There is a new movie about a black swim team. This movie is both race affirming and race diminishing. The movie is called Pride. It’s one of several movies that show blacks doing something they stereotypically don’t do. My point is simple. By giving examples of blacks who are exceptions to a rule, for example the small group of blacks who swim, the movies are confirming the rule exists. Blacks don’t swim.
03.28.07.2076
What an interesting observation. I have seen the trailer for this movie and I didn’t look at it in that manner. Now that you mention it (as I’ve now watched the trailer again to pay more attention as I didn’t really before), there seemed to be a implication that black guys only play basketball and (as you pointed out) “don’t swim”. Concerning your assessment, despite the whole “civil rights” message that I still understand (blacks struggling for equality in a white-dominated arena; sports, politics, whatever, etc.), I agree with what you’ve pointed out here that this movie disturbingly professes that simply because a person has a different skin color, they must abide by certain stereotypes.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “race” is a societal distinction of cultural values and traditions; nothing more. In fact, it shouldn’t be called “race”, it should be called something else entirely… what I don’t know exactly… any suggestions? Genetically, there is only one race, and that is the human race.
On a side note, the movie site is a unique and impressive work of Flash (the use of the stopwatch to load the data is cool).
On the other hand, maybe the only stereotyping is your view of the movie as racist. On the surface, it’s a movie about swimmers. They happen to be black. If you assume that their race is what distinguishes the movie, instead of just the usual unfolding of a plot (unless they are told in the movie they can’t win a meet because black people don’t swim), then that might be considered your own racist view.
There’s also the argument to be made that because the USA’s particular racism, which arose from slavery and Jim Crow, was really prevalent in the past but is on a declining trajectory (we can always hope), somebody had to make the first movie that either purposefully or coincidentally contradicts that particular racial stereotype. Just like there was a first black astronaut, a first black Fortune 500 CEO, a first black U.S. president…oh, wait, we haven’t HAD a first black U.S. president. But we will.
Or, since there’s a significant audience for movies featuring primarily black actors, perhaps it was a racist marketing decision…?
I am identifying one stereotype that people have and the impact that can be had in an attempt to break it.
If you wish to break racial stereotypes, ones about blacks, do not praise someone for being black & something. Do not praise someone for being black & a swimmer, or for being black & president. Just give praise. Treat what you want to be equivalent, equivalent. You would never say he’s the president and white, so don’t say he’s president and black because there in itself you are treating the person different, signifying non-equivalence.
This goes for all things.
It’s curious- as a white person I notice that no black person is ever described in a way that doesn’t eventually mention that they’re black.
I don’t understand, sdwilson. Should movies only portray blacks doing things that they stereotypically do? That seems a lot more racist than portraying them doing something they don’t stereotypically do.
If you mean the collective ‘you’, then I agree with that as an ideal. I wasn’t specifically doing that, only describing that this ‘black and something’ thing does have a context of historical racism and discrimination…and that there are ‘firsts’ that will be noted because of that. I think it’s reasonable to interpret that as a progressive shuffling off of the cloak of oppression. The ‘first woman’, the ‘first gay’, etc. We had a member of Congress recently who ‘came out’ as an atheist, and a big deal was made of it, just as happened with the first elected Muslim representative. This noting of ‘first one’ isn’t such a bad thing in the context of progress, it’s only bad if there isn’t a 2nd, 20th or 1,000th, or enough until nobody finds it worthy of observation anymore.
I don’t have an opinion on what movies should or shouldn’t do. I suppose I believe in free speech, but my point is that you can create a stereotype when you point out a rare case.
I offer a little advice on how to change stereotypes in post 2.
Problem is, I don’t see that the movie is trying to challenge a stereotype or even be particularly race-conscious. But you are saying it is trying to do these things and I don’t understand why.
One way to conclude that the movie is doing what you say would be the following logic: (1) because the movie’s subject is a group of blacks trying to make it big, race must somehow be a central issue, and (2) because it portrays blacks doing something they stereotypically don’t do, the central race issue must have to do with challenging that stereotype. I think both (1) and (2) are quite racist – if ambitious black characters must always be dealing with racial barriers to achievement and anti-stereotyping in their movies, they never get to leave the shadow of racism for a moment. Only whites get the privilege of making a movie that is just about life, rather than life-under-racism.
I presume you don’t want such logic attributed to you, so perhaps you could explain why you perceived what you did about the movie.
My point in my previous post is that you are making a Catch-22 for movies featuring blacks in any role, which indicates to me that you approached the movie in a racially hypersensitive way. For you there was no way for the movie to challenge or avoid challenging a stereotype without incurring the charge of racism.
I do agree with your second post about how to deal with stereotypes and racism. I just think you should follow your own advice.
Yes, theres a prejudice towards whites these days. As you mention that, the same is with Jews. They’ve got to let you know they Jewish or Black. White people dont go around stating the obvious all the time, it’d be seen a white supremacy trait, or a believer in social darwism. From general observation the opposite is clear as day to me: blacks are racist’s to the core. Its depicted in there comedies, dramas, films, porn. Always referring to ‘white’ as something lower, subhuman.
No, the reason we are always told that a person is black during a description, and not told that a person is white during a description, is because whiteness is viewed as the norm, or standard of measurement. While blackness is viewed as being on the fringe. “He is black” is not a statement of fact, as “blackness” carries certain connotations in white culture. Reference to skin color can never simply be informative in our culture, it is done to render a certain perspective on that person based on assumed prejudices. Pointing out whiteness references the prejudice that the person is normal, referencing blackness functions to induce a prejudice of being on the fringe.
The opposite of what you say is true, that whites do not feel it necessary to point out when the person they’re talking about is white, but do feel it necessary to point out when the person they’re talking about is black is a matter of racial stratification. Whiteness is the norm so it’s assumed that unless otherwise noted the person being talked about is white. The ever present yet unseen assumption of whites, is that whiteness is the norm. Ask someone if they think white America has a unique culture. The answer will be no, and it will be no because white America is viewed by White America as a norm, the standard of measurement. The given in any racial equation. Whiteness is not viewed as another rung on the racial ladder, but as the platform the ladder is used to reach.
Ok, so you depict White America as the standard norm/median and a black individual as an extremity that must be pointed out with the usual prejudices of the individuals involved. Thats understandable, yet to answer that prejudice with a seemingly endless barrage of degrading people for being ‘white’ is ok? Racial attitudes that would/have be condemned for pointing out a differential.
Here is the write up. This is published by the movie company and distributed to theaters and media outlets. I got this off of Yahoo! movies.
'The year is 1973, and Jim Ellis, a college-educated African-American, can’t find a job. Driven by his love of competitive swimming, Jim converts an abandoned recreational pool hall in a Philadelphia slum with the help of Elston, a local janitor. But when city officials mark the new Philadelphia Department of Recreation for demolition, Jim fights back–by starting the city’s first African-American swim team. Recruiting troubled teens from the streets, Jim struggles to transform a motley team of novices into capable swimmers–all in time for the upcoming state championships. But as racism, violence and an unsympathetic city official threaten to tear the team apart, Jim must do everything he can to convince his swimmers that victory, both in and out of the pool, is within their reach. ’
These lines make me think this movie is race conscious.
Jim is a college educated African-American. Jim fights back-- by starting the first African-American swim team.
I think you might be out of touch with people if you don’t see racial overtones in this movie. That isn’t a bad thing. I would like to be more out of touch with people. Specifically, people I don’t like. Hopefully, for you, this means you do not know many racists.
It is true that I stereotype by race. I don’t wish to. I do not want to abandon all stereotypes just ones that do not benefit me. Are you a philosopher and does this make me a hedonist?
This is an interesting point. I’m not sure that pointing out the historical firsts does help the cause of equality. How certain are you of this? How can you justify distinguishing blacks, even if it is for a good cause, when the goal is to have no distinctions?
I always point out that I’m white. It’s hilarious when you do. Try it.
You’re right sdwilson, clearly racism is a central issue for the movie – I guess I was trying too hard not to make that connection, because I didn’t see anything overtly suggesting the racism connection on the website. I would like for Hollywood and for our society to loosen the connection between being black and being oppressed. That will be difficult so long as it rings true where systematic widespread racism exists, as (I guess) it still does in some parts of the US. “I guess” because, you’re right, I don’t have much exposure to racists. But then again, raised in a middle-class suburb and now a mathematician, I hardly even have any exposure to black people.
A distinction should be drawn between praising blacks for swimming while overcoming oppression to do it, and praising blacks for swimming because they don’t normally do it and therefore they are working to overcome stereotypes. I think the latter smacks of the sort of ironic racism that you are talking about, since it embraces the stereotype in the process of superficially rejecting it. On the other hand, the former is to me a legitimate story to tell, and it seems to be the story that “Pride” is trying to tell. Isn’t it?
I don’t depict white America as the standard norm/median, I depict white America as itself believing that white America is the standard norm/median. Nor do I condone degrading white people for being white. I’m simply pointing out that white America is simply another rung on the racial ladder, but likes to pretend or refuses to accept it because it cannot stand being thought of as “just another race”.
It’s not simply that minorities are degraded and put at a disadvantage because of their race, it’s that white people are also propped up and put at an unfair advantage because of there race. If you veiw whiteness as a norm, you can never realize this.
03.29.07.2084
The former issue is the one that I initially saw as it looked like it was during the late sixties at the cusp of the civil rights movement. Only until after sd made the connection did I view it in that light.
It is interesting though to consider… why are such movies made nowadays? In wilson’s perspective, these movies would appear to be an incitation to the concept that the black man is still oppressed. Come to think of it, where are the movies about black women being oppressed and overcoming that oppression?
I don’t know. Sadly, I don’t have much faith in my fellow man. I don’t think the intent is to tell a story at all. Pride is an imitation of other movies. I think the writer-director team didn’t want to tell a story so much as they wanted to make a movie, so they took the ‘inspiration movie’ formula and just plugged in pieces of the historic story to fit into the ‘inspiration movie’ format. That’s not to say that the historic story isn’t inspirational. I just think the makers didn’t have any intentions of saying anything. They were just imitating others who have said things, but never really grasped what it was the people they were imitating were saying. Like the people who imitated Dylan by playing harmonica and guitar. They didn’t really understand what made Dylan, Dylan.