Great post. What is grave about the scenario you expounded on is its prevalence, regardless of a state's ethnic demographics. Such stereotypes are promoted/accepted by cultures on both sides of the fence. How do you correct the thinking on one side, while trying to illuminate the thought processes on the other? This post in addition to what you articulate in 'Precious is not Our Story' reflects the self-perpetual forces of ignorance that are entirely opposed to any true form of progression. You, being a minority, were the only person in the classroom to even recognize a problem depicted by another minority fully comfortable with such a self-degrading and false portrayal. In such a scenario where do you even begin correcting anything? If one was to de-construct that girl's' implicit "self-image," shes forced to find a new one, but she cant find a new one among peers that expect her to have the one she hypothetically "renounced." Its all further complicated by the fact this girl most likely doesnt realize the implications of what she presented because, in her own mind, she feels her "identity" has taken residence with her Euro-American peers, who I would venture to guess think nothing of the sort.

I venture to guess that, because from elementary school through college, I can count on one finger the number of classes I had in which there was another Black minority. As I express in my introspection post, regardless of how well I could best my Caucasian peers at their own game I was still not "one of them," as explicitly admitted to me on several occasions. So where does that leave someone aware that welfare, crime, poverty, drug use, etc are skewed depictions of a perceived identity? Beyond that, how does one in a similar position to yourself help the girl in your post, or her peers? Witnessing Blacks exploit the falsity of a dictated identity for the sake of acceptance among whites or other blacks drives home the gravity in a lot of different ways.

I like how you push far beyond the classroom scenario to really highlight what "welfare" is and what it pertains to. The very same concept with different labels become completely different products in the American conscience. Amazing really.

The point of the comparison in its extreme is to demonstrate how 'Precious' is in fact a black movie. Im not saying that because the movie is racial that its intent is to reflect on any or all black people. However the implications associated with the fact that "black" culture is being exploited as a stage for this turbulent drama, are aggravated by the racial delusions of an America that is still too cowardly to confront them.

Reed's reaction seemed to parallel your response to GAB. In my view, you were concerned by a group professing a certain cause, furthering that cause by exploiting a demographic for emotional value, then proceeding to not even offer proper recognition. 'Precious' advertises social progression while exploiting the racial implications of the "black" demographic, then completely ignores any explicit recognition of that culture's pathology/anthropology.

Its technically possible to assemble a cast that reflects a flipped hierarchy, but no its not socially feasible because of the racial interpretations and expected representations Reed is worried 'Precious' perpetuates. So to bring this back home. I agree with your post overall, but I also feel Reeds general reaction is justified because in the context of present-day America, 'Precious' is firmly rooted in a racial quagmire. To me, the paradigm Reed supposedly empowers is the direct byproduct of the "white" imagination rather than Reed's "unchecked institutionalized assumptions." I felt it was aggressive discernment, but the paradox here is that Reed's indignation, though fully justified in my opinion, actually feeds this delusional "white" imagination. Racial outcries are immediately labeled as dissenting racist outcries that are now just ammo for the newest, self-serving, "post-racial" delusion you identified in The Obama Placebo. My question is what to do?

You're furthering my point although I think we're hitting a wall with this concept of "all-white." Im NOT suggesting an "all-white" cast. Im suggesting a cast that represents the mirroring of the skin-tone range in Precious. They are two separate things...

... For instance, lets take the skin complexion range of the main character Precious and Mariah Carey as boundaries. Lets now take that range and flip it to now be inclusive of white people.

1) You admit there IS a complexion hierarchy of which 99% of the range is self-contained within an institutional concept of "blackness," which is why Precious is a black movie.

2) If you flip that hierarchy it puts "whiteness" at the bottom which upsets the entrenched "power" dynamics of hollywood and would immediately bring Precious' racial implications to the forefront.

3) Accurately portraying that flipped range would require more than an "all-white" or an "all-black" cast. It would require a mixture to represent Precious' character from the white end of the spectrum. Consequently, Mariah Carey's guiding character would be represented with a much darker skin tone. In this mixture of race-roles where whiteness has been interchanged with blackness, America would be forced to reconcile the representation of BOTH "races" on screen but with flipped complexion-based roles. To my knowledge this hasnt yet been portrayed on a macroscopic level in any Hollywood blockbuster.

4) For the sake of a scientific control, outside of this interchange of race roles, EVERYTHING else about the movie remains the same. There is no shifting of anything else or any other details to compensate for this flip-flop. In other words, no making "...evil characters less appealing physically in other ways." If Precious isnt racial then there should be the ability to leave the movie completely unaltered AS-IS in EVERY way except ONLY the skin complexion of the characters and references to them.

5) If the movie was re-filmed as you're describing to be marketable in an "all-white" context then sure, the critic's opinion might actually be more positive. However, even in that scenario, the movie is just as racial, implicitly or otherwise.

6) So now I have to rephrase my question :P... If the movie Precious AS-IS with all the references to "black" culture in place was changed ONLY by shifting the skin complexions based on my explanation above...you think the critic's response wouldve stayed the same?

Exactly. I was actually anticipating that very response. You're basing my assessment on institutional definitions that arent suppose to matter. Flipping the skin complexions on a purely chromatic basis would in fact NOT create the same dynamic because it would now highlight the implications of race that are blatantly implicit, but explicitly ignored. The point is that regardless of the manner in which institutional definitions of race still exist, any allusion to them should be inconsequential if the movie's success isnt dependent on any form of "blackness" or skin complexion hierarchy. The fact that by any institutional standard you CANT flip the race-roles to the same effect, makes it a "black" movie. To reiterate, Precious IS a "black" movie, because if it wasnt a "black" movie America should be able to freely interchange race-roles without changing anything else about the film and simultaneously not impacting the audience's reaction. As you imply, Precious cant even exist in the same capacity if it was an "all-white-complexion" movie. That should tell us something.

In other words, ignore "race" (its supposed to be irrelevant anyhow) long enough to fully switch ONLY the skin-tones on a chromatic basis THEN try to reconcile this supposedly inconsequential detail with the American consciousness and the existing institutions of race.

...So institutional race definitions aside, Precious COULD have been filmed with this full chromatic interchange of skin complexions and...my question to you is, if it was delivered in such a manner, along with the implied "power" shift, you think the critics response would have been the same?

Although I agree with your general view of plain speak this is where its tendency to drown out important nuances come into play. Its not a simple matter of the cast just being "all-black" or "all-white." The role-casting according to the RANGE of skin complexion is very important in illustrating my point. Accurately flipping the race-roles in the movie to the "white" end of the spectrum requires the same range to be mirrored in the opposite direction. Follow? The main character in Precious has a very dark skin complexion and to accurately portray the same effect on the opposite end of the complexion spectrum would require a very pale skinned character. Furthermore, to maintain the range of complexions portrayed in Precious would require more than the flip-flopped cast to be "all-white." The dynamics of the film would now be driven by darker skinned people in the position to "help," and lighter skinned people in a position to be "helped" by the darker skinned people. I challenge you to name the last notable Hollywood success to be based on or even reflect those dynamics on a macroscopic level.

The BET reference is a line straight from the movie. Again, if the dialogue, script, dialect, plot, delivery, setting...essentially every detail about the movie had remained the same except that the range of skin complexions (and references to them) had been mirrored to the "white" end of the spectrum, you feel critics would've responded to the film the same way?

Ok hold on. Granted we can agree to disagree...but you really think the press reaction would have been the same if the plot, delivery, and range of skin complexion role-casting had remained constant but had simply flipped to the other end of the spectrum? So if the main character was a ghost-white American and had said that she "...wished she had a dark skinned boyfriend and wanted to be in a BET music video" you feel such statements and associated portrayals wouldve garnered the same lauding from critics? I somehow very highly doubt that.

It would also follow that 8-mile and History Weapon X aren't basis for misinterpretation because they exist in a Hollywood where positive, white-male-hero films completely and entirely drown out any conveyed negativities or misrepresentations by sheer numbers. The lack of addressing the pathological premise to such cliche race-roles works in the white-hero's favor, even if just for marketing to the most profitable demographic.

Precious is only one film but it is one film in a relatively non-existent pool of minority, and specifically, black-centric blockbuster cinema.

lol, my allergies to plain-speak is its tendency to drown out the nuances I feel are most important. Its not really an excuse for my poor articulation but you see my point. Anyhow, to reiterate...

1) I agree with your post's thesis. You/me never knowing "overweight, illiterate, sexually abused, and AIDS-stricken" to be a common stereotype is an accurate analysis as to why it didnt bring out that misrepresentation in me.

2) Now on the topic of the film's responsibility, beyond how it does or doesnt make me feel... The film actually has no responsibility to anyone by any constitutional premise, but I feel this is hardly an excuse for a lack of circumspection... which is where my point comes into play. The movie assumes the responsibility of social progression, while fostering the very misinterpretations that account for social ills the movie "doesn't address" because it isnt labeled explicitly as a "black movie." The root problem isnt in our discussion or perception of it being a "black" film, but rather in the responses of people like Barbara Bush. The notion is that such misinterpretations are taking root without the affected culture having the Hollywood power to counter it. Just as Obama is a placebo...so is Winfrey, and Perry and the bunch. Skin complexion aside they cant call foward the anthropolgical/pathological issues the movie is actually built on then ignored while the film is used to deliver more "palatable" topics.

Furthermore, if Reed's assertions are even remotely true there is the much bigger issue of deliberate agendas that get to hide behind the fact they dont actually have a "responsibility" to anyone by avoiding explicit labels or using ones that are politically effective for furthering a campaign. Its a scenario that lends itself to your qualms with a "post-racial" society, and reflects CNN's censorship of topical history that has little-to-no transparency. We can talk openly about obesity, illiteracy, sexual abuse, aids, etc and the pathological premises. We can NOT, by example of CNN, openly discuss race and racial issuses which the movie intentionally or unintentionally exploits as a platform for less taboo issues. While we're not talking about it, "white" America (ex Barbara Bush) is interpreting it via its limited sources under the guise of more comfortable topics. For instance, if all the complexion/ethnic-based role casting was flip flopped would the critic's response and film's success have remained the same? If not it lends itself to an implicit racial issue of the film that is deliberately skirted for the sake that it would otherwise have to be addressed.

So in other words im not empowering the paradigm because the film doesnt actually affect me personally that way. However, my "individuality" aside, those developing such films as 'Precious' are shirking responsibility by exploiting a social ill for its unreconciled emotional value but not actually confronting it. Consequently the paradigm isnt empowered by those who do seem to belong to some one-represents-all mentality. The paradigm is empowered by those who are exploiting the paradigm they created, then cornering the market on its portrayal. Flip-flop the race-roles underpinning all of the top grossing movies of Hollywood, and you'll realize that the typecasting that allows a movie of any topic to be successful either ignores or selectively exploits what gave rise to those typecasts to begin with. So on the topic of responsibility... If anyone intends to exploit the premise of a censored societal quagmire/taboo, especially under the guise of social progression, then I would deem it appropriate to not ignore what is implicitly being siphoned for profit.

@Reed...could you provide some more direction towards finding your discussion at awardsdaily.com?

No, I made the statement of "...one person (white nonetheless) is choosing how to depict a demographic of humanity..." as a dose of snarky sarcasm. Im fully aware of Winfrey's, Perry's, and Lee's involvement in the film. The reference of "white" was actually a reference to the mindset which I have applied to Winfrey at times. Again, im not disagreeing with your overarching point, but the post didnt stick as well with me because, of the clips I saw, 'Precious' didnt really engender that sort of response to begin with on a personal level. Personally I feel the film, on its exclusive merit could be rather moving.

However, regardless of the intentions of all and anyone involved and relative to what the film represents in the context of Hollywood and American history, the book's author, Lee's and Winfrey's involvement are inconsequential. One, the book as it existed in the market of all other books was far more supported by other reading material that better rounds out the anthropological/pathological context as I mentioned. Hollywood, with the involvement of those white, black, or blue, has snatched this literary tidbit from relative obscurity and has thrust it into an arguably more influential realm, headed by the support of Winfrey and Perry no doubt. This realm of blockbuster films, far unlike the breadth of obscure reading material that is more encompassing, is a realm of gross cultural under-representation. Again, my issue isnt with how the film stands according to its own merit, but with how it assumes it can stand on its own merit given the context of its delivery within an industry heavily burdened by tired complexion-based cliches.