Whiner's Woad

Posted by dave c (A) on March 19, 2007 at 17:24:03

In Reply to: Re: What's the term? posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on March 19, 2007 at 15:45:53:

... to a large number of successful black people.
Would it be used about sports stars whose teams are owned by white controlled boards/corporations/people
At least in the music business more and more black acts are working with black run labels, even if distribution tends to still be with white controlled companies. I am aware of the large amount of generalisations in my previous sentence.
WOuld Spike Lee himself be a "magical negro" for having to have worked his way through the major studios?
I have never heard the term either and I am not sure if the word "negro" is widely used in the Afro-American community.

• You misunderstand. - D Harvey 17:37:33 03/19/07 (1)
  In Reply to: That might apply... posted by dave c on March 19, 2007 at 17:24:03:

  This is not a real life character or person, but a TYPE of "stock" character if you will, that pops up in literature and movies from time to time. The two named as examples are appropriate. I haven't heard Lee talk about it, but I assume he sees this as another in a long line of caricatures that subtly (or in many cases, not-so-subtly) denigrate blacks by suggesting that those which are exceptional are merely savants who need a white sponsor to realize their potential. It's an extension of the concept of blacks as the "white man's burden". He has a point, IMO. At the same time, the characters named are a far cry from the emotionless rag-dolls that comprise so many depictions of blacks in older films, especially in the US. We have made considerable progress, but that's not to say we're done.

  
  dh
  
  

  ---

  • oh oh oh - dave c 00:22:03 03/20/07 (0)
    In Reply to: You misunderstand. posted by D Harvey on March 19, 2007 at 17:37:33:

    I will have to look into it.
    If they need a white guy... gonna be a guy isn't it?... to realise their potential then that would make them the equivalent of an undeveloped, or unutilised resource. More like mineral or oil resources. Again the subjugation.
    I am fumbling for an all encompassing theory of the black person as an unused... and therefore available to be used "natural" resource thus multiplying the stereotype of black culture being less advanced than white culture... it may be a step too far... especially without more thinking...
    
    

    ---
• Hey Dave - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net 18:00:39 03/19/07 (1)
  In Reply to: That might apply... posted by dave c on March 19, 2007 at 17:24:03:

  Just Google the phrase. I think you'll come away agreeing that some of the characters portrayed in movies fit this archetype. Some of the ones you'll read about you may not agree with. One I didn't agree with is Sidney Poitier's character in "The Defiant Ones". I saw Poitier's character as easily the equal of Tony Curtis' character in that film, and in no way subordinate.
  
  

  ---

  • without having seen the film... - dave c 00:16:08 03/20/07 (0)
    In Reply to: Hey Dave posted by J-PMatt@Comcast.Net on March 19, 2007 at 18:00:39:

    ... I would guess that the power balance was automatically portrayed that way.
    Do you remember the TV series of I Spy?
    
    

    ---