT = f''(x)

f(x) = a^4 + 2bQ^7c/2c + 7

In other words, CT is...

undefined.

...

:smalltongue:



CT is 42. You can't go wrong with 42.




Well, most of the time people believe they're better than another group because they've been taught to. Why? Because the teachers want to foster Esprit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morale)

(snip)

Because teenage boys who may never have heard 'marine' before they enlisted have been caught up into this mystique, this belief that they are not normal humans, but part of something bigger, something grander than themselves. As they say, there are no ex-marines.

There are people who are racists for that reason. They need something to take pride in.


Interesting points, i'll just add something.
"there are no ex-marines", it's a common phrase that you'll find in many armies. In Italy, you'll find "there are no ex-alpini" (specialized troops for mountain fighting), with their pride for battles fought against all odds and with severe climate, and so on.
As you know, it's one of the basic principles in all the armies.
But esprit de corps teaches you the pride to belong to a group... it can bring you to racism toward others, but the starting principle (love your fellows) is different from the racism basic principle (hate the different ones).
Esprit de corps can make you a very good citizen, racism will never.

And yeah, the film "Glory", shows the difference between the 2 things.

[HalfTangible]

CT is 42. You can't go wrong with 42.




Interesting points, i'll just add something.
"there are no ex-marines", it's a common phrase that you'll find in many armies. In Italy, you'll find "there are no ex-alpini" (specialized troops for mountain fighting), with their pride for battles fought against all odds and with severe climate, and so on.
As you know, it's one of the basic principles in all the armies.
But esprit de corps teaches you the pride to belong to a group... it can bring you to racism toward others, but the starting principle (love your fellows) is different from the racism basic principle (hate the different ones).
Esprit de corps can make you a very good citizen, racism will never.

And yeah, the film "Glory", shows the difference between the 2 things.

The derivative of a constant is zero, the derivative of a constant (c) times x^n = cnx^<(n-1). d/dx 2c = 2, d/dx 2 = 0, zero for the denominator equals undefined.

[H Birchgrove]

CT is 42. You can't go wrong with 42.




Interesting points, i'll just add something.
"there are no ex-marines", it's a common phrase that you'll find in many armies. In Italy, you'll find "there are no ex-alpini" (specialized troops for mountain fighting), with their pride for battles fought against all odds and with severe climate, and so on.
As you know, it's one of the basic principles in all the armies.
But esprit de corps teaches you the pride to belong to a group... it can bring you to racism toward others, but the starting principle (love your fellows) is different from the racism basic principle (hate the different ones).
Esprit de corps can make you a very good citizen, racism will never.

And yeah, the film "Glory", shows the difference between the 2 things.

Or as Charles de Gaulle would say:

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

[Killer Angel]

The derivative of a constant is zero, the derivative of a constant (c) times x^n = cnx^<(n-1). d/dx 2c = 2, d/dx 2 = 0, zero for the denominator equals undefined.

yesss... :smallconfused:

It was a joke, I should have added the :smalltongue:.
It was a reference to Doug Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#In_The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Gal axy). :smallwink:


Or as Charles de Gaulle would say:

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

Yep, tnx. :smallsmile:

[HeadlessMermaid]

It's been mentioned already, but it needs more... advertising, I think.

Twelve Angry Men was a brilliant film about, among other things, racism. Because it showed how easily stereotypes form in the minds of people - people who are NOT more "irrational" or more "immoral" than the rest of the population. How easily stereotypes affect our judgment. And how hard - but entirely possible - it is to overcome these. Now, there's something worth talking about.

The story: Almost the whole film is set inside a jury room. Twelve men, twelve jurors, are trying to decide the fate of one, a young fellow accused of murder. It seems like an easy case, all evidence is against him, the defense did nothing to, well, defend him, and most jurors have business to attend to and are in a hurry. Voting "guilty" seems the most sensible thing to do.

But one of them disagrees, one of them is not convinced "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that the accused is guilty. As he explains his rationale and tries to convince the others (and as the others try to convince him), we see how decisions and judgments that at first glance would seem a product of rational thought are in fact the product of prejudice.

Race doesn't come directly into it, but differences in social class and environment do. And in the end, that's what racism boils down to: what tells you apart from another human being, and how you cope with it. And that's why this 1957 film is perfectly timeless.

[HalfTangible]

It's been mentioned already, but it needs more... advertising, I think.

Twelve Angry Men was a brilliant film about, among other things, racism. Because it showed how easily stereotypes form in the minds of people - people who are NOT more "irrational" or more "immoral" than the rest of the population. How easily stereotypes affect our judgment. And how hard - but entirely possible - it is to overcome these. Now, there's something worth talking about.

The story: Almost the whole film is set inside a jury room. Twelve men, twelve jurors, are trying to decide the fate of one, a young fellow accused of murder. It seems like an easy case, all evidence is against him, the defense did nothing to, well, defend him, and most jurors have business to attend to and are in a hurry. Voting "guilty" seems the most sensible thing to do.

But one of them disagrees, one of them is not convinced "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that the accused is guilty. As he explains his rationale and tries to convince the others (and as the others try to convince him), we see how decisions and judgments that at first glance would seem a product of rational thought are in fact the product of prejudice.

Race doesn't come directly into it, but differences in social class and environment do. And in the end, that's what racism boils down to: what tells you apart from another human being, and how you cope with it. And that's why this 1957 film is perfectly timeless.
Did you know it was originally a play? :smalltongue:

[HeadlessMermaid]

Did you know it was originally a play? :smalltongue:
Well, yes - but even if I didn't, I'm pretty sure I would have figured it out eventually. :smalltongue:

[HalfTangible]

Well, yes - but even if I didn't, I'm pretty sure I would have figured it out eventually. :smalltongue:

Did you also know that it is incredibly infuriating when the term 'racism' is used to mean 'any kind of prejudice'? :smallannoyed:

[Serpentine]

What does that have to do with it being a play, and what does it originally being a play have to do with the film's value as an anti-racism movie? :confused:

[HeadlessMermaid]

Did you also know that it is incredibly infuriating when the term 'racism' is used to mean 'any kind of prejudice'? :smallannoyed:
Ah, that's a long story. But briefly:

I agree that using the terms interchangeably is... confusing. I suppose my point was that both phenomena stem from more or less the same mindset, and gain ground due to the same social factors. (Which have already been mentioned in this thread, I saw no point repeating them.)

Understanding how prejudice works is pretty much a prerequisite to understand racism. Not as a theory, but as a sociopolitical phenomenon. Therefore, any film (or whatever) helps you in that regard does a great job in the anti-racism front, too.

In contrast, Avatar (the example used by the OP) deals directly with race, supposedly, but tells you absolutely nothing useful about racism.

[HalfTangible]

What does that have to do with it being a play, and what does it originally being a play have to do with the film's value as an anti-racism movie? :confused:To the first: Nothing, it was a completely different point directed towards the fact that Headless called it an anti-racist movie, and then admitted that it had little if anything to do with race >.>

To the second: A) It wasn't an anti-racism movie. Because it had nothing to do with race >.> B) Nothing. I just thought it was interesting to bring up.


Ah, that's a long story. But briefly:

I agree that using the terms interchangeably is... confusing. I suppose my point was that both phenomena stem from more or less the same mindset, and gain ground due to the same social factors. (Which have already been mentioned in this thread, I saw no point repeating them.)

Understanding how prejudice works is pretty much a prerequisite to understand racism. Not as a theory, but as a sociopolitical phenomenon. Therefore, any film (or whatever) helps you in that regard does a great job in the anti-racism front, too.

In contrast, Avatar (the example used by the OP) deals directly with race, supposedly, but tells you absolutely nothing useful about racism.

alright, i get your point... i just can't stand it when people use prejudice and racism interchangeably. They're not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such.

[Dacia Brabant]

Did you also know that it is incredibly infuriating when the term 'racism' is used to mean 'any kind of prejudice'? :smallannoyed:

:smallconfused: Juror #10 is very clearly a racist. His of course is not the only prejudice on display, but it's the most obvious and most odious.


Anyway, I think a film created solely with the purpose of being anti-racist is probably going to be a pretty bad film. For instance "Crash" which was intended to show present-day racial tensions with the idea that it's possible to move beyond them in a crisis, but ultimately was just mired in the bad behavior of unsympathetic caricature characters. But a film where identifying, challenging and (possibly, depending on the story) overcoming racism is an important part of the overall story, but there's still a story independent of that, can be excellent and instructive. "12 Angry Men," "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Glory," and "Cry Freedom," all mentioned in this thread, are great examples, and I'd also include "In the Heat of the Night."

[Serpentine]

I'm watching it right now. A man just went on a massive tirade about how "that sort of person" is "born that way" and "don't know what the truth is" and various similar such sentiments, because he's a poor Spanish-American. If that isn't relevant to the topic of racism, nothing is.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Headless called it an anti-racist movie, and then admitted that it had little if anything to do with race >.>
When did I call it an anti-racist movie?
(A rhetorical question. Because, you know. I didn't. :smalltongue:)

[HalfTangible]

I'm watching it right now. A man just went on a massive tirade about how "that sort of person" is "born that way" and "don't know what the truth is" and various similar such sentiments. If that isn't relevant to the topic of racism, nothing is.
One character does not a movie topic make.


When did I call it an anti-racist movie?
(A rhetorical question. Because, you know. I didn't. :smalltongue:)
*points*

Twelve Angry Men was a brilliant film about, among other things, racism.
The play and film were about prejudice, not racism. Racism was one of said prejudices, but it was not the focus of the film.

[Serpentine]

It's the point of the damn movie. And any bit that doesn't directly relate to race is still plentily relevant. It is an "anti-racism" movie. The fact that it isn't only about racism doesn't change that fact, and in fact just helps make it a good movie.

[HalfTangible]

It's the point of the damn movie. And any bit that doesn't directly relate to race is still plentily relevant. It is an "anti-racism" movie. The fact that it isn't only about racism doesn't change that fact, and in fact just helps make it a good movie.

No, no, no. The movie is about prejudice. Not racism. PREJUDICE.

[Sarco_Phage]

No, no, no. The movie is about prejudice. Not racism. PREJUDICE.

What Serpentine is saying is that it has anti-racist elements, therefore it is an anti-racist movie, among whatever else it is.

Anyway this is sheer useless pedantry.

[HeadlessMermaid]

The play and film were about prejudice, not racism. Racism was one of said prejudices, but it was not the focus of the film.
I said "among other things". You just quoted it, for Pete's sake!

Basically you want to say that racism is, technically, merely a subset of prejudice, which may have to do with all sorts of things (race, gender, religion, nationality, language, sexual orientation, social class, income, profession.... and the list goes on). Right? I'm pretty sure no one here disagrees.

Still, behind any and all bias you'll find the same psychological process. So if you delve into any one of these, and you do it well enough, congratulations: you just made a movie about racism, too.

In any case, I'm very happy that at least one person was intrigued enough to watch the film after all this. :smallsmile:

[HalfTangible]

I said "among other things". You just quoted it, for Pete's sake!'Among other things' would mean that the other elements are relatively unimportant. Correct? Which would in turn mean that the one you mentioned would be the only important one. Which was not the case.


Still, behind any and all bias you'll find the same psychological process. So if you delve into any one of these, and you do it well enough, congratulations: you just made a movie about racism, too.No, you just made a movie about bias. :smallannoyed:

I refuse to call racism and prejudice the same thing.* Racism is racism and the movie is about many forms of prejudice.

*Meaning, i refuse to use the words interchangeably...

[HeadlessMermaid]

'Among other things' would mean that the other elements are relatively unimportant. Correct?
Oh for the love of...
Incorrect. "Among other things" means "among other things", period. I mentioned racism by name because that's what the thread is about.
Occam's razor, man... :)

[Dacia Brabant]

Not to change the subject, but changing subjects :smalltongue:, I do want to relay an anecdote that is quasi-supportive of the OP's "haters gonna hate" point. I knew a guy in college who was a serious bigot, had it in for pretty much every group that wasn't Rich White Heterosexual Protestant Christian Male, but... he loved Sidney Poitier's work, and thought "In the Heat of the Night" was one of the best films ever made. I don't know if it was his anti-South prejudice (yeah, weird, I know) that made him see past the anti-racism message for him to like the film or what, but either way it's definitely possible for a racist to watch an anti-racism film, enjoy it, and come away completely unchanged.

Of course that fact doesn't mean that a film like "In the Heat of the Night" shouldn't be or doesn't need to be made. It absolutely does and should be, if only because it's story that's a part of who we were and are as a culture and people. That's rather the point of art, isn't it?

[JonestheSpy]

I refuse to call racism and prejudice the same thing.* Racism is racism and the movie is about many forms of prejudice.

*Meaning, i refuse to use the words interchangeably...

I prefer the word bigotry, myself. It packs a nice punch, is nicely all-encompassing. It also differentiates between the normal absorption of societal biases that effects pretty much everyone, and those who are actively, consciously prejudiced.

Oh, and I don't think Avatar is an "anti-racism" movie at all - it's a fantasy in sci-fi drag about modern humanity's relationship to nature, with the blue aliens there so that nature can talk back to the humans. I don't think there are really too many flat out "anti-racism" films out there, though there are plenty about racism - there's a subtle difference between the two.

[VanBuren]

One character does not a movie topic make.


*points*

The play and film were about prejudice, not racism. Racism was one of said prejudices, but it was not the focus of the film.

Did you notice the part where it says "among other things"? It means that the movie was also about "other things".

[snoopy13a]

Oh, and I don't think Avatar is an "anti-racism" movie at all - it's a fantasy in sci-fi drag about modern humanity's relationship to nature, with the blue aliens there so that nature can talk back to the humans. I don't think there are really too many flat out "anti-racism" films out there, though there are plenty about racism - there's a subtle difference between the two.

From what I've heard, it is Dances with Wolves in space :smallsmile:

However, since this thread has taken a pendantic turn, I feel it is my duty to inform everyone that Avatar does not deal with racism. Instead, it deals with specism :smalltongue:

Also, I would suggest using "inter alia" in place of "among other things"; it just appears more haughty :smallbiggrin:

[SuperPanda]

From what I've heard, it is Dances with Wolves in space :smallsmile:

However, since this thread has taken a pendantic turn, I feel it is my duty to inform everyone that Avatar does not deal with racism. Instead, it deals with specism :smalltongue:

Also, I would suggest using "inter alia" in place of "among other things"; it just appears more haughty :smallbiggrin:

I think the way you wanted to say that would have been: Also, I would suggest using "inter alia" in place of "among other things"; among other things, it appears more haughty :smallbiggrin:

:P

On the semantics argument though I do agree that while racism is a form or prejudice, prejudice is not racism. Its sort of like saying that any pro-America film out there is about nationalism, the argument can be made for it but it requires making several assumptions.

I haven't see twelve angry men though from the discussion I'd have to say that the argument was pretty stupid. Its a film about prejudice which has time devoted to racism as one of the examples of why prejudice (and racism) are bad.

On Avatar: There isn't even a decent specisism thread to pull in the plot. The film is about a powerful cooperation with its own mercenary force that wants to mine a very valuable substance on someone else's land and since the someone else doesn't want to give it over then the cooperation is just going to go take it. Virtually all of the scientists present are against this and even some of the soldiers, but greed and money drive the battle forward.

If Avatar is about some of these deadly sins (pride and wrath making up racism in my mind) this one is purely about greed.

[Serpentine]

No, no, no. The movie is about prejudice. Not racism. PREJUDICE.I was seriously just watching it right then. It was about pre-conceived ideas and prejudice based on a man's age (young), financial status (poor), social status (immigrant) and race (Spanish-American). No, it wasn't ONLY about racism. But it was about racism.

Here is the rant I mentioned before (possibly spoilery):


I don't understand you people! I mean all these picky little points you keep bringing up. They don't mean nothing. You saw this kid just like I did. You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir!
...
They get drunk... oh, they're real big drinkers, all of 'em - you know that - and bang: someone's lyin' in the gutter. Oh, nobody's blaming them for it. That's the way they are! By nature! You know what I mean? VIOLENT!
...
Human life don't mean as much to them as it does to us!
...
Look, they're lushing it up and fighting all the time and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed! They don't care! Oh, sure, there are some good things about 'em, too. Look, I'm the first one to say that.
...
I've known a couple who were OK, but that's the exception, y'know what I mean?
...
Most of 'em, it's like they have no feelings! They can do anything! What's goin' on here? I'm trying to tell you... you're makin' a big mistake, you people! This kid is a liar! I know it. I know all about them! Listen to me! They're no good! There's not a one of 'em who is any good! I mean, what's happening in here? I'm speaking my piece, and you...
...
Listen to me. We're... This kid on trial here... his type, well, don't you know about them? There's a, there's a danger here. These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.Yes, this would probably work as well with "his type" referring to homosexuals or poor people or whatever, but you know what that means? That racism has a lot in common with other forms of bigotry. That's it. And, well, it is directly about racism anyway, because "his type" is referring to a Spanish-American immigrant.

[HalfTangible]

I was seriously just watching it right then. It was about pre-conceived ideas and prejudice based on a man's age (young), financial status (poor), social status (immigrant) and race (Spanish-American).

I know. I've seen it.


No, it wasn't ONLY about racism. But it was about racism.

>.>

This shirt isn't red. But it is red.

>.>


Did you notice the part where it says "among other things"? It means that the movie was also about "other things".

It also means the other things are relatively insignificant. As i said before.

[dracoslaad]

I'm currently wearing a white and green shirt. The shirt isn't ONLY white. But it is white.
Besides, why should a movie have only one subject? It can be multifaceted.

[TechnoScrabble]

I always figured that the only people who made a big deal about racism were racists who pretended not to be to ease their conscience. I mean, if you really don't care about race, why even acknowledge the fact that it exists?
Hell, from a biological standpoint, it doesn't. We're all the same damn species.

[HalfTangible]

I'm currently wearing a white and green shirt. The shirt isn't ONLY white. But it is white.

No, it's not. It's white and green >.>


I always figured that the only people who made a big deal about racism were racists who pretended not to be to ease their conscience. I mean, if you really don't care about race, why even acknowledge the fact that it exists?
Hell, from a biological standpoint, it doesn't. We're all the same damn species.

I didn't give two ****s about race until i asked what the point of black history month was. At which point, i learned that we have Black history because there is, apparently, WHITE history.

Why can't it just be 'history'? Never got an answer to that one...

[SaintRidley]

No, it's not. It's white and green >.>

You agree then. It's white. It's also green.

{Scrubbed}

[HalfTangible]

You agree then. It's white. It's also green.So it's not white.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

:smallannoyed: Should i be glad i don't know what obtuse means in this context?

To clarify: I get the point you're trying to make. But said point is wrong.

[SaintRidley]

So it's not white.




No, you said it yourself. It's white. The fact that it is also green does not make it suddenly not white. It just makes it both.

You cannot take "It is white and it is green" to somehow make something not white.

Likewise, if something is about many things and one of those included things is racism, you cannot say that it is not about racism. That is not how it works.



Should i be glad i don't know what obtuse means in this context?

Not understanding the point. You seem to be deliberately approaching and then completely missing the point here.

[HalfTangible]

No, you said it yourself. It's white. The fact that it is also green does not make it suddenly not white. It just makes it both.

You cannot take "It is white and it is green" to somehow make something not white.

Likewise, if something is about many things and one of those included things is racism, you cannot say that it is not about racism. That is not how it works.




Not understanding the point. You seem to be deliberately approaching and then completely missing the point here.
Read the above edit.

Also: the fact that the shirt has green on it means it's not a white shirt. It is multicolor.



Besides, why should a movie have only one subject? It can be multifaceted.

Because said one subject encompasses pretty much everything the movie was about (except for trial and argumentation, but you get the point)

[SaintRidley]

To clarify: I get the point you're trying to make. But said point is wrong.

If the first part was true you wouldn't be saying the second part.

So if it is white and it is green it ceases being white and it ceases being green and becomes multicolor. And multicolor has meaning how? Unless we take multicolor to mean it is still white and green, then you haven't done anything.

Let's move this back to the topic of the thread, to make it clear.

I am white.

I am hispanic.

Am I somehow not white anymore because I am hispanic? Am I somehow not hispanic anymore because I am white? Am I multiethnic? Yes, I am. And the only way multiethnic makes sense in relation to my state of being is by acknowledging two facts. I am white. I am hispanic.

The shirt is multicolor. It is white. It is green.

A film might be about prejudice in general. It might do this through the specific examples of racism and sexism. It is about racism. It is about sexism.

Are you understanding?

[HalfTangible]

If the first part was true you wouldn't be saying the second part.

....... Let me get this straight.

You do not believe it is possible for me to have a differing opinion to you, and understand yours at the same time.

...

I'm leaving before i say things I'll regret. :smallannoyed:

[Gaius Marius]

I didn't give two ****s about race until i asked what the point of black history month was. At which point, i learned that we have Black history because there is, apparently, WHITE history.

Why can't it just be 'history'? Never got an answer to that one...

if I had to guess, it'd say it's about focus. What many of us learn about our history covers the mediterranian civilisations, mostly the Greeks and Romans.

And for the medieval, they will focus on the western Europe history, usually the big 4 colonial powers. Thing is, these classes completely skip over the sub-saharian civilisations's history, since they have been crushed by the colonial powers (I blame Adama).

Many people have no idea of what these civilisations/empires were. It's good to have a sense of national identity, where you can trace you people's history through time. Should a black kid think of the Romans as his cultural ancestors?

[SaintRidley]

....... Let me get this straight.

You do not believe it is possible for me to have a differing opinion to you, and understand yours at the same time.

...

I'm leaving before i say things I'll regret. :smallannoyed:


Read my edit.

[Serpentine]

So what you're saying, HalfTangible, is that for something to be about a particular topic, it must be ONLY about that one topic and nothing else? Then there is no film about anything, ever.

Milo and Otis isn't about cats, because it's also about dogs.
Free Willy isn't about family because it's also about a whale.
Stand By Me isn't about coming of age, because it's also about friendship.
Up isn't about dealing with grief because it's also about family, bravery and trust.

To insist that a film can not be about something, just because it is also about something else, is completely, utterly and totally nonsensical and, as seen here, bogs down what could be a very interesting discussion in meaningless double-think.
12 Angry Men is about racism. It is also about prejudice in general, and is also about conflict and whatever other themes it has. If you insist that the only film that is valid to discuss here is one that covers absolutely nothing else except racism, then... well, this thread may as well be locked, because I can't think of a single movie that is about nothing but racism, and I don't expect it's a very good one.

To put it another way:

This shirt isn't red. But it is red.The shirt is red. It is also a cotton-polyester blend, with blue embroidery and a white collar. It's still a red shirt, and therefore eligible for discussion on red shirts.

[SaintRidley]

Thank you, Serp. That cut nicely to the point.

[The Linker]

Also: the fact that the shirt has green on it means it's not a white shirt. It is multicolor.

You would never be able to attribute a color to anything then. My dog isn't black, it's black and pink and brown and white. This isn't a green book, there's small yellow letters on the front.

I guess we all agree that the statement 'this movie is about many things and one of them is racism' is valid -- the contested point is whether 'this movie is about racism' can co-incide with that statement. I fully believe that it can, the aforementioned statement not being an excluding one.

I put that out there to make sure I'm on the same page, though. :smalltongue:

[Gaelbert]

So it's not white.


Here's a handy reference chart I made to describe the situation:
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z270/coolcalbert/WhiteGreen.png

(That is green, isn't it? I'm moderately colour blind. It would be terribly ironic if it was blue :smallannoyed:)

[Serpentine]

It's bluish green, but mostly green :smalltongue:
I guess we all agree that the statement 'this movie is about many things and one of them is racism' is validI'm not sure about that. I don't believe he's acknowledged anything like that, but rather insists that because it is also about something else, it isn't about racism at all. Feel free to point me in the direction of a compromisory comment, but I don't recall seeing one.

[SaintRidley]

Here's a handy reference chart I made to describe the situation:
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z270/coolcalbert/WhiteGreen.png

(That is green, isn't it? I'm moderately colour blind. It would be terribly ironic if it was blue :smallannoyed:)

I am too, so it looks like the color sand has to me. I'm not seeing where Serp sees anything bluish about it.

[Serpentine]

Heh. You whacky boys, with your silly defective chromosomes :smallamused:

[SaintRidley]

Heh. You whacky boys, with your silly defective chromosomes :smallamused:

I blame my mother. :smallamused:

[Gaelbert]

Heh. You whacky boys, with your silly defective chromosomes :smallamused:

Colour blindness doesn't always mean male, you know. Those of us with two X chromosomes still have a 1% chance of it.

[Serpentine]

Yes, I do know that. However, it is far more common in males, and the people currently complaining are all (as far as I'm aware) male.

edit: Except you're not. But... probably not the place to ask that question, so never mind.
Mockery withdrawn.

[TechnoScrabble]

Here's a handy reference chart I made to describe the situation:
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z270/coolcalbert/WhiteGreen.png

(That is green, isn't it? I'm moderately colour blind. It would be terribly ironic if it was blue :smallannoyed:)

Hahaha irony.:smalltongue:

[VanBuren]

This shirt isn't red. But it is red.

I didn't realize my polychromatic shirts were fictional. It appears I've been walking around shirtless this entire time.

My apologies.


It also means the other things are relatively insignificant. As i said before.

The problem is that this is a meaning you've added to the text, not necessarily one the text itself contained.

[HeadlessMermaid]

First, I apologize for the pedantry. I never expected such a small thing to explode out of proportion like that. :smalleek:

I always figured that the only people who made a big deal about racism were racists who pretended not to be to ease their conscience. I mean, if you really don't care about race, why even acknowledge the fact that it exists?
Hell, from a biological standpoint, it doesn't. We're all the same damn species.
So say we all! :smallbiggrin:

...Except that we don't all say so. That's the problem. Discussing racism and making films about it and yes, making a "a big deal" about it is perfectly appropriate in a world where racism still thrives.

Have you seriously never heard of groups of people attacking immigrants whose skin color is different (beating them up, destroying their homes and shops, occasionally killing them)? In dozens of countries, east to west and north to south? Have you honestly never heard of discrimination in employment and law enforcement based on race? Have you really never heard of people claiming that their race is superior? Have you not noticed how fascism is making a big comeback all over Europe, when a few decades ago the notion would seem absurd? Have you not seen "American History X", and if you did, did you think it referred to a long gone era?

Films about (among other things :smalltongue:) racism are still relevant to today's society, whether we like it or not. Saying "Personally, I don't care at all about race" is great, but adding "so why make a fuss, huh?" is missing the point, IMO.

[Sarco_Phage]

No, it wasn't ONLY about racism. But it was about racism.This shirt isn't red. But it is red.

Actually, that should read "this shirt isn't only red. But it is red." if you're emulating the sentence structure of what she wrote. Note the "only"; it is particularly key to conveying the sense of her words.

[Serpentine]

Actually, if we're doing that, it'd be "This shirt isn't ONLY red. But it does contain red", really.

[Sarco_Phage]

Hmm. How about, "This shirt isn't only red. But it has a certain fiber content, dyed with natural or artificial adhesive colors, which, in combination with a number of other factors such as the state of the lighting at the time and the amount of wear the fabric has undergone, leading it to a certain fadedness which might mislead some people into qualifying it as more pink than red."

[Serpentine]

...no. That doesn't work at all :smalltongue:

[Killer Angel]

Hmm. How about, "This shirt isn't only red. But it has a certain fiber content, dyed with natural or artificial adhesive colors, which, in combination with a number of other factors such as the state of the lighting at the time and the amount of wear the fabric has undergone, leading it to a certain fadedness which might mislead some people into qualifying it as more pink than red."

My brain hurts... :smalltongue:

[JonestheSpy]

I always figured that the only people who made a big deal about racism were racists who pretended not to be to ease their conscience. I mean, if you really don't care about race, why even acknowledge the fact that it exists?


Wow, and here I've always thought that people who wanted to pretend that racism in modern society was no big deal and didn't want to acknowledge its existence were racists who didn't like having their worldview challenged. Go figure!


Hell, from a biological standpoint, it doesn't. We're all the same damn species.

And yet somehow, large numbers of the species Homo Sapiens still harbor ill feeling towards other Homo Sapiens because of physical appearance and cultural differences. I don't see how pretending otherwise improves the situation. Hope that's general enough to no be overly political.

[kamikasei]

I always figured that the only people who made a big deal about racism were racists who pretended not to be to ease their conscience. I mean, if you really don't care about race, why even acknowledge the fact that it exists?
I suspect you would be less indifferent to race if you found yourself regularly subject to bigotry because of your own.

[Serpentine]

I would like to point out that race is important for some things, generally biology, biogeography, medicine and history. Opinion-wise, I think it's a little silly to pretend it doesn't exist at all, when clearly it does. Doesn't mean it matters most of the time (at least outside the above areas), but it still exists.

[Sarco_Phage]

I would like to point out that race is important for some things, generally biology

No. No, they aren't. Genetics blurs the line between races. The Xhosas of africa for example, are more closely related to, if I recall correctly, Eastern European ethnic groups than Western Europeans are. Isn't it funny how apparent it is that race is more of a social construct than anything else?

[Serpentine]

Just because genetics blurs the lines, doesn't mean their aren't still lines there.

Fat on Inuit eyelids.
African preference for bigger bottoms on their women, and their overall body shape.
Aboriginal eyesight, and vulnerability to diabetes.

Three examples of race being significant biologically. I'm sure there's more I don't know about.

[Sarco_Phage]

Fat on Inuit eyelids.
African preference for bigger bottoms on their women, and their overall body shape.
Aboriginal eyesight, and vulnerability to diabetes.

Three examples of race being significant biologically. I'm sure there's more I don't know about.

No.

Just...

Look, when someone says, "yo, that dude is an aborigine", they aren't saying "Pardon, chap, I do believe that man is from an ethnic group with a particular vulnerability to sickle-cell anemia/diabetes/supercancer", they're saying "this man's appearance leads me to group him with other people who also look like him."

Ethnicity which takes into account your place of origin, line of descent, and genetic makeup, is different from Race. Race is too nebulously defined to be an important concept for anything.

[Serpentine]

Then your issue is one of semantics, and there's no point continuing this discussion.

[Sarco_Phage]

Then your issue is one of semantics, and there's no point continuing this discussion.

Oops. Well, yeah, I'm a pedant.

[VanBuren]

If I remember correctly, isn't the current consensus that you're no less similar genetically to humans of other races than you are to people of your own race?

...

Wow. That sounds really stupid when I put it in words.

[Sarco_Phage]

If I remember correctly, isn't the current consensus that you're no less similar genetically to humans of other races than you are to people of your own race?

...

Wow. That sounds really stupid when I put it in words.

No, the current consensus among anthropologists is that the current standards of race are misleading because they don't indicate any actual common features besides skin color and other physical characteristics.

It turns out the old definitions are completely invalid.

[Serpentine]

I believe it was something along the lines of, two Caucasian people are more genetically different than Caucasians as a whole are to Africans, that sorta thing. I'm not sure how it works.
If you want some entertaining reading, look up the Wiki article on race in India. They reeeaaaaaallly screwed up Scientific Racism :smallbiggrin:

[VanBuren]

I believe it was something along the lines of, two Caucasian people are more genetically different than Caucasians as a whole are to Africans, that sorta thing. I'm not sure how it works.
If you want some entertaining reading, look up the Wiki article on race in India. They reeeaaaaaallly screwed up Scientific Racism :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, that sounds right.

[HeadlessMermaid]

If you want some entertaining reading, look up the Wiki article on race in India. They reeeaaaaaallly screwed up Scientific Racism :smallbiggrin:
I failed to find the article. (How hard can it be? :smalltongue:)

[Serpentine]

I'm in a better mood now, so... ta-da (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_races_in_India)!

[H Birchgrove]

I blame my mother. :smallamused:

I'm pretty sure it's the sperm cells that decide whether the child will be a boy or a girl. :smallconfused:

On the other hand, an article I read years ago said intelligence is inherited from the mother.

[Coidzor]

I'm pretty sure it's the sperm cells that decide whether the child will be a boy or a girl. :smallconfused:

On the other hand, an article I read years ago said intelligence is inherited from the mother.

Well, something about the mother's state will influence which sperm cells get there... and whether an XY will develop into a girl with testes for ovaries or a boy... and whether an XX or XY embryo will successfully be carried to term.

Lotsa things.

[SaintRidley]

I'm pretty sure it's the sperm cells that decide whether the child will be a boy or a girl. :smallconfused:

On the other hand, an article I read years ago said intelligence is inherited from the mother.

Most forms of colorblindness come from a recessive gene on the X Chromosome. Y chromosomes do not carry the dominant gene at all and so XY males born with the recessive gene always express it. If the sperm cell contributes an X chromosome, however, the resulting XX girl may be spared colorblindness... that is, as long as her father isn't colorblind.

[Wardog]

I believe it was something along the lines of, two Caucasian people are more genetically different than Caucasians as a whole are to Africans, that sorta thing. I'm not sure how it works.

I don't know that much about human genetics (or indeed genetics in general), but I'm guessing it would be something like this:


1) Humans originated in Africa, and were (relatively) genetically diverse.
2) A bunch of humans left Africa, and spread out through the rest of the world.
3) In the course of this, they picked up a few mutations (affecting appearence and a few other features).
4) The newly aquired mutations would be tiny in comparison to the total number of genes (and the diversity of variations) that both the Africans and the emigrants already had.
5) Consequently, although all the emigrants had genetic traits that marked them out as different from those that stayed in Africa (and their sub-groups had genes that marked them out as being different from each other), when you consider the range of variations possible in all the other genes, you could potentially have an emigrant that had more genes in common with and African than they did with another emigrant.


At least, that's my best guess at an explanation. Hopefully one of our resident geneticists can confirm or refute that.

[Gaius Marius]

Hum.. Good job reanimating this thread days before it's official death :smallbiggrin:

I think you can add some other elements to your theory, a level of genetical traits were traded by the movement of population, trade and conquests. Like how the Alexandrians were a mix of Egyptians and Macedonians.

[Kato]

I'm not trying to make a point for racists or anything but counting genes is no real way to determine... anything. About half our genes are identical to all higher species, 98+% are identical to our closest relatives, chimpanzees.
But yeah, the differences between people are tiny, but if you look at people who were not affected by the massive increase in global travel (the last few centuries, that is) the people who left Africa back in the day are rather different from those who stayed behind and didn't mix with them later on. It's still not really significant if you oly count the numbers but just the small percentage between your common European (e.g.) and a pygmy native to African jungle (I'm sorry if anyone is offended by that expression, to offense meant) still makes for a big difference in appearance and traits.

[pendell]

I'm not trying to make a point for racists or anything but counting genes is no real way to determine... anything. About half our genes are identical to all higher species, 98+% are identical to our closest relatives, chimpanzees.
But yeah, the differences between people are tiny, but if you look at people who were not affected by the massive increase in global travel (the last few centuries, that is) the people who left Africa back in the day are rather different from those who stayed behind and didn't mix with them later on. It's still not really significant if you oly count the numbers but just the small percentage between your common European (e.g.) and a pygmy native to African jungle (I'm sorry if anyone is offended by that expression, to offense meant) still makes for a big difference in appearance and traits.

That hasn't stopped people from making SF stories about genetically enhanced humans -- attempting to breed homo superior from homo sapiens. Those kind of stories are also "racist" in the sense that the humans are attempting to artificially create a brand new race -- possibly even a brand new species -- from the existing homo sapiens via science. H.G. Wells "Time Machine" , in which humanity has diverged into two entirely separate species -- comes to mind.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[H Birchgrove]

Well, something about the mother's state will influence which sperm cells get there... and whether an XY will develop into a girl with testes for ovaries or a boy... and whether an XX or XY embryo will successfully be carried to term.

Lotsa things.

Verily. I stand corrected.


Most forms of colorblindness come from a recessive gene on the X Chromosome. Y chromosomes do not carry the dominant gene at all and so XY males born with the recessive gene always express it. If the sperm cell contributes an X chromosome, however, the resulting XX girl may be spared colorblindness... that is, as long as her father isn't colorblind.

Now I remember it (from gymnasium/"high school"), thanks!


That hasn't stopped people from making SF stories about genetically enhanced humans -- attempting to breed homo superior from homo sapiens. Those kind of stories are also "racist" in the sense that the humans are attempting to artificially create a brand new race -- possibly even a brand new species -- from the existing homo sapiens via science. H.G. Wells "Time Machine" , in which humanity has diverged into two entirely separate species -- comes to mind.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

C.S. Lewis provided much needed pwnage of such stories (especially by H.G. Wells and Olaf Stapledon) in his Space Trilogy. (That being said, Wells and Stapledon are still awesome authors due to their wit and imagination.)

[cattoy]

What is the Point?
Racists will not listen because racism is irrational. Its a small form of madness.

And Non Racists Already know about equality.

you're sooo right!

because, as we all know, there are exactly two kinds of people when it comes to racism. [/sarcasm]