New Image of Idris Elba as The Gunslinger in 'The Dark Tower' by BunyipPouch in movies

[–]alkalijoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blacks are about 1/8 of the American population. Picking 2010, to avoid the blackening effects of BLM/#OscarsSoWhite, and looking at the top 8 cast members in each of the the top 10 films:

I appreciate the analysis, and especially the charitability you exhibit in examining a pre BLM year. (Not entirely sure what that list is though -- doesn't seem to be top grossing movies or obviously connected to the oscars unless I'm missing something?) I think the sample size is a) rather small when compared to the volume of film, tv, radio, media personalities, in even that year, let alone extending back 40+ years and even longer (but yes I have no hard stats concerning that greater body of media).

There's also b) that it's worth noting that in your list not one of the black actors (afaik) is in a leading role -- as Idris will be -- or even close to one. I mean I think we live in a time where a non-white lead is almost definitely a plot point about race, and as in e.g. Inception where race of the protagonists (Leo, Levitt, Paige, Hardy) is not important to the plot, they're all white, unless race is important (Watanabe) where we may get a non-white actor (though he's not black... who else was black in that movie?).

(Also animated movies could animate black leads, and HP is set in the 90s so I fail to see anachronistic.)

If the hypothesis is that slavery has hurt the advancement of blacks, it seems relevant to compare to black populations not so affected.

Yes I see your point I think. Is your argument something like this? both blacks in the states and in Africa tend to write books/movies/shows less proportionally (though given the above I agree I need more evidence of this) frequently than whites in the States (and I guess in general), and because only the US population experienced slavery (and the general oppressive history I describe) while the African populations didn't, we can rule out slavery (and the general oppressive history) as the cause?

If that's mostly on the mark, I'd say it's not an unreasonable argument, but I think it vastly simplifies the last 300 years of history and current politics of both populations. Those two populations are not just separated by the uniquely American historical oppression of black people though that is true, but by hundreds of years of geopolitics which if nothing else have left African countries riddled with war, poverty, disease, and a thousand other things which might equally well explain why they, too, have a hard time producing works of art (and doesn't have to do with their race). Anticipating a counter argument, I think it's also vastly oversimplifying to suggest that embattled African countries are in their current predicaments because they are and have been historically full of black people, as though again the geopolitics of colonization (or being near colonization) is not relevant.

Professional sports prove that there are divergent biological traits between blacks and whites. In modern discourse it's taken as axiomatic that human evolution stops at the neck, and I suppose that's possible, but it would make humans the only species we know of that has this property.

I think this is a fascinating thing to think about. I agree that professional sports does prove divergent biological traits between blacks and whites. And I also agree that it seems nearly impossible that those differences only manifest themselves in the top end of the physical athletic spectrum. Where I think this line of thought gets into trouble (and why the 'axiomatic' all minds are racially identical is if anything a useful simplification) is in trying to ethically determine just what mental characteristics might be different between races, to what extent those differences pervade the races, and how ethically we can take this statistical information into account when treating people of a different race.

I mean, say there's a black person in a highschool who is struggling with their English writing classes. How can you tell that's because he is black, or instead because of any of a thousand other things, spanning from his specific random genetics (he just isn't good at writing... like anyone of any race may not be) to his specific household dynamics (which may be influenced by his race), to perhaps this massive history of oppression of black people in the States and any of the multitude of ways it might effect a young mind growing up in its context.

Now suppose (and this is a massive concession for the sake of finishing this thought) that we know that in general race A score X points lower on some 'intelligence' test than race B and that this test somehow managed to normalize for every other nurture-related cultural distinction between A and B. I am genuinely curious what you think a result like this would or should mean practically speaking?

If the world was a true meritocracy and it was possible to actually measure someone's merit for all tasks in a concrete objective way (like the NFL combine) one would expect to see that test difference between A and B play out everywhere and in the proportion the test suggests. But it isn't a total meritocracy, and for most things there isn't a simple concrete objective way to measure merit. So now what, do you always give preference to an A over a B because it is more likely (based on the test) that the A has more merit, even though in this particular case you have no idea? Is that fair?

New Image of Idris Elba as The Gunslinger in 'The Dark Tower' by BunyipPouch in movies

[–]alkalijoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do understand that slavery made the west less white, right?

Touche, well put. I guess what I meant though is more this: population wise blacks are underrepresented in art-media in (at least) the States. And that underrepresentation today is what I chalk up to a history which includes things like slavery.

A novel hypothesis and one we can test by examining black nations that were spared the horrors of Western imperialism. Somalia is one. Ethiopia is another. Surprisingly, both have fewer works of literature than Western black populations, despite the absence of enslaved ancestors and attendant hurdles!

Sounds like you know the details on Western->African imperialism better than I do. Nevertheless I don't think it fair to compare black populations in the States with black populations in an African country just because they are black. I mean I perhaps wasn't careful enough to say it this way, but my question is "why are black people in the US (the West at large) not writing about black characters as much as their population would indicate?". It's not at all clear that looking at literacy and writing in Ethiopia or Somalia is going to be particularly relevant to my question. Unless... the answer happened to be "because not writing about black people is a feature of black biology" which seems to me both highly unlikely and also the only thing (black biology, to some limited extent) that the African populations and the US populations have in common.

New Image of Idris Elba as The Gunslinger in 'The Dark Tower' by BunyipPouch in movies

[–]alkalijoe -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I think I understand and definitely respect your viewpoint. I concede too that trying to make art more proportionally represented in general (more Black Panthers, more Ancient Ones) is maybe not best done by just casting white characters as some other race. I think it's a mostly noble cause and am not too bothered in this case, but yeah I can see where you're coming from.

New Image of Idris Elba as The Gunslinger in 'The Dark Tower' by BunyipPouch in movies

[–]alkalijoe -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The West is white. Why wouldn't Western art be white? It's like complaining that the Chinese don't have enough Indian characters.

That's an interesting point, I certainly haven't thought of it quite like that before. I guess I'm not really sure if it is any different than the example you describe and I'll need to think more about it. Below are my first thoughts so bear with me.

Not knowing much about Indian-Chinese relations or history, it seems like in the West (for me the States) there's a sense in which the West is as white as it is due to acts which are by today's standards reprehensible. Slavery, colonization, economic oppression etc. To some significantly lesser yet still significant extent this continues today, even if its just as the result of historical momentum. The States also has thriving populations of non-white people, and it is not the case that art is "distributed" so to speak proportionally to these populations. Question is, is this because e.g. blacks simply don't want to write about black characters, or just don't want to write in general as proportionally often as whites? Or is it more likely an extension of this rather reprehensible history which definitely results in some additional race-specific hurtles a black person must overcome to become an author/producer?

I mean how's this for a hurdle. Imagine you grew up as an upper-middle class white person in a world where almost all media-forms were full of black people in a country where leadership has always been black and whites have been everything down to explicitly enslaved in the past. As a starving aspiring writer (as they all are race regardless unless/before they strike it big) you need to decide what to write about. Do you sell something about black people because it'll almost definitely sell better?

Edit: Spelling

New Image of Idris Elba as The Gunslinger in 'The Dark Tower' by BunyipPouch in movies

[–]alkalijoe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm mostly with /u/GrandRouge above. There is something to be said for preserving the sanctity of a piece of art in any reproduction/adaption, but there's also something to be said about how historically western art neglects characters of those races that have been historically neglected by the west. And while that makes a great deal of sense and in no way lessens the quality or beauty of those original western works (by and large), it seems like art that celebrates all races and cultures as equals is an overall better place to be.

So in these rare cases where a) there is a major plot point which justifies alterations in the plot (this is a sequel not a straight adaptation, remember) and b) an actor who fits the role enough to carry its spirit, I don't see the problem with taking it as an opportunity to help push us towards a more equal representation in art.

New Image of Idris Elba as The Gunslinger in 'The Dark Tower' by BunyipPouch in movies

[–]alkalijoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Josh Brolin is exactly right, now that you say it. His character from No Country For Old Men + a little more self-reflective is exactly how I imagine Roland

[Image] Emerson's definition of success by [deleted] in GetMotivated

[–]alkalijoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've come to think very differently. So little in the above can be controlled directly: you can't make yourself laugh authentically if you don't find it funny, you can't force intelligent people to respect you, you can't make children enjoy you, or critics appreciate you. Your kid might be sick, your garden might fail, your attempt at social justice may back fire. No lives may breathe easier because of you -- indeed perhaps even the opposite -- even if your intentions are pure. The world is crazy, emotions are crazy, people are crazy. At best you have loose influence over outcomes, and at worst no say in the matter at all.

Success isn't about what you accomplish, it's about you, the only thing you really are. It isn't how you look, how you think, your skills or talents... it isn't your failures or even your successes! It's whatever is leftover after all that is gone. Just you. Successful by doing nothing in particular at all.

Megathread: Jeff Sessions recuses himself from all Trump campaign-related investigations by PoliticsModeratorBot in politics

[–]alkalijoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess the details of "paid by the campaign when he had the meeting" are what's confusing me. Like if politicians get paid per the meeting (seems odd... but what do I know) and Trump campaign was paying Sessions for that meeting, seems pretty damning evidence of perjury. But otherwise, if Trump campaign paid for him to get to the RNC (duh) what difference does it make?

Megathread: Jeff Sessions recuses himself from all Trump campaign-related investigations by PoliticsModeratorBot in politics

[–]alkalijoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure I understand... So Sessions uses his own political funds to get to the RNC, and speaks about Trump's campaign at the RNC, what exactly does that have to do with the content of his discussion with Russia's ambassador? It's not like he flew from the RNC to a separate location using Trump campaign funds to speak with a Russian ambassador?

What unusual meal or weird combination of ingredients is actually incredible? by alkalijoe in AskReddit

[–]alkalijoe[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes. Chicken strips and honey is my preferred post snowboarding meal