David Carradine’s Legacy of Shame

[firehawk12]

As long as we just accept that European-Caucasians are, for the time being, the dominant voice in North American cultural production - it's not really going to change. The lack of any Chinese people in Firefly, a show that supposedly involved a future with a Sino-American alliance is just one of many examples.

Why does that have to be accepted? Why can't we come to terms with the fact that we are a multiculutral society and interaction with minorities is a daily reality? Why can't all of us begin doing the necessary work to unlearn our conditioning that allows these things to happen?

I may sometimes sound like a cynic, but I'm actually a realist with idealistic hopes for the future.

I see racial divisions now, but if we do the necessary work to change it then we can truly live up to E Pluribus Unum.

My MA thesis was about racial normativity in Star Trek and Stargate, so I'm on your side.

But it's like people have said - we accept that Japanese media will be in Japanese and feature Japanese people. We accept that Chinese media will be in Chinese and feature Chinese people... so why don't we do the same with American/Canadian media, especially when the racial majority is Caucasian?

I think it's because I've just started watching so much Japanese and Chinese stuff now that I'm completely mellow about it. And we're at a point now where if you're Japanese and feeling alienated by the lack of representation in American media, well you can tell Hollywood to fuck off and start watching J-dramas and anime on the Internet.

And I think the change will happen when, as people predict, Latin Americans comprise the majority of the population in 2050. At that point, if you want to make money, you'll start producing Latino programming and hire Latino producers/writers/actors and we'll see a massive shift away from the type of media that we see now.

But when you basically do the same thing many years later (the casting of Avatar), then learning has not occurred and it becomes cultural appropriation.

Indeed. Though, to be fair, Avatar wasn't actually Asian-created to start with, so the creators can change their mind.

And Shyamalan is Indian anyway, not white, so it can be racist without being a white thing...

Prejudice can be internalized and directed at those with the same skin tone. See Clarence Thomas, Juan Williams, Angela McGlowan, Michelle Malkin, etc...

Politics aside, I think it's just reality.
You can't make a big budget movie with Asian stars - especially unknowns. The only person to really make it big is Jackie Chan, and even then it was just the lame-o Rush Hour movies. Jet Li and Chow Yun Fat had to schlep back to Asia because their films bombed here.
It's more reality than anything.

I point to actors like Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Tilly and Mark-Paul Gosselaar - actors who actively choose to pass as one race over the other because they know that emphasizing their Asian identities won't get them a job.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Minorities presumably watch "white" shows because what you're calling "white" shows are actually some suit's interpretation of a generic universal show, that don't specifically try to appeal to a specific subset of the audience (beyond gender and age...).

This "universal appeal" you speak of, comes from a white perspective of what's universal. When I say white shows I mean white shows. The suits have the idea that what's white is what's universal. So what I take from what you're saying is that minority shows should appeal to white audiences.

I'm saying a show with universal appeal is - or at least should be - one that appeals to folks of all races because it's about basic things we all identify with.

Where this falls in practice is more because of the way distribution around the world works - a show that is universal in say, the US, is not going to be universal in, say, Malaysia. But the dominance of multinational corporations means the US/UK model is exported elsewhere, where it comes across as a "white" show.

It's not that they're "white" shows, it's that they're shows geared to a particular social structure.

If I make a sitcom about, say, the trials and tribulations of working in a supermarket with dumb managers and annoying customers, is that a white show, or a minority show? Neither, it's something we all understand.

But really, it's a working class show.

So when a minority perspective is shown it is limiting, but there is no
"white" perspective, just a universal one?

There is a "white" perspective, but unless they still make Love Thy Neighbour where you are, it's not deliberately catered for these days.

I'm saying that if you tailor a show to one specific subset of the audience, that is limiting - whatever that subset be.

That is what we need to get away from. That whiteness is universal or normal and other perspectives are exotic or the other. That's ethnoocentrism. Specifically anglocentrism.

Since I never whiteness is universal or non-whiteness is exotic. That says more about you, if you feel the universe is white.

Yes, when they appeal to white people they can be very successful. But shows that don't have this "universal appeal' you speak of, are shot down before they ever get a chance to make it out of their infancy. So I guess we'll never know.

That is kind of my point.

To be more specific, stereotypes are conceptions, typecasting is when an actor is attached to a specific type of role in different projects. The two can be, but are not always dependent on each other. And actors of all races are typecasted.

Indeed they are. So, Carradine was somewhat typecast, not a stereotyper

That's what I've been saying! When was self-segregation advocated?

That was more a response to other things in the thread generally - and to the idea that "minority shows" are somehow the answer to "white shows". There should just be shows.

Now, stop agreeing with me so violently...

 

[Lonemagpie]

Prejudice can be internalized and directed at those with the same skin tone. See Clarence Thomas, Juan Williams, Angela McGlowan, Michelle Malkin, etc...

Having spent most of my childhood being called "Ghostie" because I don't take a tan, I'm not unfamiliar with this.

Prejudice isn't just racism - it's sexism, agism, classism...

 

[Teelie]

Curse his participation in the quest to eradicate racism!

Curse their desire for multiculturalism! Why can't those poor white folk understand that self-segregation is all teh kewl?

Yes, because the majority of whites have always been blazing a trail on the frontier of race relations and not dragged kicking and screaming. Please, show me evidence of this sincere push for multiculturalism.

This is cute. Only whites must be dragged into racial equality. Like every other race but whites are racially open and equal. I wonder what world you live in where you can justify such a remark.

Talk about the blind leading the blind. Racism is not a "whites only" problem and only someone arrogant or deluded enough to claim that would actually say it. And I'd love to see where another country of a predominately non-white race strives for such equality in their media and culture. I sincerely doubt you'll find many.

 

[firehawk12]

Where this falls in practice is more because of the way distribution around the world works - a show that is universal in say, the US, is not going to be universal in, say, Malaysia. But the dominance of multinational corporations means the US/UK model is exported elsewhere, where it comes across as a "white" show.

It's not that they're "white" shows, it's that they're shows geared to a particular social structure.

Let's put it this way. Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives are produced by men, but the shows themselves are associated with female audiences. Are they male or female shows?

If you take race out of it completely - there's no reason why there shouldn't be more women in the upper echelons of Hollywood - given that women make up MORE than 50% of the American population.

I would argue that cultural production is inherently male and geared toward men, and this attitude is distributed all across the world.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Why does that have to be accepted? Why can't we come to terms with the fact that we are a multiculutral society and interaction with minorities is a daily reality? Why can't all of us begin doing the necessary work to unlearn our conditioning that allows these things to happen?

This has been happening, but it is something that will take generations. This is what I'm saying.

 

[Griever]

My MA thesis was about racial normativity in Star Trek and Stargate, so I'm on your side.

But it's like people have said - we accept that Japanese media will be in Japanese and feature Japanese people. We accept that Chinese media will be in Chinese and feature Chinese people... so why don't we do the same with American/Canadian media, especially when the racial majority is Caucasian?

The US has the fortune or misfortune of being a diverse society. Most others are monolithic and don't have the same racial issues we do, because the dynamics may produce ethnic issues. Aren't both countries like...98% Chinese and Japanese?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Curse his participation in the quest to eradicate racism!

Not quite in tune with sarcasm, eh? I was mocking the writer of the article for vilifying a man who was part of a wide cultural movement to eliminate racism in society. I suspect you are very young, no?

Curse their desire for multiculturalism! Why can't those poor white folk understand that self-segregation is all teh kewl?

Yes, because the majority of whites have always been blazing a trail on the frontier of race relations and not dragged kicking and screaming. Please, show me evidence of this sincere push for multiculturalism.

Okay:

His performances also worked to naturalize the desire of white people to appropriate the aspects of Asian culture they happened to find most appealing.

Yup: Racist, segregationist and completely insane. Pity him. Don't follow him.

It's amusing that an anti-racist would be labeled the opposite.

Well, at least you appreciate irony. Or was that unintentional?

 

[firehawk12]

My MA thesis was about racial normativity in Star Trek and Stargate, so I'm on your side.

But it's like people have said - we accept that Japanese media will be in Japanese and feature Japanese people. We accept that Chinese media will be in Chinese and feature Chinese people... so why don't we do the same with American/Canadian media, especially when the racial majority is Caucasian?

The US has the fortune or misfortune of being a diverse society. Most others are monolithic and don't have the same racial issues we do, because the dynamics may produce ethnic issues. Aren't both countries like...98% Chinese and Japanese?

Both countries have the same racial problems as America though. It's just that the minority populations are so small that their voices aren't really heard.

China has nearly 60 officially recognized minority groups, for example.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Let's put it this way. Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives are produced by men, but the shows themselves are associated with female audiences. Are they male or female shows?

If you take race out of it completely - there's no reason why there shouldn't be more women in the upper echelons of Hollywood - given that women make up MORE than 50% of the American population.

I would argue that cultural production is inherently male and geared toward men, and this attitude is distributed all across the world.

Indeed

This is cute. Only whites must be dragged into racial equality. Like every other race but whites are racially open and equal. I wonder what world you live in where you can justify such a remark.

Talk about the blind leading the blind. Racism is not a "whites only" problem and only someone arrogant or deluded enough to claim that would actually say it.

Indeed again. The most racist statement I ever heard (before the net came along) was when Britain's first black MP, Bernie Grant, said "All whites are racist, and only whites are racist." He never did get the irony of having so perfectly proved his own point wrong.

 

[Pingfah]

R.I.P. I do not believe that he killed himself, I believe that he was murdered. If so I hope they find who killed him and put them under the jail. No one deserves to be killed that is just cruel.

I don't think anyone thinks he was either murdered or committed suicide

 

[Griever]

This is cute. Only whites must be dragged into racial equality. Like every other race but whites are racially open and equal. I wonder what world you live in where you can justify such a remark.

The real one. In the US how can you deny that racial oppression created a favored status of whites? How can you deny that the white person taking part in the abolition or the civil rights movements were the heroic exception and not the rule? To get to the point we are at now, yes the majority of whites had to be dragged kicking and screaming. The civil rights act was not enacted because of a tidal wave of white guilt. The institutional reality was changed and perceptions followed it. (I would say are still following it)

Talk about the blind leading the blind. Racism is not a "whites only" problem and only someone arrogant or deluded enough to claim that would actually say it.

That's how discussions on race are stifled. When one person has a view that deviates from the mainstream, then words like crazy and deluded are thrown around.

When whites see racism as strictly interpersonal and minorities see it as systemic we've got a problem. When whites deny that any systemic issues may exist then we have an even bigger problem. How can you have a constructive dialog with someone that thinks you're crazy?

And I'd love to see where another country of a predominately non-white race strives for such equality in their media and culture. I sincerely doubt you'll find many.

Again as I mentioned in another post, depending on your stance the US has the fortune or misfortune of being multiracial. And most other countries don't have to deal with those issues.

 

[Griever]

Both countries have the same racial problems as America though. It's just that the minority populations are so small that their voices aren't really heard.

China has nearly 60 officially recognized minority groups, for example.

My Chinese history is rusty so I won't debate that point. But what I do know is that racial issues are tied in to the founding of our nation. They're even in our constitution and they helped shape key points of our history.

 

[firehawk12]

Which, depending on the scholar you follow, is probably a bad thing since racial issues in America are debated literally in black and white terms.
Which is probably why Yellowface is okay but Blackface isn't... unless it's ironic, ala Tropic Thunder.

On a side note, I want to see a white actor put on blackface to play MLK Jr... It's such an insane idea that I think it would work.

This summer... George Clooney has a dream.

 

[Teelie]

This is cute. Only whites must be dragged into racial equality. Like every other race but whites are racially open and equal. I wonder what world you live in where you can justify such a remark.

The real one. In the US how can you deny that racial oppression created a favored status of whites? How can you deny that the white person taking part in the abolition or the civil rights movements were the heroic exception and not the rule? To get to the point we are at now, yes the majority of whites had to be dragged kicking and screaming. The civil rights act was not enacted because of a tidal wave of white guilt. The institutional reality was changed and perceptions followed it. (I would say are still following it)

So yes, you have no answer. You dodge the questions with side tracking comments. I don't recall ever saying whites did not have an advantage, although being the majority of the citizenry, isn't that the norm in every country? That the predominate race is advantaged?

All you've done is avoid the real issue, take aim squarely at whites and fired away without consideration.

Talk about the blind leading the blind. Racism is not a "whites only" problem and only someone arrogant or deluded enough to claim that would actually say it.

That's how discussions on race are stifled. When one person has a view that deviates from the mainstream, then words like crazy and deluded are thrown around.

When whites see racism as strictly interpersonal and minorities see it as systemic we've got a problem. When whites deny that any systemic issues may exist then we have an even bigger problem. How can you have a constructive dialog with someone that thinks you're crazy?

Once more, you put words in someone else's mouth rather than use your own to defend your claims. No one called you crazy, just arrogant and deluded to claim that somehow whites are the only side of a multi-sided issue.

To counter, how can you have a constructive dialog when one side consistently and openly calls the opposite racist and ignores its own contribution to racial inequality? Don't pretend that whites are the only racists here. Where is the dialog that admits that minorities can and are racist against whites and other minorities? Or are we just going to keep going with "blaming whitey" as our defense?

And I'd love to see where another country of a predominately non-white race strives for such equality in their media and culture. I sincerely doubt you'll find many.

Again as I mentioned in another post, depending on your stance the US has the fortune or misfortune of being multiracial. And most other countries don't have to deal with those issues.

And the crux of your argument fails to stand up to criticism. You can't back up your claim so instead you finger point at the United States and say we should be better and ignore the fact every other country, even ones where whites are not the majority does it. So you are saying because the US is multiracial (but still predominately white) it has more responsiblity than another country that is say predominately Asiatic? Or maybe Hispanic? Where is this righteous indigination at racial inequality there?

You really are that blind to the world outside the US? That no other country is diverse? The United Kingdom is incredibly diverse and it still has the same racial problems the US (and every other country does). It might look better on the surface and media portrayal is better but it's still there.

I think you just can't admit minorities are just as racist but get to "play the card" because they're a minority. And to defend the so-called reverse racism of switching it onto white people is equality counter-productive.

 

[firehawk12]

I think you just can't admit minorities are just as racist but get to "play the card" because they're a minority. And to defend the so-called reverse racism of switching it onto white people is equality counter-productive.

Well, I think it comes down to how America wants to position itself. I know that China and Japan are extremely unapologetic about how it deals with their minority population. Japan's solution to aboriginals? They don't exist! They're just Japanese people who speak funny!

Does America want to consider itself better than that? I mean, after Obama was elected, it was as if there was a watershed moment in America, where racism was over and everyone was drinking coke while holding hands. I would argue that isn't reflected in reality though - at least not yet.

I remember a comment someone made - "does this mean that Presidents on TV don't have to be white anymore?"
Not in major roles where the President is a main character like 24, but in TV commercials or in minor roles where you see someone sitting in a chair give an order to a group of generals.
That's when real change happens.

 

[Griever]

So yes, you have no answer. You dodge the questions with side tracking comments.

Are you serious? How did I not answer it? I laid out proof that historically whites had to be dragged towards positive changes in racial relations. What responsibility did blacks have to end slavery and Jim Crow? What responsibility did the Japanese have to end internment?


If you're talking about today, then as I have mentioned in another post, we have huge chasm between the sides, and we need to come to an understanding of what exactly racism is. Because I already see it. You and I are talking about completely different things. You seem to think that the prejudice of a black or brown person, can negatively affect the life chances of a white person in the same way that the opposite can.

You also seem to be discounting my mention of systemic racism. Which to me is a redundant term, but to most is another type, or doesn't exist at all.

I don't recall ever saying whites did not have an advantage, although being the majority of the citizenry, isn't that the norm in every country? That the predominate race is advantaged?

Why should the norm always be acceptable? I was referring to privileges conferred on whites in the past. It is a historical fact that is undeniable. I'm not going to discuss any in the present because people tend to become very passionate and that could high-jack the discussion. And again we don't have an understanding of what racism is.

All you've done is avoid the real issue, take aim squarely at whites and fired away without consideration.

I thought that I've been very considerate considering that I'm basically being piled on.

Once more, you put words in someone else's mouth rather than use your own to defend your claims. No one called you crazy, just arrogant and deluded to claim that somehow whites are the only side of a multi-sided issue.

A deluded person is one who doesn't have a grip on reality. That strikes me as some form of crazy.

And no I don't feel that whites are the only side, but when I discuss race issue with whites I always get the impression that they are minority issues and not American issues.

To counter, how can you have a constructive dialog when one side consistently and openly calls the opposite racist and ignores its own contribution to racial inequality?

Please explain this one in great detail.

And when did racist become a slur? As I said to another poster, I have tried to not use that word as much, because it has the effect of a slur and closes the minds in the discussion.

Don't pretend that whites are the only racists here. Where is the dialog that admits that minorities can and are racist against whites and other minorities? Or are we just going to keep going with "blaming whitey" as our defense?

Because the impact isn't quite the same. Racism is about power, without it, it's just prejudice.

And the crux of your argument fails to stand up to criticism. You can't back up your claim so instead you finger point at the United States and say we should be better and ignore the fact every other country, even ones where whites are not the majority does it. So you are saying because the US is multiracial (but still predominately white) it has more responsiblity than another country that is say predominately Asiatic? Or maybe Hispanic? Where is this righteous indigination at racial inequality there?

You really are that blind to the world outside the US? That no other country is diverse? The United Kingdom is incredibly diverse and it still has the same racial problems the US (and every other country does). It might look better on the surface and media portyal is better but it's still there.

I'm not as deluded as you people think. I used the word most. I'm not so arrogant that I would use absolutes. I know that other nations have racial and ethnic diversity, but what I have more knowledge of are race relations in the US. I've been to the UK for 3 weeks, but that would hardly make me qualified to comment on the level of diversity or their relations between races. But it is certainly a fact that their race relations can be nothing like ours when 92% of their population identifies as white compared to our 68 or 69%.

I think you just can't admit minorities are just as racist but get to "play the card" because they're a minority. And to defend the so-called reverse racism of switching it onto white people is equality counter-productive.

I've said several times in this thread that everyone is prejudiced. But reverse racism and the race card!? Those arguments will never go away and will always amuse me. When a black run system can limit the opportunities of whites in a fundamental way, get back to me.

Edit: I'm going to bed. I forgot how fun it was to debate on this board. I think I missed it. Maybe I'll do it on a regular basis again... Anyway, Goodnight ladies and gentlemen.

 

[barnaclelapse]

David Carradine was found dead yesterday in a hotel room in Bangkok. The circumstances of his death are outrageously sensationalistic. I won’t go into any detail other than to remark that these circumstances have helped ensure a steady barrage of media coverage. Just now, tuning into NPR in my car, I heard part of a David Carradine interview, replayed to commemorate the occasion of his death. He was a famous and much-loved actor. Tributes to Carradine are pouring in. In discussion threads devoted to Carradine, you’ll find many nostalgic accounts of childhood evenings spent watching his TV show, Kung Fu.
Some Asian-Americans, such as myself, may find these tributes quite upsetting.
I remind myself that David Carradine was an actor. He was doing a job for money. It’s difficult to draw a work/life dividing line when it comes to celebrity actors, but the line does exist. And I cannot presume to judge the moral worth of David Carradine’s life. He was a human being whose life is just as worthy of respect, just as precious, as the life of any other human being.
But I can judge his career. Fuck David Carradine’s godawful racist career!
For many Asian-Americans, tributes to Carradine’s career feel like a cold and bitter insult. Bruce Lee was originally considered for the lead in Kung Fu, but the producers decided America was not ready for an Asian man as a heroic lead. David Carradine was chosen instead. His character, Kwai Chang Caine, was supposed to be half-Chinese and half-white. All the rest of the characters reacted to him as if he were Asian, when he was quite obviously 100% white. This confused the hell out of me when I first saw the show. Once I realized he was supposed to be Asian, it made me angry.

David Carradine’s Legacy of Shame

Wah wah wah.

Christ...

You know, I'm a big fan of equality, and I'm not particularly fond of bigotry or racism, but this is just is just nonsense. He was an actor, and it was a role he took on at a time when network TV executives were even more ruled by fear than they are now (if you can believe that). If he had turned it down, it would have gone to another white guy. I'm not saying it was right for him to get that part, but he made the most of it, and he was as respectful to that culture as anyone could be. He didn't play a stereotype, and he didn't play an ethnicity for laughs. It was a performance that transcended both of those things and even managed to rise above what was admittedly some very shoddy writing at times.

Even if you don't agree with that, to dismiss the strong body of work he still created outside of that show is stupid, ignorant and reeks of nothing but self-righteous, whiny, PC bullshit.

Legacy of shame...

Pitiful ranting.

 

[Amaris]

You mean the one where I base my understanding of people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin? That one? You must?

No, because to reach that point would require a level of understanding that is beyond what you have displayed.

In math, we call that a majority.

It is, but certainly not as significant as you indicated.



I work to make myself aware of all forms of oppression. I'll remember to add geekism to the list in my next sociology class when we discuss intersectionality.



The prevalence of racist and sexist imagery in our culture indicates that most people are not aware.



How many are given the chance to?



But you've been exposed to it. I can't say or prove that you believe the stereotype, but most people do see some level of truth in stereotypes. And that affects how they interact with other groups.



Well, when you're the only black guy in your unit you don't have much of a choice.

And believe it or not they were among the most enlightened people in the entire unit...

That's something lacking in the USMC.



All you can say in response is Roots!? Roots did not cause any tidal wave in media. It really just inspired people to investigate their roots!



Then you've taken a poorly constructed test. What about surveys in which respondents admit to believing negative stereotypes? I've seen figures from 60% to 75%.



And I believe that before you criticize the enlightenment of my friends that your view on race and ethnicity issues needs some clarity.



Nope, but I know that the lack of roles on television in general can't be an exception in the home of J. Allen unless you have access to an entire spectrum of channels that everyone else does not.

As for my rose colored glasses, do you know how I've lived?
Do you know where? What do you know about me? Nothing but the color of my skin, and I guess for you, that's enough.

I know that what you're saying is indicative of someone that has a limited perspective on race and ethnicity issues and the privilege of not giving a flying fuck that you're underrepresented or negatively represented on all forms of media.

I use the word where it applies.
I can honestly say though, one of the most racist channels I know is BET.
You ever watch that channel? First of all, finding a white guy on there is hard as hell, and when you do, he's some stereotypical version of a white guy. I would say BET has done more to advance the cause of racism than any other English speaking television channel. Wouldn't you?
J.

So I'm a racist for pointing out divisions in our society? Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

And what is a stereotypical version of a white guy?

BET can be knocked for several things (I do it regularly and don't watch it myself anymore), but its existence is a response to racism on television, not an instance of it. Just as black churches and black colleges were instituted in response to racism and exclusion from institutions.

My dear sir, your posts heavily indicate that there is a chip on your shoulder the size of a small moon. Every single response to what I have said has the air of victimhood about it. You still have no idea where I live, who I am or anything like that. All you know from your perspective at this point is that my skin is white, and that I'm wrong. I can't argue with that kind of ingrained bias. I'd have better luck arguing tornadoes and concert speakers.

J.

 

[Zachary Smith]

You're about thirty-five YEARS too late if your intent is in taking Carradine to task for this "offense". You may as well be complaining about Amos 'n
Andy or some of the truly tasteless depictions of some minorities from the 1930's or 1940's. At least Carradine's character WAS a positive role-model and the producers were right in their choices about what to do for making the show, "Kung Fu" popular. If not, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

I am not taking him to task, the blogger was. I'm merely pointing out that criticizing someone's legacy is not a character assault. And this would have less impact if he were still living. He is just an actor, but even if it is a small part, his work ties in to the fabric of the mass media's erasure of minorities.

The points are no more or less valid than there were last week when Carridine was alive. And you, (or your example) is working from a position of PARANOIA when the suggestion is made that there is an effort by the "mass media" to "erase" minorities. The Entertainment Industry's goal is to MAKE MONEY. They do this by pitching their products to the widest audiences possible with an eye toward the demographic which has the most disposable income to blow on sponsor's products. Happens to be white people. That fact is NOT the fault of the Entertainment Industry. Does that make it a consciousless corporate money-grubber? You bet. But it's got nothing to to with "racism" The only color it is concerned with is "dollar-bill green".

Face it, especially at the time, far and away the majority of the television viewing audience was white. People DO tend to like to see shows about people who look like themselves (hence your own support of "minority representation").

Actually minorities watch white shows regularly, but there are only a few exceptions when whites watch minority shows.

Which is, of course, why "Good Times" and "Chico and the Man" and "The Jeffersons" and "The Bill Cosby Show" and "In Living Color" and "What's Happening" and "Sanford and Son" and "Martin" etc Etc ETC all disappeared without a trace after only a few episodes and left not a ripple on the pond of Entertainment history, right?

And, conversely, there are a LOT of entertainers who MINE their culture to make their careers, catering specifically minority audiences. Spike Lee has made a career of pitching his films toward mostly black audiences. About the only way Eddie Murphy can earn a payday anymore is by making movies that seem to be found much funnier to black audiences than white ones. As far as Margret Cho goes, it seems her entire schtick is based around being Korean. (And, the reason her TV show failed was NOT because she was an Asian but because it wasn't funny to ANYONE--she claimed producers watered down the concept and ruined it but, from what I've seen of her act, it might have been waterd down to avoid OFFENDING Asians).

Like it or not, there is, unfortunately a VERY real chance that if Caine HAD been played by an Asian, the show wouldn't have lasted and would be LONG forgotten by now. And what good would that have done? As it is, millions of people were introduce positively to certain Asian concepts and role-models via "Kung-fu". The show, and Carradine, did far more good than harm here

It's not just representation. It's positive representation. For every one David Palmer or Robert Hawkins you'll be overwhelmed with many more Geordi LaForges, Curtis Mannings, or the always interesting Travis Mayweathers.

What good would have an attempt done!? It would have been an attempt. Which is better than not trying at all.

Next time you have several tens of millions of dollars that you would LIKE to invest in a profit-making venture, I expect that you will live by the same standard you impose on others here and utilize that money to make a MIGHTY GESTURE on behalf of raising minority profile on TV and in film--one that will almost certainly result in the failure of your enterprise and wipe out your investment while at the same time making it harder for you to work in your chosen field of employment because you have the blemish of failure upon you and a record of the loss of millions of dollars in production costs with no return.