Lonelygirl15

I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong - that this thread is moreso conveying a complaint rather than discussing the plot (though it is, for the most part, aggravation with the plot). That being said, I'm going to move this to Concerns and Complaints for the moment for further discussion.

This was all far too long for me to read but I agree with the title...I too have stopped caring.

I repeat... You still care, otherwise you wouldnt have posted this.

Race is a social construct. Example from a documentary I've seen: This woman is half white and half Japanese. She looks Latin. As such she is treated Latin. The Asian student group at her college would not accept her. The Latin student group did. Her boss assumed she was a Latina and then futher assumed she spoke Spanish. She was treated with all the stereotypes of what she appeared to be, not by her true heritage.

So, yes, Yossef is half Arab. But 2 things are still in the way. 1) on any given demographic form you have ever filled out you will not see a place for middle eastern ethnicity and, with few exceptions, these individuals are included in the white category. 2) He looks white. We few, we proud, we just-this-side-of-stalkers know his heritage. Good for us. To the world, however, he is as white as Bill O'Riley.

Same can be said for country of origin. She's "African" but she's white. We want to defend our show, I know, but if you were utterly new to this show you'd see Dawson's Creek. Whether or not you see that as a problem for the show will determine which side you fall on. Thus far, the plot hasn't given solid reasons for any characters to be of any particular race. My only consern at this point would be the creator's ability to not turn a character of color into a token character.

Well I know writers usally only inculde things they know...such as if they were raised in newyork...their movie will usally take place in newyork...so this person was (the writers,etc) probably were raised are live around white people..nothing wrong with that...it happens..alot...though divesity is awsome...I see nothng wrong being done!

Well, yeah it's frustrating to not get all the answers like they do in the movies, but hey it's not a movie and it's not suppose to look dazzling like it does in Hollywood. It's suppose to look like a real life girl is doing this, she doesn't know what she's doing and heck, in real life, do YOU ever get all the answers? As you have stated, in this example, you have not. So there you go, it's a frustrating series to watch because life is frustrating.

Lurker wrote: You know that Yousef Abu-Taleb is half-Arab, right? And that Jackie Jandrell is South African?

You've got to be kidding me if you truly think these are examples of racial diversity.

Half-Arab, maybe I can almost buy, but well, not really. And I don't even feel the need to try to go into this one.

SOUTH AFRICAN? Yeah, that means British. She's 100% white. Her ancestors were no doubt from the same countries as many Americans'.

jill2009 wrote:

Lurker wrote: You know that Yousef Abu-Taleb is half-Arab, right? And that Jackie Jandrell is South African?

You've got to be kidding me if you truly think these are examples of racial diversity.

If things aren't the same, they're diverse, no?

jill2009 wrote:SOUTH AFRICAN? Yeah, that means British.

Actually ... no. It means South African. Though that's more of a nationality matter than a racial one, I guess.

jill2009 wrote:Her ancestors were no doubt from the same countries as many Americans'.

Everyone's ancestors are from the same countries ...

Lurker wrote:

jill2009 wrote:

Lurker wrote: You know that Yousef Abu-Taleb is half-Arab, right? And that Jackie Jandrell is South African?

You've got to be kidding me if you truly think these are examples of racial diversity.

If things aren't the same, they're diverse, no?

Lurker, I hope you're not playing dumb. Jackie is clearly not an example of "racial diversity." She's white.

jill2009 wrote:SOUTH AFRICAN? Yeah, that means British.

Lurker wrote:Actually ... no. It means South African. Though that's more of a nationality matter than a racial one, I guess.

You may be too young to remember the whole apartheid thing, but . . . South Africa is a classic example of a country in which the white interlopers (who, as Jill suggested, were indeed British) stole land and control from the black natives. Read this Wikipedia article; it's not the clearest explanation, but it'll do.

My point is that suggesting that a white "South African" is an example of racial diversity is so wrong it's almost painful.

jill2009 wrote:Her ancestors were no doubt from the same countries as many Americans'.

Lurker wrote:Everyone's ancestors are from the same countries ...

Again, I hope you're not being deliberately obtuse. Jill is obviously not referring to "ancestors" in terms of millenia; she means centuries. And the ancestors of many African-Americans were brought over as slaves from their original homeland a couple of centuries ago. Whereas the ancestors of white people originated in Europe and the Caucasus -- hence the term Caucasian. They definitely didn't originate on the North American continent, at least not in the Eastern part (it's at least arguable that some white people migrated onto the far Northwestern section of this continent over the Bering Strait).

I think DreamerM is making a very important point. Every ongoing cast member who we've seen so far appears to be white. In fact, I can't even remember a single nonwhite person at Alex's party.

And saying "ability should come first" is a cop-out. There are plenty of talented nonwhite actors out there who aren't getting work because of idiotic ideas like "We already have a black person in the cast, sorry." Check out this story on NPR (from just this past December). Or this article from a British site from 2003.

And here's an article about the difficulties Asian actors have getting work. Here's another article, including excerpts from an interview with Sandra Oh, about the same topic.

Here's an article about Latino underrepresentation in media (scroll down for info about actors). Here's another one from the San Francisco Chronicle. Here's a report on Latino representation on TV in the year 2005 -- it says things are better, but still pretty bad. This article says that Latino actors are asked to behave in stereotypical ways in order to get parts. And this article doesn't go into detail about the lack of Latino actors -- it simply takes the situation as a given, and talks about Salma Hayek's efforts to change things.

"Ability" doesn't really "come first" in the entertainment industry. Trying to claim that it's the reason for a lack of non-white actors in any particular project is, at best, naive.

Languorous Lass wrote:Lurker, I hope you're not playing dumb. Jackie is clearly not an example of "racial diversity." She's white.

I can accept that, but racial classifications are a puddle of mud to begin with - especially where cross-breeding has occurred over countless years. Given all the exceptions, variations in "purity" and custom-related means of classification (even within a group that others classify as one race from an outside perspective), the whole thing often seems like a silly mess to me.

Languorous Lass wrote:You may be too young to remember the whole apartheid thing, but . . . South Africa is a classic example of a country in which the white interlopers (who, as Jill suggested, were indeed British) stole land and control from the black natives. Read this Wikipedia article; it's not the clearest explanation, but it'll do.

My point is that suggesting that a white "South African" is an example of racial diversity is so wrong it's almost painful.

"British" and "South African" are nationalities. The way jill2009 was speaking was apparently using a nationality to infer race. There are more than just caucasian Britons (even if they happen to be the majority).

I know I mentioned Jackie as an example of some diversity, but I was thinking outside just racial lines (the quota thing I mentioned previously can go beyond it). I don't think caucasians all happen to be essentially the same regardless of culture of origin to begin with.

Languorous Lass wrote:Again, I hope you're not being deliberately obtuse. Jill is obviously not referring to "ancestors" in terms of millenia; she means centuries.

I wasn't being deliberately obtuse per se, but I was being a bit of a dick, though not simply for the sake of it. I just get annoyed when talk of race comes up anywhere because people are so focused on using it as a means of division. They refuse to look at it in terms of millenia, and those who focus so much on relatively recent history (even when it's important to the context) while speaking of inclusion can do as much to prevent inclusion as anyone.

This was probably not the right time to let myself be bothered by it. It's just that I see "We need more black/white/anything people - just 'cause" as every bit as annoying as "We've got enough of them - just 'cause."

Languorous Lass wrote:And saying "ability should come first" is a cop-out. There are plenty of talented nonwhite actors out there who aren't getting work because of idiotic ideas like "We already have a black person in the cast, sorry."

I was hardly promoting that kind of idea.

In any case, I don't believe that ability being the measure of acceptance is a cop-out. I believe it's the fair thing to do. Everyone should have the same shot that way - except, obviously, for the individuals who have neither talent nor skill.

If that were the case, while it may be said that it's less likely that the role would go to a non-caucasian in the United States, that's because of population percentages. Individuals (which, ideally, people would be seen as) should have an equal shot. You said it yourself: There are plenty of talented actors who aren't caucasians.

My point is, do we want to promote an environment where individuals have an equal shot, or races? I mean ... isn't looking at people as just their race what's caused this whole problem in the first place?

We don't have to pass up the first talented person who would be right for a role because he or she's "too white" or "too black" or "too Latino in an effort to promote fairness and inclusionism. That seems like a move in the opposite direction to me.

Langurous Lass wrote:Check out this story on NPR (from just this past December). Or this article from a British site from 2003.

And here's an article about the difficulties Asian actors have getting work. Here's another article, including excerpts from an interview with Sandra Oh, about the same topic.

Here's an article about Latino underrepresentation in media (scroll down for info about actors). Here's another one from the San Francisco Chronicle. Here's a report on Latino representation on TV in the year 2005 -- it says things are better, but still pretty bad. This article says that Latino actors are asked to behave in stereotypical ways in order to get parts. And this article doesn't go into detail about the lack of Latino actors -- it simply takes the situation as a given, and talks about Salma Hayek's efforts to change things.

That's a very interesting - and enlightening - collection of links, and I appreciate you gathering them, but I'm aware of all of that (I hope they may yet still be educational for someone who reads over this discussion). The mass media is my field. I know these things, and it's terrible. I also know that U.S. minorities are more likely to be portrayed in negatively stereotypical fashions, that females are more likely to be depicted as vicitms of violence than males, that minorities are more likely to be depicted as victims of violence than caucasians, and that females who are part of a minority are the most likely to be depicted as such victims.

It's even believed by some who study this field that all this may be part of an agenda on the part of some of those holding the power in the industry to deliberately make both women and minorities feel insecure and dependent on males and/or caucasians.

I know all of this and I am saddened and even angered by it. I just happen to be a foolish idealist (redundant?), though. I think that the methods undertaken to correct all this should be as noble and genuine as the desired result. If we're making a film/play about a black family that's facing persecution in mid-1900's Chicago, yeah, let's get some black people to play the roles. If we're making a film about a neo-Nazi white supremacist who is sent to prison for murdering two black people, let's make sure we cast this character with a caucasian. If it wouldn't make one bit of difference either way, let's cast the first person who deserves it.

Either go with what the plot calls for or who merits the role, is what I think. If we're going to deliberately go out of our way to cast a minority just for the sake of doing so, how is that any different than casting a caucasian just because we want to have one of them in that position?

Noble intention? Sure. Equally noble method of getting there? Unfortunately, no. It's a bit hypocritical. I think we - all of us - can fix this without resorting to the same practices that have created the problem in the first place.

Maybe I'm stupid. I'm willing to consider that. Maybe going out of our way to enforce affirmative action and having quotas for theatres is the right thing to do. I don't know. It just doesn't seem like it to me. It doesn't seem genuine, and it doesn't seem like it's any more likely to produce the desired result than being fair with everybody.

But, again, I can consider that I'm wrong. I know minorities - especially black people and American Indians - have been fucked by the United States since day one, and I'd love to see it all fixed. Maybe those programs up there are the way to go about doing it. Maybe the scales have been tipped so far that they've actually been smashed to the floor, and the only way to make it right is to do things like that. I really don't know. I just feel like we're looking at something similar to what got us here in the first place.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my self-challenging, potentially idiotic view of the whole matter in every walk of life in which we see it become an issue. Presented - without the request of any of you, but as a product of my unrestrained emotions - as a rant.

I apologize to all those who took the time to read it instead of microwaving an enchilada or something equally gratifying (enchiladas are good). I also thank you for doing so. I'm sure you couldn't wait for it to be over.

Languorous Lass wrote:"Ability" doesn't really "come first" in the entertainment industry. Trying to claim that it's the reason for a lack of non-white actors in any particular project is, at best, naive.

I didn't say it comes first in this industry. I also didn't claim that it was the reason for a lack of non-caucasians here. Because I don't know I'm not going to claim one way or the other.

What I said is that it's what should be the case, and that asking for a minority for the sake of having one is not any different conceptually than deciding we need to trim some to keep the cast from getting "too non-caucasian."


Thanks for the discussion so far, Lass. I think it gave me a much-needed opportunity to clarify my position. I don't know if the clarification makes me a jerk, but I feel like it was needed.

I'd just like everyone to be given the same consideration, and I want to believe that we can get there without having to resort to similar practices to those that have hurt people and made this big mess.

LG15 is getting annoying how more questions pop up and less are answered, exactly like Lost. But I think the fear of Lost fans is that it might one day be canceled by the network. Then there'll never be a true ending with the answers.

I know someone who was a fan of The Pretender. I think they canceled that way before any of the big show long puzzles were revealed. It happens to a lot of great deep shows right?

I think LG15 will go until some ending. Even if at some point people stop watching (arrrh scary thought. hope it doesn't happen ) then I think the creators won't just stop and drop everything. I mean they don't have someone above them to order them around. I have to trust they want to get their story out there...

Yea the unanswered questions are a pain, but I don't believe there's any fear of us never learning the full story and the true reasons.

Inigo wrote:I repeat... You still care, otherwise you wouldnt have posted this.

I think what they mean is that they almost stoped caring

Personaly I think that the whole racial diversity problem is way overblown. I agree with Lurker on the fact that talent matters the most. The creators aren't going to ditch a potential new actor just because she/he is white and because they should have people of other races. It's not like they're being racist and aren't hiring anyone besides white actors on purpose.

I also started losing interest in LG15, but the last 2 videos were very refreshing and new.

And also, who is to judge whether Sarah is emo or not. Who the hell knows what emo is?The word now covers such a wide range of music and styles that the true meaning is lost. Scene, goth, hardcore, straightedge kids, couldn't they all fall under a general category of emo? Yeah in my opinion Sarah seems like a poser, who listenes to the stereotypical, mainstream "emo" music, but who are we to judge the creator's interpretation?

Icaterus wrote:LG15 is getting annoying how more questions pop up and less are answered, exactly like Lost. But I think the fear of Lost fans is that it might one day be canceled by the network. Then there'll never be a true ending with the answers.

I know someone who was a fan of The Pretender. I think they canceled that way before any of the big show long puzzles were revealed. It happens to a lot of great deep shows right?

I think LG15 will go until some ending. Even if at some point people stop watching (arrrh scary thought. hope it doesn't happen ) then I think the creators won't just stop and drop everything. I mean they don't have someone above them to order them around. I have to trust they want to get their story out there...

Yea the unanswered questions are a pain, but I don't believe there's any fear of us never learning the full story and the true reasons.

Semi-related note. Lost has announced their end date of the 2009/2010 season so they have the chance to map it out and answer everything. They hope to maintain the plot's integrity by limiting themselves to a time table so they don't overextend in that "oh noes, but Ross and Rachael can't get together! Let's break them up. On Noes! They can't be apart, that story is the backbone. Let's get them together" wash-rinse-repeat attempt of lasting as long as viewers will string along. I can see Heroes doing the same sort of thing.

DreamerM wrote: ..And this might be un PC of me to say but...why couldn't one of the THREE new girls we've had dumped on us have been black? or Asian? Is the Order full of neo-nazi white supremists on top of everything else? In fact, everyone on this show has been white. Everyone.

Ughh there is NOTHING lamer than forced diversity.

HyeMew wrote:

DreamerM wrote: ..And this might be un PC of me to say but...why couldn't one of the THREE new girls we've had dumped on us have been black? or Asian? Is the Order full of neo-nazi white supremists on top of everything else? In fact, everyone on this show has been white. Everyone.

Ughh there is NOTHING lamer than forced diversity.