Movie and TV diversity sells

After the #OscarsSoWhite announcement for 2016, Hollywood once again considered its failure to diversify.

In Hollywood, a major disconnect between economic interests and business practices

Study by UCLA Bunche Center finds that women and minorities are still underrepresented among actors, directors and executives

By Eric GreeneThe report reveals a dramatic disconnect between the reality of America and the Hollywood dream factory. It found that although films and TV shows with casts that reflect the nation’s racial and ethnic diversity are more likely to succeed at the box office or in the Nielsen ratings, minorities and women continue to be severely underrepresented as directors, show creators, writers and lead actors.

For example, although women make up a little more than 50 percent of the U.S. population, only 6.3 percent of the films in the study were directed by women, and only 17 percent of film studio senior management were women. Not a single film studio CEO was a woman during the period studied in the report.

Similarly, while racial minorities are approximately 40 percent of the population, racial minorities directed just 17.8 percent of theatrical films in 2013 and represented only 8 percent of film studio senior management. Only one person of color was a film studio CEO.

The report also reveals that more than half of “frequent moviegoers”—a group that buys half of all domestic movie tickets—are minorities, suggesting that the industry’s hiring practices are out of sync with its economic interests.

“What we’re finding is that audiences want diverse content,” Hunt said. “They want diverse content created by diverse talent. So the industry would increase its odds of success if there was more diversity in the room.”When will Hollywood figure out that diversity sells?

Panel discusses findings of UCLA's Hollywood Diversity Report

By Sarah Rothbard/ZocaloHunt, who wrote the report with Ana Christina Ramon, also with the Bunche center, said that he was not surprised by most of this year’s findings, which came from analyzing 200 films and more than 1,100 television shows released in the 2012-13 season. Film directors, writers and actors remain overwhelmingly white and male; TV is more diverse, but both nonwhites and women remain vastly underrepresented.

Hunt said that the study’s most interesting finding is that “diversity clearly sells.” More diverse TV shows are more popular than shows that aren’t diverse. And movies with diverse casts did best at the worldwide box office.

So why doesn’t Hollywood follow the money and create more diverse content?

Hunt said that white men have dominated positions behind the camera for many years. In a high-risk industry, they want to feel they have the best chance of succeeding, and so they tend to hire people who look and think like them.Diverse movies are a huge business. Why doesn’t Hollywood make more?

By Drew HarwellThe industry is ignoring a gold mine. Every year for the past half-decade, the average white American has bought a ticket to fewer films than the average black, Hispanic or Asian moviegoer, industry data shows. Though 37 percent of the U.S. population, minorities bought 46 percent of the $1.2 billion in tickets sold in the United States last year.

Some of the year’s biggest surprises had diverse actors and small budgets but ended up dominating the silver screen. For five straight weeks ending in September, movies with predominately black casts topped the box office, including the Christian drama “War Room,” thriller “The Perfect Guy” and rap biography “Straight Outta Compton,” which has made $200 million on a $28 million budget to become the highest-grossing biopic of all time.

More recently, “Creed,” a “Rocky” spinoff starring Michael B. Jordan and directed by Ryan Coogler—both 20-something black men who led the 2013 critical darling “Fruitvale Station”—has triumphed with $72 million at the box office and one of the best opening weekends in the boxing franchise’s 40-year history.

High-profile hires of actors such as Jordan in “Creed” and John Boyega in “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” have remained the exception in a Hollywood that has shown only stuttering progress over the past year in getting more-diverse talent into blockbuster roles.How Hollywood Keeps Minorities Out

By Dennis RomeroFilms with casts that are 21 to 30 percent minority fared better than movies with any other racial-ethnic mix, earning a median box office take of $160 million, according to Hunt's last UCLA study. Those films also saw the greatest return on investment. With major network TV, "median household ratings peaked" for shows with casts that were 41 to 50 percent minority, the report found.UCLA Releases Scathing Report on Diversity in Film and TV

By Melissa SilversteinJust when you thought it was safe to be hopeful again, here comes another reality check.

The Bunche Center at UCLA has released its annual "Hollywood Diversity Report" to remind us that we're still nowhere near where we should be in terms of gender and racial diversity. Researchers examined 172 theatrical films released in 2011 and 1061 TV shows aired during the 2011-12 season on six broadcast and 62 cable networks, eloquently explaining their reasoning as follows: "When media images are rooted primarily in stereotype, inequality is normalized and is more likely to be reinforced over time through our prejudices and practices."

Here's the crazy--and yet entirely logical and expected--part: Diversity means money. Broadcast comedies and dramas with more diversity get higher ratings. Films with just 21-30% diversity earned a global median box-office total of $160 million, while films with less than 10% diversity made just $68.5 million.Oscars So White? Or Oscars So Dumb? Discuss.

By Manohla Dargis, Wesley Morris, and A.O. ScottMANOHLA DARGIS I love that so many people are enraged at this year’s whiteout—anyone who yells at the Academy is a friend of mine—but I wish that this anger was being expressed 365 days a year and not when the nominations are announced. As Tony suggested, it’s worth repeating again and again (and again!): The primary reason the Oscars are so white this year and most years is that the movie industry is overwhelmingly white. That’s infuriating, but that’s not shocking, and it sure isn’t news. And if that bothers people, then they need to start complaining loudly and perhaps even begin voting with their dollars. By, say, supporting movies with minorities and women. Because the only way the industry will change is if people give them hell.

WESLEY MORRIS Manohla, wouldn’t you say that’s what happened in the last year and the year before? The audiences paid to see women, films with mostly black actors and racially diverse casts, and paid often: “The Force Awakens,” “Inside Out,” “Furious 7,” “Pitch Perfect 2,” “Spy,” “Mad Max: Fury Road,” “Trainwreck,” “Straight Outta Compton,” “Cinderella,” “Creed,” “Get Hard,” “Sisters,” that second “Divergent” movie and the last “Hunger Games.” There’s demonstrable proof that North America wants to see itself—more of itself—in its entertainment. And the Academy—which is working to add more women, young people and color to its ranks—should want to see more of its ideal self at the Oscars.Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Revenant vs. Life of Pi and Diversity Is "An Artistic Necessity."

The Revenant vs. Life of Pi

More on The Revenant:

Consider Life of Pi. Man (boy) vs. nature (tiger or bear, sea or snow). Who greenlit that without Cruise, Clooney, or DiCaprio and why?

It earned $609 million worldwide on a $120 million budget, which would put it near the top of DiCaprio's hit list. But without a white man as the star...puzzling!

No one even needs The Revenant or the Hugh Glass story. If DiCaprio wanted to work with González Iñárritu on a sweeping Western epic, they could've made a story up. Something with DiCaprio and a co-equal Native star.

With roughly the same ingredients, it would've done roughly as well. DiCaprio could've thanked his Native co-stars without becoming the great white savior. That movie would've advanced Natives, whom he supposedly cares about, more than The Revenant.

My Facebook friend joined in:This is my point, since I'm actually reading the book. it's a story of survival, and in this day when we are sorely lacking in diversity it would've been so much bolder to make this change.

Or how about a screenplay portraying Indians any time after say, 1915? That would be truly revolutionary!Like my Breaking the Code movie!

Lots of indie films

Of course, indie films about modern Natives get made all the time. In the last couple of years there's been Drunktown's Finest, Rhymes for Young Ghouls, Empire of Dirt, The Jingle Dress, Songs My Brother Taught Me, Mekko, Le Dep, and the upcoming Neither Wolf Nor Dog.

I haven't seen most of these, so I'm not sure how good they are. There aren't many (or any) commercial or mainstream stories among the bunch. Nothing I'd send my mom, who doesn't care about Indians, to see.

One could argue against more period pieces like The Revenant, Bone Tomahawk, or the upcoming Diablo starring Adam Beach. Not to mention The Ridiculous 6.

The question is: Does it help Indians to appear as minor characters in old Westerns? Which reinforce the idea that Indians are dead and gone? I dunno.

Yes, it reminds people that Indians were a part of the West. But do people get that modern Indians with jobs, SUVs, and cellphones were only play-acting between their Starbucks and yoga classes? I'm not sure about that.

Upcoming projects

Q'orianka Kilcher, Graham Greene cast in Chickasaw Nation film, 'Te Ata' (VIDEO)

After 1915, so it counts!

Charles Red Corn’s 'A Pipe for February' to be a Film

Only 95 years in the past! Getting closer!

For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see Native Lead in The Revenant? and The Revenant = "White Savior" Story

Native lead in The Revenant?

A Facebook friend wrote the following about The Revenant:I'm reading The Revenant, and it seems after the creators of the film bought the rights they took the liberty of completely adding in the story of Glass having a Native wife and son. So my question is, if they felt they needed to drastically change the story to add more humanity and drama, why didn't anyone think to just make the main character Hawk? He survives a bear attack, watches his white father get stabbed in front of him, and the movie ensues as is, a story of revenge, but with an Indian as the lead character. The movie would be filmed in the same fashion, therefore getting the same nominations, an Indian wins "Best Actor" and the Oscars don't have to explain another year lacking in diversity. BOOM everyone wins.I said something similar!

DiCaprio could've played the Tom Hardy role. Or, if we're further fictionalizing the story, a made-up role.

Marketers don't necessarily care whether a star plays a leading role or a supporting role. E.g., Johnny Depp in Into the Woods.

If DiCaprio's in it, they can sell it as if he's the star. Because audiences don't care that much either.Right. If audiences really cared, the turnout for Star Wars would've been significantly lower after learning of the storm trooper role. That's the logic of "white male leads put more butts in seats."There's also the fact that a star doesn't guarantee anything. See Johnny Depp in The Lone Ranger. No one could tell in advance whether The Revenant would be a hit or a flop.

DiCaprio vs. Depp

Someone else chimed in:Right, but I bet you [Depp] was a huge reason that movie got green lit. And the reason is flopped is, well, that is a TERRIBLE movie.Right, but the "Lone Ranger" experience contradicts your initial claim:

"The sad truth is, Leo [Johnny] sells tickets. He gets movies made. You couldn't realistically make this flick without him. With a budget of about 130m, you need to make sure you're going to get a certain amount back by casting a face who puts people's butts in seats."

The "selling tickets" part isn't a sad truth, it's a wish or a hope. An article of faith. The truth is that except for maybe Tom Cruise, no white actor can guarantee a hit movie. Certainly not Johnny Depp, whom Hollywood considers a hitmaker. These actors can't put "butts in the seats" and "make sure" a movie earns a profit.

I checked and DiCaprio's movies have a solid record of earning profits. But he generally does prestige projects with the likes of Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, and James Cameron. I.e., big names who often have hits because of their directing and producing skills regardless of whom they cast. DiCaprio doesn't take many risks with low-brow popcorn fare like The Lone Ranger.

So The Revenant was a gamble, not a sure thing. A $60 million film with a Native star, DiCaprio as the co-star, and a big-name director also would've been a gamble. We won't know which is the bigger gamble until DiCaprio and Hollywood actually make the second movie.

The "gets movies made" part is the sad truth. Because Hollywood ignores the success of diverse films and continues to operate via its old-boy network aka racism.

In short, the facts are these:

Diverse movies are a huge business. Why doesn’t Hollywood make more?

Not whatever Hollywood thinks they are.

For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see The Revenant = "White Savior" Story and Is The Revenant a Game-Changer?

Diversity is "an artistic necessity"

More on the #OscarsSoWhite controversy:

Oscars 2016: It's time for Hollywood to stop defining great drama as white men battling adversity

By Mary McNamaraBefore chalking all this up to a discussion of political correctness, Hollywood should take note that there is money at stake.

The movie and TV industries won't solve their main problem—how to capture the eyes of young audiences—by hewing to hallmarks of excellence set by previous generations. Millennials and post-millennials aren't just big franchise fans, they are also the most racially diverse and socially tolerant generations in history. As the crossover audiences for "Straight Outta Compton" and "The Hunger Games" series proved, they don't "need" their heroes to be white and don't expect them to be male or straight or anything but interesting.

So instead of panicking about the logistical challenges of the digital era, Hollywood should remember its own time-honored mantra: What matters is the story. The size and shape of the screens are, to a certain extent, outside the entertainment industry's control. What is playing on them, and how much it moves the audience, is not.

"Diversity," the lack of it and need for it, has been discussed and debated ad nauseam. But diversity isn't a civic duty, it's an artistic necessity. For any art form to remain relevant, it must grow with the society it explores, questions, criticizes and represents.#OscarsSoWhite, Again: A Symptom of Hollywood's Racism

By Jacqueline KeelerThis generation of Native Americans actors do not follow their dreams to Hollywood in order to continue to play buckskin and loincloth Potemkin villager parts that serve only to provide a backdrop to a white male actor’s heroics. I agree with Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie when she said in her TED Talk that “The Danger of a Single Story”—that is, the world seen only from the perspective of the white male—is that, “it robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different rather than how we are similar … Many stories matter.”

In light of this, I call for a moratorium on “buckskin and loincloth parts” until portrayals of Native people are balanced with those featuring modern Native American protagonists. We must get away from the portrayal of Native people as either savage warriors of the past, “Indian princesses” to be courted and conveniently killed off before giving birth to a Mestizo nation north of the Rio Grande, or as stoic stereotypes.And:In this vacuum of diverse portrayals, it is no wonder that stereotypes are all most Americans know about Native people.

The result of this whitewashing of racially diverse American stories—both those based in the real world and those in fantasy—was found in a 2014 UCLA study to reduce minority representation in films by more than half. Racial minorities make up 40 percent of the population but only 17 percent of leads in films, while 83 percent of the lead actors in films are white.

America is rich in stories—embarrassingly so. Let’s bring all the missing stories to the table and then we can begin to see each other as people.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Why Are Oscars So White? and #OscarsSoWhite2016.

Hortas in Starfleet

A continuation of the discussion begun in Thirteen Worlds in Starfleet?

"We'd love to have a Horta crew member, but they're rather unfriendly and ugly, don't you think? Besides, they don't have the necessary 'tools' to serve in Starfleet. They're better off in support positions behind the scenes."In the novels there was a Horta on Kirk's ship. Didn't need to beam down, he just entered atmo like a meteor.I don't think I've read that ST:TOS novel or novels. And I've read a good chunk of them. But there was a Horta crew member in DC's ST comic book, so I understand.

Nevertheless, the idea of a Horta crew member didn't reach Capt. Picard. Or the writers of his ST:TNG adventures.Picard is a skinhead, you know. :)I guess so!

Ah. The Horta character Naraht appeared in both the comics and Diane Duane's novels. I've read several of her novels, including The Romulan Way, so I've read about Naraht. I just didn't remember him from the books.

Another novel has an entire starship of Hortas. Which makes more sense than trying to mingle air- and rock-based crew members.

Funny how novelists think of such sci-fi ideas routinely but TV writers almost never do.

For more on Star Trek, see Is Captain Kirk a Conservative? and Miramanee in Star Trek Continues.

Thirteen worlds in Starfleet?

This image led to a Facebook discussion about the Federation's diversity or lack thereof:

Only 13? Doesn't the Federation have hundreds of worlds?Unfortunately, Picard did not believe in integration.

They do, but the Enterprise only has representatives from 13 of them."We are proud to include crew members from the light-skinned humanoid planets. As for the Andorians, the Tellarites, and the Orions--not to mention all the non-humanoid species--alas. Through no fault of their own, they don't quite have the 'right stuff.'

"But fear not. Some of them have their own ships in Starfleet II, aka Starfleet Jr. Others are free to hitch rides via Starfleet Uber. We make sure all species and races have equal access to the stars."A lot of those people explore space on their own (like the Vulcans) so they don't "need" to be in Starfleet to explore space. Starfleet is an organization any member of the Federation can join, but they certainly do not have to join. Enterprise was an Earth vessel that Starfleet used to explore space, but in Picard's day it was used for diplomatic missions often and had many people on board who were not crew members. It had around 1000 people on board at any given time, but only about 2/3 were crew. So 13 worlds were represented in 750 people. That's pretty good! Go on any cruise today, and you probably wouldn't have that many nationalities at once on the same ship. Also, it was a TV show. lol :-)Every Starfleet vessel ever shown was an Earth vessel.Probably because Starfleet was on Earth. It does play a big part in who decides to join Starfleet, I'm sure. ;-)Which is why Picard said, "We are proud to include crew members from our light-skinned humanoid planets."

You're explaining the reasons for my initial comment, which I already knew. But you're not giving us any reason why a fictional universe should be so Anglo-American.Oh, well that's easy! The show was shot in Hollywood, and it was just easier to make them look that way to save on the budget. ;-)

TOS made a point of including people from all different nationalities in it, but they got a little lazy when casting TNG.It would've been easy to find 10 Asian or African actors in Hollywood and make an Earth-based starship primarily nonwhite. So the real reason here is racism. Which is my point.That's a sad point, as Star Trek was one of the most progressive shows of its day.It's sad but true, alas. And 20-30 years later, when producers could've and should've known better, Starfleet was still predominantly white.

However, bigots like Kim Davis aren't welcome in Starfleet, so that's good.

13 whole worlds!

I just think it's funny that Picard would use 13 as the measure of Starfleet's diversity. Like, "The US military has members from 13 (thirteen) countries. The other 183 countries aren't represented, but you can't have everything."The U.S. military only has members from one country (the U.S.). lolIt has naturalized citizens from other countries.Yes, but they have to become U.S. citizens to serve, so they still represent the U.S.

This does raise an interesting point though! Worf was raised on Earth by human parents, and still considered himself Klingon, but I wonder if there are aliens that live on Earth and consider themselves Terrans (people from Earth)? They could have had people like that on the Enterprise too.Okay.

Point is that "members from other countries" doesn't mean "citizens of other countries." "From" mean they or their ancestors originally came from elsewhere. Obviously.

For more on Star Trek, see Is Captain Kirk a Conservative? and Miramanee in Star Trek Continues.

Ratings belie anti-diversity argument

Another response to the Deadline Hollywood article points out that diversity isn't just good morally. It's good financially, leading to better ratings and more revenue for broadcasters.

As Multicultural TV Shows Succeed, Some Wonder if Diversity has Gone Too Far

By Jeff YangHunt warns that like prior TV flirtations with diversity, this progress could be temporary. Yet the numbers—the only things that matter in Hollywood—show that this time, something different may be happening. Out of the scripted shows with all-white leads introduced this past season, just one—a reboot of “The Odd Couple”—seems guaranteed a renewal. Meanwhile, nearly every series centered on diverse characters looks like a solid return, for two reasons.

The first is that they’re expanding network audiences in ways that reflect the new demographic reality. Analyses provided by Nielsen show that the three most-watched non-event shows among 18-49 year old Asian Americans as of February were “Fresh Off the Boat,” “Fresh Off the Boat” and “Fresh Off the Boat”—and it’s not even close, with Asian Americans being twice as likely to watch FOTB as any other scripted program. A full third of all 18-49 year old African Americans watch “Empire” each week, making it more popular than the Super Bowl in that demographic. And 17 of the top 25 shows among 18-49 year old Hispanics are on Univision—the Spanish-language network that regularly draws bigger audiences than Fox and NBC.

The second is that it’s these shows aren’t just catering to their communities. Asian Americans make up as much as 20% of FOTB’s audience—but the other 80% is non-Asian, and they’re what is keeping the series competitive against juggernauts like “The Voice” and “NCIS.”

Ultimately, points out UCLA’s Hunt, “we live in a diverse society, and people want to see stories that reflect that. We’re curious about other groups’ experiences. It shouldn’t come as a shock that white households don’t only want to see shows with just white people.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Where Are the Native TV Shows? and Deadline Hollywood on TV Casting.

Deadline Hollywood on TV casting

An article on casting in TV is generating a lot of controversy:



Pilots 2015: The Year Of Ethnic Castings

By Nellie AndreevaThere was a noticeable shift toward minority castings last season, with more parts opening up to ethnic actors, a casting term used for non-Caucasian thesps. It was a concerted effort, with more than one instance where a family member role was rewritten as adopted to make them ethnic. Then, following the success of freshman series How To Get Away With Murder, Black-ish, Fresh Off The Boat, Jane the Virgin and especially Empire, which launched to huge ratings at the kickoff of pilot casting season, ethnic castings exploded this season.

The change is welcomed by talent agents who no longer have to call casting directors and ask them if they would possibly consider an ethnic actor for a part, knowing they would most likely be rejected. “I feel that the tide has turned,” one agent said. “I can pitch any actor for any role, and I think that’s good.”It started off fine, but then veered into troubling waters with these paragraphs:This is not to say that there weren’t other hot commodities this pilot season—star names were in demand as usual, as were hot young guys and girls and occasional foreigners with that “sparkle.” But the big trend this pilot casting season was the huge spike in the number and prominence of roles that went to minority actors.

But, as is the case with any sea change, some suggest that the pendulum might have swung a bit too far in the opposite direction. Instead of opening the field for actors of any race to compete for any role in a color-blind manner, there has been a significant number of parts designated as ethnic this year, making them off-limits for Caucasian actors, some agents signal. Many pilot characters this year were listed as open to all ethnicities, but when reps would call to inquire about an actor submission, they frequently have been told that only non-Caucasian actors would be considered. “Basically 50% of the roles in a pilot have to be ethnic, and the mandate goes all the way down to guest parts,” one talent representative said.

But replacing one set of rigid rules with another by imposing a quota of ethnic talent on each show may not be the answer.Critics destroy Deadline

You can see the original headline, which was more specific and reflected the content better, above. In any case, critics quickly ripped Andreeva's piece:

TV networks have gone way overboard with this diversity stuff, Deadline says

By Joshua AlstonLast night, the Hollywood trade publication Deadline convened a small group of concerned Studio City citizens to nibble on finger sandwiches, crudites, and ambrosia salad and have a frank discussion about the…*ahem*...changes in the neighborhood. Y’know, how the...um...tone of the television landscape has shifted in recent months. Okay fine, if we have to come out and say it, Hollywood is unsettled by the influx of “ethnic actors” on television. But it’s not about prejudice or anything like that. People are justifiably concerned about property values!

That’s more or less the thesis of Nellie Andreeva’s trend piece, Pilots 2015: The Year Of Ethnic Castings—About Time Or Too Much Of A Good Thing?, which is a reasonable headline since the clicks aren’t going to bait themselves. Andreeva discusses the television season’s triumphs of diversity—Empire, Black-ish, Fresh Off The Boat, and How To Get Away With Murder—which alerted the television industry to the existence of minority actors and inspired network executives to hire more of them to star in 2015 pilots. (In case it’s unclear, the word “more” is intended to be read in the tone of Mr. Bumble from Oliver!) The scourge of non-white actors has become so severe, Andreeva writes, white actors are being crowded out of the field on which they’ve had a chokehold since the advent of television.Hey, white Hollywood: Looking for work in the age of “Empire”? Here’s some friendly advice

The "ethnics" are invading TV!! What's a struggling white actor to do?!

By Arthur ChuIn every happy story there is always an unseen victim, someone who gets rained on by everyone else’s silver lining. You might think that the news for primetime TV in 2015 can only be good–audiences are celebrating the wave of smart programming with diverse ensembles both in front of and behind the camera.

And far from having to make some virtuous financial sacrifice at the altar of diversity, the network suits are cleaning up. Over-the-air primetime TV has never felt more vibrant or relevant, even as “alternative” streaming platforms continue to thrive. “Empire” has shattered records and reclaimed the eyeballs of the Twitter commentariat from “prestige” cable channels.

Critics are happy. Advertisers are happy. Viewers are happy. The cast and crew and showrunners and suits and stockholders are all happy.

But here comes Deadline, telling us who’s being victimized by all this: White actors. Hardworking white actors without star power who now have to compete for an ever-shrinking number of audition slots as more and more roles are designated “ethnic,” a term Deadline’s Nellie Andreeva uses so often it starts to not sound like a word anymore.“Ethnic” actors aren’t stealing white roles: The racist, clueless backlash to TV’s greatest season begins

Nostalgic for the good ol' TV days of "Friends" and "Seinfeld," insiders are whining about "unfair" "ethnic quotas"

By Sonia SaraiyaMost alarming is Andreeva’s reductive implication that more roles for “ethnic” actors isn’t “fair” to white actors. Agents and casting directors that have long benefited from the incredible, overwhelming whiteness of Hollywood casting insert sly comments in her piece lamenting unfairness—if roles can’t be designated white (which they usually are, still, despite the existence of “Empire” and “Black-ish” and “Scandal,” because there is a lot of television in Hollywood) then shouldn’t we be “fair” and make them colorblind? I mean, if we’re going to be fair, and promote diversity, then shouldn’t we not ask about race at all?Dear Nellie Andreeva and Deadline, About Your Piece on Too Much “Ethnic Casting” on TV

By LuvvieWait. Wayment. Wait a gahtdamb minute. You’re pointing out that because people of color are getting roles, white actors are starting to suffer. Jehovah, hold my mule and be a fence because what I am NOT able to do is deal with this. This rash idea that because we got ONE MEASLY SEASON where TV isn’t whiter than fresh snow, then white actors are somehow being unfairly excluded from roles. WHAT ABOUT BLACK ACTORS WHO HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR PARTS SINCE FOREVER? AND LATIN@S WHO ONLY GET “SPICY” ROLES? AND ASIANS WHO CAN ONLY PLAY THE NERD? AND EVERYBODY WHO ISN’T WHITE?? Are you serious? You cannot be. You cannot think that it’s even a wonder that should be wondered.“HELL NO”: Shonda Rhimes and others destroy Deadline’s ridiculous “Ethnic Casting” backlash story

People are rightfully angry at writer Nellie Andreevna's notion that minorities are stealing white actors' roles

By Anna Silmanshonda rhimes @shondarhimes
1st Reaction:: HELL NO. Lemme take off my earrings, somebody hold my purse!
2nd Reaction: Article is so ignorant I can't even be bothered.

Nichole @tnwhiskeywoman
We still have so far to go to see underrepresented cultures on screen & @Deadline is like "these last 3-5 years should be enough, right?"

Dave Itzkoff @ditzkoff
Just astounding that something so tone deaf could be published in 2015 by a supposedly credible news source. http://deadline.com/2015/03/tv-pilots-ethnic-casting-trend-backlash-1201386511/

Matt Wallace @MattFnWallace
.@Deadline You are literally creating the problem when you label TV a white person's medium and suggest non-whites are a trend.

Farhad Manjoo @fmanjoo
Has the pendulum swung too far in the direction of TV representing the world how it actually is???!!!!Comment:  For more on the subject, see TV Starts to Reflect America and White Males Still Dominate Hollywood.

TV starts to reflect America

So, So Fresh: US TV Is Starting to Reflect the US

By Eisa Nefertari UlenBuoyed by the success of ABC's "Modern Family," television has developed projects that more accurately express who we are. It is glorious and wonderful and mostly just fun. Shows like "Fresh Off the Boat," "Blackish," even "Empire," "Scandal" and "How to Get Away With Murder," do more than just center people of color in each 30 or 60-minute time slot, and also do much more than accurately reflect how we look. These shows also express a refreshing diversity in terms of how we think, how we feel, even how we parent in non-White families and, often gloriously, perfectly hilariously, these shows center how we be.

The moment feels a whole lot like the country has flash-danced back to another era. Television in the late 1980s and 1990s, back in the "Humpty" days, celebrated Black family. Sensing that the post-Norman Lear lineups were too white and that the United States was way ready for a few shades of brown, NBC piloted "The Cosby Show," and family television forever changed.The examples include Fresh Off the Boat:Do we still want more Asians in our primetime lineup? Hells yeah! But only if they're featured on a show as good as "Fresh Off the Boat." The nearly unprecedented wonder of a television program featuring Asian-Americans makes "Fresh" worth focusing on. Perhaps because the comedy series is based on the 2013 same-titled memoir written by the real-life Eddie Huang, "Fresh" is fresh. The title teases the racialist, derogatory term used to describe newly arrived immigrants, but it's also a big pun, a play on the positive, affirming hip-hop colloquialism for anything extra ahead of the mainstream. This verbal dexterity is just one of the program's never-ending winks.And Empire, whichis beautiful, one of the most important programs in US television. On its surface, Lee Daniels' primetime serial is simply another iteration of the soap operas that have captivated US audiences since the 1964 debut of "Peyton Place." But, with the program's elegant use of Kehinde Wiley portraiture, examinations of the human condition, exploration of important social issues and its central theme of love, aching human love, "Empire" is a work of telegenic triumph.More on Empire, this year's breakout show in terms of diversity:

Why Can’t We Stop Watching ‘Empire’?What is it about “Empire,” the Fox series about a family of music moguls that wraps up its first season this week, that makes the show so addictive? It might be the juicy plotlines; Taraji P. Henson’s ferocious and charming portrayal of Cookie Lyon, the estranged matriarch of the family; the so-bad-it’s-almost-good soundtrack, produced by Timbaland; or some combination of all three. The soapy drama, which debuted in January, was the highest-rated new series on television this season. Its ratings and audience numbers have risen each week the show has aired—a phenomenon that is practically unheard-of. Fox has already renewed the series for a second season.

The appeal of “Empire” is widespread—roughly 15 million people watch every week—but according to Nielsen, the show resonates particularly strongly with black viewers, who make up 62 percent of its primary audience. NPR’s Code Switch blog called the “Empire” success a “particular achievement for a show with an almost entirely black cast.”Below:  Bryshere Gray, Terrence Howard, Trai Byers at the FOX TV "Empire" Premiere Event at a ArcLight Cinerama Dome Theater on January 6, 2014 in Los Angeles, CA.

Conservatives want to brainwash kids

Conservatives are trying to indoctrinate our youth in many ways. Every argument about teaching evolution or school prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance is about this. So are the attempts to politicize the textbook selection process or to ban ethnic studies as "divisive."

Lately, conservatives are trying to brainwash kids by straight-up changing the curriculum to emphasize Christianity and capitalism. Or by eliminating education altogether.

The latest examples of this:

Will Right-Wing Extremist Documentary Be Required Viewing in Florida?

By Tanya H. LeeD’Souza answers the charge of genocide this way: “In the two centuries after Columbus, the Native American population declined by 80 percent. But it wasn’t due to warfare. Rather, as historian William McNeil points out, they contracted diseases—measles, typhus, smallpox, cholera and malaria, to which they had no immunities. Now this is tragedy on a grand scale, but it’s not genocide because genocide implies an intention to wipe out a people.”

ICTMN asked three university professors to respond. Dr. James Riding In, Pawnee, associate professor of American Indian Studies at Arizona State University, says:

“D’Souza does not understand what genocide is. There is a UN convention that was adopted in 1948 that defines genocide. What the declaration on genocide says is that it’s the killing of members of a group… or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group…[or] inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part… [or] imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children to another group.

“All of these things happened to Indians. Yes, a lot of Indians died of disease and the population of the Americas declined over 90 percent after the arrival of Europeans. A big part of that population decline is attributed to disease, but there were survivors.

“Those survivors were trying to hold on to their culture, their beliefs, their way of life, their philosophies about life that had been developed in the distant past and were supposed to continue on indefinitely. What United States colonialism did was disrupt the future of Indigenous Peoples.”

Riding In notes, “U.S. policy was genocide. It was designed, to use the jargon of the time, to kill the savage and save the man. Well, there was a lot of killing of the man along the way. And women. And children.”

Oklahoma’s demented fight against AP history

A new bill would fight teaching "what's bad about America"

By Mary Elizabeth WilliamsIt may not be true that history is written by the victors, but in certain places, they’re making a hell of an effort to make sure it’s at least taught by them. In Oklahoma this week, a legislative committee took aim at Advanced Placement U.S. History classes in public schools.

House Bill 1380, introduced by Republican Rep. Dan Fisher, would “give sole control of curriculum and assessment to the state,” with particular regard to Advanced Placement classes offered for students to earn college credit. Fisher happens to be a member of the ominously named Black Robe Regiment, a group whose aims include “To educate all people and restore to its rightful place the Church in America (indeed, the entire earth)” and “To provide educational materials for use in the Church and for the American Public to restore our American History and the History of the American Church, so as to restore what has been lost by way of deception and historical revision.” Fisher claims the AP curriculum emphasizes “what is bad about America” and neglects the concept of “American exceptionalism.” College Board representative John Williamson, meanwhile, calls Fisher’s objections “mythology and not true.”

The simplistic notion that kids need to be taught “exceptionalism,” a pervasive and often flat out inaccurate, bathed-in-glory vision of American superiority, has led to multiple educational skirmishes over the past few years. In Colorado last year, a Board of Education member took issue with AP History’s “overly negative view” of slavery, noting, “Yes, we practiced slavery. But we also ended it voluntarily, at great sacrifice, while the practice continues in many countries still today!” In North Carolina this past December, the State Board of Education held a debate over the AP US History course’s omission of exceptionalism in its 70 page framework. Similar battles over educational “ideological bias” and the “negative aspects” of history have waged in Georgia and South Carolina.

Ignorance is bad for everybody. It only lowers the collective IQ when lawmakers still push to teach “intelligent design.” It similarly should never be a matter of any dispute that the Inquisition and the Crusades were bad ideas, and to take offense over pointing that out is inane. Likewise, these targeted, strategic attempts to force students—students who are intellectually sophisticated enough to take on college level coursework—to accept a propaganda-based curriculum is detrimental to critical thought as a whole. It should be absurd to promote any educational agenda that pushes jingoism as a lesson plan. It should never have gotten this far. And the reality of life in the 21st century is that we are sharing this planet with the rest of its inhabitants. It’s not just dumb and wrong to teach kids that we’re better than the rest of the world, and to attempt to conspicuously leave our past misdeeds from lessons—it’s bad diplomacy and it’s bad business. That’s not teaching exceptionalism; it’s teaching entitlement—not a useful quality on the global playing field.

There’s a profound insecurity at the heart of any agenda that presumes that if kids aren’t spoon fed a black and white fairy tale of our national greatness, they’ll have no pride or loyalty. Arrogance isn’t patriotism, and education isn’t indoctrination. And anyone who doesn’t comprehend that difference doesn’t just need a history lesson, he needs a dictionary.Fox Host: 'There Really Shouldn't Be Public Schools' Anymore

By Ahiza GarciaFox host Lisa "Kennedy" Montgomery suggested getting rid of the nation's public schools during a discussion on Thursday's "Outnumbered."

Kennedy's comments came during a segment about an Oklahoma bill, approved by a House committee, that seeks to eliminate AP US History. The bill asserts that the current iteration of the course doesn't show "American exceptionalism," instead highlighting "what is bad about America."

"There really shouldn't be public schools, should there?" Kennedy said. "I mean we should really go to a system where parents of every stripe have a choice, have a say in the kind of education their kids get because, when we have centralized, bureaucratic education doctrines and dogmas like this, that's exactly what happens."Comment:  For more on the subject, see Christian Curriculum Praises Trail of Tears, What Conservatives Consider Objective History, and Ethnic History Corrects American History.

Why are most aliens white?

Here's another of my perennial discourses on science fiction and race. I started it by posting the following on Facebook:

Would Hollywood finance Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy, or Jupiter Ascending if the alien races were black or Asian? I'm guessing no.

Because that would make the aliens too "alien," presumably.

This led to the following discussion:They have no problem making individual white characters black and/or asian, why not alien races? I'm all for it!

Although, George Lucas caught hell for making his alien races black and/or asian stereotypes, so they'd have to be very careful about it.It's just funny when you think about all the sci-fi fans and creators who love Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, etc., etc. If you confronted them with a "normal" alien race that was black or Asian rather than white, they'd die of shock.

Same thing in the fantasy genre: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, How to Train Your Dragon, etc., etc. There's no reason whatsoever that elves, dwarves, or fairies should be white.

Hardcore fans say, "We love these genres as long as the most challenging thing we have to deal with is white actors in makeup."Ahhh, yes, I see what you mean. Geez. Imagine "Avatar" without the blue Na'vi. Which were really supposed to be "alien" Native Americans.Your first comment was on point. Yes, they'd have to avoid making them a race of Jar Jar Binks types. But that's easily done.

I wish the Na'vi weren't so humanlike, but they're a step forward. If only the humans in Avatar weren't mostly white.Were there ANY black characters in Avatar?!I don't remember. Michelle Rodriguez is the biggest "ethnic" character I remember.

The point applies to humans in sci-fi too. For instance, why wouldn't the Chinese dominate space travel 300 or 3,000 years from now? Who knows, but it's certainly possible.

But aliens are supposed to be strange. The point of sci-fi aliens is to challenge us to think differently. So there's really no excuse for making them the white male norm seen in American media.

A double-edged sword

A couple of friends double-teamed me:Doctor Who had them in all colors, shapes and sizes, played by actors in all races, sizes and shapes. I am currently watching all the available episodes, and started with Season 1, episode 1, currently on season 24.

Oh, and a lot of the actors in Lord of the Rings were Maori.And:See, here's the problem I can see popping up, Rob--the first time an entire alien race is depicted with black or asian as their "base," there'll be hordes of people complaining that minorities are being depicted poorly; strange, inhuman, etc. "Why can't the whites be alien and a [black or asian] as the hero?!" It's a double edged sword.Doctor Who does have a nice array of truly alien aliens. And its "human" races are often mixed. But I don't recall any "human" race that was entirely black or Asian. A white race that has some blacks and Asians isn't the same thing.

I understand the problem of portraying minorities as aliens. You'd have to proceed carefully, but I think you could do it.

Doctor Who visits worlds that may or may not be Earth a million years in the future. There's no reason the cast of such an episode couldn't be black or Asian.

Firefly was set in a hybrid Anglo-Chinese universe. Many of the background characters and crew could've been Chinese.

Some major world in Star Wars like Coruscant or Corellia could be predominantly black or Asian. Etc.

A lot of the supporting or "guest" worlds on Star Trek could've been black or Asian. Like Betazoid in ST:TNG, Bajor in DS9, or Ocampa in Voyager. These worlds had a range of characters and wouldn't necessarily be pegged as exotic or inferior. Some characters would be good and some would be bad, creating a realistic sense of diversity.

For more on the subject, see Missing Aliens in Star Trek and Colonialism Inspired Science Fiction.

Missing aliens in Star Trek

Back in February, a Facebook friend posted the following link with a note for me. This led to a Star Trek discussion, of all things:

On the Killing of Jordan Davis by Michael DunnInteresting. What do you think? Has America just "grown up" racist?Yes, you could say we've grown up racist. I think that the genocide of Indians and the enslavement of blacks are fundamental to our core mythology. Which goes along the lines of, "God gave the American wilderness to the white man to conquer, tame, and develop. Anything that happened along the way was just an unfortunate byproduct."So you'd agree with the author then that "devaluation" of black lives goes back to that?Yes. Basically America wasn't an experiment in creating a melting pot of multiculturalism. It was an experiment in setting up a continent ruled by a cult of white supremacy.

Only since the beginning of the 20th century have the two philosophies--white supremacy vs. melting pot--come into real conflict. We're somewhere in the middle of a transition that might take a few centuries. By the time the Star Trek era arrives, we may actually achieve the Star Trek ideal.

The ideal that didn't quite make it onto the screen, that is. White males still held a preponderance of the jobs even thought that shouldn't have happened in an egalitarian society.Star Trek was still an ideal seen through the lens of 1960s television.Right.

Just once, a Star Trek show should give us a ship with the actual demographics of Earth. Which would be half various kinds of Asians, or something like that.

Or better yet, a ship with the actual demographics of the Federation. Which might be a quarter each of humans, Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites.

I wonder if anyone would notice either of these ships and the statement it was making. I.e., how contrived the white, European, human bias of Star Trek is.

P.S. Where are the Andorians and and especially the Tellarites? You could do several science fiction-based ST movies with wonderful new concepts and never touch the Klingons or Romulans.

Lack of aliens okay?The alien thing has never really bothered me in the demographics on Star Trek. I always sort of saw The Federation sort of like the U.N.--you have SOME individuals from different planets serving in cross-cultural roles, but generally ships would be crewed by people from their planet of origin. And you could excuse them for not perfectly mirroring human demographics if maybe serving in Starfleet isn't a top priority in all cultures.

However, you'd expect it to be better than it's been. Of course the original was hampered by broadcasting standards, but Next Generation was surprisingly not much better. Then you have Voyager at the other end of the extreme, looking like a J.Crew ad, with it's accidentally blended crew that just HAPPENED to include one person from each gender and ethnic group.All of Starfleet's ships just happen to have Earth as their planet of origin. So they're all predominantly white (but not Asian, oddly). Convenient!

Sure, you could explain away the lack of aliens. Even the other three founding races of the Federation. For instance, the Vulcans are too busy with science, the Andorians with sex, and the Tellarites with commerce.

They actually gave an explanation like this for the lack of Vulcans. They're too dedicated to scientific pursuits, don't believe in Starfleet's miltary aspects, and find it too illogical to work with humans. Okay, we buy that.

But still, if you're going to explain the shortcoming, then explain it. In the stories themselves. Leaving it unexplained and implied is weak.

Someone, perhaps a Klingon, actually accused Starfleet of being the imperialist arm of the human race. He has a point. The Federation's military might is primarily controlled by humans.

If the other races are involved in other pursuits, then show it. For instance, if the Enterprise becomes involved in a scientific dispute, show a team of Vulcans in charge. If it becomes involved in a trade dispute, show a team of Tellarites in charge.

In short, whatever the other races are doing, show them doing it. Otherwise, the racial charges against Star Trek are valid. If Avatar can give us an entire planet of blue-skinned Na'vi, I think Star Trek can give us alien races that aren't humans with facial ridges.

For more on Star Trek, see Superior Powers Don't Change Society and Colonialism Inspired Science Fiction.

Hollywood trails US demographics

Hollywood failing to keep up with rapidly increasing diversity, UCLA study warns

By UCLA NewsroomWhen it comes to influential positions in the entertainment industry, minorities and women are represented at rates far below what would be expected given their percentage of the general population, according to a new study done at UCLA's Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies.

In fact, the report shows, the proportion of female and minority actors, writers, directors and producers in films and TV ranges from just one-twelfth to one-half of their actual population percentage.

"The report paints a picture of an industry that is woefully out of touch with an emerging America, an America that's becoming more diverse by the day," said lead author Darnell Hunt, the center's director.

The underrepresentation is especially noteworthy because the study found that greater diversity in TV and film productions actually increases viewers, resulting in higher profits for studios and networks.

"Hollywood does pretty well financially right now, but it could do a lot better if it were better reflecting the diversity of America," said Hunt, who is also a professor of sociology in UCLA's College of Letters and Science.Show Business Diversity Trailing U.S. Demographics, UCLA Report Shows

By Dave McNaryAmong the findings:

– Minority lead actors in film and TV were underrepresented by a factor of more than three-to-one—less than one-third the rate that would be expected based on their proportion of the population. In broadcast TV comedies and dramas, they were underrepresented by a factor of seven-to-one.

– Minority film directors were underrepresented by a factor of three-to-one; film writers and creators of comedies and dramas on cable TV, were underrepresented by a factor of five-to-one; in broadcast TV, minority creators of comedies and dramas were underrepresented by a factor of nine-to-one.

– Women achieved proportionate representation in broadcast TV, where they appeared as leading actors in 52% of comedies and dramas in 2011–12. But they were underrepresented by a factor of 12-to-one as film directors and by a factor of three-to-one in film writing.

The study also blasted the three top talent agencies—CAA, WME and UTA—as contributing little to promoting diversity as they represented more than two-thirds of the writers, directors and lead actors in the 172 leading films in 2011, with less than 10% of that talent being minority.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Late-Night Hosts = White Men, Native Diversity 2010 Video, and Quotas Needed for TV Jobs?

Below:  Ana-Christina Ramon and Darnell Hunt.

Coke ad triggers conservative racism

This week the right-wing's manufactured controversy was the Super Bowl Coke commercial:

Coke commercial angers Twitter racists: ‘Speak American’ because ‘your in America’

By Travis GettysA Coca Cola advertisement that celebrated the United States’ cultural diversity inspired a Twitter hashtag urging others to #SpeakAmerican and #BoycottCoke.

The one-minute ad that aired during the Super Bowl featured a multiracial cast as voices sang “America The Beautiful” in a variety of languages.

That outraged many viewers, who suggested that English was the country’s official language.

Coca-Cola’s ‘America the Beautiful’ Super Bowl Ad Causes StirToward the end of the first half of yesterday’s Super Bowl, Coca-Cola premiered an ad called “It’s Beautiful” featuring “America the Beautiful” sung in seven different languages. The ad immediately caused outrage on Twitter, hash tags like #SpeakAmerican instantly were trending and people’s ignorance about this country’s true history became glaringly evident.

Many Twitter users think that “America the Beautiful” is this country’s National Anthem and that English is this country’s national language. Neither of which is true. The “Star Spangled Banner” is in fact the National Anthem.

According to USA.gov, “There is no ‘official’ language for the United States, although some individual states list English as their official language.”Coca-Cola's Multicultural Super Bowl Ad Really Angered Conservatives

By Tom KludtFormer tea party congressman Allen West even took time to write a blog post during the game to voice his displeasure. For West, the ad started out strong enough.

"Then the words went from English to languages I didn’t recognize," a troubled West wrote, calling it "a truly disturbing commercial."

"If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing 'American (sic) the Beautiful' in English in a commercial during the Super Bowl, by a company as American as they come—doggone we are on the road to perdition," he wrote.

Michael Patrick Leahy over at Breitbart was offended, too.

Not only did Coke use "a deeply Christian patriotic anthem whose theme is unity–in several foreign languages," but Leahy noted that the "ad also prominently features a gay couple."

The Not-Racist Butt strikes again! "I'm not racist but, This is America! We speak English!"

Why don't these people make it easy for everyone and just wear "I'm a racist" buttons? Proclaim it proudly, bigots--you know you want to!

Given that every anthem-like song is sung in English 99.99% of the time, what possible reason could you have for objecting to a one-time foreign-language version? It's not a ballot you have to pay for. It's not a button you have to press on a phone. The song literally has no effect whatsoever on your life. So what exactly is the basis for your complaint?

How is complaining about an Asian, African, European, or indigenous language any different from complaining about an Asian, African, European, or indigenous appearance? Both are different from the "norm," but neither one affects you. It's the epitome of prejudice to say, "I hate that because it's different." To say, "America is white/Christian/English and anything else is foreign."

Beck is right!

Glenn Beck: Coca-Cola Was Trying To 'Divide People' With Super Bowl Ad

Hey, Beck is right! He said:It's in your face, and if you don't like it, if you're offended by it, you're a racist. If you do like it, you're for immigration. You're for progress. That's all this is: To divide people.Like a broken clock, Beck is correct for once. The commercial does a good job of identifying who's a racist.

And separating the racists (i.e., conservatives) from non-racists (everyone else), so we can marginalize and shun the bigots, is a problem...why? I must be missing something because I'm not seeing it.

Beck seems to be saying it's inherently bad to "divide" people. Why, because we should embrace racists? Invite them over, give them a hug, and listen raptly as they spew their hate? No thanks.

If Beck wants a better country, I think he'd be glad for a clearcut test that identifies racists for further shaming and shunning. The Coca-Cola song test is as good as any. Maybe we should make it a mandatory component of citizenship.



Conservatives are racists

The following posting agrees with me:

I’ve Got a Few Words for Those Offended By Coca-Cola’s Super Bowl Commercial

By Allen CliftonIt wasn’t, as Glenn Beck tried to say, a statement to “divide” people. He tried to perpetuate this idea that this was an “in your face” statement where, as Beck said, “…if you’re offended by it, you’re a racist. If you do like it, you’re for immigration. You’re for progress. That’s all this is: to divide people.”

You know who’s offended by this commercial? Ignorant bigots. Yes, if you’re offended that an American song might be sung by an American in a different language, you are a racist and a bigot.

Why would it offend you if you weren’t? A fact doesn’t suddenly become opinion just because some conservatives don’t like the fact that it exposed the total ignorance of the average conservative voter.

You know how a commercial like the one Coca-Cola aired might not divide people? When people stop acting like bigots who wished every “American” was a straight, white Christian who speaks English.As we've noted many times before, these conservative outbursts of racism don't just happen at random. Rather, the Republican Party has cultivated and promoted this racism for at least 45 years.

The GOP's Coke Freak-Out

By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann ProgramSensible conservatives try to say that people like Gohmert and Stockman are just a few bad apples, but those conservatives are ignoring their party's own history.

The real agenda of the Republican Party is to serve billionaires and transnational corporations, but because that group represents such a small number of voters--they need to expand the tent.

They have done this by aggressively courting bigots and racists, along with the religious fringe, misogynistic men, and people who fetishize guns.

It started when Richard Nixon manipulated white people angry about the Civil Rights Movement in his 1968 presidential campaign, the so-called "Southern Strategy."

It was perfected when Ronald Reagan gave the first speech of his 1980 campaign for President of the United States in Philadelphia, Mississippi--the place where three civil rights activists were killed in the 1960s--and told people at a county fair that he "believed in states' rights."

Last March, RNC chairman Reince Preibus promised that his party would try to make itself more appealing to women and minorities, but a year of scandals and politically incorrect freakouts--the most recent over a Coca Cola ad of all things--shows that the Republican Party still embracing their Southern Strategy.

Conservatives fear multiculturalism

Some postings talk about how conservatives fear the changing face of America.

Coke ad’s ugly, demented moral: Exposing the right’s zero-sum culture war

For “English first” nativists, the simple act of recognizing other heritages detracts from their own

By Simon MaloyCoca-Cola’s ad was a nod to a long-standing truth about America: A country of such broad ethnic diversity is going to have whole communities that speak languages other than English. From the barrios of Los Angeles to the tenement blocks of turn-of-the-century New York to the Gullah region of the antebellum South, there have always been American communities where standard English wasn’t spoken at home. In my own family it’s not uncommon to hear conversations in English, Spanish, Russian and Portuguese. This isn’t a threat to American culture. It is American culture.

But for the conservative pundits and “English first” nativists, the simple act of recognizing other heritages somehow detracts from their own. This is the culture war, and it’s a zero-sum fight. In the eyes of the critics, Coke’s acknowledgment that English does not command 100 percent of the linguistic market was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It’s a blatant and nasty appeal to cultural resentment and xenophobia.

This same zero-sum dynamic animates so much of the cultural discussion. We’re about to resume the debate over immigration reform, which is always colored by conservative complaints about immigrants receiving “special privileges.” The embarrassing annual spectacle of the “War on Christmas” assumes that anyone who has the temerity to say “Happy Holidays” isn’t giving Christianity its due as the true American faith. The fight over same-sex marriage is replete with conservatives arguing that recognizing the union of two men or two women will fatally undermine “traditional” marriage.

They allow no possibility for mutual benefit–if the Spanish speakers or the Kwanzaa celebrators or the gay couple down the street are winning, then English-speaking, Christmas-observing, heterosexual “real” America must be losing. There’s no real sense to it, but it’s a good way to exploit anxiety over demographic changes and stir up outrage.

The Coke ad got it right: America is beautiful, in any language

By Paul WhitefieldNow, you could see the most recent backlash as an example of the ugly anti-immigrant undercurrent in America sparked by the millions of folks living here without documents. Yes, many of those folks speak Spanish. Yes, there are more of them—legal or otherwise—living here than ever. And no, that is not going to change.

In other words, it isn’t a white man’s America anymore.

And apparently, some people can’t handle that. Or perhaps, by the time the Coke ad ran—in the second half of the game—the Bud Light was flowing more freely. Either way, the Ugly Americans beat up the Beautiful Americans about as badly as the Seahawks beat the Broncos.

Frankly, I’m getting more than a little tired of hearing from angry America. I’m also less than fond of knee-jerk America. And when you combine the two with the Internet, you too often get stupid America, which is really annoying.

Face facts, folks: A lot of people came here not speaking English. We like to think that they all quickly learned it. Some did; many didn’t. But, their kids did. And their kids speak English; many probably couldn’t speak the grandparents’ native language if they wanted to.

So get a grip: We’re not being overrun by hordes of Spanish speakers. Just like always, we’re growing a new crop of Americans. They are enriching the country. They are working hard, paying taxes. And they will create future Nobel Prize winners and future presidents and future titans of industry.

In short, they will make America beautiful.Coca-Cola's multilingual "America" ad didn't hit any wrong notesThere are, according to statistics cited in a Huffington Post article here, http://huff.to/1nJc0Sn, 381 languages spoken in these United States. That is a potent passel of patois in which we Americans freely engage. One of those used in the commercial, Keres Pueblo, is a Native American tongue that was used in this nation before there was a hint of a nation.

We can't fathom that the argument should gather much traction here in the Lebanon Valley, steeped as we are in our Pennsylvania German traditions. Yes, our forebears learned English, but PA Dutch still gets trotted out for occasional use in church services and when watching stuffed groundhogs predict winter weather, as happened just this weekend.

There is nothing wrong with multilingualism. If anything, we don't spend nearly enough time learning at least a second language. That is both an American-centric and educational failure.

The first thing the commercial proved is that the song sounds pretty good regardless of the language in which it is sung. The second thing it proved is that there are individuals who believe in the words even if the language in which it was originally written is not the one that came first for them.

Yes, we believe those living in the United States should learn English. It is not the official language but it has been, since the nation's inception, the accepted common tongue, and it will continue to be. Our inclusive society requires some desire on the part of others to be included. Learning English is a part of that inclusivity.

But it does not mean that we are forced to unlearn those things that defined us before we came to be Americans. We can be just as patriotic, and we can act just as freely, if we sing those words in English or in any of the languages listed above and any of the others that were not.

In the final analysis, for Coca-Cola, this was money well spent. Here we are, still talking about that ad.For more on conservative racism, see:

White men lose to demographic change
Racists hate and fear minority babies
Whites feel like a minority

Jindal's stupidity about race

Conservatives are still saying stupid things about race in America. Here are two idiotic claims from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:

Jindal: Racism persists because minorities cling to their heritage

By David EdwardsJindal accused minorities of placing “far too much emphasis on our ‘separateness,’ our heritage, ethnic background, skin color, etc. We live in the age of hyphenated Americans: Asian-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Indian-Americans, and Native Americans, to name just a few.”

“Here’s an idea: How about just ‘Americans?’ That has a nice ring to it, if you ask me. Placing undue emphasis on our ‘separateness’ is a step backward. Bring back the melting pot,” the governor opined.Yeah, that's an "idea" if you missed the last several centuries of American history.

Here's another idea. How about if we forcibly convert the world's "savages" into civilized Christian people? If I'm a conservative, no doubt this strikes me as an original and noteworthy idea.

Racism happened for several centuries during and because of forced assimilation. But now multiculturalism is the problem and forced assimilation is the solution? Okay, if you say so, Bobby!

Sounds like Jindal is still a cheerleader for the Party of Stupid. Is this his plan to recruit minority voters: telling them they're responsible for the racism against them?

Wow, that's brilliant. Such deep thinkers in today's GOP!

Assimilation means "be white"

How stupid is it that Southerners, who seceded and still want to secede from the Union, are the biggest proponents of the "one America" myth? They want everyone to be the same, but if other Americans don't agree, they'll leave the country in a snit? Yeah, they're committed to America--as long as it remains white.

Imagine if our Anglo ancestors had said, "Here's an idea: How about just 'Brits'? Let's stop thinking of ourselves as separate groups: British Americans, British Africans, British Indians, etc. Let's start thinking of ourselves as one big British Empire."

That would be ridiculous. Members of the British Empire rejected forced assimilation because they had profound political, economic, and cultural differences with the "mother country." Remaining in the Empire meant remaining second-class citizens under the heel of their British masters.

Nobody would say the "one size fits all" solution is ideal anymore. Nobody, that is, except conservatives like Bobby Jindal. These people are trying to perpetuate a racist system with whites at the top and minorities at the bottom.

Bobby Jindal Claims that GOP Obama Racism is Ok because Democrats Did It To Bush

By Jason EasleyDavid Gregory asked Gov. Jindal about Colin Powell’s opinion that there is a dark vein of intolerance within the Republican Party. Jindal answered by comparing the Republicans’ Obama racism to Democratic treatment of George W. Bush.

Jindal said, “Well, I have a lot of respect for General Powell. I think our party at its best, its core principles looks at people and treats them as individuals, not as members of special interest groups. Talk about specific examples, impeachment, for example. Look, I reject that kind of talk. The reality is I didn’t like it when the left spent eight years trying to delegitimize President Bush. I don’t think we should be doing that to President Obama. The reality is one of the great things about this country is we have a peaceful transfer of policy. I disagree this president’s policies, but instead of talking act impeachment, let’s have a legitimate debate, try to repeal his policies, repeal Obamacare, fight for school choice, fight against war and debt spending.”Easley continues:Barack Obama has been elected to the presidency twice by large majorities, but some Republicans spend every waking moment trying to delegitimize the Obama presidency. George W. Bush was twice elected to the presidency by the margin of what many would call two questionable outcomes in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and won the 2004 popular vote by 3 million in 2004. Obama won the popular vote by more than 5.5 million votes in 2008, and 5.5 million votes in 2012.

Republicans have no grounds on which to question President Obama’s legitimacy, but they continue to do so.

Bobby Jindal can’t admit that the Republican delegitimization of Obama is based on race, because they would be forced to deal with reality that he is dreaming of running for the presidential nomination of a racist party that will never nominate him.

This is why Jindal had to hide behind the flawed and worn Republican talking point that Democrats did the same thing to Bush that they are doing to Obama.Jindal might have a point, except the attacks on Bush weren't based on his race, his country of birth, or whether he was a "real American" who "shares our values." The delegitimization of Obama is qualitatively different and worse than anything liberals did to Bush. The question is why.

Why did conservatives suddenly start protesting federal deficit spending, which soared under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush? Or the insurance mandate, a conservative idea successfully implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts? Not to mention all the talk about Obama's being a Kenyan Muslim socialist. All the insults directed at Michelle Obama and their children. Etc., etc., etc.

A: Conservatism racism. Hatred of a black man occupying the office supposedly reserved for white men. No other explanation fits the facts.

For more on conservative racism, see Anti-Government Extremism = White Supremacy and Conservatives Deny "Black Jesus," Genocide.

Shonda Rhimes on TV diversity

Shonda Rhimes: “Calling a show a ‘guilty pleasure’—it’s like saying it’s a piece of crap”

The creator of "Grey's Anatomy" and "Scandal" explores the ethos of immorality—and the insult she really hates

By Willa PaskinShonda Rhimes, the creator of ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Scandal” and the recently ended “Private Practice,” is one of the most prolific and powerful creative forces working in network television. (Only Chuck Lorre, who has three sitcoms on CBS, has as many series on the air.) In its ninth season, “Grey’s” remains one of the most highly rated dramas on television. In its second, “Scandal” has hit its bonkers creative stride. ... Rhimes spoke with me about why everyone keeps insisting Olivia Pope is a good guy, how much she hates it when people call “Scandal” a guilty pleasure, and her bafflement by the lack of racial diversity on TV in 2013.

How much pride do you take in the fact that your casts are much more racially diverse than most other shows?

I don’t take pride in it at all. I think it’s sad, and weird, and strange that it’s still a thing, nine years after we did “Grey’s,” that it’s still a thing. It’s creepy to me that it’s still an issue, that there aren’t enough people of color on television. Why is that still happening? It’s 2013. Somebody else needs to get their act together. And oh, by the way it works. Ratings-wise, it works. People like to see it. I don’t understand why people don’t understand that the world of TV should look like the world outside of TV. Like, why is there an assumption of whiteness on television? It’s very weird to me. I think there are some people who work really hard at it. I think J.J. Abrams really goes out of his way to try to make television look diverse. I think it’s happening. And I think that some people just assume whiteness, because that’s what they see. It’s weird.

Do you feel like that’s because it is mostly white guys making TV?

I don’t think it’s about that. I really don’t. J.J. Abrams is a white guy, he does it. Norman Lear, years and years and years and years ago, did it. I think it’s ridiculous, that the networks don’t demand it more. I think it’s crazy that the person who everybody asks this question of is me. Everyone always says to me, “Why aren’t there more people of color on television?” I’m like, “Why don’t you ask a bunch of people who aren’t putting people of color on television why there aren’t more people of color on television.”Comment:  Let's repeat the key lines:It’s creepy to me that it’s still an issue, that there aren’t enough people of color on television. Why is that still happening? It’s 2013. Somebody else needs to get their act together. And oh, by the way it works. Ratings-wise, it works. People like to see it.In other words, the immensely successful Rhimes agrees with what I've said many times: that diversity works, ratings-wise. That it sells.

So Hollywood's excuse that they care only about the bottom line is just that: an excuse. If you care about making a profit, tell more minority stories with minority actors. Thirty-six percent of the country is waiting for stories about them.

For more on the subject, see NBC Heritage Month Special and Revolution and TV Diversity.

Revolution and TV diversity

A Facebook discussion with Brad based on Thursday's visit to NBC Universal:

My brief conversation with NBC's executives about Revolution was revealing.

If you think about it for 10 or 20 seconds, you realize Revolution is a great opportunity to show a variety of distinct cultures based on different qualities. Race, ethnicity, religion, philosophy, etc. You could have a black group, a Latino group, a conservative Christian group, a tree-hugger group, a techno-nerd group, and so forth and so on.

My idea to throw an Indian tribe into the mix is just one of many possibilities. But they were all, "Wow, good idea, let's bring it to the attention of the show's staff." It's like they never conceived of such a thing. "You mean use science fiction to look at real-world social and cultural issues? Amazing!"

This idea isn't anything new, but it would move the show more firmly into the sci-fi category, at least.Yeah, I assume these were executives and not writers. Their understanding of t.v. probably doesn't go much beyond, "Hey you can put a show on the air and make money off of it!"

So what was revealed was that the producers have no better idea what they're doing than we do, apparently?They're smart people, but they're really not thinking outside the box. Their idea of diversity is, "We hired six white lead actors and two minority supporting actors, so the show is diverse." Much like Romney Republicans, they aren't challenging their 1950s view of an America where white men rule.

Yes, these were executives, not producers or writers. They don't decide a show's approach, but I bet they sign off on it. They create an environment where narrow thinking is rewarded.

If they truly want diversity, they can make it happen. Establish guidelines, hire consultants, reward people who do things differently. If you need me to tell you how to implement diversity, you really aren't trying.

Gene Roddenberry brought in established SF writers to make sure Star Trek wasn't just a 1950s space opera with better effects. I imagine they played a role in deciding what Trek could and couldn't do.

If a show's staff isn't that creative internally, they need to reach out externally. Someone needs to challenge them to shake things up.

Who's responsible?

I'm not sure whether the limitations come from the producers, the executives, or the advertisers. But someone is clearly limiting the creativity of network TV. That's why you see two dozen shows that are the same for every one that's different.I'm going to blame the executives. The producers do their best to make what the executives will buy, so if they don't think the executives are looking for diversity then they won't make it. The advertisers aren't involved in the process of weeding out the "abnormal" stuff. All they have to pick from is the finalists that the network presents to them.

There is the rare case where a network will actually contract a producer to develop a particular show or type of show, so maybe Natives will get lucky and get something like that. I'm not going to hold my breath though. These are the same people who only last year said, "You mean we have Mexican people in America and they spend money?"You may be right.

The 2012 presidential campaign provides a good metaphor for the dichotomy between the old approach and a new approach:

1) The present network approach = the Republican approach. Incremental changes at the margins. Hire a black here, a Latino there, a woman somewhere else. Don't change the white-dominated power structure overall. Hope that the handful of women and minorities will attract more women and minorities, leading to eventual change.

IOW, minorities bubble up from the bottom. If you don't do anything to impede them--a big if--the party will sloooowly transform itself. In a hundred years or so, it may actually reflect America.

2) The ideal network approach = the Democratic approach. Fundamental change from the top down. Barack and Michelle Obama in the White House. Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor, Ken Salazar, Elena Kagan, and other women and minorities throughout the power structure. Party membership and voting patterns that reflect the way America is now, or will be in 30 years.

The network equivalent of this would be, "Give me black shows, Latino shows, Asian shows, and so forth now. Our country is 36% minority, so 36% of our shows should be about, or star, minorities. I want a lineup that includes the next Roots, Cosby Show, Chico and the Man, Jeffersons, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Ugly Betty, In Living Color, and so forth. Replace the white shows with minority shows until our lineup reflects reality."

Incidentally, the NBC executives themselves were diverse--as they pointed out. If you added up the women and minorities, they probably formed the majority. Just like Obama's supporters.

In the room, not on the air

These people may get what I'm talking about. They may secretly long to do it. But if the corporate culture says, "Do it the conventional way. Don't rock the boat," no one's gonna take a risk. They'll all wait for someone else to stick his or her neck out.

That's why NBC may need an order from the top. As I said, the NBC chairman was there. If he orders NBC to become more diverse, it will. If he's just paying lip service to diversity, it won't. Few are willing to risk their careers with bold ideas if they know the higher-ups will quash them.

And recall that NBC is the best of the bunch, from what I gather. This is what a progressive network looks like today. The other networks are barely addressing the diversity issue.

In addition to the shows I named, shows such as ER, Lost, Grey's Anatomy, and Hawaii Five-0 have all been hits. The common denominator is emphasizing diversity with more than just token minorities. If they say they're looking at the bottom line, I'll say that too. My bottom line is that diversity sells.

I guess I should interview NBC's head of diversity and write my article first. Then maybe I can hit him with some of these ideas. If he wants to talk, fine. If he doesn't, well, at least I tried.I think the best approach is somewhere in between the Republican and Democrat ones. Unlike with politics, shows don't just have to win one election. They have to win one every week, and another with the advertisers.

The trick is to get them to feature diversity more prominently without pandering. I think that's been a problem generally. And I totally agree that "risk aversion" completely stifles the creative process. No network, network executive (even the chairman), or producer wants to put something different out there and fall flat. That's the biggest hurdle to overcome.I described the two approaches I was talking about. What does an approach somewhere between the Republican and Democrat ones mean, exactly?

The ideal approach I described isn't pandering. All the shows I listed were successful. They stayed on the air for several seasons because they were good, not because they starred minorities.

Relatively few shows are built around particular actors. In a show such as Lost, 24, Modern Family, Glee, or "Revolution," the concept is the star. So take these shows in the development stage, recast them with (more) minorities, and run them. They'll be just as successful as they were with white actors.

No pandering allowedIn between would be doing better representation than they do now, but not jumping straight to mirroring population demographics.

Yes, the shows you listed are good examples, however I'll take some exception to The Cosby Show. Some examples of the pandering I'm referring to might be Outsourced, or The George Lopez Show, i.e. putting a show on that isn't necessarily good just because it might appeal to minorities or making a show that's essentially FOR white people while using minorities in the roles just to be able to say that they did it.I agree with no pandering a la Outsourced. But given the networks' failure to come up with good shows and the large number of ideas out there, I don't think pandering should be necessary. I think they could convert shows like Revolution and find minority-specific shows without straining themselves.

For more on the subject, see TV Directors Are 88% White and TV Grows Whiter in 2011-2012.