Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

I saw a lovely tic-tok of some young black girls remarking with amazement that the mermaid was a black girl. For me that was enough to convince me that is was worth making the effort. Giving kids representation is very important for them to avoid alienation.

However, there is a lot wrong with how things are going at the moment. There are really good and creative ways to make sure minorities are represented. At the moment there is a icky tendency for a sort of pedagogic high mindedness which is being generally rejected as absurd by the public. Even people who are full square behind the idea of extending representation and giving, say, black actors a level playing ground with white.

But there is a growing problem which undermines the effort. In RIngs of Power for example as in other programmes (eg Wheel of Time) which have several examples of white characters with black children and black parents with white children. When we watch a drama we enter into a contract whereby the audience suspend their disbelief and pretend that what we are watching is real. This is most important with fantasy programs. So why not cast Morgan Freeman as the child or even wife of a character played by Emma Watson? WHy not? Because it would be ridiculous! It would stop you in your tracks and the spell of belief would be broken. So why is the daughter of the HIgh King of Numenor(white) and black women - a great performance by the way, but an example of bad casting since she simply does not look like her father in a very profound way.

So why not make the entire family of Isildur black instead? The point is Amazon are imposing a moral point virtue signalling in the most exhibitionist way. When I watch a series on Netflix or Amazon, I am pleased to see a range of different human groups represented, but I do not want it to be in my face to the degree that it makes the drama look idiotic.

[LuckyR]

What are your thoughts on Aaron Burr being played by a black actor in Hamilton?

[Sculptor1]

What are your thoughts on Aaron Burr being played by a black actor in Hamilton?

I've not seen Hamilton and I do not think it would interest me.
But I would think that Lin-Manuel Miranda is making exactly the same sort of pedagogic point. Not only choosing actors for diversity, but making an exhibition of his personal sympathies in the is respect; virtue signalling in the most gross way.
If having Lawrence Olivier playing Othello is regarded as a bad idea, then how is this any better?

I think the long term danger of these absurdities is the denial that racism ever existed. Bu portraying worlds in which everyone is colour-blind is a pretense that denies the truths of history. I do not see that as any kind of solution.

Then on the other end of the spectrum we have all black universities, all black orchestras, all "jewish" prizes for science and literature. These are examples of colour bars. For racial equality, and racial harmony what is needed is truth and equality. If racial-bars are evil as they were in the South South Africa, and in Israel then they must be bad in all instances.
Having an all black cast for Hamlet, or Julius Caesar is an admission of defeat, and a new racism.

[LuckyR]

What are your thoughts on Aaron Burr being played by a black actor in Hamilton?

I've not seen Hamilton and I do not think it would interest me.
But I would think that Lin-Manuel Miranda is making exactly the same sort of pedagogic point. Not only choosing actors for diversity, but making an exhibition of his personal sympathies in the is respect; virtue signalling in the most gross way.
If having Lawrence Olivier playing Othello is regarded as a bad idea, then how is this any better?

I think the long term danger of these absurdities is the denial that racism ever existed. Bu portraying worlds in which everyone is colour-blind is a pretense that denies the truths of history. I do not see that as any kind of solution.

Then on the other end of the spectrum we have all black universities, all black orchestras, all "jewish" prizes for science and literature. These are examples of colour bars. For racial equality, and racial harmony what is needed is truth and equality. If racial-bars are evil as they were in the South South Africa, and in Israel then they must be bad in all instances.
Having an all black cast for Hamlet, or Julius Caesar is an admission of defeat, and a new racism.

Seriously? So Harvard (the most prestigious school on the planet) can be an all white school for 234 years, and you're upset because the #841 college in the nation is "historically black"?

[Sculptor1]

What are your thoughts on Aaron Burr being played by a black actor in Hamilton?

I've not seen Hamilton and I do not think it would interest me.
But I would think that Lin-Manuel Miranda is making exactly the same sort of pedagogic point. Not only choosing actors for diversity, but making an exhibition of his personal sympathies in the is respect; virtue signalling in the most gross way.
If having Lawrence Olivier playing Othello is regarded as a bad idea, then how is this any better?

I think the long term danger of these absurdities is the denial that racism ever existed. Bu portraying worlds in which everyone is colour-blind is a pretense that denies the truths of history. I do not see that as any kind of solution.

Then on the other end of the spectrum we have all black universities, all black orchestras, all "jewish" prizes for science and literature. These are examples of colour bars. For racial equality, and racial harmony what is needed is truth and equality. If racial-bars are evil as they were in the South South Africa, and in Israel then they must be bad in all instances.
Having an all black cast for Hamlet, or Julius Caesar is an admission of defeat, and a new racism.

Seriously? So Harvard (the most prestigious school on the planet) can be an all white school for 234 years, and you're upset because the #841 college in the nation is "historically black"?

Two things here are wrong.

1)- So are you saying there was nothing wrong with Harvard being all black for 234 year? (FYI it was 229 years)?
and
2) Harvard graduated its first black student in 1865. WHich is pretty early given that America was a late shower in emancipation. That is only 3 years after emancipation.


If you think it was wrong of Harvard to have a colour bar then why would you accept a white colour bar elsewhere?
It makes you a racist.

[LuckyR]

What are your thoughts on Aaron Burr being played by a black actor in Hamilton?

I've not seen Hamilton and I do not think it would interest me.
But I would think that Lin-Manuel Miranda is making exactly the same sort of pedagogic point. Not only choosing actors for diversity, but making an exhibition of his personal sympathies in the is respect; virtue signalling in the most gross way.
If having Lawrence Olivier playing Othello is regarded as a bad idea, then how is this any better?

I think the long term danger of these absurdities is the denial that racism ever existed. Bu portraying worlds in which everyone is colour-blind is a pretense that denies the truths of history. I do not see that as any kind of solution.

Then on the other end of the spectrum we have all black universities, all black orchestras, all "jewish" prizes for science and literature. These are examples of colour bars. For racial equality, and racial harmony what is needed is truth and equality. If racial-bars are evil as they were in the South South Africa, and in Israel then they must be bad in all instances.
Having an all black cast for Hamlet, or Julius Caesar is an admission of defeat, and a new racism.

Seriously? So Harvard (the most prestigious school on the planet) can be an all white school for 234 years, and you're upset because the #841 college in the nation is "historically black"?

Two things here are wrong.

1)- So are you saying there was nothing wrong with Harvard being all black for 234 year? (FYI it was 229 years)?
and
2) Harvard graduated its first black student in 1865. WHich is pretty early given that America was a late shower in emancipation. That is only 3 years after emancipation.


If you think it was wrong of Harvard to have a colour bar then why would you accept a white colour bar elsewhere?
It makes you a racist.

So many things to address.

First, Harvard had ZERO black students for over two centuries. Spelman (the highest ranked historically black college) has white students right now. Not many, but even a simpleton can appreciate that they don't exclude white students... because they have white students.

Second, and more germane IMO Harvard has many aspects to their common reputation. And being an all white school for more time than they have been integrated is NOT one of them. Meanwhile, historically black colleges are labeled as racist routinely, as evidenced by this thread, for example. Both are private institutions and as such I'm sure GE Morton would declare that they can do whatever they want. However, I'm just wondering why the (truly) historically all white Harvard generally avoids that reputation, yet historically MAJORITY (not exclusively) black Spelman is commonly criticized.

That racially based difference in treatment is the racism.

[Sculptor1]

I've not seen Hamilton and I do not think it would interest me.
But I would think that Lin-Manuel Miranda is making exactly the same sort of pedagogic point. Not only choosing actors for diversity, but making an exhibition of his personal sympathies in the is respect; virtue signalling in the most gross way.
If having Lawrence Olivier playing Othello is regarded as a bad idea, then how is this any better?

I think the long term danger of these absurdities is the denial that racism ever existed. Bu portraying worlds in which everyone is colour-blind is a pretense that denies the truths of history. I do not see that as any kind of solution.

Then on the other end of the spectrum we have all black universities, all black orchestras, all "jewish" prizes for science and literature. These are examples of colour bars. For racial equality, and racial harmony what is needed is truth and equality. If racial-bars are evil as they were in the South South Africa, and in Israel then they must be bad in all instances.
Having an all black cast for Hamlet, or Julius Caesar is an admission of defeat, and a new racism.

Seriously? So Harvard (the most prestigious school on the planet) can be an all white school for 234 years, and you're upset because the #841 college in the nation is "historically black"?

Two things here are wrong.

1)- So are you saying there was nothing wrong with Harvard being all black for 234 year? (FYI it was 229 years)?
and
2) Harvard graduated its first black student in 1865. WHich is pretty early given that America was a late shower in emancipation. That is only 3 years after emancipation.


If you think it was wrong of Harvard to have a colour bar then why would you accept a white colour bar elsewhere?
It makes you a racist.

So many things to address.

First, Harvard had ZERO black students for over two centuries. Spelman (the highest ranked historically black college) has white students right now. Not many, but even a simpleton can appreciate that they don't exclude white students... because they have white students.

The USA had ZERO free black persons until 1862. What's your point?
And at the same time there was no Spelman. So you are not really making any kind of comparison here. Just two disconnected facts.

Second, and more germane IMO Harvard has many aspects to their common reputation. And being an all white school for more time than they have been integrated is NOT one of them. Meanwhile, historically black colleges are labeled as racist routinely, as evidenced by this thread, for example. Both are private institutions and as such I'm sure GE Morton would declare that they can do whatever they want. However, I'm just wondering why the (truly) historically all white Harvard generally avoids that reputation, yet historically MAJORITY (not exclusively) black Spelman is commonly criticized.

That racially based difference in treatment is the racism.

THe solution to racism is not more racism. You have no grounds for claiming Harvard as racist when SPelman is racist. And whilst all black colleges exist, the excuse from "white" colleges is to direct black people to the black colleges and white racist will concentrate in the "white" colleges. This is simply a perpetuation of racism.

[LuckyR]

Seriously? So Harvard (the most prestigious school on the planet) can be an all white school for 234 years, and you're upset because the #841 college in the nation is "historically black"?

Two things here are wrong.

1)- So are you saying there was nothing wrong with Harvard being all black for 234 year? (FYI it was 229 years)?
and
2) Harvard graduated its first black student in 1865. WHich is pretty early given that America was a late shower in emancipation. That is only 3 years after emancipation.


If you think it was wrong of Harvard to have a colour bar then why would you accept a white colour bar elsewhere?
It makes you a racist.

So many things to address.

First, Harvard had ZERO black students for over two centuries. Spelman (the highest ranked historically black college) has white students right now. Not many, but even a simpleton can appreciate that they don't exclude white students... because they have white students.

The USA had ZERO free black persons until 1862. What's your point?
And at the same time there was no Spelman. So you are not really making any kind of comparison here. Just two disconnected facts.

Second, and more germane IMO Harvard has many aspects to their common reputation. And being an all white school for more time than they have been integrated is NOT one of them. Meanwhile, historically black colleges are labeled as racist routinely, as evidenced by this thread, for example. Both are private institutions and as such I'm sure GE Morton would declare that they can do whatever they want. However, I'm just wondering why the (truly) historically all white Harvard generally avoids that reputation, yet historically MAJORITY (not exclusively) black Spelman is commonly criticized.

That racially based difference in treatment is the racism.

THe solution to racism is not more racism. You have no grounds for claiming Harvard as racist when SPelman is racist. And whilst all black colleges exist, the excuse from "white" colleges is to direct black people to the black colleges and white racist will concentrate in the "white" colleges. This is simply a perpetuation of racism.

So much misinformation and clumsy sleight of hand here.

First Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1783 (not 1862). The first black college grad graduated in 1823 (almost 50 years before Harvard did).

Harvard was all white. Spelman is NOT all black.

Yet Spelman is commonly accused of being "racist" and Harvard commonly gets a pass. Why?

[Sculptor1]

Two things here are wrong.

1)- So are you saying there was nothing wrong with Harvard being all black for 234 year? (FYI it was 229 years)?
and
2) Harvard graduated its first black student in 1865. WHich is pretty early given that America was a late shower in emancipation. That is only 3 years after emancipation.


If you think it was wrong of Harvard to have a colour bar then why would you accept a white colour bar elsewhere?
It makes you a racist.

So many things to address.

First, Harvard had ZERO black students for over two centuries. Spelman (the highest ranked historically black college) has white students right now. Not many, but even a simpleton can appreciate that they don't exclude white students... because they have white students.

The USA had ZERO free black persons until 1862. What's your point?
And at the same time there was no Spelman. So you are not really making any kind of comparison here. Just two disconnected facts.

Second, and more germane IMO Harvard has many aspects to their common reputation. And being an all white school for more time than they have been integrated is NOT one of them. Meanwhile, historically black colleges are labeled as racist routinely, as evidenced by this thread, for example. Both are private institutions and as such I'm sure GE Morton would declare that they can do whatever they want. However, I'm just wondering why the (truly) historically all white Harvard generally avoids that reputation, yet historically MAJORITY (not exclusively) black Spelman is commonly criticized.

That racially based difference in treatment is the racism.

THe solution to racism is not more racism. You have no grounds for claiming Harvard as racist when SPelman is racist. And whilst all black colleges exist, the excuse from "white" colleges is to direct black people to the black colleges and white racist will concentrate in the "white" colleges. This is simply a perpetuation of racism.

So much misinformation and clumsy sleight of hand here.

First Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1783 (not 1862). The first black college grad graduated in 1823 (almost 50 years before Harvard did).

Harvard was all white. Spelman is NOT all black.

Yet Spelman is commonly accused of being "racist" and Harvard commonly gets a pass. Why?

Strawman.

[LuckyR]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had awhile back:

"Why do Latinos have the ALMA awards? There isn't a white person acting award show"

"Uummm... they're called the Oscars..."

[Sculptor1]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had awhile back:

"Why do Latinos have the ALMA awards? There isn't a white person acting award show"

"Uummm... they're called the Oscars..."

Yes, and this is a sign of failure and an acceptance of racism.
And the more we have black awards and jewish awards etc. the more racism is reified, validated and supported.

[Sculptor1]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had awhile back:

"Why do Latinos have the ALMA awards? There isn't a white person acting award show"

"Uummm... they're called the Oscars..."

Though there have been so recent fallow years, t is my view that as a percentage of the black population, black people are probably over-represented at the oscars, over the years.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls500201040/

https://www.theroot.com/every-black-act ... 1848646024

[LuckyR]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had awhile back:

"Why do Latinos have the ALMA awards? There isn't a white person acting award show"

"Uummm... they're called the Oscars..."

Though there have been so recent fallow years, t is my view that as a percentage of the black population, black people are probably over-represented at the oscars, over the years.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls500201040/

https://www.theroot.com/every-black-act ... 1848646024

Over-represented, eh ? Well, 2022 was the 94th Academy awards, so your first link shows 34 blacks who won for actor/actress, supporting actor/actress, director, best picture, screenplay and soundtrack. 8 categories. 5 categories x 94 years plus 3 categories x 85 years is 725 total awards. Since blacks are 11% of the population, you'd expect 79 winners, so the 34 actual winners are less than half of what you'd expect statistically.

Don't you get it? There wouldn't be an ALMA award show if the Academy awards would have had Latino nominees/winners. If the Oscars are all white where exactly are Latino actors supposed to be recognized? It's disingenuous to exclude groups from recognition, then bellyache when they create their own format. You're not the only game in town.

[Sculptor1]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had awhile back:

"Why do Latinos have the ALMA awards? There isn't a white person acting award show"

"Uummm... they're called the Oscars..."

Though there have been so recent fallow years, t is my view that as a percentage of the black population, black people are probably over-represented at the oscars, over the years.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls500201040/

https://www.theroot.com/every-black-act ... 1848646024

Over-represented, eh ? Well, 2022 was the 94th Academy awards, so your first link shows 34 blacks who won for actor/actress, supporting actor/actress, director, best picture, screenplay and soundtrack. 8 categories. 5 categories x 94 years plus 3 categories x 85 years is 725 total awards. Since blacks are 11% of the population, you'd expect 79 winners, so the 34 actual winners are less than half of what you'd expect statistically.

Don't you get it? There wouldn't be an ALMA award show if the Academy awards would have had Latino nominees/winners. If the Oscars are all white where exactly are Latino actors supposed to be recognized? It's disingenuous to exclude groups from recognition, then bellyache when they create their own format. You're not the only game in town.

When you have awards for black only they are more likely to find less representation in the mainstream.
That's what division looks like.

[LuckyR]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had awhile back:

"Why do Latinos have the ALMA awards? There isn't a white person acting award show"

"Uummm... they're called the Oscars..."

Though there have been so recent fallow years, t is my view that as a percentage of the black population, black people are probably over-represented at the oscars, over the years.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls500201040/

https://www.theroot.com/every-black-act ... 1848646024

Over-represented, eh ? Well, 2022 was the 94th Academy awards, so your first link shows 34 blacks who won for actor/actress, supporting actor/actress, director, best picture, screenplay and soundtrack. 8 categories. 5 categories x 94 years plus 3 categories x 85 years is 725 total awards. Since blacks are 11% of the population, you'd expect 79 winners, so the 34 actual winners are less than half of what you'd expect statistically.

Don't you get it? There wouldn't be an ALMA award show if the Academy awards would have had Latino nominees/winners. If the Oscars are all white where exactly are Latino actors supposed to be recognized? It's disingenuous to exclude groups from recognition, then bellyache when they create their own format. You're not the only game in town.

When you have awards for black only they are more likely to find less representation in the mainstream.
That's what division looks like.

Your timing is backwards. The ALMA awards were forced on Latinos by the lack of representation at the Oscars. You're acting like the ALMAs caused the lack of representation at the Oscars.