Lack of representation = systemic racism: Footloose is Exhibit A

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, OP. Though I’m not sure slotting in one or two token non-white actors as minor characters would have made that much difference. What’s really ground-breaking are stories with a critical mass of diverse characters. There were a few in the 80s, like The Cosby Show, but there’s been an explosion of that kind of content in the last few years, and I love to see it.

I’m white and went to a high school that was 99% white, so I never gave the whiteness of entertainment any thought. But my husband’s Asian, and he’s talked about what it was like to grow up never seeing people who looked like him on TV. Worse, the single Asian character usually turned out to be a stereotype of some sort. Our daughter has watched a few tv series from Japan and Korean, and it’s a whole different experience when the hero AND the villain AND the funny sidekick AND the police detective AND the nerd AND the background extras, etc, etc are all Asian. I believe watching shows like that will subtly change her sense of belonging in the world in ways that seeing a few token characters would not.

+1. Thank you for stating this so well. I enjoyed Footloose and all those movies. But it was HARD growing up and never seeing yourself anywhere on screen. Thank goodness things are a little better now.

+1 another Asian American. Our standards of beauty when I was younger was Caucasian. Today, it's so different, and my kids see beautiful faces of all kinds in the media.

Another Asian American here.
We knew it was all nonsense that everyone was all white in major cities portrayed on media.
Certainly we rolled our eyes when there was only one Asian on medical shows like "ER." Have these show creators ever been in a hospital?

[Anonymous]

So, I was a teenager living in a diverse area when Footloose came out. I saw Footloose of course (both the movie and the soundtrack was very popular). I noticed it was very white, but I always thought that it was set in a rural town that may have been most/all white.

I mean, that was the point of the movie right? Kid moves from Chicago to small town where dancing is illegal (and there were still places where public dancing was illegal in the 80's) and tries to change that . It was a simple storyline really, I don't think they were trying to exclude other races but rather show how narrow the town was.

There were a lot of dance movies in the 1980's. Some showed all White people, some showed all Black people, and some showed a much broader mix of people. It was the times I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when they were outraged Dunkirk had no black characters.

A friggin WW2 movie in Europe where the English were trying to escape for their lives……and they’re mad because that historical story has no major presence of black people. Truly insane how DEI is a de facto cult. You can’t even tell stories from history now as they were.

Black Americans fought in WWII. My own mother’s uncle fought in WWI — and sent home letters and pictures that we still have. The real cult is the effort to erase POC from history— and from fictionalized depictions of history.

Because there were some black soldiers in WW2 means they need to be overrepresented in WW2 films? Puhlease. 99% of the casualties in WW2 were either white or Asian. It was DUNKIRK for cryin’ out loud. If you want to make a super niche story about black soldiers during WW2 go ahead, but the war was overwhelmingly fought by whites and Asians, and they by far and away had the most deaths. It’s would just be extra weird and out of place to add in a lot of black characters into a story like Dunkirk.

Yeah but the movie Dunkirk left out the Asians as well. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58466527.amp

The Indian unit was 300 men out of over 300,000 evacuated, and they worked on the supplies, not front-line fighting. There would be no reason to feature them in the movie. You people are absurd.

Why are we still uselessly reminiscing a war fought by imperialists and colonizers in the first place?

Imagine being extraordinarily ignorant to the entire other half of WW2 in the Pacific, IndoChina, and the rest of the far East. Holy Toledo.

The war in the Pacific was fought primarily by two neo-imperial powers - the US and Japan. When the US won is it any coincidence the British, French, and Dutch were given back their colonial lands? The US even supplied these ashbin European countries with tons of arms to try to violently suppress the independence struggles.

Imagine being so extraordinarily ignorant that you didn’t know this. Holy Cow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when they were outraged Dunkirk had no black characters.

A friggin WW2 movie in Europe where the English were trying to escape for their lives……and they’re mad because that historical story has no major presence of black people. Truly insane how DEI is a de facto cult. You can’t even tell stories from history now as they were.

Black Americans fought in WWII. My own mother’s uncle fought in WWI — and sent home letters and pictures that we still have. The real cult is the effort to erase POC from history— and from fictionalized depictions of history.

Because there were some black soldiers in WW2 means they need to be overrepresented in WW2 films? Puhlease. 99% of the casualties in WW2 were either white or Asian. It was DUNKIRK for cryin’ out loud. If you want to make a super niche story about black soldiers during WW2 go ahead, but the war was overwhelmingly fought by whites and Asians, and they by far and away had the most deaths. It’s would just be extra weird and out of place to add in a lot of black characters into a story like Dunkirk.

Yeah but the movie Dunkirk left out the Asians as well. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58466527.amp

The Indian unit was 300 men out of over 300,000 evacuated, and they worked on the supplies, not front-line fighting. There would be no reason to feature them in the movie. You people are absurd.

Why are we still uselessly reminiscing a war fought by imperialists and colonizers in the first place?

Imagine being extraordinarily ignorant to the entire other half of WW2 in the Pacific, IndoChina, and the rest of the far East. Holy Toledo.

The war in the Pacific was fought primarily by two neo-imperial powers - the US and Japan. When the US won is it any coincidence the British, French, and Dutch were given back their colonial lands? The US even supplied these ashbin European countries with tons of arms to try to violently suppress the independence struggles.

Imagine being so extraordinarily ignorant that you didn’t know this. Holy Cow.

DP ever heard of China?
Military KIA 3-4,000,000
Civilians death 20,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when they were outraged Dunkirk had no black characters.

A friggin WW2 movie in Europe where the English were trying to escape for their lives……and they’re mad because that historical story has no major presence of black people. Truly insane how DEI is a de facto cult. You can’t even tell stories from history now as they were.

Black Americans fought in WWII. My own mother’s uncle fought in WWI — and sent home letters and pictures that we still have. The real cult is the effort to erase POC from history— and from fictionalized depictions of history.

Because there were some black soldiers in WW2 means they need to be overrepresented in WW2 films? Puhlease. 99% of the casualties in WW2 were either white or Asian. It was DUNKIRK for cryin’ out loud. If you want to make a super niche story about black soldiers during WW2 go ahead, but the war was overwhelmingly fought by whites and Asians, and they by far and away had the most deaths. It’s would just be extra weird and out of place to add in a lot of black characters into a story like Dunkirk.

Yeah but the movie Dunkirk left out the Asians as well. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58466527.amp

The Indian unit was 300 men out of over 300,000 evacuated, and they worked on the supplies, not front-line fighting. There would be no reason to feature them in the movie. You people are absurd.

Why are we still uselessly reminiscing a war fought by imperialists and colonizers in the first place?

Imagine being extraordinarily ignorant to the entire other half of WW2 in the Pacific, IndoChina, and the rest of the far East. Holy Toledo.

The war in the Pacific was fought primarily by two neo-imperial powers - the US and Japan. When the US won is it any coincidence the British, French, and Dutch were given back their colonial lands? The US even supplied these ashbin European countries with tons of arms to try to violently suppress the independence struggles.

Imagine being so extraordinarily ignorant that you didn’t know this. Holy Cow.

DP ever heard of China?
Military KIA 3-4,000,000
Civilians death 20,000,000

Still doesn’t refute anything. The Chinese (and Koreans and Filipinos among others) demanded reparations from Japan for their brutal occupations of their countries and the US refused to allow it, shielding the Japanese from full accountability. Thank you for reminding me of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learning that some of y’all grew up in towns with no black people - this explains a LOT about some of the things I’ve read on DCUM over the years!

Not my fault.

Quit being a victim. No one said it was your fault. But it does influence your lens through which you see things and things you say. And it's important to know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learning that some of y’all grew up in towns with no black people - this explains a LOT about some of the things I’ve read on DCUM over the years!

Not my fault.

Quit being a victim. No one said it was your fault. But it does influence your lens through which you see things and things you say. And it's important to know that.

How does your ignorance about how many other people lived influence you? It's important for you to know that yours was not a universal experience and actually not very representative of how most Americans lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family is from rural Kansas. There weren’t black people in their town. It was a farming town and pretty much all white. Theirs was settled by Germans and still had a lot of German customs. If there were 8% blacks in Kansas, they were more likely in the big cities.

Exactly. Context of the place and time.

That’s not an excuse to people who raise this issue. The past must be reimagined to confirm with DEI standards because that is how it always should have been. If you object to that you’re a racist.

God, you wear that crown of thorns tightly.

No on is asking you to reimagine or conform to current views. But part of changing things is to acknowledge the past and, yes, some of these movies lacked appropriate representation. And deliberately so. Further, some were outright racist. It was acceptable then; it is not now. And while I watch those movies I don't have the rose colored lenses of "the good old days" and I don't deny what they were.

You're not a racist in the way you are putting it forth. But you definitely don't seem to want to do anything about systemic racism (or any other 'ism) or acknowledge implicit biases. That is a form of racism, hon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished rewatching Footloose.

Filmed in 1984 when 12% of the American population was Black, yet there are zero Black kids in a movie about dancing.

Remember the big dance scene at the end? They had white guys breakdancing. This was at the height of the breakdancing craze btw. All white cast, and they didn’t even bother to add any Black or brown dancers in the big school dance. Zero.

Pretty shocking.

There is a lot of racism and other issues from the 80s. Everyone has to acknowledge that b/c it is patently obvious. That doesn't mean I don't love the movies or still watch them.

One of my all time faves is 16 Candles. I know just about every line. But, damn, some of that is SUPER cringe. Like, how did we not all see it or acknowledge it for what it was. THe whole Long Duck Dong thing. And Samantha being mortified that her friend may have suggested she "do it on a cloud" with a black guy. . . . Plus the lack of representation that OP notes.

It’s fiction. It’s funny as hell. No one’s cares that is didn’t have every single person represented there. It’s a great movie. Get mad at something else that’s way more important.

Are you stupid or something? I said it's funny and that I watch it. Nor am I "mad". Yes, it's fiction. But fiction based on stereo types and racist tropes is still racist.

So I know you were thinking you made a point here. But really, you just reinforced the reasons why people think it is important to acknowledge the problems with these movies, even if we still love them.

And as for your last sentence, luckily I can multi-task and do two things at once. And I don't take direction from anonymous dickheads like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends in the 1990s - I lived in NYC from 1986-1999.

Bars and neighborhoods were very segregated.

I hung out with white Catholic college educated single people who worked on Wall Street between ages of 24-33 lived in Manhattan and grew up on Long Island.

There was no internet, cell phones. Bars and places catered to particular crowds

ok, but none of the Friends roles worked on Wall St.

The roles in Friends were:

1. someone who worked in a coffee house then at a fashion house -- there are a lot of Asian people in NYC fashion industry. My friend who is 55 (Korean) was there.
2. someone who worked at a museum, and the only one to date a minority
3. an actor -- I'm pretty sure NYC had minority actors
4. a white collar worker in a boring office job-- were there no minorities working in boring white collar office jobs in NYC in the 90s? I'm Asian American, worked in Orange County, CA in the 90s, which was very white, and even we had several non white people in our office
5. A chef -- need I say more
6. A masseuse.. this is the only person who may never have dealt with a minority in their daily lives.

Again I loved that show, but it was white washed.

To be honest outside of work in NYC in 1980s and 1990s people stuck their own tribe. NYC was mainly Black, Spanish and White. We all generally lived in different neighborhoods back then

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friends in the 1990s - I lived in NYC from 1986-1999.

Bars and neighborhoods were very segregated.

I hung out with white Catholic college educated single people who worked on Wall Street between ages of 24-33 lived in Manhattan and grew up on Long Island.

There was no internet, cell phones. Bars and places catered to particular crowds

ok, but none of the Friends roles worked on Wall St.

The roles in Friends were:

1. someone who worked in a coffee house then at a fashion house -- there are a lot of Asian people in NYC fashion industry. My friend who is 55 (Korean) was there.
2. someone who worked at a museum, and the only one to date a minority
3. an actor -- I'm pretty sure NYC had minority actors
4. a white collar worker in a boring office job-- were there no minorities working in boring white collar office jobs in NYC in the 90s? I'm Asian American, worked in Orange County, CA in the 90s, which was very white, and even we had several non white people in our office
5. A chef -- need I say more
6. A masseuse.. this is the only person who may never have dealt with a minority in their daily lives.

Again I loved that show, but it was white washed.

To be honest outside of work in NYC in 1980s and 1990s people stuck their own tribe. NYC was mainly Black, Spanish and White. We all generally lived in different neighborhoods back then

NYC had a large Chinese population in the 1980’s. Every racial demographic was represented in NYC. I do agree that the city was very much segregated and remember how a Black teenager was killed in an Italian section of Brooklyn because his color/race wasn’t allowed. The movie “Do the Right Thing” was real. There was the Irish, Italian, Caribbean, Chinese, Arab, Puerto Rican, Russian, etc all different sections of the city. I don’t know if it’s the same today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learning that some of y’all grew up in towns with no black people - this explains a LOT about some of the things I’ve read on DCUM over the years!

Not my fault.

Quit being a victim. No one said it was your fault. But it does influence your lens through which you see things and things you say. And it's important to know that.

The irony. Or is it hypocrisy?

[Anonymous]

I mean yes movies in the 80s had a shocking lack of representation. That movie would look different if it was made today. The sky is also blue? Trying to erase the past just makes us more likely to repeat it. I don't understand the point of this. We should look at time periods critically for the socio economic and cultural periods they came from but it is folly to hold them to today's standards. It is also folly to say 'these things are not worth watching or knowing about because they don't meet today's standards' as their flaws should be held up as a warning to future generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Football and Basketball are all black and white. Where is the representation among Latinos and Asians. Pales in comparison.

And don’t get me started on all the TV ads. The United States is almost 60% white, yet all we see now is black actors in just about everything. I get catalogues at home with all black models. That in itself shows a lack of diversity. Diversity is just a code name for hire more African Americans and disregard everyone else.

Do you consider Samoans a part of the Asian race. If so, the NFL has plenty of players of Samoan descent.

Samoans are Polynesian. No one in Samoa considers themselves part of the "Asian race."

Pacific Islanders are celebrated during AANHPI month in May.