Lies & Slander

We have a similar situation in UK drama, where it seems all and only white people are ever portrayed in an unsympathetic light.

However, I think that this is partly due to the fact that most viewers are white, and viewers will only get involved with the characters and the story if the characters are the same ethnicity as they are. Black or Muslim criminals are not common on the TV despite being more common in real life for the same reason that nearly all the characters on “Eastenders” are white desipte the fact that the East End of London is heavily Bangla Deshi these days, - because ethnic characters do not attract a white audience.

Also bear in mind that the scriptwriters are white and, like all liberal/lefties, live in a very white world, and one of the rules of creative writing is “write about what you know”.

In all fairness to the producers and writers at Law & Order, I don’t think they have an anti-white agenda. I do think they’re trying to avoid problems with Al Sharpton and others who might decide to picket outside their offices and studios. Plus, casting a black actor as a criminal is probably a little touchy and uncomfortable. Would you want to be the director that has to deal with that if you could avoid it?

Nycjew says, “In all fairness to the producers and writers at Law & Order,….” No, that’s not fairness at all. That is making excuses for rampant cowardice at the very best. Actually, I think they do have an anti-white agenda, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt for just a moment.

Suppose they are really just afraid of Jesse and Al. What does that say about these caped crusaders for truth and justice? It would reveal them and their show as total frauds, would it not? I think it would, rather clearly. I think if we ask them if they fear Jesse and Al they would say that they do not, so we are right back where we started from: they are anti-white. They are Leftist liberals who are out to destroy American society from within. Nothing new there, just more of the same by whatever tool is at hand, in this case, another TV show.

I don’t think they ever claimed to be crusaders for truth and justice. they are t.v. producers. their goal is to entertain and make money doing it. they tow the politically correct line like (almost) everyone else in America.

I think Law & Order does have pretensions to serious social commentary. We’re supposed to think that by exposing these wealthy white men as criminals, they’re speaking truth to power and bringing the high and mighty to justice, and that sort of thing. So there is hypocrisy there as Dr. D says.

It’s the distortion of reality within which is hidden a special pleading for blacks and other minorities which I find so objectionable about TV drama that has pretensions to serious social commentary.

The absence of black criminal characters and the presence of white criminal stereotypes in television drama, is reversed in a show where a positive image of blacks is required. So we get a totally disproportionate number of black characters who are supposed to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc., in order to give a falsified but flattering picture of their influence in “real life”.

“…we get a totally disproportionate number of black characters who are supposed to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc., in order to give a falsified but flattering picture of their influence in “real life”

Not only doesn’t the disproportional representation square with reality; when whites and blacks are cast together in a drama, the producers invariably portray the blacks as stronger, wiser, smarter and more morally upstanding than their weak, stumbling, bumbling, white counterparts. Given all that, blacks still complain they are being stereotyped as buffoons, brainless, and criminals by the mass media. Go figure?

Law and Order is one of the most anti-white shows in the history of TV. It is so sickeningly anti-white as to be ridiculous. It is not just that every villain is white. The “good guys” ,especially the prosecutor “McCoy” usually pontificate on how racist white society is. The chief of homicide detectives is ,of course, a black female. How many really effective homicide detectives are black female, in real life? While we are discussing the demonization of white males on TV, it seems like every commmercial that has a white male in it, invariably portray the white males as incompetent idiots. This is brainwashing viewers ,especially children. I counter this disinformation by pointing out white males are responsible for 99% of everything valuable in today’s society. For example one commercial portrays a white male as a total idiot. While playing a football video game, he was advised by a black male to throw a pass. The white male throws the controller and destroys a $10,000 HD TV. I pointed out, without “stupid” white males, there would be no TV as all the inventors were white males.

How and when did this trend to “diss” Whites start in the media? Would anyone point out the miletones and an evaluation of their influence?

Whites are bad. My observations are limited, mostly to movies. Earliest I can recall something distinctly slanderous is in the early 90s called White Men Can’t Jump. The slander was mostly in the title and inoffensive by today’s standards. Of course there’s Michael Moore’s Stupid White Men which is very poignant.

Blacks are good. At about the same time again in the 90s when I noticed it (perhaps someone care to enlighten me otherwise), Blacks started to be lionized. Too many to list but one such movie is Hitch where black character teaches socially inept white men the fine art of seducing a woman.

Poster Reality Check brings up an interesting question, and reminds me of some memorable media moments that I’ve witnessed. The short answer is the “whites bad/’persons of color’ (POC) good” orthodoxy is definitely older than 1990.

I’m sure many here remember TV sitcom “Sanford and Son”, featuring the already-veteran black comedian Red Foxx (sp?) I distinctly remember his line in a scene with (probably) the son character Lamont, about, in fact, racial differences. He said, and I quote:

“Ain’t nothing uglier than an 80-year old white woman.”

Let that sink in a moment. (As usual, it’s interesting to transpose the races and imagine the Establishment media and “popular” reaction.)

I think this show began in the ‘70’s. What’s interesting, and actually admirable, is its clear position of Establishment-defined wickedness in that it’s clearly VRS—”vigorously reinforcing stereotypes”. Consider the characters: Foxx’s (forgot the name), always scheming a la Homer Simpson; his overbearing mother-in-law (there’s a cliche!), the slow-talking, slow-moving, and (presumably) slow-thinking friend Grady, all arrayed against the sympathetic foil Lamont, who is much more grounded. I happen to be old enough to remember “Amos ‘n’ Andy” as well, and the similarities were not lost on me. (Explanatory note: about a year ago, I had a moment of clarity when I realized that all stereotypes are true, in a larger, informal (but I am sure statistically valid) sense.)

Another significant recollection, though less clear, is a vinyl LP which I saw in or around 1970. It was a comedy album (stand-up, I assume). On the cover was a really dweeby-looking scrawny white guy in a rumpled overcoat and goofy hat, not smiling, being confronted by several scowling, working-class-looking blacks. The album’s title was “You’re a Long Way from Home, Whitey” I can only assume that this was material based on the concept of some poor dumb cracker who somehow finds himself in the ghetto. I don’t find it as amusing as I once did. Again, this is thirty-eight years ago.

Finally, to fast forward back to the 90’s, I recently channel-surfed across the movie “The Hand that Rocks the Cradle”, and was reminded how established today’s Orthodoxy was even then. On the surface, the story has compelling themes, in particular the fierce territoriality of women, and how men can be oblivious to it, even as it affects their lives.

But the creative team apparently had to add some more “timely” issues. Obviously the story would not resonate with the target audience if the women adversary characters were too different from the audience, and therefor from each other. But it’s hard not to notice the heroine played by Annabella Sciorra (sp?) is a brown-eyed, Mediterranean-looking brunette, as opposed to villain usurper Rebecca de Mornay’s blond, Nordic look. Even for Hollywood, that’s not what I’d call subtle.

But what made me resolve never to spend another second on this turkey is the entirely gratuitous “magical Negro” landscaper (?) who suffers at the hands of the evil Nordic woman (maybe dies? I don’t know or care), but who rescues the heroine, figuratively or literally. This was the essence of “preachy”. As well as “crap”.

As I was dimly aware even back then what this all portended, I’m proud to say I’ve never wasted the time to watch an entire episode of “Law and Order”/”CSI”/you-name-it spinoff. Everything reported here by Athena Kerry and others was something I intuitively knew—just by seeing what I had seen already.

I think the granddaddy of all leukophobic TV shows was All in the Family, to which I devoted an article here.

The black-good, white-bad scheme is as common in movies as it is in TV drama. But there is another theme in movies - whites establish their essential goodness by behaving generously toward blacks or other minorities, or by repudiating explicitly racist whites. In movies, unlike eternal TV crime series, the characters are initially unknown to the audience, so their bona fides as the good guys need to be established; and in the liberal mind nothing shows you virtue more than concern for the interests of minorities.

An example of the first case - in the movie “The Sting”, Redford and Newman scam Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw) in revenge for the murder of Luther Coleman (Robert Earl Jones) - a black. In the movie “The Fugitive”, Dr Kimble (Harrison Ford), a vascular surgeon posing as a hospital orderly, secretly corrects the diagnosis of a black kid in the ER, thereby saving his life. In “Men in Black”, Agents K & D (Tommy Lee Jones, Richard Hamilton) are looking for a disguised alien hiding among a group of Mexican illegals. “Welcome to the United States” says K to the Mexicans “Looking for work? Pleasure seeing you here” (check it out on youtube “Men in Black (Part 1)” at 4:20).

An utterly gratuitous example of the second theme occurs in Steve Martin’s “The Jerk”, where Navin Johnson (Martin) flies into a rage, throwing karate punches in all direction, after someone refers to blacks as “jungle bunnies”. The incident has nothing whatever to do with the rest of the story, before or after. In the movie “The Blues Brothers”, the brothers drive their car into a neo-Nazi demonstration, sending the demonstrators fleeing in all direction - another entirely gratuitous sequence.

The Movie: “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” (1967), main purpose was to promote WF/BM sexual relations; it also had a great deal to do with reinforcing the well established trend of debasing whites while at the same time praising blacks.

“Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” The 1967 groundbreaking story dealt with the controversial subject of interracial marriage which had been illegal historically in most of the United States, and was still illegal in 17 Southern U.S. States up until June 12 of that year. Although legalized throughout the U.S. following the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, the topic was still taboo in many areas.

According to director Stanley Kramer, he and Rose intentionally debunked ethnic stereotypes; the young [black] doctor, a typical role for the young Sidney Poitier, was purposely created idealistically perfect so that the only possible objection to his marrying Joanna [who is white] would be his race, or the fact she only met him nine days earlier. Therefore, he has graduated from a top school, begun innovative medical initiatives in Africa, refused to have premarital sex with his fiancée despite her request, and leaves money on his future father-in-law’s desk in payment for a long distance phone call he has made.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GuessWho’sComingtoDinner

“Therefore, he has graduated from a top school, begun innovative medical initiatives in Africa, refused to have premarital sex with his fiancée despite her request, and leaves money on his future father-in-law’s desk in payment for a long distance phone call he has made.”

Just like so many blacks one encounters routinely. Having seen this stupid, hamfisted movie only in the last decade or so, I wonder if the transparency of its propaganda was as evident to moviegoers in the 1960s or if they were likelier than modern audiences to take it as some sort of documentary.

One reason why some old movies dating from the late thirties and forties haven’t been transferred to DVD, is because of the servile roles allocated to the blacks in them (shoeshine boys, lady’s maids, field hands, and so on). Modern audiences are not permitted to see even the Hollywood make-believe world showing “the way we were” - if it should offend against the PC opinions of our age.

This is a kind of retrospective censorship. At the time these movies were made, the public hadn’t been brainwashed by liberal guilt.

Alex writes: “..old movies dating from the late thirties and forties haven’t been transferred to DVD .. because of the servile roles allocated to the blacks in them (shoeshine boys, lady’s maids, field hands, and so on)… At the time these movies were made, the public hadn’t been brainwashed by liberal guilt.”

Here is an example, a song and dance routine from the Eddie Cantor movie “Roman Scandals” (1933). Plenty of “racism” and “sexism” to offend the PC-saturated mind. Note the tortured disclaimer/self-justification from the person who loaded it to youtube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=285-qOZjt2g

“Roman Scandals” is available from Amazon, but only on VHS, so Alex may be right. By keeping it off DVD it will eventually be consigned to oblivion, presumably.