The Issue of Racism in America

Sure, he probably can, certainly as we move further into the 21st century.

I'd find it pretty odd, especially if the same actors playing M, Q etc had been in at least a few films along with a 'traditionally' white Bond. Then in he strolls to MI6, having completely changed ethnicity ... and none of them bats an eyelid?

I've never seen SHAFT before, so could someone tell me why his blackness is crucial to the plot or the actor playing him?

Δ

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gordon Parks's SHAFT was one of the earliest Blaxpoitation films to break into (white) popular culture. Not the first or the best (SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG is far superior), but the definitely the most iconic.

John Shaft's blackness is essential. He was designed to affirm tropes of blackness and celebrate black self-determination, some of it codified, some it more obvious white audiences. He's post-civil rights and tied to the 'black pride' movement of the 70s.

Get off your fucking high horse It's 2014. If they can chant for Idris as Bond, I'm backing this guy for Shaft.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gordon Parks's SHAFT was one of the earliest Blaxpoitation films to break into (white) popular culture. Not the first or the best (SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG is far superior), but the definitely the most iconic.

John Shaft's blackness is essential. He was designed to affirm tropes of blackness and celebrate black self-determination, some of it codified, some it more obvious white audiences. He's post-civil rights and tied to the 'black pride' movement of the 70s.

But if the movie itself were not about black self-determination, theoretically the role of SHAFT could be played by any actor?

I suppose? It's not unheard of that a character that was played by a black actor was later replaced by someone with a different ethnicity. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA is a good example. Colonel Tigh was played by a black actor in the 70s, then played by a white Canadian in the 2003 reboot.

James Bond is a white, cisgender, heterosexual male. The fact that it's the twenty-first century since the birth of Yeshua ben Yosef, history's only Jewish manual labourer, is irrelevant IMO.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gordon Parks's SHAFT was one of the earliest Blaxpoitation films to break into (white) popular culture. Not the first or the best (SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG is far superior), but the definitely the most iconic.

John Shaft's blackness is essential. He was designed to affirm tropes of blackness and celebrate black self-determination, some of it codified, some it more obvious white audiences. He's post-civil rights and tied to the 'black pride' movement of the 70s.

But if the movie itself were not about black self-determination, theoretically the role of SHAFT could be played by any actor?

Yeah, but then it wouldn't be SHAFT, would it? If IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT wasn't about a black urban detective investigating a murder in rural Mississippi, then the role of Mr. Tibbs could have been played by any actor.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Yeah, but then it wouldn't be SHAFT, would it? If IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT wasn't about a black urban detective investigating a murder in rural Mississippi, then the role of Mr. Tibbs could have been played by any actor.

Could you not say the same thing about James Bond? If you take away his race, his gender and his sexuality, would it still be James Bond if all that remains is the 007 designation?

Thoughts about Michael Brown and Ferguson:

#1 The biggest mistake Michael Brown's parents made in the aftermath of their son's death was hiring (or allowing) Al Sharpton to represent them in the media. Every salient, cogent, logical thought that has ever been made against police officer Darrin Wilson's testimony (and I've had my doubts and questions about it) came from analysts and lawyers NOT AFFILIATED with The Brown Family. Sharpton has a verifiable record of inciting riots and lying to/about cops, not to mention he was instrumental in perpetuating the Tawana Brawley hoax. And Benjamin Crump is 0-2; he's the Mark Geragos of race-related big media trials.

#2 How does not going to the malls on "Black Friday" bring justice for Michael Brown? First of all, plenty of people would RUSH to the mall if they knew no black people would be there, so that's hardly a disincentive for many Americans. Quite honestly, mall sales might actually go up. How does it honor Michael Brown to not buy anything on November 28th? We already know he was never paying for what he got; he stole it. And it's easy for these people to call for a boycott on Black Friday when they've already looted half the stores in Ferguson. http://www.mediaite.com/online/celebs-help-push-blackoutblackfriday-boycott-for-michael-brown/

Earning less than whites and unemployed at more than double the national average, African Americans still have $1 trillion in buying power, according to Nielsen. They spend more on media, watch more television, shop more frequently off and online and spend more on beauty products than any other ethnic group in the country. That is serious sway. --- This is co-written by Soledad O'Brien, a black woman. How on earth is that supposed to uplift the black community by being known as watching more television and spending more money on beauty products than other races? UNBELIEVABLE. Incidentally, I believe it was reported that every beauty supply store in Ferguson was looted/burned.

#3 These "protests" which were nothing more than cover for looting, pillaging and destruction, only serve to reinforce stereotypes *AND* will destroy what was left of Ferguson. The city is 67% black already. Insurance rates will go up. Property values will go down. Tax revenue which helps fund the local school systems will evaporate, which means all-black schools will once again be disproportionately underfunded when compared to white/Jewish/Asian schools. It's a cycle I've seen play out way too many times.

All of this pointless protesting over one dead thug? Hundreds of black people unable to work because of their businesses being looted or burned? How will they pay their bills now?

Honestly GS, I find some of the racism in your posts to be quite shocking.

Δ

Largo's Shark wrote:

Salomé, it's better to confront it head on than than just mention it.

What do you mean by this?

Largo's Shark wrote:

Salomé, it's better to confront it head on than than just mention it.

If Michael Brown was shot by a black gang member, Al Sharpton would not care. There are dozens of Michael Browns killed by other Michael Browns daily in the USA and there are no protests. A passing mention in the news. Other black people are so used to it they don't bat an eyelid.

If Michael Brown is shot by anyone else, Al Sharpton comes out of his rathole, gnashing his teeth, stirs up black hysteria and then feeds off from it like a big stinking parasite. Which is essentially, what he is.

I remember a friend who talked about his experience during the Rodney King riots. He was black, had a white wife and frequented a Duran Duran forum I was on. He told us what he went through as the owner of a pharmaceuticals store in downtown LA. He refused to pay black gang leaders protection money to leave his store alone. Then watched as they destroyed it. He was told (these were HIS words)..."nigger don't worry, you have insurance." Those guys didn't care about Rodney King, or an industrious black guy who had his own business.

So is it really about Michael Brown being shot by someone else? Lawless pieces of shit will use whatever they can to justify their right to take whatever they can. And so will pieces of shit who whore themselves out by claiming to represent the black community.

If Michael Brown tried to rob me, I'd go the same route as that cop. Not a second thought.

What do people (regardless of their race) running around with guns pointing them at passers-by expect exactly?

Largo's Shark wrote:

Salomé, it's better to confront it head on than than just mention it.

What's to confront? Everything I said was true.

Let's re-analyze some of the points I made earlier:

How is looting, burning and destroying property in any way helpful to having your basic human rights recognized by others? You're engaging in the very same stereotypical behavior that has caused people to mistrust you in the first place. This woman pictured below begged people not to destroy her bakery and they did it anyway:




WHY????? Look at the tears coming out of her eyes. This isn't a natural disaster that could not have been avoided. It's a man-made disaster that was totally avoidable. Not only shame on the thugs, but shame on the Governor of MO for not deploying the National Guard. He let himself get bullied into submisison by Eric Holder and Barack Obama.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/26/ferguson-business-rebuild-looting/19529669/

Employees at Little Ceasers? Unemployed. 12 jobs lost. So now they've got plenty of time on their hands to boycott buying anything on Black Friday. How does telling people who are struggling to get by on wages paid at retail jobs like Little Ceasers or Wal-Mart that they should walk off their job on Black Friday make aaaaaaaaaaaaany sense whatsoever???? Huh?

How does destroying the livelihoods of black entrepreneurs and business owners address Michael Brown's shooting? Can anyone explain the link? All you've managed to do is create more people on unemployment, more people on food stamps, and those businesses that stay in Ferguson will have increased costs to rebuild, increased insurance premiums, and they'll continue to see the economic powerbase of the city erode away as white people (and businesses) continue to flee the area, taking their potential tax dollars with them.

Michael Brown was a thug. Plain and simple. He was a gangster wannabee (plenty of pictures of him floating around flashing gang signs) and his step-father, Louis "Burn the bitch down" Head is a two-time convicted felon and Blood gang member. Leslie McSpadden sent her son to live with Grandma so she could move this piece of trash into her apartment. Michael Brown slammed a convenience store clerk after stealing the man's merchandise and taking away the man's ability to earn a living and pay his bills, all so that Brown could go get high(er). I have no sympathy for the "Gentle Giant" or the family; that family has put St. Louis through hell because of their dysfunction and pathological unwillingness to take responsibility for their own actions. Leslie McSpadden didn't raise her son right; it's not the responsibility of the police force to clean up the mess she made.

bitchcraft wrote:

If Michael Brown was shot by a black gang member, Al Sharpton would not care. There are dozens of Michael Browns killed by other Michael Browns daily in the USA and there are no protests. A passing mention in the news. Other black people are so used to it they don't bat an eyelid.

If Michael Brown is shot by anyone else, Al Sharpton comes out of his rathole, gnashing his teeth, stirs up black hysteria and then feeds off from it like a big stinking parasite. Which is essentially, what he is.

Remember: "Black Lives Matter". Except to other blacks. When you look at FBI crime statistics, it's quite clear the only thing a black male has to fear is..............another black male. There is no epidemic of white people going out and killing black people (quite the opposite). Inter-racial crime in this country is almost exclusively a one way street: black on white.

Quote :

I remember a friend who talked about his experience during the Rodney King riots. He was black, had a white wife and frequented a Duran Duran forum I was on. He told us what he went through as the owner of a pharmaceuticals store in downtown LA. He refused to pay black gang leaders protection money to leave his store alone. Then watched as they destroyed it. He was told (these were HIS words)..."nigger don't worry, you have insurance." Those guys didn't care about Rodney King, or an industrious black guy who had his own business.

I slightly disagree. I do think some of them cared about Rodney King, but in the same way they cared about Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown....i.e. they identified with the criminal and not the police officer, and they're willing to make a martyr out of someone who had a rap sheet 2 feet long (Oscar Grant) or was caught in the act of criminal behavior (King, Brown). Some of these "activists" hate authority and order and are basically outright anarchists; they've accomplished nothing in their lives and therefore don't value the work others have put in to get where they are.

x

Staugust wrote:

What do people (regardless of their race) running around with guns pointing them at passers-by expect exactly?

Brown didn't have a gun on him. If you are talking about the kid, his was a toy gun.
Also, Ohio is an open carry state, so you can actually walk around with a real gun visible.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Your analysis entirely denies that poverty is a factor in crime.

But does that justify burning and looting property that isn't yours? Especially if shop owners are assaulted or killed in the process? You got laid off, so that gives you the right to make off with a 48" big screen tv.

Not all looters are poverty stricken. This idiot posted his swag on facebook after being a nuisance in Tottenham riots several years ago. How would you feel watching your store get plundered and *shown off* to the masses?

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

Your analysis entirely denies that poverty is a factor in crime.

I've seen plenty of poor, middle-class, and wealthy people commit crimes.

I grew up in a trailer park the first 7 years of my life. My parents never resorted to crime.

Morals are what you have to fall back on when doing the wrong thing feels right.

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Morals are what you have to fall back on when doing the wrong thing feels right.

Morals aren't rigid, they're ever changing. Nor are they substitutes for thinking and making your own decisions. You are not your parents.

Sometimes you don't have the time to "think" about making a decision; events on the ground are moving too fast. That's where your morals come in. They become a reflexive action for you. If you've already thought about what you would do in such a situation and trained your heart and mind to believe that way, then when the situation occurs you don't need to think about it; you already know what you will do.

Back to The Gentle Giant....if poverty was a factor in his life, why wasn't he caught stealing milk, bread, or rice so there would be food on the table? Was he stealing water? Fuel to get to his job? Critically needed medical supplies? If you need help, there are plenty of instutions willing to provide a free meal, transportation, job training. Instead, he stole Swisher Cigars which he planned to use to smoke some righteous Mary Jane. That's a poverty of values, not a poverty of money or a poverty of food, so please spare me the poverty-card or the race-card or the white privilege card.

I did dumb things at 18, but  I never, ever stole from anybody and I never, ever assaulted somebody in order take what I wanted. My first job was bagging groceries for minimum wage and I earned everything I ever got from that point forward.

Michael Brown's actions directly led to his death; had he not stolen the cigars, he'd be alive today. He was a free man. He had choice. He chose poorly.