In discussions on matters of race, it seems to me that people settle quickly into their tried-and-true roles. I think we all like to think of ourselves as open-minded and progressive, to one degree or another, on matters of race.
Whether it's said openly or not, I think the prevailing attitude is that the civil rights era did all the heavy lifting that needs to be done; that since then racial matters are taking care of themselves, if we just don't rock the boat too much.
Every once in a while, I see a story that confirms my suspicion that matters of race are more like a wound festering beneath the surface than like a sore that's open to light and air and healing, and that the prognosis on matters of race - specifically Blackness and Whiteness in America - need constant reassessment.
I came across an article by a black woman who was questioning the entertainment industries practice of casting a white person in a black person's role. Specifically, casting Angelina Jolie as the wife of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl in an upcoming movie.
I could see where she was going early on, and I basically dismissed it. Although I share her confusion about the reasoning that says Angelina Jolie in dark makeup is a better casting choice than a Halle Berry - even with the paucity of roles for black women in Hollywood -I could easily imagine counterarguments about how choices like that are bottom-line driven, and that it ain't personal, but only business. Uncool, I thought - but fair in a ?'market ruled society' kind of way.
But then I came across a documentary done by a 17 year old student - a black young woman. She recreated for the cameras a study originally done in the 1940's. A young black girl is presented with two baby dolls - one white, and one black, and then asked questions about them.
When asked, "Which baby looks like the good baby and which one looks like the bad baby?", the little girl picks the white one as good, and the black one as bad. When asked "Which one looks like you?", the little girl's reaction really tugged my heartstrings. She looked very hard at the white baby, and for all the world looked as if she wanted to pick that one - then with unmistakeable reluctance picked the black doll. I couldn't get the film on the link to play - maybe you can - I saw it on the news.
If preschool-aged little black children have already internalized that looking like they do carries negative connotations, what does that say about our society, if anything? I've railed here on A2K about the practice of the national news outlets of seemingly making it a national emergency when a little blond-blue-eyed girl goes missing, but relegating it to ?'B Section' news when it's a person of color. My complaint is that we teach our children - subtly but surely - that black children and dark skinned children have less value. This documentary shined new light - for me at least - on this latest casting decision involving Jolie.
When these kinds of choices are made over and over (can you see George Clooney as Barack Obama?), I think it sends a message to little impressionable minds. And for black kids, I don't think it's a good message.
http://www.uthtv.com/umedia/show/2052/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/k-emily-bond/jolie-even-in-bla_b_31479.html
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace