Brooks discusses Deep Space Nine and more: http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashv...men-on-tv-had-gone-before/Content?oid=2890562
I like Avery as much as the next guy but does he always have to bring things back to race in interviews?
I think the Q's led him to talk about "black and brown" so don't really have a problem with that. Still, see what you're saying. You don't read about Patrick Stewart hoping for a positive portrayal of bald, Englishmen or Kate Mulgrew harping about white women. Still it was a good interview and I blv DS9 still holds a very place in his heart and mind. I'm just glad he didn't wax weird like he's very capable of.
I dunno; I for one would have liked to hear more about Avery Brooks' one-man show about Paul Robeson. But yeah, the way in which he was talking makes me think that the questions were designed to angle into the race issue, and Mr Brooks hadn't brought them up himself.
Personally I get tired of people complaining all the time about Brooks 'bringing up race' all the time. They asked him questions and he answered them. And he spoke truthfully and I'm glad he is conscious of the impact that a black character like Sisko, as well defined as he was, could have on people of color (like myself) and others. And he spoke truth about the lack of well written roles for actors of color when it came to depictions of fathers and sons, and this is still an issue even 20 years after DS9 premiered. I haven't read any Stewart or Mulgrew interviews lately, but at least for Mulgrew, I would bet dollars to donuts, that she has been asked or has commented on what it was like to play a female captain before and the impact of that. What I have noticed though in the US is that when the media refers to 'women' they are usually referring to white women. If there is an issue pertaining to black women, they will specify black women. They do the same thing for men, but it seems more noticeable to me when they do it for woman. As for Patrick Stewart, he is part of the most dominant racial/gender group, so the kinds of questions he gets are not going to be related to the history making aspect of his role, I'm guessing.
Is there any particular reason a member of an oppressed community shouldn't talk about it, especially when so many members of the majority like to pretend that racial oppression doesn't exist anymore? Nobody talks about wanting positive portrayals of English because the English are the dominant social group in the United Kingdom and are part of the dominant social group called "whites" in the Western world. Kate Mulgrew has talked about the need to be a positive role model for women in her portrayal of Captain Janeway. Like it or not, inequality and oppression, both sexual and racial, both exist. Until it is ended, it is completely valid for artists from those oppressed communities to bring it up as motivating factors in their work.
How about because we don't need it shoved down our throats every damn day? I'm starting to think the real reason that racism still exists is because the people who were oppressed in the past or had ancestors who were oppressed for whatever reason don't want to let it go, and the white kids today go into overkill to prove how enlightened they are. Okay, I've had my say, now let's see how I get dismissed as an evil racist, when all I did was express an opinion.
I've heard a relevant South African saying about racism (I'm paraphrasing here): "Racism is when a white person says something that black/non-white people don't like." But I feel Avery Brooks answering questions about it when prompted isn't really annoying, considering the fact that he played a rather rare character type (well adjusted black single father) on top of being the captain on DS9.
Maybe just maybe it's the fact that oppression still very much exists in today's society? We can dismiss racist opinions without calling the people expressing them evil.
Keep on believing that if you so choose, you are entitled to your beliefs/opinions after all. But how is Avery Brooks talking about the racial/cultural impact of the Sisko character 'shoving it down your throat' and is it really 'every damn day'? I didn't know that Brooks gave daily interviews. And to the larger point about racism and this nice little idea that some folks have that mentioning racism is the same as racism, the new racism, or worse than historic racism, I've often heard this refrain along the lines of 'just let it go'. Well, how do you let racial disparities that might affect your life outcome or those of your family or children 'go' exactly? And when it comes to history should just omit the history of racism in the US? But wouldn't that be teaching a false history? And the truth is out there or it will come out anyway, so why not be keep it real and tell all of it? Maybe it might ultimately lead to greater empathy and understanding. As a black man, I don't have the luxury of burying my head in the sand and pretending that if we don't talk about race or act on racial disparities it will just go away. It doesn't. We have achieved the progress we have thus far because many people stood up, people 'shoved it down' people's throats and made them face the racism in the country, made them see the hypocrisy of segregation and racism in a democratic country. It wasn't a natural evolution, it took the work and blood of blacks, whites, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, straight and gay Americans. And many have benefited, whites included, as a result of the long struggle for civil and human rights. But when you look at continuing racial disparities and see reports about resegregation of schools, etc. this goes beyond people merely not 'letting something go' to issues of structural inequality.
It bothers me that many (not saying it's you) have bought into the idea that just because Obama was elected that racism is somehow over. And it's funny in part because many of the people who say this the strongest are whites who didn't vote for him and probably won't this November. There is such a strong need to deny racism, even historical racism, among some in our country that it gets farcical. Like when Michelle Bachmann (sp) claimed that the Founding Fathers worked to end slavery, when actually many of them were slave owners. Obama is black, but he is also white. And I remember reports right before his inauguration where whites felt that he wasn't really black. And early in his candidacy his 'exoticism' was played up, as was his comfortableness around whites and they around him. So I think these things helped him. Obama came across as the 'right' kind of black person. And he has followed in a tradition of black technocrats who minimize issues involving race. Of course that works well to appeal to some white voters but it handicaps the black technocrats from addressing issues concerning race or racial disparities, if they are concerned about addressing them at all, and in some cases that is debatable. Because everyone-including many blacks-are so intent to get the issue of race behind them (thought without really doing anything about it). It's like having a disease and thinking if you don't get it diagnosed or talk about it, it will go away. Also, Obama has presided-not entirely his fault-over catastrophic economic times for black Americans, where the racial disparities have been uncovered and are stark. So racism and/or inequality still does exist, even in Obama's America. Cynically, especially in Obama's America because he has less room to maneuver than a white President does to address racial disparities. Despite the terrible times for blacks, there were some polls done a year or two ago where whites feel that blacks are benefiting from the Obama administration more.
Ask Trayvon Martin, or the thousands of innocent people who get harassed and threatened by the NYPD for the crime of being black in public, or the millions of black men who are sent to years in prison for the same crimes whites get lighter sentences on, or the people who can't even get interviewed for a job if their name sounds too "black" (even when a "white"-sounding name on the same resume gets an interview). Racial oppression in this country is pervasive and institutional. The United States has made enormous strides in gaining racial equality, but the fact that it has an African-American President does not mean that oppression against African-Americans has ended. Nothing was shoved down your throat. An interviewer asked an African-American artist about how questions of racial identity impact his work and his decisions, and he answered. That a black man refuses to be invisible does not mean anything was "shoved down your throat." Yes. Yes, racism is black people's fault. Obviously that's the case. "Expressing an opinion" doesn't mean that someone isn't this or isn't that. It is, in fact, the content of your opinion that determines whether or not you are X, whatever X may be. I don't know you well and I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that you're an evil racist. But you're obviously blind to your own racial privilege.
Having read this article, I would not say there is anything that could be perceived as an attack or a derogatory statement towards other races. Brooks' tone does not strike me as that of a man sticking his finger in anyone else's eye. I see the characters of Sisko and Bashir being discussed as positives, but there's not a sense of a zero-sum game where someone else must be torn down for that to be so. Having been subjected to racially-driven verbal abuse on many occasions in my job, sometimes extremely hurtful because of the false accusations involved, Brooks' statements here aren't anything like that. I cannot equate this with any sort of destructive agenda. BTW, is it bad that I misread Photon's statement as implying that "Q made him" provide those responses, at first?
Read the article and I did not find at all that Brooks talked too much about race at all. As far as I have picked up, he only mentioned it twice: and I agree with him on both points and believe that it is important to talk about. @RandyS - I would not call you an evil racist (though, of course, I can't read your mind). In my experience, there are two main positions on the race issue, those who believe if we ignore it, it will go away (which is you I guess) and those who believe that to overcome it, we need to discuss it (I guess that is everyone else in this thread, myself included). I do understand the arguments behind both positions, and do not think (again I can't read your mind obviously) that you are saying what you are saying from a place of racism necessarily. Personally, I think that public discourse about such historically ingrained attitudes, such as racism, is important. I guess this is what we are doing now, so I do approve of this thread. Public discourse allows us to better understand those who are not like us and this leads to acceptance. Because of Brook's role on Star Trek, he is respected and is in a unique position to talk about race and have asian, black, white, purple and green people listen to him. Therefore, I think that it is not only important for him to talk about it, I think he has to talk about it. I do not think ignoring an issue will make it go away, just fester under the surface.
I think the big issue with racism is that the government can't change people. I see a lot of frustration in white people who feel that political correctness is being "shoved down their throats" because sometimes things said publically with no racist intent get twisted and it becomes a big media frenzy. And they're like "hey that's something I would say not meaning anything by it....this is ridiculous". On the other hand racism is alive and well today (so is sexism, btw). It's just more subtle now and the government can't punish people for their thoughts. Yet African Americans understandably still feel that some people don't treat them as well because of their color. What has to change is the people...and no amount of laws are going to do that.
I'm no fan of political correctness for its own sake, that's for sure. But if white people are frustrated by that, then all I can say to them is grow a pair. Sack up. Seriously. I don't really give a rat's hindquarters about what the news media say anyway, they're for the most part a bunch of nattering talking-heads more full of hot air and gossip than matter. As for Brooks' interview, if anyone is offended by him talking about him playing a captain while black, then I would submit to such a person that he has even more serious problems. If your ego is already so fragile that you can't stand to listen to an actor talk about what a role means to him (as a black man, as that seems to be what was asked), then no amount of arguing on a BBS is likely to help you. I agree that laws aren't enough. But one of the functions of the law, at least in the Aristotelian-Thomist worldview, is to provide a certain basic set of moral guidelines and instil some form of public virtue, directed toward the common good. Also, we have to have instead of or in addition to law some kind of civic discipline whereby blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians have the space and opportunity to regularly meet face-to-face. Churches used to provide this, but unfortunately even the churches became too fragmented and insular.
^So you provide a basic set of moral guidelines...but there will always be people on the fringe. Just like despite the fact that we are 2012 I still know people who think that as a woman I shouldn't get a college education or work outside of the home. So this "civic discipline" you are talking about is a requirement for us to have weekly racial togetherness meetings? That seems a bit intrusive.