not much speech given, represented in a bad way, or taken the mick of not amny of them shown if any.
U.S. television since then made sporadic attempts to address these particular white-black issues, such as Roots, The Cosby Show and through a proliferation of black newscasters at the local level, but all the while cleaving steadfastly to three traditions. These are, firstly, the continuing virtual invisibility of Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans. Indeed, some studies indicate that for decades Latinos have hovered around 1 to 2% of characters in TV drama, very substantially less than their percentage of the public. Secondly, the tradition of color-segregating entertainment changed but little. Even though from the latter 1980s Black shows began to multiply considerably, casts have generally been white or black (and never Latino, Native or Asian). Thirdly, the few minority roles in dramatic TV have frequently been of criminals and drug addicts. This pattern has intensively reinforced, and seemingly been reinforced by, the similar racial stereotyping common in "reality TV" police shows and local TV news programs. The standard alternative role for African Americans has been comic actor (or stand-up comic in comedy shows). Ram'rez-Berg (1990), commenting upon the wider cinematic tradition of Latino portrayal, has identified the bandit/greaser, the mixed-race slut, the buffoon (male and female), the Latin lover and the alluring Dark Lady, as six hackneyed tropes. (If Latinos are given more TV space, will the first phase merely privilege the audience with negative roles in a wider spectrum?) Let us examine, however, some prominent exceptions.
Roots confounded the TV industry's prior expectations, with up to 140 million viewers for all or part of it, and over 100 million for the second series. For the first time on U.S. television some of the realities of slavery--brutality, rape, enforced de-culturation--were confronted over a protracted period, and through individual characters with whom, as they fought to escape or survive, the audience could identify. Against this historic first was the individualistic focus on screenwriter Alex Haley's determined family, presented as "immigrant-times-ten" fighting an exceptionally painful way over its generations toward the American Dream myth of all U.S. immigrants. Against it too, was the emphasis on the centuries and decades before the 1970s, which the ahistorical vector in U.S. culture easily cushions from application to the often devastating here and now. Nonetheless, it was a signal achievement.
The Cosby Show was the next milestone. Again defeating industry expectations, the series scored exceptionally high continuing ratings right across the nation. The show attracted a certain volume of hostile comment, some of it smugly supercilious. The fact it was popular with white audiences in the South, and in South Africa, was a favorite quick shot to try to debunk it. Some critics claimed it fed the mirage that racial injustice could be overcome through individual economic advance, others that it primly fostered Reaganite conservative family values. Both were indeed easily possible readings of the show within contemporary U.S. culture. Yet critics often seemed to think a TV text could actually present a single monolithic meaningfulness or set up a firewall against inappropriate readings.
popular as the black man was a educated doctor with money and living a very healthy life.
prince of belair- upper class black family rich lifestyle, happy family, lawyer so again educated. also argue will smith was coming from a not so good background shows both sides of the environment.
black people often shown as sidekicks.
popular as the black man was a educated doctor with money and living a very healthy life.
prince of belair- upper class black family rich lifestyle, happy family, lawyer so again educated. also argue will smith was coming from a not so good background shows both sides of the environment.
black people often shown as sidekicks.