• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

David Carradine’s Legacy of Shame

Re: David Carradine’s Legacy of Shame

This may have been said before and I missed it, however, I'd like to add that Bruce Lee was a shitty actor and couldn't have carried a tv series as well as Carradine, who was himself a one note actor. The man kicked all kinds of ass, but I really can't see tv audiences of the day tuning in to listen to his accent. It would take too much concentwation.
 
The whole problem with this "get over" attitude is that it's fairly patronizing... even to someone like me, who only worries about it ironically rather than in any serious fashion.
I wouldn't simply say "get over it", but I do say that there needs to be a clear-minded equilibrium in approaching the issue. Just as there are those who are closed off to any need for more minority representation, so too are there those who whip up racial resentments and foster feelings of victimization for political purposes - to the point of creating a false paradigm wherein whites are the sole villains of history, the sole perpetrators of racism and oppression and people "of color" are blameless. The history of the world is of course far more complicated than that.

Ultimately, there just needs to be a new metaphor for constructing race in order for any real change to happen. Most likely, that'll happen when China or India simply surpasses America and Europe economically, militarily and finally, culturally. It's ironic, but globalization will end up being a contributing factor to changing the way race is constructed.
China and India are currently far more regressive than the United States and Europe, so if they ever do become the preeminent powers one hopes that they'll have achieved a significant measure of social progress by that time.
 
Well, what's the statute of limitations? I'm curious, because we've just had D-day and Holocaust memorials and there's going to be a time when referencing the European part of WW2 becomes passe.
 
Well, what's the statute of limitations? I'm curious, because we've just had D-day and Holocaust memorials and there's going to be a time when referencing the European part of WW2 becomes passe.
We should never forget the Holocaust or D-Day or the Middle Passage or the Rape of Nanking. But that doesn't mean that there should be inherited guilt by subsequent generations based simply on their skin color or nationality.
 
This may have been said before and I missed it, however, I'd like to add that Bruce Lee was a shitty actor and couldn't have carried a tv series as well as Carradine, who was himself a one note actor. The man kicked all kinds of ass, but I really can't see tv audiences of the day tuning in to listen to his accent. It would take too much concentwation.

It was said, but doing some looking on youtube, I don't hear it. Lee expresses himself in very good English in this interview, for example. Struggling with an accent shouldn't have been too much of a difficulty for him--plenty of other actors have on set accent coaches (the many British actors playing American characters on television today, for example) and Lee would have been no different. The studio made a racial decision when they chose to cast Carradine instead of Lee. Certainly it was a decision fueled by monetary interests, but that doesn't eliminate the racial element to it.
 
I've never seen Kung Fu, so perhaps someone can tell me if the protagonist has a lot of dialog. From what I know of the show, that sort of character isn't usually a chatty Kathy. So relatively limited English wouldn't be a major factor. But maybe he had more dialog than I'm imagining.
 
Based on Kung Fu: The Legend Continues, the character speaks in Fortune Cookie-isms.
"The path to strength is a journey through the inner light of the soul".

I suppose he could have been much different in the original series.
 
Well, what's the statute of limitations? I'm curious, because we've just had D-day and Holocaust memorials and there's going to be a time when referencing the European part of WW2 becomes passe.
When the original perpetrators are dead, is it still appropriate to make their decedents pay for it? How far back do you go for reperations? I'm pretty sure the Jews have a strong claim against the Egyptians if you want to argue it.
 
Well, that's the thing - human beings have always fucked each other over and will continue to do so until we are extinct. But let's not privilege some tragedies over others. If people are supposed to be respectful and mourn one type of racism, they should feel obligated to do the other... especially if the conditions of the original acts of racism are still endemic to contemporary society.

I mean, you can even take race out of the equation. I'm sure many of the original members of the IRA are dead... should people in Northern Ireland just get over it?

It's just a strange attitude that I don't really understand. Yeah, you can't remember something forever (although people like Crazy Mel seem to remember that Jews killed Jesus, for example) but it shouldn't be as easy as "it happened years ago, get over it".
 
Re: David Carradine’s Legacy of Shame

It was said, but doing some looking on youtube, I don't hear it. Lee expresses himself in very good English in this interview, for example.

It's not any more pronounced than Barbara Walter's lisp, and she was the butt of jokes for years (she was also a woman which didn't sit well with Joe public). While I'd concede racism was a factor in him never getting his own show, one might also consider that he was a sidekick and a guest player. If he hadn't made movies in other countries, I believe he'd have remained a bit player the rest of his life.
 
People saying "get over it" are just pricks. There is however moving on from it. If you make the crutch of your race a victimized one, that's all every other race will see, the victimized race. And stepping as carefully as I can into this, the Jews are a good example of a percieved victimized people. While they aren't a race unto themselves, they are an ethnic group in society who have genuinely been victimized pretty much from the onset. There are those who play the victim card but there are far more who can acknowledge their people's history but not let it be the definition of who they are.

To me it's not get over it, it's move past it. No one but the most cynical or oblivious would continue to use that phrase and only the most conniving or selfishly motivated would use their ancestors abuse as an excuse to blame everything in their current situation on someone else.

There's a lot of racial tension from every race against other races but you can't keep using it as an excuse every time something bad happens to you. It's not always going to be that you are a minority or that you lost out to a minority. Sometimes you are responsible for your own (in)actions just as you would take responsibility for your own achievements. How many people who would blame another race for being oppressed if they fail at something yet would praise their ancestors for an accomplishment or achievement they performed themselves?

You can't do it both ways. You can't say that because you're a minority you are passed up for something or denied then turn around and deny the efforts of your ancestors when you are able to do something that just 60 years ago wouldn't have even been a possibility.

Sure, there are those who do acknowledge it but many of them are either people who were actually there or the children of those who did it. The latest generations are further and further removed from the social segregation of the past yet still take it upon themselves to use it as an excuse any time something doesn't go their way.

No one has the right to deny what happened during the Civil Rights movement but no one has the right to exploit it to their own ends to justify their current situation. Progress is slow, but it's progress. There is no stopping at where we are, and society does need a push every now and then but you can't just push and not expect resistence, nor should any one push back against another race that's trying to advance their rights too. Look at the current situation with blacks and hispanics, or the original topic; the way asians are. And then naturally the arabic people are given even harsher treatment because of a minority in their population.

Race is a poor term and I dislike using it but it's also the most accepted. I've said it before, but there is only the human race and a whole lot of skin colors inbetween. Maybe some day we'll have what we all think should be now; a mixed-skin color society that finds some other difference of ethnicity to argue about but for now all we have is you aren't the same skin color so we'll pick on you. It's not as bad as it was and it can be better but only the most idealogical of people will think we can overcome millenia of segregation and distrust in a single generation.

TL;DR version: Move past it, but that doesn't mean get over it. It means be your own person and achieve something in life without defining your life as your gender, skin color, religion or whatever.
 
TL;DR version: Move past it, but that doesn't mean get over it. It means be your own person and achieve something in life without defining your life as your gender, skin color, religion or whatever.

To bring it back to Hollywood, it's a chicken and the egg thing, especially in cultural production.

Yeah, these days you won't have blackface or yellowface. But the response isn't that there are more ethnic actors in film or television. The response is to not cast ethnic actors in the first place.

I mean, I'm not complaining though. It's changing. It only took like 15 years, but Stargate is finally getting an Asian character for example. :lol:
 
TL;DR version: Move past it, but that doesn't mean get over it. It means be your own person and achieve something in life without defining your life as your gender, skin color, religion or whatever.

To bring it back to Hollywood, it's a chicken and the egg thing, especially in cultural production.

Yeah, these days you won't have blackface or yellowface. But the response isn't that there are more ethnic actors in film or television. The response is to not cast ethnic actors in the first place.

I mean, I'm not complaining though. It's changing. It only took like 15 years, but Stargate is finally getting an Asian character for example. :lol:

Not to nitpick too much, but they've had plenty of asian characters on Stargate over the years. It is a first they will be a main or supporting character though.

It's just too bad they're doing it in a series I'm looking forward to less and less. Younger, hipper, darker, edgier. I liked the lighter and more comical side of Stargate. It kept the serious tone and the gravity of danger but it wasn't BSG either, which I enjoyed. But that's not approval to "make everything BSG" in tone like they have described this new Stargate. That is the main failing of Hollywood I think; it copies everything else without originality.

I would almost say the lack of ethnic actors is in fact a result of Hollywood's own ineptitude more than anything else. They also reuse the same locations for shitty "of the week" type movies too. I'm looking squarely at Sci Fi Channel on that one.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top