Sort of, it was. When the main male character left (I don’t know names, I hated that show) it became a black household headed by a single female. Then the actress who played the mother left in protest because the show was too realistic in that aspect. She didn’t want to reinforce the stereotype of the broken black family - even though that stereotype is actually the norm.
Kinda makes me go hmmmm as well.
Regards,
Shodan
I’d like to interject the following comment apropos to the thread though maybe not to any particular post.
It is not the purpose of fiction to show us what is real, but rather, what is possible. Of course, sometimes when people have been blind to reality, one thing that they needed to know was possible was reality. That’s how you get people like Dickens. But the general purpose is not to be found in this reflection of reality. The general purpose is to explore, and put on display, what is possible.
That is all. 
-FrL-
Well put; about time that basic point was made. As for the Brinks ad – it reflects the reality it needs to reflect, which is that it’s possible somebody like Ivan Astikov will break into your house, so you might want to have an alarm system. What exactly does Paleface want from commercials?
I’m sure you know that portrayals like that would too easily hearken back to past portrayals of black people as necessarily the foolish foil of their white friends. The history of imagery very much supervenes on the present interpretation of imagery, and to fail to understand this is to fail to speak the language of imagery successfully.
If you’re saying you hope for a day when anyone can be portrayed as a doofus no matter what race they are and no matter what the race of their peers in the portrayal, then I agree with you. I hope that day will come–and think it will come, someday.
But if you’re saying that right here and now people ought to be portraying black people as doofuses who need chiding by their white friends, then I disagree with you. Right now that kind of portrayal can’t help but be one of the black person’s being stupid because he’s black. This is a contingent fact about our culture, true because of problems rooted in our past, but it makes it no less true, no less a fact, for that.
Someday black people will be able to be portrayed as clowns without the imagery naturally meaning that they’re clowns because they’re black. But today isn’t that day.
That said, I just realized, there’s a black character on My Name Is Earl who’s pretty dumb (though not really clownish) and he’s surrounded by white people on that show. So there’s one example, anyway, though on examination maybe not the clearest example.
-FrL-
This means you aren’t qualified to speak intelligently and persuasively about the subject matter, doesn’t it?
If you’re talking about Crab Man, I have to disagree in the strongest way possible. He’s a stoner, but he’s been established as easily the most intelligent person on the show. He speaks multiple languages and sometimes seems to have maybe been a secret agent of some sort. He frequently says things the others don’t even understand, because he’s clearly far more educated than everyone else.
No it does not. If you demand current examples of my claim, I believe I could do enough research to come up with some specific names.
Actually, I don’t recall any portrayals like that. Not saying they don’t exist, though. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that in the 50s and 60s, black people were regularly portrayed as foolish and stupid on TV, ok?
That was sort a different archetype - Edith was the wise fool.
That is more or less my point - the black female was dominant. Since The Jeffersons was a spin-off of All in the Family, it would be interesting to find an example where Archie (or another white male, or white female) got away consistently with putting down the black female. Archie tried to put down blacks, but always failed - that was the point of the show, to make fun of (white) racism.
Right - since we are talking about race, notice that in the black dominated show, the hierarchy is as described - black females at the top, black males next, white males at the bottom. (There was no consistent white female character that I remember on The Jeffersons.) The recurring character of the couple next door (IIRC a mixed couple) reflected that theme - the black female was dominant over the white male. But a good counter-example would be a white male character who consistently put George Jefferson down. Since, as you believe, everybody put down George.
Yes. That was because The Jeffersons had black female characters. Therefore they were all dominant over George. Lionel was a quasi-childlike character, and, as the offspring of the dominant female (dramatically speaking) he inherited the dominance over the black male.
Norman Lear has spoken about what he did not like about his most notable sitcom, All in the Family, which is that people identified and sympathized with Archie Bunker, who was meant to be a figure of fun. Lear worried about this, perhaps because he felt it encouraged racism. It seems to me more a phenomenon in sitcom writing, which is that it is often hard to write about a major character if the writer dislikes him. We saw the same thing in MASH*, where the hateful Frank Burns left and Margaret Houlihan softened into a much less one-dimensional character.
Interesting that in that sitcom, the racial hierarchy was not enforced. No doubt this was because there were no recurring black characters, but also no doubt that it was written less broadly than a domestic satire like The Jeffersons or AitF.
Or a TV commercial, for that matter.
Regards,
Shodan
Oops, that’s what I get for talking about a show I don’t watch often and haven’t watched in quite a while.
Sorry!
-FrL-
Actually, I was thinking of decades prior to that, but since we’re granting things for the sake of argument, then okay. What were you going to say?
(And I wasn’t thinking of TV specifically, but pop culture in general.)
-FrL-
Cite that this is the primary reason Ester Rolle left the show (and not that the JJ character’s buffoonery was taking over the show in the absence of her character’s husband).
I don’t expect you to appreciate this article, but according to it, 70% of black familes of the 1960s were headed by two-parent households. And most of them were not living in urban projects, either.
Furthermore, I see no problem with people not wanting to perpetuate unfortunate stereotypes in entertainment. And I doubt you, as a conservative, really do either. Or perhaps you’d like your young children to see thong-wearing, beer-bonging, parental-disrespecting, drug-addicted adolescents on the Disney Channel?
You conservatives are trip, man. You tell black people that they are immoral for perpetuating stereotypes in daily life, but when people decide for themselves not to perpetuate those stereotypes on TV, they get accused of being PC and somehow “unrealistic”. Yeah, I’m going hmmm alright. It’s more like “hmm, hmm, hmm.”
Regards,
monstro
Well get on with it already.
Crime statistic are typically based on arrests and/or convictions. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that blacks are more likely to be convicted of crimes?
Sure, I will try to come up with some examples. Just so we are clear, your position is that the phenomenon I have described does not occur in modern, mainstream television and movies?
Besides Ms. Jefferson, who figured in only a handful of episodes and for no longer than a few minutes at a time, there were no black woman on All In the Family. Does the absence of a regular black female say something about the show being progressive?
Furthermore, when Ms. Jefferson made appearances, she wasn’t dominant over anyone. And Archie did put her down…behind her back. I clearly remember one episode where he either referred to her as a spook or a shine (or a comparable slur). Yes, we weren’t supposed to agree with Archie. But Ms. Jefferson didn’t get the last word, so she didn’t come out as the “winner”.
I wouldn’t expect a white character to put down George anymore than I would expect a black character to put down Archie. Even George Jefferson never went that far. If you remember, the George Jefferson on All In the Family was quiet and dignified. Not the “honky” signifying figure found on his own show. Maybe Jefferson did call Archie a “honky” to his face, but I sure don’t remember it. I’m not thinking anything could funny could come out of sparing between two vocal racists.
It’s not really fair to expect the “minorities” on The Jeffersons and All in the Family to function in the same way. The white characters on the former are much more regular than the black characters on the latter. If the point of All in the Family is to pick fun at Archie, you don’t really need a black character to participate (though Lionel gets in some good subtle jabs…but notice how subtle they are, though). But in the case of the Jeffersons, the white characters, along with the blacks, pile up on George in just about every episode. No, the white characters singularly never up to stand up to George. But they are more privy to his humiliation than the Jefferson’s are to Archie’s.
And that’s known as profiling.
And there’s nothing wrong with profiling in general. There’s something wrong with some kinds of profiling in some kinds of situations.
-FrL-
Assuming what you are saying is correct, you haven’t really undermined or contradicted my position. All you’ve really done is offer a justification or excuse.
Not a justification so much as an explanation of facts. My contention is that to portray a black person as clownish and in need of chiding by his white peers, today, would by itself be a portrayal of the person as being stupid because he is black. That’s the fact I’m contending is true, and my explanation as to why this fact is a fact involves reference to the history of this kind of imagery in the US.
I don’t justify or excuse the fact–as you should know since I said I hope it comes someday soon to be no longer true, and why would I “excuse” or “justify” something I don’t think should be true?–but I argue that it is a fact.
I don’t know if I’m contradicting you or not. As I said before, if you’re just saying you hope someday that it will be possible for black people to be portrayed as clowns among white people, then I agree with you. If you’re saying blacks should be portrayed as clowns amongst whites today, I disagree with you. The basis for my disagreement should be clear from the above.
-FrL-