"When only approved images can appear, we have what amounts to a sort of censorship [...] The goal is a politically uniform flow of images. In order to achieve that uniformity, people are being vilified [...]" An accurate description of the current endeavors of news media? For certainly, they've chosen what should go up and what should come down and have made it their business to convince the public of their points of view.
3
I see many people whining that the increase in nonwhite winners is undeserved. Invariably absent is any mention of the fact that the Oscars have historically been voted upon by an overwhelmingly white male committee, and thus those historical winners have been mostly dictated by the tastes of one specific demographic.
Why is it that when there are white winners voted by white voters, it is legitimate and real, but nonwhite winners are somehow "tainted" or "forced"? Are white achievements and white votes the only ones capable of being objective?
12
What's most significant about the relative "blackness" of Oscar Night 2019 is that HOLLYWOOD IS DEAD. Nothing signifies this more than the tolerance of the abyssmal and childish behavior of Spike Lee's tantrum. Nobody really cared who won among the miserable lineup of mediocre films. Not one was noteworthy except for the plethora of blackness rather than excellence in script, production, and execution. Which black movie was the better black movie? Lee thought his was. Streaming is King. Independent film by Netflix, Amazon and others directly to our homes are the only act in town. Oscar deserves the last rites.
3
Because cinema is a popular art form that rarely reaches the level of art, and because film producers are and have always been in the business of making films to make money, it is something of a miracle that good work ever gets made. Add to this the self-congratulatory, politically-correct, and myopic traditions of the Academy, which is notorious for having ignored much of the industry's finest work, and you have the irrelevant spectacle of the Oscars. Mr. Sartwell has identified the real problem. It is a public addicted to escapist fantasies, consumed like a narcotic, as well as an artistic hierarchy that makes and deals the stuff yet is uneasy about it. Sartwell's right. Movies don't fix social ills. At best they are a gauge of popular sensibilities that follow change retrospectively.
2
I think Woody Allen has it right.
Won two best picture Academy awards; never showed up to collect them.
1
Did I just read The Onion or the New York Times? This article is absurd, even for an anti-establishment reader like me. People of color and ethnic diversity were extremely well-represented, in so many ways.
Spike Lee was just less dignified than other nominees who must often feel they've been unfairly passed over. Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles didn't win either, to name a few great directors. It happens.
Black actors, musicians, artists and athletes are shining on movie and TV screens through hard work and amazing talent. The last thing we'd want is that their achievements be cheapened by some sort of misguided kindergarten fairness doctrine that ensures that "everyone gets a trophy."
4
Thank you. That's all I have to say.
I am wondering why the diversity conversation never comes up with regard to Asian actors and actresses. Asian men in Hollywood movies are almost always depicted as either asexual or homosexual, they never get the girl, and they are always evil or the object of mockery in some way. Asian women are generally depicted as sex objects and are romantically paired with white men to a creepily disproportionate degree. I am white and even I have noticed this.
6
Let’s try to remember that movies are just movies. They’re supposed to be fun to watch & entertaining not a “perfect representation” of anything. It’s show business nothing more.
4
I found the Oscars very difficult to watch precisely because of the "representation" Mr. Sartwell accurately described in this article. This representation seemed to me to be forced and overdone. In addition, although I found "Green Book" an interesting film, in my opinion it was not worthy of the best picture Oscar especially when compared to "The Favourite" and "Roma."
3
The State Department publishes a small pamphlet and sends it out via cable worldwide to all overseas embassies and consulates. This pamphlet is meant to explain to the local ‘foreign nationals’ that American TV shows does not reflect the real-life that we live in. On the beaches, not everyone looks like the perfect figures running in Baywatch; not all medical doctors look like those on Gray’s Academy, and so on. The reality is foreigners do buy ‘Whatever the Grammys or Oscars looks like’. Presentation is perception, in particular to those ill-informed. Hollywood awards show might not live up to your ‘non-biased’ standard, yet their presentations of glamorous appearances, scripted speeches are not sheer illusion. Their contributions to political, social, economic agenda carries weight. We are all victims of pop culture, which is a mixture of fantasy and reality. In that sense the U S foreign policy agency finally takes note of that .
Therefore, sir, your statement “Whatever the Grammys or Oscars looks like in the long run will have little actual impact on social justice.”, is false.
1
As a committed liberal, I have to issue a warning. From AOC to Spike lee, the hand is being overplayed. So keep making speeches—you might be hearing another one at Trump’s second inaugural.
12
As an award-winning professional screenwriter, I think the biggest issue with the Oscars, Golden Globes, etc. is the focus on identity politics instead of artistic excellence.
Of course, art is subjective. There is no definitive answer to is Green Book a better movie than Roma. But the endless "counting" of gender and race and ethnicity instead of asking what was the best movie, what was the best written script, who was the best actress is as exhausting as it is self-defeating.
89
@Sparky
As a professional you should realize that the Academy went out of it's way to reward everyone. Latinos for Roma which won best foreign language film and Greenbook which gave white men and African American men their just deserts.
Still no women, although the best actress award was the next to last award of the evening--a place that has always been held by the best actor.
Women, more than 50% of the population, still don't matter as much as those with a Y-chromosome.
To take my own advice :"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice".
3
@mj-
The “Academy” is as political as any association, and as corrupted.
1
What a fascinating piece - terrific! As someone whose L.A. Times is a lot bigger today - with a special section about last night's Oscar awards - I'm well aware of how Hollywood seems to be striving for diversity ( And having worked for my whole career with and for people with disabilities, I'm waiting for that "category" to even be mentioned in the industry's diversity stakes). As for the impact of movies on fixing the world, every now and then movies other than documentaries at least educate us on its ills - "The Big Short" and "Cheney" come to mind. But, as was the case in the Great Depression, seems to me that most people go to the movies to escape reality, and don't view the industry as "fixing" reality at all.
13
I couldn't agree more: whether a particular actor, director or film gets nominated or even wins an award should not be equated with 'social justice.' Granted, the Oscars have made lots of bad calls, but simply because a well-to-do actor has been denied a chance to place an Oscar on their fireplace mantle in their well-appointed Bel-Air home - no, that's not a question of justice.
11
Wait a second... are there actually people out there who believe eradicating all systemic privilege is possible? I mean, what does that world even look like?
Equal representation in entertainment may in fact be the closest we will ever get to absolute equality. Pure unequivocal equality doesn't exist in nature, but it does exist in our dreams (aka Hollywood).
24
There is abroad in the land the idea each person's future is deterministic. We see a black man or woman getting an award and we say, "Yeah! That could be me someday." Conversely, if there are none of our sort, background, ethnicity, color, we should be discouraged, disbelieving in our own futures and possibilities.
So, in the name of inclusion, there must be a woman president, soon, there must be Oscar winners like us, there must be everything that is good molded in my image. This determinism comes close to holding that you, whoever you are, can't do it unless someone exactly like you has blazed a path.
Consider this: the people who are most likely to win the highest honors are people who are not discouraged by lack of inclusion. They have drive. In fact, the perception that you can't do it can be an inspiration, a goad to action. Did Spike Lee become a directly because he saw black men doing it or because it wanted to go whether people told him he couldn't?
Though he needs no more viewers to his youtube videos, Casey Neistat posted one of his most popular entitled "Do What You Can't".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG7dSXcfVqE
Meanwhile, everyone should learn and know that we are not limited by the expectations around us. The act of self creation, of finding and marking your own path, is real. We are not merely blobs of flesh and brain swaying this way and that to all the social influences around us. We can do many things powered by talent, intelligence and hard work.
5
It’s time and past time for people who talk about structural racism or sexism to tell us much more about what they mean.
I don’t object to the use of a term such as ‘structural racism’ per se. I don’t deny that there are elements of society that one might usefully and correctly call structural racism. I just want to have a much better idea of what exactly people are talking about when they use such a term.
It should be possible to debate and discuss the meaning and application of such a term. Use of the term should enlighten, and play a role in letting us compare our time to the past or to an ideal future. It should help shine a spotlight on problems that are at least partially solvable and on how best to go about solving them.
As it is, these terms remain undefined, a certain something we can’t, or don’t, describe or explain. Use of these terms allows one to take a preferred path in analysis without having to justify the path taken, while still sounding wise. The terms can be deployed in argument the way one plays a trump card in a game of bridge.
Tell us what you mean so your analysis or argument enlightens. Now, in common usage, these terms obscure.
3
OK, but the mirage of representation that is an Oscars ceremony is not unlike the kind of "radical" change that upper middle class social justice advocates want to see in other institutions: more quotas, changes in syllabi in graduate humanities courses, more 'stories' of historical trauma, more 'conversations about race' on NPR.
On the other hand, 'Structural' transformation that would actually make the lives of many working class minorities (and working class whites of course) noticeably better would probably not do much for the bottom line of elite colleges like Dickinson (c. $50,000 tuition), so I'm guessing will remain (usefully for the professional social justice class) an eternally disappointed aspiration.
2
I completely get the sentiment of this piece. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.
4
Not sure what Stalin is doing in an article about the Oscars but if you make such references, at least take the trouble of getting your facts straight. The artists who wrote, painted, and created architecture for Stalin did it out of genuine enthusiasm for him and his ideas. Stalin was incredibly popular. He was also a tyrant and a mass murderer. But if anything, the story of Stalinism proves the power of images. They shape social reality and help promoting dominant ideologies. I wish somebody had made a good movie about Stalin and his period, just as there have been good movies about Hitler. But such a movie would never win an Oscar because there would be no “diversity” in it. Both Stalin and his victims were, in the skewed American racial classification, “white” and therefore not real victims. Incidentally, the reference to Chechnya was simply bizarre. The war in Chechnya happened after the collapse of the USSR when Stalin had been dead for more than fifty years.
4
I haven't watch the film industry's annual festival of self-infatuation for more than a decade and I do not intend to change. I'd rather spend the two or three hours with a very good book.
2
Film can repaint history. Americans' perception of Vietnam and the treatment of that war's vets was certainly shaped by the films that portrayed it.
The award shows used to be politically edgy awakening and broadening audiences' awareness. But these days, the proliferation of media platforms has reduced the reach and consciousness raising that movies and TV had pre-internet and cable. Focusing the culture on one desired outcome is impossible today because everyone wants to talk.
Take the movie, Green Book. It wanted to be a story about how changing who sat where in the car did not change the experience of racism. That was the theme. Tony did not save Shirley. He could not save him from the racism and homophobia that they encountered no matter how awake he became.
Yet, once the cacophony of voices with thoughtless, knee-jerk opinions began to grow and Shirley's family took offense at his not being portrayed as a black man who ate fried chicken (ironically the kind of black man that Tony would have understood), the sharp truth of the film was lost. We all lost an opportunity to address the reality of racism in the 50's and how whites still subconsciously are surprised by blacks who are not stereotypes. Tony was certainly flummoxed by it expressing the typical white reaction when he said "I am more black than you". Parsing that scene would've elevated the discussion. But hating the black white pseudo buddy film was politically correct, and makes the Oscar's irrelevant.
10
And I thought the Oscars were about good movies.
5
Excellent piece. I think it's important to look at representation not just through the lens of who and what is being depicted but from whose point of view the story is told and who is the intended audience. Green Book has its faults but so much of what makes it a well crafted movie is overlooked because it doesn't tick off the right boxes for an audience that wished it had been made for a different purpose and from a different point of view. For example, its social justice agenda seemed considerably more modest than what it had to say about male friendships and the quest for dignity. As a gay man, I could fault the film for giving short shrift to the role that homophobia played in suffocating lives in the era the film depicts. But that's not the film they set out to make.
Contrast this with Moonlight, a breathtaking and truly daring film. It never wavers from the rarified point of view of a young gay, black boy coming into adulthood and operates on a more poetic level. That made for a profound impact but it also necessarily limited its audience. Green Book, on the other hand is made in a more popular and accessible form, a road movie, a buddy film no less. It's told from the point of view of an uneducated working class white guy, a comic Willy Loman. The point of view seems considerably less sophisticated because it's intended to reach an audience that is less sophisticated about race. Does that make it a bad movie? I don't think so. It's just not made for Spike Lee.
12
Honestly, I've never thought any of Spike Lee's films were particularly great. Not bad, but not great. I think he thinks a bit too much of himself.
And I am a Knicks fan too!
9
@nh
Does he have any idea how many great, great, great films never even get nominated?
2
Most importantly, no one on Twitter was outraged! We know most of these award shows are too busy not trying to offend as represent art itself.
1
And you won't bring me to believe that the rewarded Roma has nothing to do with the present relationship of the US with Mexico.
2
Even though I consider myself a leftist, I'm rather skeptical about the power of movies and TV shows to alter reality. It's a very popular idea right now among a big portion of the left. I'm afraid it has it's roots on the idea that human beings are born a blank slate, and if we change the culture just right, human beings will turn out just right too.
I still hold myself more to now old-fashioned ideas that, even though human beings are mutable, they're mostly influenced by factors that are very hard to consciously manipulate. Even though Freud and Marx aren't as hot nowadays, parenting and broad factors like economics and technology probably affect people much more than which movies they happened to watch as kids.
And in any case, people are much more influenced by news and ads than they ever are by fiction, IMO. If anything, an inspiring movie will most likely inspire those who already sort of agree with the movie's message in the first place.
8
First of all, as someone who has lived in New York, Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles over 50 years ago, I can tell you that the most important truth, was that Wall Street, the advertising agencies, in New York, and Hollywood, and the entertainment industry, were, and are, only there to make money. There is talk about what is good or not good, for society, but remember, all of the above, are part of the over 70,000 pages of the IRS Tax Code, who only fiscally thrive, because of lobbyists, and lawyers cozying up to legislators in all 50 states, and the members of Congress, to get special deductions, credits, etc. just for their industries, not unlike our President DT, whose companies get the tax deductions for real estate, and pay little to nothing in taxes. These people in the industry helping out the broader society, think again!
6
I"ve seen 4 of the 8 best pic nominees. Entertaining, but none were great movies by any stretch. I look forward to the other 4, but not expecting greatness. The last great movie I've seen that was academy award nominated was 3 billboards. And a stretch of time before that. Nothing wrong with movies being entertaining, but we seem to be shooting for diversity more than anything else. Look at the 8 nominees:
1. Film about a white drunk guy who kills himself
2. Film about evil powerful white men that was basically an anti-Republican screed
3 A period piece with lesbians
4. A film about a gay singer
5. A film about a black comic hero
6. A film about a black cop taking down white guys
7. A film about a white guy being the chauffeuring a black guy around through the white racist south.
8.. A film about Mexican servants
Lot's of diversity I'd say. The white guys look bad or dangerous or racist. The Blacks and Mexicans heroic. The guy playing the gay singing legend (played by an Egyptian) wins best actor.
Virtually half of the presenters were minorities.
How much more diversity can Hollywood produce? I don't know.
I'd just like better movies, whoever stars in them or makes them.
But counting and dissecting films based on the ethnicity of actors, characters, directors, etc. is ridiculous.
72
@Ralphie The negative portrayals of white guys in those specific movies are easily counterbalanced by the nonstop depiction of white guys as superheroes in blockbuster movies. To suggest that white males are being persecuted in a white-male-dominated industry is what is ridiculous.
3
@Ralphie "shooting for diversity more than anything else".... so that's your take? and how might you distill the HISTORY of films prior to today...... white male ad infinitum..... and those were the hey day of films for you, I suppose. I'll take the diversity "glut" as you characterize it; it's only racial when it INCLUDES folks of color and it's only ART when those folks are not centered.
3
@Ralphie There are NEVER any films with white characters over 60 who are depicted positively.
They are awards for movies.
There is no objective measure for "Best" Picture.
So you can engineer any representation that you so desire.
If you look to the Academy Awards for personal or cultural validation then you have problems far beyond the pale.
I especially like the sub-heading: "Images can falsify as well as depict reality" Really? Consider my mind blown.
1
What is the point of denying history?
If white people did not come against slavery, it would not have ended.
If Union soldiers didn't choose to give their lives, their actual lives, it would not have ended.
If white people didn't change their minds during the Civil Rights era, it would not have ended.
It doesn't mean it is all that happened to help emancipate a minority black population in the US.
But it did happen.
13
@EC and of course if White people hadn't brought and owned slaves to BEGIN with.....well, we wouldn't have plots for all those movies you enjoy defending either I guess.
The fact any of these was necessary to free human beings on American soil means no one should be looking for thanks, or expect to be stand equal to the ones who suffered through our country's original sin.
It's not about denying history, it's about context.
3
Spike Lee turning his back on "Green Book", Peter Farrelly and Co. is pure sour grapes. Even though he obviously dislikes the film and feels that "BlackKklansman is eminently more award worthy , his behavior was ugly to say the least. I thought Lee's film was brilliant. I also thought "Greenbook" was brilliant in it own way. although I am apparently in the minority for admitting such. Why can't there be two visions? I'm aware of all the arguments against "Greenbook", I just don't agree. I feel enriched for having seen it. I also feel just as fortunate having seen "BlackKklansman".
10
@mikeo26 no, that's not it. Spike would have been fine with another film winning the award. You missed or ignore his critique shared by millions..... yet another "driving" so-n-so film when other more groundbreaking films were made..... Do the Right Thing was far more important than Driving Miss Daisy. That nostalgia film was past its fresh by date in 1989. Now in 2019, we have another ghost of blackness film with a white man impersonating the biography of a black gay man whose family tells us that he was not estranged from them nor estranged from his negritude... who are we to believe? The racist son who saw Hispanics "cheering" on 9/11 or the dignified Ph.D./M.D. family/brother of the deceased Dr. Shirley. A really hard choice for the willfully ignorant and tone deaf, I suppose.
The "Reader Picks" on comments on this article show the pressing need for continued action to widen narrow perspectives and view, with equanimity, a world in which all races and perspectives get a fair airing, and opportunity that is heavily skewed toward one group, is not cited as "proof" that more accomplishment "naturally" comes from this favored group, and so its dominance in narratives and those who develop the narratives, is reflective of its "naturally" greater accomplishment, instead of the racist and biased foundation on which it actually is based.
2
@AJ: I want to know why movies or anything else need be viewed as an "airing" of anything at all, on the part of some race or perspective.
It seems to me that this reduces artistic activity to propaganda. Of course, some movies are propaganda, but not all are.
9
Black KKKlansman was good but not great. Green Book was good but not great. 2018 was kind of a lousy year for movies. So the film that was a little bit better, in my opinion (Black KKKlansman) lost to Green Book. So, for about the 60th time in Oscar history a better film lost to a lesser, but more crowd-pleasing, one. Predictably, Spike Lee threw another tantrum. Man, does that guy need to grow up.
8
I've historically considered myself as a Dem and a liberal. However, with political correctness having become as ridiculous as it has, I've been turned off by much of the Left. And this is just one more perfect example, where bleeding heart libs think all is good (or much better) in the world, simply because of (possibly temporary?) kneejerk sea changes in the gender, sexual orientation and racial makeup of movies, film, the Senate, candidates for various state offices, etc.
If I were a black muslim genderqueer lesbian who happened to win an award or get nominated to an office, I'm not so sure I'd feel 'proud' or deserving, so much as a possible pawn so that bleeding heart libs can pat themselves on the backs, and think their work is done.
25
@Lisa -
"Bleeding heart" isn't the way I'd describe the modern left.
Bleeding heart implies compassion, empathy, forgiveness, and a commitment to reconciliation.
The modern left is defined by anger, self-righteousness, call outs, banishment of anyone who isn't sufficiently toeing the line.
They don't think the world is good or much better, they think the world is a very dark and scary place, full of systemic injustice that can't be alleviated by the good intentions of bleeding hearts like me.
Actually, the forefront of the modern left thinks the Green Book is a bad movie because it deals with a "reconciliation fantasy".
I'm proud to be called a bleeding heart, and I'm an old-style Liberal, and I don't see a comfortable place for myself in the modern intersectional left.
Though, to be honest, a huge reason they got this way is in response to Trump and other terrible authoritarian populists around the globe. I predict that once Trump is out of power (it can't happen soon enough), the more strident voices in the left will lose much of their pulpit.
1
"Whatever the Grammys or Oscars looks like in the long run will have little actual impact on social justice."
But such a change will likely seed and reflect an increase in employment opportunities for the many qualified women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people who work in these industries. Let's not forget that equal employment access is a social justice issue in its own right, and those of us who work in the film and music industries can tell you that nothing remotely resembling equality of opportunity currently exists in these industries.
In addition, it is of great importance to the culture that our culture industries reflect the culture at large and not just the culture of white cisgender heterosexual men, which is unfortunately the current state of affairs.
It goes without saying that solving the problems of the culture industry will not solve all other problems. Addressing legal discrimination didn't fix everything either. Yet there was value in making those changes anyway. The same holds true here. If legal changes were essential to the project of creating a just and equal society, so too are cultural changes. And true cultural change cannot happen while our culture industries remain so heavily dominated by such a small swath of humankind.
No one thing will fix everything. But little by little, as we fix first this problem and then that one, we gradually make a better world.
3
fantastic article.
Film and art critics in general, not just the academy, are struggling with this. Whenever you see a critic use the word “important” in a movie review, it’s a clear sign that the critic’s personal politics played an outsized role in evaluating the subject matter.
It’s another example of the dangers of crowd-sourcing. the roger eiberts of the world have been displaced by rotten tomatoes-like aggregators. where we once put our trust in a single, but very well reputed/credentialed source, we now trust the mob. I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that the majority of critics are left-leaning, and that many view themselves more as cultural stewards and less so evaluators of pacing and cinematography.
The NYT magazine ran an amazing article contemplating these questions called “Should Art be a Battleground for Social Justice” ... I think it’s a question we should be asking more.
5
Here in the world of a secular private school, we debate these issues all the time. Last year, one of our sophomore fulfilled her public speaking requirement by doing a moving and eloquent speech about her joy that "Black Panther" would give young black school boys a role model. Although I was impressed by the topic and wowed by the delivery, I found myself wondering if she (a half European, half Japanese girl who is among the 1% in socioeconomic status) even knows many young black boys. On the other hand, one of my colleagues who is a Big Brother said his 10 year old Little Brother, who is black, didn't care much about Black Panther at all, but he loves Japanese animé. Obviously this is just anecdotal information and one example, but it points out that individuals don't always fit in neat boxes in terms of what they relate to on screen.
8
@Teacher
I am a black woman with diverse interests, so I understand what you're getting at, but I can also tell you that not having people who look like you represented in the culture in meaningful and diverse ways does real harm. For example, a movie about a kid who's really into Japanese anime could have a young black male protagonist, but in our culture it usually doesn't. Too often (though not always) anything that isn't directly representational is cast with a white actor, which effectively means that black boys like your colleague's Little Brother literally never see other little black kids like himself represented in the culture. That can skew his sense of who black people are assumed to be in the culture and his sense of where he might find people who relate to the things he does. As it turns out, there are all kinds of people doing all kinds of things and part of the value of having a more diverse set of voices at the storytelling table is that we who are not white, not male, etc have stories to tell -- about ourselves, and/or about the world (separate from the question of representation) -- that straight white cisgender able-bodied men do not. I'm interested in a storytelling landscape where these other voices are present, for it is through the lens of story that we discover how alike we are in our humanity despite the specificity of each character's experience. Through the lens of story, difference is not the barrier it too often seems.
6
@Paula are you saying you want fewer straight white male actors, or fewer straight white male writers, or fewer straight white male producers? or just fewer straight white males everywhere?
and if straight white males are incapable of telling your story, then by that logic you are incapable of telling their story, or the story of an Arab immigrant. And thus the only stories we can actually tell are our those of our own ethnicity/gender. that is such a sad, territorial and privileged outlook. And it’s amazing that you believe you can use that outlook to justify mutual understanding, because you’re not interested in diverse voices, you’re advocating for segregated voices telling segregated stories.
Actually, both Left and Right have their separate fixations on media representation. The Left demands representation of minorities, while the Right demands representation of its political views, condemning the biases of journalists more or less constantly. The Left's demands makes some of us feel better about ourselves; the Right's demands change the world.
1
The illusion of perfect representation (all races, ethnic groups, sexes, etc. equal) in American society?
America seems so determined to have an illusion of perfect representation, image over substance, reality, that it accepts even the greatest absurdities, contradictions, incoherences in image to satisfy this illusion. In film and popular culture men are able to transform effortlessly into women and vice versa, and each apparently is capable of what the other is capable to point of absurdity, heroes, heroines doing the obviously impossible that we have to wonder if we can be honest about people's abilities at all.
And then we have the complete incoherence as to what constitutes racial identity. For example, to have Black blood is to be Black but to have Native American blood does not necessarily mean one is accepted as Native American, and who knows exactly what constitutes a Jewish person or how many people are really white under such absurd and arbitrary drawing of lines...
Fortunately biology, genetics, will continue to improve and we can take each person as a package of abilities and flaws, go deeper than image, although of course we can expect a massive outcry as the groups and the sexes break down in various ways and what occurs by various combinations, genetic improvements, etc. But it should be more efficient and honest than the image land of today, where anyone can transform into anything, do anything, at least on film, and therefore in eyes of many in society.
I think that Hollywood's current obsession with representation is just a ruse to disguise what it really cares about - the glorification of guns and violence and greed - effectively the holy trinity of Hollywood, as displayed in thousands upon thousands of films.
7
The Oscars should represent the best of film not the racial balance of America. Who cares what it looks like except those who would benefit from race.
3
I am sorry. One tiny minority was not represented in anything significant--white males. When I went to school, minority meant minority.
4
Enough enough enough. How much more of this can we take? It's not a perfect world and never will be.
5
There are two distinct things being discussed. 1, Movies. Which can represent anything the artist wants to express, be it reality or fantasy. 2. Award shows for movies. Which, more and more, is becoming a mouthpiece for Academy's own corporate interests and their sponsors, leaving very little to do with excellence or inclusion of minorities in film making. Instead, it's one big huge pat on the corporate back. But what is most troubling, is the perception of inclusion the Academy wants to make, all the while the reality is they want to play it safe. Just like the NFL did playing an MLK puff piece at the beginning of the Super Bowl this year, all the while excluding players, owners and viewers of color from being included or expressing themselves. It's a trend spiraling out of control in all sectors of life these days.
6
Only one color matters: green.
Anyone pretending otherwise is to be laughed at.
17
The Academy should have asked Reggie Miller to present the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
7
If I understand the underlying assumption of this piece, it's that art is supposed to be a representation of, or commentary, on social reality. But not all art has that function in the first place.
5
Steve Singer's observation several comments ago is very apt. I rarely get to Los Angeles but when I do I'm always struck by the number of signs, billboards and the like praising and mentioning particular movies with the intention of making voters in the academy and the people who deal with them continuously and even subliminally aware of the entries in the competition. Would we accept billboards referring to legal cases before the courts and urging judges or jurors to vote yes or no, guilty or not guilty for particular defendants or respondents?
This ceremony is of little value except as a marketing tool and a sign of where the money is going. If you're really interested in movies for themselves, turn off the television.
8
Excellent analogy with respect to American culture and the Stalinist version of same. For movies and other works of state-approved media-art to successfully address the problems we all face they need to tell us truths that many of us would find uncomfortable: that racism isn't always defeated, for example, and that individuals of color are not always heroic and/or victimized (try to find another example of this apart from the character played- brilliantly- by Samuel L. Jackson in "Django Unchained"). One could argue that our contemporary society's most intractable problem is the extreme income disparity that exists between its most affluent (and, not so coincidentally, most powerful) members and- well- the rest of us. And yet how many movies even touch this issue? How many TV series? How many plays? It may be that the bigwigs in our entertainment industry, being wealthy themselves, can't really imagine what poverty is like- and can't give us a leading character in a contemporary drama who isn't an attorney or an architect (assuming he/she isn't a comic-strip superhero). Whatever the case, our culture-brokers think that they're doing okay by reducing complex reality to comforting clichés and platitudes, holding out hope that we'll all be satisfied in the recognition that lynching no longer exists, that women have the right to vote and that The Avengers will always be around to safeguard the universe from supervillains. And they're just plain wrong.
9
Good piece. Award shows don't change things, they just reflect what is a money driven entertainment business pretending to represent all.
Spike Lee doesn't help much when he tries to stand up as the social conscience of everyone, as well as smarter, more passionate, and better educated. He might be all those, but The Green Book was not made to right social wrongs. Rather to entertain, engage, and I suspect try to add a little education for younger people about what was a white south looked like 50 years ago. Some may have recognized how superficial has been the change since.
I hear intellectuals agreeing with Spike on his approach to dealing with racism. But many of those who don't have Spike's fame, wealth or education of are more moved by Typer Perry's movies He let's Madea do the lecturing ....
10
@RFM Spike Lee is one man, one experience, one set of opinions. He represents himself. So what if Mr. Lee is disappointed in The Green Book win. He has skin in the game and he earned his place in the audience. He deserves his opinion without getting his knuckles hit. Be moved by Tyler Perry movies, who am I to dispute that experience but Mr. Lee is who he is and all in all he has "woke" a few people up throughout the years.
1
The family of the back musician portrayed in "Green Book" says the friendship between the musician and the white chauffeur portrayed in the movie is fictional. There was no friendship. The musician was an exacting task master who fired all his chauffeurs after a few months on the job. The indignities imposed on black travelers were very real.
4
@William Case
The scene where Viggo teaches Mahershala about fried chicken and other elements of black culture is particularly strange.
3
The Jewish character in Blackkklansman was fictional, as was the climactic explosion, and love interest. Filmmakers do what they will to create interest.
3
@William Case-
Movies are metaphors. Perhaps “Green Book” projected a world that we wish we had, not the sadder one that we do have. Perhaps that’s why it won Best Picture.
2
Can anybody explain in detail how Freddy Mercury's voice became implanted in Bohemian's Rhaposdy's Rami Malek? For me, that was one of the most magical and memorable achievements in film - ever.
Thanks to the academy for recognizing it with three awards this year.
3
@David Gunter
Simple explanation: Lip Syncing.
2
I find it strange that there still seems to be this idea that blacks are under represented in film and tv. The latest stats show that African Americans make up about 12% of film and tv representation. They make up about 13% of the American population. That doesn’t seem like much of a misrepresentation to me. Latinos on the other hand make up roughly 3.5% of film and tv, while being about the same percentage of the population as blacks. The real problem is that when whites are socially pressured to be more racially inclusive either they only see it as black and white, or the squeakiest wheels gets the grease.
33
@D African Americas are a minority - no reasonable person is denying that. But we white people need to play a little bit of catch up don't you think?
Their ancestors literally built this country as slaves enduring unimaginable horrors, and US laws, courts, and the constitution made sure that equality wasn't possible for centuries.
Close your eyes and just imagine this country without the African American input. Shockingly dire I think.
4
I do believe there needs to be some “ catch up” , there are other minorities that have been oppressed in this country besides blacks. Native Americans have just about been obliterated, Mexicans killed, segregated, and systemically kept down ever since the Mexican war, ( not to mention the Spanish conquest which proceeded) Asian Americans put to work railroads, and put in internment camps. Yes blacks have a horrible history in this country, but many strides have been made for civil rights, the fight is not over yet, but other race issues need to be addressed besides just black and white. Not to say that it is all bad, I believe racial equalities are gaining ground and are better than in the past despite what some headlines might have you believe. I would go as far as saying some of the headlines (meant to attract readership) are part of the problem. By sensationalizing every racial conflict it only sparks fear on whichever side, and keeps progression from happening.
@D I have noticed the same thing with television, both shows and advertising. Part of the explanation might be that advertizers targeting Latinos run ads on Spanish stations, and shows with strong Latino characters would also be on Spanish stations, so it's rare to find Latino characters on English language venues. But Black actors appear a LOT on television, much, much more than Latinos or Asians.
Seeing the character of Cleo from Roma on the screen gave a sneak peek of something potentially amazing. Where the walls of so called foreign and domestic fall - and we get to see what diversity really means. It would be something if there is a trend towards world cinema and entertainment. It would liberate us from so many of our tired stories and cliches.
8
Spike Lee needs to take a tip from John Lewis (that he applauded so enthusiastically) or even Martin Luther King Jr, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice".
So Greenbook was a feel good film. We need some feel good these days. We get mostly feel bad.
And frankly, Spike Lee is getting old. He needs to grow up and stop throwing tantrums every time something doesn't meet his standard of perfect.
Ask John Lewis. Things take time. You aren't going to eradicate hate and ignorance over night.
25
@mj Him, Mr. Lee needs to grow up...I will make you a deal; let's get Baby Crook Trump to grow up first and then we will start bothering Mr. Lee to do the same. Oh wait, Trump, Alec Baldwin and then Spike!
3
Excellent thought provoking piece . Even though every point was accurate it was so nice to see this Oscar. Racism unfortunately is alive and well in our Democracy. Daily we need only look at the news globally. The white male patriarchy is alive and struggling . Women in our political system are still being held to and judged by a double standard out of a Leave it to Beaver episode. The Oscars though certainly not my world are a glamorous world with obscene display of jewels and couture. But I got to see Jason Momoa in pink velvet, and Billy Porter in a gorgeous tuxedo dress. But in all honesty I have always viewed The Oscars as a popularity party. I can't say how many times over the years who or what was awarded was a disappointment. Do they authentically represent all our people..no. Will they someday maybe not. I am concerned a lot more about education and climate change but hey for a moment I was entertained.
3
The Academy Awards ceremony seeks to valorize what popular cultural already has confirmed. The door to tolerance and diversity that Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood cracked opened a half century ago, has allowed the rejection of “Birth of a Nation” as a cultural icon today.
The films honoring the Black-experience in the latter decades of the twentieth century—“Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”, “Cosby Show”, “”Defiant Ones”, and “ Blazing Saddles”, “Intruder in the Dust”, “To Kill a Mocking Bird”—confirmed the gradual but incontestable evolution of America’s cultural attitude about race.
Without this slow evolution of American’s cultural values away from white supremacy and the the acceptability of the idea that all people—not the Constitution’s corrupt idea that all White Men are created equal, Contemporary films illuminating The Black experience from Spike Lee’s films from “She Gotta Have It” and “Do the Right Thing” to the current “BlackkkKlansman would almost certainly not have been nominated by tha Academy.
The critical point is that the Academy is a mirror reflecting already acceptable popular values and has never been the vanguard “urging the people to just do the right thing”
7
Why would anyone want to live in a world of 'perfect representation'? The very idea sounds weird and unnatural.
11
@Timothy
Exactly - as if we want to watch real life on the movie screen! We go to the movies and watch TV to get away from real life.
Perfect representation in individual programs is impossible - one hopes that the total evens out somehow.
3
Hollywood is the epitome of the entertainment industry. It is the business of fantasy. It is no more connected to reality than Broadway.
1
I took a number of logic courses in college, but gosh darn it, I can't validate this syllogism.
Driving Miss Daisy was a dated portrayal of racial relations
Greenbook was a dated portrayal of the white savior
Therefore, Spike Lee should have won best picture
7
@Righty The missing link is melanin.
2
Spike Lee assumed he should have won best picture. He was not necessarily next in line after The Green Book. Roma or Vice could have easily took the win.
I think you meant, Spike Lee’s movie should have come in second, after Roma. It’s easy to make that mistake because Roma was SO much better than all the others!
Human nature is flawed. The founders recognized that and tried to balance the power sectors. Though some depised slavery they knew its abolition in the 18th century would make a United States of America impossible. I am 100% Ashkenazi Jew, old and male. Am I privileged? I am part of the most hated civilians that ever walked this planet and the pendulum is still swinging even in 21st century PA. How complex it is for people to live in harmony on this planet or honestly give full view to the darker side of humanity? Very.
10
@Curiouser The ol' USA wouldn't be possible with our enslaving a people for hundreds of years is utter nonsense and a racist notion the KKK have used for years. Shame on you.
1
@Lisa You seem to have been lost in the weeds. You might give McCullough's Pulitzer Prize masterpiece on John Adams a read. My comment re the 18th Century bemoaned the horrible state of racism historically including those who hate my own Jewishness. I was pointing out that in the 1700s even those of the founding fathers who despised slavery couldn't abolish it in the union and still begin a new united nation given the horrible racism. They knew fourscore and seven years before Lincoln's address it would split their emerging nation. It was the horrible reality of that time. You seem to want to "shame" me without thinking this through or having some appreciation of American history. I have fought for racial justice all of my life.
3
Months before the annual Vaudeville variety show still called “the 58th (68th, 78th ...) Academy Awards” for some reason, “Best” statuette contenders advertise for votes. MPAA votes. “FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION” — anywhere and everywhere MPAA voters’ eyeballs might land or wander; in Tinseltown, and on any reflective surface. Big, bright banner headlines on big, bright flashy billboards up and down Hollywood Blvd, and Wilshire, Pico, Santa Monica, Sunset, San Vicente, La Cienega and along the Pacific Coast Highway to and from Malibu. And in the Trades. Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, Variety, IMDB, LA Times, HBO, Showtime. “FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION” anywhere and everywhere.
Lee’s narcissism, evidenced by last night’s outrageous behavior, disqualifies him from serious consideration.
4
This is an interesting and I believe accurate perspective. The entertainment industry has an exalted view of its own importance, and resorts to simplistic, reactionary thinking more often than not. I surmise that years from now we look back on the last few years with some amusement at the folly of "influencers" and their politically fashionable poses.
4
TV and movies are fundamentally distractions, idealizations and wish lists for how many of us imagine the better angels of our nature.
What they are not, is remotely relevant to the lives of the people or the equality/shared experiences they seek to represent.
The real work, the hard work is out there in the streets, the schools, the prisons and the poverty in which most of the disadvantage find them selves. What happens as absolutely zip, zero, nada to do with this. Just the wealthy and famous trying to convince us they care by counting cultures in the nominations and awards. Please its lame and distracting , just like the genre.
10
I tend to think that demands for social justice regarding such symbols and cultural flourishes are often simply rationalizations for narcissism. Consider: those who make such demand often are simply looking for *themselves* or their privileged identity group to be represented, not for *everybody* or all relevant groups to be represented. How many times has Spike Lee demanded more indigenous, Asian, or disabled representation? Will he threaten to boycott next year, or is he happy now?
26
There's a great deal of philosophical and political common sense in Sartwell's commentary, and it's good to see this kind of common sense in the NYT. However, Sartwell strangely neglects the fact that whole departments and divisions and bureaucracies in our universities are given over to the idea that representation is the essential battle ground, the ur-reality on which reasoning and criticism and truth rest. Life is a battlefield, and the struggle for this foundation of all anti-foundationalism is the struggle over representations of race, gender, sexuality, etc--not serious inquiry, open debate, empirically grounded policy, ethical deliberation, material reality, and so on.
The products of this education are now dominant in our media and, increasingly, in our political leadership.
For these folks, philosophy is just intellectual history, and history is just another battle for power. This is our milieu.
13
I thought I went to the movies to be entertained. All this fuss about the Oscars seems nonsensical.
22
@Conrad
Entertainment is not all that a film can offer. If that's all you want from a film, I fear you are cheating yourself.
1
To me, Hollywood's greatest misrepresentation is in it's misrepresentation of guns. Good guys with guns always beat bad guys with guns. This, more than anything, has created and reinforced the illusion that guns protect.
23
@David Indeed. Consider the fact that, historically, the majority of Hollywood 'blockbuster' ads and billboards have a weapon Prominently featured in the ad. Take note next time you see an ad or billboard for a new Hollywood film, and count the number of weapons that were purposefully inserted into the ad. Clearly the idea is that weapons = 'action', 'cool', 'excitement' and entertainment. What a sorry commentary on our obsession with guns.
2
@David
I agee with you, David, even as strong 2A guy with a collection that the typical Times commenter would find revolting. I like action films, and movie violence doesn't bother me, but the blatant disregard for the gravity of gun violence is abhorrent. It is hypocritical that some of the same folks who decry gun ownership make so much money glorifying gun violence. I believe this contributes to the mass shooter phenomenon (along with the news coverage).
2
Mass media represents an inherently editorially biased decision as to what should be depicted from which context and perspective for which audience and in which time and place and by which media and means. Ignoring dynamic interaction and change stops time and space. Propaganda and mythology thrives upon such fictions.
2
Spike Lee said last night: "Every time someone is driving somebody, I lose. This time, they just changed the seating arrangement." There's a lot of truth to that. Exactly 30 Oscar ceremonies ago, in 1989, "Driving Miss Daisy" won Best Picture and Lee's masterwork, "Do the Right Thing," wasn't nominated.
When those kinds of things happen, we all lose, and they probably account for why the Academy Awards don't have the cultural impact or prestige that they once did. For every "Moonlight" there are pictures like "Crash" and "Green Book" (and "The Help" and "The Blind Side" and ...) that recycle cliches designed to make white people feel good about feeling woke and superior. If your only contact with black people is on a screen, you might be believe that racism is now over. We elected Obama!
Each movie alone may not be so bad, but the repetition of these racial fantasies and stereotypes has a numbing, deadening effect on moviegoers, reinforced (as Mr. Sartwell says) not by government but by social (and economic) pressures toward conformity.
Representation in the movie industry, on-screen and off-, doesn't solve all the real problems -- but it does help get more under-represented people hired (see Frances McDormand's "inclusion rider" Oscar speech last year). Alfonso Cuaron said he wanted his film "Roma" to focus on indigenous Mexican domestics, characters who are relegated to the background in popular culture. That is one small way to spark awareness and empathy.
4
The Oscars are important only because we are in the habit of thinking of them as important. In reality, they are what they always were, a PR move for the industry and advertising for a few big budget films. Their one good idea came and went with the first academy awards: separate prizes for Best Picture Artistic (Sunrise) and Best Picture Technical (Wings). Realizing that technique and artistry can be two different traits might still give some legitimacy to this tired ritual.
7
“When only approved images can appear, we have what amounts to a sort of censorship, not imposed by the government, but by all of us on one another through social pressure.”
Sounds like Hollywod from the 1920s to at least the 1950s. Notice the portrayal of blacks in virtually all movies during all that time. Uneducated, economically deprived, dumb, sexless. No white person says please or thank you to a black person. No blacks appear as night club patrons, theater attendees, managers or professionals of any kind.
There’s more, but the point is made. If the still largely white establishment struggles to shake itself of those decades of overt and indifferent racism, we should not be surprised. But we might, however modestly, applaud the effort.
16
The Oscars should represent the best in the art (& science) of making great movies -- not delivering great messages.
"Delivering great messages" has a not so savory meaning: "propaganda." I do not go to a movie to be preached to, to be convinced of a political position, to have my ego massaged or to witness a massage of the hurt feeling and resentments of those who feel they are downtrodden.
The awards should be to those who excel at their craft. Social significance should play no role -- none -- in that judgement. And politics do not belong on that stage or in the acceptance speeches.
If I want a sermon, I'll go to church -- not turn on my TV.
70
@NeverLift
What exactly is art for but to share a perspective of which you may not be familiar.
Otherwise it has no purpose.
11
@mj
You are presuming movies that are worthy of recognition must also be "art." Well, they first need to be entertaining.
I don't mean they need to be light and fluffy. I deeply appreciated "Shindler's List" for the excellence of its presentation. But the award was for just that -- not because it was a story that needed telling.
I recall viewing the Pieta in St. Peter's, decades ago. It didn't tell me something I didn't know. But its excellence in portraying Mary and her sorrow made it worthy of appreciation. Indeed, it brought tears to my eyes. And I am Jewish.
13
@NeverLift Your experience of the Pieta strongly supports mj's comment. You did learn something you didn't know.
1
I stopped watching oscars several years ago. People should be awarded academy awards based on performance, and talent. NOT based on affirmative action and to please certain minority
No wonder fewer and fewer people are watching oscars.
57
For the record, Green Book was a really great movie, best written and best acted, with a coherent story. As for fantasy, all Hollywood is fantasy. So what. As for Spike Lee, he seems enamoured with his own self worth.
56
@Mel. Spike was one of 4 screenwriters who won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar. In fact, he and his writing partner were listed as the secondary writers, the first team was given a more significant credit.
Yet Spike never thanked any of the other writers in his long-winded speech nor allowed them to speak.
In contrast, all 3 of the Green Book writers, who won for best original script, spoke. One of which was the director.
As we endlessly dissect the awards through the lens of privilege and access to opportunity, can we please address the arrogance, narcissism and disrespect displayed by this self-consumed director?
41
If I was white and lived in Japan, I would understand I am a minority and my work will not be as mainstream as that of ethically Japanese artists. Why are American minorities perennially offended by less representation? It is a logical result of being part of a physical minority.
61
@EC So, essentially, might makes right? Or is it white makes right? Maybe there is a suppressive effect on how much 'minority work' is introduced into the 'mainstream'? Isn't the mainstream inclusive of all of us??
5
@Stephen Csiszar
Sure, on some level inclusiveness can be mainstream. But with so many different stories and viewpoints, it is little wonder that when it comes down to it, it is a numbers game. Nothing to do with might.
4
@EC
What if your ancestors had been in Japan for centuries, not just as a part of a minority, but a ruthlessly oppressed minority? You're assimilated, but as an underclass. I'd think your films would have a lot to say about mainstream Japanese society, but maybe not in a way that the mainstream might like. Plus there's no such thing as an American ethnicity.
10
Yes, a good point. And, although the author wrote primarily about race and identity, the film that suffered most from this phenomenon was documentary winner Free Solo.
First, it was irritating to hear the film maker gush, as they are all wont to do, with the subject of the film, Alex Honnold, standing awkwardly to the side and back. He performed one of the most remarkable athletic feats in human history, and was mentioned only as an afterthought at the end of the gushing.
And as to representation, what Honnold did is not representative of rock climbing. I fear too many in the audiences will see only the breathtaking risk involved and steer their children away from a marvelous, extremely safe sport. This is not to minimize Honnold's amazing courage and skill, but that is to rock climbing as a turbo-charged Porsche is to a bicycle.
1
@Barking Doggerel
Yeah, it did seem odd the the guy who actually did the climb was looking at his feet while the filmmakers lauded their dream, their vision, and the great camera work.
6
As an educator, I had hoped for more when I read the following quote from the article, "It strikes me that there is significantly more public discussion of such matters than, for example, education policy."
Yes, I get the relevance of the author's points, but truthfully, I really care more about confronting the systemic racism and bigotry that many of my students face.
I would like for all my kids to be represented in the arts, but too much attention is paid to Hollywood, etc., instead of factors that affect people's everyday lives. I suspect you can guess that I did not watch the Oscars.
5
1 - It is a very fine balance.
Let's be honest, what is happening now could be seen as OVER-representation. Middle America isn't there at all. Just for starters.
2 - Admiring Woody Allen isn't kosher these days. But nonetheless, ,I do. For never putting his work up for consideration by the Oscars. It is a silly pageant for marketing purposes only.
27
@EC There is no shortage of people who will put morals aside to admire Woody Allen; don't congratulate yourself just yet. Just hope your teenage daughter or niece isn't pursued by a middle aged man, as Mr. Allen so often likes to glamorize.
2
I hadn’t thought about it, until I read this article, but BlacKkKlansman, to some degree, had the aspect of reconciliation fantasy in common with Green Book. Maybe to a lesser degree, but still…
24
@R. Adelman
Not sure; BlacKKKlansman doesn't exactly end on a positive note.
Also I'd argue that it's less of a fantasy because, even though it plays a little loose with Stallworth's original account, from what I see and hear it is more faithful to the real life story than Green Book is to the nature of its central characters' relationship.
1
How are the winners selected? Who votes? Are the voters representative of the public in general? If there are eight movies nominated for "best movie" does one bloc of voters control the outcome of the vote? I did see The Green Book, Vice and A Star is Born and enjoyed all three. But were any of the three worth all the fuss? In my opinion, no.
2
The last paragraph in this piece has some merit. What comes before is a bit of a jumble. I agree that quotas for diversity in entertainment (that's what this is about, not 'art') are artificial. However, the Stalinist formula was deliberately false, not idealistically misguided. It was a bureaucratic lid placed on both reporting reality, and spurring the imagination.
Other than that, a bit of diversity honestly spread around is neither a wicked plot to disguise injustice, nor a panacea. It's a consumer and marketing trick.
The Oscars is an awards show. Should Meryl Streep playing Mary Tyrone in a remake of "Long Day's Journey Into Night", give another otherworldly performance, should our greatest actress be overlooked because she's white or already one Oscars?
32
Thank you for an excellent thoughtful essay. Identity politics and issues of representation distract from the real harm done by institutionalized prejudice and government policies that favor the privileged classes. Representation is important but the real struggle for equal rights is in another arena.
20
@Braino Agree. Representation is important but the real struggle for equal rights is in another arena.
Just say whatever you want to express, do not use it as a weapon.
@Braino
That some Hollywood doors are more ajar to minorities has to be a good thing. Forgetting the systemically, historically, marginalized is a bad thing. Blaming Hollywood for not accurately representing our country's failure to admit fully its part in the two-centuries-long post-slavery debacle lets a few other institutions off the hook. Among the true villains here are the Executive Branch, Congress, the Supreme Court, the Fourth Estate, Organized religion, all sworn to help ALL the people, particularly those least able to defend or help themselves. Suffer the children, and they did, because we are still persecuting the most vulnerable of our citizens based on their status as innocent members of a racial second class.
2