PeterDavid.net

There are those folks out in the world that don't have much and so what they create is anger, controversy and slander. It makes them feel important. It gives them something and makes them feel as though they actually have a purpose.
When you think about it, it's very similar to the Bush administration and thier friends. Like the FCC. People who make a big stink out of nothing.
Controversy created when there wasnt any to begin with.
It's basically the inability to step outside themselves and notice that the world doesnt really revolve around them.

The New York Post (which I sometimes read on the subway -- hey, it's a quarter) had an article lambasting the series for the racial aspect and apparent stereotypes. Alas, humor is dead.

the only acceptable stereotyping humor nowadays appears to be with gays. the mores swish in your hips and the linper your wrist, the funnier you are. But heaven forbid there is a joke that "targets" some "minority" group. And it appears everyone is a minority these days. Even Middle aged middle income white guys are getting mad when someone pokes fun at them. I think everyon needs to sit down, watch Blazing Saddles, and repeat "Excuse me while i whip this out." the world would be a better place!

From the sound of the press release, this organization read a synopsis (which is NEVER complete enough) but didn't bother to watch the show. Which creates a ridiculous circle when they make bold statements about the show's content, statements which are accepted as fact by people who also aren't watching the show but find it in themselves to condemn something they aren't watching in the first place.

Sound familiar? Anyone remember The Great Mighty Mouse Flower Snorting Incident of oh so many years ago?

What really bites is the fact that this organization is probably one that could do a lot of people some good, but they run the risk of compromising their credibility; something like this invariably leads to bad publicity when the truth gets widely established. There is a school of thought that says that any publicity, even bad publicity is good. Michael Jackson was reportedly of that school ... wonder if he thinks tht now.

I remember something similar. The Rev. Donald Wildmon (the Cotton Mather of our time) went into a violent rage over NYPD BLUE before it debuted objecting to scenes of explicit sex and full frontal nudity. While some of what eventually did air would understandably raise the good rev's hackles, exactly when did lying about a show you haven't even watched become a legitimate form of discourse?

Oh, yeah. I forgot. America has Fox News. How silly of me to ask.

right off the bat, w/ the 1st post we have "BUSH BAD. EVIL REPUBLICANS."

for fuck's sake, is this going to turn into another 360 comment blog about politics and religion again. Is this all you bastards talk about?

different topic same fucking responses.

To joe V.;

"When you think about it, it's very similar to the Bush administration and thier friends. Like the FCC. PEOPLE WHO MAKE A BIG STINK OUT OF NOTHING. Controversy created when there wasnt any to begin with.
It's basically the inability to step outside themselves and notice that the world doesnt really revolve around them."

Thanks for proving my point.

what point? & how did i help you make it?

please enlighten me oh wise one

Joe V.

I have know interest Kirstie Alley or her latest show. It is, however, becoming increasingly acceptable for people to judge things before they've seen them. It is so easy to take one or two scenes out of context and distort their meaning. Maybe her show will actually help some people, maybe it won't, but you'd think a group that claims to want to help people lose weight would actually watch it before weighing in (pun intended) on the content.

Oh, and Bush sucks.

I'm wondering if the NAACP is going to lodge a protest because a horny Alley goes on the prowl for a black lover since black men ostensibly, as the song goes, like women "with back," prompting an annoyed black woman in a soul food restaurant to lament all these damned white women prowling around for black men.

Yeah, but that's true. Toni Morrison said so.

The show was hilarious. I like Alley. As far as the NAACP goes, if they decide to persue this, allow me to tell you a little story: In California, last spring, there was a spelling bee, it was hosted by a Congressman. It was rather uneventful until this little girl went up to the podium. The congressman asked her her name and though I don't remember the name of the girl, I do remember it was African, and the little girl said it meant Princess (or maybe Beauty). The congressman says "No it doesn't, it means stupid little girl." The next day the NCAACP was outraged and demanded the congressman resign. This went on for 2 days until they found out the little girl was white, not black. They dropped the whole thing and even apologized to the congressman for causing him problems.

I'm Jerremy Uphoff and I approved this post.

Bush Rules

And we are officially off-topic. In a mere 11 posts no less. Impressive. PAD, is this a new record?

"The congressman says "No it doesn't, it means stupid little girl." The next day the NCAACP was outraged and demanded the congressman resign. This went on for 2 days until they found out the little girl was white, not black. They dropped the whole thing and even apologized to the congressman for causing him problems."

I don't know about demanding he resign, but if I were the child's parent, I would sure as hell demand he apologize to my kid for such a thoughtless remark. First of all, it's not like the kid picked her own name, and second, that's incredibly and gratuitously insulting.

As for stereotyping, there's two that are "acceptable"--gays, and fat people. Bottom line, Alley's always been zaftig. But I think she's also still got sex appeal. Kathleen pointed out that Queen Latifah's got the same thing going. Slim Latifah ain't, but she was sex incarnate singing "When You're Good to Mama" in "Chicago." It's not simply body weight; it's attitude and how you carry yourself.

PAD

Joe V;

The keys are right there.

But you gotta step outside yourself to see them.

Now, if you dont mind? I'm gunna go watch "Karate Kid" for the five thousandth time.

You go have yourself a nice lil sody pop.

Nuff Said.

Sounds to me like NEDA is acting as the PMRC did in the 80's: Treating speculation as fact.

It's something everyone does to some extent, really.

Like malvito said, "What really bites is the fact that this organization (NEDA) is probably one that could do a lot of people some good, but they run the risk of compromising their credibility;"

I agree that with humor close to death people are taking themselves WAY too seriously. It's not all bad, though... It's always good when those of us with a sense of humor get a new humorless target.

Peter David:

"Bottom line, Alley's always been zaftig. But I think she's also still got sex appeal."

Hi Peter,

I don't know. About a month ago I saw Star Trek II again ans she seemed rather petite to me (yes, I had to look up zaftig).

I agree that the sex appeal is there for both Alley and Latifah. It really IS all about how they 'wear themselves.'

It's funny. I've seen skinny women who everything they can to be sexy and fail miserably. But when I see a not so skinny woman who is happy with who she is... well the word "kerboinggg" pretty much sums it up. Meanwhile the least sex, IMO, are the ones with boob jobs, face lifts, and botox. Hey, if I want to get freaky with a science experiment gone bad I can always open my frige...

Ok, too much imagery.

PAD wrote "As for stereotyping, there's two that are "acceptable"--gays, and fat people."

Actually, every group is okay to be stereotyped -- within its own group. Lots of gay comics make fun of butch lesbians and effeminate males. I (a redhead) would be killed at my job for using "the N word" yet I hear lots of black folks (mostly male) tossing "nigger" back and forth among themselves like it was the word "the." (By contrast, I am certain Mel Brooks would be boycotted and attacked if he tried to make BLAZING SADDLES today. Everyone would overlook the fact that the sheriff is the hero (and most competent person in the movie) and focus solely on a Jewish man saying "nigger" repeatedly in a movie.)

And yes, Kirstie Alley is a heavier woman poking her own fun at being a heavier woman. I haven't seen the show, so I can't make a judgment on how well or poorly it works; let us hope that others can show the same wisdom.

(BTW, there's nothing wrong with being heavy, but heavier people should dress accordingly. I'd hate to see Camryn Manhein (sic) in a string biliki, but seeing her in interviews, so bouncy and fun, makes me want to see her out of her suit. And buxom ladies are definitely more appealing than the waif/heroin sheik look from a few years back!)

Kirstie Alley was, is, and always will be a babe.

The major focal point of the show is that as a "fat actress" there are very few roles available in the mythical land of Hollywood for her. It's a crying shame too, because she's still as funny and talented as she ever was. The only thing that's changed is her size.

PAD said :As for stereotyping, there's two that are "acceptable"--gays, and fat people."
It's worse than that. The only group it's still OK to discriminate against is fat people. At a TV station I used to work at, I was the regular fill-in director for the nightly news magazine program for a while. When the regular director quit, I applied for the job and was told...to my face...that I probably wouldn't get it because of my weight, but I would still be called on to fill in when necessary.

I never really have been attracted to Kirstie Alley, even when she was more svelt. I did see the show and I did think it was funny. I would say the NAACP would have more of an issue with the show than Neda.

The show is a satire on the double standards in showbiz for Men and Women. I though it was funny and worked well.

In regards to the idea that black men like larger women as put forth by the show is a bit racist, but it was funny, and really only mark curry was into Kirstie, the guy she was eyeing in the soul food restaurant wanted nothing to do with her.

Over all anyone offended by this show is seriously lacking sense of humor.

JamesLynch:

"PAD wrote "As for stereotyping, there's two that are "acceptable"--gays, and fat people."

Actually, every group is okay to be stereotyped -- within its own group."

Hi James,

I write "bits" for the purpose of stand-up comedy (yep, I'm gonna try it out). I use sterotypes about everyone. They are all fair game. In a routine about blacks I don't have to use the word nigger to make it funny. I have a routine about gay men wherein I don't use the word fag. I'm part of neither group. Using stereotypes about certain groups for comedy doesn't mean that the comedian hates them.

I've been to alot of comedy shows and from what I can tell everyone is having a good time. I think laughter actually trancends the boundries of race, religion, politics, and sexual preferance far better than any politically correct special interst group ever could. It's even better when we poke fun at the fear those stereotypes can generate.

That's how I perceive "Fat Actress." Making fun of a stereotype. Not by insulting it, but by having fun with it.

A Greene:
"I never really have been attracted to Kirstie Alley, even when she was more svelt."

ME: (Grumbling) Svelte? Back to the damn dictionary.

;)

Peter,

Don't you think it was a bit hypocritical of the NAACP to demand a resignation because they thought the child was black, but upon discovery that the child was white, they drop it and say, "Oops. Sorry about that." They might as well say "It's ok to insult kids if they're white, but don't mess with them if they're black."
I don't condone the congressmans behaviour, and again, it was a year ago, but for them to not be as outraged because the kid was white, to me is horrendous.
As for fat people being discriminated against, let me share with you that I am 120 lbs overweight, and I've lost 40 lbs so far. But let me tell you that fat jokes don't bother me and if anything motivate me to loose more weight. I am fat because I chose to eat unhealthy and be lazy. Although I'm correcting this, my perception on other fat people has changed. I view them, and I may be wrong, not as victims but as people who make the choice to be and stay fat. I'm at 320 right now and hope to be at 200 in a year and a half, but unlike other groups who may not be able to change their race, or sex, or height or whatever it is people get discriminated for, we the fat and overweight can CHOOSE to loose the weight.

I'm Jeremy Uphoff and I approved this post.

"Actually, every group is okay to be stereotyped -- within its own group."

But once you get outside the group, it is only "OK" to stereotype gays. Overweight people...it gets a bit iffy. gays (it seems) are fair game. It is a wide-spread negative that is invading many aspects of our culture. I mean, how often have you heard someone refer to something as "so gay"? especially when it is something they are attempting to denote in a derogative manner. That doesn't fly with other stereotypes. nothing is "so black" (except in Sir-Mix -A-Lot songs) or "so tubby." We would not be having this discussion if Jack on Will & Grace decided to lose weight by going on the "All Meat" diet and will asked him "How that was different from his usual lifestyle." C'mon. It wouldn't raise an eyebrow beyond the people who are already opposed to any and all gay characters being on television in the first place. the fact that this humor deals with a different "minority group" the hackles get raised. BTW: When did "more than 50%" (the percentage of Americans over-weight) become a minority?

I (a redhead) would be killed at my job for using "the N word" yet I hear lots of black folks (mostly male) tossing "nigger" back and forth among themselves like it was the word "the."

James,

Trust me when I tell you this. It doesn't mean nearly the same thing when it comes from a black person as it does from someone of another race.

The easiest way I can explain the effect so that you'll understand is the difference between you calling your wife "honey" and your boss doing it.

And Mitch: Seems to me that Kirstie started packing on the pounds even while doing Cheers. If you follow from when she first appeared on the show to when the show ended. You'll noticed that her wardrobe went from form fitting to "flowing". Or maybe I'm mis-remembering. Oh well. she was defintely heavier by the time she teamed up with Tim Allen in For Richer For Poorer.

eclark,

at the end of her career in Cheers, wasnt she pregnant? I thought she was......hmmmm. Just wondering.
Either way you're right; she did start to plump up after that. But I don't mind. As many of the men folk here have stated; they like a full figure. Same here. I actually thought she was more attractive than when she was....thinner. But thats just one mans humble opinion. Variety equalling spice of life...blah, blah, blabbity blah, et. al.

Actually I don't think anything of the story about the NAACP dropping the matter when they learned the little girl was white. (I'm going to just take the whole story at face value, I have no knowledge of the veracity or accuracy of it) The CP part of their name stands for "colored people" and I don't think little white girls fall in that category.

It's certainly arguable that this kind of jerky treatment doesn't do anyone any good but they have a finite amount of time and money and need to pick their battles. I don't think getting into a pissing match over a name of African origin makes sense for them, nor would I expect them to jump to some white suburban teen's defense if s/he were to be presecuted for his embrace of black culture.

The NAACP has made enough questionable decisions and statements over the years that criticizing them for sticking to their core mission seems silly.

Actually, on this blog there is another group it's okay to stereotype: Bush and conservative Republicans.

Also: Clinton and liberal Democrats.

(Oh. Wait. It doesn't count when YOU do it.....)

It was Shelley Long who was on cheers and pregnant while her character wasn't. Remember the one when she spent the whole episode trapped in an air duct? That was so you could only see her head.
Yeah, Kirstie Alley started getting realy sexy during the last couple years of Cheers. I mean, I liked her as far back as "Khan", but big is hot.
Years ago a friend asked me if I felt being obese had deprived me of any opportunities, socially or professionally. I replied:
"I have never been prejudiced against over my weight by anyone whose opinion I respected."
It is funny when a group invalidates themselves by complaining about something that isn't actually in a TV show, based on third hand misinformation.
they wind up on the pile of people no one will ever listen to or take seriously again, along with Rev. Wildmon.

"Trust me when I tell you this. It doesn't mean nearly the same thing when it comes from a black person as it does from someone of another race"

Uh ,NO,speaking as a card carrying black guy,nobody calls me nigger ,period.Unfortunately some very ignorant members of my race have chosen to try spin it into a term of endearment.Sorry ,it dont fly with me at all.

Now back on topic,I agree with many folks that unfortunately many people go off on crusades with out ever viewing the material in question or in proper context.Mighty mouse "sniffing coke",SpongeBob"gay",the list goes on.On the other hand we do have a lot of "special interests that are "offended by everything.Blazing Saddles
LOVE IT!!Would it be done today umm NO!!Mel Brooks would be labeled a racist.The same way Quentin Tarantino and Stephen King have been labeled racist for some people by there use of the word nigger.Hello ,the character is saying that.
Braveheart was protested by some when Patrick mcgoohan threw his son's male companion out a window.He didnt do it cause he was gay he did because I believe his advice cost them land in a battle.
Kirstie alley ,was never into her or Beyonce for that matter,Queen Latifah and Serena Williams however,thats something different.
As far as the white women trolling for black men
in the immortal words of Cleavon Little"Where da white women at??!!"BWAH-HA-HAHA!!!!

I remember a similar thing happening when some senator or representative got all offended because of a word in a Tom Clancy book. I think it might have been Charlie Rangold, but I may be mistaken. Clancy used the word niggardly.

Main Entry: nig·gard·ly
Pronunciation: -lE
Function: adjective
Date: 1571
1 : grudgingly mean about spending or granting : BEGRUDGING
2 : provided in meanly limited supply
synonym see STINGY
- nig·gard·li·ness noun
- niggardly adverb

Peter David: (played by John Travolta's real life wife)
Luigi Novi: Played by? I thought it was a reality show. So it’s more like a mixture of reality and fiction, like Curb Your Enthusiasm?

Peter David: As for stereotyping, there's two that are "acceptable"--gays, and fat people.
Luigi Novi: And Jews. And Southerners. And Italians. And people who live in trailer parks. And Native Americans. And comic book fans. And black people. And white people. And liberals. And conservatives. Look at the cultural landscape, Peter. Look at TV and movies. Look at any stand-up comedy routine. Stereotyping of all groups appears to be “acceptable” to one person or another.

And yeah, I agree that Queen Latifah is attractive. In addition to those who like her type of figure, I think she has a very pretty face too.

And Kirstie Alley has among the absolutely beautiful eyes in Hollywood, if not the world. She has a very attractive face, even now with her zaftig figure.

JamesLynch: Actually, every group is okay to be stereotyped -- within its own group.
Luigi Novi: Not even. Sports teams that use Native Americans as mascots are not made up of Native Americans. David Chase, the creator of The Sopranos, is not, to my knowledge, Italian. The only standup comedians who make fun of white people are blacks ones. Jay Leno often portrays poor white people or people who live in trailers as white trash in his monologues, even though he’s got more money than God. I don’t ever hear any hue and cry from people who make the particular complaint that the people producing these portrayals are not from the group in question.

Luigi, I believe what was being gotten at was which groups are widely accepted (no pun intended) as fair game for stereotyping. You want a shorthand indicator that a TV character is unmotivated, unattractive, and maybe a little slow? Make him chubby. Not actually fat - that might turn off the twentysomethings you're trying to get into your demographic - but just a little bit overweight.

There is actually one other group it's okay to stereotype, and even mock openly. I'm surprised no one has pointed it out yet, given how many people here are obviously members of that group. I refer, of course, to the highly intelligent. Any character on TV, or in most movies, who is more than a little brighter than average, is depicted as a clumsy, socially unacceptable dweeb with strange, childlike obsessions, either grotesquely over- or underweight. Look, folks, not every genius has Asperger's Syndrome, all right?

(OK, OK, I do, but most geniuses don't...)

Damnit, you white women BETTER be staying away from the black men. Devils, all of you!

Lament my ass.

"I agree that the sex appeal is there for both Alley and Latifah."

Tastes vary.

The only time I've seen the latter was in the TAXI remake and I was NOT impressed.

Then again, I admit my judgement may have been coloured (no pun intended) in that I had also seen the French original and didn't care for the remake one bit. Now Tina Turner ... that's another matter. Drool ... 8-)~

"Actually, on this blog there is another group it's okay to stereotype: Bush and conservative Republicans."

Based upon this comment and posts on the previous "Funky" thread, I'd certainly say that stereotyping conservative Republicans as astoundingly aggressive toward swiping at liberals and with a chip on their collective shoulders for the purpose of derailing subject threads would certainly not be out of line...

PAD

Peter David: As for stereotyping, there's two that are "acceptable"--gays, and fat people.

Luigi Novi: And Jews. And Southerners. And Italians. And people who live in trailer parks. And Native Americans. And comic book fans. And black people. And white people. And liberals. And conservatives. Look at the cultural landscape, Peter. Look at TV and movies. Look at any stand-up comedy routine. Stereotyping of all groups appears to be “acceptable” to one person or another.

Luigi--right on the money. Good grief, Peter, how can you read the comments on this blog and think that the stereotyping is limited to fat people and gays?

Some stereotypes are positive--Asians are good at math, Native Americans have a preternatural ability to understand nature--silly ass stuff like that (not saying it isn't my dream to walk into a classroom filled with students name Lo Pan, Mai lin and Long Duk Dong. It is, of course, but doubtlessly my expectations would be dashed on the rocky shores of reality. My first year teaching, one of my favorite kids was an Asian girl who was totally punked out--leopard designed hair, piercings up the wazzoo. Great kid, I'll bet her parents wanted to shoot themselves.)

Southerners? Geeze, I'd lose half my routine if I had to ditch every joke about banjo playing inbred descendants of the folks my great great grandpappy saw on his march with William Tecumseh!

What about businessmen? When was the last time you saw one on TV or in the movies who didn't have the word "evil" in front?

Jonathan: Luigi, I believe what was being gotten at was which groups are widely accepted (no pun intended) as fair game for stereotyping.
Luigi Novi: Well, I’m not sure what criteria you’re using to gauge wide acceptance, Jonathan, but to me, it’s when something is seen in a popular mainstream medium or vehicle, and enjoys popular success, with little or no controversy or protest. Of the examples I gave above, the only one that has caused any type of memorable protest was the Sopranos, and like most such protests, that has faded into memory, without any discernible change in the culture, or (to my knowledge—correct me if I’m wrong) in that show as a result.

Sports teams continue to use Native Americans as mascots, and here we’re talking about something that fills stadiums with tens of thousands of fans and attracts millions of TV watchers. They wouldn’t get that viewership if all those fans were offended by this. As another example, just about every Native American character in comics is depicted with feathers, ponytails, and buckskin as part of their appearance, and often portrayed as expert outdoorsmen necessarily preoccupied with spirituality or magic and “in touch with the Earth” in a manner greater than that of non-Native Americans, and as experts in the martial arts. Yet I can’t remember anyone ever pointing this out.

The fact that books by Coulter or Hannity enjoy bestseller status shows that the mainstream accepts the demonization of liberals. And you can read David Horowitz’s Uncivil Wars for similar treatment of conservatives.

The fact that swipes at Southerners or poor white people living in trailers by Jay Leno or Conan O’Brien doesn’t cause so much as a blip on the radar would indicate that such treatment of those people is okay with the mainstream.

And so forth.

There's a HUGE difference between a comedian using a stereotype as a punchline in a joke, and an employer using this to prevent someone from getting a job they are qualified for.

Think of how we treat people who are not that smart. When someone cuts you off in traffic, he's a moron. Only an idiot would vote for BLANK. The dumbing down of America. Intelligence equals value as a human being. Every once in a while we equate low intelligence with innocence, such as Forrest Gump or Charly. But even Forrest hopes his son is smart and not like him. But isn't Forrest a good person, a good father? Does his I.Q. matter?
Intelligent people do get negatively stereotyped as socially awkward and unattractive, true. But being smart isn't a pejorative. Next time someone cuts you off, try yelling "frickin' Rhodes scholar!" See if that works as well.

"piercings up the wazzoo"

Wow, kids will pierce anywhere these days... but how did you know?

"I (a redhead) would be killed at my job for using "the N word" yet I hear lots of black folks (mostly male) tossing "nigger" back and forth among themselves like it was the word "the." "

you might be mishearing them. they might be saying "nigga", which means "friend" or "person."

"The fact that swipes at Southerners or poor white people living in trailers by Conan O’Brien doesn’t cause so much as a blip on the radar would indicate that such treatment of those people is okay with the mainstream."

but that's because no one watches his show :P

I do. His humor is far more cutting edge than Leno, and I assume the fact that he's been tapped to replace Leno is because his show does well.

you might be mishearing them. they might be saying "nigga", which means "friend" or "person.

Even so, as a white guy it would still be risque if not offensive if I (a white jewish guy) used the term "nigga" as you put it.

It's just one of the things I don't get. To me it's like gay people refering to themselves as fags. I don't know of any jews who refer to each other as kikes, or asians refereing to themselves as japs, or chinks or whatnot.

Sure they are only words one could argue, but whether we like it or not, language is very powerful.

(and I think Conan is hilarious, I'm just never up late enough to catch his show).

"piercings up the wazzoo"

Wow, kids will pierce anywhere these days... but how did you know?

Well, the constant fidgeting gave it away...

Peter David: As for stereotyping, there's two that are "acceptable"--gays, and fat people.

As may have been mentioned before, you can add 'geeks' to that list ^_^
First off, being a geek is actually a 'lifestyle choice', unlike being fat/gay. There are also some funny similarities between geek and gay:
1. 'normals' don't like it when either 'flaunt their lifestyle' in public (flamboyantly gay male/uber geek talking about the latest episode of 'Enterprise')

2. 'Normals' find their sexual interest strange (the same sex/women in 'Wonder Woman' costumes :-)

3. 'Normals' don't support marriage between the same type (okay, maybe that doesn't apply to geeks...yet).
Maybe geeks need to get a Political Action Committee together, with a phrase like "We're here, we're weird, get used to it!".

Even so, as a white guy it would still be risque if not offensive if I (a white jewish guy) used the term "nigga" as you put it.

Rest assured that if you, (a white jewish guy), called me ( a black guy), "nigga", "nigger", "coon", or "spade", I would seriously thrash you within an inch of your life. Assuming someone peels me off of you in time. Now, I'm not stupid. You must , of course, be either flabby and out of shape, or thin as a rail and have no way to protect yourself . Otherwise, I'll just pretend I didn't hear you and be really , really angry.

3. 'Normals' don't support marriage between the same type (okay, maybe that doesn't apply to geeks...yet).
Maybe geeks need to get a Political Action Committee together, with a phrase like "We're here, we're weird, get used to it!".

I'm sorry. Did you mean weird or wired?

Wasn't there some school in the midwest that had an intramural team called the "fighting whities"? I remember there being lots of news reports and merchandising around them. Now that's funny! Stick it to the man! (says the middle aged, middle income white guy!)

Wasn't there some school in the midwest that had an intramural team called the "fighting whities"? I remember there being lots of news reports and merchandising around them. Now that's funny! Stick it to the man! (says the middle aged, middle income white guy!)

Think it was a Native American team that did that, trying to make white feel what it was like on their end. Don't think it was that successful....

"Now, I'm not stupid. You must , of course, be either flabby and out of shape, or thin as a rail and have no way to protect yourself . Otherwise, I'll just pretend I didn't hear you and be really , really angry."

That reminds me of my favorite Woody Allen line. In LOVE AND DEATH he recieves an insult from a Russian nobleman.

Woody-- "If a man said that I'd slap his face."
Nobleman- "I AM a man."
Woody- "Well, I meant a much smaller man."

"Luigi Novi: And Jews. And Southerners. And Italians. And people who live in trailer parks. And Native Americans..." *snip*

True, but when have you ever seen someone rush to the defense of fat people? I've seen Italians protest the Sopranos, and the Jews have an anti-defamation league.

"It's just one of the things I don't get. To me it's like gay people refering to themselves as fags.
I don't know of any Asians referring to themselves as japs..."

Why would an Asian person refer to him or herself as a Jewish American Princess?
As for the great way the gay community seems to have co-opted and de-demonized ALL of the anti-gay epithets, I can't help but recall The Simpsons episode "Homer-phobia" when Homer told John Waters "But you can't call yourselves "queer", that's OUR word for you."
And later when Homer called him "Fruit - no, queer, You want to be called queer, right?" and Waters replied "Well, I'd prefer John."

**one of my favorite kids was an Asian girl who was totally punked out--leopard designed hair. . . .**

You have a picture someplace of that style of hair coloring? It sounds like something I'd like to try sometime on my own hair, though it would probably have to be in 'employer-acceptable' colors rather than 'punk' colors so my employer doesn't get too upset about it. :)

Chris

Elf,

Boy, it's been almost 10 years now...I think she had dyed sections of her hair a light brown and used her natural dark color for the spots (which, as I recall, are not a solid black but rather a kind of mottled hollow circle with a color in the middle that is somewhere between the light and dark extremes). It wasn't "punk" in any sense other than, well, leopard hair.

Like I said, great kid, very artistic natch. This was a magnet school for arts and science, attracting a wide variety of smart creative kids. It was my student teaching assignment and though I've forgotten their names their faces are still fresh with me. I wonder how they're doing now?

Okay, Bill, now you're even quoting "Love and Death", bar none my favorite Woody Allen film. ("I'm trying to burn all the food so the French don't get it, but it's tough to light borscht.")

Once I'm back on the east coast, we've somehow GOT to arrange to be in the same place for at least one meal.

As for the main thread topic -- while I agree that "Blazing Saddles" could never be made today (which is very sad), I think stereotyping can still be pretty rampant, and it's not just gay people and fat people. How many sitcoms, for example, include a father figure who's actually competent and not clueless?

Aside: at my last school a few years ago, during a long bus ride a colleague and I actually showed "Blazing Saddles" to a group of about 50 ninth-graders. We said in advance that "it was made in a different time and a few words get used that are considered way out of line these days ... but that if you look at it, the people using those particular words are pretty much all villains and idiots." Apart from a few squeals of disgust during the bean-eating scene, the movie came off without a hitch. I think they found it awfully funny.

[And no, the fact that I went to another school the following year isn't related...]

TWL

Tim,

You showed "Blazing Saddles" to a bunch of 9th graders??? You must have balls the size of a Chinese gong.

I'll bet they loved it. My tenth graders have been begging me to give them copies of "Battle Royale" after I told them the plot. But I like having a job.

Let me know when you folks move. I spend most summers in New York and Jersey is just a hop skip and a jump away (and I visit family who live just a half hour out of the City).

Peter David wrote:

> As for stereotyping, there's two that are
> "acceptable" -- gays, and fat people.

My suggestion for the third (and I know there have been several already) would be Star Trek fans: the famous SNL "Get a Life" sketch with William Shatner, Jon Lovitz, Kevin Nealon, et al. is typical, not exceptional.

Personally, I'd love to do a global search-and-replace on the script of the make-fun-of-the-Trekkies episode of My Wife and Kids, substituting "Nigger" or "Niggers" for "Trekkie" or "Trekkies", and then see if Damon Wayons still thought it was funny. (It was one of the nastiest, vicious, most mean-spirited "comedy" scripts I've ever seen.)

And before anybody starts screaming about the N-word, I'm just using it to make most clearly my point that if any racial term, not just that one, were substituted, the script would have been regarded as utterly racist. I never heard Carroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker say anything as nasty as Damon Wayon's character did in that episode.

Jeff In NC: There's a HUGE difference between a comedian using a stereotype as a punchline in a joke, and an employer using this to prevent someone from getting a job they are qualified for.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, the one is stereotyping, which is what we’re talking about, and the latter is discrimination, which we’re not talking about.

Conor E: True, but when have you ever seen someone rush to the defense of fat people? I've seen Italians protest the Sopranos, and the Jews have an anti-defamation league.
Luigi Novi: Have you ever seen anyone rush to the defense of comic book fans? Or conservatives? Southerners? Trailer park residents? The point is not whether there are organizations who advocate for those groups. The point is whether stereotyping them is considered acceptable, which was Peter’s original point. The fact that there’s an anti-defamation league doesn’t change the fact that there are still Jewish stereotypes in film and TV, most of which does not raise the ADL’s ire.

"Wasn't there some school in the midwest that had an intramural team called the "fighting whities"? I remember there being lots of news reports and merchandising around them. Now that's funny! Stick it to the man! (says the middle aged, middle income white guy!)"

Isn't "fighting whities" kind of redundant?

Luigi Novi: "Have you ever seen anyone rush to the defense of comic book fans? Or conservatives? Southerners? Trailer park residents? The point is not whether there are organizations who advocate for those groups. The point is whether stereotyping them is considered acceptable, which was Peter’s original point. The fact that there’s an anti-defamation league doesn’t change the fact that there are still Jewish stereotypes in film and TV, most of which does not raise the ADL’s ire."

Perhaps I could have been clearer. My point was that there's a basic recognition by at least a few people that mocking the Jews might be a bad idea.

Conservatives? Watch anything on Fox News.

Comic fans? Pretty much any thread on a comic site, this one included.

They all make at least a minimal effort to defend themselves.

Fat people get ridiculed on TV more than any group I can think of*, and I've never seen anyone complain about it.

*That's assuming you exclude Nazis, Al Qaida, and the like.

I caught about 3 minutes of this last night, I was kind of drunk at the time so it didn't register all that much. However, I did laugh when Kristie Alley was lookin for some brother lovin' and this black chick was like "Goddamn white woman tryin to steal our brothers". The bit I saw was her talking about finding a man (and saying she's not into chicks) and the intro to the next scene. I did notice it had that improv./ conversational tone, and I'm not really a fan of that type of comedy or show. I like it more when people aren't talking over each other, set dailouge & the like.

Conor E: Perhaps I could have been clearer. My point was that there's a basic recognition by at least a few people that mocking the Jews might be a bad idea.
Luigi Novi: A few people voicing this idea doesn’t mean that it’s not considered acceptable. A LOT of people voicing this idea, and driving the stereotype into the history books, to the point where it no longer has any success in finding an audience—THAT would mean that it’s not acceptable.

Conor E: Conservatives? Watch anything on Fox News. Comic fans? Pretty much any thread on a comic site, this one included. They all make at least a minimal effort to defend themselves.
Luigi Novi: What in the world does that have to do with what we’re talking about here? Of course groups will defend themselves! The question is not whether stereotyping is considered unacceptable by the group in question. It’s whether it’s considered unacceptable by those who are not in the group, because those are the people who determine the stereotype’s success. The Cleveland Indians will not fail to fill their stadium, nor HBO get ratings for The Sopranos because Native Americans or Italians find those things unacceptable. They will only do this if the REST of the audience does.

"My suggestion for the third (and I know there have been several already) would be Star Trek fans: the famous SNL "Get a Life" sketch with William Shatner, Jon Lovitz, Kevin Nealon, et al. is typical, not exceptional.

Personally, I'd love to do a global search-and-replace on the script of the make-fun-of-the-Trekkies episode of My Wife and Kids, substituting "Nigger" or "Niggers" for "Trekkie" or "Trekkies", and then see if Damon Wayons still thought it was funny"

You're drawing comparisons between being born black,jewish or some other race and being a trekkie????Are ya fricking kidding me???

Newsflash slick, when i walk down the street little old ladies cross the street and grab their pocketbooks in broad stinking daylight!!For no other reason then i am large black guy with a shaved head.Last time I checked "trekkies "were not racial profiled ,marked for genocide,etc.
Besides ,you CHOOSE to be a trekkie,given an option you can choose not to be .
The various racial epithets are much more insulting and harsh than any trekkie oppression could possibly be.

**Boy, it's been almost 10 years now...I think she had dyed sections of her hair a light brown and used her natural dark color for the spots (which, as I recall, are not a solid black but rather a kind of mottled hollow circle with a color in the middle that is somewhere between the light and dark extremes). It wasn't "punk" in any sense other than, well, leopard hair.**

Thanks. Bill. That sounds like a cool hairdye style. I may have to try it sometime. Assuming I can find someone around here who could do two-tone 'spots' well, that is.

Chris

Whether you're a Trekkie tends to be a matter of taste, Deano, which isn't something you choose. I suppose you could say whether you indulge in that interest in a hardcore manner (going to conventions, wearing Starfleet uniforms in the street, speaking Klingon, etc.) is a choice, but that's different.

Luigi Novi:
"Whether you're a Trekkie tends to be a matter of taste, Deano, which isn't something you choose. I suppose you could say whether you indulge in that interest in a hardcore manner (going to conventions, wearing Starfleet uniforms in the street, speaking Klingon, etc.) is a choice, but that's different."

Hi Luigi,

I've often made a similar argument about some racists I used to work with. One in particular made constant use of the word nigger except in the company of black people. When I called him on this practice he said that he wasn't a racist because one of his best friends is black, which is a factually accurate (I had met his friend. Helluva nice guy and funny as well).

I tried to explain to my co-worker that we don't always choose who our friends are. That sometimes our friends simply... are, with no conscious decision on our part. He didn't quite get that his best friend being black didn't mean that he wasn't a racist.

I think the same could apply to more than we realize. I find that people often like things or people regarless of themselves.

Does anyone consciously decide to like pizza before the first bite?

"You're drawing comparisons between being born black,jewish or some other race "

Judaism is a religion, not a race!

It's interesting that you bring up the idea of race and what defines "race".

There was a great op-ed in the ny times today about race and what might it might consist of. If you think of race as an ethnic group (which many do) Judaism is a race. If you think of race as something determined via genetics that's a bit more complicated. But as defined by genetics there are some diseases more common to jews than to gentiles, just as there are some diseases more common to blacks than to whites, and vice versa. i would like to direct your attention to the op-ed which is very intersting in regards to race and genetics by Armand Marie Leroi entitled "A Family Tree in Every Gene". You should check it out.

I'm not sure if my link worked, i think I might have gotten the tags wrong. Just in case you can copy and paste the address. Here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?th

happy reading.

Okay ,I know judaism is religion but have also heard some people refer to jewish people as an ethnic group.Walter Mosley the writer ,has a jewish mother and he referred to the jewish people as a separate race.If i am wrong or offended anyone ,apologies to all parties .
Luigi :when i was referring to trekkies ,i meant more in your second sense of the hardcore indulgence.

A_Greene: If you think of race as something determined via genetics that's a bit more complicated.
Luigi Novi: Not really. Race doesn't exist at the genetic level.

To Luigi,

I'm not a scientist, and until earlier today I would have agreed with you. I am by no means advocating any potential race better or worse than the next, I don't think there is. There are some afflictions that are more apt to strike different sorts of people (blacks, jews, europeans, asians, ect), there are findings that differnt drugs work better (statistically of course) on different - for lack of a better word - races.

I'm not advocating either side since I don't know enough, just read the article and if you can refute it with other facts, I'd be happy, even eager, to read them.

It is true that there are drugs that work better for some races than others. It is true that there are diseases that are more likely found in some races than others.

But this does not validate the concept of race. there are more redheads in Ireland than in Russia but both are "caucasions". It only takes a single base pair change to make a person have sickle cell anemia--hardly a big enough difference to mean much in terms of racial classification. We were just very selective in wghat traits we used to decide what races were. Skin color, eye shape...might just as easily have used the long and short ears of the Eastern Islanders.

I'm not saying there should not be any research into the differences between what we classify as the different races--it may yield advances in treatments and such. But we should recognize the inherent silliness of a classification system that considers a Chinese person and an Pakistani to be from the same race. By what logic? I remember seeing a protest saying that the war in Afghanistan was racist...what exactly is the race of an Afghani? They looked white to me, if I had to pick a race. A pygmy, a Masai, a Hutu and an Australian aborigine are all the same race? Say what?

Never has so much trouble been based on so little foundation.

Aren't we collectively known as the Human Race?

A blood transfusion from a chinese woman could allow me to live. However a blood transfusion from an irish setter could not, even though I'm part Irish. Moreover, I could mate with a green eyed, left-handed lithuanian female human and produce offspring while such attempts with a german shepard would meet with a wall of genetic imposibility.

I've never really been entirely comfortable with the word 'racist' because I know that we're all human. I guess I'm technically a racist (by my definition) because I refuse to acknowledge that pets deserve equal rights under law.

For me the notion of humanity consisting of different races while we're all genetically compatable is just ignorant. Sure, we humans might consist of different breeds just as canines and felines do, but even that distiction could eventually disappear.

Sort of a sidenote, but what the hell...

I've always wanted to see a well spoken 'racist' on a talk show. I have yet to see someone come to the conclusion that one human breed is inherently better than another based on logic and be able to back up their position with solid relevant facts. Thus far I don't believe such a person exists.

We are, of course, one human species as all humans are capable of interbreeding with one another. The concept that we call "race" is simply the result of when various human populations were relatively isolated from one another and certain physical traits came to become more prevalent. Some of it has some several benefit, as people who trace their lineage closer to the equator tend to have darker skin. Beyond the obvious visible traits of skin, hair, and eye color, some less visible traits such as the genes for sickle cell anemia and tay sachs (sp?) are also prevalent in certain populations and did spread into others due to lack of interbreeding either due to geography (living on another continent) or choice (medieval stigmas against marriage between Christians and Jews).

You can actually see more differences in the various dog breeds. For example, there is a hell of a lot more physical difference between a chihuahua and an akita than there is between any two different human populations, but both are canis familiaris. This applies not only to the visual differences, but also, there are certain congenital defects that are more prevalent in certain breeds than others. Yet you can breed a chihuahua with an akita to produce (probably a very funky-looking) litter of dogs.

So, the idea that certain racial groups are statistically more likely to develop certain diseases or react differently to certain drugs is meaningless in the larger context humanity. It's just a symptom of the great genetic variety that can exist within a single species.

A_ Greene: To Luigi, I'm not a scientist, and until earlier today I would have agreed with you. I am by no means advocating any potential race better or worse than the next, I don't think there is. There are some afflictions that are more apt to strike different sorts of people (blacks, jews, europeans, asians, ect), there are findings that differnt drugs work better (statistically of course) on different - for lack of a better word - races.
Luigi Novi: Which has nothing to do with genetics.

A_ Greene: I'm not advocating either side since I don't know enough, just read the article and if you can refute it with other facts, I'd be happy, even eager, to read them.
Luigi Novi: I’m not a member of NYTimes.com, so I can’t read the article. If you want to put it in a Word Document, you can send it to nightscreamnovi1972@yahoo.com. But as for the idea of race existing at the genetic level, refute it with facts I shall:

According to Luca Caalli-Sforza and his colleagues, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, in The History and Geography of Human Genes, which presents evidence from fifty years of research in population genetics, geography, ecology, archaeology, physical anthropology, and linguistics:

“From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to obtain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence.” “The major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection.”

The fact remains that race is not accounted for at the genetic level, and is literally skin-deep.

"The fact remains that race is not accounted for at the genetic level, and is literally skin-deep"
Exactomundo!!!!

A_ Greene: To Luigi, I'm not a scientist, and until earlier today I would have agreed with you. I am by no means advocating any potential race better or worse than the next, I don't think there is. There are some afflictions that are more apt to strike different sorts of people (blacks, jews, europeans, asians, ect), there are findings that differnt drugs work better (statistically of course) on different - for lack of a better word - races.
Luigi Novi: Which has nothing to do with genetics.

Actually, Luigi, I believe you're wrong. Since skin color is an inherited trait, it is therefore genetic. So to is hair texture, specific facial features, even musculature. Race is a genetic trait, but one that is, or rather was, evolved due to environmental surroundings over a period of time.

Your "evidence" does not support your argument. It merely states that there is no clear majority of scientists that support the theory nor is there likely to be one forth coming. They even give the reasoning; that due to the fact that in the last few hundred years, global migration and interacial mating has so "blended" the genetic pool that finding a pure blood line to study is all but impossible.

It merely states that there is no clear majority of scientists that support the theory nor is there likely to be one forth coming.
Luigi Novi: It also states that skin color, hair color, and facial traits reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic [traits] and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection.”

(I left out the word second appearance of the word “traits” when typing the post.)

Michael Shermer, clarifying Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza’s conclusions in Why People Believe Weird Things, states that “the concept of race is biologically meaningless,” and that “traditional popular racial categories are literally skin deep.”

Shermer continues:

”But aren’t races supposed to blend into one another as fuzzy sets, while retaining their uniqueness and separateness (see Sarich 1995)? Yes, but how these groups are classifed depends on whether the classifier is a “lumper” or a “splitter”—seeing similarities or differences. Darwin noted that naturalists in his time cited anywhere from two to sixty-three different races of Homo sapiens. Today there are anywhere from three to sixty races, “Although there is no doubt that there is only one human species, there are clearly no objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of taxonomic splitting” (1994, p.19). One might think that Australian Aborigines, for example, would be more closely related to African blacks than southeast Asians, since they certainly look more alike (and facial features, hair type, and skin color are what everyone focuses on in identifying race). Genetically, however, Australians are most distant from Africans and closest to Asians. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, even if it goes against our perceptual intuitions, since humans first migrated out of Africa, then moved through the Middle and Far East, down Southeast Asia, and into Australia, taking tens of thousands of years to do so. Regardless of what they look like, Australians and Asians should be more closely related evolutionarily, and they are. And who would intuit, for example, that Europeans are an intermediate hybrid population of 65 percent Asian genes and 35 percent African genes? But this is not surprising from an evolutionary perspective.

Again, clark, race is genetically MEANINGLESS, and your musings on hair texture or facial features do not change this. If race is genetic, then what race am I? Being an Italian American, you could say that I am 65 percent Asian and 35 percent African, right? And what about Tiger Woods? Mariah Carey? Halle Berry? Jennifer Beals? What are they? Or, you could just say that we’re ALL Africans, since that’s where humanity first began.

For that matter, there's the case of my wife. Based on her skin color and features, one might simply classify her as African. However, she is also on the Blackfoot tribal rolls, has a fair claim to tribal membership in the Cherokee, and can trace legitimate lineage to both the Davises of Wales and Clan Murray of Athol in Scotland. (Thankfully, she doesn't hold grudges - my ancestors, members of another clan, sided with the English during the whole Charles the Stuart thing, and as a reward were given some of the Athol lands...) What "race" is she?

For that matter, what "race" is our daughter? :-)

Luigi:
"And what about Tiger Woods? Mariah Carey? Halle Berry? Jennifer Beals? What are they? Or, you could just say that we’re ALL Africans, since that’s where humanity first began"
Not to mention Vin Diesel,Jessica Alba,The Rock,
Salma Hayek,and several others.
By the way,Halle,Salma,Jessica ,and Jennifer are all flipping GORGEOUS!!!
I like to think were all Africans on some level,it would do wonders for race relations cause we would all be African American.
Jonathan(the other one)
"For that matter, what "race" is our daughter? :-)"

The only race that counts the human one:)

for the record I have african american on both
sides,Great grandma was a Cherokee indian,Grandma
on Dads's side was part Delaware indian,and i think there is German,Welsh,and god knows what else mixed in.

If race is genetic, then what race am I?

This is always fun.

Me? I'm plain ol' Euro 57: Irish, English, German, Polish... who knows what else, but it's all European.

My wife? Quarter German (only comes through in the temper), Filipino, and some Native American. Yet, too many dumbasses would assume when she was growing up in California that she was Hispanic - it didn't help that her maiden name is Gomez.

Yeah, saying somebody belongs to a certain 'race' really works...