media tuning of race relations

The following is a question posed to Michael Vass by Logan Calder at Black and White Blog where I am co-author.

Michael,
I would like to get your opinion on what I noticed recently in television. In almost every add that has a mixed race couple, it is always a Black male and a White female. Almost never is there any other type of mixed race shown. This seems disproportionate to me, as I see mixed races of all variety (including my own) and am wondering if you think there may be some political significance to this?

**Rather than responding as a comment, I wanted to add my thoughts to the post of Logan. In this way readers can have a full thought to respond to, in addtion to allowing search engines more access to this post. I hope that Logan does not mind.**

Logan,

Well that is a good question. But I think you are somewhat mistaken in your premise.

There are many, and I believe more, mixed race couples in advertisements that are Hispanic and White than any other group. The reasons for this are

1) Hispanics - light skinned - are often mistaken for Whites. (ie, Andy Garcia among many others)

2) Hispanics are the fastest growing 'minority' group in America

3) Hispanics comprise one of the bigger buying groups, and tend to purchase more big ticket items (which is reflected in the ads they appear in)

But as for the Black/White mix... well that is harder to define.

In part there are the old stereotypes that are continuously promoted in movies and television shows of the mandingo. Add to that the old view of implied status of a Black man with a White woman. I disagree with both thoughts, though I know many who still ascribe to these thoughts.

Another part is the theory held only in Hollywood (I hope) that audiences can only react positively to something if people of the same racial background are represented.

This has been one of the main reasons that television shows (and movies) are 90%+ dominated by White actors in virtually every aspect. That means the background actors, the supports, and the headliners. In fact, in 2007 - 2008 I randomly selected channels several times over several days and investigated various program line-ups. I found that roughly 2% of all television programming, including cable television, involved non-White actors of any nature, COMBINED (movies were slightly higher though not even 10%).

Thus a commercial, according to this theory, must contain Whites to be effective. It is also the reason that most commercials (with the exception of many racially targeted commercials by McDonald's - but not all) that target specific groups of people of color still maintain White actors in the surrounding roles.

Thirdly I suspect that the use of mixed race couples is a subtle acceptance that America, in reality, is far more diverse and intermixed than what television has been promoting since 1950's. That reality must be reflected as fully 1/3 of the audience is a person of color and thus by the archaic standards of Hollywood need to be shown.

Lastly there is the Obama Effect. Advertisers are cashing in on the positive imagery of African Americans that must exist since the President is a person of color. This I feel is the ultimate commoditization of Black culture that has been beforehand seen predominantely in the Hip Hop culture and advertisements.

The political significance of all this is unknown.

In one respect the benefit of all this is to create more acceptance of people of color in political groups, particularly in the Democrat and/or Liberal organizations. Name an ad, movie, or television show where the people of color are Conservative or Republican - as best as can be discerned relative to its content. I cannot think of one off the top of my head.

Beyond that, which is speculation I admit, I cannot think of a political end to using mixed races. Which does not mean there is or is not one.

Perhaps other readers may have a better answer than I.

Movie Preview: The Princess and the Frog

Ok, so call me late to the party. I don’t follow kid’s films much, nor do I follow Disney. So I missed a bunch of the controversy that is The Princess and the Frog. Perhaps you missed it as well.

The film will be released in December of this year. Here is a trailer.



If you think I might have problems with this film, you should hear what friends of mine mentioned when they heard about this film. The more we thought about the film the more issues came up.

The story originally went like this:
A prince from a fictional African nation comes to New Orleans to listen to jazz. While here he meets a spoiled brat rich White girl, and her Black maid. Both girls find him attractive. Somehow he comes afoul of a bad Voodoo priest that turns him into a frog. He gets the Black girl to kiss him, turning her into a frog. They both go to a good Voodoo Priestess and get changed back to humans, fall in love somewhere along the way, and live happily ever after.

Thus Disney gets to cash in on the influx of positive Black films, the popularity of President Obama, and make a claim at being racially sensitive.

Except there are problems. First the name of the Black girl has changed from Maddy to Princess Tiana. This is odd since America has no royalty. And why would royalty work as a maid?


Second, this is billed as the first Black Disney princess. Hello, did anyone watch Aladdin? The entire movie is filled with Black people. Princess Jasmine was the first Black princess, it’s just that everyone seemed to skip over the permanent suntan she and every character had. But as a friend mentioned, this will be the first American Black princess, which goes back to what I said above.

Third the film is situated after the Civil War and the 13th Amendment. But it is a period piece around the late 1800’s to early 1900’s. This means that Jim Crow and segregation were in full effect. Meaning that the prince would never have seen or spoken to Tiana, and if he did she likely would have been hung for her boldness. That was how the South was those days.

And of course this says nothing of the fact that a prince would never speak with a commoner in those days. Even now it is highly unlikely, and generally occurs due to other circumstances like Prince Edward fighting in Iraq.

Lastly, a White Southern woman of that time period would never be seen after a Black man, at least in public. Even if he was a prince. Her family would have disowned her, and likely killed or given extreme suggestions to leave to the prince.

What is effectively happening is that the South is being romanticized yet again. Facts are being thrown out the window so Disney can make money. And our youth are losing a piece of the truth and history of the nation yet again.

Add to this the fact that the animators at Disney seem to be very lazy of late. Princess Tiana looks remarkably like several other Disney princesses, just with a tan. She is hardly distinct, or drawn with any relative connection to any racial group.

But the film has a huge list of top names. Oprah Winfrey, Terrance Howard, John Goodman, and Keith David head the leading voices in the movie. Tiana will be voiced by Anika Noni Rose, who seems to be a singer (never heard her sing) and actress (she has been in several plays as well as the movie Dreamgirls). I really can’t recall her in anything, but I’ll blame that on being older.

Expect to see lots of hype about this movie. It goes with the trend right now to show a lot of Black people in things. Like the background of ads, or as additional characters in television shows. It’s the Obama effect. A limited effect where you get to see more people of color without them gaining any real importance or positions of leadership in anything.

Because if Disney really cared about being racially sensitive, or even aware, they could have added Black characters into movies for decades. They even could have promoted Aladdin as such. But instead they played down the thought of leading, or secondary characters, as anything but White. Up until now. [Though I should note that Lilo and Stitch did have a full cast of people of color – and were intended to be seen as people of color.]

Honestly, I don’t find the fact that this is a film focused on a Black character from Disney as a positive. It’s not like they never knew the color black was in their coloring inks. It just emphasizes that with the Civil Rights Movement, and decades of laws and action, it has taken nearly half a century for Disney to acknowledge African Americans. It just reminds me that taking all the people of color in front of and behind the cameras all add up to less than 10% of the people in Hollywood.

Perhaps I’m too sensitive, but that is my nature. At least I’m honest about what bugs me. At least I try to look at America’s past with open eyes to the good and the bad. At least I’m not trying to profit on the back of President Obama, like this is one big marketing experiment.

Disney is doing a film about a Black woman. It’s about time. Now let’s hope it’s good.

Tiger Woods, Golf, and Black History Month

As we enter the first Black History Month in which we will not only be celebrating the past acheivements of great men and women, but the until recently undreamed of African American Presidency, I decided to look at what else might we celebrate.

That took me to looking, eventually, at Tiger Woods. Being the best in the world, in a sport where Blacks (of any nationality) are as close to virtually non-existent as possible, is always noteworthy. But then I noticed an article that made me think deeper.

John Paul Newport was speaking about Tiger Woods at one of the inauguration parties for President Obama. He speculated on the thought that Obama might one day try for a political office. Which indeed would be interesting. And then I read this quote further on in the article

“If you turn on the golf tournament Sunday and Tiger Woods isn't playing, what do you see? About 140 white guys competing and no blacks," said Eddie Payton, the golf coach at historically black Jackson State in Mississippi (and the brother of the late football great Walter Payton). "What kind of message does that send to kids? That they should watch basketball instead, even though they aren't going to grow up to be 6-foot-10? If we don't get some black players on Tour soon, we're going to lose a generation of potential African-American golfers."

Being a golfer, though a 100 a round player so I’m not bragging, I am used to being one of a handful – if not the only – Black golfer on any particular course. That is usually true even on most courses in major cities. So, like watching television, I hadn’t notice that I was brainwashed into accepting the lack of diversity.

Yet that is a horrible thing. Golf is a great sport. It’s relaxing, intense, challenging, and fun. It’s something that even the less physically fit can play. And those on the course are in almost every case, polite friendly and respectful.

It is a game that anyone can learn, even in the city. In the Bronx, a few miles from where I grew up is a 100 year old 9-hole course that is almost always filled by anything but golfers of color. And the same can be said of the over half a dozen courses in New York City, in my experience.

At a time when our nation has broken through a massive hurdle, when we are openly and finally discussing race relations without breaking into fights, we still are surrounded by obstacles that are firmly in place.

And this makes me wonder about my thoughts on the Obama effect. Perhaps I was too short sighted when I discussed that. Perhaps the Obama effect is not limited to just television. Because in the PGA there is only 1 African American golfer, and almost a mere handful of American golfers of color. The LPGA is even more staggered in the diversity it presents.

But why? Money is of course one reason. And not a small one. Yet the same can be said of those athletes that seek to become baseball, basketball, football or any other sports’ major leaguer. The honest answer is that African Americans are discouraged from the game, and institutional backing ignores them.

The discouragement comes as much from African Americans as any other group. The game is seen as being only-White. To play is a stigma akin to abandoning your race. And that is just a stupid thought. Yet every Sunday that very though is reinforced.

The money though is another matter. I won’t say that colleges, golf clubs, or other institutions purposefully avoid African Americans – I don’t know that to be true. But I can say that from what I know they all do actively pursue White golfers at young ages.

Now I am not saying that any African America should be allowed to play in the PGA or LPGA just because of the color of their skin. I hate and would fight against such an idea. But I am saying that the opportunity to compete should be more available.

Given the chance, players will find their own way to the pros. But the chance has to be there. And in golf it is not.

Every African American is not Tiger Woods or Barack Obama. Nor should we be held to a standard of being equal to them or nothing at all. Yet that does not mean we cannot be involved. That does not mean we shouldn’t be encouraged to try.

If this Black History Month says anything this year, I hope that it says to everyone, of every color and creed and ethnicity, that you should try something different. That you can succeed in things that few are doing today. That if you look up, don’t just reach for the clouds because you think you can only get the sky. Reach for the stars because if you work for it, you can reach them too.