Snowflake conservatives

Post Reply New Topic

What would those people getting all upset about movies getting "woke" because they have a black character think if Blaxsploitation films were a thing today? The whole point was black characters taking down stereotyped evil white characters.

I don't remember whites being offended about it, they were hot for Pam Grier like every else.

"Who's the black private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks?
(Shaft)
Ya damn right"

Why would people not have a problem with them in the 70s, but now they're a problem?

What changed?

What changed?  The Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Suddenly (back then, anyway) people discovered that they could say "No" to being told to give up their bus seat, that they did not have to say anything to the cops, that "Due Process" was no longer a whites-only privilege, and that if a woman says, "No" to sex, and a man has sex with her anyway, it is rape.

What changed was that conservative white males had to share the same rights and privileges they had enjoyed for centuries with liberals, non-whites, and women, and now they see this as a threat to the very existence of the conservative white male.

THAT is what is making them cry.

I meant in terms of TV and film. Things like the Little Mermaid remake w/ Halle Bailey, and the Sam Smith-Kim Petras Grammy performance.

The Blaxploitation fad occurred in the Seventies. After the Civil Rights acts of 1964.

They are not a problem today because the are not and would not get made today. Some civil rights leaders did complain about stereotyping blacks and they certainly did but black audiences flocked to them anyways. The films were action packed, sexy, and entertaining fantasy. People accepted them for what they were.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 23 May 2023, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Indeed.

To Fnord, he's a tip for you. Next time you want to engage in a bit of smug virtue-signalling in here, try actually paying attention to the context of what is being discussed.

I doubt most modern right-wingers would be upset about the Blaxploitation films of the 70s if you tried asking them. If you think that they would get upset, then that's probably because you are comparing apples and oranges.

The Blaxploitation films of the 70s were specifically marketed to Blacks, and featured Blacks in places where you'd expect to find them, e.g. present-day New York.

The modern-day 'woke' films that annoy right-wingers are usually films that are marketed to everybody, and that feature Blacks (and other minorities) in places where they don't belong, e.g., Blacks playing European monarchs, or Blacks playing characters from Greek or Norse myth

So basically you should be asking the complete opposite question to the one you have asked, namely
Why is it ok for Blacks to have things that are explicitly for them (films, cultural events, organizations) but not for Whites? In fact, why is it enough for something to be 'implicitly White' for it to be deemed a problem? Try looking up some of the things that have been declared 'too White' in recent years to see what I mean (the TV show Friends, NASCAR, the coronation of King Charles III, and so on and so on). Why is 'lack of diversity' only ever deemed problematic when something is majority White?

I don't actually believe Blacks are the driving force behind this double standard, but I won't go into that here.
And before anyone tries to answer my questions with a load of Marxoid just-so stories along the lines of "because oppression blah blah blah", I can tell them now I have no interest in anything they have to say.

Two problems:

A. Woke stories often (but not always) portray an absolute good vs absolute evil - the good are destined to win by virtue of their goodness, the bad the opposite. While entertaining, these stories lack depth, the acknowledgement in the real world, few sides are perfect and the right answer isn't always clear. The best stories have their philosophy go up against stron opposition, only to prove itself the superior option. There isn't this tension and resolution in woke works, who believe they have morality already solved.

B. The problem isn't minority characters, but characters solely created as/swapped to minorities for social justice/financial reasons. Stories are delicate machines - a single part added or replaced can damage the whole contraption if done without consideration. If it was only placed their for PR, it becomes clear the intentions of the designers are not for a good story, so why treat it as such? Don't change what works, fix what doesn't.

Last edited by PenPen on 23 May 2023, 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Halle Bailey is a talented singer and actress. I don't get offended with film studios casting black singers/actresses when they're the right choice for the role. I don't care what Ariel's skin color is. What offends me is that a studio a film studio would cast black people in those roles ONLY because they are black and the studio feels sorry for them. It's not like these films are so culturally relevant that the role demands a black actor or actress--for instance, it doesn't make sense to cast a white man to play the part of MLK.

Here's my theory: There are "traditionally white" or culturally white symbols that seem to take on a special meaning with minorities. I recall not long ago a lot of women's clothing featuring Tinker Bell and it being mostly black women wearing Tinker Bell shirts and hoodies. On the surface, I like the sense of pride and positive attitude, identifying with a magical being. But below the surface, the Disney treatment of Tinker Bell is horrid. She loves Peter Pan and does whatever he wants her to do. He relentlessly abuses her throughout the film. He exploits her so he can impress Wendy (rich white woman) who he has chosen to be his (sugar)mama. Meanwhile, Tinker Bell schemes against Wendy only to be repeatedly foiled. In the end, Tinker Bell sacrifices herself to save people who, honestly, don't really deserve saving, and the only way Tinker Bell is saved is when Pan reveals his feeling for her needs Tinker Bell to help save the white woman Wendy from Hook.

If that's not a great narrative for oppressed people, I don't know what is.

In reality, TB is just a freakin' fairy, and it doesn't matter what color her skin is. But take TB as originally formulated and think of her as a trope or meme and she's the perfect symbol of minority and feminine power.

Shall I deconstruct the 2023 live action adaptation? Nah...I'm afraid I'll only get more wound up. Suffice it to say that the role of Tinker Bell IS cast as a black girl, and I can't decide if Disney is correcting a decades-old mistake (because they knew their original audience was a white audience), they're giving a nod to black women and girls who identify with Tinker Bell, or if Disney is being racist for casting Tinker Bell as black and then reinforcing unfair stereotypes.

I haven't watched the new movie all the way through yet. It seems really good, TBH. I get the sense that it's more about empowering women/girls with Wendy (and by extension Tinker Bell) asserting HER power in order to [spoiler]. Peter Pan ends up powerless and in need of rescue, and if you've followed the character across the original film AND the play, you kinda get the sense in THIS version Peter Pan gets what he deserves.

Some other random thoughts on Peter Pan that are more/less relevant:

My analysis of Peter Pan, by contrast is that he's somewhat an objective hero. He asserts his independence and insists on living in a world in which he brings his ideas into reality and empowers others to do the same. My criticism of Pan is not in his leadership ability and entrepreneurship. It's Pan's tendency to exploit the low self esteem of certain characters and parasitize people with ability in order to realize his ideas and goals. For Pan, Tinker Bell OWES him her magical abilities. The Lost Boys OWE Peter Pan allegiance. Allegorically, this plays out IRL when leftist groups prey on oppressed minorities by offering them a feral existence in exchange for power which leftist leaders maintain by cultivating solidarity and by appropriating the possessions, abilities, and intellect of others and by hoarding resources. Peter Pan represents the easy life of never having to grow up and accept responsibility.

Is Hook Donald Trump? Absolutely NOT. Hook and Pan are not enemies because they are different. They are enemies because they are too much alike. Pan's ideology requires his disciples to fend for themselves--Pan will lead and protect them as long as they present a united front and for as long as Pan has magical resources (IRL scientists, inventors, etc.) to exploit. Hook represents a different leftist extreme--totalitarianism. Hook is a pirate. He trades in illegal and stolen goods. He rules over his crew with fear and intimidation rather than admiration (Pan operates a cult of personality). Moreover, Hook is an intellectual elite (who doesn't have one original idea in his head) who first attempts to convert children through indoctrination (realized IRL by the public education system and through propaganda) and later by force when reason fails. Pan represents socialist anarchism, Hook represents communism. Orwell should be proud.

I think they get irritated where black characters are out of place rather than having a problem with black characters themselves. Black characters in movies and on TV have been and watched by right wing people for many years prior with no real issue as far as I know.

I think black Cleopatra has triggered it off recently and honestly, I can see their point because she wasn't black. There have been a few things on TV like this recently including a black English queen or something. No idea what the series was called though.

It's not about adding or including a black character, it's about changing the race of an existing character. I'm simply against it. I didn't like it when they did it Gods of Egypt and I don't like it here either. Imagine the reaction if they cast a white actor to play Black Panther.

That is a very good summary of society today and why certain people are getting annoyed because they have to accept that everyone has the same rights and privileges as they do now.

I'm not going to go down the same road with The Little Mermaid...I think Peter Pan is more relevant with regard to indoctrination and pursuing a victim-class mentality.

The thing with The Little Mermaid being a white girl is fueled with the Little Mermaid tradition going back to Hans Christian Anderson. HCA's story is a Christian allegory. It isn't too difficult to allegorically relate TLM to communism and other forms of collectivism/statism. But instead of going that direction with TLM, I think it's a tragedy that reflects on mystical religion and the role that religion plays in maintaining dominance over people. According to HCA, TLM commits the fatal error of wanting more than than she has. TLM is willing to trade her singing ability for a chance to be with her ideal man. She also values having an eternal soul, whereas mermaids get 300 years and sea foam thereafter. TLM makes a deal with a demonic personification which pretty much seals her fate. She ultimately fails and loses her life. However, because she died selflessly rather than kill the prince to save herself, she is transformed into an air spirit who can earn a soul by doing good things for humans for 300 years.

Translation: Life sucks, and then you die. But if you're a good boy/girl, you get to go to heaven. So just do what the church and everyone else says and MAYBE you'll get to go to heaven for an eternal reward. Be like TLM.

One last post and I'm done:

Does anyone else at least find it INTERESTING that the recent Peter Pan remake AND with The Little Mermaid BOTH present significant roles cast with black actresses in which for all or part of the film the characters have no voice?

Whether it's a good summary of society today or not, as a response to the original post, it's a complete non-sequitur.

These contextually inappropriate copy-and-paste jobs by Fnord don't really do his case any favours.