EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW

On Oct 23, 6:03 pm, bachu....RemoveThis@rogers.com wrote:
> On Oct 23, 4:38 pm, David Totheroh <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote
>
> > > Why should a black child in 2007 have to watch his race being mocked
> > > by jivetalking fools in a cartoon? Should he/she have to deal with
> > > this simply because you demand that thehistorical reality of white
> > > people mocking black people be observed and not 'white-washed'?
> > They shouldn't "have to watch" anything. But unless there's some kind
> > of Clockwork Orange thing going on, they don't.
>
> It'd be nice to think that all kids would have the chance to watch the
> Disney classics, and it's unfortunate that in this particular case the
> experience is sullied by an expression of derision towards a
> significant percentage of those children.

Isn't that a little like saying that people should have the right to
experience The Clansman without having to deal with Dixon's racial
views? There are lots of film choices out there. If you don't want to
deal with the learning experiences inherently available in the content
of some of them, then watch (or let your kids watch) other films.

>
> > But ANY kid, regardless of race, should have the ability, with the
> > proper parental guidance (a given for ANY kind of media exposure) to
> > learn about the history we've all come from without others imposing
> > their own particular bias through editing of that history.
>
> "Their own particular bias" = the desire to watch a movie without
> having to deal with overt racism?

Then watch, or let your kids watch, only films that don't include what
you consider to be overt racism. Either that, or accept the fact that
you consider some films that DO include what you see as racism
important enough to see for other reasons so that some education and
learning is required. It's called responsible viewing or parenting.

>
> Why is the "bias" imposed by the racism of the filmmakers sacred, and
> the "bias" of those who really don't dig being insulted by that
> racism so easily disregarded?
>
> > > There's no danger that the historical reality will be forgotten -
> > > history books relate the facts of slavery, documentaries show people
> > > being hosed down at civil rights marches in the sixties, and
> > > contemporaneously we can see instituional racism as practiced in the
> > > BushCheney administration's negligence in the face of Katrina - and in
> > > a thousand other examples.
> > I'd argue that the Katrina response was far more a function of
> > 'philosophy of government' or 'classism' or 'greedy opportunism' with
> > a good bit of just plain incompetence thrown in, with racism more an
> > obvious and predictable effect than it is a cause.
> >From Reagan's speech championing 'state's rights' to kick off his
>
> campaign in Philadephia Miss., (where 3 civil rights workers were
> murdered in the sixties) to Bush Sr.'s evocation of Willie Horton, to
> Little Bush's efforts to disenfranchise black voters, and, yes, in his
> reponse to Katrina, racism is a major motivator of the modern
> conservative movement.

No, crass but pragmatic power grabbing was the major motivator. Using
racism, through a series of "southern strategies" first implemented by
Nixon, was merely a convenient means of getting that power for the
conservatives. That it was also part of their classist ideology merely
made it easier to implement.

Do you think for a second that if conservatives thought they'd win
more votes by pushing civil rights that they wouldn't?

>
> > Nevertheless, how can you say there is no danger of historical reality
> > being forgotten when we can see so many of its mistakes, negative
> > lessons, and just plain blunders being so clearly and callously
> > repeated in as you say "a thousand other examples"?
>
> As I said, historical reality is in no danger of being forgotten.
>
> But the mistakes, blunders and atrocities repeat because it hasn't
> been adequately dealt with.
>
> There has been no reparation for slavery, and there is no monument to
> the sufferers of slavery, as there is to the Vietnam dead, and to the
> soldiers of World War Two.

Where's the monument to the Vietnamese Vietnam dead? And anyway, so
what? The fact of a Vietnam memorial for US soldiers certainly hasn't
stopped the US from repeating the same kind of racism and political
blundering it exercised in southeast Asia in the Middle East, has it?

>
> Neither is there a monument to the displaced and slaughtered native
> population.
>
> > I grew up being exposed to Dumbo and Casablanca, as well as Uncle
> > Remus, The Grasshopper and the Ants and myriad other influences,
> > without turning into Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Hadley or Addington
> > or Yoo ...... So there has to be some other
> > more significant factor involved than the embedded media references to
> > cultural racism/classism we all shared as baby boomers.
>
> With respect, your point here seems silly to me. Of course there are
> other factors contributory to the future racism/wrongheadedness of
> children than the stuff found in old cartoons and movies.
>
> Society itself is racist. The stuff in old shows in itself is small
> compared to what goes on all around us. But the stuff in the old
> shows isn't negligible, and adding it on to the racism in contemporary
> society just brings more grief to the victims of that racism.
>
> My original point wasn't that the racism in Dumbo would make more
> white kids racist, but it was about the pain it causes black kids and
> adults to see their race ridiculed in what is supposed to be family
> entertainment.
>
> I'm wondering whether that kind of pain is worth preserving the
> 'artistic integrity' of a bunch of stupid old farts back in 1941 who
> thought it'd be good fun to get a couple of laughs at the expense of
> black people (not everyone back then did so).

Yes, absolutely. Because those artifacts of that culture (and any
number of others both more and less significant), unless you're
willing to attempt to totally erase the reality of that history, are
the tools by which lessons of the past can be taught and learned. I
would far rather kids of the future be exposed to that kind of pain,
and the learning that can come from it, than be exposed to the very
real and much more direct pain of very real racism that is allowed to
continue because people are unwilling to confront and honestly deal
with its reality in the past.

David Totheroh (dtotheroh@aol.com) writes:
>> > But ANY kid, regardless of race, should have the ability, with the
>> > proper parental guidance (a given for ANY kind of media exposure) to
>> > learn about the history we've all come from without others imposing
>> > their own particular bias through editing of that history.
>>
>> "Their own particular bias" = the desire to watch a movie without
>> having to deal with overt racism?
>
> Then watch, or let your kids watch, only films that don't include what
> you consider to be overt racism. Either that, or accept the fact that
> you consider some films that DO include what you see as racism
> important enough to see for other reasons so that some education and
> learning is required. It's called responsible viewing or parenting.

Personally I find early Chris Rock and all rap/hiphop far more
racist than anything in DUMBO. And I married into a family whose
skin colour is way blacker than Rock's. And since Rock trades
on not only racism but sexism, addiction, and obscenity too, he's
far more offensive than even THE CLANSMAN.

>> >From Reagan's speech championing 'state's rights' to kick off his
>>
>> campaign in Philadephia Miss., (where 3 civil rights workers were
>> murdered in the sixties) to Bush Sr.'s evocation of Willie Horton, to
>> Little Bush's efforts to disenfranchise black voters, and, yes, in his
>> reponse to Katrina, racism is a major motivator of the modern
>> conservative movement.
>
> No, crass but pragmatic power grabbing was the major motivator. Using
> racism, through a series of "southern strategies" first implemented by
> Nixon, was merely a convenient means of getting that power for the
> conservatives. That it was also part of their classist ideology merely
> made it easier to implement.
>
> Do you think for a second that if conservatives thought they'd win
> more votes by pushing civil rights that they wouldn't?

I very recently got around to reading a book called "Why Americans
Don't Vote". Fascinating and eye-opening. It turned out to be a
history of institutional disenfranchisement of minorities and the
poor in the face of political and judicial expansion of voting
rights. One of the most interesting facts it raised was that it
didn't matter which party was in power, they both pulled the same
stunts.

>> My original point wasn't that the racism in Dumbo would make more
>> white kids racist, but it was about the pain it causes black kids and
>> adults to see their race ridiculed in what is supposed to be family
>> entertainment.
>>
>> I'm wondering whether that kind of pain is worth preserving the
>> 'artistic integrity' of a bunch of stupid old farts back in 1941 who
>> thought it'd be good fun to get a couple of laughs at the expense of
>> black people (not everyone back then did so).
>
> Yes, absolutely. Because those artifacts of that culture (and any
> number of others both more and less significant), unless you're
> willing to attempt to totally erase the reality of that history, are
> the tools by which lessons of the past can be taught and learned. I
> would far rather kids of the future be exposed to that kind of pain,
> and the learning that can come from it, than be exposed to the very
> real and much more direct pain of very real racism that is allowed to
> continue because people are unwilling to confront and honestly deal
> with its reality in the past.

Case in point: when my family adopted an Ojibway boy, our older
son suddenly realized it was his new brother's people who were
being killed in Westerns and represented as illiterates whose
every other word was "How!" With real pain in his eyes, he asked
me why were the Indians being treated that way? Opportunity for
a parental chat. Two months later, he got an "A" (rare for him)
on a sensitive school project about the Ojibway. He learned
history and values and put them to good use.

Jim