>To be sure, the situation has *never* been good for us in
>the media, but anybody who is old enough to remember knows
>full well that the situation has become much worse in the
>last 10-14 years or so. I think that this is the biggest
>part of the 'generation gap' part of this issue--the gap
>occurs because people who are younger than a certain age
>don't really have any direct knowledge of a time when blacks
>were *not* portrayed in the negative way that they are
>today, so they can't understand why somebody like Cosby
>takes such exception to what is going on.
>The fact is that 30 or 40 years ago, while there were
>negative portrayals of blacks that could be seen in the
>media, blacks were more *invisible* than anything else. For
>example, You didn't really have sitcoms or serialized TV
>shows specifically about blacks, with large all-black casts
>and stereotypically 'black' content, until the 1970s.

>>>While these facts are true, the impact is subject to debate. From what I know, the protrayal of blacks in the media has always corresponded with certain social and political agendas.
The early minstrel shows featured white characters playing on the childlike follies of the sambo, and suggested a certain need for caretaking on the part of white america (a certain slavery nostalgia). Later, as blacks began to compete with whites for economic position after the migration north, you saw a more savage portrayal of blacks, particularly in film (Birth of a Nation, anyone?) Over time blacks have been seen in more human light, but still rarely represent the wholistic and rounded dramatic figures that we have today, as illustrated by the oscar drought (and I won't get into the irony of the eventual wins). Also, let's remember that this historical negative and one-demensional portrayal of blacks came at a time when there was far less interaction between blacks and whites. If you went to a mistrel show, that might be the only thing you know about black america. I wouldn't underestimate the impact of those portrayals, even when today there seems to be more pervasive negative images. Also, while today there are certainly a lot of negative images in the media of blacks, there are definitely WAY MORE positive ones. Thus, while white america gets a dose of 50 cent, it also gets a dose of Smart Guy.

W9: I'm not suggesting that the earlier portrayals were not political or harmful in nature. What I said is that there is a specific kind of *escalation* at work here that goes beyond what we have seen in the past.

I mean, the main 'black' character in 'Birth of a Nation' was played by a white person in blackface, but today there is no need for this--there are plenty of blacks who can be called upon to play the role of the murdering, thuggish individual. This is my point--the current dynamic is designed to create the *illusion* of black progress (which confuses whites and blacks), but at the same time, it *continues* to defame us, and invalidates our claims to the moral high ground as well.

The particulars of the current situation are directly related to the impact of the civil rights movement, in that there is not just a need to defame blacks in a blatantly white-dominated context (i.e. whites in blackface), but to bring blacks *to center stage* in their own defamation, in order to legitimize the view that blacks can no longer be viewed as the victims of an exclusionary racial system, as they were in the 60s and before. As I said, there are clear antecedents, but the specific focus on black individuals as marauders and sociopatic criminals, *with blacks playing the roles themselves*, is new, and has political as well as business underpinnings.

'Smart Guy' is great and all, but this does not mean that our portrayal in the media is balanced, by any stretch of the imagination. The ignorant aspect definitely continues to predominate, in one way or another, from what I can see.

>>In all, I wouldn't characterize the media protrayals today as more problematic than they have been historically. They're just problematic in a different way. And I don't think that the prominence of thug images is the reason whites have "turned their back on us." In Fact, I tend to think that it's more because of the visibile economic success that the black middle class has had. It gives them someone to point to and say, "Look, it's possible! Stop whinning."

W9: But this goes toward my initial point. The portrayal of the of the emergent black middle class in the media (in this case the news media) as being a 'different breed' is politically motivated, both for the purposes of turning whites against the black underclass, and turning the middle class blacks themselves against poor blacks.

The real story of the black middle class is not told--for example that Affirmative Action played a key role, or that most blacks are not more than a generation removed from poverty. Why? Because the media has portrayed this dynamic as coming solely from the Horatio Alger-like determination of the truly hardworking blacks who had 'the right stuff', when the real story is much more complex. The story is simplified because there are political reasons for people not to want to deal with the fact that government programs (many of which no longer exist today) played a key role in the rise of the black middle class, and that the elimination of these programs has a lot to do with the underclass' lack of upward mobility today.

>>Sure the modern portrayals are in many ways, *worse*. But the motivations of these thespians are in many ways the same as there minstrel forefathers: to get paid. It's the hollywood shuffle syndrome, brah. They get offered a spot in the movie to play a thug, or are offered a record deal with the understanding that they wll adhere to a certain image and sound, and they take it, regardless of their desires or wealth of talent. I don't think its fair to say that blacks "had to" take those roles way back when, because if your poor or even middle class today, and you know you can instantly raise your economic standing by rapping, acting, writing in these ways, you face the same fundamental dilemma that Bert Williams and others faced.


W9: Again, my point is not that there are no historical precedents, but that there is an effort to create an *illusion* of black progress by pointing to superficial black involvement in the entertainment industry. I can understand the position of the people who were involved with Amos 'n Andy--segregation and de facto apartheid were still dominant in this country at that time.

But nowadays, there are plenty of blacks (as you have pointed out) that are upwardly mobile and educated, unlike 40 or 50 years ago. De jure segregation, and the limitations it placed on the career choices of blacks in the entertainment industry, are a thing of the past. But yet our image in the media is not just buffoonish (a la Amos n' Andy, et al.), it is outright *violent* to an extent that it was not before (again I'm talking about black people playing these roles, not whites in blackface).

My point is this: that the shift from blacks playing the role of bufoon to that of a violent, self-destructive agressor is significant, and it reflects political agendas as much as financial ones. In the end, it is still possible to see a buffoon as a victim (educationally disadvantaged, etc.), but it is much more difficult to see a murderous thug who celebrates the violent aspects of their lifestyle as a victim. This shift has a significance that is ultimately political in nature, in a way that is qualitatively different from the preceeding dynamic.

As to the 'Hollywood Shuffle' syndrome, that doesn't really have to do with my point. While I did mention the limited options of earlier black actors, I also said that the industry is not controlled by blacks, so clearly blacks have never been the ones to dictate what kinds of roles they are going to play. I'm not really confused about why *individual* blacks in the entertainment industry continue to do this--my concern is that there is no real *recognition* on the part of the black community at large that we are being manipulated for *political* reasons, *not* just economic reasons, and that a political analysis and response to this defamation is needed.

The reason why I don't blame the black actors of the pre-civil rights era is that we as a people didn't have the economic, educational, or political standing, either in the entertainment industry or the society at large, to mount a serious challenge to the discrimination that existed at that time. But that excuse cannot be made today, with all of the money that black people put into the entertainment industry on a yearly basis, with much of it going to the most ignorant stuff imaginable.

We have too many educated and upwardly mobile people in our community to allow the same kinds of discrimination to be leveled against us as existed 50 or 60 years ago. Yet, other than the voice of Cosby and precious few other prominent blacks, there is virtually no analysis of the continued exploitation of our people in the media--and no linkage made between this dynamic and the fact that whites are not particularly sympathetic to our struggle anymore.

The popular portrayal of the rise of the black middle class that is used by whites to distance themselves from the struggles of the black underclass is just as much a creation of media spin as that of the black gangster--and it is just as false, in many ways. In fact, the portrayals of the news media are intertwined and integrated with those of the entertainment industry. Whether you are talking about the head or the tail, you're still talking about the same snake.


>>>While these facts are true, the impact is subject to debate. From what I know, the protrayal of blacks in the media has always corresponded with certain social and political agendas.

W9: Well, this is where we disagree. While politics (racial and otherwise) have always had an impact on the media, 50 years ago, there were *not* 1 Million blacks in prison. Out-of wedlock-childbirths and the number of children growing up in single-parent homes were not anywhere near the rates that exist today in the black community. Black youth, while largely poor and uneducated, were not being socialized to be criminals, deadbeat dads, and thugs by the *mass media*.

My point here is that the current negative portrayal of blacks in the media *with full black participation* has played a key role in confusing all Americans about the sources of these very severe problems. When faced with the popular image of blacks as brutal thugs and gangsters, many non-blacks just go back to the old idea that there is something wrong with us as a people, and that there is nothing that society should do to remedy the situation. This serves to cut black people off from any potential alliances with the broader non-black community to solve these issues. It turns formerly sympathetic whites and others against blacks, and it also turns blacks against each other (upper classes against lower).

This serves to *negate* many of the gains and alliances that came out of the civil rights movement, and it is a much more subtle dynamic than the defamation from before the Civil Rights era.

Blacks in earlier times, while opressed, were simply *not* so confused as to literally *celebrate* and *embrace* the patterns of violence and self-destructiveness that were contributing to the assasination of their image in the mass media, and in turn to their demise as a people. The fact that many blacks do this today, despite the fact that it just intensifies the negative trends I have referred to above, is an indicator of the widespread confusion amongst many of our people.

Back in the days, many, if not most, regular black people *knew* that Amos 'n Andy was screwed up--and they also knew that those brothers didn't have any real choice but to do that, unless they wanted to spend the rest of their lives relegated to the black vaudeville circuit. But many of our people today are much more *confused* about the prevailing reality, because they see the ignorant black entertainment of today as an indication of black power and agency in the entertainment industry, when it is in fact an indication *of the exact opposite*.

In some senses, the 'entertainment industry' has literally become a 'black defamation industry'--and many black people do not understand this.

Additionally, black people continue to see the 'ignorant' route as being the only one that is available to us--*but this is no longer the case*. Unlike 50 years ago, we can now successfully fight our enemies in the media industry through economic and political means--but we have to *wake up* to what is being done to us through the media in order to do this.

The main difference in the black-related media of the past and that of the present is that in the past, shows like Amos 'n Andy were primarily intended for *white* people--they confirmed white stereotypes about blacks that enabled whites to feel comfortable about the status quo. But today, a significant portion of the 'ignorant' black entertainment serves the *dual* purpose of not only reasurring whites, but *deceiving* blacks themselves. This is designed to get blacks to commit social suicide, seemingly of their own volition, without any overt white involvement. It's an escalation of the previous tactics, and a lot of our people are clueless about it.

The minstrel shows, Amos 'n Andy, etc, were not really geared toward confusing blacks per se--although there were obviously some blacks who *were* confused by these portrayals. The 'ignorant' entertainment today is much more insidious precisely *because* of the fact that blacks have more of a superficial figurehead status in the industry than they did in earlier times.

If there are black executives, writers, actors, film directors, TV stars, etc., who produce this garbage today, this ultimately serves to *confuse* blacks who are seeking to identify the true source of the problem. It gives the appearance that we are *doing this to ourselves*, when this is not really the case. Every black person with any brains knew that while Amos 'n Andy were black, that the ultimate control of the content of that program resided with the *white* people who produced the
show for the benefit of the white-owned network. The lines were much more clearly drawn in those days--people who were paying attention could see the defamation for what it was much more easily.

Nowadays, black people fully identify with and 'own' this mess coming from the entertainment industry--and they even consider it to be a badge of 'authentic blackness'. The difference is not in the fundamental *tactics* that are employed--the difference can be seen in the profound *confusion* that has been engendered in the community itself with regard to the *source* of these stereotypical projections.

Man, when 'Birth of a Nation' came out, believe me, black people were *not* confused about what was going on with that situation--they were being defamed by white people. Now, black people see a *black* individual who is perpetrating these same stereotypes (but who is also employed by the same white-dominated elites), and they say, 'This is who we really are--we're niggers!'.

This confusion is why the earlier blacks were more organized and militant than the people today, despite the fact that they had far fewer resources as a group, in terms of wealth and education. They were under terrible opression, but they *knew* who their enemies were--we cannot say the same for many of our people today. The lines have been *blurred* in the current era, and this is a big reason for the apathy and confusion that prevails amongst some of us today.

This 'blurring' dynamic constitutes a major escalation and intensification of white supremacy--it cannot be reduced to a mere continuation of past patterns of defamation. There is going to have to be some serious analysis of this phenomenon that comes out of the black community soon--or we are on the way out as a group of people.