-
37 votes
-
Controversial curriculum changes in Oklahoma: Focus on 2020 election disputes, erasure of George Floyd’s impact, and COVID-19 origin claims
23 votes -
MAGA attacks Episcopal Church over US President Donald Trump rebuke: 'Funds must be pulled' from refugee resettlement program
21 votes -
US President Donald Trump shut out refugees but is making White South Africans an exception
13 votes -
An algorithm deemed this nearly blind 70-year-old prisoner a “moderate risk.” Now he’s no longer eligible for parole.
28 votes -
Wondering if there is a good discussion or debate on if issues affecting under-privileged folks should be more racially based or socioeconomic based?
basically, there seem to be 2 competing narratives of "people of color/poor people of all color tend to have it worse so let's create social programs specifically targeting them to left them up"...
basically, there seem to be 2 competing narratives of "people of color/poor people of all color tend to have it worse so let's create social programs specifically targeting them to left them up"
and I am see pros and cons to both sides and am wondering what people well-researched and versed on either have to say to each other.
- I really prefer to see a long-form discussion but I am not opposed to a debate as long as its a debate with no audience. I've really grown to hate watching debate participants try to argue for claps or score cheap points with the audience.
- Very minimal shouting or yelling over each other and each side lets the other finish.
- I prefer if its not "dark web" folks like Sam Harris or Coleman Hughes who are involved in discussion but am not totally opposed.
An example of a debate I kinda liked (would have liked it more if Fridman hadn't invited a streamer and treated it like he had the same level of expertise as historians or analyst): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X_KdkoGxSs
12 votes -
Denmark's uprooting of settled residents from ‘ghettos’ forms part of aggressive plan to assimilate nonwhite inhabitants
22 votes -
I spent a week with Black Republicans
24 votes -
US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals further narrows Voting Rights Act’s scope
33 votes -
As elections loom, US Congressional maps challenged as discriminatory will remain in place
8 votes -
Years ago, the all-white judges of a Louisiana appellate court decided, in secret, to systematically ignore petitions filed by prisoners, most of them black
83 votes -
Black and British...and a world apart
14 votes -
What ‘The Squad’ tells us about progressives’ ability to win voters of color
10 votes -
Race report: 'UK not deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities'
12 votes -
Will American ideas tear France apart? Some of its leaders think so.
17 votes -
Warnock and Ossoff are testing a new strategy for Democrats in the US south
8 votes -
Endnote 2: White Fascism
3 votes -
As the racial gap closes, the Democrat-Republican education gap widens
7 votes -
Data leak reveals Donald Trump campaign strategy to deter millions of Black Americans from voting in 2016
38 votes -
Trump eliminates federal anti-racism training, calling it “a sickness”
30 votes -
The United States needs a third Reconstruction; whatever its shape, the era ahead must rekindle the aspiration of a nation molded in the ideal of perfect equality that we have always seeked
21 votes -
In 2008, everyone thought the recession was bad. But in 2020, many Americans’ views depend on their party
6 votes -
The White left needs to embrace Black leadership
7 votes -
The Republican choice: How the GOP chose to spend five decades making itself the white voter's party
21 votes -
How do we change America?
10 votes -
Why Donald Trump's presidency is first and foremost about being white
8 votes -
Mayor Pete's invisible black police
11 votes -
Let us predict whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican
18 votes -
'Something needs to be done': A conversation about guns and race in America
3 votes -
South Africa confronts a legacy of apartheid: Why land reform is a key issue in the upcoming election
7 votes -
Is whitewashing a two way street?
I was recently watching this video about whitewashing in films, and it started me on a chain of thoughts that I'm slightly confused about. I'd like to get some alternative viewpoints on the...
I was recently watching this video about whitewashing in films, and it started me on a chain of thoughts that I'm slightly confused about. I'd like to get some alternative viewpoints on the matter, to hopefully clear up some issues I'm having.
In this video, the person presenting the opinion goes on to define whitewashing as:
[...] when Hollywood takes a character who is a person of colour in the source material, and casts a white actor for the final portrayal we see on screen.
This definition is good, and I agree with it. I can also clearly see how "Whitewashing" is a problem. However, later on in the video she says:
But this thing some people like to call "Blackwashing", is not a problem. It's not even a thing.
This is what I have trouble agreeing with. If we take the definition provided for whitewashing as a good source, how can "blackwashing" not be the opposite, where a person of colour plays a traditionally white character?
She provides some examples from comic book movies, such as Nick Fury from the MCU. I think that Samuel L. Jackson does a great performance as Fury in all the MCU films; I wouldn't cast any other actor for the part. However, I do have a problem accepting that "Whitewashing" is a problem, but "Blackwashing" is not. Logically, would not either one or both of these be a problem? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks about this, as I'm pretty clearly confused myself.
16 votes -
What do US Democrats fight about when they’re just fighting among themselves? The same thing the country fights about: Race.
7 votes -
US President Donald Trump tweets about white farmers while indigenous peoples face annihilation
9 votes -
US Democrats should get real with White working-class voters
13 votes -
Supreme Court rules on controversial risk assessment tests accused of bias against Indigenous offenders
5 votes