I only watched “House” a little, but Eric Foreman often got compared to House. Or at least, he did in one episode which kept driving him crazy. And while House is brilliant, a comparison to him does not make for a saintly black man.
Back to the Jeffersons, I remember he was freaking out that his grandkid would turn out white because of how Jenny (mother of the child) was half white. I think we realize he would have accepted it since he sees what he thinks is his kid (but white) and gets all happy, but yeah, definitely a racist. Not an all around horrible person, but definitely super flawed.
There are way too many super smart, capable women with too stupid to live husbands. The only example of a capable, efficient husband with a wife who usually gets them into trouble is King of the Hill.
He’s not perfect, though. He’s nowhere near some saintly black man. It’s been brought up numerous times in this thread that the other characters see him as a ridiculous buffoon because of his absurd racist viewpoints.
The only black character that comes to mind as near saintly is possibly Dr. Huxtable. But those awful, awful sweaters cancel out everything else.
I didn’t watch the show all that much, but Archie and George struck me as essentially identical. IIRC, the white neighbor had a black wife, who put him down as consistently as Mrs. Jefferson did her husband (everyone put down George, just like everyone put down Archie Bunker. Both were figures of fun, in a way no black female was, on either show).
That would have been more in line with the statistical reality. But the Cosby show also reflected what might be called the politically correct pecking order of sitcoms - black women at the top, who can peck everyone else, white women second to that, who can peck white men, but not black men (unless in company with a dominant black female), then black men who can peck white men, then white men. Children occupy a shifting position somewhere near the position of women of the same race - white children can put down white females, sometimes, but never black females, black children can sometimes occupy the top position in the pecking order.
But it would be interesting to discuss a show where a white adult male consistently put down a black female. None occur to me, but then again I don’t watch much TV.
Firstly, as others have alluded, the PC thing extends far beyond black people. To the examples of women and children, I add: the disabled. I can’t recall seeing a disabled person on TV who wasn’t fantastic at their job, or that asked for others’ assistance at any time (someone in a wheelchair might get pushed along, but I don’t recall ever seeing someone ask for someone to do that).
It’s just the nature of TV that it goes out to a large audience, influences opinions both consciously and subconsciously, and can easily offend. I think it’s a good thing that TV stations are aware of such sensibilities, and don’t really care whether I see a disproportionately low number of black criminals or female dufuses (dufi?).
Secondly, c’mon peeps, stop sounding so hard done by. From purely a stereotype point of view, I’d rather be a white person, and be stereotyped as a dufus on TV, than be a black person and have people stereotype me as a “gangsta” in real life.
One obvious retort, is that if TV is so influential, surely it can’t be a good thing that white guys are depicted as dweebs all the time.
To that point, I basically agree. However, stereotyping white people is not such a big deal in a majority white country. In a country where most people you see are white, it really doesn’t need saying that “Not all white people are like this”!
I think it’s this asymmetry in the situation that some people don’t notice.
Dude, that’s not even notable, let alone saintly. Are you implying that a black man who is successful and loyal and competent is somehow NOT reflective of reality?
Unfortunately I paid a lot more attention to TV back then. I still watch, but it’s more difficult for me to remember the names of specific TV shows and characters.
Would you say that being a succesful businessman who is loyal to his wife is a positive portrayal or a negative portrayal?
Absolutely, particularly if it’s in a business such as dry cleaning where there is little or no affirmative action available.
I’m pretty confident that if you did a survey of succesful dry cleaners in New York City, you would find that the vast vast majority of them are Asian, white, or from some other non-Black ethnic group.
I’m not sure what your point is, but I think that most reasonable people would agree that being a succesful businessman who is loyal to his wife is generally speaking a positive portrayal. Not necessarily saintly, but that’s not my claim.
Edith never put down Archie. Archie put down Edith and everyone laughed.
At least Archie wasn’t the lone fool in his family as George was. Weezie was intelligent and strong and sophisticated, who got yelled at unfairly. Edith was weak, passive, and stupid, who probably deserved some “STIFLE!” Lionel was smart and reasonable. Meathead was a blowhard leech. Lionel’s girlfriend was smart and reasonable. Gloria was a crybaby and an idiot for being with Meathead.
If anything, everyone except George was saintly in The Jeffersons. Which only made him stand-out more like a crazy clown than Archie did (since he had so many fools to suffer).
For every “unrealistic” Huxable, I can point at “Mr. Belivedere” (a family with a butler!), “Who’s the Boss” (a family with a male housekeeper!), “Brady Bunch” (a mixed family that’s harmonious, with a stay-at home mother AND a loving housekeeper), and "Small Wonder (a family with a girl robot! Who lives in her teenage “brother’s” closet!). If we aren’t going to scrutinize these shows with statistics, why do so with The Cosby Show? I’d argue for the majority of black families, even those headed by single parents or with working class socioeconic status, the themes of the CS was more identifiable than those of Good Times.
(Anyone find it ironic that TCS, a show created by a black guy, with black writers, is criticized for being “unrealistic”, but Good Times, a show created by a white guy, with white writers, is NEVER criticised for being “unrealistic”? It’s just one of those things that make me go “hmmmmm”).
Before the Jeffersons had their own show, Ms. Jefferson was only downright polite to Archie, even as he called her “spook” behind her back (if that isn’t putting someone down, I don’t know what is). Even when she had more balls on her own show, she was always respectful to Bently (an example of a white buffoon) and Willis.
For the life of me I cannot think of any show where a black woman regularly puts down a white male. But maybe I don’t watch enough TV either.
I do know one thing. To say that white people are portrayed disproportionately in any way is ludicrous when 99% of television programming is full of white people. If a white male doesn’t like how they’re represented in, say, “Everyone Loves Raymond” or “Family Guy”, they can tune into “Lost” or “24” and see themselves as the archetypal hero. A member of a minority does not enjoy such a priviledge, so that’s why programming featuring minorities is scrunitized so heavily. That’s why a lot of this discussion sounds like nothing but whining.
By asserting that these are qualities of a “magical” character, you are saying that they are not realistic. There are plenty of successful black male businessmen who are loyal to their wives and know CPR. Again, your implication is insulting.
If George was a flawless individual who wasn’t the constant butt of the show, then your point would have merit. But the fact that he wasn’t actually disproves it.
brazil, I answered your request for television shows not meeting your criteria. Do you want to respond to my post more thoughtfully, or should I just write this off as another instance of you not being a fair debater?
TV programs and commercials are intended to sell products and entertain, not reflect reality. They might reflect a version of reality that viewers are comfortable with, but that’s not the same as the real thing. Most people who watch TV are aware of this and it’s rarely cause for outrage.
It occurs to me that it’s kind of ironic for people with such a skewed view of reality to complain about fiction, because it’s hard to tell what world they’re actually living in.
Look, I never claimed that there were multiracial shows where all the white characters were villains/incompetents and all the black characters were saintly.
You demanded a cite from me. Not from a position I actually took, but for a position you invented and then attributed to me. A wild exaggeration of the position I actually took.
To you, that may be acceptable debating, but I have no interest in such. As I told you, I do not debate with people who strawman me like that.
So no, I will not respond to your post, now or ever. Goodbye.
While I have no dog in this fight, I would point out that you are committing a logical fallacy here. (Specifically, the converse accident fallacy.) It is not true that criminals are more likely to be black, but it is true that blacks are more likely to be criminals (when you don’t control for socioeconomic factors), which you seem to deny in this post. Paleface tactlessly pointed out your error, and you stubbornly refused to acknowledge it, and instead backpedaled.
Among the currently most popular and critically acclaimed shows on TV are a show about a magical island that heals the crippled and brings people back from the dead, a show about superheroes, a show about a faraway race of humans in spaceships on the run from evil robots, several animated shows, and a show about a superdoctor who works on one case at a time with FOUR other doctors who never use lab assistants. Other shows much beloved by the SDMB include a recently cancelled show about a pasty chef who can raise the dead, and a show of great recent discussion is one about people who work as programmable robot-like automatons.
But Paleface wants to complain that there aren’t enough black criminals on TV, because it’s not realistic.
You’ve actually got this backward: my post acknowledged that, but denied Paleface’s implicit point that black people are generally criminals and dangerous to white people, and that the burglar in the commercial “should have” been black in order to represent reality.
The thing about the home security commercial in the OP is that the white guy looks clean-cut. The least they could have done is make the guy look like a strung out drug addict. The guy looks like he works at IBM during the day and conducts scary home-invasions by night. It’s silly. They might as well cast an Asian woman as the scary home-invader. But people would laugh.
For some reason, a normal looking white guy is the safest most politically correct person to portray in a negative light, but it comes across as slightly absurd.
In other news, it seems the thread has turned to TV & movies, but I think the imaginary world of advertising is a different world than TV & movies.
Your explicit position is much crazier than the position I inferred! Frankly, what you’ve said in this thread is so offensive that it should be me who refuses to engage with you. But what can I say? I’m a glutton for punishment.
You said if we gave you examples of TV shows where black characters were treated in a negative light to their white counterparts, you would post counter examples. Putting aside the fact that you are the one with the burden of proof, as you are the one making an assertion, fairness would dictate that you would keep your word. If you can’t because you don’t have any evidence, you should say so instead of accusing me of being disingenuous. It’s a cop-out and you know it.
Tell me, brazil, why do you think I posted a strawman? If it’s reasonable to believe that black people are overwhelmingly portrayed as saints, as you have asserted, then shouldn’t you be able to find examples of shows where blacks are portrayed as saintly and their whites are portrayed all villiany and stuff? And if you think this is an unreasonable request, then shouldn’t you be able to explain why?
Since it’s obvious you can’t handle being engaged intellectually, not by me or anyone else, then it is a good thing that you are not going to respond to me. You have never responded to me in any positive way, so the benefit is all mine.
Just note that I have a good memory. If you ever respond to my posts in the future, I’ll remind you of your promise.