Off Topic Politics Thread

Do you know what the Bechdel test is? To pass the test, all you have to do is include one scene in the movie with two women talking about something other than a man. Only half of movies pass this very minimal test.

This movie is about an African super-hero from an African country. Why wouldn't there be super heroes from Africa, and if there were, why wouldn't they be black? He is a hero who just happens to be African. He's not a hero because he is African.

If you want an society where race is irrelevant, that society would have African super-heroes and women would talk about things other than men. This is moving us closer to that ideal.

 

OK, that's a fair point and well made, my friend. I 100% support better representation in the arts. If you have not heard Desert Island Discs with Chi Chi Nwanoku then try to (I'm retired and have too much time on my hands). She talks passionately about having ME young people having the opportunity to see role models "like them" playing in orchestras. She also comments on the 1970's racism that her Nigerian born father and Irish born mother faced. It makes one ashamed.

If you are arguing that films like this do something for changing views then that's fine. No-one who strives for an egalitarian society is going to argue that this is a bad thing. However, Imps' point is, think, that this is only a step in the process. It shouldn't be celebrated as an end achievement.

We must never be colour blind. I heard Lemn Sissay talk about this once. "Oh I don't notice that you're black" people say. Lemn responded "Why are you blind?" We must never be gender blind, or not "notice" people who don't live middle class white comfortable lives. It's about equal value, and if this film moves us a micron closer to this then great. But sadly, it is not the end game and Imps is right to warn of creating an exclusion as insidious as anything created by the likes of the East India Company and the days of Empire. My apologies, Imp, if I have misrepresented your views. I know you are more than capable of speaking for yourself.

 

I had a lot of experience dealing with Atos (one of the companies doing the assessments) when I was a manager for Royal Mail. They did the assessments on employees who were long term sick, after that part of the old Personnel dept was contracted out.

It was pretty evident that their business model didn't really allow for any assessment or engagement with employees, beyond a box ticking exercise; the recommendations and rehabilitation plans we got from Atos were totally formulaic, and it was clear they weren't dealing with any of our employees/their clients as individuals at all.

So I'm not surprised that the same approach seems to have been applied when dealing with disability benefit claiments. They treat people as numbers, and focus on hitting cost based targets.

 

Totally agree with this point. How is giving someone a role just because they are a minority and not because they deserve it equality? If anything it will make some people even more against that particular group as they will see it as an injustice and it will fuel their prejudice. Ironically, if you positively discriminate in favour of a group you are then discriminating against another.

Unfortunately we've still got a long way to go.

 

It's the end goal I disagree with there.

People don't want to all be treated the same. In fact as a species we strive to find that speciality that sets us apart.
You said yourself we must never be colour blind.

Gay people generally want to be gay. And that includes having specialist places to meet others.

If gender was irrelevant the species would die out. Very few women want to be treated the exact same as a man at all times. And they have needs such as maternity leave.

And these differences create a different culture, although at different degrees.

With black people. It's not such much they are black, as that they often come from a different culture. Whether that be from Africa itself or from a from a poor area in the US due to 100's of years with a lack of economic and social mobility, or perhaps they come from bel air. Either way it creates a unique culture. People from Africa aren't always going to want to give up African culture which will mean that they will want to be treated slightly differently in some areas and I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

For me the aim is understanding of possible differences, accepting those diffences and learning to work with them and even making use of them within a larger society. And also understanding where they don't want to be treated differently.

For me that means you need media, whether it is films, news, music etc.
(I find music to be a great example of different cultures working to improve a larger society)
to show thesee societies and how they might be different and how they might be the same and how they might be able to work with society as a whole.

And since the marvel universe is large and diverse it is a great way to show this kind of thinking.

If you simply show a rainbow cast every film then that's simply not reflecting reality. And I believe that makes people feel more alienated. If black people feel they are not represented they might try to find a group that does, like IS. And that's a sadly familiar story. The same goes for white people from poor backgrounds who don't see the reality in that and turn to people like the EDL to represent them.

For me if you alienate people by not showing the reality, or at least something similiar to the reality of their situation then they will feel apart from society and that creates the them vs us situation Imp is trying to avoid while having a diversity OF films creates an us AND them which is what we should be aiming for.

 

That's a social and economic mobility thing. If you don't give a minority a role then they can't learn, teach and encourage others like them which means they never gain the skills to get the role on merit and they get no representation in higher levels.

 

Which is why, in my opinion, we need a better, more humane system, or penalty clauses to claw back money being wasted, defending their clearly flawed decision making processes.

 

They still need to show they are the best for the position the same as everyone else. It is actually against the Equality Act to positively discriminate.

 

They can't become the best for the position if theyre prevented from getting the experience for the position so it's actually imposible not to discriminate.

it's like how black people were not given education so couldn't read and couldn't teach eachother how to read so couldn't elevate themselves. A person who can't read will never be given a job as an english teacher for example, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have learned to read and become English teachers if they had and English teacher to teach them! We've progressed past that but we still need to keep providing the opportunities at higher level otherwise the people with the potential to be the best at the job will never get there.

 

Oh dear. This is a highly complex issue that doesn't lend itself to quick responses on a forum - delighted though I am to share the forum with people who have a view!

Now you've misunderstood my "end point". I wholly agree that we don't want an homogeneous blob of a society. My point is that these differences should be celebrated and equally valued. The whole "birds of a feather" thing is right. In Chester we have a significant Bengali community who have lived here for the best part of 40 years. Anyone under 40, therefore, is born here, schooled here and now works here. It is a very well integrated group and I am proud of the level of tolerance to differences in this City. But of course, they are still bound by cultural and religious ties. It isn't just the older people who attend the mosque on Friday for example. The essential point I am making is that differences should be respected and enjoyed as part of a vibrant society where we realise we all benefit.

Equality has never meant treating all people the same for me, so I agree with you!

 

This is exactly what I try to convey but when I say it somehow it ends up suggesting I want everybody to become a clone and all culture / tradition to be forgotten.

I think multiculturalism should let people enjoy and be part of different cultures. To experience them and not be told you can only be a spectator because you don;t qualify.

 

You are talking about the movie again rather than the language being used around it. There have been loads of "black" films made. From Big Momma's house through to Boyz in the hood. We have had the Blade series. I cannot recall the language around them being as politicised as this film though.

 

You are close. I don't see this as "just a step" towards improvement I see it as a backwards step or at best an acceptance of treading water.

Your "colour blind" comment is very key in this kind of argument. While you and I are not actually talking about not noticing that someone has different colour skin (or any other difference) we are meaning that it should be a world where it doesn't matter. The difference should make no difference so to speak.

However other people choose to interpret it as meaning we do not notice the difference. Which is and always will be impossible for anyone that has any of their senses. Being blind they can still hear, smell, feel differences for example. It is impossible for anyone to not notice any differences. It is entirely possible for those differences not to mean what they mean at the moment or meant in the past.

 

No problem with the rest of the post. I agree with all of that. I agree with your statement above however it flags up one thing for me. You put up there that in reflecting reality there have to be films that aren't "rainbow casts" because in reality there are a multitude of environments where this is not reality be it from a poor black (or white) neighbourhood or region of the world where this is not reality. Even a storyline that does not involve interaction. That's fine. But if it were all about representing reality why are we seeing a demand for more BAME actors in European historical dramas in recent years? I'm not into the whole white supremacist uproar on this and to be honest I don't really care whether William the Conquerer's right hand man is played by a white, black or Asian actor. But is this not relevant to your comment on reflecting reality?

 

I believe it is to a degree, yes.

I mentioned that it not only affects minorities looking to ISIS but white people looking to the EDL and I think your comment on white supremacist uproar is evidence of the latter. Take out the frothy mouthed Xenophobia and the core of the issue is that some people feel their history is being rewritten and that's a fair point.

I see history and future settings as being a bit different as you can't really relate to the people in them anyway due to how much culture will have change in hundreds of years. So really it depends on how realistic the film is trying to be really. if it's mostly fiction and you've got ukillable warriors killing dozens and warrior women etc like Vikings then does it really matter if you have a black guy? Once saw an entire thread complaining about there being a black guy in a lord of the rings game .

But i think it's important to have a diverse range thought provoking historical movies and such as well.

For example, thinking off the top of my head, 13 years a slave, Glory, the state of Jones... the latter having a white lead but the latter half of the film is largely about black oppression IIRC. Has some flaws as a film that one but I think the message it was trying to convey at the end talking about the 'need for the white man to have a nigga' which I belive was an historical quote is still very relevant to today's society about how rich men were able to keep poor white men happy while being exploited by giving them somebody else to exploit and make them feel superior while really the rich were getting all the profits from all of them whether white or black.

Anyway I digressed. It's a bit different but I think the principal still stands.

 

Ah, where do I start

A topic reasonably close to me for all my life. Born in the UK 48 years ago, from Indian and Italian parents. This makes me very different from the normal son of immigrant parents.

I have had to grow up with 3 cultures, Indian, Italian and the one I have known all my life...the British culture. What am I? Italian, Indian? British? The simple answer is British. How does society make me feel? Not always British.

A few years ago, whilst job hunting, I applied for loads of jobs. However, I sent two CVs - identical in every way except the name. One had my real surname and the other was the surname of 'Potter' (totally random!). My first name is Mark, so you can see what my goal was. I ignored the replies from the just the 'Potter' surname and just went to the interviews with my real surname.

There lies the issue IMO. I didn't want to work for a company who discriminated me because of my surname. Three companies said have I submitted two CVs as they received identical CVs. However, did some offer me an interview to fill their 'ethnic' quota or was it because of the CV? There were ones who offered me an interview on the Potter CV, but on the same day said sorry to me on the real surname...so clearly didn't read the CV and just saw the name.

There is no real solution. I wanted the job because I was the man for the job, not because of my ethnic background, but how do you get past the door of some places?

Over to the culture aspect. I am British in my ways through and through, but I also fit in well in an Indian wedding for example or in a Catholic mass in Latin. I am multicultural...the rest of the country isn't!

 

Is 13 years a slave the sequel? Sorry couldn't resist. My wife had to watch that one when it was released purely because of the subject matter. T'was a good film though. Another on a similar vein that she "had to watch" because of the subject matter was Belle which seemed to go under the radar and was equally a good film and thought provoking (despite the artistic licence within.) When I say she "had to watch it" I don't mean she felt she needed to learn it or had an interest in the actual subject matter. It was from reading about a film and as with many films of this nature she has to watch it because black people have to watch it because they are black. I have no idea why she has to watch every Jason Statham film though. lol

Belle for those who haven;t seen it is about Dido, the mixed race (which I am assured is black by my wife to confused looks from my children who use mirrors to see what colour they are) niece of Lord Mansfield and includes the Zong case. It is watchable and the storyline is OK plus it has the usual cast of British (white) actors that get every gig going.

Your post is well explained and I agree with its entirety including the first paragraph r.e. ISIS/EDL. Doesn't bother me a black person playing what was a white character. To be honest I didn't even think about it until (like your Lord of the Rings example) I read people moaning about "black guys taking over everything." It was a docu drama and the events were the key not who the actor playing the part was. Was the guy playing William the Conquerer a Norman with a Scandinavian heritage? I doubt it

Your last paragraph however leads back to this topic in my eyes. A lot of "white money" around at the moment pushing minority causes / poor causes / world causes that are earning money out of it all. I don't think it is hysteria when people are questioning the motives of some people that present themselves as philanthropists yet seem to always get richer while giving so much away!! And yes everybody knows at least one of the people I am hinting at there.

 

But what does that have to do with the Black Panther movie?

 

Sorry I forgot we're on the film thread.

 

We're in the political thread. Apparently there is something political about Black Panther. So.... what was it again?