Eastenders is set in East London which is filled with non white people, why should they be applauded for properly representing the area? Like shouldn't it be expected?
Because of the last sentence of my post:
Quote:
However there are still far too many shows with a ratio of 10:1 white cast members to black, or 10:1 straight people to homosexuals, etc.
Too few shows represent diversity in a realistic way.
So are we to assume that all examples of non-white, non-straight, or non-cisgender characters are universally "forced" and not "natural to the story?"
There are cases where minorities are included for the sake of pure tokenism and nothing else. The characters are usually either little more than two-dimensional caricatures and/or are otherwise forgettable background players. Those are quite irksome.
It's becoming less common, though, at least from what I've seen.
If they are going to cast a diverse group, PLEASE stop with the same old ass roles.
For example my friend wrote a paper on Latinos in the media and we are either: the hos/heartbreakers, the loud/intimidating ones, naive immigrant or a criminal
That's what I mean. It's forced because they're cast in stereotypical role. Ain't nothing wrong with diversity, but putting them in stereotypical roles does more harm than good because it will enforce these roles to general public.
You can have diversity without stereotypes. If stereotypes is your issue, change the thread title.
There are cases where minorities are included for the sake of pure tokenism and nothing else. The characters are usually either little more than two-dimensional caricatures and/or are otherwise forgettable background players. Those are quite irksome.
It's becoming less common, though, at least from what I've seen.
I admit, it's getting better (due to the crazy amount of tokenism in the 90's), but there's a long ways to go.
The Walking Dead did a good job. The asian guy is the most positive role model right now in terms of tv, I can't think of any other asian guy in television that isn't a walking stereotype. Michonne is a straight up badass in a good way.
In its first season, the asian character was basically under the radar, rarely had her own solos and was treated basically like a minor character. The two main characters who had all the solos were the white attractive ones. Mercedes was the curvy black female who could sing but wasn't the star. Don't get me started on the gay one.
It ridiculously enforces the stereotypes we have of races (at least in season 1). Why couldn't an asian guy play the football jock that turns into a singer? Why couldn't a black girl be the main love interest and star of the show? Why couldn't the gay one be not flamboyant? Just because there is diversity in a cast doesn't mean that it solves the undercurrent problems we have.
You've completely missed the point of Glee if this is the conclusion you've come to regarding the show. Glee purposely gave their characters labels and stereotypes at the start of the show, only so that they could be overcame later on. The characters were meant to be super broad with their traits, so that everyone could connect to at least one character. I'm black and gay, and I could connect with Mercedes and Kurt. Sorry, but I could.
I'm not sure how much of Glee you watched, but a lot of stereotypes were thrown to shame during the course of the series; and some were even embraced, as they should be. Yes, Mercedes was a sassy black woman, but why in the hell shouldn't she be? That's who she is, that's who a lot of people are. However, we learn that there's A LOT more to her story than just that. Which is what Glee is about, realizing there's more than meets the eye. Lots of people assume black women are just "sassy" - and Glee's intent was to say, sure, that black girl may be sassy, but she's more than just that.
I mean, if you didn't get this from Glee, then you got it all wrong.
You can have diversity without stereotypes. If stereotypes is your issue, change the thread title.
That's why I changed it to "one of each" diversity. The problem lies with media creating this idea that you need one of each type to advance the general public's image on different cultural groups, but it ends up enforcing the negative stereotypes in the long run.
So are we to assume that all examples of non-white, non-straight, or non-cisgender characters are universally "forced" and not "natural to the story?"
In opinion, I think the colour of skin is a good reason (for example if a collective is shown, there should be asian, afroamerican etc. people as well). However I don't think sexuality shloud play a role in chosing characters. Because the equality can go further and further (fetishists etc.). It really has to stop somewhere. I'm not saying that it shoudn't be shown, if the makers want it, but it shouldn't be a rule definitely.
Tokenism is annoying, but the only thing that's forced is having only white actors in a show. I'm tired of seeing white people represented everywhere, in everything. It's about time to have POC represented in at least a third of US media, since we're about a third of US population, and more than that for world population. But no, we're like 99% white everything, and people think that's a coincidence
Well I think I sort of get what you're sayinnow. Mercedes being the "sassy black girl" w/ not much depth, character development or back story, Brittany being the "dumb blonde" and cheerleader, Santana being the "spicy Latina" that switches between English and Spanish when she's angry and threatening to cut people, Kurt being the feminine gay boy that loves Gaga and Madonna, Rachel being Jewish w/ a big nose, Tina being the "smart Asian" since she was class president and what not. Like that you mean? If so, you worded it wrong. I don't like characters that are walking stereotypes either.
The swift backfire of this thread I get what you're trying to say though. There's a difference between having a diverse cast and having a cast which is clearly doing the bare minimum in terms of diversity to pass as socially acceptable. Like, there's a soap here in the UK called Eastenders which has won a ton of awards for it's progressive approach to diversity among its cast and representing a wide spectrum of cultures and lifestyles because there are quite a lot of Asian characters for example. However there are still far too many shows with a ratio of 10:1 white cast members to black, or 10:1 straight people to homosexuals, etc.
To be fair, London is only about 60% white people (and decreasing fast), so it would be quite disturbing if EastEnders had a cast of 90%+ white people.
It is forced because over 60% of the country is white. So I would expect to have 60% white characters, 30% black, and the other 10% with the other minority groups
If it's something like Grey's Anatomy in which Shonda used actual colorblind casting techniques, then YES! If it's done only to be politically correct then it annoys me.
g
I get what you're trying to say though. There's a difference between having a diverse cast and having a cast which is clearly doing the bare minimum in terms of diversity to pass as socially acceptable. Like, there's a soap here in the UK called Eastenders which has won a ton of awards for it's progressive approach to diversity among its cast and representing a wide spectrum of cultures and lifestyles because there are quite a lot of Asian characters for example. However there are still far too many shows with a ratio of 10:1 white cast members to black, or 10:1 straight people to homosexuals, etc.