EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW

On Oct 19, 6:26 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
> bachu....DeleteThis@rogers.com wrote:
> > As for your right to smoke, it's relevant to quote the old dictum,
> > 'your rights end where they interfere with my rights'. People have
> > the right to breathe air free of the carcinogens you choose to breathe
> > into it.
> Look, dude, if I want to go into a 24-hour video poker bar in Las Vegas
> at 3 in the morning and have a hamburger and a beer and a smoke
> afterwards,

After what?

>and the owner of the place doesn't object and the only staff
> member in the place, the bartender, who's invariably a smoker himself,
> doesn't object -- tell me, what the hell business is that of yours?

None. Never said it was.

I just thought it was weird that if I did, for instance, think it was
my business, you'd equate that with waterboarding someone, or pulling
out their fingernails with a pair of pliers.

> What right do you have to send armed policemen into the place to stop me?

Huh? Are you off your meds?

This "armed guards" things is big for you, huh?

How about the black helicopters? They coming for you, too?

> Do you think you have some sort of "right" to go anywhere you want and
> only find uptight, intolerant Puritans like yourself hanging out there?


Ah: the ad hominem insult. Just like clockwork. No engagement with
the issues raised, no defense of your preposterous idea that 'no
smoking' signs are morally equivalent to government sanctioned
torture.

Okay: your need to be a tough Robert Mitchum maverick trumps everyone
else's right to live cancer-free.

Rock on!
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 19, 4:41 pm, "Eric Stott" <estott@localnetoSPAMcomMODE> wrote:
> OK, please explain how these threads always turn into political rants.
>
> PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS!

Yeah, remember Miss Glamour and Cinecon 43? That was a good one.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 19, 3:41 pm, "Eric Stott" <estott@localnetoSPAMcomMODE> wrote:
> OK, please explain how these threads always turn into political rants.

Could be because it started with one--but that one was on topic.

To return to the topic, however briefly, I don't think it's possible
to demonstrate that someone's adopting the persona of an
individual of another ethnic or cultural group is necessarily either
intentionally demeaning OR supports institutional racism.
I went to a Halloween party a couple of years ago where one of the
attendees had blacked up and was handing out candies
with prayerful good wishes on the wrappers. It didn't occur to me that
he was perpetuating a negative stereotype or representing
people with darker skins as inferior. In fact I don't have the vaguest
idea what he thought he was doing, but it wasn't evil.

I'm still waiting to see Shakespeare's Cleopatra played by an actress
of African descent; however, I wouldn't have any problem
with a white actress doing her in blackface. That's probably what the
original boy actor did.

The Jolson disks include quite a bit of ethnic material--not only
Jolson's "Plantation Songs," which features Jolson in
blackface and stylized rustic costume singing non-ethnic songs like
"The Red, Red Robin," but also some numbers on Disk 3,
such as a rendition of "Hard-to-get Sally" (or is it Sue?) and "Little
Shi Tai, the Vamp of Shanghai." These both involve some
impressive verbal mimicry, but I was too busy enjoying the slightly
blue wit to wonder if they were racist..

Connie K.

> PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS!
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

constance.kuriyama RemoveThis @ttu.edu wrote:

> I don't think it's possible
> to demonstrate that someone's adopting the persona of an
> individual of another ethnic or cultural group is necessarily either
> intentionally demeaning OR supports institutional racism.

Well, perhaps not to a scientific or forensic certainty, but when there
is institutional racism in a culture it's most likely that stereotypes
of the oppressed race in question contribute to it. That ought to be
the operative assumption. Those most likely to know how this works
would be members of the oppressed race -- it's not sensible for members
of another group to decide unilaterally that the stereotypes are benign
and tell the oppressed group to just get over it.

The image of the simple-minded "darkie" may look benign to one group --
to a black who gets treated in everyday life as a simple-minded "darkie"
it may look much different.



Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 22, 8:36 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS... DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:
> constance.kuriy... DeleteThis @ttu.edu wrote:
> > I don't think it's possible
> > to demonstrate that someone's adopting the persona of an
> > individual of another ethnic or cultural group is necessarily either
> > intentionally demeaning OR supports institutional racism.
> Well, perhaps not to a scientific or forensic certainty, but when there
> is institutional racism in a culture it's most likely that stereotypes
> of the oppressed race in question contribute to it. That ought to be
> the operative assumption. Those most likely to know how this works
> would be members of the oppressed race -- it's not sensible for members
> of another group to decide unilaterally that the stereotypes are benign
> and tell the oppressed group to just get over it.

I agree.

While Birth of a Nation, The Jazz Singer, and Huckleberry Finn are
undeniably important artistically and historically, I can understand
why a black person might not feel like being greeted by the
distortions of his/her race as are depicted in these works. And I
don't think anyone has any right to tell him/her not to be offended by
these mockeries.

The combative black comedian Paul Mooney has a response to those who
think he's being too hard on whites in his routines - something along
the lines of "Hey, when you take those jive-talking crows out of the
end of 'Dumbo', and when you edit out the guy calling the black piano
player "boy" in 'Casablanca', then we can talk."

I can kind of see his point.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 22, 9:13 pm, bachu....DeleteThis@rogers.com wrote:
> On Oct 22, 8:36 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > constance.kuriy....DeleteThis@ttu.edu wrote:
> > > I don't think it's possible
> > > to demonstrate that someone's adopting the persona of an
> > > individual of another ethnic or cultural group is necessarily either
> > > intentionally demeaning OR supports institutional racism.
> > Well, perhaps not to a scientific or forensic certainty, but when there
> > is institutional racism in a culture it's most likely that stereotypes
> > of the oppressed race in question contribute to it. That ought to be
> > the operative assumption. Those most likely to know how this works
> > would be members of the oppressed race -- it's not sensible for members
> > of another group to decide unilaterally that the stereotypes are benign
> > and tell the oppressed group to just get over it.
>
> I agree.
>
> While Birth of a Nation, The Jazz Singer, and Huckleberry Finn are
> undeniably important artistically and historically, I can understand
> why a black person might not feel like being greeted by the
> distortions of his/her race as are depicted in these works. And I
> don't think anyone has any right to tell him/her not to be offended by
> these mockeries.
>
> The combative black comedian Paul Mooney has a response to those who
> think he's being too hard on whites in his routines - something along
> the lines of "Hey, when you take those jive-talking crows out of the
> end of 'Dumbo', and when you edit out the guy calling the black piano
> player "boy" in 'Casablanca', then we can talk."
>
> I can kind of see his point.

If he'd said "When you can guarantee nobody'll make any more jive-
talking crows in anamations or have characters in a live action film
call a black piano player 'boy', then we can talk" I'd be with him
100%. Asking people to whitewash historic reality for any reason, not
so much.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 22, 9:13 pm, bachu....DeleteThis@rogers.com wrote:
> On Oct 22, 8:36 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > constance.kuriy....DeleteThis@ttu.edu wrote:
> > > I don't think it's possible
> > > to demonstrate that someone's adopting the persona of an
> > > individual of another ethnic or cultural group is necessarily either
> > > intentionally demeaning OR supports institutional racism.
> > Well, perhaps not to a scientific or forensic certainty, but when there
> > is institutional racism in a culture it's most likely that stereotypes
> > of the oppressed race in question contribute to it. That ought to be
> > the operative assumption. Those most likely to know how this works
> > would be members of the oppressed race -- it's not sensible for members
> > of another group to decide unilaterally that the stereotypes are benign
> > and tell the oppressed group to just get over it.
>
> I agree.
>
> While Birth of a Nation, The Jazz Singer, and Huckleberry Finn are
> undeniably important artistically and historically, I can understand
> why a black person might not feel like being greeted by the
> distortions of his/her race as are depicted in these works. And I
> don't think anyone has any right to tell him/her not to be offended by
> these mockeries.
>
> The combative black comedian Paul Mooney has a response to those who
> think he's being too hard on whites in his routines - something along
> the lines of "Hey, when you take those jive-talking crows out of the
> end of 'Dumbo', and when you edit out the guy calling the black piano
> player "boy" in 'Casablanca', then we can talk."
>
> I can kind of see his point.

If he'd said "When you can guarantee nobody'll make any more jive-
talking crows in anamations or have characters in a live action film
call a black piano player 'boy', then we can talk" I'd be with him
100%. Asking people to whitewash historic reality for any reason, not
so much.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

navigareNOSPAM.RemoveThis@cox.net (Lloyd Fonvielle) wrote:


> when there is
>institutional racism in a culture it's most
>likely that stereotypes of the oppressed
>race in question contribute to it. That
>ought to be the operative assumption.
>Those most likely to know how this
>works would be members of the
>oppressed race -- it's not sensible for
>members of another group to decide
>unilaterally that the stereotypes are
>benign and tell the oppressed group to
>just get over it.

But there has to be some limitation
placed on the moral authority of
indignation. Certainly, Jolson's
Jakie Rabinowitz is the hero of
THE JAZZ SINGER and there is
no denigration intended in his
blackface performance...
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

George Shelps wrote:

> But there has to be some limitation
> placed on the moral authority of
> indignation. Certainly, Jolson's
> Jakie Rabinowitz is the hero of
> THE JAZZ SINGER and there is
> no denigration intended in his
> blackface performance...

But this is not to say that the blackface tradition didn't play a role
in the social implementation of institutional racism. One doesn't have
to make TOO much of this, but it would be wrong to deny or forget it.




Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 23, 12:49 am, David Totheroh <dtothe....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> If he'd said "When you can guarantee nobody'll make any more jive-
> talking crows in anamations or have characters in a live action film
> call a black piano player 'boy', then we can talk" I'd be with him
> 100%. Asking people to whitewash historic reality for any reason, not
> so much.

It depends whether the films are looked on simply as historical
artifacts, as objects of interest only for buffs and specialists as
are found on this board, or whether they're timeless works of art and
entertainment (in the case of Dumbo, highly remunerative ones, as
Disney keeps re-releasing it to newer generations).

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'?

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.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 23, 12:23 pm, bachu... RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:
> On Oct 23, 12:49 am, David Totheroh <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > If he'd said "When you can guarantee nobody'll make any more jive-
> > talking crows in anamations or have characters in a live action film
> > call a black piano player 'boy', then we can talk" I'd be with him
> > 100%. Asking people to whitewash historic reality for any reason, not
> > so much.
>
> It depends whether the films are looked on simply as historical
> artifacts, as objects of interest only for buffs and specialists as
> are found on this board, or whether they're timeless works of art and
> entertainment (in the case of Dumbo, highly remunerative ones, as
> Disney keeps re-releasing it to newer generations).
>
> 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.

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.

>
> 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.

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"?

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 or Shelps or even David Duke. 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.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

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.

> 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?

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.

> 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.

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).
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

David Totheroh wrote:

>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 or Shelps or
>even David Duke.

Seems like you never grew up morally
at all, remaining addicted to playground
epithets and schoolyard smears.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW