Are Bill Cosby and Sidney Porteir Uncle Toms

I have a new favorite phrase.

i don't know about uncle toms, it's not my place to say, but bill cosby has sucked satans cock ever since the late seventies, whereas sidney was always pretty cool, especially in a patch of blue. plus he was in a movie with lula...

If it's your life at stake, you might well acquiesce to the wishes of the white status quo (at least the way Davis had to at the time). It would be a bit rich to go calling Uncle Tom at any of these men because you, late C20/early C21 person, are in a state of such privilege compared to these people at the start of their careers, pre- integration. I don't think any of us could imagine what living like that would be like, apart from the anger at being separated out for no good reason. Also, just because the material of a Cosby these days is hopelessly soft (like Robin Willianms) doesn't mean he is acquiescent or obsequious, just seriously mainstream.

Sidney Poiter a Uncle Tom? Fer christ sakes - he broke ground for black actors. He did it by just proving himself a class act in the field. He's movies are daring, exploring inter-racial relationships, etc. Same with Bill Cosby - don't you think it's an achievement in itself that they are both successful and well-known actors....do you even look at television and movies, don't you notice how incredibly white faced television and movies are.

That question was just in bad, poor taste, man o man and has cues of being either incredibly ignorant or just plain self absorbed (ie. How the fuck can you compare Will and Grace with Bill Cosby and Sidney Poiter).

And Poiter's A Touch of Blue - just watch that movie, I think I am getting the name wrong, but A Touch of Blue explores the relationship and love between a black man and a blind girl. Christ, open up a book of culture occassionally. Not every black activist was in the Black Panthers. They were out there proving that they were successful worthy entertainers. Fucking pop cultures idols, they both are.

I agree with Suzy - Sammy Davis Jr is the man. A black activist by demonstrating that blacks can be successful singers and actors.

Wow, you really don't understand the world, do you?

And by the way, Anthony did not invent this himself. Black Power activists called Poitier an Uncle Tom after 'Guess Who's Coming To Dinner' came out. I found this out when doing the same stuff that led to this thread

Where do you take your film studies course? At KKK U?

Educate yourself man before proposing such cheekiness. I have total respect for Sammy, Bill and Sidney.

Watch a Touch of Blue and come back and tell me that Sidney Poiter is an uncle tom???????? I mean, even look at Nat King Cole, the first black man to have a television series. I prefer his piano playing to his singing but would I ever call that man an Uncle Tom? No. I have to much respect for ground breakers.

Next are you going to say that the children that attended Little Rock High are Uncle Toms because they wanted to intergrate a segregated school. That's what Bill and Sidney did - intergrate a segregated film base.

I'll go back to lurking cause I know everyone here hates me. Just had to pop in on that one.

Bye.

but Nitsuh don't you think that such an extreme powerful force as the Black Panthers would not achieve the successes as reaching Middle America as Poiter or Cosby?

The Panthers said the same thing to Davis....but to brush over the achievements - I dunno.

But I'm coo'.....

Back to lurking now.

But Poiter and Cosby appealed to the black populace who were alienated by the Black Panthers and demonstrated that sophistication and talent should not be a question of skin colour - it should be a question of talent.

I think both fitted and did their best at educating the wide populace of black and white american folks at that time.

I guess it's such talk that would wind you up if you were a Black Panther. Fuck Hepburn and her impeccable liberal credentials. I'm grabbing my own change. I'm just guessing here. I don't know any Black Panthers.

And to answer Anthony's question - yes it does matter - by simply saying that 'those who do not remember the past...'

Even in music - to take a specific analogy - Whitney Houston and Dead Prez. Both are educating folks in specific ways. Education about racism should be non-stop and coming at all levels.

And this is a seriously troubling post. Anthony do you really think that all black folks live in ghettos, do drugs, sell drugs, belong to gangs?

I happen to know lots of black folks that don't.

NB: Did you know that Sammy Davis Jr was not allowed to play at Kennedy's inargual ball?

After all of the networking and support given to Kennedy's career.

Anthony what do you think the "African American Experience" is?

I don't know if this was directed at me, but if so, I of course never said any such thing. I was just wondering what Paul meant by his Even in music - to take a specific analogy - Whitney Houston and Dead Prez. Both are educating folks in specific ways.

Disagree with your Suzy. Minorities have a belief in education and oft raise to the occassion if called upon. Just because there are educated blacks does not mean that racism has stopped. I happen to know several prominent black artists who are deeply committed to education of racism. And even regular folk who will participate in education when the opportunity arises.

But as a generalisation it is deeply patronising and if I was writing this as an article I would consider my words more carefully.

Whitney is education just by being there - as an entertainer, a black entertainer, and proof of a shift in culture because she is not considered a threat or black. Only has a human being with a bloody powerful voice.

Lauryn Hill recognises that.

Back to work.

whitney - as stated in the above post.

And yes, through my own cultural biases of loving film and music, you could say that I am upholding stereotypes but that is through my own ignorance. But would I say ignorance? No. Not really. I think it is moreorless to do that I find film, book and music to be extremely powerful and important in evoking emotional responses to issues.

And my immediate examples are going to be from such. But I can recognise that is a weakness of my part.

I could discuss the Black Panthers in more detail or historically the black situation if it would be helpful?

"Flannery O'Connor is my favourite southern novelist because she does not try to understand or get inside the heads of black people from the south at that time, she represents life as it is".

(Badly paraphrased to the boffins out there who know the quote)

Thus I can talk about the issues of race, I can educate myself and others, but can I truly understand it? No. I am not black. Thus to say that I truly understand the anger of racism would be a fallacy. I have experienced nationalism but not racism.

The kind of education I was talking about is the type that minorities often feel pressure to provide for non-minorities about background, traditions, religion, HAIR - the kind of stuff you know just because you grow up with/next to people. For example, when I went away to college I didn't know that *sunburn* was part of the African-American experience and was quite rightly teased by my friend Prudence for what was ignorance on my part.

And also, from work as a sub-editor on a magazine for black women it was pretty clear from what my colleagues said that they were sick of having to court the whole 'role model' thing in exchange for being visible to the white majority. Among friends, a different story - people are happy to sit in a room full of people from different countries, swapping stories to gain understanding.

Education is very simple - you can educate by discussing sunburns or when I ask a friend to tell me about the racism that she has experienced in the past.

It can be a simple talk or it can be a talk to 1000s of people.

Of the black artists I know they do feel pressure to 'educate' on a wider scale and I do believe that they do get tired of speaking of the black experience when their art should be the subject of talk not their skin colours

... funnily enough the majority of black artists that I have known rather enjoy giving talks and presentations to minority groups. Just on the basis of 'Listen, I did it, you can do it too', to break it down and provide inspiration.

But yes, and again, I'm being very general as I really don't have to time to get into specifics...but constantly being forced to be a role model could be viewed as racism in itself. But it's there, regardless of whether you want to prove it or not.

You are a woman Suzy - do you not have pressure to outperform, outdo, demonstrate your competence on a everyday level?

Sorry for the awkwardness of my response but I have to get back to writing.

Big generalisation: I've always believed that the person with the privilege should always help the person with fewer privileges to help themselves. And the people who ARE going to help themselves will not feel patronised by the offer of help, and will often ask for help unbidden.

As to the woman thing, the industry I work in is EXTREMELY competitive, with people taking every nepotistic shortcut possible to get ahead - and that includes me, too. I honestly feel more pressure to prove myself because of class background and coming from a kind of 'nowhere' than because of my gender. But am a feminist regardless.

But the patronisation is there from what I have experiences, ie. workinig at a human rights law firm in england for awhile and thought: it's the self righteosness (spelling!) that is galling. "I am helping the poor therefore I am Saint/Martyr". I honestly feel that socialism is a dead end because honest socialism means a certain dedication to improving the lives and lifestyle of the poor and truly understanding the poor. Through education and fighting. From my own experience, limited as it maybe, I view John Clarke as leader of the Ontario Coalition of Povery to be a socialist hero as he is with the poor, understanding the poor, giving power to the lower classes, power to educate, etc and doing some amazing things. See, the upper classes do not want the poor to be educated to their situation because without the working classes their own lifestyle is threatened. Unfortunately, you get the upper classes working in the socialist stratosphere. The poor can come into their homes but only through the servant's entrance. Nothing really has changed since "The Ragged Trousered Philandropists"! In England the situation is worse as the class lines are distinctly drawn. IE. "We should get a worker in".

As to the woman thing, the industry I work in is EXTREMELY competitive, with people taking every nepotistic shortcut possible to get ahead - and that includes me, too. I honestly feel more pressure to prove myself because of class background and coming from a kind of 'nowhere' than because of my gender. But am a feminist regardless.

I do feel pressure as well - but does that not make better work? I can't say that I have a career, I am sorting out my publishing and doing a plot synposis (spelling!) as we speak. But yeah, I@m in the same boat, not exactly but I did get where I am going through some very good connections.

Classism? Yeah. I feel it as well Suzy. Not so much in Canada but definitely England. However, our backgrounds make us who we are, more driven, more creative and more forward with ideas than middle class folk. (Another huge generalisation mind you...)

But I say - if there is a short cut there, I will take it, if I can use nepotism I will use it, i will lie cheat and steal because at the end of the day I just want to put something beautiful out there.

The ends justify the means where beauty is concerned. But that is my own warped view point.

that was a rushed response so forgive the poor everything! I really am the f scott fitzgerald of editing!

I have no objection to someone of a different social stratosphere helping me out.

it's cooler when they are friends thus i can forgo the lying, cheating and stealing bit and just get the help needed.

I have spent time in advocacy centres for the handicapped and for the poor. I was struck with the reactions of the various people. Some do it just because it's a need, like writing, just to get it done and want no congratulations. The media are not interested. Just the folks in the centre doing their thing to help society.

However at the Human Rights Law Firm I was struck by how self congratutory (spelling) it was. Constant massaging of the ego was brought by support staff and the media (who in reality are just looking for the next juicy story and the other half honestly believe in education).

For instance: I was struck by the one lawyer who was immediately annoyed that I was invited to the Groucho Club. I did not know at the time the history of the club. I went there for a drink and dinner with my friend and enjoyed myself immensely on the low key atmosphere within the club.

When I mentioned that the lawyer said "XX and I have been invited to the Groucho Club before but we always turned it down because we don't want to be seen at places like that".

I thought, how odd and how egotistical. If she truly was not in it for the glory than that conversation would not have taken place.

Needless to say I quit very soon after as I was not in an enjoyable position to do my job and massage egos.

But when I worked for seven months at the Advocacy Centre for the Poor I was struck by how good I had felt. I did not tell anyone what I did but I left work thinking "Yes, I feel really good" (which is odd feeling for anyone who does admin). It was the low key nature of the lawyers and the support staff there - who were participating not for glory but just because they had to. There was a need and niche and they were fulfilling that niche.

Same with the Advocacy Centre for the Disabled. There was a lawyer on the team constantly striving for recognition and did not like to ask questions which were provocative but harmless. She was on a television special and made copies for everyone.

The others just did it because I honestly believe (and my mother being a nurse) that it is either inert in people to help or it is inert for people to be constantly recognised and praised.

I prefer the later.

But did I ever want a pat on the back? No. The feeling I got from the Advocacy Centre for the Poor was the pat on the back. The feeling that the world can be put to rights.

The feeling I got from the Human Rights Law Firm was nausea. That 'the radical left cause' was an umbrella to treat people like crap, overwork support staff and generally the vibe was fake and unhappy - where they were more interested in the media recognition then the work itself.

Interesting question though.

The interesting thing was that John Clarke's action were being written up - positive and negative - by people whose talent is to educate and inform. You couldnt ignore the articles as you could in the socialist worker or the social columns - it was there, it was happening and you could no longer ignore the poor. It became an issue.

Which was brilliant.

Cosby: A few late-80s cultural critics complained that Cosby's desire to put forth positive images of African-American family life led him to overzealously whitewash the reality of most African-Americans; he was taken to task for (a) "unrepresentative" images but more significantly and more politically (b) possibly reinforcing the white conservative belief that racism and inequality are "over" and no more work needs to be done to correct them. These charges are in many senses self-serving bullshit, which I'll get to momentarily, but let me first note that Cosby in many senses responded to these accusations by casting the couple in the new Cosby show as working class.

Poitier: Poitier's was always cast in roles that were more race-work than human-work -- he was for quite some time the go-to guy for the "Noble Negro" roles -- and as time passed and that sort of "recognize the basic dignity of blacks" narrative became somewhat less necessary, some began to view Poitier as complicit in his own ghettoization, playing roles which supposedly "demeaned" him by using him as a prop for a two- dimensional idealization of a race rather than as a person. Onward:

Three things are at play here. One is the sort of "work" that critics and activists perceive as necessary with regard to race, which has always been "in process," so to speak: those early Poitier roles represented shining progress at the time, but given that progress, we'd view a 21st-century rehashing of them as unconscionably patronizing. The problem is that the "process" comes from a top-down view of society, not from individuals, and so someone who's made a career of positive work early in the process -- in these cases, the honestly bold challenges of simply representing African-Americans as decent human beings -- may stick to that work, even as others pull them to move on to the next challenge of talking honestly about these decent human beings circumstances and failings and everything else that goes into an honest nuanced view of millions and millions of people.

Second come the mechanics of art, which tend to get lost as everyone in these debates stakes out positions on racial progress: why should any entertainer be held responsible for either idealizing or realistically representing anything? No one makes these demands on white entertainers, because it's assumed that Americans already have a realistic view of white behaviour: it's only when there's the sense that something is being represented to mainstream viewers -- whether that thing be race or sexuality or anything else -- that people want work to be done, to use the art as a tool to influence opinion.

And why is that? It's because mainstream white American viewers are still largely unable to see images of blacks or homosexuals or any other "Other" group without extrapolating the behaviour they see to the whole of the race. This is why black comedians get blamed for "minstrelry" while Andrew Dice Clay only got blamed for himself: they all act out laughable and often unattractive behavior, but the black comedians are perceived to represent an entire race which the white viewer is unable to make individual distinctions about. (And this is reinforced by the fact that black people like the "minstrel" comedians -- but they laugh not because Chris Tucker or Martin Lawrence or whomever reminds them of "he's acting silly like black people act," but rather "he's acting silly like some people I know act.")

And the question becomes: what sort of race-depiction work can solve that problem? And the only answer I can think of is to watch black people having debates precisely like this one, rather than thinking that we have to get all of our ducks in a row and decide on what sort of face to show to mainstream America. That's why I hate the above criticisms of Cosby and Poitier: because they internalize the idea that we all "represent" one another, and do just as much as anything else to deny African-Americans the progress of being seen as variegated individuals as opposed to some sort of collective mob. That's the point in the "process" we need to reach, because once that key is unlocked, once people can see blacks as individuals, we'll no longer have to worry about how we're depicted.

Anthony, I don't suppose they're screening "Uptown Saturday Night" in your film class?

To answer Anthony directly, I've seen nothing white-washed or sanitized in either Cosby's or Poitier's work, unless I happen to live in an extended family of whitewashed African- Americans. My home life was INFINITELY closer to "The Cosby Show" and "A Different World" than it was to "Shaft" or "Boyz In The Hood".

Nitsuh - don't you believe that has happened with certain black entertainers where really - it's not the colour of their skin that matters - they are just entertainers. As in Whitney Houston or Janet Jackson or Will Smith where they are not thought of as black performers but just performers?

But I do agree with you there - that it is a subtle form of racism in itself that in beliving that black performers have a duty to carry on the race tradition and I very badly made that point.

I mean, the idealist in me really would want to say, hey, don't worry, that was years ago, blacks really don't have to worry about how they are depicted in mass media. That, sadly, has not happened. But should blacks shoulder the responsibility of the image that is forced into mass media? And the question that you brought up - is why should they shoulder that responsibility? Racism?

But you answered it with 'the process' which is certainly the key but when? When do you think that would happen? Do you not think that it will only happen when racism on all forms and fronts stops? the process is certainly there but it has not reached completion, has it?

Sorry for being abstract ... just digesting your post and this thread which I find very interesting.

nb: What are everyone's thoughts on Spike Lee's last movie - which I think, and I may be lazy in arguing this, essentially represented in the filmic sense what Nitsuh is talking about.

I don't find Married with Children offensive but I do find Clocking Off offensive....watching the manager of a factory snort cocaine on the floor with some bimbo and make some cheesey comment about 'How he really wanted to get the name of the girl right who works on the shop floor....I really care for my workers' *pained look*

So yeah, I find stereotypes, where the stereotype is meant to be serious and not humourous of the working class, offensive and yeah, I do get worked up about it.

As television is a powerful tool - how many times have you heard a child say 'I saw that on tv.'.......

anyways back to work for abstract paul.

Question for Dan...

I know that you are a fellow comic book fan (by the way I sat next to Doctor Who Tom Baker in the Groucho Club, and no, I won't go into what I said to him, very drunkenly I might add, complimentary but very drunkenly cause I was in 9 year old Paul geek heaven)..

Crass example:

Marvel characters - Black Panther, Black Falcon.....

Why mention the skin colour? Is that offensive or it that a case of McCarthy's vertigo of "Look hard enough and you will find something"....

Is there a balance to be had when discussing these issues? I have no idea....

It's interesting how blacks are percieved in media, the same with, other races, orientals, east indians...

Just watching Breakfast at Tiffany's (which I think is a lovely movie) but Mickey Rooney's racial stereotyping of the oriental is a bit hard on the stomach. Is this part of the process - where when the movie was released, Mickey Rooney's character was just a hilarious laugh fest but now seen as obnoxiously racist?

Just wondering...

Yeah, I think I messed up on the Falcon....it was another one.

Captain America: That's alright Soldier.

If someone were to say to me that "90% of racism is class warfare in disguise", I'm not sure that I would be inclined to disagree. Certainly, I find it hard to argue with the contention of a friend of mine -- namely, that class is the core landmine-issue at the heart of American social conflict, and that most of the media doesn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole, because it's an unbelievably explosive topic from which just about no one can be sure of emerging unscathed.

Q: True or false? Bill Cosby was the first black man. A: True.

No, it was false. The first black man was Sidney Poitier.

I think that there is a lot of truth to that argument, but it's complicated, of course. For instance, I have a couple white relatives who are very reluctant, even afraid, to spend time in certain places that are mostly black. I personally tend to think that they're mainly motivated by fear of the poor -- that is, the fear that those who don't have money hate those that do, and are looking for opportunities to take what they can by force (and have less to lose by taking that risk) -- and that if they do have a strong fear of blacks, it's based on the faulty assumption/stereotype that black = poor (so "black" is functioning as something of a trope, in their minds, for "poor"). On the other hand, perhaps they do feel hostile and fearful towards what they perceive as "black culture" (which will obviously tend to seem more monolithic to someone who already has a bias against it), for whatever reason. Since I can't get inside their heads, I can't say.

In any event, one of the reasons I see classism and class conflict as such an explosive issue is because its origins lie, in part, in what can seem like a pretty ineradicable part of human nature. It's pretty reasonable, if you have something that someone else doesn't, to be afraid that they're going to want to take it from you. And it's also pretty reasonable, if someone else has something that you want, to feel the impulse to take it from them. And the more you perceive yourself, and are perceived by others, as having little or nothing to lose, the more tempted you'll be to take that risk, and the more afraid others will be that you'll do so. And thus the ill will and fear builds, and will continue to do so for as long as prosperity is a (relatively) scarce resource -- that is, as long as the genuinely desperate exist.

I don't claim for a minute that this equation sums up the totality of class and economic conflict -- that would be an oversimplification of pretty unbelievable proportions -- nor that any of this isn't painfully obvious and a bunch of truisms. Still, I do think a discussion of racial conflict that focuses on xenophobia and fear of "difference" in the abstract, but fails to acknowledge the powerful economic elements that are at the very least a part of the equation, won't come up with conclusions that are representative of most people's motivations and conflicts in the real world.

Short answer: I don't know. I think they actually grew up quite poor and in a white-dominated area, but it was also a rural area, which is admittedly a different kettle of fish. I can't say that I've ever seen them go into a low-income white neighborhood in an urban area.

Now that I think about it, though, I can think of one or two areas that they've advised me to avoid that are indeed poor, white, and urban, so perhaps there's our answer.