The Study of Racialism

[This thread was split from A Part Colored By History: White Actress For Mixed-Race Role in the "Popular Culture" forum. -- FWS]



Using the oxymoron "light-skinned black" is as insulting as calling a Jew a "non-Aryan." By saying that those characters are not "white," the film makers are agreeing that "the Negro" is racially inferior. If they're not, then the characters are white. The message to the audience is clear.

Using the term light skinned black on someone who does not identify as such would definitely be an erroneous description. It would only be an insult if they found the term Black offensive. I have been asked if I am Russian. I never found it insulting. I just corrected their mistake. Now if I was a light skinned person who was raised in a Black community and identified as Black and read a post about how my identity was an oxymoron, then I definitely would be insulted. This could easily fall under the same rule as people who claim that people who chose to identify as White because they were raised in the community, although they have mixed ancestry are sell outs. Both advocate against the right to self identification.


By saying they are not white, they are just saying they are not White. They are fictitional characters and as such fully within the parameters designated by the author. I don't see the jump of logic to Negros being inferior. All they are saying is that those characters may have thought the identity of being considered Black might have been inferior.


I disagree for the above stated reasons. What could be argued is that in similar real life cases many people have not identified as light skinned blacks but as mixed. But they would even be forsaking/hiding that identity if they abandon their family and break all ties.

I was actually insulted. But whatever.

You know very well that there has traditionally been no "free choice" on this issue. Nearly all the "anti-passing" films and literature are designed to scare people and cause them to self-police themselves and thus refrain from marriage and identification with other whites. Do you dare to claim the term "black" is not traditionally offensive, especially when applied to people who are not physically black? Whenever I point out the partial African ancestry in Latinos in order to prove that "society" does not automatically classify anyone with "black blood" as "black," some fool Latino whines that Latinos don't want to be considered "black." This happened in "Interracial Voice" and it has happened to me in person. Obviously, I am not calling them "black," I am only trying to show that their Anglo and Creole counterparts are NOT BLACK, but the very fact that I raised the issue of their African ancestry is a threat to them. That's because "black" ancestry carries a stigma, regardless of whether someone claims he "chose" to identify with it or not.



Using the same logic, shall we say that when filmmakers in the Third Reich presented Jews as inferior, Non-Aryan vermin, they were not necessarily saying that there was something wrong with being Jewish? When people who had never considered themselves Jewish were labeled as Jews and non-Aryans, no doubt the Nazis were not doing this in order to say that Jews were inferior.



The lesson intended for the white audience is that inferior Negro blood should be kept out of the white race, no matter how attractive the package it in which it comes.
_________________

Point made.

Then you are in violation of rule 1.4.

Just kidding, Lady Marmalade. It has been a long day.

Fully aware that people were forced by one droppism. It doesn't change the fact many embraced the concept. And still do to this day. You can't make an absolute claim for all mixed people who identified as Black that they were coerced into their identity.



Depends on where. For some it is for some it isn't.


Is he a fool because he is Latino or because he doesn't want to be considered Black? And when did these latinos become representatives of all Latinos?


Which is the problem. If you had said, aren't necessarily Black, then I would agree, but you seek to impose your value judgments on to others as to how they should identify. Not just give them free reign to choose for themselves based on their life experiences.


Again, depends on the Latino. For many it is a source of pride. I am one of them. And in many Latinos even the darkest European can sometimes affectionately be called negro, so the word as a descriptor doesn't have to be offensive.


Not same logic as you have not indicated that in the movie Blacks were portrayed as inferior. Only that people percieved them as inferior. There is a difference.



If the Nazis weren't trying to kill the Jews explicitly, confusion of identity would not have been threatening,


Show me this through a plot summary.

Anyone who thinks that "Negroes" and "Negro blood" are not inferior within the universe of "Imitation of Life" is ignorant or deliberately blind.

http://www.genders.org/g27/g27_pr.html

http://www.webcom.com/intvoice/gwinkel8.html

Never saw the movie so I just will go by Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation_ ... (1934_film)
Forgive me if I don't hold Winkel's evaluation as dogma.

As far as I can see, the movie deals with how life quality could be inferior under racism, not that being Black or of Black ancestry was to be inferior. Thus I suspect this is another one of Powell's opinions stated as fact.

This may depend on which version we are talking about: the 1934 "pancake" version with Caudette Colbert or the 1959 version with Lana Turner. If the former, I have to agree with A.D. In fact, a member recently posted that they tried to watch it but turned it off because it was so racist that they could not stomach it. (Not "racist" in the sense of depicting racist acts, like "Mississippi Burning." But racist in the sense of implicitly assuming A-A inferiority, like "Birth of a Nation." Perhaps whoever posted it can help out here.

Jaime hasn't seen the film yet dares to argue with people who have seen it and studied it in detail.



Everything Winkel wrote is superior to your drivel. Jaime labels his opinions as fact and my historical facts as opinion. Note his behavior during the "Mexican American legal whiteness" discussion.

Could be. Haven't seen the movie. It was interesting that the Light skinned Black girl was played by a light skinned Black identified girl according to Wikipedia.

Powell is the ad hominem queen today.

Already addressed these claims there for all to see.

That says do not be "offended", I was insulted!

The point is that, within the universe of films such as "Imitation of Life" and "Pinky," racism is presented as correct and natural. Those who want to defy it (especially in terms of marriages between "pure" whites and "tarbrushed" whites) are presented as wrong or even crazy.

http://www.genders.org/g40/g40_petty.html

http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?t=690&highlight=imitation

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA02/rodriguez/thesis/34show.html

http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?t=3202&highlight=pinky&sid=e6afc3756ac8e21afab087edd9714bf1

Oh oh. See you in a week, A.D. Suspended until July 1, 2007 (2.2).