-
“Israel and Australia are like sisters in Asia,” Tamir said… “We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don’t have yellow skin and slanted eyes. Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not - we are basically the white
-
“I now have a new goal in my pseudo-internet-life — to somehow get my picture into the new addictive blog, Brown People. What is this “Brown People Blog”? …random photos of brown people. (thats it. that’s the concept.)”
-
“Osorio also alleged that at one time Benzino called radio personality Minya Oh, better known as Miss Info, a “ching chong slut.” He also said that Oh was “on her knees as an intern,” Osorio told the jury…”
-
“From Captain Nemo to Sulu to Cylons, Asians have always had a role in science fiction—though not always a good one…”
-
“The father of the Malawian child pop star Madonna wants to adopt said…he had not originally planned to give up his son for good…”I suppose deep in my heart I always imagined that when he was better, or I had got another wife, I would go and take him
-
“the AmEx board is stacked with former and current CEOs and directors of major Pharma companies who waged a genocidal campaign against the generic production of AIDS drugs. At 1% of AmEx Red profits, absolution comes cheap these days, don’t it?”
-
More brownface Angelina pics… that jheri curl hairdo is really killing me.
-
Oh good! More buffoonery on its way! “Rapper Flavor Flav may have dumped his sassy, out spoken date, New York, on last night’s season finale of “Flavor of Love 2,” but she’ll be back soon - with her own VH1 show, “Flavorette.”
-
“Snoop Dogg led women around on leashes at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards. Ronald Isley stole money from his dead brother’s family. Condemn those guys. Some goofy-looking guy in a Viking hat should never be this high up on our Coon-o-Meter…”
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
gatamala wrote:
” Tamir said that due to what he characterized as the racial similarities between Israel and Australia, the two countries should work together to enhance ties with other Asian countries… Israel and Australia are like sisters in Asia,” Tamir said in an interview with Haaretz during a visit to Israel this week. “We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don’t have yellow skin and slanted eyes. Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not - we are basically the white race. We are on the western side of Asia and they are on the southeastern side.”"
sigh…just what the world needs.
In a way Tamar’s twisted “racial” beliefs may, to a certain extent, bear on strategic alliances. The irony is - of course - that many Asians would not consider him Asian!
Posted 17 Oct 2006 at 4:06 pm ¶
justin wrote:
Tamir understands Geography about as well as he understands race. I think most of the Asians I know think strategically and understand that the people who vandalise their businesses are the same ones who throw eggs and send bacon to synagogues and mosques. . .Jim Bolger used to say things like that and now most Asians think that down under is beneath them.
Posted 17 Oct 2006 at 9:43 pm ¶
justin wrote:
I’ve written the word most sarcastically, I’m not like Omi from Xiaolin Showdown.
Asians in Sci-fi is awesome but there are so many omissions, the Jedi are neo-Taoist but the model-minority Vulcan conspiracy got passed over. Who looks more like Ming the Merciless, Mr Spock or our Saint David Carradine?
Posted 17 Oct 2006 at 10:31 pm ¶
Meg wrote:
unfortunately the comments made have barely raised an eyebrow in oz (relatively speaking compare it to anything mideast/muslim changing the aussie way of life). A group of caucasian men beat up and racially abused a group which was initially described as asian but i think mixed, with racial insults, etc. Again barely an eyebrow raised (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20585748-5006009,00.html)
Last year when a “group of middle eastern men” got in a fight with lifeguards we ended up with race riots…..so i second the comment of *sigh*
Posted 17 Oct 2006 at 11:03 pm ¶
Geoffrey wrote:
I didn’t even hear about that beating up of the “Asian” group here (in Melbourne). I saw Tamir’s comments on SBS news for about two nights, but not a whole lot outside of that.
From talking to a lot of people, I get the feeling that this idea of discrete _biological_ races is still widely believed here. It’s amazing just how childish and naive everything he said was. (And not just because I am some progressive, PC leftist.)
Posted 18 Oct 2006 at 1:35 am ¶
IkoIko wrote:
This crap about “brownfacing” set me and my film buff friends to thinking: what about people of color who themselves “enhanced” (lightened or darkened) their complexions when portraying the roles of public figures in biopics, especially outside their own racial/ethnic mix?
Remember, time gives no sanctuary to any portrayal anyone might find “offensive”. So picture, for a moment, just a few of my all-time personal favorites:
Che! (1969)
Omar Sharif (Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian) as Che Guevara (Basque-Irish-Spanish-Argentinean). Eight years in the life of a man that omits the Bay of Pigs and suspiciously favors the Bolivian goatherd who betrays him at the end? You be the judge…
Fun Footnote: Jack Palance plays Fidel Castro, stroking a stogie like he means business. Both he and Sharif look like rejects from Madame Tussauds.
Bad Footnote: This bomb so offended guerilla sensibilities in most Latin American theaters during its brief run that Molotov cocktails were lobbed at the screen– and you weren’t there to see the reaction. American movie critics didn’t like it either but purely for lesser political reasons.
Lion of the Desert (1981)
Anthony Quinn (Mexican-Irish) as Bedouin hero Omar Mukhtar (Arabian and Muslim). Mukhtar led the rebellion against Italy, which sought to conquer Libya, so Quinn looks like a… white bearded, dark-skinned, desert freedom fighter locked in battle with fascist Italians for 20 years.
Fun Footnote: Moamar Gaddafi financed it, and to this day, the film still remains banned in Italy.
Bad footnote: Director Moustapha Akkad, proud Syrian (and producer of the original “Halloween”) perished in the November 10, 2005 terrorist attack on the Radisson SAS Hotel in Amman, Jordan.
Gandhi (1982)
Betcha thought I was gonna pick on Ben Kingsley (Born Krishna Bhanji in Kenya as an Indian/Gujarati of Hindu descent with remote Russian Jewish ancestry) playing Mahatma Gandhi (Indian/Gujarati surrounded by Jain influences early in life). As great and convincing as he is, even Kingsley “enhanced” his looks (complexion included) for the role that made him famous. Brownie points for his being a relative unknown at the time he was cast as well.
Fun Footnote: Kingsley was, and is, to date the only person of Indian descent to be nominated and/or to have won an Oscar as Best Actor. He went on to gain acclaim for his portrayal of other famous people in which he altered his complexion and features:
– as Dmitri Shostakovich (Russian) in “Testimony” (1988)
– as Simon Wiesenthal (Ukrainian Jew) in “Murderers Among Us: the Simon Wiesenthal Story” (1989)
– as Vladimir Lenin (Russian, Kalmyk, Jewish, German and Swedish) in “Lenin: The Train” (1990)
– as Otto Frank (German Jew) in “Anne Frank: The Whole Story (2001)”
Bad Footnote: It took over forty years for a major Western production to go forward on a Gandhi biopic. Though a major studio did distribute, no studio would bankroll it. Indian politicians threw opposition at the production until learning of Kingsley’s background and hearing media reports that seniors in certain villages, upon seeing him in full makeup, collapsed in shock.
Sadat (1983)
Louis Gosset, Jr (African-American) as Anwar Sadat (Sudanese-Egyptian). Even though he effortlessly switched from a Fiddler on the move to an officer and a gentleman on screen, it was a stretch for most Egyptians to watch Gossett portraying the third president of Egypt– despite a serious makeup job– since many would be prone to consider themselves “white” if pressed (African continental geography to the contrary). Go figure…
Fun Footnote: Gossett received an Emmy nomination for the role anyway.
Bad Footnote: Egypt’s government– widely acknowledged as hostile towards dissidents, intellectuals and those with dark-skin– blasted the casting choice of Gossett as often as possible and constantly attempted to disrupt the production. The government also banned the initial broadcast due to scads of historical inaccuracies reported by the former Minister of Interior.
The aforementioned lead actors of color in the big budget productions, which got widespread release, bypassed individuals who more closely matched the race, ethnicity, and nationality of the public figures in question.
The bypassed individuals might have required no enhancements at all. Could definitely name more examples– especially some hideously ludicrous and offensive examples on both sides of color line– but you get the idea.
So do all of the previous arguments and complaints still apply?
And would not the actors passed over for work by people of color have been more deserving of the work, especially when filming on location? Who needs work more– unionized actors or non-union labor without the protections afforded workers in the industry?
So much harping of “whites” (who are all ethnically composites of other groups ultimately) doing things to their skin to get into character as an offensive act. I suspect there’s more to it than that if “people of color” have done the same thing.
Maybe it’s not just the act or the actor tinting their skin (or “tainting someone else’s by extension) that’s so bothersome, but the vagueness in deciphering the intent behind the act– especially without discerning the context.
I’m now asking how I’m supposed to know what accoutrements help or hinder an actor’s preparation for a role versus how well they actual perform when it comes time to deliver the goods on screen or on stage. For my performer friends, I can honestly say I don’t get half of the methods and props they employ, but they do what they feel they must in order to get into their character.
What winds up in performance as racist or minstrelry, interpretative or otherwise, I know there to be a difference between character and caricature. The same hypervigilence that’s reflected in the very terms like “brownfacing” and “whitefacing”, however, will take an actor to task for doing something that’s offensive once there’s something for which to be held accountable, I’m sure.
My point being this: there are different planes upon which to cleave gripes, and it gets to be problematic if there’s uncompromising stance and backlash at an actor’s selection and appearance in makeup and attachments before there’s better evidence to suggest what the kind of work is being cranked out.
This debate is an old one, heightened because more groups are more vocal about representation. Not too worry: it wasn’t settled in the early days of drama, literature, and film when fewer groups had access.
As more groups seek artistic license to tap into different traditions and heroes and public figures, I remain optimistic that other groups will always complain about “their” property being co-opted and unfairly portrayed by others on screen. Makes life more interesting.
Separating all that from the state of employment of talented people of color in the film industry. Truth? Yup, it sucks. Other truth? Film industry as a whole sucks, and its impact tends to be felt hardest on those most marginalized, which also sucks. So what to do, after much cursing and handwringing…
Consider a possible larger truth #1: It’s a different industry framework only if you want there to be one. Want traditional color/male-female rules not to apply? Then don’t apply them, and do not so consistently. Others will (maybe not everyone, but enough) will take notice.
Don’t pin hopes and expectations upon the same names repeatedly as the “shining examples” or “fallbacks” because the industry and society, in turn, will use those same people to say “we already use them– we need not do more”.
Consider a possible larger truth #2: not every “group of color” is marginalized to the same degree, and in the same way. Those that realize this already have stopped fixating on audiences, media, and institutions that have become outdated in favor of ones that matter, shape tastes, and influence more broadly.
What has been deemed “Hollywood”, “mass media”, and “MSM” (mainstream media) actually needs your legitimacy more than you should crave its credibility. The posts all around seem to suggest as much…
Posted 18 Oct 2006 at 10:05 am ¶
Jay wrote:
*Separating all that from the state of employment of talented people of color in the film industry. Truth? Yup, it sucks. Other truth? Film industry as a whole sucks, and its impact tends to be felt hardest on those most marginalized, which also sucks. So what to do, after much cursing and handwringing…*
Simple. Apply more pressure. Let people know that not having talent PoC on the screen is wrong. Educate people.
You seem to think that there’s no way to change the system, and that we should accept the current state of the industry, and that Mass Media sucks and should be ignored. But it’s the 600-pound gorilla in the room - it’s very hard to ignore because most people aren’t smart enough to realize they’re being played.
Posted 18 Oct 2006 at 3:20 pm ¶
Jay wrote:
Oh, and in an ideal world, people should be free to play any colour they wish. But this is not an ideal world, and “people should be free to play any colour they wish” usually means “people with more access get even more access, and push the marginals out.”
You say “create your own media.” But the fact of the matter is indie film suffers from a lot of the same influences as mainstream film. Almost every Asian American indie director (to take an example), when they try and get funding, invariably gets asked to replace Asian actors with white ones (either the main role, or every single role). So that’s not a solution.
Posted 18 Oct 2006 at 3:26 pm ¶
IkoIko wrote:
Quite to the contrary Jay: While acknowledging that there is no way to change “that” system which proves problematic for me– and which, frankly, even the current institutional players have admitted is outdated, outmoded, and hidebound– I simply move on to a “different” system and frame of reference.
You can choose to argue the merits of what’s owed one under a system that will continue to hand out but so much anyway, or take advantage of the opportunity to create product and media that defines identity in the ways you wish before the current big time players in a rapidly irrelevant system figure out, yet again, how to do it for you.
Consider this: today Bob Wright, head of NBC (owned by GE, which also owns Telemundo) will announce a major “restructuring”. They will cut 700 jobs, streamline news operations, to try and figure out how to do more with new forms of “electronic distribution”. This is 5% of its workforce that will need to be eliminated by 2008. They’ll also consolidate a news center in Burbank to support NBC and Telemundo.
Also today, look out for the word from Time-Warner’s AOL subsidiary about the closing of two call centers (and subsequent elimination of 1400 jobs) in New Mexico and Arizona– with a third call center being sold in Utah. When they moved to make email and content free to catch up with the rest of the world, they no longer needed them.
Two disparate examples, but my bigger point is that as long as “people of color” lock themselves into thinking that only one model of play counts as relevant, that only “one” source of financing for projects exists or even matters, and that you’re vying for one audience, we’re more deluded and jaded than we think.
No Jay, I’m not pessimistic. I simply set my sights higher and elsewhere. That way, I don’t get worry about getting disappointed about the capacity for change. Angry and upset definitely at the state of things, but not worried as often…
Posted 19 Oct 2006 at 9:46 am ¶
Howard wrote:
gah, how sickening. The only problem is, a lot of Jews are harbouring the same mindset, and provided you prod a bit and the opportunity arises, you’ll get that racist bile from them soon enough.
From an overseas diaspora aspect, tt comes from the fact that both ‘races’ have suffered oppression; they had Hitler, “yellows” had western imperialism. And now in modern society, they’re competing for the same space - intellects in high paid, professional jobs. It’s a shame the positions of power aren’t well balanced as they can use their “whiteness” to blend in to its host country.
Posted 19 Oct 2006 at 4:29 pm ¶