How much do you view through the prism of race

[Bang]

LOL Bugold,, I'll never forget this one.. some may remember This old cartoon about Ricky Williams getting busted for weed. Now, I do like this cartoon, and I thought it was pretty funny when I made it.. but at the end when I show Dave Wannstedt's legs hanging down to signify he had hung himself.... well, I made one leg, and rather than waste the time making the second leg, I just copied, pasted and flipped the other one around the other way.

Wow.

Suddenly I was a satirical genius. Two left feet perfectly described Wannstedt, I was told. Wannstedt's stupidity is brilliantly shown by his shoes on the wrong feet, another one told me. Plenty of others noticed the feet and gave me all sorts of credit for all sorts of stuff I never thought of.
I of course, humbly accepted all the praise and shut my mouth.

~Bang

[Burgold]

and that's exactly the way to go

[aREDSKIN]

Clearly in reporting it to hunt down the perpetrators you must have basic information, I get this and I'm not overlooking it. My point is the media injects race negatively and unnecessarily at times to sell a story. This is undeniable.

Yea, I agree with this does anyone remember the Duke rape case? Race and privilege was the overwhelming driving factor of that case until the very end. To this day people still believe that skank.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

lol... yeah. I'll never forget the time they were performing a reading of one of my plays and afterwards one of the audience decided to tell me what it was about. He declared it brilliantly anti-technology and a number of other things that were never mentioned or even a part of the play. I stared at him blankly and thanked him.

It amazes me what people or find or invent based on the stimuli that hits their ears and eyes.

This is not a criticism, but putting on my English major hat for a second, it's always seemed to me that the worst person to ask "What is that novel/story/play/script about is the author. You may think you are writing a story about your neighbor's dog, but once it is perceived by another, you lose all rights to arguing the interpretation.

"Hey, Vonnegut. Do you read lips? Well then, **** you!"

Anyway, I think there is something similar in racism. You may not perceive your act as racially-motivated. But others may. I'm not sure intent matters so much as interpretation in this issue, simply because American society is so ingrained with racial politics that we are beyond intent at this point.

I don't have a ton of sympathy for Bang in this regard either. I don't care who you are married to or who your neighbors are. If you are white man discussing mostly black men, there is no way to be "race-neutral." The issue really is whether you are being deragatory or not.

Are you enjoying my Humanties 290 Leactures yet? You take 2 courses with Cornel West and you become insufferable. Sorry.

[Teller]

I know you all would never believe this, but rarely in my "real life" do I think about things in terms of race. I work in a place where I am a minority. Not just in terms of skin color, but religion, ethnicity, life experience; all of it. So far (knocks on wood) I've had no problems with any of the people I work with, work for, or help, as a result.

My boss is an African-American Muslim. His biggest frustration right now is not being able to promote me into his old job. HIS boss is Tongan. He too would like to see me in that position.

Most of the people outside of my department that I deal with are of Middle Eastern or Indian descent, and either Muslims or Hindus. To date, I've never had someone so much as breathe the idea that I might be a racist.

Unfortunately, on ES, I've "earned" a different persona. Because I loathe ALL discrimination, I've been painted as a racist. I'm sorry, but Affirmative Action is discriminatory. And I take heat because I'm not afraid to say so.

And it is bull**** that Rush Limbaugh gets fired from ESPN for saying that "the NFL wants to see a successful black quarterback," but Michael Irvin is allowed to finish his contract.

(Since it was a non-story, let me fill you in. Irvin said (paraphrasing) "Wes Welker ain't that good. He gets lucky and beats a brutha once, then the brutha presses up saying 'whitey aint gon' beat me again," and that's how he gets the rest of his yards.") Clearly, utterly, and completely racist. But it ain't cool to say so.

Well, I WILL say so. I'll go to my grave saying so. Racism and discrimination will NEVER defeat racism and discrimination. And if you want to badmouth me for saying so, go ahead. It's not about the COLOR of my skin, it's about the THICKNESS.

[Burgold]

This is not a criticism, but putting on my English major hat for a second, it's always seemed to me that the worst person to ask "What is that novel/story/play/script about is the author. You may think you are writing a story about your neighbor's dog, but once it is perceived by another, you lose all rights to arguing the interpretation.
Are you enjoying my Humanties 290 Leactures yet? You take 2 courses with Cornel West and you become insufferable. Sorry.

I agree with you about 67%.

This is an old definition I use for art.

Art is the self portrait of the soul at the moment.

Having said that... once the art leaves my hands it is reinterpreted and recreated to a degree by the director, and then the actors, and finally each member of the audience. Each person creates and experiences a slightly different work of art. The cool thing is that for the most part they are all correct.

Now, that being said... what you're talking about is slightly different. What you are talking about I think are the thoughts that germinate under the surface and the writer sometimes does not think as deeply about their work as others might. Mind you, as a rule, critics and English profs are almost never correct in their interpretations of art.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Now, that being said... what you're talking about is slightly different. What you are talking about I think are the thoughts that germinate under the surface and the writer sometimes does not think as deeply about their work as others might. Mind you, as a rule, critics and English profs are almost never correct in their interpretations of art.

I don't think I am saying that at all. I frankly hate over-reliance of Freudian criticism in the Academy.

I'm not saying that there are hidden interpretations in your play that are true but yet you are not aware of. (Generally speaking, Freudian interpretations deal with things that are overt. At some point during the writing of Moby Dick, I am certain that Melvile thought, "Christ, this reads like one long dick joke.")

What I am saying is that once it enters the public sphere, your interpretation no longer matters, nor is it necessarily correct. You've taken your snapshot. Now, if I want to see a ghost in the background that is up to me.

[Burgold]

I think I can vouch for hh. I think you can fairly call him every name in the book except racist.

HH is a good guy and I think he stated it well. He's a bit of an idealist when it comes to equality and his zealousness for true fairness sometimes paints a picture which is far from the truth. If HH's mentality were prevalent in the U.S. I think AA would only stand for alcoholics anonymous

[Burgold]

What I am saying is that once it enters the public sphere, your interpretation no longer matters, nor is it necessarily correct. You've taken your snapshot. Now, if I want to see a ghost in the background that is up to me.

I fundamentally disagree, but in a qualified way

My interpretation matters and is correct, but it is not the only correct interpretation and not the only view that matters. And to me, that's the beauty of Art. (No, not that old gas bag of a mod)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I fundamentally disagree, but in a qualified way

My interpretation matters and is correct, but it is not the only correct interpretation and not the only view that matters. And to me, that's the beauty of Art. (No, not that old gas bag of a mod)

Fair enough. Your perspective matters as much as any other. Does that work?

I remember reading a friend's short story in college and asking him, "What are you trying to say here?'

He gave me an answer.

I said, "No, that's not what you are saying at all."

I no longer edited him after that.

[Burgold]

Fair enough. Your perspective matters as much as any other. Does that work?

I remember reading a friend's short story in college and asking him, "What are you trying to say here?'

He gave me an answer.

I said, "No, that's not what you are saying at all."

I no longer edited him after that.

I think the creators opinion matters a shade or six more. However, there are times when that work takes on so much a life of it's own that the cultural definition is much more important than the artist's vision or intent.

I think Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is a great example of that. Shame too.

Other characters like Robin Hood and James Bond keep being reinvented for each generation. Part of me appreciates it and part of me thinks it a shame. For example, I kind of like that new Merlin series on NBC except for the fact that it bugs the heck out of me that it has nothing to do with the Arthurian legend and they bastardized the myth in almost every conceiveable way. If you're only going to keep the names invent your own darn story! Grrr... And yet at the same time it's a fun show. It's just not Arthur's story or Merlin's! GAHHH!

[skinfan13]

I definitely view things from an American perspective. I also tend to view things from a libertarian perspective. To a lesser degree from a Christian perspective. While Christianity forms the foundation of who I am, I believe that my journey with God is personal and I try to not let my faith effect how I deal with others (what I'm trying to say is that I'm not a Bible thumper I guess lol). you better believe though that if someone asks me about my faith, I'll share it very proudly. I figure if God wants me to tell someone about Him, He'll give me that opportunity, I don't need to activly seek out others as that would be counter-productive for most sistuations.

For what it's worth, I took a very detailed psychological evaluation a few years ago as part of a study about racism, my results were that I'm almost completely free of racial bias. I bleive on a scale of 100 I registered a 5, which was in the 3rd percentile (97% of people who took the same test had results that indicated more racial bias in their worldview). So I tend to never view things from a racial perspective.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think the creators opinion matters a shade or six more. However, there are times when that work takes on so much a life of it's own that the cultural definition is much more important than the artist's vision or intent.

I think Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is a great example of that. Shame too.

Other characters like Robin Hood and James Bond keep being reinvented for each generation. Part of me appreciates it and part of me thinks it a shame. For example, I kind of like that new Merlin series on NBC except for the fact that it bugs the heck out of me that it has nothing to do with the Arthurian legend and they bastardized the myth in almost every conceiveable way. If you're only going to keep the names invent your own darn story! Grrr... And yet at the same time it's a fun show. It's just not Arthur's story or Merlin's! GAHHH!

We reinterpret classic myths every generation. Ever read the original Grimms' Fairy Tales? They are unrecognizable from the Disney versions - which are now the versions. And it was the Disney versions that were re-interpreted by Anne Sexton. And now Sexton's versions are reinterpreted.

At the wedding ceremony
the two sisters came to curry favor
and the white dove pecked their eyes out.
Two hollow spots were left
like soup spoons.

Cinderella and the prince
lived, they say, happily ever after,
like two dolls in a museum case
never bothered by diapers or dust,
never arguing over the timing of an egg,
never telling the same story twice,
never getting a middle-aged spread,
their darling smiles pasted on for eternity.
Regular Bobbsey Twins.
That story.

[Burgold]

Yup. Although Grimms fairy tales were most gotten from oral traditions and were themselves mutated creations... Still, there was a painting in the National Museum of Art in London, a DaVinci where Leonardo had only painted the first layer of stain. You could see underneath it how he sketched out the composition, where he used geometry to balance the work. You could actually enter the creator's mind and look at how he created it... and that was more fascinating and more important to me than anyone else's reformulation of what his work was about.

Still, I think we're mostly quibbling. I think the artist's insight into their own work always has greater value because of the time they spent on it and what they chose to put in and not put in. The audience's vision of that work also has great value and sometimes has a more powerful cultural impact than the work itself.

I think the Fairy tales are a good example of that as is Frankenstein and even Star Wars. In fact, Star Wars goes to your point where the cultural reinvention or understanding of the literary zeitgeist exceeds that of its creator. I think 20 years after the fact, Lucas understood Star Wars less than his fans.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Yup. Although Grimms fairy tales were most gotten from oral traditions and were themselves mutated creations... Still, there was a painting in the National Museum of Art in London, a DaVinci where Leonardo had only painted the first layer of stain. You could see underneath it how he sketched out the composition, where he used geometry to balance the work. You could actually enter the creator's mind and look at how he created it... and that was more fascinating and more important to me than anyone else's reformulation of what his work was about.

Still, I think we're mostly quibbling. I think the artist's insight into their own work always has greater value because of the time they spent on it and what they chose to put in and not put in. The audience's vision of that work also has great value and sometimes has a more powerful cultural impact than the work itself.

I think the Fairy tales are a good example of that as is Frankenstein and even Star Wars. In fact, Star Wars goes to your point where the cultural reinvention or understanding of the literary zeitgeist exceeds that of its creator. I think 20 years after the fact, Lucas understood Star Wars less than his fans.

There are fan-made "Star Wars" movies on line that are better than anything Lucas has done since 1980.

And while this may seem completely off the main subject, I think it ties in directly.

People who say "I'm not a racist" are, to me, similar to artists who try to tell you what their art means. It's really not your call.

The fact that you married someone of a different race or have friends of a different race or work with people of a different race doesn't mean much to me.

Hopefully, we are all civil with one another. Civility is not the answer to the question, however.