Trackbacks & Pings

1. politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » “Hot Ghetto Mess”, BET’s latest show, gains opposition on 05 Jul 2007 at 12:35 pm

   […] word to Racialicious for the lede on this story. In February, it looked at the website “Hot Ghetto Mess” that […]

Comments

1. merq wrote:

   Regarding the Die Hard language, I agree that the Anti-Asian lines were reprehensible and uncalled for, but…

   “The plain fact is that in this context, no screenwriter would have written, and no white actor would have agreed to say something to the effect of I just killed your little bitch black girlfriend.

   But if they’re Asian - it’s O.K.”

   Why, oh why must we always play Oppression Olympics when these things happen?

   Groan.

   Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 6:51 am ¶

2. ccch wrote:

   I agree with merq. WHY? (rolling eyes!)

   Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 10:13 am ¶

3. Anonymous wrote:

   Merq and ccch, easy answer: because its true.

   Also, it isn’t the Oppression Olympics. It isn’t trying to compare who has it harder or who has it worse. Its pointing out that people DO in fact have it different. That’s just the truth. If you don’t think there’s a double standard in the media in regards to the frequency and acceptability of Asian stereotypes and black stereotypes, you’re in denial and/or haven’t been observing too closely.

   The author of the blog post is completely right. They would have NEVER gotten away with a “little black bitch girlfriend” comment. Never. And they SHOULDN’T. But as usual, Hollywood and its Western audiences will accept a slur on Asians. They SHOULDN”T, either.

   No one has overtly said that Asians suffer so much more compared to blacks– no one has played the Oppression Card. That’s YOUR own conclusion that that’s the underlying sentiment.

   There’s IS a difference between how blacks and Asians are treated in the media. Saying that there actually is a difference is not playing the Oppression Olympics.

   The fact that some other minorities think this way only further HURTS Asians who ARE making a good point about what they see everyday in American culture.

   Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 11:57 am ¶

4. hoo_boo wrote:

   Not to go “OO” but why was it ok to enjoy a franchise over three previous installments for *20 years* that featured (SPOILER ALERT):

   – a Celtic-American jingo gun crazy conservative (not *neo*) as the Hero who saves America from domestic attack by ethnic villians;

   – a flawed yet all knowing African-American as the sidekick who gains redemption by saving the Hero’s ass with decreasing amounts of screen time

   – person of color and/or woman in a position of power or authority (wealthy, police, etc.) kept silent, emasculated, killed, taken hostage, made to look stupid; or relegated to peripheral role (nanny, housekeeper, illegals, etc.)

   – at least one “turncoat darkie” in cahoots with the baddies

   – ethic villians ranging from vaguely “Slavic”, “Latino”, “Central/Eastern European”, and American of “mixed Anglo” and “Italian” descent, who all receive various slurs before and during their demise (especially women) unless they’re Black

   Different crew, yet same elements still intact– one should be surprised how? Either enjoy it or chuck it… or better yet, make the anti “Die Hard”…

   Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 12:02 pm ¶

5. gatamala wrote:

   anon, merq, ccch

   My thing about OO, is that it skirts the fact that some minorities don’t suffer prejudice/discrimination in the same way, or to the same extent.

   I’m glad the author called yipeekiyay out on this slur that added nothing to the movie but the screenwriter/director’s own bias.

   Bear in mind anon, that blacks have been actively, visibly and vocally fighting media slurs in the US for a long, long time. We have to fight each other (BET). We all have a long way to go.

   Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 1:15 pm ¶

6. prof black woman wrote:

   Hoo boo - it wasn’t ok. If you remember there were protests and discussions about the jingoism, race, class, and gender aspects of all of the Die Hard films. In fact, Samuel L Jackson complained about playing a stereotype as part of the script just to take the wind out of people’s sails who might criticize his character later.

   What I’ve noticed is the promotion of this film is different. Justin Long doing “asian voice,” Bruce Willis and his young white interviewer laughing in a weird psuedo-erotic, for lack of a better phrase, way at the violence against Maggie Q and then gleefully watching the most violent of those scenes with the audience, etc. That interview alongside the dialogue described in the post reads very strongly as the film makers relying on the sexualized violence against Asian women encouraged by the sex industry, video games, the military industrial complex, and hard core asian snough films and hentai - which the scenes they showed borrow from heavily in certain ways.

   Part of what concerns me about the current phase of oppression toward Asians is how common place it is becoming to pull out the pseudo-Asian accent from movie stars, to tv stars, to reality tv people, and then refuse to take ownership when called on it.

   I don’t think we can ignore either of those things just because all the other films were racist too. People protested those films and they should do the same with this one.

   Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 1:18 pm ¶

7. mr guy wrote:

   “No one has overtly said that Asians suffer so much more compared to blacks– no one has played the Oppression Card.”

   I think there are people who actually believe this on both sides, and some will use this movie as an example.So merq and ccch are not completely off.

   Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 1:20 pm ¶

8. mondo wrote:

   Do inner-city schools deserve extra funding - for things like day-care for teen parents and extra security that typical schools don’t need at all? That’s just teaching people they can rely on the state for their needs. Many suburban high schools aren’t as well-funded as they like to be either. Their extracurricular clubs and teams often rely heavily on self-initiated and sustained fund raising efforts to accomplish the things they want to do.

   Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 2:08 pm ¶

9. Lyonside wrote:

   Hey mondo, I don’t know where you live, but in my region, the SUBURBS are facing the same issues as many urban schools, and those include security, day care, etc. It’s not “suburbs vs. city,” it’s “rich vs. poor.”

   It’s not relying on the state - the majority of public schools, as far as I know, are still funded by localized property taxes. That means that a school district in an area with lower property values will be poorer, as will the majority of students in the district. And the opposite will be true in areas with higher values. That means that public education in the US is NOT uniform or equal, or even serving the needs of all students. The state (and by that I mean local, state, and federal government, and us the citizenry) does have a vested interest in ensuring that ALL students have the skills to get a decent career, support their families, and participate in the political processes. Otherwise, all power remains concentrated not in the brightest and the best, as ideally most of us would want it, but in the richest and the most connected (which is pretty much what often happens now).

   Let’s not use “urban” and “suburban” - lets pick “upper middle class” and “working class.” A “working class” school district is likely to have latchkey kids who may need an afterschool program because parents are working multiple jobs. They may need state-provided school lunches because of poverty. They may need remedial help because of failing elementary schools and distracting environments. And yes, they may need extra security because drugs and the gangs peddling drugs have taken over the socioeconomic vacuum left by closed factories, mills, and quarries. And yes, they may need day care, NOT because teen pregnancies are so EXTREMELY common (they’ve actually fallen off in the last 20 years over all - what we’re seeing is more women in their 20s -40s being single moms), but because we no longer shut away young mothers or coerce them immediately into adoption, and because there is often not extended family (grandmothers, aunts, cousins) living a block away to provide child care.

   Now, rich kids don’t need any of that, right? Maybe it’s because they HAVE a one-income family. Maybe they have had support services from day one tracking students, provinding extra help, and nipping any learning problems in the bud, either in school or out of school. They’re also more likely to have computers and Net access at home, and to live in circumstances that promote learning. Their parents are more likely to have easy access to child care, paid or unpaid.

   Richer students are also more likely to be the third-party buyer of drugs, without having to step into the badlands and deal with “bad” people themselves.

   If there’s an unintended pregnancy, the options are pretty much the same, but the support structure varies from family to family (the same as with poorer families). Some will help take care of the baby, leaving no need for school programs. Other families will push for adoption or abortion.

   Sorry for the length of this, but that’s kind of my point: you need to know the reasons and causes of problems before blaming the working class. Working class issues ARE upper class issues - they’re just better handled or better hidden. More resources tend to do that.

   Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 3:41 pm ¶

10. merq wrote:

    Anonymous,

    You’re right. There definitely is a difference between the ways in which they’re discriminated against… but I maintain that there is no difference in the EXTENT to which both are attacked.

    Also, maybe I should’ve made the following point a little more clearly:

    “The author of the blog post is completely right. They would have NEVER gotten away with a “little black bitch girlfriend” comment. Never. “

    Yes they would. Definitely. I don’t know what Hollywood you’ve been paying attention to, but the one I see has no problem doing that.

    Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 6:45 pm ¶

11. mondo wrote:

    If you think money is the cure for the rich/poor gap, you should check this recent WashPo story out about DC’s high spending public schools.

    I don’t think it matters whether they spend more per pupil or fix the crumbling buildings. As long as a predominantly black government is in charge of a predominantly black school administration teaching predominantly black students, their performance is always going to suck.

    Posted 04 Jul 2007 at 11:21 am ¶

12. Ananse wrote:

    Um, mondo: hate to tell you this it also doesn’t matter for those underperforming school districts that fall under the authority of an autonomous school board, local or state educational administration that happens to be led by or composed of predominately *white* (whatever ethicity) membership in a rural, urban, suburb, exurb, etc.

    Whenever a legacy of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement exist– coupled with too much emphasis on standardized test performance at the expense of teacher needs and student achievement (why not a balance)– communities suffer.

    I know how the numbers game work too. The system is rigged not only to “punish” failing schools put to actually reward need based upon student volume (among other things) and you can’t prune the legacy of bad teachers and administrators. That’s why Lyonside is right to say drop the labels.

    As long as *any* legacy government is in charge of a legacy school administration teaching students in need, their performance is always going to suck.

    Repeat out loud and write that on a board 100 times…

    Posted 04 Jul 2007 at 4:43 pm ¶

13. LM wrote:

    ananse, lyonside: I think mondo has made clear his thinking is less, uh, nuanced than necessary for a worthwhile exchange. Straight racism on #11. Am I wrong, mondo?

    Posted 04 Jul 2007 at 9:23 pm ¶

14. mondo wrote:

    I prefer getting to the point. My frame of mind accounts for realities such as the failure of 40+ years of progressive educational policies as well as the dismal historic track record of certain groups. I was once more “politically-correct” in youth but with age and experience I find such beliefs to be dishonest and unproductive.

    I think many readers, like me, rolled their eyes at this “money” quote:

    “I’d say funding is important because money matters. It doesn’t guarantee good educational outcomes, but without it you can almost guarantee there won’t be good outcomes.”

    Posted 05 Jul 2007 at 12:06 pm ¶

15. Acanthus wrote:

    mondo wrote:

    Do inner-city schools deserve extra funding - for things like day-care for teen parents and extra security that typical schools don’t need at all? That’s just teaching people they can rely on the state for their needs. Many suburban high schools aren’t as well-funded as they like to be either. Their extracurricular clubs and teams often rely heavily on self-initiated and sustained fund raising efforts to accomplish the things they want to do.

    Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 2:08 pm ¶
    ————————————————————————–
    Mondo, maybe things like daycare for teen parents and extra security can be paid for with outside funds.

    Posted 05 Jul 2007 at 10:38 pm ¶

16. Lyonside wrote:

    Mondo: For all your “getting to the point” talk, you refused to acknowledge that LM called you out on your not-subtle racism. Shocking!

    As for being PC? Please. I’m in my 30s, my mother is a (white) public Head Start teacher in urban Philadelphia, my father is a product of 1950s/1960s urban public education, my teenage cousins are products of 1990s/2000s rural public education - I’m talking about what I see, what my family sees, is what I talk about - I don’t say ANYTHING to be PC. Sheesh…

    Posted 08 Jul 2007 at 3:29 pm ¶

Post a Comment