Sex, Violence, Profanity Are Fine...But Don't You Dare Pretend To Be Another Race
Now for those who know me and my politics, the following should come as no surprise. But I'm going to discuss some very sensitive issues here and I'm going to do so in my usual frank and somewhat insensitive way. So, sharpen your knives.
Have you ever made a comment that dealt directly or indirectly with a person's race, and seen your audience begin to shift their eyes and shuffle their feet uncontrollably? Not a racist comment, mind you, but just a frank acknowledgment of differences among the races?
"I'd recommend my stylist to her, but she doesn't know how to cut black hair." On the face of it, sounds vaguely racist. At the very least, it was not pleasant for me to write the words or for you to read them. But talk to any black woman and she'll tell you that black hair behaves differently from white hair. Stylists frequently charge extra when dealing with black hair for the simple reason that it is more complicated.
But make a simple comment like that, and you have the obligation to explain yourself...if you're white, and you're talking to white people. Because one thing I've noticed about my fellow Caucasoids is our sheer neuroticism in matters of identity politics. Race is uncomfortable due to the very real history of slavery in this country, and so we avoid discussing it with the single-minded purpose of an obsessive-compulsive personality.
I've also noticed that it tends to be liberals who react most strongly to perceived racism and assaults on the "comfortable silence" that is the de facto state of affairs when it comes to race in America. Conservatives are of course blamed for the state of the races in the country, but liberal progressives have had their fair share of racism to haunt their dreams. Eugenics, anyone? Tangential, sorry.
All this is not to downplay the fact that the races are in very different places when it comes to opportunity, affluence and power. Heavens no.
So, I wasn't at all surprised to see this article from the Daily Mail website. Along with this photograph:
Here's the context: Robert Downey Jr. is playing an Oscar-worthy actor, down on his luck, who is forced to take a role in the biggest Vietnam movie ever. And the part he is playing was originally cast for a black man but, pompous actor that he is, the character "goes method" to quote the article. Which is not even the plot of the movie, because the actors are so fussy that the studio drops them into the middle of a live conflict...which the actors are too self-absorbed to notice is real. What a great commentary on people who take their profession or their own talents so seriously that they refuse to let common sense come close to informing them.
Now, what do you think is going to happen when you put a white man in make up that makes him look like a black man? Here's what I think: White people are going to be very nervous about offending other races, black people won't care. And along the way the whole point of the movie might be lost.
That's the attitude to take. Don't read into everything when it comes to race!...anticipating a backlash, Downey Jr told a US magazine: "If it's done right, it could be the type of role you called Peter Sellers to do 35 years ago. If you don't do it right, we're going to hell."
Personally, I think the makeup is a brilliant job. But be prepared for the word "controversial" to surround this film anytime you see it on Entertainment Tonight, or whatever the shows are these days. Also, feel free to call me a deluded bigot if you want.
Comments
I hope you'll forgive my usual frankness, but the problem is all yours. You're too timid. You even felt the need to prepare people for your frankness?
But now when I say "you," I mean younger people, and it relates, I think, to your being brought up in a hideously phony politically correct environment.
What I mean by that is twofold:
1) We can see from the Dems campaigns that true feelings come out despite the PC constraints. You can't legislate them away, and you can't suppress them no matter how punitive you get.
2) Older people don't feel the same constraints. I constantly talk about race, ethnicity, etc., and I rarely feel the need to explain because I couldn't care less how it's received. The only thing that matters is that I made my point or my (attempted) joke clearly. How you receive it is out of my control. What are you gonna do anyway, get me thrown off Vox? Why I'd be devastated.
When it comes to talking about "sensitive" matters, I'm really very liberal - if it feels good, do it.
And older people seem to have even less reticence if Senator Byrd is any indication!?!
I'll leave you with a joke I wrote which I haven't yet posted to my comedy blog on another venue, so you get to decide if it's funny
Did you hear Michelle Obama almost filed for divorce when she heard Barack say he quit smoking by "chewing Nicorette." Yeah, you just knew those black names would eventually cause big trouble for somebody, right?
I told him I didn't know how and I might mess it up. He told me it's not a problem that if I did it would grow back. So I washed his hair (first mistake) and then preceded to cut his hair. As I was about half way through the hair cut, I started noticing that his hair was shrinking up big time. I spun him around and had him look in the mirror. He seen exactly what I was seeing, but he told me it wasn't a problem.
All went fine. That night I talked with him about black man hair, black man National Guard and he talked about white people on this and that but never anything bad.
That night was wonderful - there was no dancing around the obvious, no PC crap.
_____________________________________________________________
In general I cannot be that free and open with black people because many get offended. Then they proceed to tell me "white people, did this and that" trying to be all in my face and make me feel bad because my skin is white. To which I have to tell them I'm Indian and everything changes! It's odd and I don't like it.
I want to know why all the stuff matters when I'm just considered the white person, but then not any problems when I'm known as Indian.
_____________________________________________________________
I now also have to say one of my very dearest friends is a black woman. There has never been any of the racist PC trash between us and has never even come up between us. But I will also tell you, she made her adult daughter leave her (dear friends) home one day, because her daughter walked in and was furious that her mom had 'that white women' in her home. Which we've been in each others homes hundreds of times.
______________________________________________________________
I also think the media plays up and adds racial tensions. I think you're correct - It will be a big deal, it will be mentioned by media, but hopefully media only and not the public.
Remember Ted Danson with Whopie Goldberg in black face at some celebrity event?
Boy, you're just making me sick everywhere today!
Remember Eddie Murphy playing a Jew in Coming To America? Remember the outrage it generated?
Yes, I forgot about the Eddie Murphy movie. I remember Eddie Murphy on SNL portraying a thief as "Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood."
I envy the older generation for not having to question themselves all the time for phony nonsense.
Thanks, Zak, now I can post it in good conscience.
Scio,
Literally seconds before I returned here, I was saying to my wife, "Can you imagine... I'd have lost my mind if I grew up in a politically correct public school.?" She says, "Oh my GOD!" .
Here's what I think has happened over time...
Blacks started to be fully integrated in my era so everything became "normal" for everyone. I mean, they still had their blackness, but that was merely a distinguishing factor from my "whiteness." Then the government and do-gooder groups started to accord blacks sympathy and privilege. Full integration wasn't enough. They needed a boost, and naturally then, one starts to feel entitled and to seek more.
Don't get me wrong, I don't feel blacks sought favoritism at first, at least not your average black, but requests were granted and that led to demands -which were also met, and at some point, blacks were being treated differently - both paternalistically by government and then companies, and in individual day to day encounters.
Suddenly, whites were afraid of offending blacks, and when you think about it, it's preposterous on its face because when you say something to a black person,that's "chancy," you're really worried that other whites will think ill of you..
The worst part is, it's not going to change until people take back their right to freedom of expression, and there could be some big penalties to pay for those who initially try. Or everything could simply equalize over time, but I doubt it.
In my opinion, as long as whites are afraid of offending, blacks will be more than happy to take offense and demand "satisfaction."
That's why I was so bothered by Imus going to Al Sharpton to find "forgiveness," and by his droning on that he'd done a horrible thing in calling the Rutgers' girls "nappy-headed hos."
Imus did do the wrong thing - and the proper way to deal with it was to say he'd made a mistake, he regretted it, it won't happen again, now get over it.
Imus was wrong because he had no call to insult those girl athletes. It was rude and he owed them an apology just as if he had insulted my mother- there wasn't a reason to do so. Now he should have apologized, but I don’t think that he should be fired. I used to listen to him on the radio here in Tucson on KTUC. My take on Imus is that he is a loose cannon and his only reason for being is to stroke his ego and sell T-Shirts for his brother. What we must know about Don Imus is that he is a good liberal [sic] and it's only natural that he kowtows to the biggest self-promoting racist pig on the planet Al Sharpton. They should get married once it's legal in New York.
So if I understand you right, you have a black mother?
Anyway, it can't be much of an insult if every reporter on the planet felt perfectly at ease repeating it. But OK, slip a "he apologizes" in between my "he regretted it," and "now get over it."
My problem is that Imus' only redeeming value was insulting people. Now that he's returned, he only insults people whom it's safe to insult. Thus he has no more reason to exist.
Btw, consistent with what I've said above, one of the team members subsequently tried to sue Imus, saying she was irreparably damaged by his comment, thus proving that he was right about at least one of them.
Well, do I detect a bias there? Because I used to watch Imus everyday, and while I did it mostly to see what Bernard would say, Imus was, quite simply, the best political interviewer around, and his speech at that Correspondents Dinner was very interesting. And occasionally, he would launch into a tirade about someone or something that could be both hilarious and devastating.
But he did become more and more liberal (though McCain has always been his guy) and thus more and more annoying, and now, he's been rendered almost impotent. I never listen now
I just thought that he was a clichéd liberal.
John
Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s as a Japanese man.
I'll see you with a Newman and a Laughlin as pre-Americans in Hombre and Billy Jack respectively, and Rosie O'Donnell playing a woman in Sleepless in Seattle, and raise you all the white guys who've played Charlie Chan.
I might have named Marlon Brando in Teahouse, but I felt that was clearly parody.
Meanwhile, Scio, this blog entry by Julia Gorin today caught my attention because she coins the term, "starved for offense, and she uses it in a much scarier context.
I'm posting a comment to say, I'm sick of "white guilt"! What is the problem that white Americans feel the need to apologize for being white? They apologize before there is even a problem! Downey felt the need to explain himself before the movie is even made..."If you don't do it right, we're going to hell." Why? Because he has on make up that makes him look different than he is in reality? Isn't that what Hollywood does? It's "white guilt" that made him feel the need to justify himself.
It is permeating our society, from the humorous StuffWhitePeopleLike: Apologies to the serious Shelby Steele On White Guilt
But it is a detriment to our society. It is the catalyst for things like Affirmative Action and welfare, which are burdens on both black and white races.
In the skit, Murphy discovers a few things about white folks, two of which were:
(1) they walk with a tight butt and (2) when they are alone, they give things to each other....things that if you were any color but white, you'd have to pay for.
As a "white" man, were you or any "YT tighty" person you know offended by those skits? I don't know of a single white person who was offended. We got the joke and, as such, laughed right along with Murphy and all of black America.
But, as I said, in my commentary over at mythoughtworld.com, reverse the roles and you've got potential trouble. The probability is high, especially among card carrying liberwocks, that they'll have a relapse of Pathological Race Sensitivity Syndrome (PRSS). This is never more true than when they have an axe to grind (ask Geraldine Ferraro). The hypersensitivity combined with an ulterior motive helps them "see" evidence of racism, where there is none. The "condition" is so ingrained that the media can't even spot their own perversion of any scenario involving "race."
Fortunately, a few of us can see right through the pretense of moral virtue they use as a cloak to hide the hatred they have for the color of their own skin. But in this case, it's white liberals and automatoid Americans who can't seem to get on with life and who will continue to use race to divide America...all because of latent guilt, racial hypersensitivity, and an inability to THINK beyond the emotive character of liberalism.
How sad and pathetic.
I'm sure this soun ds absurd to you. I suppose it would to someone who has grown up somewhere where they feel ashamed for their own race. All I can do is shrug. Some of us white folk don't need to feel guilty, don't, and frankly just don't care about this strange rise of racial politics that seems to be arising from the bible belt.
Uh... WHAT? I can't say you sound absurd, because that assumes I could make some sense out of it, when the only part that was understandable was at the end, where you take a gratuitous and unsubstantiated shot at a group you apparently don't like.
Well-adjusted people don't care about race, which means they will say whatever they consider appropriate regardless of whether you want to offend yourself by it, Furthermore, most whites, especially me, don't have any ties to slavery whatsoever, and refuse to accept even the suggestion of guilt for it or any form of discrimination.
Well, I feel privileged that I was able to help you clarify.it.
Smiles.
No one is stopping me from saying or thinking anything. If someone gives you crap, tell them to stuff it. I don't find a movement of victim hood compelling at all.
Hen, are we being ever so slightly disingenuous? And by "we" I mean you? Your side is ever anxious to restrict more and more speech... and then criminalize it.
Although I'm assuming your side is still your side... unless maybe you read David Mamet today?
Seriously, though, Ted cuts to what I was getting at in my earlier comment. You can't tell people off if it becomes illegal to do so. Lawmakers are regulating what you can and can't say (or write), calling it hate speech. Thus begins the erosion of free speech. This is why I give a flip about such things.
Fun.
That is a view that I have never once heard. White has always meant Caucasian to me. When people spoke jokingly or insultingly of whites, it was never to decry their lack of culture. Rather, it was poking fun at their culture itself. I'm not sure how a black yuppie would feel about being called white in any regard, since I am sure they would dispute with you that their social mobility has nothing to do with their race and everything to do with their personal character.
In the bible belt, my experience has been that people respect their boundaries. Poor, uneducated whites may be racists, but so may poor uneducated blacks. Race relations in the South are much better than those in the North, in my experience. I don't know how it is out West, having never been beyond Mississippi, where my black companions were nervous but had no problems.
The problem as I see it is that race/identity politics is being foisted upon us by an oversensitive media, besotted with progressive liberalism. Children such as myself were indoctrinated with the "history" of race in this country, which reached its apex in the 1960s. There was never nuance in my textbooks, and when it comes to race I think that understanding the different shades of the argument is of paramount importance.
I think we agree that there is no reason to pay attention to race politics. My worry is that people still do, and use it to inform their political decisions.
Scio, your worry is more real than the reality. That first statement of mine illustrates that just as much as anything else. You see I have grown up in a place with actual diversity and a real history of racial politics - like the Black Panthers for example. No caucasian person ever needs to apologize for the color of their skin, and if someone wants to foist that on you well frankly you do as I have done and grow the balls to stand up for yourself.
Given my own experience where I have frequently found myself as the only caucasian in the room or the only person who spoke English, I don't find this discussion believable especially because it appears to come from a bunch of people who have always been in the majority. To me this crap about "white sensitivity" just looks like pure delusion. How could you possibly be that aware of your skin unless day in and day out you have been made aware that you are not like everyone around you? I have had that experience (in short phases throughout my life growing up - not constantly) and so I simply stood up for myself, and learned to speak freely. Did the law smack me down or any other authority when I did so? No. What I got was respect.
The funny thing is that this seems to be more the situation out West than in the North East - which is supposedly liberal and ultra PC. The South is something else entirely and I have never been to the Middle West so I can't say much about it. But to me the issues of race change from region to region based upon each area's history. And if you want to see a place with real racial disfunction you need to hang out in the old ghettos of New York City. It would take an entire post to explain to you my shock at the actual racism there. Or you could check out the weird divisions between "white" people in New England based upon race and religion. So maybe that is where this BS comes from. I dunno. And frankly I don't care because it isn't my problem. But if you want to understand this thing you are worried about I urge you to delve much deeper than any of you appear to be doing. To claim as a "white" person to be oppressed by racial prudery and forced niceties is a joke to me. People are always going to bitch and moan about what they believe is insensitive or whatever.
One solution is to tell them to stuff it. It works. Yes you could handle it other ways, but since you do have the freedom to tell people to piss off when they can't take a joke - I think things are just fine.
Sorry, I'm not following your train of thought as it pertains to my last comment.
But I'll go ahead and address what you just wrote concerning the politically polarized lenses I happen to be wearing. Just because MY views are in stone doesn't mean I don't recognize that politically/ideologically these things don't shake out differently among groups and individuals. The very idea that the political realm only exists in two colors is an absurd notion, I agree.
It's popular to characterize wingnuts like myself in this wooden fashion, But like so many stereotypes, it isn't axiomatic. Rather, dividing the political world into conservative and liberal is more about degree and numbers than it is about replicating the standard "model." To that end it is beneficial to use those labels. So, like you, there is a degree of pragmatism in how I see the world, because practically speaking, that's how the demographics play out. But pragmatism as an absolute (in "stone" to use your term) applied to government and policy is dangerous due to its plasticity. I understand it; I just don't think it's reasonable in the context I mentioned. Pragmatism is its own end and, so, does what is "best" for itself or for the in-group. Yet, it defines no parameters for what is best. In that sense, H, it is self refuting. But beyond that, it creates a problem for those who aren't members of the in-group. It's a "me first" philosophy which rationalizes the exploitation of those who are too weak to defend themselves and I'm not "down with that" no matter how politically expedient it might be. That is what I was alluding to with the "grandma" metaphor.
In a society governed by pragmatism there would be no principled reason NOT to eat grandma, if the circumstances called for it. She's the weakest; she's going to die first anyway; she can't contribute to the group other than to offer herself as a food source; Pragmatically, it makes "sense" for us to eat her, irrespective of her wish to live or any moral construct which might confute her or us... That leaves one alternative...I call the dark meat!
Nope, sorry, the labels don't work. They are blinders. And furthermore the way they are used makes either of them, "Liberal" or "Conservative", as meaningless as the epithet "Fascist" which these days seems to equally apply to either "side".
So as one who looks at "Race" with these blinders on, how can you expect to be taken seriously or even as genuine? You're complaining about racial politics from an obvious political camp rather than as a person with personal grievances. I call bullshit when I see it. So again I say to you, a movement which wallows in victimhood is a joke on anyone that wishes to identify with it.
If you feel that you are a victim because you are a conservative or because you are "white" or whatever else, then do something about it. But whining about it just doesn't cut it. And whining about something like "Race" about which you seem to know nothing more than what is shed to you through the light of your television ... well given that I don't actually know your situation I'll just leave it there. But from where I am standing thats how it looks, and that is why I suggest at the least trying to understand that there are places in the US where this "Racial Problem" is not at all of the size you make it out to be.
Again, as soon as people of different races actually interact with one another as equals all this BS goes away. The real problem I think is that there isn't enough interaction which leads to the kind of ignorance that I am accusing just about every other person in this thread of. And no, blogging and internet chatting do not count as real interaction just as reading news or watching TV don't do much for one's understanding of people either.
Lesson learned today just from that one blog, if you believe everyone is equal in todays world then your ignorant and a racist, if you pity people for the past that they for the most part never even lived, then that makes you enlightened.
done ranting, sorry its been a hellacious day. :)
Tonight Michael Savage demanded a caller to "Name a black-run country in the world you'd want to live in."
I know what I think, but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Seriously, though, I don't like Savage's approach. I think he does more harm than good in some ways. But he gives voice to the visceral feelings both sides have.
I think there are two basic arenas in which this solution can be used. The one where it is most useful is when those folks shuffle their feet. So if you happen to have Al Sharpton in your social circle, I'd be surprised - although also impressed as I imagine the home cooking would have to be really good to entice celebrities over to a shindig. But hell, thats a great opportunity to ply him with alcohol and open up with say Chris Rock's routine "black people vs. niggers", pretend its your own material, and then watch his reaction when he learns its stand up by a famous black man.
OR whatever. The point is not to cave to public opinion. Stand up for yourself if you think your right. You can always admit you were wrong later and be the even bigger man for it, but to let people walk all over you is ridiculous. I've never let it happen to me even when I was the only gringo or the only whitey in the room.
Now as to the other arena in which I suspect Ted is more concerned with the whole Hate Crime thing. Well the law sucks, but what are you going to do. Whining won't solve it. If you want a law repealed you have to attack it on its actual demerits, not this "pc liberals suck" movement.
Otherwise, I'm sticking by my stance that the conservative backlash against PCist speach along with the whole white sensitivity thing is weaker than horse piss
Holy cow, Hen, you must be a very physically strong individual, because that was some load you just laid on us.
First off, even if something I said couldn't be charged as a hate crime, that doesn't mean I wouldn't be arrested with all the attendant nuisance, expense and stigma, and for you to dismiss these laws as you have is absolutely outrageous. I mean, what, they're a minor irritant to you, something in the abstract that you, yourself, will never have to contend with because you're careful?
Sickening.
And personally, I've written a number of jokes and an entire routine that I can't use because only the likes of Chris Rock can do "racially sensitive" jokes. Can you imagine a white man doing the routine you mentioned?
All you need to do is attack the laws on their absurdity, because ultimately they are thought crimes - an absurdity. Eventually that battle will be won. Fight it with real arguments. Maybe some logic. But again the whining is weak.
You've totally missed the point this time. By a wide wide margin. You're a bright guy. I shouldn't have to spell things out at an 8th grade level for you to understand.
The rest of my comments as should be obvious given the content of the post and the content of 90% of the comments by others here is about the cultural issues of racial sensitivity. Was that not obvious enough to you? I mean, come on.
The problem seems to be that you missed your own point. You want to characterize these laws as something for intellectuals to ponder and come up with an alternative, and that will be immediately obvious... TO WHOM, the jackasses left and right who signed on to these laws?
Because I'd be screaming all kinds of racial epithets, gay epithets, even female epithets all over America were it not for fear of being arrested. In fact, I'd swear at anyone who's a member of any group (I particularly hate chess club people).
It's so bad you that don't want to confront a black woman with too many items in the express line.
And while we're at it, why aren't YOU attacking these laws with your profoundly rational arguments and watching them fall like dominoes?
So don't patronize me, I always understand unless I don't want to, and this isn't one of those times - it's not that I didn't understand you, it's that I understood you better than you understand yourself... and better than I want to.
Im going to write a post about it and a another post she wrote about that post which directed some condescending and immature comments my way but just havent got around to it, it may be later today or tomorrow.
Chris Rock is a boring racist.
then you are on a tangent that I've never been with you on.
There are two discussions here. One is about Hate Crime Law which I have largely not participated in - except to bring up that that was what I thought you were concerned about. The other is about the social stigma of discussing race if you are white. Almost every comment of mine addressed the later not the former. And my stance continues to be that bitching about the social stigma is a joke.
As to characterizing laws as an ivory tower discussion for intellectuals... well... if you want to characterize it that way, go ahead. But that is not what i have done. Nope. I just think that any discussion of law needs to be primarily about the law/good government etc.... Ranting about the horrible PC-culture of liberals and hoping that your rant will lead to the repeal of Hate Crime Law is extremely naive (which I know you are not so that you would seem to do so here surprises me).
So anyway. I'm not going to address how sickened you are of whatever you think I am thinking. That you have no idea where I am coming from is not my problem. I've clear enough. If your conservative frame of reference needs to make me out to be your enemy here, you certainly don't know how to successfully "fight the fight".
Now as to what i think needs to be said about the hate crime laws: the argument should center on the fact that hate crime is thought crime and therefore extremely difficult to conclusively prove. In fact it so difficult that I'd call it functionally impossible to prove a hate crime. There are the other arguments as well, and they have merit, but are unnecessary to convince me.
It is that simple - far from something loftily intellectual. And I believe it would indeed eventually convince many liberals.
I doubt we'll ever get past it at least not until several generations into the future if even then. The only thing that still gives me hope for better racial relations in the future, is each generation i see less and less people like some of the commenter's in the other blog and see more and more who want complete equality instead of preferred treatment because of their race or culture.
Crap!
Look, I'd try anything to get you to stop talking concepts and deal with practicalities. This is what's so frustrating in arguing with liberals - THERE IS NO TRANSITION, at least not in our lifetimes. Everything is looked at in terms of the "ideal," and that can result in justifying almost anything to get to it..
Furthermore, what you want to do is separate the offhand epithet from the Orwellian hate crime charge, and you can't. Sure you might get away with the former again and again, but "get away with" is the operative phrase. You always have to be careful of where and when, and even then, there's the very real chance that something you say will have unintended consequences - that is if you're doing your job as a citizen correctly and challenging, provoking these draconian laws that are the product of the smallest of minds.
The fact that these laws exist is the greater offense. I could say many things that are offensive, but if I say the wrong things, they go beyond offensive into the realm of criminal.
I could argue on your terms, but that would be meaningless, which itself leaves me under no illusion that my "rants" will affect anything - and that's why your sort of reaction moves me to want to skip the argument with people like yourself* and simply punch their face in. That way, I haven't said anything and can't be accused of a hate crime - just a simple misdemeanor.battery.
* Though certainly not you.
Henry, my mistake is in -wanting- to talk about it with you and then letting you control the direction. I did that because I was under the impression that you were more rational than the average liberal - because you assured me you were.
So I'm very disappointed with you. I see you fancy yourself as one who is aware and above this particular fray, but in fact, you are merely naive and detached which makes you part of the problem if you are to be believed, because you see all this as somebody else's worry..
On top of that, you don't seem to realize that a rational and logical argument is very often not enough to prevail. In fact, it's becoming increasingly rare, it seems, for reason to win out. I found that out the hard way thirty years ago. You haven't learned it yet, which means that either your real-life experiences are less than you've made them out to be or you've been disengaged other than in your imagination, and your comments here seem to provide evidence of the latter.
Your ability to separate the arguments in this thread into two parts is commendable, but only if you'd been able then to understand that the two are inextricably intertwined, and the fact that you haven't been personally affected on the legal side is akin to that homily about what happened when they came for the Jews...
I do apologize for how humorless I have been. Admittedly it comes from talking with someone with at best a provincial understanding of the subject when compared with my own. I look forward with the audacity of Bob Hope's optimism that our next meeting will be more entertaining.
Tony Randall- The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao. Not only was this a great performance from Mr. Randall but also it is a great study of human nature. I can't recall that the Chinese residents burned “China Town” to the ground over the outrage that this white actor played an ancient Chinese Wiseman.