An effect is a reaction to a stimulus. As long as the stimulus is around the effect continues. Once it is gone the effect fades. An Obama effect is a temporary shift in a long held belief system. And I don’t want to accept that as good enough.
Since before, and massively since, the election President Obama has been used as a reason for media to remember that African Americans have been a vital part of this nation since inception, are a rather large part of the population, and an enormous factor to the prosperity of the economy.
Television and movies have long ignored all of that. With the exception of the Cosby Show and a few programs that were on broadcast television at that same time, the small screen in everyone’s living room is devoid of people of color. In fact, once the Cosby Show went off-air (ending the Cosby effect), the executives in Hollywood seemingly scrambled to eliminate what they had created. Proof that Americans will watch a good program no matter the color of the stars.
At this point, the 9th year in a row, the line-up of television features 2 programs with Black actors as lead. They are on the smallest and least seen public television broadcast network, and hold the worst time-slot possible. Beyond this, there are 2 prominent Black actors in drama ensembles. And then there are 2 programs on cable television that feature Black casts. That’s it, out of over 120 programs just looking at broadcast television alone.
But President Obama will cause all that to change. Kiss my ass.
I do not need, nor should it take, the leader of our nation to be Black to make me aware of the abilities of tens of millions of Americans. There have long prior been examples of success in front of and behind cameras. There has long prior been proof of our viability. And to claim that only now people can see or accept this is insulting to generations of African Americans and the American public at large. To say nothing of the even less acknowledge or seen Latino/Hispanic and Asian communities.
Back in November of 2008
“It may say something about the state of American television that there is one more black president-elect of the United States than there are black actors with individual lead roles in a network television drama.”
Recently Bill Cosby had this to say about the supposed Obama effect and television
“No, because these people are stupid," he says, referring to network bosses. "Look at how NBC is struggling. You would think they would make some changes and be talking about trying to get another 'Cosby' kind of show. But they would probably die before putting another show on about a black family and black pride."
And Bishop T.D. Jakes stated
“I think sometimes the only images we see of people of color are the images that Hollywood projects: the hip-hop, the gangs, the street life. Now, it would be wonderful for them to recognize what has always existed in the African-American community and what Obama's presidency suggests: middle-class African-Americans who are articulate, intelligent and thoughtful."
And that is the issue. Hollywood wants African Americans to be limited to gangsta rappers or such ilk. President or not, African Americans are supposed to be bad guys, poor, uneducated and in need of a hand-out. Adding more African Americans because of President Obama is just that. And once he is out of office, just like with the Cosby effect, they can go back on message.
That is insulting. I don’t want laws to tell me that I am equal. I don’t want executives in Hollywood to portray African Americans in a movie or program because they want to enlighten me to success. These things should be obvious to anyone that looks around or reads more than a high school book on history.
America does not need an effect. We need respect. For those that work everyday, that contribute to the prosperity of the economy, of those that aren’t living the commoditization of Black culture. We need to acknowledge that without African Americans, America would have failed before it could have started. And that right this second, there are tens of thousands that are qualified and capable but overlooked because they have a permanent tan.
Jaime Foxx, Denzel Washington, Laurence Fishburne, Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Sidney Poitier, Angela Bassett, Terrance Howard, Gabrielle Union, Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee, Bill Duke, and so many others are not an Obama effect. They are not an effect at all. They are representatives of a far larger, more diverse community that has been right here for as long as America has been around – they have just been mostly ignored.
Trying to placate this vital segment of America with insincere transitional leftovers is not the answer. Though it does answer a sincere question that often is asked and I think best stated in the movie The Tuskegee Airmen.
“Lt. Col. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. – Andre Braugher -
…I ask myself the most difficult question everyday. How do I feel about my country… and how does my country feel about me.”
7 comments:
Comment as found at blackandwhiteblog.net, where I am co-author.
Logan Calder Says:
January 30th, 2009 at 7:16 pm e
well, there are two sides to every coin. One statement that you make that I find hard to swallow that you actualy believe is that “America would have failed without African Americans”. This type of statement is completely absurd and along the lines of a “feel good” statement someone will yell out loud in a crowd, but has no real merit.
I also think Hollywood bias is much deeper than skin color, and that skin color is simply a perfect example of my point, which is. Hollywood is run by families (bloodlines) - most actors that are born to other famous people have a get in free card, a perfect example is Will and Jada Smiths son getting the lead roll in the upcoming remake of the “Karate Kid”. If he were another working actor with no connections he would not have a prayer at that roll, as it is with other actors of any color. The point is, Whites are the main bloodline in Hollywood because of past structure, but as Blacks and other minorities continue to progress, the impact will coincide in Hollywood simply by famous (or rich) bloodline. Very few actors make it or even get a chance without a connection.
Also, the other side of sports diversity. Maybe golf has more Whites than other sports because of the huge difference in scholarships awarded to minorities, and in particular, Blacks to play basketball and football. I am sure that there are plenty of lower middle class White atheletes that we will never hear of because they couldnt get the chance to play for a big school because they didnt have the money and didnt have skin color to get the scholarship. These issues continue to go far deeper, and politics plays huge issues in all, but I think to be equal, we have to be equal in all areas. The American past was clearly unfair to minorites but this “majority effect” is true in any culture, but the present and the future are looking much better, true equality means we draw a straight line across us all. Right now there is too many one sided areas, and with that you get groups fighting to keep what they have, and we will not change, we will hit a roadblock of “well he did that first” type of rational. What do you think?
Logan,
You asked if I believe what I said when I stated “America would have failed without African Americans”. I can say unequivocabaly that that statement is true and an absolute belief I hold.
First understand that the entire infrastructure of America was built primarily on the backs of Slave labor. There was of course work done by Whites, and Chinese, Native Indians and other groups. But the primary source of all physical hard labor in the formative years of the nation were done by the single largest group of workers, slaves. That is a historical fact, and does not apply just to the South but all of America.
Second, the only economy of America in its formative years, and well into the 1800’s, was agriculture. Specifically tobacco and cotton, and several other crops to lesser degrees. That was the financial backbone of the nation. The GDP of the United States revolved around the production and trade of these goods. Without it the country would have been bankrupt and failed. That is the primary reason the North could not let the South secede from the Union, and the Civil War.
The work done by slaves from the first recorded slave (not the first, but the first recorded) in 1619 up until 1865 – when Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery – is conservatively estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. Such an amount of money reflects an infrustrucre that was entirely impossible for an America without slaves. It would require something in the order of 5x as many Whites working 10 hour days, 7 days a week during the same time period (since Whites at the time would never work the slave hours nor the conditions slave were subjected to) which could not have even theoretically existed.
I cover all of the reasons America could not exist without slaves in my comments on reparations (found here http://www.blackentertainmentblog.com/labels/american%20reparations.html and here http://www.mvass.com/labels/Reparations%20for%20Slavery.html )
Moving forward, you make a good point that Hollywood is filled with nepotism. And it is true that families of entertainers and celebrities have a far greater chance at success in the industry than any other individual or group.
Yet, every year dozens of new entertainers are found. Every year people not previously connected to Hollywood are given a chance. And they are given roles in which to shine. This is not true for minorities, at least in the degree of new comers and the variety of roles available.
It is woefully apparent that throughout the existence of Hollywood people of color have been singled out as objects of ridicule, laughter, and criminality. When they are given the opportunity to be on screen. And in high order the children of the entertainers that did make it in front of, or behind, the cameras were not afforded the same nepotism expected for White families in entertainment. That is only in recent years (not even decades) an occurrence.
Yes, Will Smith’s son has an advantage. And he appears to have a solid foundation to build a career in Hollywood upon. Name 5 other children of stars of color that have been given the same degree of opportunity in the last 5 decades. I doubt if you can, and expect that even with a Google search you will be at a loss.
So again the environment is unbalanced. We start with a dearth of opportunity for people of color in font of and behind cameras (roughly 3-7% of all people employed in the industry combined) and compound it with a lack of longevity that is presumed for Whites in Hollywood.
What makes it even more sickening is the fact that Hollywood, since the 1970’s at least, has been the bastion of liberal ideals. Hollywood loves to make movies promoting every type of thought of equality and inclusion, but does not work under those very same principles. They are 2-faced, and I don’t mean the masks of tragedy and comedy either.
And as for sports, which is very separate. The first thing to note is that players of color are a relatively new aspect of most of the major league sports. It took until the 50’s or so to really see integration of baseball, the late 60’s for college football, the 70’s for basketball and pro football. (I’m not a huge sports fanatic so please correct me if I am off on that)
Thus scholarships were a means of providing opportunity for players, most importantly giving them a chance at an education that otherwise was unavailable to them. And many of the scholarships created in the 60’s and beyond were open to the best players. That has often been people of color, for an explicit reason.
In any city you can find a basketball court and baseball field in every neighborhood. In fact even without actual playing fields you will see children across the nation play these games wherever there is space. That is because the means to play these games are minimal. You need the appropriate ball and players, that’s about it. Everything else can be improvised.
Children love to play games. They love to be active. And if the only outlets that are available are baseball, basketball and football kids will grow up with these games, gravitating to whichever they are best at. The local schools will emphasize those sports and promote the best in competitive competitions. Thus is the beinging of many careers. Add the prospect of money for poor families that can only engage a child with talent in sporting programs that are relatively inexpensive and available, and you get a surge in people of color gaining scholarships.
Whereas you have many Whites that have the diversity of games available to them. Tennis, golf, in some cases polo and lacrosse and so on. These opportunities exist and are promoted even in middle class White neighborhoods, far more so than in poorer communities. Thus scholarships in those fields go to predominantly White recipients.
This lowers the level of competition in that fewer people are vying for the same scholarship. At the same time, the players that come from more middle class – and generally White – communities have less of a burden on them. Their families have more money to provide and widen the chances of going to a college, or a very good college.
As an example I was qualified to go to Columbia University, but I could not afford to do so. I was placed in competition for a scholarship which I missed by literally .0001 point of my GPA. So instead I went to Rutgers University, again with a scholarship, grant, and financial aid. I was the second person in my extended family to go to college at that time (since then my brothers and sister all went to college as well, but I was the oldest so I had the chance first). Thus there was strong pressure for me to get the scholarships, and that same situation exists to this day. And many find that sports acumen augments their ability to gain scholarships that academics alone will not provide.
So it’s not necessarily about race when it comes to sports scholarships. It’s about opportunity, the availably exposure, and the emphasized need to excel. And in poorer communities – which sadly has an outsized proportion of people of color – it is those reasons that drive kids harder than in communities where other opportunities remove as much of the need.
As for the “majority effect” it is true that this exists to some degree in every nation. In fact in every culture. Yet in America, a nation that prides itself on the thought that any social or economic class can rise up, it is still true that people of color are not afforded the opportunity to compete for that same chance. We still have people of color ridiculed for venturing into arenas that are traditionally White and/or gender specific, like Mauricia Grant. We still have rampant racism, like what happened to the Jena 6 or Megan Williams. We still have police across the nation that exercise extreme prejudice against people of color without cause, like Oscar Grant, Robbie Tolan, and Adolph Grimes – all just on New Years Day of this year.
America prides itself on being democratic before any other factor, yet this is a lie. And in no other nation is this the case. While many may be free or democratic in some form, none are the stated equal of America. So the majority effect is a perversion of the ideals the nation stands for.
So in conclusion I will say this. It is the opportunity to succeed that any person of color in this nation desires. And we desire it every day, not as an effect or a temporary politics motivated publicity stunt. There is no justification in an America of the 21st century that any person of color should still be held as a 2nd class citizen. Yet it happens every day.
Hollywood is only one insulting aspect of a deep rooted system of racism and prejudice. But it is one of the most visible. And in a society of “show me” it has more power to reinforce old stereotypes than perhaps any medium. This is unacceptable to me.
Comment as found at Black and White Blog, where I am co-author.
narcissism, money and crappy CEO's Says:
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 am e
Let us look up the word narcissism in the dictionary.
Narcissism (noun):
1. excessive self-admiration and self-centeredness
2. personality disorder: in psychiatry, a personality disorder characterized by the patients overestimation of his or her own appearance and abilities and an excessive need for admiration.
Narcissism: we are all guilty of it. Black people and white people both. Some are more obsessed than others, but we all enjoy the feeling of following characters that we can relate to. Television companies bank on this theory. A television station makes its money by selling advertisement space to corporations who want to push their product on the viewer. Television stations wish to maximize their profits, so they target the largest and well off group. As it turns out, middle-aged white fools are the most populous audience (with money), hence all the crappy white sitcoms. The TV industry has paid especial importance to over the hill white women lately (no wonder TV sucks). Women are voracious spenders, especially middle-aged white ones. That is why there are so many shitty sitcoms revolving around a white women and her lame family. White people make up around 75 % of the population. Black people, on the other hand, consist of about 16 % of the U.S. population. Moreover, black people don’t have that much money. It doesn’t make much business sense for a TV station to make a bunch of programs for a small demographic group.
Narcissism for one’s race doesn’t always influence the viewer. Old white folks love Bill Cosby, and black folks love The Crocodile Hunter. But it usually does. (Black people around the world went nuts over Obama winning the Presidency mostly-99.99 %- because of the fact that he looked like them. Isn’t it about time we gave white fools a break for getting a boner over Larry Bird? Nobody wants to be a hypocrite.) And if you really want to see some black faces on TV, then go to CNN. There is a familiar black face on 24-7. The truth is network and basic cable blow because the shows are picked according to the viewing audience.
The real shit is HBO. Series on HBO are chosen, not by viewing audience stats, but by the inherent quality of the script and the quality of the acting. HBO’s “The Wire” (a story about the projects in Maryland) is great, but so is “The Sopranos”.
Narcissism,
I have heard the argument you are making many times. In fact it is the main argument why some 90+% of programs on television (cable or broadcast) feature only White casts. Which says nothing of the similar numbers in movies, commercials and so on.
Yet I reject it completely.
Will Smith did not become the first actor/actress to have 8 consecutive movies break $100 million in revenues because only African Americans went to the theater. The same can be said of movies/television shows featuring Denzel Washington, Sidney Poitier, Tyler Perry, Freddie Prinze, Redd Foxx, Laurence Fishburne, Wesley Snipes, Jaime Foxx, Halle Berry, Angela Bassett, Oprah Winfrey, and many more. Because the screens, big or small, are not mirrors but windows.
The fact is that most people want to be entertained. And if they are they are happy. Hollywood executives want to be entertained by color specific entertainers. That is the difference. At least as I understand it.
And I need to correct a few things you misstated. Whites comprise about 65% of America. African Americans comprise about 14% and Hispanics 12% with Asians, and other groups filling the difference. Essentially 1 in every 3 people in this nation is non-White, since we crossed 300 million people in population.
Also you are wrong about African American wealth and spending habits. African Americas currently spend just under $1 trillion dollars annually. This makes them one of the most desired target groups of advertisers. African Americans not only are big buyers, they tend to buy up – meaning they are willing to spend more money for a name brand than most other groups. African Americans are also huge buyers in several service and commodity groups. The hair care industry would fold tomorrow if African American women, who are the main source of income to that industry and spend 5x as much as any other peer group, stopped buying products for a week.
This says nothing of the growing Hispanic/Latino community that is growing its wealth as well.
And advertisers are starting to pay attention. They are starting to become very interested in marketing to both groups, because to not do so – in any economic climate – is to loses sales. Thus more commercials are being geared to the Hollywood perception of Black and Latino community values, as Hollywood and 5th avenue understand them. Which is wrong to a large degree.
Yes, people enjoy seeing others like them on the screen. But for almost all of television and movie history the only group of people that have enjoyed that familiarity are Whites. That is wrong. Especially in the 21st century. Especially from a Hollywood that prides itself on being a bastion of liberal causes. Yet also being nearly devoid of diversity in front of and behind the camera.
And let us not forget the point of my post. Correcting this current state of Hollywood with a temporary fix is not a solution. Creating a temporary fix, as was the Cosby effect, only highlights that qualified entertainers of many races exist and are being overlooked. That quality worthy of being shown, and easily capable or drawing mixed viewership, are being avoided by executives based on their narrow views.
That is especially wrong.
So no I am not satisfied that CNN has a few people of color. Or that there are a couple of programs on HBO. Not in a world of 500 channels, and 300 million Americans. Not when my community directly contributes to the economy as much as the entire mortgage bailout, every year. Not when Hollywood executives, and the news media continue to portray any person of color almost exclusively as villains, violent, and people to be feared, if we are to be seen at all.
Logan Calder Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I like the points made by Narc, and tend to view things in a similar manner. He is pointing out reasons and exceptions from a non biased point of view when it comes to objective reasoning for things being the way they are (in media). Although Narcs contstant use of “White fools” shows clear racial issues and a general negative view of White people, he is still able to maintain an unbiased process, although in a debate, this negtive would lose him credibility. Michael, I never hear you call Blacks racist for supporting Obama at (99.9%?)– particularly when you look at people like Colin Powel, when you look at his political past, it is clear that this was a race based decision. If White people voted by race, how long would it take to have a non-White president??.
The Larry Bird comment was perfect, and very funny.
Logan,
To start with I have a problem with the supposition made that Africans Americans are narcissists. The fact that we stand up and ask to be counted is not the same as self-admiration. That is in fact self-respect. And nothing that any other group in America does not demand.
So from the start I see his view as biased. I could be wrong, but I see it that way.
And he creates a fallacy in making the assumption that Whites only prefer shows about other Whites, and that all other American groups de facto want to tag along in agreement.
The Cosby Show was one of the most popular and successful television programs ever made. It propelled the failing NBC to the top of the broadcasters and made enormous amounts of money. To a lesser degree so did the long running Fresh Prince and A Different World as examples.
Yet we have not seen television copy any of those shows and casting. Which is odd, at the least, in an industry that copies every success ad nauseum.
And this says nothing of the big screen success of Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Oprah Winfrey, and several others. Americans watch quality, not color, if given the choice.
So again I disagree with his statements and the direct implication of his statement.
As for racists of any color, yes I do comment on it. You speak of the recent Presidential race. That was a subject I covered in depth since 2007. And the racial aspects, on both sides of color and political parties, was addressed. But I wrote on that at my political blog (VASS) which I felt was more appropriate.
Also let me clarify Colin Powell. While he is a Republican, when he first left his position in the Bush Cabinet he was considered as a potential Presidential candidate by both parties. In fact he has long been courted and spoken about issues that either Democrats or Republicans prefer. So I am not surprised that he choose a candidate that he felt was the best choice, regardless of color or Party affiliation. Isn’t that what we all are supposed to do?
Not to mention the fact that no matter who he chose the opposing party would use his position to their advantage. Which happened.
Another clarification. While the media has touted the large number of African Americans that voted for President Obama, the numbers were not 99% nor that high in the entire country. That is a perceived fact, which is an actual fallacy as most perceived facts are. Similar perceptions were made after John F. Kennedy was elected about Catholic voters.
And to answer your question, it took 232 years. Or if you prefer to start counting from the date that America suddenly realized that African Americans were human beings, 143 years.
Logan Calder Says:
February 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pm e
I dont agree with the term narcissism either, that point I went right past. I think he is simply saying that people watch what they want to watch, and when I look, you say the same thing. The problem is, if a “Black” show does very well, you infer that it is only because of racism that it is not copied, the proof that it is not, is the success in first place. I dont see how you use such a strong positive as the massive success of shows like the Cosby show as a negative. You may not mean that, but that is how it comes across. I think the problem maybe that I see the cast as the reason for the popularity and not the show itself. Bill Cosby and Will Smith could start a TV show today and it would be huge, do you agree?. And yes, I have read your points on racism with election and find general fairness with great points, but still find you focus on the 10% (?) of Whites who wont vote for someone because of skin color as the only negative, when I think voting for, or against because of skin color are equally racist, and Blacks have clearly demonstrated, as a group, will vote for someone because of skin color at higher percentages than Whites who vote against…otherwise how could we explain Marion Berry (that was kind of a joke-but works!)
As far as the last comment, your response is incorrect. I asked how long it would take, if Whites voted by skin color at the same level as Blacks do, how long would it take for a Black person to become president. This has not happened and never will or Obama would not be president, unless the “White half” of Obama was allowed to vote for him.
Also, I think it would be an insult to the many Americans who fought against slavery since its beginning, and died in wars, and risked their own lives, and broke racist laws, in an effort to end slavery to say the law from 143 years ago was where it started. To generalize as a victim is no different than generalizing as the oppressor, I think.
Post a Comment