Kirstin and I led a discussion about racism and technology. The reading, Algorithms of Oppression by Safiya Umoja Noble, was very interesting. Many of us have grown up using with Google, and I know that I had never paid attention to any kind of biases within search engines. I found many of Noble’s discoveries to be quite shocking, particularly the case in which a Google search of “black on white crimes” only presented results about white nationalist groups; these search results led to a person planning a shooting, an absolutely horrifying event that was partly caused by the biases of Google algorithms. The inherent racism embedded within the algorithms was something I had never really thought about, but I think it is extremely important for people to be educated about these biases, especially as we proceed in the digital age.

The class engaged in discussions about many topics including censorship, imperialism, and commercialization. I found our discussion about censorship to be particularly interesting, and I was slightly surprised with the way that the class responded. We discussed the ways in which Google tracks and records user information; we know that if we search for L.L. Bean boots on Google, an ad for Bean boots may show up in our Facebook feed. I was surprised that so many students seemed unbothered by Google’s tracking. Some admitted that they know that this surveillance occurs but do not change their habits at all. Maybe Google’s surveillance of us is just so common that we have become numb to its existence. It seems that we have lost our right to privacy in some ways, and I wonder if we will ever get to the point where there will be significant push-back against Google for spying on its users. We emphasize freedom and liberty without censorship in the United States, and we fully support the idea of privacy. When does Google cross the line? It seems that we have to re-establish boundaries with the expanding power of technology, and I wish we had further discussed the implications and significance of Google’s ability to monitor our every digital move.

Another topic I would’ve liked to discuss more was the idea of “safe spaces” on the Internet. Kirstin found an article about a group on Reddit that only allowed black people to join, and each person had to prove that they were not white by including a photo of their forearm. Many students expressed that they do not think these kinds of groups should be acceptable, but I don’t think that the existence of the group in-of-itself is an issue. I think Internet groups that target specific demographics can be comparable to having on-campus clubs that cater to specific groups of people, like the Asian Student Alliance. I think it is okay for an organization like that to have an online group that is for a specific group. However, I do think that the “proving you’re not white” by showing a picture of your forearm seems problematic. That is judging on only how a person appears phenotypically. For example, a black person who is light-skinned may not be admitted to the group because he has light skin that could pass for white. I thought it was interesting that people in the class were so opposed to having this kind of group, saying that it is important for people to discuss and learn from other people. I do agree that people should learn from others, but I also think it is reasonable for people to have a community of others like them where they can share experiences. However, I wish that we had discussed this topic in more detail because I would’ve liked to hear people’s thoughts about if the same situation occurred but the races were reversed. What if white people made an online group that only allowed other white people? Would we still think that is okay? Why might it be okay for minority groups and not okay for the majority group?

I think technology adds a whole new layer to racism, and it’s really important that we continue to learn about how racism is present in all aspects of life so that we are not blind to the biases inherent in our culture.

In a country as racialized as the United States, it is important to analyze how race intersects with politics. Politicians can impact public opinion and voters can eventually shape political talking points. Discussing race and racism in politics can be a conversation starter or a conversation killer. Understanding how to do the former is crucial as a first step to unpack racism in politics and greater society.

In today’s class, we specifically drew from three chapters in Ian Haney López’s “Dog Whistle Politics”. López wrote about how politicians get away with racism, how commonsense racism came to be and what stakeholders can do moving forward.

We began the class by understanding the brief history of race in politics, and how the G.O.P. and the Democratic Party used to have beliefs and voter bases that are polar opposites of their current statuses. (Historical context is often an important frame for discussion.) Then, we looked at cases of dog whistle politics in recent U.S. and global events.

We considered how the 2018 Florida gubernatorial election paralleled the “racial jiujitsu” mentioned in the readings. There were also the smear campaigns directed at President Obama during his terms involving birtherism, vacation days and food stamps, which drew from stereotypes of “the lazy black man”, and the racialization of Islamophobia and xenophobia. I also introduced cases of racial politics in Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia for a broader global context of the same issue.

This class’ discussion tied back to previously introduced sociological concepts such as Bonilla-Silva’s colorblind ideology and colorblind racism and DiAngelo’s idea of white fragility. Colorblind ideology is often employed by politicians who claim not to see race and that it doesn’t matter. This belief makes it easier for politicians to appeal to white voters, brush off acts of racism they get called out for and support policies that are not race-conscious.

The class responded to all these issues the same way I did, with outrage, confusion, and general shock. The “I’m A Racist” ad and the “Willie Horton” ad sparked much discussion; we couldn’t believe how blatant and tone-deaf both were. The first was a representation of white victimization and white fragility in the media, and parallels the reading’s strategy for how politicians get away with racism: they make being called a racist a personal attack, act as victims and claim past support for nonwhite figures to justify how they could not possibly be racist. The second ad does a good job of showing how blatantly racist political advertising was a few decades ago, displaying how stereotypes of the Iconic Ghetto are mapped and pinned to black bodies and exploited for a white man’s political gain.

There were several lingering cases and questions we didn’t have a chance to examine as a class. We wanted to touch on the congressional race in the 19th district of New York, analyze the William Horton ad in greater depth, and debate whether each of us agreed with the appointment of nonwhite figures such as Clarence Thomas to positions of power, and the costs and benefits of such appointments.

We can further use the strategies that López talked about in the reading to scrutinize how race plays a part in the upcoming 2020 U.S. presidential elections. Are there nonwhite figures that have a lot of support from white voters but lack support from people of color? Are there politicians who are race-baiting, race pandering or employing dog whistle politics? Are politicians’ racist acts subtle, following recent trends, or are they loud and blatant? And are voters reacting in line with how López suggested they would? These are all questions we can ask ourselves as the elections play out to see how much has changed since the time of Clint Bolick.

White fragility is a term coined by Robin DiAngelo in her book, White Fragility, and refers to the displays of defensiveness and general lack of comfort shown by white people in regards to discussions of race and racism. The reading discussed a survey of white people, of which 55% felt they had been discriminated against in recent times. It furthermore addressed white privilege and how it is often difficult for white people to admit that they have an inherent and systemic privilege. Lastly, we addressed the idea of white coddling and “white woman tears.” DiAngelo claims that crying is a popular defense mechanism for many white females because it takes attention off of offending actions, and places focus upon consoling.

In our presentation, a major focus question was: who has the right? By this we mean, when it comes to speaking up about racial injustice, especially if the group being discriminated against is not the one that the author identifies with, does the author have a right to speak up about it. We talked about power dynamics, mentioning that it depends on the situation. It was mentioned that in some instances, DiAngelo should not step up because it creates a culture that implies that people of color can not speak up for themselves and need a white person to speak for them. Another argument was that in some instances, it would be appropriate, such as dialogue between two white people, where DiAngelo can and should speak up to combat discriminatory language and actions. 

We also viewed white fragility in the lense of whites being “afraid to be racist.” We observed this through a recent event where a white man in Charlottesville, VA sued a newspaper for writing about his family’s slave-owning past in response to him fighting the removal of a confederate statue. DiAngelo argued that white people feel that the word “racist” is an attack to their moral character. Therefore, whenever the word is used, an automatic defensive stance is taken. We discussed how defensiveness is often a key indicator of white fragility.

We connected DiAngelo’s argument on white woman’s tears to a recent pop culture example. Kendall Jenner’s relatively recent Pepsi ad was particularly controversial because it depicted a police standoff between white cops and a crowd filled with people from underrepresented groups, that was resolved by Jenner handing a Pepsi to a nearby white cop. The video received negative backlash because people felt it trivialized the issue of police brutality and felt Jenner should have known better. Jenner responded by filming a video of her crying in response to the backlash. This event connects to the reading because as DiAngelo argues, crying is often a defense mechanism for white women to distract from the racial insensitivity they have committed. Jenner’s video response placed herself in a victim position, which we found just gives her an excuse to not directly and fully admit that she did anything wrong. This response also feeds into Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s colorblindness. If Jenner does not apologize for the ad, then she doesn’t need to acknowledge that she is privileged. We agreed that this was a terrible response to the advertisement, and a better response would be to recognize that she has a systemic and inherent privilege and to attempt to place a check on that privilege and empathize.

I was left thinking deeply about how this book would change or be perceived if DiAngelo was a woman of color. We talked a bit about this during the discussion, but given how deeply DiAngelo delves into what can be considered “white culture,” could this be done by a woman of color? Would it be as well-received? Does DiAngelo being white, result in a message that better resonates with white people? Lastly, who is this book written for? I was also left thinking about the implications of white solidarity and the sociology of dominance in the workforce since many of the offices DiAngelo was speaking at were predominately white spaces. How can people of color effectively navigate these spaces?

Alexis and I led a discussion on sexual racism and I thought that we covered a lot of really fascinating topics. To start off, I thought the readings were very interesting. The first reading was about how multiracial women navigate racial politics. For example, since black and Asian women are consistently the least likely to be messaged on a dating app, mixed-black women describe using attitudes toward the BLM movement as a way to vet potential dating partners. Multiracial women also want to be able to talk about race with their partners, so they have conversations around politics or current events to see the way they respond, which is called the vetting strategy

The next reading was about gay men of color where we see the exclusion of gay men of color within sexual fields. For example, the idea that gay spaces are viewed as white spaces for gay men of color was something that I was completely unaware of. This is why we decided to use Grindr as an example of sexual racism because it provides firsthand experiences with people of color in the LGBTQ+ community using the app. This naturally led to the discussion of whether having at person preference makes you racist. I think this is such a complex question because it has so many different aspects to consider depending on the circumstance. There is no right answer to the question, which is why it is so hard to determine what having a personal preference means. One point that was brought up multiple times was that everyone inevitably has a “type”, and it’s just whether you outwardly express it and how you express it.

Another area where we see sexual racism being portrayed is in the porn industry. We decided to explore this industry because it isn’t talked or thought about ever. First, we presented a couple of examples about whiteness in porn and posed the question of whether porn stars should be allowed to have a race-based sexual preference. We don’t see a lot of non-white porn stars due to individuals such as white actors that have a policy against working with African American or Asian actors. We then had the class think about why Pornhub categorizes their videos and discuss whether there should be categorizations and how that preserves racism. Most people agreed that there shouldn’t be categories, but there are categories because people have a personal preference over what types of videos they want to watch.

After leading the discussion, I started watching the Australian version of Love Island over Thanksgiving break, and since this concept of sexual racism was still fresh in my head, I began to connect that idea to the TV show and my attention was drilled towards that. I noticed that every time a new man was introduced to the girls, white, blonde girls were always the first to be picked or “coupled” up with, leaving any women of color to be picked last. I decided to do some research, and I found articles that talked about how this show is tainted by racism. One of the contestants, who is a black woman, was not chosen by any of the men and did not get kissed by any of the men during the challenges that they were supposed to carry out. Fans of the show have also observed that the same woman was also given less airtime and received the least attention. I think this connects back to how society sees whiteness as the beauty standard. When white people are seen as superior, by the transitive property, they are also considered more attractive. Although this show is entertaining, it has also been heavily criticized for underlying racism.

For 18^th November’s discussion, Katie and I led a discussion on the first three chapters of “Algorithms of Oppression” by Safiya Umoja Noble. As a class, we discussed the ways in which we individually interact with Google and the Internet and how it shaped (or did not shape) our upbringing. We shared about how Google has changed racist or sexist search results over the years since the book first started collecting data and saw how algorithms warped our ideas of both race and gender. We delved into the topics of censorship, corporate interests and finding agency and familiarity within technology (in the creation of safe spaces on the Internet).

We linked Noble’s book to several theories and past readings: Google and Silicon Valley are seen as white spaces, per Anderson’s theory, where people of color (or even people that are not men) are systematically being denied access or treated as outsiders when they are there. Linking to our previous discussions around DiAngelo’s White Fragility, we discussed who the onus should fall on for representation in algorithms: the dominant group already present in the industry or the marginalized people of color, through programs such as Black Girls Code. Noble also brought up the idea of Omi and Winant’s theory on racial formation on page 79, but we did not discuss much about that.

As a class, we were introduced to new concepts to further our understanding of capitalism vis-a-vis our discussion on Google and algorithms. We learned about the idea of soft power and hard power and Max Weber’s iron cage of rationality. Weber’s idea of the iron cage becomes relevant to analyze technology’s place in our lives as it grows in dominance. Are we okay with giving up our privacy and data and conforming to using racist and sexist software if it’s the most convenient? Is it even possible to avoid using Google and all its algorithms?

I was surprised to learn how many people still used Google as their main search engine, expecting that there would be more push back since more people across the globe are beginning to understand its more nefarious, profit-driven intentions. Upon reflection with Prof. Greene I also understood how connected I still was to Google, through Gmail, Google Docs, Google Slides, Duo and the use of my Gmail account to link to accounts on other websites. Even if I wasn’t using the main search engine, I was still stuck in the iron cage that is Google’s services.

We also analyzed how soft and hard power could explain whether Google was a form of American or Western imperialism. Noble raised a point about how Google is seen as an international product but is predicated on U.S.-based norms, which several classmates refuted, or attributed to more ‘Western’ ideals rather than American ideals.

I found this particularly interesting. As someone who grew up outside of the United States, I knew Google was from the U.S., but I never doubted its knowledge of regional contexts given that it had special extensions like .sg for Google Singapore, or .uk for Britain. I couldn’t see how something like Google – which to me, was more like a sandbox – could impose any norms on its users. It’s still difficult for me to see it in my own life at this point, but now I have a new lens to view it with as I go about my further interactions with Google.

When I presented the article about using your forearm as a ‘pass’ to get into the Black People Twitter, I was surprised at the responses from the class and how many people thought it was unacceptable. I disagree and think that people are entitled to safe spaces, even digitally, especially people who have been denied and degraded for so long in these same spaces. I don’t think using your forearm is the best way to go about it, for efficiency’s sake, but I understand the intention behind it.

Technological redlining and algorithmic oppression as terms to frame the discussion were things that could have been discussed more. Noble also brought up suggestions of legal protections and education that we could have touched on, with more general deliberation on what we can do to counter this technological iron cage.

Abby raised an interesting question about which advertisers pay Google the most. I wasn’t able to find any information for recent years, but a chart revealed that Amazon was the top spender in 2013, followed by Priceline, AT&T, and Expedia. (Source) More recent data from 2018 shows the industries that spend the most on Google advertising, which are retail, automotive and telecom. These are some interesting things to consider about how capitalism and technology have become so deeply intertwined.

       I believe the lesson KaDerrius and I presented went well. In preparation for the class, we read the introduction along with the first two chapters of “Crook County” by Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve. It was extremely interesting to learn more about the criminal justice system; more specifically to learn about about the extreme injustices throughout the system, primarily toward people of color, in Cook County, Chicago, but evidently all over the nation. After we explained the small facts about Cook County to familiarize the class, we showed statistics regarding the demographics in Cook County’s courthouse. The evidence showed that a majority of the judges, attorneys, and public defender’s – people make important decisions about the defendants future – were white, while the defendants were mostly colored, males. No one was surprised by these statistics; unfortunately, this demonstrates that the younger generation is accustomed to the injustice in courthouses. 

       There was a wealth of eye-opening information I learned about different cases, like a white judge screaming at a colored defendant. Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea to have my classmates discuss some of their initial reactions to let all their frustrations out. With some pages we gave them to reference, they discussed some of their findings in small groups. It was cool to walk around the small groups, and listen to what the groups were discussing. They each shared something unique – from the ways judges acted, the radicalized separation between the defendants and the professionals, and the system overall- which was great. We showed a slide with numerous images of black and brown men mug shots/faces to illustrate the office mentioned in the first page where they have photos of defendants of color. While at first the class wondered if the images on the slide we actually from Cook County, we received thoughtful responses to why these pictures serve as reminders to who is the target/victim in their minds. 

       We switched gears and showed a video about the Central Park Five which refers to the five colored teenage boys who were wrongfully convicted on raping a female jogger in Harlem. We showed the trailer for the Netflix film, “When They See Us”. Since some of the class was familiar with the series, we were able to discuss about how these boys related to some of the themes of injustice in the book. Additionally, our discussion went toward the lack of repercussions the female attorney who made officials falsify the evidence and how that portrays another form of injustice. 

       In order to relate the lesson to other important topics from previous lessons, we thought it would be great to discuss about how the criminal justice system connects to the idea of inheritance, and specifically the inheritance of the ghetto. However, due to time, we had to skip over that slide; also we briefly went over the next slide about Injustices in Justice that referred to the Us vs. Them mentality, “Dog Whistle Politics, and the “Time is a currency” referenced in the book. Thankfully, Professor Greene gave us time on Wednesday to briefly finish the presentation. 

       The connection between the Jim Crow Era and Cook County seemed clear to most individuals throughout this part of the discussion. I thought it was important to address the implements of a “separate but equal” mentality still encompassed in society today. People shared insightful messages from the book. In the regarding the slide “Negative Connotation”, some students seemed to agree to the question that there can be an ‘Us vs. Them’ between people of the same race. I agree, and thought of the question because some white judges were sometimes against white public defenders who wanted to support their colored defendants. However, my classmates did not believe that white privilege could be stripped away from other white people because white privilege is granted to everyone who is white in America. Since the color of one’s skin can not be taken away, neither can white privilege. 

       The topic, Code Switching, arose questions about what code switching actually means and ebonics. Although we provided definitions about front stage and backstage, people needed more in-depth information about them. Professor Greene had to step in for a little to calm the confusion. I think since KaDerrius and I understood what these terms meant, we mistakenly assumed everyone in the class would understand. I was especially intrigued by the amount of people who viewed code-switching as okay because everyone does it. Many agreed that code-switching did not have to be as drastic as the book described about the professionals because that leads to a moral issue. Some classmates believed that code switching was okay because evidently the person is still the same person as they were before. We ended with lingering questions about what progress needs to be made in the future to improve the justice system.

Jada and I presented on the topic of white fragility. White Fragility is a term coined by DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, to describe the “discomfort and defensiveness on the part of a white person when confronted by information about racial inequality and injustice.” Her book illustrates why it is so hard for white people to talk about racism and details the defense mechanisms white people often use when they experience discomfort surrounding race-based conversations. White fragility is characterized by feelings of anger, fear, and guilt, and it is manifested in reactions of anger and silence. These behaviors prevent cross-racial conversations about race and racism. DiAngelo proves that whites don’t see themselves in racial terms and don’t draw attention to their race or behave as if it mattered. Conversely, race is one of the first characteristics noticed by a white person when meeting a person of color. The white person links stereotypes to people of other races while denying their own involvement in the system. Because of the western ideologies of individualism (whites seeing themselves as unique beings who stand apart from others, even within their social groups) and objectivity (the idea that it is possible to be free from all bias), it becomes more difficult for white people to explore the collective aspects of the white experience. It also becomes status quo to avoid racial conversations that create discomfort, but DiAngelo argues that these open dialogues are the only way to challenge white fragility.

In our facilitated discussion, Jada and I introduced the idea of the author’s credibility. Does DiAngelo have the right to speak on behalf of the black community? An how does DiAngelo’s whiteness contribute to the the style and message of the book? What would change if the book were written by a person of color? I enjoyed our class conversations surrounding these questions because everyone held different opinions, especially in regard to the right of a white person to speak up for or on behalf of a person of color. While some students argued that whites should speak up for black people because they hold the position of societal dominance and thus may have more influence, others believed that a white person should not speak for a person of color because this perpetuates white privilege and the white person does not fully understand the perspective of the person of color.

My favorite part of the presentation was the video we showed to the class. This was the Pepsi commercial featuring Kendall Jenner that suggested that a soda can could solve racism and police brutality. The class reacted in an uproar, noting the absurdity of the commercial and its complete lack of reality. Kendall Jenner cried when she received backlash for her role in the video. I thought this connected well to DiAngelo’s theme of white women’s tears: how when white women cry over issues of race they take the necessary attention away from the act of racism itself. Kendall Jenner’s reaction detracted from the invalid message in the commercial and caused the audience to pay more attention to her than the commercial.

Following this week’s dialogue, I was left considering the ways in which white fragility contributes to white privilege and how white people can act as allies without overstepping boundaries.

Salina and I presented a racial analysis of Hollywood, aided by two chapters from Maryann Erigha’s novel, The Hollywood Jim Crow: The Racial Politics of the Movie Industry. Erigha highlighted racial representation, the power of cinema to shape, and the economics of the movie industry in relation to race.

In lecture, Salina and I chose to examine the movie The Hunger Games and the play Hamilton, in relation to the representation of race. I found it fascinating that a movie watched by many young teenagers ties in one of the few black characters, Thresh, to the associations of the iconic ghetto. Thresh kills in a violent way devoid of intellectual ability. Meanwhile, Katniss kills from far away with a bow and arrow, requiring precise actions and quick response. This movie was widely popular in our generation and I find it devastating that it took so long for me to realize the racialized characterization is possesses. 

One thought I had during discussion that I did not get the chance to mention was that the translation from book to screen is reflective of the predisposition of Americas to assume that important roles should be played by white actors. Rue, who is played by black actor Amandla Stenberg, is an innocent and beloved character. Audiences were outraged to discover that Rue was played by a black actor instead of a white actor when the movie was released. Even though Susan Collins never specified the race of Rue in her novel, audiences assumed that because she was an integral character that she should be white. 

The idea of important characters represented by white actors is widespread in Hollywood. Another widely watched film of our generation was High School Musical, in which the two main characters were Troy and Gabriella, both played by actors with light skin. Meanwhile, their best friends Chad and Taylor are played by black actors. Even this slight difference in racial representation can have a dramatic effect on young minds. Middle schoolers are learning that the most popular and successful kids in high school are white. Additionally, they are presented with the concept that people date within their racial group. Although there have been additional efforts to have interracial couples on screen, overwhelmingly the most visible couples are of the same race and are usually white. 

Final thoughts: we, as individuals in a sociology class, make up a group that has the opportunity to change this scenario. Change takes motivators from the top such as actors and directors, but is more important coming from a large audience. Because economically, Hollywood is trying to sell to an audience, we need the larger audience of the United States to advocate that increased racial diversity is an expectation (through laws) rather than a disregarded wish. As Erigha mentioned, cinema has the power to shape minds; young children are unknowingly attaining ideas about race that they cannot control. When white characters are the most visible and successful, young minds start to believe that this is true, continuing America’s cyclic notion of white superiority. 

The assigned readings for the discussion were “Color-Blind Ideology and the Cultural Appropriation of Hip-Hop” and the Cultural Appropriation packet. The first reading illustrated how white kids participated in the cultural appropriation of hip-hop by engaging in a color-blind ideology. The author performed a social study in which interviews about hip hop culture were conducted with white concert-goers. This reading was interesting because it exemplified how the black space shifted to a white space, and the white people in this setting used their participation in the culture to deny the reality of inequality. Hip hop was created by the black community but overtime shifted to become dominated by whites. White rappers like Eminem even began to replace black artists.

The second set of readings (from the cultural appropriation packet) discussed different ways in which cultural appropriation manifests itself today. I found it interesting to explore where the line is drawn between appreciation and appropriation, and I liked pondering which specific aspects of culture can be appropriated. For example, can Taco Bell be considered cultural appropriation because the fast food industry is “whitening” traditional dishes? I also was intrigued by the opinion articles on cultural appropriation, especially the piece called “Cultural Appropriation is a Joke,” which encouraged the cultural appropriation of Halloween costumes because the author considered this to be respectful engagement with another culture and would help the individual discover similarities across cultures. 

In our presentation to the class, Kennedi and I first defined cultural appropriation as the adoption of the customs, practices, or ideas of one group by members of another and typically more dominant people or society. There is often a power imbalance associated with cultural appropriation- the powerful take from the powerless. We then instigated a pair share in which we posed general questions to the class about the readings. Each group had a different response to which readings most intrigued them or what most surprised them in reading about cultural appropriation.

My favorite part about the facilitated discussion was the agree/disagree activity. This activity required the student to choose a side in their agreement disagreement with controversial statements. The activity sparked concerns over when cultural appropriation was okay or not okay, and I enjoyed the conversation surrounding the acceptability of cultural appropriation when a minority group appropriates the dominant group.

Kennedi and I ran out of time to finish this agree/ disagree activity, and we were not able to conclude our presentation with additional questions and other examples of cultural appropriation that we had brainstormed. I had wondered what the class would have thought about the new Barbies and American Girl dolls that are of different races, body types, and abilities/disabilities. Is this a positive change to our culture? Are we doing enough to combat whitewashing and color-blind racism? Is cultural appropriation getting better or worse over time? Or does it just change forms? These are some of the questions I left the discussion with last Wednesday. The discussion made me more aware of the ways in which our society takes from other cultures and has made me reflect on what is acceptable and what needs to change.

Racism in Hollywood has become increasingly relevant in popular culture, as current events like Disney’s decision to cast black actress Halle Bailey as Ariel in The Little Mermaid live-action remake have sparked widespread debate over the role of race in entertainment representation. In our presentation, Alexis and I attempted to make sense of the ongoing racism precluding the success of performers and filmmakers of color in the film industry. 

Due to the wealth of current examples of racism in Hollywood, Alexis and I decided to frame our discussion around specific movies, actors, and casting choices that would be familiar in the minds of our seminar classmates. We decided upon the casting of Ghost in the Shell and the depiction of black people in The Hunger Games as our two main examples. Grounding the discussion in media that our peers knew gave us the opportunity to reevaluate problematic films and practices in Hollywood that we may have glossed over in the past. In addition, it provided a solid base on which the discussion of The Hollywood Jim Crow, by Maryann Erigha, could be predicated. 

We explored Elijah Anderson’s idea of the “iconic ghetto” and how it is mapped not only on certain characters in mainstream movies, but on actors and directors themselves. Gary Ross, the white director of The Hunger Games, depicts the black character Thresh as violent and aggressive. His murder tactic (melee) is crude in comparison to Clover’s (knife-throwing), which takes greater skill. This concept of the iconic ghetto extends to directors and actors in relation to their economic productivity. Studio executives often assume black filmmakers will produce economically inferior movies that are guaranteed to generate less profit than a film with a white director or cast. The iconic ghetto, and all its associations with indolence, are thus linked to black filmmakers and performers–preventing the equitable inclusion and representation of POC in Hollywood. 

In addition, we considered what exactly makes Hollywood unique regarding its racial logic. Despite touching only briefly on this topic, we concluded that the veneer that studio executives and audience members hide behind is the very definition and dynamics behind acting itself. Actors, many argue, can portray any character as long as they can act it well. However, this reasoning applies only to white actors; actors of color are racialized and pigeonholed, perpetually portraying characters of a certain race or fulfilling a certain narrative around race in the story being told. To counteract this practice, various casting directors and producers have engaged in color-conscious casting. We looked at Hamilton in particular and how Lin Manuel-Miranda’s call for a cast that embodies the “America of then, told by America now” reflects a broader trend in the industry to recontextualize and represent universal themes in storytelling as belonging to minority groups as well. 

Moving forward, further questions about the meaning of representation and the effects of this representation on the greater public demand consideration. What role does our environment and heritage play in shaping our socialization? What are the tangible effects of greater representation in Hollywood? How can the industry work toward greater equity in Hollywood?

Erigha concludes The Hollywood Jim Crow with a call to action. To achieve true structural transformation in Hollywood, equity must be viewed as more complex than mere numerical and symbolic representation. The key to equity lies in equal access to cultural citizenship: having the opportunity to tell one’s story.