|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 03 2020 20:09 farvacola wrote:
Everyone should note that the "[g]reat jobs numbers for June" came from a report with a period that ended just before the recent surge started. Next week will be full of whiplash of varying kinds, and folks should expect the feds to start working on another mass stimulus bill to try and stopper the negative impact of the renewed 'rona surge.
Haven't seen a surge in deaths but we'll see.
Democrat governors not putting COVID patients back into nursing homes should help keep the death count lower, since close to half of deaths were from nursing homes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/nursing-homes-coronavirus.html
|
|
|
On July 03 2020 20:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2020 20:09 farvacola wrote:
Everyone should note that the "[g]reat jobs numbers for June" came from a report with a period that ended just before the recent surge started. Next week will be full of whiplash of varying kinds, and folks should expect the feds to start working on another mass stimulus bill to try and stopper the negative impact of the renewed 'rona surge. Haven't seen a surge in deaths but we'll see. Democrat governors not putting COVID patients back into nursing homes should help keep the death count lower, since close to half of deaths were from nursing homes. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/nursing-homes-coronavirus.html
The surge in deaths hasn't occurred yet because 'rona deaths while medical systems are not at capacity is one thing, and 'rona deaths while medical systems are at capacity is another. We are only now reaching into that second category in some states.
|
On July 03 2020 20:19 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2020 15:49 Simberto wrote:I remember that back in march or april, someone in this thread suggested just putting up billboards with trump and his "It's gonna be over by easter" thing on it, and just leaving them there. Turns out that that would indeed have been amazing. They are going to have no shortage of material, I wonder if they will purchase some ad's of Trump mocking masks to run on fox news right after Hannity does his PSA's on masks. Trump making masks a political issue is going to end up one of the biggest political gaffe's ever.
It's also a running joke at this point that everything Trump has accused Obama of doing, Trump has done even worse. There's literally a tweet for *everything*, showing non-stop hypocrisy. Biden could certainly expose Trump for the fraud that he is by showing post after post of Trump criticizing Obama while laying out the truth of Obama's situations vs. Trump's situations. Biden wouldn't even need to talk much lol.
|
United States24741 Posts
Yes.
On March 26 2020 06:18 micronesia wrote:
I think his political opponents should take out billboards in high-visibility areas of Trump with speech bubbles of his desire to re-open the country by Easter, and keep them up through April. When he says dumb things that he will obviously backtrack on later, he usually gets away with it, in part because it isn't in everyone's face.
I'm not even talking about negative ads... the billboards can even be celebratory in nature. Just keep them up as the crisis gets worse.
Biden should hire me.
|
I don’t know if anybody besides GH was very enthusiastic about me fumbling my way through talking about some of the issues around manufacturing white perceptions of black culture. But TPM put up an essay on related subjects from someone who could speak a little more confidently:
link
My friends are other black writers, musicians, and journalists. Over the course of a few months we’ve talked in small and large groups on Zoom and Facetime. We have laughed, planned protests, organized petitions, and lamented all the ersatz virtue signaling with kente cloth and black squares. We do all this as we wait for the nation’s racial amnesia to return. In my inner circle, we don’t expect change because there is an unspoken secret among America’s racial problems, a secret that we dare not speak in public. In order to succeed in this society, most black artists have to perform blackness for white people.
People of color have been performing race for white audiences for centuries. The writings and works I produce about my experiences are almost solely judged by how they make white people feel about themselves. Due to my addiction to eating food and paying my rent, I have to perform my identity in what I say, what I write, and how I explain my experience. I am aware of what is expected of me and I carefully juggle what I know, what I can say, and what white people can handle. Even as I write these words, I know that it will annoy some readers that I’m implying black people code switch and have a triple consciousness, because my reality isn’t judged on what my black friends and artists live: it is based on how comfortable white readers can feel about hearing me. This influences almost all black narratives in entertainment and on the news. Our stories exist for others. They are performances of blackness. After all these years, we are still the children of Richard Wright’s “Native Son.” Our issues are tragic caricatures or exaggerated rages for white liberal consumption.
Maybe it’s too broad to apply the term “cultural appropriation” to the phenomenon of white gatekeepers (producers, executives, etc.) expecting black artists to perform their blackness (within a range of acceptable parameters) for white audiences. But then maybe it’s time to forget about the term, and just examine the phenomenon.
|
+ Show Spoiler +During times of civil unrest like the Ferguson uprising and the current George Floyd/Breonna Taylor protests, my inbox is flooded with requests. I am expected to go out and do some theatrical black acting that is some version of Malcolm or Martin in calling for fiery protests or Christian forgiveness. In the last few months my black artist friends have been asked to expand their concert schedule of performances. Our bosses ask us to sit on diversity panels, read BLM-supporting corporate statements for the right tone of contrition, chime in on conference calls. My colleagues take a sudden interest in my opinions about Ta’Nehisi Coates. My text messages and email inboxes are filled with people checking in on me which is an awkward way of trying to engage in conversation. These “check in” messages make me feel as if I was either a bomb about to explode or a delicate glass menagerie that is being shattered by the thought of racism. I am neither. I am mostly numb from the tap dancing.
Despite all the talk from the mainstream media, NO NEW INFORMATION was revealed to me by recent tragic events. I’m black and I’ve been black for 40 years. This means I have complex, interlocking layers of experiences. I have had to deal with outright abuse as well as invisibility. I have dealt with obtuse racist white people who turn around and ask me, why don’t black people like them? I have sat in Southern colleges with Confederate flags, Confederate monuments, and marbled tombs of Confederate generals and had earnestly concerned white donors ask me “how do you attract more black people to our institutions?” In none of these situations have I erupted in insane Joker-esque laughter or screamed at anyone. I have negotiated an identity and a way of communicating with white frailty, blindness, and privilege. I do so with triple consciousness of what my black self is seeing, the coffee filter of social standards whose default is always at white comfortability, and then outer performative black shell.
Well that hit home. Be nice if Breonna Taylor's killers were arrested too.
|
On July 04 2020 02:40 ChristianS wrote:I don’t know if anybody besides GH was very enthusiastic about me fumbling my way through talking about some of the issues around manufacturing white perceptions of black culture. But TPM put up an essay on related subjects from someone who could speak a little more confidently: linkShow nested quote +My friends are other black writers, musicians, and journalists. Over the course of a few months we’ve talked in small and large groups on Zoom and Facetime. We have laughed, planned protests, organized petitions, and lamented all the ersatz virtue signaling with kente cloth and black squares. We do all this as we wait for the nation’s racial amnesia to return. In my inner circle, we don’t expect change because there is an unspoken secret among America’s racial problems, a secret that we dare not speak in public. In order to succeed in this society, most black artists have to perform blackness for white people.
People of color have been performing race for white audiences for centuries. The writings and works I produce about my experiences are almost solely judged by how they make white people feel about themselves. Due to my addiction to eating food and paying my rent, I have to perform my identity in what I say, what I write, and how I explain my experience. I am aware of what is expected of me and I carefully juggle what I know, what I can say, and what white people can handle. Even as I write these words, I know that it will annoy some readers that I’m implying black people code switch and have a triple consciousness, because my reality isn’t judged on what my black friends and artists live: it is based on how comfortable white readers can feel about hearing me. This influences almost all black narratives in entertainment and on the news. Our stories exist for others. They are performances of blackness. After all these years, we are still the children of Richard Wright’s “Native Son.” Our issues are tragic caricatures or exaggerated rages for white liberal consumption.
Maybe it’s too broad to apply the term “cultural appropriation” to the phenomenon of white gatekeepers (producers, executives, etc.) expecting black artists to perform their blackness (within a range of acceptable parameters) for white audiences. But then maybe it’s time to forget about the term, and just examine the phenomenon.
Well all the world's a stage . . .
Baldwin’s problem with “Native Son” was that it read less like a novel and more like a racial pamphlet.
What I would like to see is the move from self-consciousness to self-reflexivity. How many of these essays have to be published before they become their own genre, readable as a "racial pamphlet" in their own right? Are we already there? Who is this performance for?
I have sat in many barbershops, cafes, cookouts, and proverbial places where black things happen, and no one has ever said, “I wish there were more stories about slavery.”
Where does the 1619 Project fit into this? Who was that for? These simple narratives that "white people only want what makes them feel good" are so obviously wrong. The libidinal economy can actually accommodate a lot of different emotions, as the social internet's affective economy should make clear to anybody paying attention. Again, who is to blame? White consumers? White taste-makers? Writers? Movie studio execs? Black performers? What about Tyler Perry? (is it unfair to even ask about Tyler Perry?)
I'm all for everyone being seen and feeling understood, and I get that this is a totally sincere expression of frustration that expresses something real about this person's experience. Unfortunately, I think stupidity and apathy have far more influence in shaping what is and is not legible within markets than people admit, and that those are much harder to deracinate than what is conventionally thought of as "racism."
|
I think stupidity and apathy have far more influence in shaping what is and is not legible within markets than people admit, and that those are much harder to deracinate than what is conventionally thought of as "racism."
Racism describes a mechanism by which such ignorance/stupidity and apathy can coexist with a renewable socially-assured righteousness in those that perpetuate it imo.
|
|
|
On July 04 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +I think stupidity and apathy have far more influence in shaping what is and is not legible within markets than people admit, and that those are much harder to deracinate than what is conventionally thought of as "racism." Racism describes a mechanism by which such ignorance/stupidity and apathy can coexist with a renewable socially-assured righteousness in those that perpetuate it imo.
No doubt. But the question is to what extent do you have a right to tell your concrete story as a unique individual? What about telling it without it being distorted to exaggerate certain market-legible features?
At a very basic level we have two problems: 1) it's impossible to tell everyone's story and 2) our channels are mostly set up to tell stories that make money. Is there a coherent way to structure narrative priority along social justice lines even if there were a social justice channel? Would anyone watch the social justice channel if it existed? The fundamental problem for everyone who wants to tell a story, regardless of race, is how are you going to get anyone to pay attention.
I've seen variations of this essay dozens of times by now. Maybe one point of the Squire essay is to convince people to seek out more black content. Fine. All good. I am all for content of every color, creed, age, sex, orientation, body, whatever. But if this essay is effective, if it actually guilts white people into looking for more black content that doesn't perform "blackness" (whatever that is), doesn't that kind of undercut the essay's assertions about what white audiences "really want"? Does Squire know that that is what the essay is attempting to do? What makes that a liberation from the burden to perform?
You can make art or you can make entertainment. If you make art you can't worry about the audience too much. If you make entertainment you can't complain about the audience too much. If you get a chance to make arty entertainment you are privileged.
|
I mean, I think “performative” isn’t a binary but a matter of degree. Maybe I’m betraying some kind of sociopathy here, but maybe I’m not alone in this: I’ve noticed a lot of minor social interactions have gotten less tiring since mask-wearing became ubiquitous. I don’t have to think as much about what my face is doing, what emotion I might be revealing or mistaken for revealing, etc. I’m not trying to be insincere when, say, a coworker asks how my weekend was, and yet apparently I was still putting some thought and effort into emoting or not emoting in only acceptable ways.
It’s not necessarily bad, and I don’t think “white people only want narratives that make them feel good” is the claim. I haven’t read Uncle Tom’s Cabin but from what I hear it’s not exactly meant to make white people feel good so much as shock them and convey some of the brutality of slavery. In the process it might make some concessions to be more persuasive (to whites, in particular) at the expense of being quite as true (or new or interesting, to blacks in particular). That’s an understandable tradeoff to make, and maybe we need more of that sort of thing too - a modern-day Uncle Tom’s Cabin to explain the brutality of systemic racism in criminal justice to whites. But there’s still some adjustment being made to create something palatable to the intended audience, which in the aggregate can result in a similar phenomenon to minstrelsy: afactual racial narratives perpetuated by fictional performances which allow whites to ignore injustice while still feeling righteous.
I’d point to the “few bad apples” narrative about police brutality as a possible candidate for modern examples.
|
On July 04 2020 04:47 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, I think “performative” isn’t a binary but a matter of degree. Maybe I’m betraying some kind of sociopathy here, but maybe I’m not alone in this: I’ve noticed a lot of minor social interactions have gotten less tiring since mask-wearing became ubiquitous. I don’t have to think as much about what my face is doing, what emotion I might be revealing or mistaken for revealing, etc. I’m not trying to be insincere when, say, a coworker asks how my weekend was, and yet apparently I was still putting some thought and effort into emoting or not emoting in only acceptable ways.
It’s not necessarily bad, and I don’t think “white people only want narratives that make them feel good” is the claim. I haven’t read Uncle Tom’s Cabin but from what I hear it’s not exactly meant to make white people feel good so much as shock them and convey some of the brutality of slavery. In the process it might make some concessions to be more persuasive (to whites, in particular) at the expense of being quite as true (or new or interesting, to blacks in particular). That’s an understandable tradeoff to make, and maybe we need more of that sort of thing too - a modern-day Uncle Tom’s Cabin to explain the brutality of systemic racism in criminal justice to whites. But there’s still some adjustment being made to create something palatable to the intended audience, which in the aggregate can result in a similar phenomenon to minstrelsy: afactual racial narratives perpetuated by fictional performances which allow whites to ignore injustice while still feeling righteous.
I’d point to the “few bad apples” narrative about police brutality as a possible candidate for modern examples.
Just so that we understand what the baseline here is: do you think that white narratives are "factual" as opposed to "afactual?" Not a binary, of course. But in the last 5 or 10 years are BIPOC-centered movies more like minstrel shows or more like white movies?
|
On July 04 2020 04:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2020 04:47 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, I think “performative” isn’t a binary but a matter of degree. Maybe I’m betraying some kind of sociopathy here, but maybe I’m not alone in this: I’ve noticed a lot of minor social interactions have gotten less tiring since mask-wearing became ubiquitous. I don’t have to think as much about what my face is doing, what emotion I might be revealing or mistaken for revealing, etc. I’m not trying to be insincere when, say, a coworker asks how my weekend was, and yet apparently I was still putting some thought and effort into emoting or not emoting in only acceptable ways.
It’s not necessarily bad, and I don’t think “white people only want narratives that make them feel good” is the claim. I haven’t read Uncle Tom’s Cabin but from what I hear it’s not exactly meant to make white people feel good so much as shock them and convey some of the brutality of slavery. In the process it might make some concessions to be more persuasive (to whites, in particular) at the expense of being quite as true (or new or interesting, to blacks in particular). That’s an understandable tradeoff to make, and maybe we need more of that sort of thing too - a modern-day Uncle Tom’s Cabin to explain the brutality of systemic racism in criminal justice to whites. But there’s still some adjustment being made to create something palatable to the intended audience, which in the aggregate can result in a similar phenomenon to minstrelsy: afactual racial narratives perpetuated by fictional performances which allow whites to ignore injustice while still feeling righteous.
I’d point to the “few bad apples” narrative about police brutality as a possible candidate for modern examples. Just so that we understand what the baseline here is: do you think that white narratives are "factual" as opposed to "afactual?" Not a binary, of course. But in the last 5 or 10 years are BIPOC-centered movies more like minstrel shows or more like white movies?
It’s a mix. I’ve seen very little trying to really address a lot of criminal justice; police and criminal justice are usually dealt with in pretty uncritical fashion. Just Mercy has gotten some praise here, although even then I think it can only exist because it presents it primarily as an Alabama problem.
I also just don’t watch that many movies, so I can’t say with much certainty, but I think they’re probably better on most other subjects. I saw Moonlight recently, which (at least to my white eye, what do I know) seemed refreshingly honest. It didn’t seem to be going very far out of its way to be more palatable to white audiences.
|
On July 04 2020 04:33 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:I think stupidity and apathy have far more influence in shaping what is and is not legible within markets than people admit, and that those are much harder to deracinate than what is conventionally thought of as "racism." Racism describes a mechanism by which such ignorance/stupidity and apathy can coexist with a renewable socially-assured righteousness in those that perpetuate it imo. No doubt. + Show Spoiler + But the question is to what extent do you have a right to tell your concrete story as a unique individual? What about telling it without it being distorted to exaggerate certain market-legible features?
At a very basic level we have two problems: 1) it's impossible to tell everyone's story and 2) our channels are mostly set up to tell stories that make money. Is there a coherent way to structure narrative priority along social justice lines even if there were a social justice channel? Would anyone watch the social justice channel if it existed? The fundamental problem for everyone who wants to tell a story, regardless of race, is how are you going to get anyone to pay attention.
I've seen variations of this essay dozens of times by now. Maybe one point of the Squire essay is to convince people to seek out more black content. Fine. All good. I am all for content of every color, creed, age, sex, orientation, body, whatever. But if this essay is effective, if it actually guilts white people into looking for more black content that doesn't perform "blackness" (whatever that is), doesn't that kind of undercut the essay's assertions about what white audiences "really want"? Does Squire know that that is what the essay is attempting to do? What makes that a liberation from the burden to perform?
You can make art or you can make entertainment. If you make art you can't worry about the audience too much. If you make entertainment you can't complain about the audience too much. If you get a chance to make arty entertainment you are privileged.
Are you speaking about yourself (I'd agree), or more broadly (I'd probably disagree)?
|
On July 04 2020 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2020 04:33 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:I think stupidity and apathy have far more influence in shaping what is and is not legible within markets than people admit, and that those are much harder to deracinate than what is conventionally thought of as "racism." Racism describes a mechanism by which such ignorance/stupidity and apathy can coexist with a renewable socially-assured righteousness in those that perpetuate it imo. No doubt. + Show Spoiler + But the question is to what extent do you have a right to tell your concrete story as a unique individual? What about telling it without it being distorted to exaggerate certain market-legible features?
At a very basic level we have two problems: 1) it's impossible to tell everyone's story and 2) our channels are mostly set up to tell stories that make money. Is there a coherent way to structure narrative priority along social justice lines even if there were a social justice channel? Would anyone watch the social justice channel if it existed? The fundamental problem for everyone who wants to tell a story, regardless of race, is how are you going to get anyone to pay attention.
I've seen variations of this essay dozens of times by now. Maybe one point of the Squire essay is to convince people to seek out more black content. Fine. All good. I am all for content of every color, creed, age, sex, orientation, body, whatever. But if this essay is effective, if it actually guilts white people into looking for more black content that doesn't perform "blackness" (whatever that is), doesn't that kind of undercut the essay's assertions about what white audiences "really want"? Does Squire know that that is what the essay is attempting to do? What makes that a liberation from the burden to perform?
You can make art or you can make entertainment. If you make art you can't worry about the audience too much. If you make entertainment you can't complain about the audience too much. If you get a chance to make arty entertainment you are privileged. Are you speaking about yourself (I'd agree), or more broadly (I'd probably disagree)?
What do you mean?
|
On July 04 2020 05:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2020 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2020 04:33 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:I think stupidity and apathy have far more influence in shaping what is and is not legible within markets than people admit, and that those are much harder to deracinate than what is conventionally thought of as "racism." Racism describes a mechanism by which such ignorance/stupidity and apathy can coexist with a renewable socially-assured righteousness in those that perpetuate it imo. No doubt. + Show Spoiler + But the question is to what extent do you have a right to tell your concrete story as a unique individual? What about telling it without it being distorted to exaggerate certain market-legible features?
At a very basic level we have two problems: 1) it's impossible to tell everyone's story and 2) our channels are mostly set up to tell stories that make money. Is there a coherent way to structure narrative priority along social justice lines even if there were a social justice channel? Would anyone watch the social justice channel if it existed? The fundamental problem for everyone who wants to tell a story, regardless of race, is how are you going to get anyone to pay attention.
I've seen variations of this essay dozens of times by now. Maybe one point of the Squire essay is to convince people to seek out more black content. Fine. All good. I am all for content of every color, creed, age, sex, orientation, body, whatever. But if this essay is effective, if it actually guilts white people into looking for more black content that doesn't perform "blackness" (whatever that is), doesn't that kind of undercut the essay's assertions about what white audiences "really want"? Does Squire know that that is what the essay is attempting to do? What makes that a liberation from the burden to perform?
You can make art or you can make entertainment. If you make art you can't worry about the audience too much. If you make entertainment you can't complain about the audience too much. If you get a chance to make arty entertainment you are privileged. Are you speaking about yourself (I'd agree), or more broadly (I'd probably disagree)? What do you mean?
I believe and think I understand you when you say you have "no doubt". I don't think that certainty is very ubiquitous here or nationally.
|
On July 04 2020 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2020 05:15 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2020 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2020 04:33 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:I think stupidity and apathy have far more influence in shaping what is and is not legible within markets than people admit, and that those are much harder to deracinate than what is conventionally thought of as "racism." Racism describes a mechanism by which such ignorance/stupidity and apathy can coexist with a renewable socially-assured righteousness in those that perpetuate it imo. No doubt. + Show Spoiler + But the question is to what extent do you have a right to tell your concrete story as a unique individual? What about telling it without it being distorted to exaggerate certain market-legible features?
At a very basic level we have two problems: 1) it's impossible to tell everyone's story and 2) our channels are mostly set up to tell stories that make money. Is there a coherent way to structure narrative priority along social justice lines even if there were a social justice channel? Would anyone watch the social justice channel if it existed? The fundamental problem for everyone who wants to tell a story, regardless of race, is how are you going to get anyone to pay attention.
I've seen variations of this essay dozens of times by now. Maybe one point of the Squire essay is to convince people to seek out more black content. Fine. All good. I am all for content of every color, creed, age, sex, orientation, body, whatever. But if this essay is effective, if it actually guilts white people into looking for more black content that doesn't perform "blackness" (whatever that is), doesn't that kind of undercut the essay's assertions about what white audiences "really want"? Does Squire know that that is what the essay is attempting to do? What makes that a liberation from the burden to perform?
You can make art or you can make entertainment. If you make art you can't worry about the audience too much. If you make entertainment you can't complain about the audience too much. If you get a chance to make arty entertainment you are privileged. Are you speaking about yourself (I'd agree), or more broadly (I'd probably disagree)? What do you mean? I believe and think I understand you when you say you have "no doubt". I don't think that certainty is very ubiquitous here or nationally.
Well yeah, that's what I said originally. I am trying to keep in mind, and separate from each other, something like "white privilege" and "median apathy quotient." Nobody reads James Joyce just like nobody reads James Baldwin. Actually more people probably read Baldwin in 2020, if I had to guess.
|
|
|
On July 04 2020 05:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2020 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2020 05:15 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2020 05:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2020 04:33 IgnE wrote:On July 04 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:I think stupidity and apathy have far more influence in shaping what is and is not legible within markets than people admit, and that those are much harder to deracinate than what is conventionally thought of as "racism." Racism describes a mechanism by which such ignorance/stupidity and apathy can coexist with a renewable socially-assured righteousness in those that perpetuate it imo. No doubt. + Show Spoiler + But the question is to what extent do you have a right to tell your concrete story as a unique individual? What about telling it without it being distorted to exaggerate certain market-legible features?
At a very basic level we have two problems: 1) it's impossible to tell everyone's story and 2) our channels are mostly set up to tell stories that make money. Is there a coherent way to structure narrative priority along social justice lines even if there were a social justice channel? Would anyone watch the social justice channel if it existed? The fundamental problem for everyone who wants to tell a story, regardless of race, is how are you going to get anyone to pay attention.
I've seen variations of this essay dozens of times by now. Maybe one point of the Squire essay is to convince people to seek out more black content. Fine. All good. I am all for content of every color, creed, age, sex, orientation, body, whatever. But if this essay is effective, if it actually guilts white people into looking for more black content that doesn't perform "blackness" (whatever that is), doesn't that kind of undercut the essay's assertions about what white audiences "really want"? Does Squire know that that is what the essay is attempting to do? What makes that a liberation from the burden to perform?
You can make art or you can make entertainment. If you make art you can't worry about the audience too much. If you make entertainment you can't complain about the audience too much. If you get a chance to make arty entertainment you are privileged. Are you speaking about yourself (I'd agree), or more broadly (I'd probably disagree)? What do you mean? I believe and think I understand you when you say you have "no doubt". I don't think that certainty is very ubiquitous here or nationally. Well yeah, that's what I said originally.
Not sure what you're referencing with 'originally', but probably. I think that certainty (and class consciousness) being ubiquitous is a practically necessary condition for my liberation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
