The aliens haven't contacted us because

[Doktor Howl]

Why hasn't Mary Poppins made contact with Roger?

Who says she hasn't?

Spit-spot, motherfuckers.

[Doktor Howl]

Maybe the real aliens are the friends crackpot theories we made along the way.

[Doktor Howl]

For those who wish to read the op-ed:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/movies/mary-poppins-returns-blackface.html

In summary: While not RACIST racist, the original novels were steeped in White Superiority (as was the fashion of the time).  The original Disney movie kept some of these elements, probably not to be RACIST racist (though Walt was pretty sketchy -- Song of the South, anyone?), but most likely because the terms were outdated ("Hottentot"), not to mention that it surely wasn't noticed, as White Superiority was still in fashion in '64.  The two following sequels are also not RACIST racist, because while they continue the throughline to the original books (naturally, since it's the same story), the amount of people who know about the not-so-nice parts of the original rapidly approach zero.  Plus, even today, there's still a strong attitude of white supremacy in this country.

So yeah, on the face of it, it's kind of ridiculous.  But not 100% absurd, just absurd enough to get into the NYT op-ed section.





EDIT: Anyway, thank you for coming to my TED talk.

It just occurred to me that we can't have any art at all.  For example, Picasso's Guernica involves cruelty to animals (in this case, a horse).  The Brandenburg Gate extolls imperialism, as does the Arc de Triomphe.  The Mona Lisa is clearly exploiting trans folk, and don't even get me started on any Greek statues or ANYTHING by Rubens.


In short, you get Starry Starry Night and maybe some song about going to the faire.  Which is probably itself exploitative.

[altered]

That's one way to look at it, Roger. I have always approached it as: this media has problems and it's my duty to know them if I want to enjoy the media.

Lovecraft was racist and I think he was a shitty author. But Hodgson was just as racist and an excellent author. I can be aware of the racism rather than passively accepting it, and still consume it "as what it is". I think most relatively progressive people who read famous authors of the last century do that same sorta thing, not like they have a choice.

Because it's as you say. There is no wholly non problematic media. Everything is fucked, all the way back. The only way to move forward without burning the whole of human culture is to be aware of the problems and try not to repeat them. And well make new and different mistakes in the process, and our descendants will keep that steady trudge forward.

And I don't feel like this endless cycle is hopeless. No end goal doesn't mean it isn't worth improving our cultural output at all.

All of this, though? Just my opinion. YMMV.

[LMNO]

maybe some song about going to the faire. 

Capitalist pig.

[Faust]

maybe some song about going to the faire. 

Capitalist pig.

Meat is murder how dare you call him a pig

[hooplala]

Not apologizing here, but I believe it's been noted that Lovecraft adjusted his views on other races in letters to friends toward the end of his life. Now that doesn't change the stories that exist which are ride with racism, but I guess my question is, do we believe in redemption? And does that take more than sinply changing one's views?

[Doktor Howl]

Not apologizing here, but I believe it's been noted that Lovecraft adjusted his views on other races in letters to friends toward the end of his life. Now that doesn't change the stories that exist which are ride with racism, but I guess my question is, do we believe in redemption? And does that take more than sinply changing one's views?

No, you pretty much have to walk back shit you already said.  As a minimum.  Greater wrongs will require greater expiation.

What I'm getting at is that if you use presentism as your basis for judgment, you get a lot of things, but none of those things include our artistic heritage. 

What that means is you get a pure, sterile culture that is pure and sterile because there's nothing there.

[LMNO]

Only if you believe that work should be rejected because of it.

I'm coming around to the fact that I am STEEPED in white supremacy.  I grew up in it.  All the systems and the entire culture that raised me is rife with racism.

So it's natural to understand that historically, almost all the art I grew up with has a similar background.

So what do?



For me, it means acknowledging and understanding it.  It doesn't mean pretending it never existed, and it doesn't mean rejecting it out of hand.  Sure, there are works that are blatantly racist. (RACIST racist, in my above nomenclature). 

But to ignore that, for example, "The Shawshank Redemption" has some fairly troubling ideas about race and sexuality is to ignore that there was, and is, a problem with modern culture.

[Doktor Howl]

Only if you believe that work should be rejected because of it.

I'm coming around to the fact that I am STEEPED in white supremacy.  I grew up in it.  All the systems and the entire culture that raised me is rife with racism.

So it's natural to understand that historically, almost all the art I grew up with has a similar background.

So what do?



For me, it means acknowledging and understanding it.  It doesn't mean pretending it never existed, and it doesn't mean rejecting it out of hand.  Sure, there are works that are blatantly racist. (RACIST racist, in my above nomenclature). 

But to ignore that, for example, "The Shawshank Redemption" has some fairly troubling ideas about race and sexuality is to ignore that there was, and is, a problem with modern culture.

I think we're yelling agreement past each other.  One of the primary reasons to have art in the first place is so that you can understand the times of the people who created it.  Sometimes, that's good.  Sometimes not so good.  I don't believe, for example, in letting people off the hook for Birth of a Nation by pretending it never existed.  Sometimes your artwork damns you.

On the other hand, hollering that chimney sweeps are performing blackface and that Victorian/Edwardian-era cockney singing and rhyming are mimicking minstrel shows is just plain stupid and in fact reflects on the critic as being too fucking stupid to read the side of the tin. It is in fact an indictment of the very idea of homo sapiens, and an argument for an immediate and unlimited nuclear exchange.

[Doktor Howl]

And won't THAT impress the fucking aliens?

[hooplala]

I agree with you both, I think. Some of Lovecraft does fall under racist racist for me, but the majority falls into that general area LMNO talks about. I agree with not rejecting out of hand, but I find it easier to swallow if the artist acknowledges it and attempts to change. Seuss is an example of that. I think Lovecraft might have become such an artist, unfortunately he died shortly after his views started to evolve. It might have been interesting to see how his writing changed.

And I fully agree with Howl above. Putting anything black on your face is not blackface. That's not to say Travers might have held racist views, but if so, these ain't them.

[Doktor Howl]

I agree with you both, I think. Some of Lovecraft does fall under racist racist for me, but the majority falls into that general area LMNO talks about. I agree with not rejecting out of hand, but I find it easier to swallow if the artist acknowledges it and attempts to change. Seuss is an example of that. I think Lovecraft might have become such an artist, unfortunately he died shortly after his views started to evolve. It might have been interesting to see how his writing changed.

And I fully agree with Howl above. Putting anything black on your face is not blackface. That's not to say Travers might have held racist views, but if so, these ain't them.

Seuss?

This is gonna piss me off, right?

[LMNO]

Yes, but that's just the default setting.

[Doktor Howl]

Yes, but that's just the default setting.

Balls, I am polite and soft-spoken, and spend most of my time contemplating those chakra things.