Sticking with the theme, I find Community to be hit or miss--it has a kind above-average funny quality that's always there humming. From time to time you get an episode that goes further. I thought "Home Economics," for instance, was hilarious. But Community, with its rather diverse cast, also brought something else out for me--the notion of finally "getting past it."
TV takes it's share of hits for not having enough characters of color, but I think, over the past five years or so, they've done a decent job. Part of the problem is we want television to be better than us. Gawker has a piece up criticizing Hollywood for its lily-white male writing corps. I can't actually gauge the criticism, because I'm not familiar with what Hollywood is or isn't doing to attract a more representative group of writers.
But whenever I read that XX field isn't diverse enough, I don't so much doubt the truth of it, as I think the charge deeply underestimates exactly the price being exacted for white supremacy in this country, and the length of time for which it went unchecked. We're 50 years into a truly democratic, non white-supremacists America. Congratulations. But we we spent some 150 years in which the country's major institutions--its government, its business, its churches, its block associations, its military, its police force, its labor unions--in the main, aided and abetted white racism. There are certainly exceptions, but I tend to think that the long-term damage done is incalculable and has a lot to do with how we live today.
I'm reporting out a story now in which I had to talk with older black folks who'd grown up in an industrial city in the 40s and 50s. One of the things that comes through from them is that being smart and black, during that time, was really scary. I keep hearing these tales of black people with degrees in electrical engineering, who ended up working in the post office, driving cabs, or worse, running numbers. This is toward the end of Jim Crow, and after slavery, both of which did their best to exact a toll on uppity nigras, who though they were above their station. I don't think I would have made it past fourteen in that world.
What is the long-term damage of communicating a penalty, including
death, for black intelligence while rewarding white intelligence? What is the long-term damage of having a
federal government policy which intentionally seeks to retard the
wealth of black communities? What is the long-term damage of using the
police--theoretically the guardians of all that is right in society--as
a kind of thug army charged with enforcing racist edicts? These
are, literally, questions. I don't have answers for them, but when I
hear people asking Hollywood to grapple with a history that we,
ourselves, don't want to grapple with I wonder whether we really
understand precisely what happened, how much we lost, and how long it
will take to get it back.
And then I watch something like Community,
where they're clearly aware of race, but not race-obsessed, Pierce is
hot for Shirley, and Annie is hot for Troy, and I can almost see my
kid, or my grandkid throwing it all off and walking into this world where we've settled our accounts. I watched "Home Economics" and
I was envious, like I'm envious when I walk down Broadway and see the interracial couples hand in hand. And it's so incredibly common, now.
I'm not envious because I hate Harlem, or because I regret Howard, or
Mondawmin or banging Malcolm's "Message To The Grassroots." I'm envious
because I never thought I had a choice. Nationalism wasn't in my
blood--but, without religion, it was the only thing that made the world make sense.
I
struggle with this, when it comes to my own kid. Of course we talk
about race, but I worry about putting my shit on him. My politics were
shaped by Willie Horton, Chuck D, the mythology of Superpredators. He
deserves to have his own shot at shaping his own politics. The kid deserves a choice.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I wish there were more shows where there weren't 'the only X' in the lead. I see that a lot in comedies in particular (and a lot of sitcoms don't have any non-white regulars). I wish there were more shows with more than one woman on the team, more than one black person, more than one Asian guy (and often, any Asian guy or girl at all).
I can't wait to hear that post; I struggle with the same stuff with my daughter as well. Mostly I say 'don't let anyone say you can't do what you want because you're a girl,' but is that enough?
Anecdotal, but a number of other fans of Flashforward seem to be enchanted with the FBI team except for Joe Fiennes, the lead. Who is boring as hell and the only white guy. We would cheer if he vanished. Only one woman so far, but they had 3 black guys and one Asian....I really do think audiences wouldn't blink if the characters were good.
Total agreement. Especially on Joe Fiennes being boring as hell. He might be more interesting actually if he wasn't the focal point.
Amen to that! I hadn't actually thought about him being the only white guy, but you're right. And he is DREADFUL.
I think there ARE a lot of shows where there's not "the only X" but that we don't necessarily notice them. At least I don't. I had to think through the FlashForward team--black male boss, Asian male partner, white male partner, white female member, black male member--just to parse out who was what. I hadn't really thought about it on Community, either. But yeah: two white males, one black male, one black female, two white females, one South Asian male. I don't think it even occurred to me. There must be more, right?
Also, on 'Flashforward' note that the John Cho FBI character is engaged...to a African-American woman. So, when was he last time you saw an interracial couple quite like that on TV?
TNT's "The Closer" has a very diverse cast. Black, Hispanic, Asian, White people. And while the show is not great tv, it is good tv. I've liked the star, Kyra Sedgewick ever since she stole the movie "Something to Talk About," right under Julia Roberts' nose. Playing Roberts' sister, who is giving her post break-up advice on how to invite a guy to dinner, Kyra counsels "Just call him up, ask him what he likes to eat and if he says pussy, tell him to come on over."
Best thing I've read today. Is the story for the dead tree Atlantic and if so when can we expect to read it? If not where should we look for it?
Not for the Atl, alas. I'll holler when it hits.
Hey thanks for this post-as a big "Community fan" I think you got a lot right-but I`m surprised in a way that you focus so much on the romantic relationships in the show. What I really enjoy about "Community" is the way that the friendships are developing in ways that drive plots but maintain a natural pace, "Social Psychology" was one of my favorite episodes because of the blossoming friendship between Jeff and Shirley. In the world of tv we're taught that large sassy black women dont actually become friends with smart-alecky white men, they just give them home-spun advice or give them a telling off. But, in "Community" we found that Jeff and Shirley share the common weakness of gossiping ferociously and making fun of people behind their back. I never felt like I was learning a lesson about how people who seem different can be friends in a kind of Sesame Street way. I feel the tv I watched as a kid in the 90s was really segregated, you had your "Martin" "Family Matters" "Hanging' with Mr. Cooper" and "My Brother and Me" and then your "Home Improvements" and "Friends". In what does feel like a relatively short period of time shows like "Community" and "The Office" have really changed how I feel about the token minority or segregation tactics that felt so normal on tv.
Well, the post isn't really about the show. I was thinking most of this already. The show just triggered it.
Sure-I get what you mean. I find myself less likely than some to use art as an example of where American society really is at a given time, through studying history I often feel like art is either pushing forward past the reality of the situation, visual art, and poetry of the post WWI generation is my best example, or its looking backward at a time that may or may not have ever existed, like Romanticism in a way. TV is an even stranger beast to look at "where we are" because of the influence of corporations, studio heads, and actors/writers at their creative tipping points. Does "Community" reflect where we are when it comes to race? I`m not sure it does, it would be really great if it were. But, I think I`m expecting too much of a network that is still finding its footing after sloping ratings and the amazing positive and negative influence of Ben Silverman to show me a complete vision of "where we are" when it comes to race, sex, or anything else.
The thing I like about Community's attitude towards race is how non-forced it is in context. It's a set of people who share a Spanish class, not childhood friends and family. Even if Friends or Seinfeld treated diversity the same way as Community, it'd feel forced and hokey because neighborhoods, schools, and social groups are still pretty segregated along class and race lines, and even more so when the characters were growing up. Pierce went to high school under Jim Crow, Jeff probably lived on the white side of town and went to private school, and Annie and Troy probably lived in different neighborhoods and ran with a different crowd in high school. They're all starting over and making new friends, so current mores play a bigger role than they normally would.
TNC, channel surfing late last night I came across a Guy Ritchie movie called "RocknRolla." I stopped to watch it because the cast included Thandie Newton, Edris Elba and Chris Bridges, among other Black actors. Its about London gangsters and a corrupt Russian billionaire, Really funny and very good. Best thing, the Black actors were completely integrated, in a "non-exceptional" way, into the story line. I won't tell you how, because to do so would reveal some spoilers (except to say that the billionaire, at one point, proposes marriage to Thandie.) I think you would enjoy it.
See that's the thing.
How well you take your thoughts and expand upon them and are able to translate them to your keyboard.
See I would've shorthanded that too...
Maybe we can't fix everything in our past. We can't even come to terms with it. The damage is done.
We need to deal with it ourselves. But is it proper for us to lay it on the next generation?
Shouldn't we let our kids just decide on their own without us dumping our guilt, anger, frustrations, etc. on them?
Can't we just let them "move along"?
:)
Sorry TNC.
"I'm reporting out a story now..."
cannot WAIT to read this story.
"What is the long-term damage..."
would love to have some of those discussions here
(...um, MOAR PLEASE!?!)
I too hope thast we can have more of these conversations/explorations but also hope that we follow TNC's lead to trace out the affects on the lives of actual people and don't head off into projective speculations and stereotypes/generalizations.
er, that should be effects, though some sense of affect would also be welcome
I'm actually pleased that the number is as high as 28% women and 9% minorities in television. I though it was lower. It's not great as it is, but it's a lot better than 10% and 2%.
And what's the average age? What's the lag time before someone can actually make a living in that field? If the average age is over 40, then I expect the numbers to shift as today's 20-somethings get the skills to move into the field. Changes in expectations since the 80s have been huge.
Does anyone else have a guilty addiction to Grey's Anatomy? Meredith is a neurotic wuss, but I have a crush on Yan, Torres, and Bailey.
For minorities, I think people really need to think about what kind of people go into writing, and what sort of backgrounds they generally hail from. I know in magazines, the sort of profile for writers (family, generally, pretty well-educated, sent the writer to an Ivy) doesn't match up that well with black people. People always ask "Why aren't there many minority XXX?" But there are a lot of questions that should precede that one.
I wish I liked Grey's actually, because the cast is diverse and there are a lot of women on the show. But medical dramas just bore me. I even got sick of House, and that's really more of a detective show than a medical drama.
I think of Grey's as a soap. The doctor stuff just raises the stakes.
In response to our host, I agree that there's a pipeline problem. There are writers from working class backgrounds, but they've got to get the education and feedback at some point. But is the group at the beginning of the pipeline today more diverse than it was in 1989? If so, and if the pipeline is 20 years long, then we know what to expect.
I do think the pipeline -- the group of young people with strong educational credentials -- is a getting a lot more diverse as to race. Possibly less diverse as to class, though.
About that pipeline -- unfortunately, it's still true that in most fields you lose more women and minorities than white men at every stage. In astronomy, the undergraduates are almost 50/50, but there are a lower percentage of women grad students than undergrad, and lower percent post docs than grad students, and fewer tenure track hires than post docs, and lower percentage senior faculty than junior faculty. That last stage is a much smaller statistical pool and obviously is sampling a much older population, so it's harder to say how that will play out in the future. But it's become clear that retaining people in the pipeline is also something we need to work on.
@Polywogy:
Any investigations on why women and minority disappear along the pipeline. Have studies been done?
@AMT: yes, people are looking at it, but it's hard to disentangle. A lot of it is women choosing not to go on for a variety of reasons, some of which I ramble on about in a post further down. There's also some stuff that's becoming less prevalent, like the upper levels promoting men over women, giving men more lab space, paying men far more. Oddly, this also happens in Art History, which is a female-majority field: you get majority men at the TOP of the museum structure.
Seventeen years ago, people hadn't even gotten a lot of what we now see as basic on their radar. I think we're starting to see the next layer of things that in a generation will be seen as basic. Good thing: the barriers are much, much lower than 10, 20, 50 or 100 years ago, but they're not down yet. (Unfortunately, the barriers aren't coming down as fast for minorities. Hard to really say why, though there are some ideas...)
I don't doubt that some of that pipeline issue is women dropping out to have families or whatever, but a lot of it is probably just cohort effects. What was the undergrad m/f ratio in astronomy when the astronomy professors were undergrads?
I started off in science (Geology, Caltech), and while I do think more of my female peers left the field than did my male peers, I'm now in a field (Urban Planning) with a LOT of women. I used to work in an office that was 2/3 women. I'm now at the City of Los Angeles, and the director of the department is a woman along with 2 of her 3 deputies (and the one man is gay). That wasn't the case 20 years ago, though.
But some of this is just that it takes some time for the more diverse undergrad cohort to make its way up the ladder.
As a real community college teacher in northern California, I can testify to a difference in the feeling of my classrooms today and 20 years ago. There are a lot of tragedies about the education of our youth; they are seriously less equipped to confront what used to be generally accepted kinds of subject matter. However, in terms of interpersonal, cross racial, ethnic, and gender interaction, at least in the classroom, there is a comfort level there that did not exist two decades ago. Part of this is that my classrooms are simply more diverse than they were when I first started teaching. Class, career options, and educational skill level are far more the ties that bind these students in the classroom than race, however their individual, social and family lives play out.
That said, all one has to do is contrast the percentages of young black or Latino males in the California penal system and those enrolled in higher education to notice that the picture from college classrooms is only a small piece of the puzzle.
but why assume that qualified writers of color don't already exist and have been attempting to enter the industry since it began? the excuses put out by the old boys network speak to those writers (you're perspective is not marketable, blah blah blah), but that writers of color don't exist or lack equal skills isn't the problem...lack of access to opportunity, resistance at entry points into professional networks -- that's a problem.
I don't doubt this, so much as I doubt the either or. I just know from mag writing, and having worked on diversity issues, that this can be harder than it may look.
Again, speaking only for magazines, it takes a particular person who can write, and then a particular person who can write in that format. This isn't simply a talent question, it takes a particular endurance, and it takes time to develop that endurance. How do you get that time? Money--or a willingness to live without it. Take color out the equation--there are very few people who can do the job. Finding good writers--of any color--is extremely difficult.
Now, just speaking for a black people, look at a group that's only 13 percent of the pop, and isn't as well educated. Then take the fact that the group's families tend to be less wealthy, thus making it hard to get the time to get good. Take into account that, often, when someone from this group "makes it" they have brothers/sisters/mothers/grandmothers/grandfathers who they have to also worry about. I think a lot of us say, "Man, I kids to feed" and go for the sure thing. The point is that you're already talking about a small pool, and for black people it's almost certainly even smaller.
Does this mean media should say, "Oh well, we tried." Nope. But it means media should get smarter. If you really are concerned about diversity then you need to start with high school kids. You can't start looking for fully formed adults. You need to set aside fellowships for people from particular economic backgrounds to help them learn the craft. You have to think broader and bigger.
I don't disagree with the core goal, I just suspect that it may require more than we think.
Mentoring from the 4th grade; even high school can be too late. Programs that engage families. Coordinated programs that utilize college students to do the mentoring. Summer programs that are both creative and educational. I saw those things work, but it took the herculean and heroic effort of a few because the many aren't that interested.
Mentoring kids to be TV show writers, novelists, or just mentoring in general?
@odacer: mentoring in general. That is to say, if the horizons are not broadened to begin with, then writing as a possible option in which a talent or affection is supported, provided avenues, among all the options, will obviously be limited.
I will add that there was a period in seventies and eighties which there was some community cultural and institutional support for writers that produced a wave of publication of non white and women writers, which opened and expanded the possibilities for American writing in general. That time has faded, but I do believe some doors were opened that will not be closed again.
it would have been more accurate to reply directly to the commenter that sparked this reply, but the comment only pointed towards these assumptions, and i didn't want to presume what they were thinking (i was being too hasty...)
i very much agree with your points on making progress through mentoring, and examing the effects of limited class mobility and numerical minority status. (moar please?)
but, i do not let the current media industry off the hook by looking towards the future, when it needs to take into account the current scripts and screenplays (and articles, books, etc.) it has been overlooking. what about the men and women artists of color working as cab drivers, busboys, store clerks...today. why aren't they finding employment in their fields? how can they get from here to there?
I can only speak from my own experience on this. First, I know many, many artists from all sorts of backgrounds who are not finding employment in their fields, including a friend of mine from the Congo, who once was the leader of one of the two most famous bands in all of Africa and now drives a bus in Seattle to get by. He is a master of popular musical forms from all over the world--a world class musician. The last record he worked on, over ten years ago was with the Cuban Buena Vista singer, the late Ibrahim Ferrer. But it has been a long time since he could afford, as a man sending many family members in Africa and Europe money, to be a performing musician.
I know exceptionally fine poets, novelists, and painters from various backgrounds who can not make a living as artists--one close friend who is a painter has had an empty refrigerator in her house for the four decades I have known her, and everyone who knows her wonders why her paintings aren't on museum walls all over the world.
Being a writer rarely leads to becoming successful to begin with, and TN above points out some of the reasons why. Undeniably, that hard truth is compounded by some element of closed shop in group privilege, but for any artist, except for the truly exceptional or fortunate, becoming one requires a commitment of time, for which only a dedicated few can muster, and for those who have economic or educational deficits to work out of the stamina for such work beyond their day jobs and family commitments is hard to come by and fades as time goes on.
yes there are tons of starving artist out there, but aren't we discussing the preponderance of that jobs that happen to accrue to white male writers in hollywood? and how that happened? and how it is happening even today?
i don't think that phenomenon can be solely attrubuted to a lack of professional-level talent on the part of hollywood writers of color - can we not also talk about disintrest in the stories that writers of color tell, or the lack of industry outreach when achieving "diversity" is not the goal.
something like what they were talking about in "Hollywood Shuffle"
or, in terms of hiring and opportunities ..who does hollywood allow to tell whose stories? we know that white writers are hired to write on black shows, but do black writers get hired to write on shows without black characters? or for shows that have all white casts?
@cocomola: You won't get an argument out of me on that score. I can only echo TN's comment that no small part of the problem comes from a more widespread economic disenfranchisement that exacerbates the existing conditions for all artists. But I don't work first hand in either the television or publication business, so I can't pin point it for you, nor know where in the industry action would be effective.
"i don't think that phenomenon can be solely attrubuted to a lack of professional-level talent on the part of hollywood writers of color - can we not also talk about disintrest in the stories that writers of color tell, or the lack of industry outreach when achieving "diversity" is not the goal."
Cocolamala,
You raise very good points. I wouldn't doubt that there is a disinterest on the part of many white producers and directors in the sorts of stories that writers of color tell, particularly if the writers of color are in the mold of an August Wilson or Toni Morrison or Alice Walker.
Even if there is an interest on the part of a white producer or a director, an executive might summarily decide that the predominantly white audience that a television network or movie studio is trying to reach won't have an interest in the story presented by a writer of color. Thus, the tv show or movie script presented by a writer of color might get rejected because it is wrongly perceived as being uncommercial, until a Tyler Perry or a Robert Townsend comes along and proves that conventional wisdom wrong.
TNC, I think you really hit the nail on the head here. I am in the physical science community and we have been pretty terrible at increasing diversity at the top levels for lots of reasons. But the reason almost never discussed is the one you identify here. Yes, there is overt discrimination, racism, etc, but I think that is declining.
Very few people have the skills and training to be a world class scientist, and of those, only a small fraction are successful. Those who make it to adulthood with the skills and training have a world of opportunity, and the lure of the sure thing grabs most of them whatever their background. How do you entice someone to live at graduate student wages for five plus years all for the small chance of being a successful scientist and making half of what they would make as doctor or engineer?
I think that's such a good point. It helps me answer that question you referenced above, "Why aren't there more minority XXX?" I've wondered that about my own profession - graphic design/writing. Maybe the job just seems to much of an arty risk, even though you really can make a good living at it.
You might be interested to know that a children's literature editor is using your argument to help explain the limited and unsatisfactory submissions she's receiving from aspiring black writers...
http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/2009/11/those-interested-in-race-and-childrens.html
I appreciated your post, but this comment about "fully formed adult" writers not being worth looking for in the black community is quite devastating. The long, impressive history of African American literature proves that against all odds, we DO exist and persist to produce exquisite and profound writing in all genres. Could we produce MORE great writers under better circumstances, of course. But I fear your comment (not your original post) just let a whole lot of passive gatekeepers off the hook...
The theme of not dumping your experiences on your kid is a powerful one. I know I'm not the only one to be surprised by some episode in the life of a relative who has passed away. I have heard more about my dad's life growing up in the Jim Crow south from his sister then he ever told me. Part of me feels sad that he never shared his experiences with me but a parents desire to shield their child from the harshness of racism is admirable and imho the exact right thing to do.
We(my fellow Gen-X friends and I) have had a few discussions about the fact that all of the kids we know have NOT been called the n-word at school. That was our unifying experience growing up black and being bused to school. It is not theirs and we can't lay it on them.
dcfem, i can appreciate you don't want to lay that on them, and since it is outside of their experience it is unlikely that they would/could accept it, take it in, if you did. But how do we help young people to see that the rights/freedoms that they take for granted are not guaranteed except through vigilance and direct action?
Education. We can tell them of our and our forefathers experience from a teaching perspective.
But we should guard against also making them feel our pain.
so far most of our attempts along these lines, via traditional education seem to be a bust, too abstract is my guess so some "pain" might be needed, empathy comes with pain. lots of related work along these lines by jewish and native-american folks but not much luck in the way of results. in some ways this is like the struggles of many immigrant parents who don't want their kids to forget.
I am definitely not saying that vigilance and direct action aren't necessary to educate our children. What I'm saying is I can't go around telling them, "Watch your back because the white kids are going to call you the n-word" just because that's what happened to me.
When asked a direct question about race by a child I do not hesitate to give a serious, direct answer. But I do think it's important to not always add my own personal fears to the mix. Instead I ask them about their experiences and guide them toward comparison/contrast of their lives with the lives of the Little Rock nine or some other good example of people who have sacrificed for them.
I struggle with this constantly, as a white GenXer raising a 10 year old mixed person.
'Watch your back because...' isn't really a helpful message, as I have no idea what racial thinking will inflict on my child this week, let alone in the coming decades.
We tend to do a lot of 'this is what it was like in 1961, and this is what your grandparents did in the next 10 years, when would you rather live and why?'
Lately we're getting some heroism back: I wish I lived back then (in the 1950s-1960s) because then I could help to fix this country.
Implying that it's now, in the experience of this particular mixed-race fourth grader, fixed.
I don't want to argue with that. And I don't want to send my kid out in the world naked against the stereotyping. Like I said, constant struggle....
I'm not the activist type, so I wouldn't want my kids organizing their elementary school or going on anti-capitalist harangues during show-and-tell, but I hope to give them some class consciousness, and I will teach them about wealth distribution and inequality in the US. I plan to give them the big picture that I never got until I went to college, or when I found a Dissent magazine somebody left in my library. The big picture that the daily newspaper doesn't talk about.
My kids deserve a choice, of course. And I will only tell them my story, my truth and they can take it or leave it. America is full of people disagreeing with Noam Chomsky, and there are even more who don't know he exists. My kids won't be the latter.
TNC, I know you have a good relationship with your father. Do you believe everything he believes? Have you learned from his experiences? I imagine you're richer for his having put his shit on you!
One thing your post put to mind is the fact that mainstream America is not particularly friendly smart people in general. If you're smart AND black, I'm sure it's much worse, but there is a very general and quite strong anti-intellectual streak to American culture.
Consider how much fun is made of the math geek. That's not the way it works in China, or Japan. Being good at math brings you status in school there. In America, the math geek stereotype is generally negative. I spent all my time in high school developing protective camoflauge, because to be smart was to be a target.
It's also true that we nerds have our revenge in the form of high-paying jobs and, ahem, Silicon Valley stock options. But we get made fun of, and in school days, beat up, for making others look bad.
I think maybe if you're smart and black, then maybe some restraints are loosed, and it's open season.
Mr. Coates,
I'm a first time commenter but I've enjoyed your work over the years...
Being a 32y.o. aspiring screenwriter(in Alabama)I have wondered if I have what it takes to work in "the big leagues" of TV/Film...
(written one feature and a couple of tv specs)
I read blogs like John August and he eludes that even whites who go to the best colleges might not be cut out.
Next year I plan on moving out West(i got folks in Ingelwood and Compton)...have any advice?...or friends in the industry?
Kid, I know you asked your host for advice, but I've worked at some of the biggest and most influential entertainment companies in the industry so here's my take (some of which you may find harsh, but trust me, its real:)
- If none of your work to date has been at least seen by an agent, at 32, you're already behind in the game. There is a "Catch 22": almost no one will accept unsolicited material, but you won't be solicited unless someone reads your stuff. Have you ever written for local newspapers or mags? Ever blogged or written for web sites like The Root? If you want to be a screenwriter, build a body of work that is not limited to screenwriting. This sounds counterintuitive, but has been the road to success for many screenwriters.
-Make sure you've scoped out any networking/information opportunities closer to home, before you make your move. Are there folks in the biz from your area that you can contact, even "cold calls" are better than none. Are there folks in Alabama, maybe ATL, that be helpful? Always ask yourself "who do I know (of) and how can they help?" If you don't know, find out.
-Before you move west, do as much research as you can. Learn about the talent agencies, big and small; writer's workshops; classes at USC, UCLA, anything related to your field. Use your research to divise a strategy for getting a toe (don't even think about a foot) in the door. Remember two things: There is no such thing as useless information and luck is when preparation meets opportunity.
If you do decide to try and climb this hill, remember it's a 90 degree slope--at best. Hope this helps and good luck because this quest will test.
-
I wish I had friends. All I can say is work like you'd die if you had to do anything else.
I'm not sure why, but this reminds me of some of that "Boxing Lefty" post you did some time ago. Perhaps it's the notion of double consciousness you seem to be coming back to in the end, of being in a culture but not quite of it, but then, I'm not sure all people who age get to call themselves lefties.
I tend to be a bit Marxist about this kind of thing; I tend to think that you're right when you say we can hardly expect Hollywood to reflect changes that have not, in measurable ways, been rectified in the rest of the socioeconomic order. I am a white woman and don't want to derail your focus on race, but I come from a very working-class family who were not particularly bookish and always wrote, always wanted to write, but until very recently, had some idea in my head that I couldn't do it, that it was what rich people did. And looking at the industry that sometimes still seems to me the case: these unpaid internships, all these Ivy Leaguers writing the "great novels of our day" while sitting comfortably in academic posts... it's a privilege to be able to conceive of a life as a writer, in many ways. It probably always was, and yet, that doesn't make it any better.
I guess I still complain about representativeness because I would rather that the dream-life of this culture have a broad horizon because it would force, by way of expanding imaginations, force people to confront the humanity of others and then rectify those socioeconomic imbalances. I mean, we can sit around and have a bland policy argument about anything, about why we ought to be re-channeling our money into education. We can do that, but I really do wonder if it turns as many people to the cause as something like Stand and Deliver does. (I'm deliberately skirting the Nice White Lady education-empowerment films here.)
Tools make a difference. Just like you can't re-build a Carburetor without a proper set of wrenches you can't have more of a certain demographic in a field if they don't have the right intelectual equipment.
I really struggle with these issues. For most of my life --excepting a few years when he did other things-- my dad was a schoolteacher in places that deal with the legacies of racism. I have seen well meaning diversity oriented white-folks (not exclusively white either but that's another story) say that "these kids can't learn because of X" all the while believing themselves to be free of prejudice.
I think the long term effects of institutionalized racism in this country are played out in education. I don't have any answers but surely part of the solution is to stop making excuses. Soft bigotry can be just as detrimental as hard bigotry.
I think it is hard being a good teacher whatever one's philosophy. Having high standards is only good if one gives students the tools with which they can achieve those standards. At every level, a teacher confronts students whose tool box, let alone the knowledge of how to use such tools, is depleted. The task becomes truly Sisyphusian. It is easy to understand that over time, then, teachers from pure fatigue, short cut the whole situation by settling for less, some rationalizing that from a false compassion and a half understanding of what diversity of learning style actually signifies.
CitE,
I didn't mean to make the issue seem so one-sided. As always thank you for the clarification.
Wow I can relate to this in a lot of ways. . . So I'm gonna ramble (incoherently) for a sec too.
I have to check myself from being bitter against the younger gays. When I was coming out, I had never heard anything positive about gay people. All I knew is that they were dirty sinners who die from AIDS. Now these kids have Adam Lambert, countless gay characters on TV, a President who addresses them as real Americans, marriage rights in many states . . . Christ do they realize how GOOD they have it? :-0
It's important, though, to sublimate that bitterness into gratitude. This is what we fought for, right? It makes me happy that the younger kids don't have to go through what I did.
What you have now is a lot of Baby Boomers still obsessed with settling their old scores. (Nothing against the Boomers - they are just a particularly large and culturally influential and conflicted generation.) You are right, TNC, there comes a time when you have to let the young folks step up to the plate and let them decide how they want to live their lives. That is the way of nature.
I don't think people like Sharpton and Buchanan realize how much the younger generation has moved on how irrelevant they are. Everyone my ages thinks they are ridiculous, out of touch old men. Embarrassing, even. You see young folks today with few racial hang ups working together, going out for karaoke night, playing on the company softball team, listening to the same music (for chrissake one of my friends is a gay black goth from 7 mile who listens to Marylin Manson and paints his nails black) . . . then they see people like Al Sharpton or Pat Buchanan on TV and they are like "WTF is this dude talking about?! Shut up!"
Having been a black manager in technical corporate since '79 (and always the ONLY) let me say that black and smart has always been (and still is, in MANY places) nearly the kiss of death for black men. One of my early observations was that a black male would often be better received by his white peers and managers were he to have some overt, and potentially disqualifying for higher position, "blackisms" in his presentation. A "dey" here or there, a "he be" every now and again, a pair of inappropriate shoes, could be your ticket to the highest spot "allowed". It might also insulate one against a life of unrelenting combat that you might experience if you seemed to be a genuinely, more than equal competitor. Absent those markers for "he's a great guy, and we would promote him, but he lacks, you know...", and the corporate surround can become a real life run and shoot game with only one life and no gun.
This subtle filtering for "less than the best "is the substance behind the myth of the affirmative action hire. Affirmative action didn't make you hire the lesser skilled minority. The disinclination to bring in someone better than onself, and the inability to recognize that the "he be" guy is probably NOT the best you can find; sets the stage for the justification for not doing what you didn't want to do anyway. Selecting him only reflects the wrongheaded understanding that "that's the way they talk". In fields such as journalism, where what is good or less good is unavoidably subjective, the filtering becomes distinctly more efficient and explicit. We still have VERY far to go...
This. And I'd say it's the kiss of death for black women as well.
Regardless of the field (be it corporate, creative, or academic) you will always catch hell. Though there are more opportunities to advance now than ever before, there isn't a person I know--friends, family and acquaintances included--who doesn't have a horror story about adversity in the face of pseudo-diversity. And it's enough bullshit to send you straight to a therapist's couch.
I can't speak to the experience of Black men (tho' my husband would likely agree with Ulysses) but after years of holding pretty senior positions in politics/government and in the corporate world (big oil and big entertainment) "catching hell" because of diversity issues was not my personal experience.
Let me be clear, was I all too often the only or almost only "one" in the room? Unfortunately yes. Did I always try to bring more people of color into the room and was often thwarted, yep, though surprisingly less in GOP policital circles and more in "liberal" big entertainment. In fact, about once a month some of my Black girlfriends in "the biz" and I would gather for dinner at Spago's and inevitably indulge in a very theraputic round of what we called "Stupid White People" tricks.
My own shallowness and self absorption was also very helpful. Seriously. I just didn't give a fuck what "they" thought. As long as their racism didn't become my problem, I was cool. It was also clear to me that affirmative action was, in fact, helpful to my career. To my mind, affirmative action simply meant White people, for whatever reason, were finally trying, at least in some small way, to get beyond their own racism. And that's a good thing.
This may be the key to not losing your head. I mean, when I think about it most of us who have been through the corporate shuffle were always more obsessed with what others were thinking because we were "the only ones." I wish there was some sort of undergrad class that would prepare POC for all the racially awkward remarks and conversations they'll encounter once they enter the workforce, so that they could be able to just shrug it off and keep focused, because there have been quite a few times when I came close to being a Chappelle "When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong" sketch.
Allow me to repay a compliment here Anna. Reading these posts, people, not only their ideas but their experiences and character, come out like images in a dark room.
There is some sort of reality novel going on at this site--for which we are all grateful (while no doubt TN works hard at it--work, talent, or a combination of both, it's on posts such as this, his ability for him to invite these conversations especially shines. And I have no doubt that whether he had "friends" to begin with, he will be finding more and more of them as he goes along.
I find your story and voice as they emerge very much part of what keeps me interested in this site.
Citizen E @ 7:51: wow. thank you. I share your admiration for TNC's "community of commentors" including, not least, those with whom I do not often agree. Finding this community was like finding an oasis on the internet. This, and of course, TNC's own exceptional and wide ranging voice, is why this blog is the only one on which I regularly post.
I have a completely different experience with this show. From my perspective, the race of the characters is central to the show.
In the episodes I've seen, all the minority/women characters look to the young white guy as some sort of savior; it's like they can't function without him. I've tried to rationalize it as just classist (the guy hails from a successful world but is forced to "lower" himself to community college), but I can't get around the fact that it feels like Hollywood same-old same-old.
He's not just the savior to the minority/women characters. Think of, for example, the episode where he saves chevy chase from his ecstasy induced desk fortress. I don't really look at it as that guy being the minority savior, so much as that guy's role in this show is the class leader that everyone else essentially looks up to. doesn't really seem to be a race thing though.
Agreed. Joel McHale plays the cool guy that everyone (old, young, black, white, male, female) likes and wants at their parties and in their study groups, even though (and this is illustrated quite often in the show) he is a douche.
Britta, one of the female characters, can see the douchiness pretty clearly.
And don't forget, it wasn't actually Jeff who rescued Pierce from the fort, he just crawled in and talked to him for a minute and then it was Abed who rescued them both from the collapse. I think one of the recurring themes in this show is that the members of the class turn to him to rescue/assist them, and then end up actually helping themselves (or one another). Sure, the cocky white "hero" is at the center of things, but I think the show's doing more subverting of that particular paradigm than gg suggests.
TNC mentioned "a federal government policy which intentionally seeks to retard the wealth of black communities" ...
Some may think that TNC made a radical statement, but I think it is a very, very mild statement when the evidence in federal trials shows that some heavily black communities are intentionally allowed to be destroyed.
A few weeks ago I was at a conference called Women In Astronomy -- about the status of women in the field, the challenges we face, and those we've (mostly) overcome. It was the third one of that name, the other two being in 1992 and 2003. It turned out to be mostly female attendees, though they were trying to encourage men to go; they also talked a lot about minorities in the field, and probably the next conference will be more specifically about Women and Minorities in astronomy.
There was so much there, some of which I'm still processing. The horror stories from individual women who "came before"; the fact that there were so few men there, even though I know several who care about the status of women in astronomy (and their reasons for not going); statistics on the field and how great a shift there's been in the past 17 years, and how much there still is to go; a truly excellent discussion of schemas and how they unconsciously effect how we evaluate other people, even if that bias goes against our consciously held beliefs.
There was a truly excellent presentation by someone from the STRIDE program at Michigan. I definitely recommend downloading the powerpoint on the site and reading through it, if you have the time and inclination (first link under "Faculty Recruitment Resources.") The information on the resume studies, blind auditions, and other tests of unconscious bias are pretty astounding. And we all have them -- women rate women lower, too.
Also astounding are their recommendations on how to increase diversity in hiring. One of the biggest is to never ask the committee to come to the meeting with their "top three candidates." If you do that, you almost always get three white men. But if you actually ask people to rank the ability of the candidates in different areas and then start discussing them, you get more diverse lists and hires. With NO other changes!
One of the things this brings out to me is how (like with your Ivy League example) we tend to select hires on things that actually don't have a direct bearing on how to do the job. It's not conscious, usually, and there are very human reasons why we do it. But as several people put it at the conference, when you don't consider women and minorities equally, you're essentially throwing out 60% of your pool of candidates, which will inevitably reduces the quality of that pool.
People there talked a lot about how important mentoring is in attracting and retaining women and minorities. But the other is role models. A generation ago, there were very few women astronomers for women students to see, and they often just didn't see themselves in the world of astronomy. Now there are women in virtually every physics and astronomy department... which is great... but it's now brought about a new level of awareness about role models. Many of the women profs aren't married, and I'd say the majority don't have children. Now younger women look around and see that we could be astronomers, but we don't see women who have lives we want to have. That's definitely starting to change, and there have always been women who managed it. Heck, the second woman in history to get a PhD, Laura Bassi, was a physicist and professor who not only got married, but held classes in her home so she could also take care of her children.
But the model of academics in the west has been essentially that of a "monk to knowledge," with even male academics often not marrying. That model comes down to us in the idea that if you are a serious scientist, that must be the most important thing in your life, and you should be willing to sacrifice everything else for it. For men, marriage is often seen as helpful in this, because it means he doesn't have to be bothered by the trivial details of home life. But for women, the perception is that she will have less time, energy and dedication to her work. (I'm not just making this up, that perception is actually backed up by studies.)
I know I may have kind of gone off into rambling territory, but "diversity," why we don't have it and how we get it, are quite complicated and interrelated things. And awareness varies so much, as well -- most of the women I know have heard about the resume studies (see the powerpoint) but many of the men I know have not. I had a male friend say, 'If the field is only 25% women, why should we try to force more women in? Since there are no barriers anymore, it must be because they don't want to be astronomers.' He just had no idea that, even if no one involved thinks they have a problem with women, it is still much, much harder for women in the field than it is for most men. And that it's onion layer after onion layer, many of which we don't even see or think of until the outer layers have started to come off.
Well, maybe we'll give the next generation one less onion layer, eh?
Thanks for this information. I have a teenage girl interested in and good at science, but yeah, have never met a woman in science even as a vague acquaintance, and have no idea what that would look like as a life for her.
I should emphasize that it really is starting to change. There are many more women now, and the younger people coming up are blazing the next path, of making time to have kids before they have tenure (which is usually not until after age 35) and still going on and showing they can be great scientists. Many more men are also seeing that this is important to their lives, too - that they want to be involved parents and not thought of as less dedicated if they aren't at work until 9pm every night. There are definitely still hard things, but I would say it's certainly possible to make a life that works.
Women scientists also tend to be aware of how important mentoring and role modeling is, and are often open to questions about how to do it. There may be people at your daughter's school who could connect her with someone local, or some resources. If not, I might be able to either talk or try to find some resources in your area... ;)
Great comment. A post in and of itself :).
Just some equally rambling thoughts.
I've seen a sea change in the last five years in casting. Up until that time, I've seen Asian Americans very sharply segregated into the stereotypical Asian roles: foreigner or Chinatown denizen (there's the insider joke of being on the "very special Chinatown episode"). But in the last handful of years, I've seen an explosion of roles for Asian American actors that aren't gender specific, and that you don't have to be a Royal Shakespeare Comapny level actor just to snag a bit part.
Too, there's been a huge number of Asian American actors snagging regular recurring roles on shows. That means getting regular work. That means writers have to write for them. That means staff writers have to write characterizations that is meaningful and substantive ('cause they'll catch hell from ANY actor for crap). That means the resulting TV characters are more varied. Which means that writers on other shows won't have as much of a barrier.
Hm. Not sure where I'm going on this, except to note that my concerns about Asians and Asian Americans in writing and Hollywood are no longer exactly the same as the up and coming Asian American writers and actors in Hollywood. Which is a good thing, a sign of progres and a reminder not to treat their burdens as being the same as my own.
As a casual watcher I've noticed a bit of change here as well - heck, now people even know a few Asian actors/actresses names!
Re: Community & Asian-American actors: "Senior Chang" is hilarious. I've only seen pieces of various episodes, but the scenes I've seen with him are awesome.
Ken Jeoung is hilarious, and his standup is subversive, because it is ostensibly racist, but it teaches about the diversity of the Asian community, and blows up the monolithic asian stereotypes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnwUJ-wG9NQ
NSFW.
"But we we spent some 150 years in which the country's major institutions--its government, its business, its churches, its block associations, its military, its police force, its labor unions--in the main, aided and abetted white racism."
The history matters so much and I wish kids got taught more (anything) about it at school. I'm white. I grew up working class and I knew absolutely nothing about how to act or what to do when I first joined the work world. Now I run my own business and I'm a certain age and people just assume I went to college (didn't) and know what I'm talking about (sometimes). I know this same assumption would not be made my many people if I was not white. That is the result of a legacy of white supremacy, and even though my own relatives were not on these shores to abet it in its "prime," I still benefit from it today.
As black television writer I can tell you, it's all institutional. There are a lot of well meaning people out here, but when it comes down to it there's so much money at stake and careers are so fragile that people end up hiring people they already know and trust. It's not about the best writer. Because, really, how do you even quantify that? It's about a comfort level. And most people are comfortable with people who look and think like them. The thing is whereas the corporate world has already dealt with this type of prejudice, television, as a creative industry, has been given a pass.
As shocking as the racial/ethnic/gender make-up of this industry is, what really gets me is the general lack of political, socio-economic and religious diversity. There's a shocking few ideas circulating because sadly most everybody thinks the same. Maybe that's what's needed to perpetuate the dream factory, but sadly it's also part of the reason why you don't see more interesting, challenging fare like "The Wire" -- because in Hollywood that reality is news to us.
I'm going to ramble myself for a minute but given that I have first hand experience with being black in the entertainment industry this post hit a nerve for me. I worked in Hollywood at a top level talent agency for a number of years and being only one of a handful of black women in a company with over 750 employees it made me accutely aware of issues of race in the industry.
First of all, everyone in LA, black, white, brown or purple, has a screenplay. EVERYONE. It's not hard to find writers of color. I'm not saying that they are all talented, but they're not difficult to find. But there are others factors at play, like the fact that there are writing programs, and film schools, and mentoring programs that do exist in Hollywood but you have a.) Know about them, b.) be able to afford them, and c.) be let in. It is very rare for someone to make it in the entertainment industry without having a connection, and as with any industry, people of color have historically lacked the connections to move forward. Hollywood is no different.
You also have to be okay with being broke for a very long time. It's common knowledge in LA that if you ask someone what their profession is and they say "screenwriter" that means they probably work at the Coffee Bean. It's a long haul to find good steady work, and you have to have the resources and the support systems to be able to do it. When I was in the agent trainee program I made minimum wage coming out of college, and if I hadn't had supportive parents with the financial ability to help me out, I wouldn't have been able to do it. The same goes for anything you want to do in the industry - they don't pay you anything starting out because they know there are 10 people behind you who would kill for your job.
Then there's the issue of just getting put on. How do you get in if you don't know anyone? Raw talent is rarely all that it takes, as screenplay submissions to agencies and studios get dismissed out right more often than not. It helps to have representation, but how do you get that? It doesn't help that the handful of black people in Hollywood who have "made it" tend to shy away from helping or mentoring other black folks trying to get in. There's this widely held belief that there are only a certain number of spots available for black folks, and if you have one, you better hold on and not let anyone else take it. So the black agent doesn't want to represent too many black screenwriters because he doesn't want to labeled as the "black people agent" and the black screenwriter or showrunner with a good gig doesn't want to help another young black writer out because they've already made it so why add to the competition? There are clearly exceptions out there but that has been my experience.
Okay, really rambling now. But my point is that it's damn hard to make it in Hollywood no matter what color you are, but for people of color there are definitely other issues that come into play. That's why WHENEVER I see a person of color on TV it makes me happy that they're getting a pay check but also pissed that I get so excited just to see a smattering every now and again.
First of all, everyone in LA, black, white, brown or purple, has a screenplay. EVERYONE.
Uhh, as a lifelong resident of L.A., I can assure you that this is incorrect. You were in the entertainment industry --- maybe everybody in the entertainment industry has a screenplay, or wants to direct, etc., but it really bugs me when people in the biz generalize about L.A. based on people in entertainment.
For the record, I do, in fact, have two friends who are screenwriters. I happen to know a bunch of city planners, computer programmers, pharmacists, engineers, and teachers, but I'm under no illusions that this is representative of Southern California.
Let it be, dude. She clearly didn't literally mean every living soul in L.A. has a screenplay. She was trying to point out the relatively large number. There's no need to be so literal, just for the sake of disagreeing. A little charity in interpretation is essential here.
"we know that white writers are hired to write on black shows, but do black writers get hired to write on shows without black characters? or for shows that have all white casts?"
Cocolamala,
It is probably an infrequent occurrence for a Black or even a Latino writer to write for a show with a completely white cast, because many producers might wrongly assume that a writer of color would be unable to write about white characters. However, tv shows with all-white casts which make an effort to solicit scripts from outside writers through a blind reading process (i.e reading the script without knowing what the writer looks like) would probably hire writers of color, particularly if that writer of color shows a skill at writing for tv shows which have a harder find finding writers. A writer of color who has trouble getting hired for a prestigious, high-profile show like Law and Order or Mad Men might get hired for a genre show like Fringe or True Blood or Legend of the Seeker, or for a low profile non-genre show like Breaking Bad or Sons of Anarchy or even Monk.
"...might get hired for a genre show like Fringe or True Blood or Legend of the Seeker"
oddly enough, this makes sense to me. i was thinking that a sci-fi show might hire writers of color...we could be seen as able to write the Other...aliens, fantasies...
my comment sounds very cynical to me -- i am actually glad to hear writers of color could be welcome at a Monk or maybe a Psych (yay!!)
It's also worth noting that the black dude on Community, actually used to be a writer on 30 Rock.
ya know, i figured there was a black writer on 30 rock, because they cast a black writer's role on the show -- and it seems like at least tina fey and tracy morgan contribute to writing their lines, i hear a lot of variation in style from character to character.
Community seems to have a glaring problem. Danny Pudi, who is of Indian and Polish decent, plays the character Abed, who is of Palestinian descent. I'm not sure why that is okay. I find it a little uncomfortable but then that could be my problem.
Then there's the fact that a lot of "white" shows aren't really generically white, but rather Jewish or Italian or some-such. You'd expect a lot of the writers to be of that background, just like you'd expect to have a lot of black writers on a show featuring black actors.
And regarding the comment above about August Wilson, Toni Morrison, and Alice Walker... I thought those were the kind of black writers white people DO like. And that the trick would be to get more black writers on regular commercial stuff like Law and Order.
ethnic shows require expertise, true enough, but many other shows with predominantly white casts are more generally about the American Experience, like Desperate Housewives, Parks and Recreation, Community, etc.
and i agree about your second comment
As you said, TNC, they're aware of race but the characters aren't defined by it - or any other particular part of their demoraphic profile. They've all got their faults, quirks, and strengths. In short, the characters look and feel more like real people than most on t.v. these days (this includes "The Office" and "30 Rock" a lot of times I'm sorry to say). It may never be as funny as some other shows but I'll keep watching because I've grown to like the characters. I can't say how this ties into society at large. What I can say is the more '3D' a show's characters are, the more likely I am to stick with it.
Ta-Nehisi
I loved your last comment about not wanting to burden you son with your baggage. I am trying to keep the burden of my baggage light for my daughter as well. My father is my example on this. I never heard him make a racist remark until I was in my 20's. When I did it was quite jaring. Eventually I asked him about it and he told me that he had decided that I would be better of if I was not carying that arround with me in the world I was going to be living in so he did not express his opinions on the matter till I was grown.
I will have to check our community based on your recomendation. I noticed on Wikipedia that the first episode is available on Amazon on demand.
Getting back to the passing on of experience. I think children, especially as they grow older, want to know their parents' experiences and even what their parents thought and felt about those experiences. What they don't want is a prescription for how to see the world politically, though I don't think that, unless there is some sort of extreme polarization involved, they are bothered much by hearing about their parents' politics. On that score, it strikes me cultivating independence of thought is far more key than keeping experience away from children. My parents were quite circumspect about their experience, but I, who was quite clear that my generation experienced the world differently even as a child, always have wished I knew more about them.
TNC:
"He deserves to have his own shot at shaping his own politics. The kid deserves a choice."
My heart goes out to you - this blog works my mind in ways most don't, anymore. And consistently.
Am thinking of my own two sons and asked my youngest, on the way to work together about this very thing.
I don't think either of them are haters or bigoted - both my wife and I labored to value to our children what are "people" and what are "people's problems". It isn't easy or simple or even entirely possible.
They live in a world outside the one you create for them. And it hits harder and harder, particularly around 13 years old and up. But, I think what you consistently raise them with finds resonance to whatever they're trying to square, just as we here do.
Can you imagine any son's additional challenge were that lacking, part or parcel?
You do what you can. As often as you can. As many times as it takes and then, some more.
"But there are a lot of questions that should precede that one."
Here is what I told my older son, about three months ago:
In some ways, there are three and only three modes in the workplace and they haven't changed for centuries:
-Plantation owners
-******beaters and
-*******
Do everything you can to not be any of those three.
Likely, you'll never be part of the top group.
God help you if you are ever the middle group, as there are plenty of them and they are perhaps the most destructive.
And never, ever be part of the bottom group.
You aren't "one" unless you act like one.
It's not color, it's character.
Stop laughing; yes, it's old school. But its truths are immutable.
I'm not saying this well: "Do not let others choose your character or your appraisal of other people."
"The kid deserves a choice."
Amen - he sure as hell does. I'd imagine you'll continue to bust your ass to provide exactly that.
He models what he sees, which you know...
Best kind of work, sir and I wish you well.
PS/ I'm still working through Deadwood again as it hits a nerve even harder than Wire...
and, it ain't about color, either - I don't think it ever is - I think color is one of the first casualties in the bloody pile
I don't have the time to wade through all of the posts here, but I have to say that your last paragraph is terribly poignant.