Jump to content

Racism Part two


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

I'd never heard of it or seen it til this thread. I assume it was made a while ago and gather that it was a small part of a film, rather than being the whole theme of the film?  Whatever, I wonder whether it would be done in today's world and suspect not, not so much because "it's offensive to white people", but because anyone thinking of doing it would likely ponder that the reverse situation is no longer deemed acceptable. Culture is constantly changing and it's often led by creative industries. New aspects are opened up for consideration, such as race, gender, national stereotypes and identity, disability, religion and so on. But equally old taboos are no longer held to be so. Stuff that is now commonplace would have been absolutely beyond the pale 40 years ago, or whatever. It's not a one way street all this change. And some people might regret or resent aspects of the changes in either direction (as we've seen in this thread). It can be really hard for people to understand stuff that doesn't fit easily with their life experiences or outlook. Like for example, someone might hypothetically ask "why when there is so much explicit violence, sex/nudity, bad language in film, music videos, TV are we worried about whether it's offensive to think someone born with a penis can be a woman? or whether a white actor can play a role that was an Asian role in the original story,  but it's fine for Dr Who to be a woman or James Bond to be played by a black actor...". There's no simple answer to that kind of question and the modern way of kind of thinking of, or calling that hypothetical person a bigot or a racist doesn't so much help as also demonstrate that perhaps we don't have an answer ourselves if we respond with cries of "racist and bigot" and thus the gap widens.

2004. An it was the main theme of the film. 2 black detectives dress up as 2 blonde white girls, stereo typing white girls who live in the Hampton's as dumb and elitist, but it was okay, apparently?

That it wouldn't be made today speaks volumes.

Edited by foreveryoung
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Unfortunately one is racist because it involves black people, the other is just a joke. 

Correct. The reason why has been perfectly explained several times. 
 

59 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

So you could make the equivalent film with white people dressing up as black people and it would be rascist????

Depends on how it was handled. But very possibly yes 

 

Its really not hard to understand

Edited by Stevo985
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way ‘servants’ or workers like waiters etc are treated in parts of India is disgraceful. I can’t stand it but it’s the norm there.  I suspect it’s like that in many developing countries. 
 

Not about racism as such but I noticed reference to servants in India so I thought I’d just mention that. 
 

As for White Chicks being offensive. Yes it was because it was so shit!

Edited by Vive_La_Villa
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racism will always exist from whites and also black and Asians etc . It works both ways imo but to be honest it’s not even on my radar . It is what it is , the world can be shit most of the time . If you’re alright you’re alright that’s how I work. My wife and also myself have had the race card wrongly used against us in certain situations. Were those black people really helping themselves ? Vile dickheads on par with BNP shite . Racism? Nah ….. I’m more concerned about cancer . Have a good day folks .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

Unfortunately one is racist because it involves black people, the other is just a joke. I realise the white chicks theme has been explained, but the explanation is just not good enough?

So you could make the equivalent film with white people dressing up as black people and it would be rascist????

As I said I'm not offended either way, maybe cause I'm not easily offended like some, but one can't be fine and one absolutely aberrant.

correct. it brings back memories of the heavily racist minstrel shows, and regardless of how it's handled, it has that connotation and i see no tasteful way that it could be done.

not everything in life lives in perfect balance. white actors pretending to be black is worse than black actors pretending to be white. that's just how it is because of how black people have been treated throughout history and are still being treated today so the scales need to be shifted back the other way and in order to do so there are simply things that are OK for black people to do and not OK for white people to do. people that take issue or just don't understand this fact need to take a step back and think of why they feel this way.

it's like those that say "women want equality, so why is it OK for women to hit men but not the other way around?". sometimes, life is imbalanced and for the right reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, bickster said:

If you weren't looking down on them you wouldn't have called them servants.

Just the use of the word implies just that.

The etymology of the word servant and servile, servitute, service and any other related word first comes from old French Servir which then goes back to the Latin servus which taken literally means slave.

There is no way to use the word servant without there being an implied hierarchy and if they were your servants, you were at the top of it.

Don't kid yourself, you looked down on them

Ok,put it this way then.When they applied for a job,they applied as servents.Everyone knew that a Char walla was the guy that made the tea,everyone knew that a Dhobie walla was the guy that did the washing,etc,etcThis is the point I am trying to make in this thread.I have finally realised that I think different to the rest of you because im from a different era, Where things/attitudes etc were different from today.In my era,when I came home from school I would play cricket/soccer/soapbox races.pushbike races etc,etc,every night on the streets till 9pm.Here is my different life compared to your life in a nutshell.Today its not unusual to see ( on TV etc ) guys kicking each other when fighting.Its not unusual to see 2/3/4 guys fighting 1 guy.Its not even unusual to see a guy on the ground and 2/3 others kicking him while he was down.Well,here is the difference.I was a Hells angel and even Hells angels did not kick a person when he was down.Hells angels did not fight 2/3/4  against one.I would go so far as to say that back then if you kicked a person in a fight,you would get ridiculed because only girls kicked.And,if you kicked a person while he was on the ground you would get thrown out of the gang ( im talking about Hells angels gang here )Compare that to today.

When I was a teenager it was the time of Buddy Holly,Del Shannon,Gene Vincent,Fats Domino and Elvis etc etc.Rock and roll and most important.Totally different values to today.

I have decided to give up on this thread because the BIG differences from my life,and what im used to,to your life and what you consider as normal behavior are poles apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

Ok,put it this way then.When they applied for a job,they applied as servents.Everyone knew that a Char walla was the guy that made the tea,everyone knew that a Dhobie walla was the guy that did the washing,etc,etcThis is the point I am trying to make in this thread.I have finally realised that I think different to the rest of you because im from a different era, Where things/attitudes etc were different from today.In my era,when I came home from school I would play cricket/soccer/soapbox races.pushbike races etc,etc,every night on the streets till 9pm.Here is my different life compared to your life in a nutshell.Today its not unusual to see ( on TV etc ) guys kicking each other when fighting.Its not unusual to see 2/3/4 guys fighting 1 guy.Its not even unusual to see a guy on the ground and 2/3 others kicking him while he was down.Well,here is the difference.I was a Hells angel and even Hells angels did not kick a person when he was down.Hells angels did not fight 2/3/4  against one.I would go so far as to say that back then if you kicked a person in a fight,you would get ridiculed because only girls kicked.And,if you kicked a person while he was on the ground you would get thrown out of the gang ( im talking about Hells angels gang here )Compare that to today.

When I was a teenager it was the time of Buddy Holly,Del Shannon,Gene Vincent,Fats Domino and Elvis etc etc.Rock and roll and most important.Totally different values to today.

I have decided to give up on this thread because the BIG differences from my life,and what im used to,to your life and what you consider as normal behavior are poles apart.

Thats called not moving with the times. What was acceptable then isn't now. You are alive now, you need to adapt

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bickster said:

Thats called not moving with the times. What was acceptable then isn't now. You are alive now, you need to adapt

No,I am alive now,BUT MY values have not changed.You will never ever convince me that its ok to kick a person when he is down.And,my other values have not changed either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

No,I am alive now,BUT MY values have not changed.You will never ever convince me that its ok to kick a person when he is down.And,my other values have not changed either.

Who's doing this fighting and kicking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know what its like in England but over here its not unusual to see ordinary people (and even kids ) ganging up on one person and kicking him ( even when he is down ) In my day even a Hells angel would not do that.

Shows how times have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Next we'll be on to how white men are the most oppressed group in the world.

Some try to enter this thread with the most pathetic comments. I think it's just being over protective of others, no one has said or thinks that.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

I dont know what its like in England but over here its not unusual to see ordinary people (and even kids ) ganging up on one person and kicking him ( even when he is down ) In my day even a Hells angel would not do that.

Shows how times have changed.

Julius Caesar would have something to say about this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â