Sue Hollywierd
Your kind is has all the retards on the globe acting as your admin. You better go fix that before somebody fixes it for you ass-wipe.
Trudeau roundly mocked for political, fashion blunders during disaster trip to India
- Thread starter Danbones
- Start date
Sue Hollywierd
Your kind is has all the retards on the globe acting as your admin. You better go fix that before somebody fixes it for you ass-wipe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewashing_in_film
Whitewashing is a casting practice in the film industry in which white actors are cast in historically non-white character roles or in roles which are scripted for non-white characters. The film industry has a history of frequently casting white actors for roles about non-white characters. By downplaying the roles that such figures have had in cultural events, the practice is seen as a form of censorship analogous to the whitewashing of criticism.[1][2]
History
In the early 20th century, white actors caricatured different races by wearing blackface or yellowface, commonly exaggerating the perceived stereotypes of other races. For example, Swedish born white actor Warner Oland played the Chinese detective Charlie Chan in Charlie Chan Carries On (1931) and subsequent films. Because of the lack of characters of color in the film industry, these roles were well received at the time by minorities.[3] Other non-Asian actors to portray Chinese detective Charlie Chan include Manuel Arbó, Sidney Toler, Roland Winters, Ross Martin and Peter Ustinov.
Films became more racially integrated by the mid-20th-century, and blackface mostly disappeared from the film industry. The film Othello (1965) was an exception, as the white actor Laurence Olivier was cast as "the Moor." He wore blackface as the title character. In Soul Man and Tropic Thunder white actors portray white characters that use blackface.
The practice of "yellowface" extended into the 1960s. For instance, Mickey Rooney played a Japanese[4] landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961).[3] Professor David A. Schlossman said of Asian characters in particular, "Many of the Asian roles portrayed by White actors also contributed to the pantheon of racial stereotypes in US national discourse."[5] At the start of the 21st century, minorities were still under-represented in the film industry at different stages. While historically black roles are now generally cast with black actors, the practice of whitewashing applied to other minorities.[3]
Guy Aoki said African Americans "have long felt the full brunt of the 'whitewashing' of roles" and that Asians have experienced it as well.[6] Native Americans have also had their historic leaders and warriors portrayed by whites.[7]
Role of executives
The BBC said in 2015, "The practice of casting white actors in non-white roles is still prevalent in Hollywood – despite widespread condemnation and protest." A report in 2013 showed that 94% of film executives were white and that non-white people were under-represented as filmmakers and actors. The BBC explored two reasons for the casting practice: institutional racism and a belief that well-known white actors attract more audiences and maximize profits. Thomas Rothman, the chairman of Sony Pictures said, "I guess there's a certain institutional force and memory that exists out there... I think the industry's improving but I certainly agree with those who say we haven't come far enough fast enough."[6]
Jeffery Mio, author of Multicultural Psychology: Understanding Our Diverse Communities, hypothesizes that the film industry, mostly white, hires people of similar backgrounds. Mio said of the rationale that only the most qualified actors are cast, "That's the argument that directors and casting directors make, but a lot of times ethnic actors will tell us that when they say we're just choosing the best actor, they mean we're choosing our friends, or people we're used to."[6] Craig Detweiler, professor of film history at Pepperdine University, said, "There are a shortage [sic] of African American, Asian and Latino stars. For all Hollywood's progressive politics, its casting decisions look remarkably retrograde."[8] In 2010, TheWrap ascribed the lack of racial diversity to institutional racism and a lack of bankable actors of color and that whitewashing in films like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and The Last Airbender aggravated the issue.[8]
Business aspect
On casting white actors to maximize profits, David White, National Executive Director of the actors' union SAG-AFTRA said popular black actors such as Will Smith, Denzel Washington, and David Oyelowo refuted the casting rationale.[6] Assistant professor of telecommunications Andrew J. Weaver said, "There is an assumption in Hollywood that whites would avoid movies with majority black casts, or any race cast for that matter. You see this whitewashing of films – even films that have minority characters written into them are being cast with whites."[9] Film professor Mitchell W. Block said studios adhered to casting norms as a matter of practicing business to appeal to investors and producers.[10] Director Ridley Scott said without the casting of big-name actors, his 2014 biblical epic film Exodus: Gods and Kings would never have been made, saying, "I can't mount a film of this budget... and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such... I'm just not going to get financed."[10][11][12] USA Today noted with films like Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), A Mighty Heart (2007), and Pan (2015), "White actors continue to be top of mind for plum roles, despite the under-representation of people of color at the acting, directing and producing levels."[10]
Anti-whitewashing campaigns
Media watchdog groups have sought more authentic representations on screen, taking issue with casting decisions such as actor Johnny Depp as a Native American in The Lone Ranger (2013).[6] With films from the United States receiving promotion in more global markets, the groups argue for roles that represent the diversity of audiences, who are seeking more authenticity. SAG-AFTRA's David White demurred on groups' opposition to casting white actors in non-white roles, "The laws insist that one's race not be part of the qualifications for a job," but he recognized that there was a lack of diversity in roles available.[6] Law professor John Tehranian said, "Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with race-blind casting, as long as it works both ways. But in reality, it never has; one rarely sees, for example, an African American, Latino, or Asian actor cast as a white character."[13][14]
Examples of associated cases
Below is a list of some of the films that have had their casting criticized as whitewashing:
(the list is very, very long)
Whitewashing is a casting practice in the film industry in which white actors are cast in historically non-white character roles or in roles which are scripted for non-white characters. The film industry has a history of frequently casting white actors for roles about non-white characters. By downplaying the roles that such figures have had in cultural events, the practice is seen as a form of censorship analogous to the whitewashing of criticism.[1][2]
History
In the early 20th century, white actors caricatured different races by wearing blackface or yellowface, commonly exaggerating the perceived stereotypes of other races. For example, Swedish born white actor Warner Oland played the Chinese detective Charlie Chan in Charlie Chan Carries On (1931) and subsequent films. Because of the lack of characters of color in the film industry, these roles were well received at the time by minorities.[3] Other non-Asian actors to portray Chinese detective Charlie Chan include Manuel Arbó, Sidney Toler, Roland Winters, Ross Martin and Peter Ustinov.
Films became more racially integrated by the mid-20th-century, and blackface mostly disappeared from the film industry. The film Othello (1965) was an exception, as the white actor Laurence Olivier was cast as "the Moor." He wore blackface as the title character. In Soul Man and Tropic Thunder white actors portray white characters that use blackface.
The practice of "yellowface" extended into the 1960s. For instance, Mickey Rooney played a Japanese[4] landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961).[3] Professor David A. Schlossman said of Asian characters in particular, "Many of the Asian roles portrayed by White actors also contributed to the pantheon of racial stereotypes in US national discourse."[5] At the start of the 21st century, minorities were still under-represented in the film industry at different stages. While historically black roles are now generally cast with black actors, the practice of whitewashing applied to other minorities.[3]
Guy Aoki said African Americans "have long felt the full brunt of the 'whitewashing' of roles" and that Asians have experienced it as well.[6] Native Americans have also had their historic leaders and warriors portrayed by whites.[7]
Role of executives
The BBC said in 2015, "The practice of casting white actors in non-white roles is still prevalent in Hollywood – despite widespread condemnation and protest." A report in 2013 showed that 94% of film executives were white and that non-white people were under-represented as filmmakers and actors. The BBC explored two reasons for the casting practice: institutional racism and a belief that well-known white actors attract more audiences and maximize profits. Thomas Rothman, the chairman of Sony Pictures said, "I guess there's a certain institutional force and memory that exists out there... I think the industry's improving but I certainly agree with those who say we haven't come far enough fast enough."[6]
Jeffery Mio, author of Multicultural Psychology: Understanding Our Diverse Communities, hypothesizes that the film industry, mostly white, hires people of similar backgrounds. Mio said of the rationale that only the most qualified actors are cast, "That's the argument that directors and casting directors make, but a lot of times ethnic actors will tell us that when they say we're just choosing the best actor, they mean we're choosing our friends, or people we're used to."[6] Craig Detweiler, professor of film history at Pepperdine University, said, "There are a shortage [sic] of African American, Asian and Latino stars. For all Hollywood's progressive politics, its casting decisions look remarkably retrograde."[8] In 2010, TheWrap ascribed the lack of racial diversity to institutional racism and a lack of bankable actors of color and that whitewashing in films like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and The Last Airbender aggravated the issue.[8]
Business aspect
On casting white actors to maximize profits, David White, National Executive Director of the actors' union SAG-AFTRA said popular black actors such as Will Smith, Denzel Washington, and David Oyelowo refuted the casting rationale.[6] Assistant professor of telecommunications Andrew J. Weaver said, "There is an assumption in Hollywood that whites would avoid movies with majority black casts, or any race cast for that matter. You see this whitewashing of films – even films that have minority characters written into them are being cast with whites."[9] Film professor Mitchell W. Block said studios adhered to casting norms as a matter of practicing business to appeal to investors and producers.[10] Director Ridley Scott said without the casting of big-name actors, his 2014 biblical epic film Exodus: Gods and Kings would never have been made, saying, "I can't mount a film of this budget... and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such... I'm just not going to get financed."[10][11][12] USA Today noted with films like Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), A Mighty Heart (2007), and Pan (2015), "White actors continue to be top of mind for plum roles, despite the under-representation of people of color at the acting, directing and producing levels."[10]
Anti-whitewashing campaigns
Media watchdog groups have sought more authentic representations on screen, taking issue with casting decisions such as actor Johnny Depp as a Native American in The Lone Ranger (2013).[6] With films from the United States receiving promotion in more global markets, the groups argue for roles that represent the diversity of audiences, who are seeking more authenticity. SAG-AFTRA's David White demurred on groups' opposition to casting white actors in non-white roles, "The laws insist that one's race not be part of the qualifications for a job," but he recognized that there was a lack of diversity in roles available.[6] Law professor John Tehranian said, "Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with race-blind casting, as long as it works both ways. But in reality, it never has; one rarely sees, for example, an African American, Latino, or Asian actor cast as a white character."[13][14]
Examples of associated cases
Below is a list of some of the films that have had their casting criticized as whitewashing:
(the list is very, very long)
Shouldn't have walked down that new paved road ( must have been in Quebec) with no shoes on.
Darned socks aren't usually made to stand up to that all by themselves.
Say, I know where to put the feathers on when we get to that part of the story arc. Betcha I'm not the only one.
I know the brown spot should be on his nose, but the feathers were in the road.
Makes one wonder: Where ( what country, *wink*) did Trudie spend all that media money handout?
Darned socks aren't usually made to stand up to that all by themselves.
Say, I know where to put the feathers on when we get to that part of the story arc. Betcha I'm not the only one.
I know the brown spot should be on his nose, but the feathers were in the road.
Makes one wonder: Where ( what country, *wink*) did Trudie spend all that media money handout?
Last edited:
Do you suppose he grabbed any asses that night????????????????????
And IS IT NOT AMUSING............................................
that Our idiot Boy Justin was ASKED POINT BLANK by news media...................................
"if he had been in black face after 2001"????????????????
And Our idiot Boy offered up the usual evasive platitudes to deflect the question..................................
from which a CYNIC may guess...........................................
that IF HE DID wear black face after 2001..............................
there ARE NO PHOTOS of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POOR PITIFUL Comrade Curious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you explain away the LIE-beral pharma care drug plan..........................................
LACED WITH FRAUD AND BRIBERY??????????????????????????
Consider::::::
Here is an article questioning the ability of LIE-berals to deliver on any of their election promises!! With some comments of my own in brackets):
National pharmacare plan a political pill or cure-all?
BY Anne Kingston, McLean`s Magazine
Published: June 14, 2019
Dr. Eric Hoskins, Chair of the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare, June 12, 2019.
(Doc Hoskins need no introduction to people of Ontari-owe- he was head of the Wynne-bag health ministry and was in charge of rationing health care in Ontari-owe and of picking fights with Ontari-owe doctors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(Hoskins conceived of a plan to ensure “we would all have a family doctor” - his solution resulted in DOUBLE BILLING!! A patient in need would go to a walk in clinic- and get treatment- and the doctor would bill the province for that treatment- AND THEN - the doctor would get a monthly payment to carry that patient on his books “AS THE FAMILY DOCTOR” - and it did not matter if the patient ever came back again - the payments continued!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(Sadly - although walk in clinics keep decent hours - it still meant that people who needed care on weekends and evenings ended up at the emergency room anyway because their “family doctor” was not available!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(Hoskins last act as Ontari-owe health minister was to set up a Wynne-bag designed pharma care plan- with the usual GROSS UNDER FUNDING so LIE-berals could HIDE the true long term costs!! Even worse were the LEGAL HOLES in the plan that DELIGHTED insurance companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(Yes- Ontari-owe LIE-berals left a LOT of legal holes in their pharma plan with the result that a LOT OF PEOPLE WHO NEEDED prescription drugs GOT CUT OFF from their insurance company but were NOT ALLOWED into the Wynne-bag plan BECAUSE THEY HAD INSURANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(Our civil service union HOGS were caught in the middle and simply told patients to take it up with a lawyer!! With some of these legal arguments STILL GOING ON - with desperately sick people going through their life savings while lawyers argue over who gets to pay what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(Hoskins is a canny politician and after helping Wynne-bag implement policies that made her the most unpopular leader in Cdn history - Hoskins jumped ship in 2015 and got elected as a federal LIE-beral - and here he is now helping Our idiot Boy implement an even more half baked and vague drug plan that is designed only to buy the votes of people who are TO DUMB to recognize they will NOT be winning any prizes with either LIE-berals or insurance companies in future!!!!!!!)
(And the CAPPER TO THIS CRAPPER LIE-beral plan is Our idiot Boy asking us if we want to negotiate with the likes of Doug Ford for our health care- and then Trudope explains HE will negotiate with Ford and get us a “good deal” with the aid of Doc Hoskins - the LIE-beral weasel who knows when to jump from one sinking LIE-beral ship to another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(Yes Our idiot Boy expects US to be delighted at his revival of the SCABROUS Wynne-bag drug plan and he expects to get a good working relationship with Ford - after having spent several years insulting the man personally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Canada inched toward the introduction of a universal, single-payer, public, national pharmacare system this week with the release of long-awaited recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare. Coming as it does on the eve of the federal election, the 171-page report is already campaign fodder. Public support for universal pharmacare in this country is very high—84 per cent of Canadians are for it, according to a recent Environics public opinion poll. The NDP have long called for a similar plan. The report wasn’t out an hour when Conservative leader Andrew Scheer used it to slam the Liberals: “I have zero confidence in their ability to handle this,” he said.
(“Single payer plan” is right!! It will be tax payers only as the Ontari-owe LIE-beral drug plan that Hoskins set up has PROVED!! The Ontari-owe plan was greeted by insurance companies with GREAT FANFARE because of the loopholes that allowed them to dump clients who had paid for benefits for many years- BACK into the public domain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(The Hoskins LIE-beral drug plan gave WONDERFUL windfall profits to insurance companies!! And of course it is civil service union HOGS who own most of the stock in such companies -and LIE-berals DESPERATELY NEED to funnel MORE GRAVY to HOGS!! So the drug plan was really nothing but a HOG FEEDING PLAN and Hog vote buying plan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
The Liberals cast pharmacare as an election platform at its policy convention in April 2018 when it voted for “a universal, single-payer, evidence-based and sustainable public drug plan,” with the proviso it required “provincial and territorial co-operation.” The advisory council, chaired by Eric Hoskins, a medical doctor and former Ontario Health Minister, had been convened after the 2018 budget. At that time, Finance Minister Bill Morneau said any national drug program would have to be “fiscally responsible” and designed to fill gaps in coverage — not to provide prescription drugs to Canadians already covered by existing plans.
(Ah yes- the “plan” requires cooperation from other levels of govt!! With Ontari-owe already DISGUSTED with the Hoskins drug plan!! And LIE-beral finance minister Morneau delicately warning it will be fiscally crippling!! And of course when LIE-berals talk about “provincial cooperation it means LIE-berals are going to stick US with the bills and claim credit for that which OTHERS are paying for!)
(Such a plan will be a NON STARTER in provincial capitols - which is why LIE-berals HAVE NO PLAN to implement their drug promise in the next four years - but expect to have a plan in place - SOME DAY - if we vote for their vague assurances and platitudes NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(The pharma care drug plan IS A STRETCH GOAL - just like the 15 percent reduction in auto insurance rates that we were promised by Wynne-bag and we DID get the reduction in premiums- BUT WE ALSO GOT A FIFTY PERCENT REDUCTION IN ACCIDENT BENEFITS for those seriously injured in crashes!!!
The UGLY TRUTH is we cannot afford LIE-beral promises!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
The advisory council saw otherwise. Its report calls for a $15-billion universal plan covering all Canadians, and the creation of a new national drug agency that would draft a national list of prescription medicines covered by the taxpayer and also negotiate prices. An initial list of “common and essential drugs” would be drawn up by Jan. 1, 2022, then expanded to a comprehensive plan by Jan. 2, 2027. Once implemented, the program would save an estimated $5 billion annually in drug costs, Hoskins announced at a press conference.
(Lets see- a $20 billion dollar deficit in spring 2019 LIE-beral budget, $15 billion dollars in election promises SO FAR, and now a $15 billion dollar drug plan to add to the red ink!! Do LIE-berals have ANY CONCEPT of interest payments, compounded and amortized?????????????)
(Do LIE-berals not have ANY FEAR of what will happen after they force us to do a high speed face plant into the debt wall as the Greeks did???????????????)
(Ontari-owe WAS WARNED in spring 2018 that if we elected another Wynne-bag LIE-beral govt - then the COST WOULD BE HIGH!! Bankers and Bond rating companies from around the world made it CLEAR Ontari-owe borrowing WOULD BE CUT OFF - and heavy new fees and penalties WOULD BE IMPOSED - until we significantly reduced our debts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(And now we have Our idiot Boy Justin and his allies- people like Hoskins implementing exactly the same slimy deals that made Wynne-bag the most Hated politician in Cdn history!! Federal LIE-berals have learned NOTHING from the destruction of the Ontari-owe LIE-beral party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Healthcare practitioners and researchers who supported universal drug coverage have greeted the report favourably. “Canada’s nurses applaud the findings,” the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions announced in a statement, calling them “a victory for Canadians!” The proposed plan would bring “an end to the current costly and dysfunctional patchwork system of coverage,” the group stated.
(Too bad the nurses do not tell us how creating a costly new system that only benefits insurance companies - and which LOOTS tax payers and leaves some patients in legal limbo fighting with BOTH govt and insurance companies and getting help from neither will be a benefit to anybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Physician and drug researcher Joel Lexchin, co-author of Pharmacare 2020 and professor emeritus at York University’s School of Health Policy & Management, calls the recommendations good news, with a few caveats: “I was pleasantly surprised given what Morneau said last year about the fill-in-the-gaps kind of approach,” he tells Maclean’s.
But Lexchin also expresses frustration that it has taken so long to get this far. Prescription drug coverage was part of the country’s original 1964 Medicare plan. “There wasn’t political will,” he said. The lack of drug coverage, like the lack of dental coverage, has come at high cost, human and financial. A 2016 Canadian Community Health Survey revealed that approximately 20 per cent of Canadians (as many as 7.5 million people) don’t have prescription drug coverage.
(“Lack of political will” is LIE-beral speak meaning we cannot afford the drug plan since we already loaded all your tax money onto the HOG GRAVY TRAIN - and then borrowed even more gravy for the HOGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Approximately one million Canadians said they’ve had to choose between food and heat or a needed prescription. The survey also revealed that even those with drug coverage can face significant, often prohibitive out-of-pocket expenses— deductibles, copayments and annual or lifetime maximums. (The advisory council’s recommendations include copays of $2 for drugs on the “essential medicines” list and $5 for other drugs - with exemptions for the poor and a limit of no more than $100 per year per household.
(LIE-berals are right that people are suffering- but the cost of LIE-beral vote buying and the Hog gravy train are the PRIME PROBLEMS!! We are in debt up to our ears courtesy of LIE-beral waste and greed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(LIE-berals have already put so many terms and conditions on their drug “plan” that it is clear it will NEVER be implemented!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)