a reverse racism movie


the movie portrays small town America as a bunch of hicks. I bet Hollywood would never have done this movie in an inner city black neighborhood.

reply

[deleted]

Okay...I am going to give you a 'for-instance'. If a white person says derogatory things to a black person, it is deemed racism. If a black person does the same thing to a white person IT IS STILL RACISM. This, though, is not derogatory to a RACE of people, but rather a CLASS of people. So, it cannot be racist, you boob!

"Oh Gravity, thou art a heartless bitch" Big Bang Theory, Sheldon

reply

Thank you, I get so sick of the term "reverse racism," truly ridiculous.

reply

In her final rant, she said that she and her husband had been all over the world and seen children living in deprived environments and not being allowed to develop their full potential. In the house, there were pictures of them in Third World countries, where they had presumably worked before and had similar experiences. There was no criticism particular to American lower class white people. Also, I doubt that the movie was promoting some sort of "message" that abducting children to put them in better homes is right. It was more like the couple and other members of their underground had allowed their good intentions to turn them into dangerous fanatics.

reply

Racism is saying something disparaging against a particular race or ethnic group. Saying something negative about white people would be racism, not "reverse racism." The target does not have to be non-white for it to be considered racism. Anything where race is the target would be considered racism.

Regardless, the term you are looking for is "stereotyping" and not "racism" or "reverse racism."

But thank you are perpetuating the idea that it is not racist to say bad things about white people. It's great that you don't consider that racism. Fact is, any sort of prejudice against any ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, etc is wrong. Bigotry is wrong. It doesn't matter who the target is.

reply

It was "stereotyping" but what would have made it racist was to have a token sympathetic black character amongst all those evil white rednecks. This frequently happens in movies.

Reverse-racism is when you be extra nice to people, overlook their flaws and lack of qualifications just beause they are black. Like many people do for your president, Obama.

It is interesting to note that if any of these kids were taken from abusive black homes in a black neighbourhood and given to rich white parents, it would have had a very different tone.

reply

I think the idea that rich white parents would adopt African-American kids would require more suspension of disbelief than if the movie had featured an actual supernatural bogeyman.

reply

There were no black people in the damn movie. Maybe that's racist? Or maybe that's how they wanted to tell their story.

reply

Not sure about the black kid thing. The organisation may have been working in Africa.

------
www.abner-dee.com

reply

@darkfalz1979


"Reverse-racism is when you be extra nice to people, overlook their flaws and lack of qualifications just beause they are black. Like many people do for your president, Obama."

Sorry, but that is one hell of a stupid,ignorant, and racist thing to say---as if the same thing dosen't happen to white people--who,let's be real, get away with doing that for each other all the damn time because they're the majority, but you don't hear them get called out on that too much. I remember one time a black woman told me about she had to train a white women on her job who was completely unqualified for the position she had, and only got that job because she was either the boss's daughter or cousin. So don't act if only SOME black people get away with this--plus you just insulted the average black person who works hard, goes to school and pays their taxes just like most good citizens do. I hate how stupid racists like you ALWAYS make these stupid generalizations about black people---once AGAIN, there are 38 million of us in this country--if you're dumb enough to assume that THAT many people are all the damn same, if just shows how immature,sheltered and not too bright you are (probably someone who's never gotten to know a black person in their whole damn life,anyway.) And may I remind you that former prez Bush wasn't even thought to be qualified to be President either---he only got the job because the Supreme Court basically gave it to him--funny how you forgot that.) And how are you qualified to judge who is qualified to be President and who is not? Obama has come off as a hell of a lot more competent than that ignorant, spoiled-as-hell idiot Bush,who had the lowest ratings of ANY President ever while in office--how soon we forget,and got us into two costly wars we're still fighting.

And I'll tell you why the term "reverse racism" is some total and complete bull****. For nearly the first 400 years legally sanctioned racism was practiced against black people (and anybody else that was non-white) BY white people all the damn time,meaning they could do whatever the hell they wanted to us any damn time they felt like it,and they made damn sure they could EVERY damn chance they got. That is not ANYWHERE near the equivalent to a black person cursing out a white person and calling them "honky" or whatever,especially since white people have "white privilege" which protects them from ever getting profiled,stopped.searched and frisked by the police--and even from getting shot because you were automatically thought to be a threat,despite the lack of a weapon--this happens to black folks all the time. Here's why so-called "reverse racism" is a bunch of nonsense,and an insult to anyone who really knows American history. I also hate how want to bring up race in a subject that has NOTHING to do with it,and whine about it. And movie are made about poor white folks ALL the time, so what the hell was your point, which was ridiculous to begin with anyway?

http://isreverseracismreal.tumblr.com/

This is where I got this from--now shut up and read it:


Racism 101: Prejudice vs. Power


Any time a white person uses their own personal experience of prejudice (or a fabricated one) to demonstrate how whites suffer from racism, there is an underlying tendency to believe individual experience reflects broader social and structural realities. This is not the case. Just as one white person who was harassed by a person of color does not prove “reverse” racism, one Black president does not prove the end of racism. For the few white folks with hurt pride, there are thousands more with staggering social comfort who make hurt pride an exception to the status quo; for the few POC with class/political privilege, there are thousands more with staggering social oppression who make this privilege an exception to the status quo. How much white privilege does it require to think one painful confrontation is equally damaging as living with the daily reality of racism? And how much white privilege does it require to think one isolated incident, or even several isolated incidents, are equivalent to the constant violence of racism?

Part of the problem in this case is the assumption that individuals are representative of entire groups, whether they are white or of color. Malcolm X attacked as an “extremist” and depicted/blamed as the symbol of Black “violence” ignores and erases the diverse complexities of identity and thought within Black communities. Making a case for reverse racism based on that one white girl down the street who got called a “cracker b*tch” or a “gringa” that one time ignores and erases the systemic and social power of having white skin. The fact that our whiteness protects us from racial violence and hatred 99% of the time facilitates our unjustified outrage when POC don’t value us for being white. We are so used to being valued for being white that we are quick to cry ‘injustice’ when anyone challenges the longstanding positive construction of whiteness. But don’t get it twisted: prejudice does not equal power. When white folks have legacies of social, structural, and racial power in our favor, prejudice against us is completely inconsequential and certainly not identical. Interpersonal conflict does not threaten the power of whiteness or render the suffering of racism equal along lines of race.

Until the majority of white folks have been retroactively written out of the US constitution, enslaved on the basis of being less than human, imported to work in agribusiness and industry then deported as disposable labor, and have been overwhelmingly colonized, displaced, raped, and tortured, then maybe we can talk about racism against whites. Once the majority of white folks are segregated to neighborhoods next to industrial plants and sewage refineries, have their social and political opportunities limited because of their racial identity, are discriminated against in employment and education, and have to live with constant dehumanization based on their race, then maybe we can talk about racism against whites. Stereotyping and lumping all POC under one identity by misinterpreting individual actions is racist; white folks losing their privilege because individual white people have hurt feelings is impossible.

Now that's what I'm talking about!



reply

meaning they could do whatever the hell they wanted to us any damn time they felt like it


Well if you don't keep them in line they get all mouthy like this one.

---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.

reply

I remember one time a black woman told me about she had to train a white women on her job who was completely unqualified for the position she had, and only got that job because she was either the boss's daughter or cousin.
What? Nowai! No one ever has gotten a job because they're related to the person who signs their cheques. No one has ever gotten a job because they happened to know the owner/producer etc... You're looking for racism that isn't there, simply because the person was White (which in itself is racist, given that "Whites" come from dozens of extremely different cultures around the world).

get away with doing that for each other all the damn time because they're the majority,
And what happens in 10-20 years when 'Whites' in the USA, France and mainland UK are the minority? Will it suddenly be accepted then? Will they have access to things such as "equal rights"? Of course not, stop pretending the world will magically change for the better once 'White people' are the minority...

I hate how stupid racists like you ALWAYS make these stupid generalizations about black people
But it's totally Ok for you to make generalisations about White people right? I mean, clearly we're all racist and all hate the blacks... Get over yourself.

Obama has come off as a hell of a lot more competent than
I don't even live near the USA and I know that's false. No one liked bush, but as far as the USA itself has fared over the last 7-8 years.... not so good.

And I'll tell you why the term "reverse racism" is some total and complete bull****
No you won't, you'll go on a rant about slavery and other things that are long in the past. You won't actually explain why that term isn't accurate. It is however an actual term, though it applies to more than just racism.
Perhaps a better term would be "over-compensation to cater to minorities so we don't offend them". Simply put, because of this notion that we all have to be tolerant of everyone and can't have personal views (heavens, what will society think?) we become overly nice, overly tolerant and overly flexible to the point where it is itself a form of racism. We should be treating everyone exactly the same, and yet that's not the case at all.

That is not ANYWHERE near the equivalent to a black person cursing out a white person and calling them "honky" or whatever
I don't think anyone is comparing this to slavery except you. Regardless, I don't think it's fair to hold something against someone who had nothing to do with it. They can't change what their ancestors did 3-400 years ago. We get it, what happened was pretty terrible (although there's more than enough evidence to show that Africans were selling Africans to other Africans for centuries before the "Whites" turned up). It's also a long way in the past, maybe it's time to move on.... You weren't there, they weren't there and hey what do you know, you're both American. Problem solved.

especially since white people have "white privilege" which protects them from ever getting profiled
It unfortunately doesn't protect them from every single ethnic group/minority though who feels it their duty to point out white privilege at every opportunity. It also doesn't protect white people when they're attacked (verbally or physically) for every little remark they make.

I also hate how want to bring up race in a subject that has NOTHING to do with it,and whine about it. And movie are made about poor white folks ALL the time, so what the hell was your point, which was ridiculous to begin with anyway?
Obviously it was an ironic post, used to poke fun at the numerous other serious posts that flood the IMDB boards with every movie. No black people? Must be racist. Black guy dies first? Must be racist. Black guy is a criminal? Must be racist. Don't like a Spike Lee movie? Must be a racist. It's become even worse now that the PC Justice Warrior crowd has gotten access to the internet.


http://isreverseracismreal.tumblr.com/
This is where I got this from--now shut up and read it:
Tumblr is usually where I get all my important information, all the respectable writers are on there...

For what it's worth, I did read it, and basically all it says is "Waa, Whites can't complain until they've had to go through what we have". Really? So it's an eye for an eye. Sorry but no. Just because Whites haven't had to deal with some pretty atrocious things in the USA isn't a valid excuse for why racism can't exist against any race. I also should point out again that this person has never had to go through any of these things any more than you or I or any other person living in the Western World.

The writer is also wrong and clearly hasn't had any formal education in History. He claims 'Whites' have never had to deal with Slavery, Rape, Torture, Displacement, Conquest, Segregation, limited political opportunity (including the vote), employment restrictions or even "constant dehumanisation". Sorry to say, but over the centuries I can assure you that White people have most definitely been subjected to these things. Perhaps not on the same time scale, but it still definitely happened.

Whites are STILL sold into slavery in many countries. Rape and Torture was pretty standard fare during conquests too. Vikings are about as "White" as they come. The poor, peasants and later the working class have most definitely been segregated to the bad parts of town/countries and most certainly would have been extremely restricted in both their education and their job opportunities. Up until even fairly recently, only male land-owners with a title (Lord, Baron etc) were allowed to vote in many "civilised" countries. Women most certainly weren't allowed to vote until fairly recently too, let alone get a non-administration job or go to university. I don't think it's fair to say that Blacks are the only race on this planet that have had it a bit rough.

Personally though, I think there's a very simple solution. If you're not happy with the way things currently are, you're more than welcome to go find somewhere else to live. I hear that Africa is currently doing really well...

If you aren't replying to my post, don't click reply.

reply

Not so many people would want to adopt a black child. (That statement is supported by research, by the way). The kidnappers were well aware of which children are in demand.

reply

Maybe the writers didn't care about the numbers? They placed it were they wanted for whatever reason. If they were concerned about race or being PC they would have put color in the movie. Please. There are all black stories on BET cuz thats what they produce. Nothing about numbers, it's what they want. That is cool.

The main idea posted is a bit of a stretch. Little over analyzed. Seriously.

reply

«Not so many people would want to adopt a black child»

Maybe henrimaine wanted to say "Not so many WHITE people would want to adopt a black child". Guess that concept is not applied to African, Latin American or even European people.

Ever wonder why the rest of the world labels the USA as provincial?

reply

Ever wonder why the rest of the world labels the USA as provincial?

No.

reply

How do you know "not so many people" wouldn't want to adopt a black child? Put a link to this research you speak of. Black children are children just like every other child on the planet. What the hell is wrong with adopting black children anyway? Not a damn thing, and a pretty racist assumption on your part. Funny how a lot of white folks don't have any problems going the hell out of their way to adopt Chinese and Eastern European kids from overseas, but act like it's too much trouble to adopt an American child from their own back yard,simply because they're black (I said SOME white adoptive parents,not all of them.)

reply

What the hell is wrong with adopting black children anyway?
Well because, according to you and fellows like you, there is blatant discrimination against all blacks in your country. You yourself admit that blacks have a harder time finding employment, education etc and are often limited in other areas due to their race. Now, any responsible parent would want the best for their child regardless of whether it is adopted or related to them. By your own admission, adopting a black child over a white one would mean that your child is already at a disadvantage.

There are also probably other factors. For example, it is understandable that two white parents would want to adopt a white child. It's easier on the child, it's easier on them and they don't have the stigma attached nor need to explain to everyone that yes, they adopted a child.

It probably wouldn't surprise you to know that most adoptions are done by people that meet pretty strict requirements. Typically (though it may differ in your country) both parents need to work, they need to be financially secure, need to be able to provide and need to live in an area that is going to be good for the child. Now while that's not always the case, it does narrow down those who can adopt. Unfortunately, in the USA the overwhelming majority of people who fit into those narrow requirements are going to be White. Not always, and certainly not all whites, but in general. Without having to look for exact numbers, I can tell you now that White people are more likely/capable of adopting in the USA than other races, which in turn will likely mean a larger percentage of adopted children are white.





If you aren't replying to my post, don't click reply.

reply

How do you know "not so many people" wouldn't want to adopt a black child?


it was a poor choice of words, however the logic sound because it is a measurable statistic. According to the US department of health and human services, in 2007 50% of private, domestic adoptions were with white/non-hipanic children. 63% of adoptions in US are by white parents. Even though they are adopting, some parents have a strong preference for children that look like them.

You will reach a larger demand if you have white children. If you use a black child your demand decreases. This is even with some adoption agencies actually "charging less" for non-white children. My husband are in the process of adopting. The fee to adopt a black child can be as low as 1/3 the cost of a white child. Agents have actually said that black or bi-racial children would cost us less and would be quicker for us to get. The wait list is shorter.

Just to be clear, I am white and my husband black. We don't care if the baby is purple. Adoption is still expensive unless you get lucky.

reply

"reverse racism" isn't even a thing. seriously, there is no system of beliefs that institutionally affects white people, white opportunity, dignity, or prospects. i don't even understand what the problem is here.

reply

@cgraves04

THANK you! Check my post at the end of this thread--finally someone understands that!

reply

the movie portrays small town America
No, it doesn't. It portrays one fictional small town.



http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

If they did (set this movie in an inner city black neighborhood), holy hell would be raised about this movie being racist.

Poking fun of white folk, not nearly so incendiary.
---
Into every life a little coffee must spill.

reply

I think these chaps missed the joke...



If you aren't replying to my post, don't click reply.

reply