Why "Good Times" was a bad show
Antipositivist
Times” episode. It occurred to me that this was really a terrible show. Does
anyone else feel this way?
The reason why I think “Good Times” was so terrible was because it provided
a patently false representation of the inner city black experience to White
America (and to the rest of America) during its run in the late 70s. (I was
also reminded of this while watching Spike Lee’s “Bamboozled” again
recently; I think Spike Lee is great).
For example, the Evans live in a housing project in Chicago, perhaps the
notorious, crime plagued Cabrini Green houses on Chicago’s South Side. When
I was watching the other night, the main set of the show is the living room
of the Evans’ apartment. On the left, there is a door that opens up to the
outside hallway; anyway, to compensate for the artificial looking hallway,
there was some more artificial looking graffiti, which of course, was meant
to signify “ghetto”
The actual Cabrini Green has been shown in various films, including an
underrated movie called “White Boyz,” which is about white teens who are
black wanna-be’s until they discover that it may not be all fun and games to
be a black, inner-city dweller. The actual Cabrini Green is a continuously
chaotic place; very little, if any, of this chaos is shown in “Good Times.”
I realize that sitcoms are not meant to be “realistic.” I also realize that
some of life’s more depressing qualities are likely to be downplayed in
comedy programs. Nevetheless, this is so blatant in “Good Times,” that it
comes across as a whitewash (pun intended).
Also part of the fakery is the character of Florida, played by Esther Rolle;
she is so wise and calm that she is practically a saint, and every time she
speaks, she uses completely grammatically correct, multi-syllabic sentences.
Essentially, she comes across as rather inauthentic.
Then of course, there is the stereotypical “jive talking” JJ; I’ll admit, he
was funny, and clearly the show’s star; but as TV characters go, he’s about
as one-dimensional as Fonzie, Gilligan, or Granny Clampett.
I’m guessing that “Good Times” producers were well-intentioned Hollywood
limousine liberals; Many of them probably grew up upper-middle class and
went to Ivy League schools; I’m further speculating that perhaps their only
direct experience of black were the domestics who cleaned up after them. I’m
a liberal too (though certainly not the limousine variety), but one who
tries to see the limits of all ideologies and social and political belief
systems. What I sense in watching “Good Times” now, a show that I always
used to like is a rather patronizing quality to it. The relationship between
the well meaning, but somewhat clueless white producers behind this show and
the stereotypical characters and situations within it, as well as the
relationship between the show and its mass audience is one I find
problematic.
David Ballarotto
that there was no representation of the "chaos" of the actual housing
projects, and that Florida's perfect English is unrealistic, and yet you're
referring to it as being stereotypical and patronizing.
Heaven knows I haven't seen this show since it was cancelled by CBS and I
was in fifth grade at the time, but essentially, can you imagine the
reaction there would have been in 1975 to a program that addressed the
concerns you listed? If the show were set in a housing project witha lot
of "chaos," (by which I assume you mean "crime"), and if Esther Rolle's
character spoke like Ernestine Wade's character on "Amos 'n' Andy," there
would have been a terrible uproar. (Actually, "Amos 'n' Andy," when viewed
today is very tame, and its reputation is worse than its actual content.)
The greater question you have to ask yourself is, "Does television portray
a white family any more realistically?" The answer, of course, is "no."
Whether it was the Andersons of "Father Knows Best," the gang on "Friends,"
or even the Bunkers. How many families, like the Andersons, would all get
together and worry that Bud hasn't been asked to the big dance. Of course,
anyone who lives in New York is quick to point out that Monica and
Chandler's apartment on "Friends" is way too big (discounting the need for
adequate screen space in order to present the story.) And if any family
went through all the things the Bunkers and Stivics did, with rape,
attempted rape, burglary, whiplash, a car bomb, etc, that family would be in
sad shape, indeed.
Essentially, what I'm saying, is that producers have been as "clueless"
about white families as they are about black families.
DL
<anti...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I was watching some TV the other night, and I caught a bit of an old “Good
>Times” episode. It occurred to me that this was really a terrible show. Does
>anyone else feel this way?
[trim]
My thoughts are a hearty so what?
Entertainment is entertainment, not education. Some may happen
inadvertently, but that is not the intent.
Look at "The Roadrunner" cartoons. Are we concerned that children
will develop unrealistic views of the laws of gravity and momentum?
Is the constant defying of Newton's laws a defilement of our society?
I don't think so.
Look at Family Affair. The title alone would leave on to believe that
Uncle Bill would be doing Cissy, but they certainly never showed that,
and what horny bachelor in that situation wouldn't be tempted? (OK, an
over the top analogy, but you know what I mean)
Look at Hogan's Heros. Where the Nazis that incompetent? Did we
really have spies who did sabotage in prisoner of war camps in WW2?
There are a trillion examples. You can find them in literature and
music as well as TV. You sound somewhat like those who criticize TV
while seemingly forgetting that one can turn it off at any time.
Look at the Fresh Prince of Bel Aire. If that was to be realistic the
rich African-American family would have been dealing with nasty racism
every day they lived in that snooty neighborhood. That would have
been a huge part of their lives. Where was it? Only showed up as an
occasional thing.
In summary, entertainment is somewhat exempt from standards of
reality. And it has to be to allow us to escape reality when we use
it.
- -
DL
http://www.geocities.com/dicklong14_ca/fanclub.htm
>> Evidently your buddy Cedeño is a bastard.
>>
>
>First of all, Cedeño is not my buddy.
::::::::::::::::
"When you make fun of someone washing his truck, that's sad."
- Jeff Kent
::::::::::::::::
Halter Sucks!
Antipositivist
"David Ballarotto" <ba...@stargate.net> wrote in message
news:ueijjd8...@corp.supernews.com...
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. On the one hand, you're saying
> that there was no representation of the "chaos" of the actual housing
> projects, and that Florida's perfect English is unrealistic, and yet
you're
> referring to it as being stereotypical and patronizing.
Basically, what I'm suggesting is that the show was meant to be a
representation - albeit, a fake, sit-comy version - of black, inner city
life in the late 70s. And at this, the show failed.
With that as the setting, the show failed to accurately convey much if any
of the reality of inner city life, and as a result, helped to convey a false
impression of this reality. I realize, of course, that this is a sitcom, and
few if any sitcoms are realistic, although some are better at realism than
others. Happy Days, at least in its 1st season, struck me as realistic
(though of course, the 50s were before my time). The Wonder Years had a fair
amount of realism.
Nevertheless, in spite of the lack of realism on "Good Times," the
characters - conceived and written by presumably all or mostly white
writers - draw upon stereotypes, such as the pure, innocent, selfless Mammy
and the jive-talking buffoon. The whole thing seems like a modern day
minstrel show; again, this really dawned on me after seeing Spike Lee's
"Bamboozled," particularly the last 10 minutes, which contains a whole
panoply of Hollywood stereotypes images, dating back to the silent film era.
Just for the sake of comparison, I'd suggest contrasting "Good Times" with
Stevie Wonder's song "Living for the City." Wonder's song manages to succeed
at conveying something of the feel of inner city life; it was a great,
soulful song when it was released, and it remains a great song to this day.
> Heaven knows I haven't seen this show since it was cancelled by CBS and
I
> was in fifth grade at the time, but essentially, can you imagine the
> reaction there would have been in 1975 to a program that addressed the
> concerns you listed? If the show were set in a housing project witha lot
> of "chaos," (by which I assume you mean "crime"), and if Esther Rolle's
> character spoke like Ernestine Wade's character on "Amos 'n' Andy," there
> would have been a terrible uproar. (Actually, "Amos 'n' Andy," when
viewed
> today is very tame, and its reputation is worse than its actual content.)
I think "Good Times" might have been a very different show if it had had
black writers and producers.
> The greater question you have to ask yourself is, "Does television
portray
> a white family any more realistically?" The answer, of course, is "no."
I essentially agree.
> Whether it was the Andersons of "Father Knows Best," the gang on
"Friends,"
> or even the Bunkers. How many families, like the Andersons, would all get
> together and worry that Bud hasn't been asked to the big dance. Of
course,
> anyone who lives in New York is quick to point out that Monica and
> Chandler's apartment on "Friends" is way too big (discounting the need for
> adequate screen space in order to present the story.) And if any family
> went through all the things the Bunkers and Stivics did, with rape,
> attempted rape, burglary, whiplash, a car bomb, etc, that family would be
in
> sad shape, indeed.
Good examples David.
> Essentially, what I'm saying, is that producers have been as "clueless"
> about white families as they are about black families.
No argument; it's just that with "Good Times," it seems glaringly so. And
it's a show that hasn't aged very well, in large part for the reasons I've
given.
DL
<anti...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Just for the sake of comparison, I'd suggest contrasting "Good Times" with
>Stevie Wonder's song "Living for the City." Wonder's song manages to succeed
>at conveying something of the feel of inner city life; it was a great,
>soulful song when it was released, and it remains a great song to this day.
That song was mostly about life in a small town in Mississippi. The
New York part was minor in scope, albeit significant to the story.
The entirety of the lyrics point to the pathetic nature of life in
Mississippi. His arrest, conviction, and becoming a bum were almost a
tag on the end.
recsec
"Antipositivist" <anti...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AVaG8.1375$jA6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> The reason why I think "Good Times" was so terrible was because it
provided
> a patently false representation of the inner city black experience to
White
> America (and to the rest of America) during its run in the late 70s.
> The relationship between
> the well meaning, but somewhat clueless white producers behind this show
and
> the stereotypical characters and situations within it, as well as the
> relationship between the show and its mass audience is one I find
> problematic.
So why not write a script for a reunion show detailing your experiences in
the black community??
I went to school with people who were JUST like J.J. so I can't accept that
his was a stereotypical character.
And are you saying that it was wrong for Florida to be able to speak with
proper grammar??
The black folks I went to school with absolutely loved the show as did the
white folks (myself included) I went to school with. It was after all for
entertainment purposes.Sitcoms are not meant to 'teach'. If TV is meant to
be a teaching tool then PBS should be the leader. Everything is just
entertainment.
Billy
Naz Reyes
recsec wrote:
> "Antipositivist" <anti...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:AVaG8.1375$jA6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > The reason why I think "Good Times" was so terrible was because it
> provided
> > a patently false representation of the inner city black experience to
> White
> > America (and to the rest of America) during its run in the late 70s.
>
> > The relationship between
> > the well meaning, but somewhat clueless white producers behind this show
> and
> > the stereotypical characters and situations within it, as well as the
> > relationship between the show and its mass audience is one I find
> > problematic.
>
> So why not write a script for a reunion show detailing your experiences in
> the black community??
>
> I went to school with people who were JUST like J.J. so I can't accept that
> his was a stereotypical character.
JJ's character was a guy who was a comedian, regardess of his ethnicity. There
were/are lots of people who are just like JJ, except that JJ just happens to be
black.
>
>
> And are you saying that it was wrong for Florida to be able to speak with
> proper grammar??
Right on, Billy! ;-) I happen to have grown up with a lot of blacks from all
walks of life and education, and our next door neighbor was a high school
teacher. She spoke proper grammar better than most people I knew/know, whites
included!
>
>
> The black folks I went to school with absolutely loved the show as did the
> white folks (myself included) I went to school with. It was after all for
> entertainment purposes.Sitcoms are not meant to 'teach'. If TV is meant to
> be a teaching tool then PBS should be the leader. Everything is just
> entertainment.
> Billy
Right on, again ;-) My dad always taught me NOT to believe anything I watch on
TV, unless it was the news or one of those 20/20 news shows. Even that, he
always taught me to question everything ;-)
Everything else on TV are all a product of some Hollywood producer creating
some "art" and a few buck$! Well, ok, make that a LOT of bucks!
-Naz
Antipositivist
"recsec" <rec...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3vdG8.92$Mj2.7...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
I don't disagree that the primary purpose of entertainment shows is, indeed,
to entertain. I agree that sitcoms are meant to do this, and not to teach
(or to preach). Of course, on the other hand, a show like "All in the
Family" was, according to accounts by Norman Lear, meant to entertain but
also to enlighten. I would add that AITF succeeded at doing both.
Interestingly, Norman Lear was listed as the nominal executive producer of
"Good Times," at least in its initial season (it was, after all, a spin-off
of a spin-off). I'm guessing, though, that wasn't that directly involved
with this particular show since he was involved with many different programs
that year, including "All in the Family," "Maude," and others. Later on,
the show was directed by the same people who gave us shows like "One Day at
a Time, and "Out of the Blue." I should note that the short lived "Out of
the Blue" featured Dixie Carter as the kindly black caretaker of five
adorable white children - I'm sensing a pattern here.
As far as the issue of Florida's grammar, I am merely making a sociological
observation about social class; the Evans are supposed to be a lower class,
inner city family; speech codes tend to vary by class (and region and
ethnicity, etc.). Standard English may be the generic model, but there are
variations in the degrees to which different groups approximate the generic
cultural ideal. So I guess what I am noticing is a bit of a disconnect
between Florida Evans supposed social class location and Esther Rolle's
rather refined use of the English language; you also wouldn't necessarily
figure that with Florida speaking the way that she does that JJ sounds the
way that he does. Of course, I recognize that there are always exceptions to
just about everything, particularly where people are involved.
Tom
David Ballarotto
>
> I don't disagree that the primary purpose of entertainment shows is,
indeed,
> to entertain. I agree that sitcoms are meant to do this, and not to teach
> (or to preach). Of course, on the other hand, a show like "All in the
> Family" was, according to accounts by Norman Lear, meant to entertain but
> also to enlighten. I would add that AITF succeeded at doing both.
>
But many on the left disagree vehemently, in that many viewers found they
identified with Archie Bunker so much, that they viewed his character as
someone who confirmed their beliefs. And beyond that, had AITF lasted
three seasons, the point your making would be valid. However, by the time
Mike and Gloria left for California, in AITF's attempts to strive for
"realism," the program had dealt with more topics than the average family
ever would. Also, more importantly, the writing staff changed around 1976.
Milt Josefsberg, a very talented radio writer who once worked on Jack
Benny's programs, became one of the head writers. At that point, AITF
changed forever. The writing was now handled by people coming at the
subject matter with a different impression of what comedy is. (Much the same
way Josefsberg's writing didn't really fit Lucille Ball in her California
sitcoms.) This is why I repeat until I'm blue in the face, that it makes no
sense for the Archie Bunker of this era to pronounce "meringue" as mah-RINJ.
That would assume that Archie would have seen the word "meringue" at some
point in his life before he had actually heard it, which of course would be
highly unlikely.
It sounds like a minor point, but it's an important one about the new
approach the show began to take towards comedy. It points to trying for the
quicker laugh, rather than bouncing the comedy of the young vs. old, left
vs. right, Mike vs. Archie set-ups of the show's earlier seasons.
If it's true that "Archie Bunker's Place" reruns are going to show up on TV
Land soon, fans can see how far the "topical" humor of the 1971-74 AITF and
the de-evolution of Archie managed to make the character and the show only a
shadow of what it was during its earliest seasons.
> Interestingly, Norman Lear was listed as the nominal executive producer of
> "Good Times," at least in its initial season (it was, after all, a
spin-off
> of a spin-off). I'm guessing, though, that wasn't that directly involved
> with this particular show since he was involved with many different
programs
> that year, including "All in the Family," "Maude," and others. Later on,
> the show was directed by the same people who gave us shows like "One Day
at
> a Time, and "Out of the Blue." I should note that the short lived "Out of
> the Blue" featured Dixie Carter as the kindly black caretaker of five
> adorable white children - I'm sensing a pattern here.
>
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Dixie Carter is white. And
"One Day at a Time" was also developed by Norman Lear. (And we're not even
going to get into Bonnie Franklin's "realistic" portrayal of a red-headed
Italian.)
> As far as the issue of Florida's grammar, I am merely making a
sociological
> observation about social class; the Evans are supposed to be a lower
class,
> inner city family; speech codes tend to vary by class (and region and
> ethnicity, etc.). Standard English may be the generic model, but there are
> variations in the degrees to which different groups approximate the
generic
> cultural ideal.
I disagree with this assertion as well. And rather than televsion, I'll use
a real life example: this newsgroup. Here we have people all over the
country, of all sorts of differing socio-economic backgrounds and
ethnicities (though I think the number of black posters here may be
dispropportionately low), but nonetheless, the grammar here is flawless.
By the way, I grew up in a lower class home in a lower class rural
community, and we spoke proper English in my home and my neighbors did too.
It depends on if you care or not what you sound like. Poor grammar usage
knows no socioeconomic setting. I'm sure if you listen, you'll find plenty
of "educated" people who butcher the English language and the rules of
grammar mercilessly. Television writers handling "upper class," and "better
educated" individuals repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot by failing to
understand the subjective forms of pronouns. You'll frequently hear someone
supposedly speaking better English say something like, "How kind of you to
send that gift to Bob and I." Or, "Could you join Rachel and I for
dinner?"
So I guess what I am noticing is a bit of a disconnect
> between Florida Evans supposed social class location and Esther Rolle's
> rather refined use of the English language; you also wouldn't necessarily
> figure that with Florida speaking the way that she does that JJ sounds the
> way that he does. Of course, I recognize that there are always exceptions
to
> just about everything, particularly where people are involved.
>
But the larger point, again, has to be if television portrays anyone more
accurately. Why not point out all the problems in terms of the way "The
Brady Bunch" fails to address the concerns an upper middle class white
family has when two parents with their own children wed? The reason,
because you or anyone else in his or her right mind knows better. And
quite frankly, being called a Brady is probably more offensive to a white
person than it is to liken a black woman to Florida or a black man to J. J.
The problem is, it's too easy to attack (with the best of intentions) a
television show for not presenting a realistic portrayal of life in the
housing project. But doing so fails to address the fact that television does
not present an accurate portrayal of life in suburbia. The Cleavers, the
Andersons, the Bradys and their milquetoast attitudes are stereotypes white
Americans have been trying to live down for years as well. (Their current
counterparts are really no different.)
And, what's more, I understand Bill Duke and Judi Ann Mason, writers of
"Good Times," are black. So why would black writers resort to these things
which you find offensive? Because television by its nature fails to
represent reality. It's true of black shows by black writers as it is of
white shows by white writers. Arguing otherwise is to present a straw man
agrument.
Antipositivist
I guess when I think of "All in the Family," I think of the seasons in which
Mike and Gloria were regulars, since I think the show was at its peak then.
> > Interestingly, Norman Lear was listed as the nominal executive producer
of
> > "Good Times," at least in its initial season (it was, after all, a
> spin-off
> > of a spin-off). I'm guessing, though, that wasn't that directly involved
> > with this particular show since he was involved with many different
> programs
> > that year, including "All in the Family," "Maude," and others. Later
on,
> > the show was directed by the same people who gave us shows like "One Day
> at
> > a Time, and "Out of the Blue." I should note that the short lived "Out
of
> > the Blue" featured Dixie Carter as the kindly black caretaker of five
> > adorable white children - I'm sensing a pattern here.
> >
>
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Dixie Carter is white. And
> "One Day at a Time" was also developed by Norman Lear. (And we're not
even
> going to get into Bonnie Franklin's "realistic" portrayal of a red-headed
> Italian.)
LOL, my bad. I was thinking of Nell Carter; I actually don't remember "Out
of the Blue." But I do remember Nell Carter playing the kindly, lovable
black housekeeper to a white family, filled with young, lovable scamps. (I
guess I'm also not that crazy about the recurring fairy-tale concept of the
maid/housekeeper/nanny/mammy as blissfully happy, motivated by nothing other
than altruistic love for her privileged young charges, rather than as
servile, easily exploited service worker.)
Was Dixie Carter on "Designing Women"?
> > As far as the issue of Florida's grammar, I am merely making a
> sociological
> > observation about social class; the Evans are supposed to be a lower
> class,
> > inner city family; speech codes tend to vary by class (and region and
> > ethnicity, etc.). Standard English may be the generic model, but there
are
> > variations in the degrees to which different groups approximate the
> generic
> > cultural ideal.
>
> I disagree with this assertion as well.
Fine, but it actually comes from Basil Bernstein, in a book called Class,
Codes and Control, and is backed by some empirical studies.
And rather than televsion, I'll use
> a real life example: this newsgroup. Here we have people all over the
> country, of all sorts of differing socio-economic backgrounds and
> ethnicities (though I think the number of black posters here may be
> dispropportionately low),
I think it that number is perhaps zero.
> but nonetheless, the grammar here is flawless.
I haven't really noticed, David, but I'll take your word for it.
> By the way, I grew up in a lower class home in a lower class rural
> community, and we spoke proper English in my home and my neighbors did
too.
> It depends on if you care or not what you sound like. Poor grammar usage
> knows no socioeconomic setting. I'm sure if you listen, you'll find plenty
> of "educated" people who butcher the English language and the rules of
> grammar mercilessly. Television writers handling "upper class," and
"better
> educated" individuals repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot by failing
to
> understand the subjective forms of pronouns. You'll frequently hear
someone
> supposedly speaking better English say something like, "How kind of you to
> send that gift to Bob and I." Or, "Could you join Rachel and I for
> dinner?"
I don't know, David, but I think my experiences were perhaps a tad different
than yours. I grew up in a blue collar milieu, as well, but in my
experience, many people that I knew who were badly and/or barely educated
tended to have unique ways that they mangled the English language; I don't
consider this a flaw, but rather, as a result of habit, as well as a result
of not necessarily "needing" to be articulate.
I don't really disagree with what you are saying here, but I would add that
I think it may be a bit more problematic if mass media stereotypes
minorities than if it stereotypes the white majority; all things considered,
whites (other than poor whites) are in a more secure position in a society
such as ours in which they are the dominant group.
Club Dancer
Antipositivist wrote:
> I was watching some TV the other night, and I caught a bit of an old "Good
> Times" episode. It occurred to me that this was really a terrible show. Does
> anyone else feel this way?
>
I remembered liking the show as a kid, but I watched it recently on TBS
and found the material flat. Not as funny as I thought it would be.
And do they ever leave that apartment?
>
> The actual Cabrini Green has been shown in various films, including an
> underrated movie called "White Boyz," which is about white teens who are
> black wanna-be's until they discover that it may not be all fun and games to
> be a black, inner-city dweller. The actual Cabrini Green is a continuously
> chaotic place; very little, if any, of this chaos is shown in "Good Times."
Wasn't the movie 'Candyman' also set in Cabrini Green?
> I realize that sitcoms are not meant to be "realistic." I also realize that
> some of life's more depressing qualities are likely to be downplayed in
> comedy programs. Nevetheless, this is so blatant in "Good Times," that it
> comes across as a whitewash (pun intended).
They did an episode that was a bit of a social commentary when one of
they discovered one of their friends in the building was eating cat
food. Then she brought down a meatloaf for them to eat, and they all
thought she had used the cat food in it! It was sad, and then it was
funny, but it came off being kind of shallow in the end. Compare that
to Archie Bunker, which usually had the most emotional impact left 'till
the end of the episode. You walk away feeling changed with AB, but GT
is just 'there'.
>
> Then of course, there is the stereotypical "jive talking" JJ; I'll admit, he
> was funny, and clearly the show's star; but as TV characters go, he's about
> as one-dimensional as Fonzie, Gilligan, or Granny Clampett.
I remember reading somewhere that Afro Americans were pissed off with
his character saying 'Dynomite!' all the time. So that's why in later
episodes it's toned down.
>
> I'm guessing that "Good Times" producers were well-intentioned Hollywood
> limousine liberals; Many of them probably grew up upper-middle class and
> went to Ivy League schools; I'm further speculating that perhaps their only
> direct experience of black were the domestics who cleaned up after them. I'm
> a liberal too (though certainly not the limousine variety), but one who
> tries to see the limits of all ideologies and social and political belief
> systems. What I sense in watching "Good Times" now, a show that I always
> used to like is a rather patronizing quality to it. The relationship between
> the well meaning, but somewhat clueless white producers behind this show and
> the stereotypical characters and situations within it, as well as the
> relationship between the show and its mass audience is one I find
> problematic.
>
I also think the subject matter of the life in the ghetto wouldn't work
well in a sitcom setting. If they really wanted to get into the nitty
gritty of life in Cabrini Green, the show would have had to have been a
drama. It's a wonder that the show lasted as long as it did.
recsec
Tom wrote:
> > As far as the issue of Florida's grammar, I am merely making a
> sociological
> > observation about social class; the Evans are supposed to be a lower
> class,
> > inner city family; speech codes tend to vary by class (and region and
> > ethnicity, etc.). Standard English may be the generic model, but there
are
> > variations in the degrees to which different groups approximate the
> generic
> > cultural ideal.
>
Then David wrote:
> I disagree with this assertion as well.
> Poor grammar usage
> knows no socioeconomic setting.
To which I add:
A good example of ANYDODY from ANY background speaking good & proper
grammer, to which I have NEVER claimed to do on a 100% basis, is that of the
late Barbara Jordan. The first black woman ever elected to the Texas
Legislature. The first black woman elected to Congress from the South. She
came from Houston's Fifth Ward. An area that is full of shotgun houses &
crime. It is one of the poorest most crime ridden sections of Houston. I
would go so far as to say it is Houston's ghetto but not being black, or
having lived there, I can only guess that that is what it is referred to by
those who live there. I do not believe that socioeconomics have any
determination in the grammer, or manner of speaking that soemone does.
Anyone can learn good & proper use of their own language. Of course now not
using it properly is sort of a way to connect with the masses. A kind of
seperation of the really rich & really educated from regular folks.
Billy
rach
see them now through " 2002 eyes" of course they are going to suck or seem
silly and old fashioned.
However, they are all just shows. I have read this thread with interest and
have to say, David said it best so I won't piggy back to his other than a
comment about "Florida's" language. Wasn't she raised in the south? As well,
a person can be ill-educated school and bookwise but be very smart in common
sense, social interaction and communication. We never knew the environment
in which she was raised so anything is possible. Maybe she just read a lot..
who knows. My point is, there are a lot of smart people without a degree or
even a highschool diploma, just like there are a lot of stupid people with a
lot of paper certificates in frames that may be rocket scientists but can't
carry on a simple conversation to your every day Joe.
--
rach
we'll crucify the insincere tonight
we'll make things right, we'll feel it all tonight
we'll find a way to offer up the night tonight
the indescribable moments of your life tonight
the impossible is possible tonight
believe in me as i believe in you, tonight
...Tonight Tonight - Smashing Pumpkins
"Club Dancer" <"funky disco lover"@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CE98A8E...@yahoo.com...
DL
lover"@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Antipositivist wrote:
>
>> I was watching some TV the other night, and I caught a bit of an old "Good
>> Times" episode. It occurred to me that this was really a terrible show. Does
>> anyone else feel this way?
>>
>
>
>I remembered liking the show as a kid, but I watched it recently on TBS
>and found the material flat. Not as funny as I thought it would be.
>And do they ever leave that apartment?
Maybe they were scared to go out due to all the violence in the
projects! ;)
Molly, the New Wave Queen
please put something in the subject to notify us who don't want to read this
stuff that there's something controversial that might cause some heat in
here. I really am not in the mood right now to read your discussions, and
since I have no way to killfile an entire post (I can block posters, but not
anything else, still learning Outlook Express 5).
Molly
"David Ballarotto" <ba...@stargate.net> wrote in message
news:ueivt2s...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >
Molly, the New Wave Queen
bothered over TV shows. It's ficitonal. Maybe it's because I'm just a
nieve (sp) person who just watches a TV show, because she likes it, and not
for the "message" or the "significance" of something.
I did catch an episode of Good Times just recently, and it is a bit flat. I
used to love the show, and I was a fan of Jimmy Walker's. I also liked
Janet Jackson as Penny.
Molly
"rach" <trist...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZagG8.6371$Hf4.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Dawna
Exactly why I don't watch much of it. "Exempt from reality" certainly
sums up most sitcoms and dramas, in my opinion. They are such a total
waste of time, they actually up my blood pressure. Especially when I
see somewhat intelligent people wasting their brains hour after hour
after hour. (Nothing wrong with watching a few shows here and there
for entertainment purposes.)
AND what KILLS ME is that lot of people actually believe this crap is
REAL. I know we've touched on the fairy tale idea before, but too
many who were raised with this pap hold expectations that life is
easy. It may be great, but it sure as hell ain't easy.
As for Good Times, I believe Tom has a point(s). John Amos left
(IIRC) because it did not portrait a black family well. The mom,
Florida, (can't recall her real name at the moment) stayed and
attempted to get the producers to begin portraying reailty with the
show.
I think sometimes they did, tho I've never even seen that neighborhood
in Chicago.
~~Dawna
rach
been worse and I'm at a loss as to why you think this one is going that way.
--
rach
we'll crucify the insincere tonight
we'll make things right, we'll feel it all tonight
we'll find a way to offer up the night tonight
the indescribable moments of your life tonight
the impossible is possible tonight
believe in me as i believe in you, tonight
...Tonight Tonight - Smashing Pumpkins
"Molly, the New Wave Queen" <molly...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mIgG8.33452$Vm2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
LizzieZ
>the Blue" featured Dixie Carter as the kindly black caretaker of five
>adorable white children - I'm sensing a pattern here.
>
While I'm sure Dixie Carter is a great actress, she's probably not good enough
to portray a black woman. Could you have meant Nell Carter? ;-)
Liz
LizzieZ
>of the Blue." But I do remember Nell Carter playing the kindly, lovable
>black housekeeper to a white family, filled with young, lovable scamps. (I
>guess I'm also not that crazy about the recurring fairy-tale concept of the
>maid/housekeeper/nanny/mammy as blissfully happy, motivated by nothing other
>than altruistic love for her privileged young charges, rather than as
>servile, easily exploited service worker.)
>
>Was Dixie Carter on "Designing Women"?
Well, that'll teach me to read to the end of a thread before commenting! LOL
Anyway, yes, Dixie Carter was on "Designing Women." And I think the Nell
Carter show you're thinking of was "Gimme a Break."
Liz
DL
wrote:
>Exactly why I don't watch much of it. "Exempt from reality" certainly
>sums up most sitcoms and dramas, in my opinion. They are such a total
>waste of time, they actually up my blood pressure. Especially when I
>see somewhat intelligent people wasting their brains hour after hour
>after hour. (Nothing wrong with watching a few shows here and there
>for entertainment purposes.)
How is that different from reading something by one of the Brontes?
TV is NOT a great evil thing. People just get the entertainment they
want.
DL
wrote:
>I don't see anything getting heated here, Molly. We all know there have
>been worse and I'm at a loss as to why you think this one is going that way.
You gotta remember Rach - Molly is in charge here and all of us and
our discussions only exist at her whim.
DL
<molly...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>All I have to say it's a freaking TV show, and I NEVER get all hot and
>bothered over TV shows.
No you just get all mad about people making unflattering references to
people you do not know. Give it a rest and you will lose the nutso
reputation you have created with your little rants.
zeke
> I was watching some TV the other night,
Keep watching and don't try to think - you're obviously not very good at it.
> and I caught a bit of an old “Good
> Times” episode. It occurred to me that this was really a terrible show. Does
> anyone else feel this way?
>
Not at all - the show wasn't supposed to be a realistic dramatic piece of work -
it was what it was, and despite it's lack of being set in the Cabrini Green of
your imagination (you didn't grow up there, did you?), it did address many
social issues in a way which made you laugh, if not think.
Obviously it has failed to make you do either. I think you're defective.
zeke
> And if any family
> went through all the things the Bunkers and Stivics did, with rape,
> attempted rape, burglary, whiplash, a car bomb, etc, that family would be in
> sad shape, indeed.
Jeez - you sure remember all the bad things, don't you? What about the time
Sammy Davis kissed Archie? Or the time Archie saved the drag queen? (Didn't he
get a kiss from "her" too?)
They were in sad shape, but they were happy - that was, I think, part of the
point of the story. And to think that Archie could be the working stiff,
ignorant bigot he was and still have a family he provided for, loved and which
loved him back and still afford to get into the bar business is the American
Dream come true.
>
> Essentially, what I'm saying, is that producers have been as "clueless"
> about white families as they are about black families.
Glad you put the "clueless" in quotes, because I really don't think sitcom
characters were ever meant to be believable. I mean, would you believe it if
your neighbors were the Cleavers? or Ralph & Norton? Fred & Ethyl? or the
Brady's? The Cunninghams? What if you got pulled over by Barney Fife? Met a
Marine like Gomer Pyle or Sgt. Carter?
I guess the only really believable character I've ever seen in a sitcom would
have to be Johnny Fever - yeah, that's it - either him or Latka.
zeke
> "David Ballarotto" <ba...@stargate.net> wrote in message
> news:ueijjd8...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. On the one hand, you're saying
> > that there was no representation of the "chaos" of the actual housing
> > projects, and that Florida's perfect English is unrealistic, and yet
> you're
> > referring to it as being stereotypical and patronizing.
>
> Basically, what I'm suggesting is that the show was meant to be a
> representation - albeit, a fake, sit-comy version - of black, inner city
> life in the late 70s. And at this, the show failed.
>
Yeah - just like Bewitched was supposed to be a representation of a white
suburban couple, one of whom happened to be a witch with magical powers. That
failed miserably too, didn't it?
>
> With that as the setting, the show failed to accurately convey much if any
> of the reality of inner city life, and as a result, helped to convey a false
> impression of this reality. I realize, of course, that this is a sitcom,
Are you sure?
> and
> few if any sitcoms are realistic, although some are better at realism than
> others. Happy Days, at least in its 1st season, struck me as realistic
> (though of course, the 50s were before my time). The Wonder Years had a fair
> amount of realism.
Okay - now we know what kind of TV you really appreciate.
>
>
> Nevertheless, in spite of the lack of realism on "Good Times," the
> characters - conceived and written by presumably all or mostly white
> writers - draw upon stereotypes, such as the pure, innocent, selfless Mammy
> and the jive-talking buffoon.
I think your own perceptions about black people are colouring your
interpretation of the characters on Good Times - the show I saw didn't include
either the Mammy you speak of or a jive talking buffoon? (BTW - would that be
JJ or his father?)
>
> > Essentially, what I'm saying, is that producers have been as "clueless"
> > about white families as they are about black families.
>
> No argument; it's just that with "Good Times," it seems glaringly so. And
> it's a show that hasn't aged very well, in large part for the reasons I've
> given.
And this is what exposes your own bias - How is Good Times so much more
"glaring" in its cluelessness than What's Happening? or Welcome Back Kotter or
Three's Company?
zeke
>
> As far as the issue of Florida's grammar, I am merely making a sociological
> observation about social class;
Spoken like someone who has a very clear perspective on just who it is that is
lower class. They just aren't like you, are they? They're poor, they're poorly
educated, they live from paycheck to paycheck. It's not their fault, they'll
just never be as good as you though.
Yeah, you're not a limousine liberal - possibly a Pontiac liberal (and we all
know what P.O.N.T.I.A.C stands for, don't we?).
zeke
> >
>
> But the larger point, again, has to be if television portrays anyone more
> accurately. Why not point out all the problems in terms of the way "The
> Brady Bunch" fails to address the concerns an upper middle class white
> family has when two parents with their own children wed? The reason,
> because you or anyone else in his or her right mind knows better
And let's be real here - it was the era of free love, yet they managed to have 6
kids and not one of them got pregnant, got someone else pregnant, did drugs or
ever got arrested.
Someone should do a remake of the Bradys - the way it really would have
happened.
zeke
>
> A good example of ANYDODY from ANY background speaking good & proper
> grammer,
"speaking good & proper grammer" - that's funny.
> to which I have NEVER claimed to do on a 100% basis, is that of the
> late Barbara Jordan. The first black woman ever elected to the Texas
> Legislature. The first black woman elected to Congress from the South. She
> came from Houston's Fifth Ward. An area that is full of shotgun houses &
> crime. It is one of the poorest most crime ridden sections of Houston. I
> would go so far as to say it is Houston's ghetto but not being black, or
> having lived there, I can only guess that that is what it is referred to by
> those who live there.
I can't speak for the residents of the Fifth Ward specifically, but Houstonians
generally just refer to it as the Fifth Ward - 'nuff said.
> I do not believe that socioeconomics have any
> determination in the grammer, or manner of speaking that soemone does.
But education does help, and often it is the more well off who are better
educated. That is a generalization of course. YMMV.
David Ballarotto
> > a real life example: this newsgroup. Here we have people all over the
> > country, of all sorts of differing socio-economic backgrounds and
> > ethnicities (though I think the number of black posters here may be
> > dispropportionately low),
>
> I think it that number is perhaps zero.
>
It's not, though. One person who has posted here who could bring a very
interesting perspective to this, is the granddaughter of Nick Stewart, who
played Lightnin' on "Amos 'n' Andy."
zeke
> When discussing controversial topics in this group, could you guys please,
> please put something in the subject to notify us who don't want to read this
> stuff that there's something controversial that might cause some heat in
> here. I really am not in the mood right now to read your discussions, and
> since I have no way to killfile an entire post (I can block posters, but not
> anything else, still learning Outlook Express 5).
>
Is this a joke? WTF? I know I haven't hung around this little newsgroup fambly
for long, but this is one of the least controversial threads I've seen on usenet
in a while - certainly the least controversial that I've followed this far.
Sheesh - if you're not in the mood, why are you reading?
Good luck w/ OE - you'll probably get so much virii you're grandchildren will
have to see special doctors.
Molly, the New Wave Queen
Oh boy, I guess I am very Naive. I guess I'll have to stop watching my
favorite shows, because they're not real.
Molly
"Dawna" <artangelp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b21f02f.02052...@posting.google.com...
Antipositivist
>
> "David Ballarotto" <ba...@stargate.net> wrote in message
> news:ueivt2s...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> > > As far as the issue of Florida's grammar, I am merely making a
> > sociological
> > > observation about social class; the Evans are supposed to be a lower
> > class,
> > > inner city family; speech codes tend to vary by class (and region and
> > > ethnicity, etc.). Standard English may be the generic model, but there
> are
> > > variations in the degrees to which different groups approximate the
> > generic
> > > cultural ideal.
> >
>
> Then David wrote:
>
> > I disagree with this assertion as well.
> > Poor grammar usage
> > knows no socioeconomic setting.
>
> To which I add:
>
> A good example of ANYDODY from ANY background speaking good & proper
> grammer, to which I have NEVER claimed to do on a 100% basis, is that of
the
> late Barbara Jordan. The first black woman ever elected to the Texas
> Legislature. The first black woman elected to Congress from the South.
She was, indeed, a great speaker.
>She came from Houston's Fifth Ward. An area that is full of shotgun houses
&
> crime. It is one of the poorest most crime ridden sections of Houston. I
> would go so far as to say it is Houston's ghetto but not being black, or
> having lived there, I can only guess that that is what it is referred to
by
> those who live there. I do not believe that socioeconomics have any
> determination in the grammer, or manner of speaking that soemone does.
> Anyone can learn good & proper use of their own language.
I agree. It is a skill, and it can be learned, regardless of class
background - more or less the premise in Shaw's "Pygmallion"
(as well as the quint old idea of "charm school" for affluent society girls)
Of course now not
> using it properly is sort of a way to connect with the masses. A kind of
> seperation of the really rich & really educated from regular folks.
> Billy
I don't think that we are in disagreement. But I'm thinking of the debate of
a few years ago about whether "Ebonics" was a true dialect, and one that
educators should have some knowledge of. I'd say yes, and that it reflects
some overlap of race and class which then effects language use.
Where I live, it's a vary broad mix of races, ethnicities and subcultures. I
like that about the place where I live. But when I walk around, I'm liable
to hear lots of different versions of the English language.
Antipositivist
"zeke" <ze...@zig.zag> wrote in message news:3CE9F12B...@zig.zag...
> Antipositivist wrote:
>
> >
> > As far as the issue of Florida's grammar, I am merely making a
sociological
> > observation about social class;
>
> Spoken like someone who has a very clear perspective on just who it is
that is
> lower class.
I happen to have PhD in sociology, and my perspective is very much a product
of that.
They just aren't like you, are they? They're poor, they're poorly
> educated, they live from paycheck to paycheck. It's not their fault,
they'll
> just never be as good as you though.
>
> Yeah, you're not a limousine liberal - possibly a Pontiac liberal (and we
all
> know what P.O.N.T.I.A.C stands for, don't we?).
No, please enlighten me. What does P.O.N.T.I.A.C stands for?
Antipositivist
"zeke" <ze...@zig.zag> wrote in message news:3CE9EFD2...@zig.zag...
> Antipositivist wrote:
>
> > "David Ballarotto" <ba...@stargate.net> wrote in message
> > news:ueijjd8...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. On the one hand, you're
saying
> > > that there was no representation of the "chaos" of the actual housing
> > > projects, and that Florida's perfect English is unrealistic, and yet
> > you're
> > > referring to it as being stereotypical and patronizing.
> >
> > Basically, what I'm suggesting is that the show was meant to be a
> > representation - albeit, a fake, sit-comy version - of black, inner city
> > life in the late 70s. And at this, the show failed.
> >
>
> Yeah - just like Bewitched was supposed to be a representation of a white
> suburban couple, one of whom happened to be a witch with magical powers.
That
> failed miserably too, didn't it?
Who's to say that Bewitched wasn't supposed to be a representation of a
white suburban couple? Betwitched was a very funny show though.
> > With that as the setting, the show failed to accurately convey much if
any
> > of the reality of inner city life, and as a result, helped to convey a
false
> > impression of this reality. I realize, of course, that this is a sitcom,
>
> Are you sure?
Am I sure that Good Times is a sitcom? Yes, I'm sure about that.
> > and
> > few if any sitcoms are realistic, although some are better at realism
than
> > others. Happy Days, at least in its 1st season, struck me as realistic
> > (though of course, the 50s were before my time). The Wonder Years had a
fair
> > amount of realism.
>
> Okay - now we know what kind of TV you really appreciate.
I like a lot of different kinds of TV for a lot of different reasons.
> > Nevertheless, in spite of the lack of realism on "Good Times," the
> > characters - conceived and written by presumably all or mostly white
> > writers - draw upon stereotypes, such as the pure, innocent, selfless
Mammy
> > and the jive-talking buffoon.
>
> I think your own perceptions about black people are colouring your
> interpretation of the characters on Good Times - the show I saw didn't
include
> either the Mammy you speak of or a jive talking buffoon? (BTW - would
that be
> JJ or his father?)
That's not much of a statement, since it's true for everyone that their
perceptions color their interpretations.
As far as comparing Florida to a mammy, I think you've missed my point -
which is that the show constructed her as a pure, selfless, altruistic,
non-threatening, often smiling, easily victimized character. She was set up
this way as a contrast to JJ. I'm not assuming that it was a conscious
decision on the part of the show's producers to make use of a black female
stereotype.
> > > Essentially, what I'm saying, is that producers have been as
"clueless"
> > > about white families as they are about black families.
> >
> > No argument; it's just that with "Good Times," it seems glaringly so.
And
> > it's a show that hasn't aged very well, in large part for the reasons
I've
> > given.
>
> And this is what exposes your own bias - How is Good Times so much more
> "glaring" in its cluelessness than What's Happening? or Welcome Back
Kotter or
> Three's Company?
It was clueless about its own use of racial stereotypes - I mean, compare it
to All in the Family, a greater show, where the characters were more fully
fleshed out, and where race and racism were more imaginatively and
sufficiently addressed.
Antipositivist
"Molly, the New Wave Queen" <molly...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mIgG8.33452$Vm2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> please put something in the subject to notify us who don't want to read
this
> stuff that there's something controversial that might cause some heat in
> here.
Nope! that's not going to happen.
As others here have quite eloquently suggested, if you see a thread/post and
don't want to read it, then don't read it.
If you have a contribution to offer to it, then offer it.
If you can't handle adult conversation, then maybe the internet is not the
place for you.
In the meantime, those who post are going to use the headers that they want,
to convey whatever ideas that want to attempt to convey. That is not going
to change, nor should it.
Dawna
> On 20 May 2002 18:49:26 -0700, artangelp...@yahoo.com (Dawna)
> wrote:
>
> >Exactly why I don't watch much of it. "Exempt from reality" certainly
> >sums up most sitcoms and dramas, in my opinion. They are such a total
> >waste of time, they actually up my blood pressure. Especially when I
> >see somewhat intelligent people wasting their brains hour after hour
> >after hour. (Nothing wrong with watching a few shows here and there
> >for entertainment purposes.)
>
> How is that different from reading something by one of the Brontes?
> TV is NOT a great evil thing. People just get the entertainment they
> want.
>
>
That's the same thing -- yup -- story-wise. (Their status is only
raised by the fact that it's literary.) The story lines are like soap
operas. IMHO, again.
Entertainment (reading, tv, whatever) should be somewhat based in
reality. Stretching the imagination is a cool thing too, but I don't
think it can be acheived without a platform of reality. Otherwise
it's stupidity to me. Why fry one's brain? Might as well hide behind
a bottle or stay high.
I have a huge imagination, been stereotyped as an artistic type,
therefore I must be flighty and superficial. Normally I don't care,
but I'd rather seem intelligent and reality-based.
~~Dawna
Molly, the New Wave Queen
actors lives. Let's get more Survivor clones and get rid of sitcoms and
dramas. That's how I'm getting the sense this discussion is going.
Oh btw, let's get rid of fantasy and science fiction programs, because
they're not "reality based" programs. You don't see aliens or vampires
running around the world.
Before I totally sound like a sarcastic bitch, I'll shut up.
Molly
PS: All of the above was me being sarcastic. I really don't want to offend
anybody by what I said.
"Dawna" <artangelp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b21f02f.02052...@posting.google.com...
DL
<molly...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Before I totally sound like a sarcastic bitch, I'll shut up.
>
>Molly
You don't sound sarcastic.
LizzieZ
>notorious, crime plagued Cabrini Green houses on Chicago’s South Side.
You are correct that it was based on Cabrini Green, but contrary to popular
belief, this housing project is actually on the North Side, right next to the
Gold Coast. It's quite a strange juxtaposition! And now they're even tearing
much of CG down and building more luxury housing. They say it'll be mixed
income housing, but there's no way the people displaced from CG could dream of
affording to live there.
Liz
zeke
> any
> > > of the reality of inner city life, and as a result, helped to convey a
> false
> > > impression of this reality. I realize, of course, that this is a sitcom,
> >
> > Are you sure?
>
> Am I sure that Good Times is a sitcom? Yes, I'm sure about that.
>
No, are you sure that you realize that Good Times is a sitcom? You're not
talking like you do.
>
> As far as comparing Florida to a mammy, I think you've missed my point -
> which is that the show constructed her as a pure, selfless, altruistic,
> non-threatening, often smiling, easily victimized character. She was set up
> this way as a contrast to JJ.
Or to be a sympathetic character - You've never seen or read anything else where
there was a righteous, hard-working, well spoken, likable character which was
put in a position of having to struggle?
JJ, on the other hand is also a very common type of character in literature as
well as TV.
> I'm not assuming that it was a conscious
> decision on the part of the show's producers to make use of a black female
> stereotype.
>
They could've made her white, I guess - had Julie Andrews play the role - that
might have worked :-)
> > And this is what exposes your own bias - How is Good Times so much more
> > "glaring" in its cluelessness than What's Happening? or Welcome Back
> Kotter or
> > Three's Company?
>
> It was clueless about its own use of racial stereotypes - I mean, compare it
> to All in the Family, a greater show, where the characters were more fully
> fleshed out, and where race and racism were more imaginatively and
> sufficiently addressed.
True - AITF did address race and racism more imaginatively and sufficiently than
Good Times.
So, it all boils down to - I've seen AITF and Good Times is no AITF.
Cool.
zeke
> "zeke" <ze...@zig.zag> wrote in message news:3CE9F12B...@zig.zag...
> > Antipositivist wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > As far as the issue of Florida's grammar, I am merely making a
> sociological
> > > observation about social class;
> >
> > Spoken like someone who has a very clear perspective on just who it is
> that is
> > lower class.
>
> I happen to have PhD in sociology, and my perspective is very much a product
> of that.
Might explain why you're thinking too hard about things like Good Times.
>
>
> They just aren't like you, are they? They're poor, they're poorly
> > educated, they live from paycheck to paycheck. It's not their fault,
> they'll
> > just never be as good as you though.
> >
> > Yeah, you're not a limousine liberal - possibly a Pontiac liberal (and we
> all
> > know what P.O.N.T.I.A.C stands for, don't we?).
>
> No, please enlighten me. What does P.O.N.T.I.A.C stands for?
Hmm - should I?
Okay, but bear in mind, that I used to own a Pontiac and this doesn't express my
own views on either the car or any member of the human race......(Call me crazy,
I happen to believe that blacks and whites are the same race.)
"poor old n', thinks it's a Cadillac"
recsec
"zeke" <ze...@zig.zag> wrote in message news:3CEB05B1...@zig.zag...
> Might explain why you're thinking too hard about things like Good Times.
The man doesn't *have* to think about these things. It's his bag. It just
comes to him. It's also how he puts beans on his plate. And there ain't
nothing wrong that.
Billy
alvintchase
> I was watching some TV the other night, and I caught a bit of an old "Good
> Times" episode. It occurred to me that this was really a terrible show. Does
> anyone else feel this way?
>
No,I watch "Good times" reruns when I get a chance.I think it was a
funny,good show.
Dixon Hayes
it portrayed black life, JJ especially. The irony was, when she left his
character became more grown up and responsible.
Even more ironic is your (Tom's) "limosine liberals" comment. Florida's
original role on "Maude" was supposed to address this very thing. In the first
episode, Maude hires her and insists on her calling her "Maude" instead of "Mrs
Finley" because she doesn't want to think there's a class system in her house.
She asked Florida what she would like to be called and she simply replied "Mrs.
Evans," bringing down the house (mine included).
Dixon
===========
""You know how Floyd is, he can't work those scissors and that jawbone at the
same time!"
--Barney Fife
Classic Hollywood Squares: http://www.classicsquares.com
The Wanderer
--
Buddy
from Brooklyn
http://www.geocities.com/thewanderer315/
http://the70s.cjb.net
"There are certain sections in New York, major, that I wouldn't advise you
to try to invade.' "
Humphrey Bogart as Rick-in "Casablanca"- to nazi officer.
"The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all
other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted
land."
James Baldwin
"DL" <number1...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:iahleu804g3kos7p5...@4ax.com...
The Wanderer
not to be disagreeable about it. Every one here has their own strong
opinion, as do you-whether or not I might agree with you. I just wouldn't
berate you or cast aspersions your way for thinking differently. We usually
use a tone of mutual respect when disagreeing. Case in point: my friend Tom
is a liberal professor and my friend Billy is a blue-collar Texan. They
probably have NOTHING in common and disagree on everything. And yet they do
it with that mutual respect that I spoke of. Google the past postings to see
what I mean.
--
Buddy
from Brooklyn
http://www.geocities.com/thewanderer315/
http://the70s.cjb.net
"There are certain sections in New York, major, that I wouldn't advise you
to try to invade.' "
Humphrey Bogart as Rick-in "Casablanca"- to nazi officer.
"The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all
other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted
land."
James Baldwin
"recsec" <rec...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:5GDG8.957$n%7.401...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Club Dancer
DL wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 23:45:36 GMT, Club Dancer <"funky disco
> lover"@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Antipositivist wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was watching some TV the other night, and I caught a bit of an old "Good
>>>Times" episode. It occurred to me that this was really a terrible show. Does
>>>anyone else feel this way?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I remembered liking the show as a kid, but I watched it recently on TBS
>>and found the material flat. Not as funny as I thought it would be.
>>And do they ever leave that apartment?
>>
>
> Maybe they were scared to go out due to all the violence in the
> projects! ;)
>
I'm surprised they wanted to hang around what with Candyman lurking in
the shadows.
Endy9
the points you make. However, those points do not add up to GT being a bad
show. They add up to it being a typical sitcom.
What made it a good show for me was that even on rewatching I find it a very
good comical morality play. It had:
a set of imperfect yet loving parents
siblings that teased each other but when push came to shove, displayed love
and affection for each other
comedic relief inbetween the morality themes
Sounds like you are looking more for a documentary and at that, all sitcoms
would rate an F in my book.
--
Dennis/Endy
Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your
character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others
think you are. (John Wooden)
--
http://home.attbi.com/~phleblori1/endy9/index.htm
--
Antipositivist
"Endy9" <endym...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:77MG8.5235$352.307@sccrnsc02...
> Sounds like you are looking more for a documentary and at that, all
sitcoms
> would rate an F in my book.
No, I'm not, and again, I understand that it is a sitcom, and that sitcoms
are formulaic and not necessarily realistic.
Nevertheless, my point is that "Good Times" is a particular example of a
particular sitcom in which its lack of realism can be interpreted through a
cultural filter. Using this cultural filter, one showing this a racially
divided society, "Good Times" and its construction exemplify the inherent
racism in our society. "Good Times" both affirms and negates the reality of
inner city ghetto life, just as does institutional racism. I'm not saying
"Good Times" (or TV more generally) is/was causing racism; I'm saying it
reflected it (rather than reflects upon it - it does this too infrequently).
I do, though, believe that media images may have some subtle effects on how
we think about things; how many of us, for instance, may have a mental image
of the Old West which looks something like an old western movie from the
1940s or 50s?
Jude
<Ľ@˝.ľ> wrote in message news:vp8neuo027fv3jbd5...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 May 2002 02:42:55 GMT, zeke wrote:
>
> ---snip---
>
> >Antipositivist wrote:
> >
> >> "zeke" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, you're not a limousine liberal - possibly a Pontiac liberal
(and we
> >> > all know what P.O.N.T.I.A.C stands for, don't we?).
> >>
> >> No, please enlighten me. What does P.O.N.T.I.A.C stands for?
> >
> >Hmm - should I?
> >
> >Okay, but bear in mind, that I used to own a Pontiac and this doesn't
express my
> >own views on either the car or any member of the human race......(Call me
crazy,
> >I happen to believe that blacks and whites are the same race.)
> >
> >"poor old n', thinks it's a Cadillac"
>
>
> GTO = "Gas Tires [and] Oil"
> FORD = "Found On Road Dead"
Another one is FORD= Fix or Repair Daily
> STOP sign = "Spin Tires On Pavement"
>
Jude
"Club Dancer" <"funky disco lover"@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CE9DC1...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> DL wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 May 2002 23:45:36 GMT, Club Dancer <"funky disco
> > lover"@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Antipositivist wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I was watching some TV the other night, and I caught a bit of an old
"Good
> >>>Times" episode. It occurred to me that this was really a terrible show.
Does
> >>>anyone else feel this way?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I remembered liking the show as a kid, but I watched it recently on TBS
> >>and found the material flat. Not as funny as I thought it would be.
> >>And do they ever leave that apartment?
> >>
I enjoy the first season's shows were the parents were really strong
disciplinarians and then the last season because we do see the progessive
change made in J.J. and the family's prospects were looking up--the final
episode had Thelma and her husband Keith expecting a baby and moving to a
new duplex(along with Florida) where the first floor apartment has just been
bought by Willona, the next door neighbor and Florida's best friend. So
yea, everything gets wrapped up nice and tidy. They got a finale--Archie
Bunker didn't, and neither did The Jeffersons.
Kelly
"Jude" wrote
> <Ľ@˝.ľ> wrote
> > That one's as old as the hills, here's some
others...
> >
> > GTO = "Gas Tires [and] Oil"
> > FORD = "Found On Road Dead"
>
> Another one is FORD= Fix or Repair Daily
FORD = First on Race Day
David Ballarotto
connecting the dots.
The evidence you've expressed against "Good Times" is :
P1: that it's set in a housing project, but doesn't reflect "chaos",
P2: Florida is wise, saintly, uses proper English
P3: JJ is a jive-talker
P4: The program must have been written by upper class whites
P5: Programs such as "All in the Family" dealt with racism better
C: "Good Times" is patronizing, and reflective of a racist society.
The problems we're having with your argument, is we're just not convinced.
"All in the Family" had to deal with racism in the way it did, because up
until then, few shows did (though the underappreciated Paul Henning sitcoms
certainly did do this in their own unique way). And besides, as Cleavon
Little and Demond Wilson's characters argued in the episode where they
robbed the Bunkers, well-intentioned liberal whites like Mike have no idea
what it's like living in the ghetto, despite how much they may have read
about it. But that's a point that only a ground-breaking show like AITF can
make. Any program attempting to make the same point again, is simply
redundant. (Remember the ill-fated 1980's comedy "Condo," in which MacLean
Stevenson played a bigoted condo owner who was offended when Hispanic
neighbors moved in next door? It had simply been done before.)
Next, since few of us are accepting the notion that Florida, played by
such a highly-respected actress in the African-American community, is either
a Mammy, or is unrealistic because she speaks well, then you're not making
your case. From what I know of Esther Rolle, she would have done her best
to make sure the character did not fall into simple stereotypes or become
the tool of a subliminallly racist crop of writers. When she thought JJ was
becoming too poor of a role model for blacks, she protested by leaving. As
a judge might say, you simply haven't proven your case here. The jury isn't
convinced.
I'm reminded here of the ruckus raised by some in the mid-1980s over "The
Cosby Show." There were viewers who felt the show was unrealistic because
it showed a successful black attorney, a successful black doctor, and their
happy family living in a well-furnished, large house. The Huxtables, we were
told, were poor role models, because there was no way the average black
family could really identify with them. Their skin may have been black, but
the Huxtables, we were told, were really white. (Apparently every white
family has two college educated parents who don't have to worry about making
ends meet with their five children, and have an adequate supply of sweaters
to help keep warm.)
The problem I think many of us are having, is that no matter what the
portrayal of blacks on television is, it's criticized as being unrealistic.
If we're to buy into the notion you're making, that in a divided society,
much of what we learn about others comes from media images, then I have to
go back to the point I've tried to make twice before (and which you don't
disagree with)---that media images of whites are no more realistic.
Therefore, if we're to assume that white viewers must think of the Evanses
when they think of black families, we have to assume also that a black
viewer must think of the Bradys as the typical white viewer. Do you suppose
a black colleague or neighbor of yours really thinks you solve disputes by
building a house of cards, or that your idea of fun is to have potato sack
races in the back yard? (I'm really hoping it isn't your idea of fun, by
the way.)
So the problem I have with your argument is that I don't think you've
provided enough evidence to show that "Good Times" is any worse a TV show
than any other typical program.
Court rules in favor of the defendants.
Antipositivist
> I really think you're thinking about this too much, but doing so without
> connecting the dots.
>
>
> The evidence you've expressed against "Good Times" is :
>
>
> P1: that it's set in a housing project, but doesn't reflect "chaos",
Right.
> P2: Florida is wise, saintly, uses proper English
Right.
> P3: JJ is a jive-talker
Right again.
> P4: The program must have been written by upper class whites
I'm assuming this, but I really don't know.
> P5: Programs such as "All in the Family" dealt with racism better
All in the Family did, because it laid the issues out on the table, and
pulled no punches in the process.
> C: "Good Times" is patronizing, and reflective of a racist society.
Yes, that's the gist of my argument.
> The problems we're having with your argument, is we're just not convinced.
No one is convinced? I thought Dawna said I had a point.
> "All in the Family" had to deal with racism in the way it did, because up
> until then, few shows did (though the underappreciated Paul Henning
sitcoms
> certainly did do this in their own unique way).
Okay.
> And besides, as Cleavon Little and Demond Wilson's characters argued in
the episode where they
> robbed the Bunkers, well-intentioned liberal whites like Mike have no idea
> what it's like living in the ghetto, despite how much they may have read
> about it. But that's a point that only a ground-breaking show like AITF
can
> make. Any program attempting to make the same point again, is simply
> redundant. (Remember the ill-fated 1980's comedy "Condo," in which MacLean
> Stevenson played a bigoted condo owner who was offended when Hispanic
> neighbors moved in next door? It had simply been done before.)
Perhaps, but how exactly does this negate my above points? Shouldn't Good
Times have attempted to surpass All in the Family, and been just as
groundbreaking, given its subject matter, rather than less? Shouldn't it
have tried to go beyond standard sitcom formula? I realize, of course, that
its only purpose was to be entertaining enough so as to reach a wide enough
audience to generate ratings, and thus, advertising dollars. That said, it
still could have been more groundbreaking and better written. I don't
necessarily equate quality with quantity (i.e., numbers of viewers measured
in ratings). For example, I think Happy Days was a nearly great show in its
1st year or so. But then, they dumbed it down and flattened it out, and the
show began to be much more popular. They focused on Fonzie, with his various
catchphrases, just like Good Times focused on JJ and his "Dynomite." What
could have been a good, groundbreaking show in Good Times was dumbed down
for the sake of rating success. Again, I understand why shows have to do
this; it points to an inherent tension in any commercial medium between
commerce and creativity.
> Next, since few of us are accepting the notion that Florida, played by
> such a highly-respected actress in the African-American community, is
either
> a Mammy, or is unrealistic because she speaks well, then you're not making
> your case. From what I know of Esther Rolle, she would have done her best
> to make sure the character did not fall into simple stereotypes or become
> the tool of a subliminallly racist crop of writers. When she thought JJ
was
> becoming too poor of a role model for blacks, she protested by leaving.
As
> a judge might say, you simply haven't proven your case here. The jury
isn't
> convinced.
I'm sure she is a highly respected and very talented actress. The problem
may have been one of casting, or it may have been a problem of writing, or
it may have been both. I've already made the sociolinguistic argument that
language use tends to vary by social setting. In the episode I caught the
other night, she sounded like someone who had taken (and passed with flying
colors) Public Speaking 101. That, along with her calm, cool, collected
persona on the show just strikes me as a tad artificial. Is this kind of
artificiality exclusive to Good Times? No of course not, but again, not to
keep comparing this to All in the Family, but the Bunkers (as well as many
of the other regular and semi-regular characters) had accents and quirky
speech patterns (not to mention, quirky personas). Same with the characters
on Rosanne, another program that did better dealing with working class life.
Same with The Honeymooners.
My point is that, in being so polite so as to construct Florida as a kind of
saintly "role model," rather than making her a flawed, quirky, but
essentially good, character, the producers/writers were quite possibly
giving into a more genteel sort of subtle racism. By the mid 70s, progress
for blacks (such as, in seeing themselves represented in mass media) had
gone from the liberalism of the MLK era civil rights movement to the more
revolutionary (at leas in rhetoric) black power movement. My point is, then,
that Florida Evans was constructed as still a "Negro" at a time when Negroes
had been largely culturally and rhetorically transformed into "Blacks." She
was thus a throwback to an earlier era. Did the show depict Florida
attempting to change with the times? I wonder.
I'm not finding fault with Esther Rolle for any of this. I do think that her
leaving the show was a principled act. This goes beyond her, to something in
the culture at large.
> I'm reminded here of the ruckus raised by some in the mid-1980s over
"The
> Cosby Show." There were viewers who felt the show was unrealistic because
> it showed a successful black attorney, a successful black doctor, and
their
> happy family living in a well-furnished, large house. The Huxtables, we
were
> told, were poor role models, because there was no way the average black
> family could really identify with them. Their skin may have been black,
but
> the Huxtables, we were told, were really white. (Apparently every white
> family has two college educated parents who don't have to worry about
making
> ends meet with their five children, and have an adequate supply of
sweaters
> to help keep warm.)
Oh, I wouldn't have agreed with that. Certainly there is a black middle
class. They should see themselves reflect in popular culture, too.
> The problem I think many of us are having, is that no matter what the
> portrayal of blacks on television is, it's criticized as being
unrealistic.
I think that was historically the case. Things may be different now, now
that there are more blacks in positions of relative power in Hollywood and
elsewhere in the media. We certainly didn't have anything like BET in the
media.
> If we're to buy into the notion you're making, that in a divided
society,
> much of what we learn about others comes from media images, then I have to
> go back to the point I've tried to make twice before (and which you don't
> disagree with)---that media images of whites are no more realistic.
That's often the case, I agree, but I am much less concerned about
misrepresentations of the majority group.
> Therefore, if we're to assume that white viewers must think of the Evanses
> when they think of black families, we have to assume also that a black
> viewer must think of the Bradys as the typical white viewer.
It wouldn't surprise me to think that some - who have limited day-to-day
contact with whites - do.
>Do you suppose a black colleague or neighbor of yours really thinks you
solve disputes by
> building a house of cards, or that your idea of fun is to have potato sack
> races in the back yard? (I'm really hoping it isn't your idea of fun, by
> the way.)
Well there was that one time when I accompanied by dad on my Johnny Bravo
acoustic guitar, as he recited poetry on stage. :-)
> So the problem I have with your argument is that I don't think you've
> provided enough evidence to show that "Good Times" is any worse a TV show
> than any other typical program.
Well, I tell you what; as soon as I find out when it's on, I'll watch a few
more episodes, take some notes, and do an in depth analysis. How does that
sound?
> Court rules in favor of the defendants.
Hey, wait a second? How can the court make a decision before closing
arguments?
Antipositivist
The Cosby Show Changes the Way Blacks are Viewed
by
Anthony Crenshaw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The idea of The Cosby Show which was rejected by ABC, because they felt that
America was not ready to accept the concept of an intact, black middle-class
family, was picked up by a cautious NBC that ordered only six episodes of a
show about a Black family whose parents were a doctor and a lawyer. This
soon changed, as the first episode of The Cosby Show outdistanced every
regular show on television. The stunning showing sent shock waves through
the industry. It proved it was no fluke by holding on to the No. 1 position
in the Nielsen ratings for the remaining five episodes (Johnson, 59). The
Cosby Show remained the #1 rated television show weekly, and catapulted NBC
past CBS and ABC in the weekly television ratings wars, earned the title of
"King of the Sitcoms", held the biggest audience in television, won an Emmy
Award for best comedy series, and a Peoples Choice Award all after its first
year, and most importantly of all, The Cosby Show altered the perception of
Blacks on television and doors were opened for the black television shows
that followed.
Ever since television's beginning in 1939, Blacks have often been portrayed
as custodians, maids, servants, clowns, or buffoons. These negative
perceptions started to appear in Black sitcoms such as Amos 'n Andy (1964)
and continued in the late 1970s with Good Times. For the most part, Black
sitcoms portrayed negative views of Blacks until 1984 with the introduction
of The Cosby Show. As a result of The Cosby Show, perceptions of Blacks on
television were altered. Black roles of today have come a long way since
Amos 'n Andy (where Blacks were viewed as poor and living in the ghetto).
Today, many Black roles avoid much of the racial stereotyping that was
characteristic of shows such as Beulah and Julia in the 1960s; Sanford and
Son and Good Times in the 1970s. The Cosby Show took the positive
perceptions given in most of the earlier Black sitcoms and puts them into
one show.
The Cosby Show features the Huxtable family that consists of Cliff and Clair
Huxtable, and their five children: Rudy, Vanessa, Denise, Theo, and Sondra.
"The Huxtable family projects universal values so appealing that viewers
from a wide range of ethnic and social backgrounds can identify with the
problems and triumphs of this lovable,...upper-middle class Black family"
(Poussaint, 72). The Cosby Show has dramatically altered the image of Blacks
as poor, downtrodden, yet happy-go-lucky clowns. The Huxtable family [has
helped] to dispel old stereotypes and move its audience toward more
realistic perceptions of Blacks. (Poussaint, 72)
The Cosby Show has a sense of history as a result of the grandparents'
frequent appearances on the show, and also because Clair and Cliff often
reminisce about their times at Hillman college (a fictitious historically
black college that was later the basis for The Cosby Show spin-off, A
Different World). The show took the audience into the Huxtable's everyday
life, by introducing to the audience to the children's teachers, the
parent's co-workers, and friends. The Cosby Show provided "more ethnic
awareness" in America because of its positive approach to family life and
its equally positive values and standards. (Blair, 61). The show taught many
values. Accepting responsibility, sharing or honoring possessions,
celebrating family stages and accomplishments, breaking stereotypes,
understanding feelings, facing current social problems, drugs, sibling
rivalry, teenage lifestyles, parental authority, grandparenting, and family
respect are several values that The Cosby Show introduced. It showed an
upper-middle class black family that did not live in a vacuum--something
with which most Blacks could relate.
The Cosby Show showed a successful black family with Black consciousness and
concerns in everyday Black life. "The Cosby Show presents a high level of
positive images that are far ahead of other Black sitcoms." The Black style
of the characters is evident in their speech, intonations and nuances.
(Poussaint, 74). The show mentioned famous Black authors, and books. It
showcased Black art, music and dance. It introduced America to Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) through Cliff Huxtable's
sweatshirts, and later through his spin-off A Different World.
Many argue that although The Cosby Show "attempts to break the chokehold of
such traditional black stereotypes" it does not reflect the typical Black
family or life. The domestic bliss of the Huxtable house hold is perceived
by whites as the exception to the rule of black family life, reaffirming the
notion that racism would not be a problem if only blacks were more like "us"
(The Color of Laughter, 8). Theories such as that only justify the racial
stereotypes that exist in this country. Cosby's main goal was to eliminate
stereotypes such as that one. Because Clair Huxtable was not ranting and
raving like Esther from Sanford and Son, does that no longer make her Black?
Does that make her other? White? It is also granted that Theo and the rest
of the Huxtable children hardly ever faced racism, but most people who live
in polarized metropolises, such as New York City, are not usually exposed to
racism until they go to college or into the workplace. The Cosby Show does
not reflect the recurring images that people see through the news and
television shows, but it does reflect on the Black middle class family of
the 1980s. The Cosby Show reflects on the number of Black professionals in
America that has more than tripled in the past few decades. "The Cosby Show,
just like most other shows on television, depicts only one aspect of Black
'reality'" (Poussaint, 72).
Bill Cosby along with Alvin Poussaint (who was hired by Cosby to review the
scripts in order to screen out any humor or references that demean people or
perpetuate stereotypes, prejudices, or racial antagonisms) attempted not
only to screen out stereotypes, but deliberately create positive images of
blacks and references that expand the cultural context represented by the
show. According to Alvin Poussaint, The Cosby Show used small details that
are subtle but important--it's a way of educating the whole country. (Racial
Stereotypes Persist, 12). The show mentions historically Black colleges and
universities instead of predominately white ones, uses an anti-apartheid
poster on Theo's door to represent a typical Black families view toward
apartheid in South Africa, shows the Huxtables viewing Martin Luther King's
"I Have a Dream" speech in order to celebrate his birthday, and the honoring
of freedom fighters Winnie and Nelson Mandela by naming Sondra's children
Winnie and Nelson. The Cosby Show changed the stereotypical view of the
black family on television. It introduced the Black middle class that rarely
appears on television. It changed America's view of the 'typical' Black
family and opened the doors for black television shows like A Different
World, In Living Color, Roc, Martin, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Living
Single, and others that followed.
Bibliography
Allen, Bonnie. "The 1980's: A Look Back". Essence. Dec. 1989: 82-84.
"Bill Cosby Reveals New Directions for TV Show". Jet. April 14 1988: 58-60.
"Blacks on TV: adjusting the image". New Perspectives. Summer 1985: 2-6.
Blair, C.J. "Writing about The Cosby Show". English Journal. Oct. 1988: 61.
"The changing image of the Black family on television". Journal of Popular
Culture. Fall 1988: 75-85.
Color Adjustment. Videotape. Dir. Marlon Riggs. Narr. Ruby Dee. California
Newsreel. 1991. 87 min.
"The Color of Laughter". American Film. Sept. 1988: 8-11.
"The Cosby Show Still a Hit in Its 5th Season". Jet. Nov. 28 1988: 56-60
Edmond, Jr., Alfred and Cassandra Hayes. "25 years of blacks in the
entertainment industry". Black Enterprise. Dec. 1994: 121 -3
Johnson, Robert E. "TV's Top Mom & Dad". Ebony. Feb. 1986: 29-32
Lyons, Douglas C. "Blacks and 50 years of TV: ten memorable moments". Ebony.
Sept. 1989: 70-76.
"More blacks on TV in positive roles: study". Jet. Sept. 12 1988: 58.
Poussaint, Alvin. "The Huxtables: Fact or Fantasy". Ebony. Oct. 1988:72-74.
"Racial Stereotypes persist". USA Today. August 1988: 12-13.
"TV's disappearing color line". U.S. News & World Report. July 13 1987:
56-57.
http://www.engl.virginia.edu/~enwr1016/amc2d/cosby.html
and this
Entertainment | Television and African Americans
Contributed By: Kate Tuttle
From the negative stereotypes in Beulah and Amos 'n' Andy to the "white
Negroes" in Julia and I Spy to the arguably too-perfect Huxtable family on
The Cosby Show, the majority of portrayals of African Americans on
television have been one-dimensional, distorted, insulting, or sugarcoated.
For many viewers, though, even unsatisfactory images seem preferable to the
general absence of black television characters during television's early
days. The history of the depiction of blacks on television has evolved from
near invisibility broken by a parade of stereotypes to greater diversity and
realism, but most critics agree that the medium has far to go.
The Early Years
Commercial television was born in 1948 as each of the three major networks,
ABC, CBS, and NBC, began broadcasting. 1948 was also a significant year in
African American history, with the desegregation of the United States armed
forces and an endorsement of civil rights in the presidential platform of
the Democratic Party, headed by President Harry S. Truman.
But black presence in the early years of television followed the pattern
earlier set by radio. In fact, the first two series starring African
Americans both came to television after decades of popularity on radio, and
each replaced white radio actors with black actors. Beulah, which showcased
a supporting character on the popular Fibber McGee and Molly show, debuted
in 1950. As played by Ethel Waters, Hattie McDaniel, and Louise Beavers on
television, Beulah was cast in the stereotypical mold of the happy,
overweight, black female "mammy." Cheerfully caring for the white family who
employed her as housekeeper, Beulah had little discernible life of her own
(although the cultural critic Donald Bogle points out that the interaction
between Beulah and her long-time boyfriend provided some of the show's best
moments). Beulah ran until 1953, when protests by the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other groups forced the
network to cancel the series.
Amos 'n' Andy, which ran from 1951 to 1953, was based on the most
listened-to radio show of the 1930s and 1940s. Unlike Beulah, Amos 'n' Andy
portrayed an all-black world in which the shiftless, joking Andy (played by
Spencer Williams) and the passive, long-suffering Amos (Alvin Childress)
interacted with characters depicting the entire range of stereotypical black
images. Its roots in the tradition of minstrelsy caused the NAACP to launch
lawsuits and boycott threats that were instrumental in causing the show's
cancellation. Speaking in the documentary Color Adjustment, written and
directed by Marlon Riggs, the actress Diahann Carroll remembers being
forbidden to watch Amos 'n' Andy, which her parents felt was demeaning to
blacks. But some modern critics have praised the show's intricate and
sophisticated comedy and lauded the actors, many of whom came from the black
vaudeville tradition. After the series was cancelled, it continued to appear
in syndication until 1966.
Other black images in 1950s television included variety shows, which
occasionally featured African American entertainers. Duke Ellington, Cab
Calloway, Paul Robeson, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, and others appeared
on shows hosted by veteran white entertainers such as Ed Sullivan, Milton
Berle, and Steve Allen. But no African American had his own national variety
show until 1956, when The Nat "King" Cole Show premiered. Cole, who had
hosted a radio program in the 1940s, was urbane, elegant, and considered
nonthreatening by white viewers. His show featured both white and black
entertainers, including Pearl Bailey, Count Basie, and Mahalia Jackson, and
was a great source of pride for black viewers starved for positive African
American television images. But with the deepening racial tensions of the
1950s, Cole had difficulty attracting corporate sponsors, especially after
some white viewers became outraged when Cole touched the arm of a white
female guest. The show was cancelled after one season.
Civil Rights and the "White Negro"
One arena in which African Americans appeared on television beginning in the
1950s, and reaching a peak in the 1960s, was in the serious documentaries
about rural poverty, segregation, and the growing Civil Rights Movement. In
addition, as the white segregationist backlash exploded into violence
throughout the American South, "images of black people dominated the news,"
according to the writer and scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. Seen as a noble,
almost saintly figure, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., whose marches in
Selma, Birmingham, and Montgomery, Alabama, heightened white America's
awareness of the Civil Rights Movement, became black America's spokesperson
on television in the eyes of many newly sympathetic white viewers. By
contrast, some black leaders were treated harshly on television. Malcolm X
was the subject of a documentary titled The Hate that Hate Produced (1959),
which did little to dispel white fears of the Nation of Islam leader.
At the same time, as television news shows began to report seriously on
racism and the fight for civil rights, television's entertainment programs
became even more overwhelmingly white. Since its birth, the medium had
avoided controversy, possibly offensive to viewers (and advertisers). During
the 1960s, as protests rose against both racism and the Vietnam War,
programming became less and less realistic. (For example, some of the most
popular shows on television at that time featured witches, genies, and other
escapist fantasy). As the cultural critic J. Fred McDonald pointed out,
comedies such as Petticoat Junction and The Andy Griffith Show, both set in
the South, portrayed all-white worlds in which prejudice seemingly did not
exist.
When black characters did appear, network executives crafted the most
inoffensive, blandly perfect images possible. I Spy (1965-1968), which
starred Bill Cosby and Robert Culp as an interracial team of secret agents,
presented Cosby's character, Alexander Scott, as a Rhodes scholar, an
elegant sophisticate whose education was superior not only to the vast
majority of African Americans but also to nearly all whites. Julia
(1968-1971) featured Diahann Carroll as a widowed nurse and single mother.
Carroll's character was bland, bleached of all evidence of black culture.
Derided as a "white Negro" by critics, and suspected of being played by a
white actress in darkening makeup, Carroll's Julia never encountered poverty
or racism. Still, Julia was, according to African American actress Esther
Rolle, "a step above the grinning domestic."
Designed to overcome negative stereotypes, such series presented "fully
assimilable black people," according to Gates. In an era that featured so
few black representations in the mass media, even positive images were
heavily scrutinized by African Americans and usually found wanting. Shows
like I Spy, Julia, and the action series Mod Squad and Mission Impossible
(each of which featured black costars) clashed with the reality of most
African Americans' lives. But attempts to present a more balanced picture,
such as the short-lived dramatic series East Side, West Side (1963-1964),
usually failed quickly. Starring James Earl Jones and Cicely Tyson, East
Side, West Side featured sophisticated writing and provocative situations
depicting both ghetto life and the pain of integration. The show lasted only
one season.
Relevance and Roots
By the late 1960s television began to emerge from its fantasy world to
present programming more in touch with the reality of the tumultuous times.
The first comedy series to deal with race was All in the Family, (1971-1979)
a show with a mostly white cast. At its head was Archie Bunker (played by
Carroll O'Connor), an unrepentant racist, bigot, and homophobe. While some
felt that Archie's use of racial slurs amounted to condoning prejudice, most
saw the series as an important move toward realism, particularly in terms of
race relations, on television (the Bunkers' next door neighbors were a black
family whose characters were later featured in a popular spinoff series, The
Jeffersons, which aired from 1975 to 1985.
One of the most dramatic changes came in children's television, which had
been a wasteland in terms of black images. Starting in 1969 the public
television series Sesame Street showed children and adults of a variety of
racial and ethnic backgrounds interacting and learning. Fat Albert and the
Cosby Kids (1972-1989) was an animated version of children and events from
producer Bill Cosby's own Philadelphia childhood. More shows followed,
including cartoons based on the adventures of the Jackson Five and the
Harlem Globetrotters.
Produced by the All in the Family team, Good Times (1974-1979) was the first
television comedy to focus on a poor black family, one including both father
and mother, living in the midst of a vibrant, diverse black community. But
social relevance gave way to echoes of the minstrel character Stepin
Fetchit, as the show increasingly revolved around the buffoonish character
of JJ, the elder son. According to Esther Rolle, the actress who played JJ's
mother, "negative images have been quietly slipped in on us" through the
clowning, wide-eyed JJ.
Although the 1970s saw a dramatic rise in the number of television shows
built around black characters, most made no pretense of seriousness or
realism. Sanford and Son (1972-1977) starred the veteran comedian Redd Foxx
as an irascible junk dealer and Demond Wilson as his long-suffering son.
Despite the implied social relevance of its ghetto setting, the show was
vintage 1970s escapism. Its wide popularity derived in part from its self-aw
are use of stereotypical aspects of black humor, elaborate insults, shrill
women, scheming men , and it inspired a succession of inferior shows,
including Grady (1975-1976), Baby I'm Back (1978), and What's Happenin'
(1976-1979), which critics dubbed "the new minstrelsy."
No dramatic series starring a black actor aired until the 1980s. But it was
in drama, made-for-television movies and miniseries, that some of the most
significant television images of African Americans emerged in the 1970s. The
Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman (1974), starring Cicely Tyson, was hailed
as "possibly the finest movie ever made for television." The movie, a series
of flashbacks, is set in 1962 and traces Pittman's life from her childhood
in slavery to the civil rights era she lived to see (the character is 110
years old). Its climactic scene features Pittman bending to take a sip from
a whites-only water fountain.
Roots, which aired over eight nights in 1977, was a television event not
only for African Americans but for all Americans. The highest-rated
miniseries ever, Roots, based on Alex Haley's book about his family's
history from freedom in Africa to slavery in the American South, attracted
an estimated 130 million viewers. According to the cultural critic Marlon
Riggs, Roots was presented as an immigrant tale that white audiences could
relate to, "transforming a national disgrace into an epic triumph of the
family and the American dream." Although carefully crafted to appeal to the
white audience (it was reported that the actor LeVar Burton, who played
Kunta Kinte, was nearly dropped from the project because producers thought
his lips were too large), Roots was nonetheless a stirring and powerful
drama. It was also a showcase for many black actors, including Burton, Louis
Gossett Jr., and Cicely Tyson.
Material Success
By the late 1970s no obvious color line remained in television. Black actors
appeared in soap operas, as costars in dramatic series, and as the focus of
comedies. In the wake of Roots, several television movies, including King
(1978), Roots: The Next Generations (1979), and Attica (1980), featured
African American historical themes. But most depictions of blacks in
television continued to follow the pattern of either high-minded history
lesson or low-rent stereotypic comedy. Rarely allowed to exist as fully
realized human beings, some of the most popular black characters of the
early 1980s were wisecracking black children adopted into white families,
the situation in both Different Strokes (1978-1986) and Webster (1983-1987),
or, as in earlier television history, loyal sidekicks to white heroes.
When The Cosby Show debuted in 1984, it won enthusiastic reviews and a loyal
audience, both black and white. Focusing on a loving, intact, successful
African American family, The Cosby Show starred Bill Cosby and Phylicia
Rashad as the upper-middle class parents of five children. Like the white
families in 1950s television, theirs was a caring, supportive unit that
blended humor with wisdom. Cosby, who had long criticized the negative
portrayals of African Americans in television, consulted psychiatrist Dr.
Alvin Poussaint in writing and producing the program, resulting in a
positive, almost educational tone. The top-rated series for many of its nine
seasons, Cosby, according to critic Patricia Turner, reinforced "the notion
that the Civil Rights Movement took care of all the racial inequities of
society."
One series that attempted a more balanced depiction was the short-lived
Frank's Place (1987-1988), about a black professor who inherits a New
Orleans restaurant. Tim Reid, who had previously costarred in WKRP in
Cincinnati, produced and starred in Frank's Place, which he said reflected
his desire to see blacks portrayed not monolithically but with the full
range of humanity. Although the well-written show won an Emmy Award, it was
cancelled after one season.
Like Cosby and Reid, a rising number of African Americans began working
behind the television camera in the late 1980s, resulting in a flowering of
black-themed shows. A Different World, which spun off from Cosby and was
produced by Debbie Allen, depicted life at a historically black university.
Others included Quincy Jones's Fresh Prince of Bel Air, starring Will Smith,
and In Living Color, produced by Keenan Ivory Wayans. In Living Color, one
of the then-new Fox network's first hits, brought freshness and irreverence
to its humor, much of which was based on racial stereotypes (the show's
outrageousness reminded some critics of The Flip Wilson Show, which ran from
1970 to 1974).
Fox, which also produced Living Single, Martin, and South Central, was the
first network to focus so much energy on attracting black audiences with
shows featuring African American actors. Some critics, among them Frank
Reid, charged that the Fox shows merely perpetuated the old, negative
stereotypes, this time in the lingo of the hip hop generation. (One Fox
series, Roc, with a brilliant ensemble cast culled mostly from August
Wilson's stage play Fences, escaped this criticism.) But with the increasing
fragmentation of the television audience, caused in part by the growth of
cable television, black viewers responded eagerly to the new black shows.
Another venue for television geared exclusively to the African American
community came of age in the early 1990s. Black Entertainment Television
(BET) capitalized on music videos, sports, and reruns of black-focused
series to attract a nationwide audience.
Black programming was lucrative because it appealed not only to the black
audience but also to whites, especially white youth, increasingly enamored
of black culture. Michael Jordan and other basketball stars became some of
corporate America's favorite spokespersons, and white teenagers took their
fashion and language cues from rap musicians. The success of African
Americans Arsenio Hall and Oprah Winfrey in late-night and daytime talk
shows led to dozens of imitators, both black and white. In addition, Winfrey
produced and acted in The Women of Brewster Place, a 1988 miniseries based
on Gloria Naylor's novel, and in 1998 produced the television adaptation of
Dorothy West's The Wedding, among other made-for-television projects. A
cultural phenomenon and one of the richest people in America, Winfrey's
naturalness, warmth, and pride in her African American culture have found
favor with both blacks and whites.
By the late 1990s more African Americans than ever were involved in the
television industry, some in executive and production roles. Taboos against
interracial sex and other forms of social equality had eroded. But there
were still no prime-time dramatic series devoted to telling the stories of
black Americans, and many of the images seen by black children (who are
estimated to watch television at a rate 64 percent higher than the national
average) continued to perpetuate limited stereotypes.
http://www.africana.com/Utilities/Content.html?&../cgi-bin/banner.pl?banner=
Arts&../articles/tt_178.htm
David Ballarotto
"Amos 'n' Andy" is 1964. That's completely wrong. The television version of
the program aired for only two seasons, 1950-51, and 1951-52.
A very good book I can recommend for you, Tom, if you're interested looks at
the history of that program from a sociological perspective, called "The
Adventures of Amos 'n' Andy," written by Melvin Patrick Ely. Despite the
rather pedestrian title of the book, it's used as a textbook in many
universities in their black studies departments. It's easily available from
www.half.com for a few dollars.
I really wish Horace Stewart's (a/k/a "Nick O'Demus") granddaughter, who
has posted here in the past, would offer her perspective on this. As I
noted elsewhere, Stewart played the character Lightnin' on the TV version of
"Amos 'n' Andy."
At any rate, the point I almost forgot to make here was the television
version of the show presents an interesting portrayal of blacks. The main
characters, already firmly established, were played in the way most viewers
had expected them to be. But the peripheral characters, who were also all
black, spoke perfect English, were not stereotypical, and looked like they
lived in the same neighborhood as the Cleavers and Andersons, except
everyone was black. The judges, police officers, shop owners, and so on,
were all black, and didn't speak in the "I is, you is, we is" English of
Andy and Kingfish.
Check out the book, because I really think you'd enjoy it, and it would
also provide some important background as you look at "Good Times."
recsec
"The Wanderer" <rosieon...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:k6GG8.35735$Db5.10...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> Dick, you ARE a hoot.
So then Buddy what you are really saying is Dick is good!! LOL!! I had to
say that!! I swear, I just kill me sometimes!!
Billy
Antipositivist
of topics really interest me.
It's been fun debating here. You guys, and you in particular David, are good
debators.
Tom
"David Ballarotto" <ba...@stargate.net> wrote in message
news:ueo7vsp...@corp.supernews.com...
The Wanderer
Turning my words around like that makes me feel the same way that you do
(see above-lol). But back on the subject: I dont know how I fel about dick.
I've never tried it. But some people (females) who would know about these
things speak highly of me. I am quite knowledgeable about the other thing,
though.
--
Buddy
from Brooklyn
http://www.geocities.com/thewanderer315/
http://the70s.cjb.net
"There are certain sections in New York, major, that I wouldn't advise you
to try to invade.' "
Humphrey Bogart as Rick-in "Casablanca"- to nazi officer.
"The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all
other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted
land."
James Baldwin
"recsec" <rec...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:zwVG8.1553$F63.43...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
The Wanderer
good job all by yourselves. And, because I can kind of see both side of that
argument. I thought (at the time) that it was a good (meaning "not great"
but decent) show that showed some poor, black, project dwellers who were
just trying to get by. As time went by I (and I started hanging with people
who lived in the projects) I came to lean in the direction of Tom's
argument. But, without trying to be diplomatic (please dont let anyone say
THAT about me) I do see it from both perspectives.
--
Buddy
from Brooklyn
http://www.geocities.com/thewanderer315/
http://the70s.cjb.net
"There are certain sections in New York, major, that I wouldn't advise you
to try to invade.' "
Humphrey Bogart as Rick-in "Casablanca"- to nazi officer.
"The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all
other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted
land."
James Baldwin
"Antipositivist" <anti...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:l5WG8.1688$4J1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
x
> And, one thing that we do around here is disagree (frequently), we just try
> not to be disagreeable about it. Every one here has their own strong
> opinion, as do you-whether or not I might agree with you. I just wouldn't
> berate you or cast aspersions your way for thinking differently. We usually
> use a tone of mutual respect when disagreeing. Case in point: my friend Tom
> is a liberal professor and my friend Billy is a blue-collar Texan. They
> probably have NOTHING in common and disagree on everything.
I don't know - that seems like a fairly offensive statement. Just what do you
think that says of your opinion of "blue-collar Texans"? They're not well
educated? They're right wingers?
I suppose you could be making a statement about "liberal professors" too - given
that many of my friends are blue-collar Texans, I'd say it must reflect pretty
badly on them.
> And yet they do
> it with that mutual respect that I spoke of. Google the past postings to see
> what I mean.
>
Yawn - this is usenet, not an ice cream social.
x
>
> That one's as old as the hills, here's some others...
>
> GTO = "Gas Tires [and] Oil"
> FORD = "Found On Road Dead"
> STOP sign = "Spin Tires On Pavement"
Or the Fiat (Fix it again, Tony).
The Wanderer
disagreed before and realizing that they are just different types of people
from different backrounds and places-both geographically and politically.
And, in so far as the "Ice Cream Social" goes.....well, we just try
to get along in this group. Maybe you're just too used to other Usenet
groups; where getting along is the really odd occurence. If you like that
sort of group this isn't it. We actually pride ourselves on the civility
exercised around here. We might just be too dull for you.
--
Buddy
from Brooklyn
http://www.geocities.com/thewanderer315/
http://the70s.cjb.net
"There are certain sections in New York, major, that I wouldn't advise you
to try to invade.' "
Humphrey Bogart as Rick-in "Casablanca"- to nazi officer.
"The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all
other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted
land."
James Baldwin
"x" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:3CED8D1F.DF62060E@y.z...
x
> Well, Billy and Tom are probably not offended by my statement having
> disagreed before and realizing that they are just different types of people
> from different backrounds and places-both geographically and politically.
> And, in so far as the "Ice Cream Social" goes.....well, we just try
> to get along in this group. Maybe you're just too used to other Usenet
> groups; where getting along is the really odd occurence. If you like that
> sort of group this isn't it. We actually pride ourselves on the civility
> exercised around here. We might just be too dull for you.
>
Well, I can understand being civil (note the total absence of flaming you for
top-posting), but I really don't think zeke went off on anyone too harshly.
Telling someone that their chosen field explains why they're "thinking too hard"
about '70s sitcoms really doesn't seem that bad.
I think you just need to get to know zeke (Sorry to keep referring to myself in
the third person, but I guess I changed my preferences again, so I'm not really
zeke at the moment).
Cheers
The Wanderer
or bottom posting: we dont have any set rules or preferences on that. I know
that I find bottom posting tedious, personally. If I'm going to read a
response on my Outllook and the person has bottom posted then I have to take
the time to scroll down. With top posting (and being regular in my reading
the NG), since I have an idea of what is being responded to: all I have to
do is go into the posting with taking the trouble to scroll. Takes half the
time for me. Just IMHO.
--
Buddy
from Brooklyn
http://www.geocities.com/thewanderer315/
http://the70s.cjb.net
"There are certain sections in New York, major, that I wouldn't advise you
to try to invade.' "
Humphrey Bogart as Rick-in "Casablanca"- to nazi officer.
"The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all
other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted
land."
James Baldwin
"x" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:3CED9636.922FB69D@y.z...
recsec
> Well, Billy and Tom are probably not offended by my statement having
> disagreed before and realizing that they are just different types of
people
> from different backrounds and places-both geographically and politically.
I pray to God every night that I NEVER GET offended by being called:
1. Blue Collar - Cos it's a decent, hard workin' way to make an honest
dollar. A hard day's work for a hard day's wages. There AIN'T a DAMN thing
wrong with that!!! No what I mean???
2. Texan - Be my collar white or blue I was born a Texan & will die a Texan.
I may not go to Heaven tho. I don't know if they let cowboys in.
Being a Union man I, as Buddy & others in here, would NEVER object to being
called a Blue Collar Texan or New Yorker or what ever state my Brothers &
Sisters are from. It's true that I didn't go to college but I did graduate
high school. Walked across the stage on 5-22-80 I did. I will readily tell
ya that I don't claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer now. But I
ain't the dullest in there either.
Believe you me Buddy, you gonna have to try long & hard to offend me now.
And I *know* you dig what I say here to dude!!
And my buddy Tom is as liberal as the can get but I wouldn't want to see him
any other way now!! See Zeke, Tom & I are on opposite sides of the political
fence. And we both know it. And we both accept it. And we have NO problem
with each other cos of it either. No man there ain't to many words out there
that can 'offend' me now. Least of all the ones you claimed that Buddy did
to me. It's more of an action towards or against me that will get me riled
up!!
Like the song says "There's no place that I'd rather be than right here,
with my Redneck, White Socks & Blue Ribbon Beer!!"
Billy
recsec
> >just kill me sometimes
>
> Turning my words around like that makes me feel the same way that you do
> (see above-lol).
O if you could just see the shit eatin' grin on my face now dude!!! :-))
LOL!!!!!
But back on the subject: I dont know how I fel about dick.
> I've never tried it. But some people (females) who would know about these
> things speak highly of me. I am quite knowledgeable about the other thing,
> though.
Uhhh. . .well then. . .I'll just have to take yer word for that
Billy.
The Wanderer
collar, UNION, working men, from what ever state-and whatever party) are the
backbone of this country and DAMNED FUCKIN' PROUD OF IT. And, for your
further knowledge Zeke-my friend, if Tom is the leftist/liberal and Billy is
the rightist/conservative then I fall somewhere in between. I am not a
middle of the roader but I try to see the merits of all sides before
judging. And then I come up somewhere left of Billy but somewhere right of
Tom, while never managing to be a centrist. As I said earlier: we have a
great divergence of opinion. We'd rather stand up tall for our own personal
opinion than to tear down the other guy. It's a constructive sort of thing
we do here. Join us.
--
Buddy
from Brooklyn
http://www.geocities.com/thewanderer315/
http://the70s.cjb.net
"There are certain sections in New York, major, that I wouldn't advise you
to try to invade.' "
Humphrey Bogart as Rick-in "Casablanca"- to nazi officer.
"The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all
other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted
land."
James Baldwin
"recsec" <rec...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:1SqH8.2601$pz2.70...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
MartiDave
>My Union brother, spoken quite eloquently, and right to the point! We (blue
>collar, UNION, working men, from what ever state-and whatever party) are the
>backbone of this country and DAMNED FUCKIN' PROUD OF IT. And, for your
>further knowledge Zeke-my friend, if Tom is the leftist/liberal and Billy is
>the rightist/conservative then I fall somewhere in between. I am not a
>middle of the roader but I try to see the merits of all sides before
>judging. And then I come up somewhere left of Billy but somewhere right of
>Tom, while never managing to be a centrist. As I said earlier: we have a
>great divergence of opinion. We'd rather stand up tall for our own personal
>opinion than to tear down the other guy. It's a constructive sort of thing
>we do here. Join us.
Wow this is cool where do I fit in? I am a liberal left winger who spent many
years in management.I came from a conservative family and went to a
conservative college. I voted republican until I was 25, then I stared voting
Democrat. I'm a pacifist, but my brother is a Major in the Army. I am truly
confused I suppose. But you guys in this group seem to accept it.
Dave
The Wanderer
--
Buddy
from Brooklyn
http://www.geocities.com/thewanderer315/
http://the70s.cjb.net
"There are certain sections in New York, major, that I wouldn't advise you
to try to invade.' "
Humphrey Bogart as Rick-in "Casablanca"- to nazi officer.
"The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all
other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted
land."
James Baldwin
"MartiDave" <jun...@aol.combos> wrote in message
news:20020526002750...@mb-fo.aol.com...
Maritza Soto
> I was watching some TV the other night, and I caught a bit of an old “Good
> Times” episode. It occurred to me that this was really a terrible show. Does
> anyone else feel this way?