Racialicious

Racialicious is a blog about the intersection of race and pop culture. Check out our updates on the latest celebrity gaffes, our no-holds-barred critique of questionable media representations. If you've been on the blog, you know how this Tumblr works, too. Including the moderation policy.
Recent Tweets @
Posts tagged "interracial relationships"
niwandajones:

alienswithankhs:


This production marks the first time in 36 years that the play has been produced for Broadway. This version of the classic tale, according to press notes, “will retain Shakespeare’s original language but have a modern setting in which members of the Montague family will be white, and the Capulet family will be black.”
According to producers, “In this new production, the members of the Montague household will be white, and the blood relatives of the Capulet family will be black. While race defines the family lineages, the original cause of the ‘ancient quarrel’, passed down by successive generations to their young, has been lost to time. Shakespeare’s dramatization of the original poem sets the two young lovers in a context of prejudice, authoritarian parents, and a never ending cycle of ‘revenge.’ Against this background, the strength of their love changes the world.”

1. I didn’t know Phlicia Rashad had a daughter
2. making romeo and juliet and interracial couple is like the most boring fucking way to spice up romeo and juliet. 

I get really frustrated when people decide to make R&J “relevant” by casting the two families as members of modern ethnic that are experiencing conflict. Not just because it’s boring and overdone and never as insightful as the directors and producers think it is.
It’s because the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets is explicitly a stupid bullshit pissing match between two powerful families that no one else takes seriously (and that even some members of the family think is silly).
So anytime someone decides to make R&J “relevant” by making those families black/white or Israeli/Palestinian or something along those lines, they a) undermine the seriousness of those conflicts by implying that a little kumbaya can prevent the deaths of young people, and b) erase the fact that, unlike the Montagues and Capulets, one of those real world groups is invariably guilty of violence and oppression against the other. 

niwandajones:

alienswithankhs:

This production marks the first time in 36 years that the play has been produced for Broadway. This version of the classic tale, according to press notes, “will retain Shakespeare’s original language but have a modern setting in which members of the Montague family will be white, and the Capulet family will be black.”

According to producers, “In this new production, the members of the Montague household will be white, and the blood relatives of the Capulet family will be black. While race defines the family lineages, the original cause of the ‘ancient quarrel’, passed down by successive generations to their young, has been lost to time. Shakespeare’s dramatization of the original poem sets the two young lovers in a context of prejudice, authoritarian parents, and a never ending cycle of ‘revenge.’ Against this background, the strength of their love changes the world.”

1. I didn’t know Phlicia Rashad had a daughter

2. making romeo and juliet and interracial couple is like the most boring fucking way to spice up romeo and juliet. 

I get really frustrated when people decide to make R&J “relevant” by casting the two families as members of modern ethnic that are experiencing conflict. Not just because it’s boring and overdone and never as insightful as the directors and producers think it is.

It’s because the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets is explicitly a stupid bullshit pissing match between two powerful families that no one else takes seriously (and that even some members of the family think is silly).

So anytime someone decides to make R&J “relevant” by making those families black/white or Israeli/Palestinian or something along those lines, they a) undermine the seriousness of those conflicts by implying that a little kumbaya can prevent the deaths of young people, and b) erase the fact that, unlike the Montagues and Capulets, one of those real world groups is invariably guilty of violence and oppression against the other. 

(via blacktheatrix)

A little extra for your Thursday, Racializens. 

inthylove:

Lloyd Owen & Heather Headley in The Bodyguard A New Musical

(via blacktheatrix)

sarraounia:

Idrissa & Irina, scene from October by Abderrahmane Sissako

Set and shot in Moscow, October features a black African student, Idrissa, who is about to leave Russia, and his white Russian girlfriend Irina, who has recently become pregnant. The impending departure makes interaction complicated, and isolation and solitude increasingly overwhelming. Though centred on the couple, October’s non-linear plot – predicated on ellipsis, silence and the psyches of its characters – also calls to account Russian society for its indifference towards and rejection of interracial love. As October unfolds, Idrissa seems unwilling to continue with a traumatic relationship while Irina faces the dilemma of whether or not to get an abortion. Furthermore, Sissako uses the film’s circular plot to play skilfully with time (present, past and future). Thus, as October progresses, questions arising in the viewer’s mind include: does Idrissa know of Irina’s pregnancy? Have Idrissa and Irina managed to re-connect physically and mentally? Do they or will they manage to do so? Does Idrissa actually leave Russia? Is the whole film not a surreal experience? Rather than providing answers to such questions, October’s narrative cleverly emphasizes them.

By Dr Saer Maty Ba 

(via blackfilm)

Baby realness for your Thursday, Racializens. 

Baby realness for your Thursday, Racializens. 

Grace Lee Boggs, the 97-year-old feminist, activist, and philosopher, was born in the United Stated in 1915 to Chinese immigrant parents. Boggs earned her PhD in 1940; these credentials were no shield against discrimination based on her Chinese ancestry. When Boggs married African American activist James Boggs, over a decade before the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage, she made the choice to add his name to her own. Their marriage would last until James Boggs’ death 40 years later.

In observing debates around the politics of naming, especially when it comes to gender, I often think of Boggs. Someone who knows little of her life and politics, or of intersectionality, might judge Boggs’ last name as an acceptance of a patriarchal naming tradition that privileges men. But is it?

The argument could also be made that by adding the last name of her black husband to her own Chinese name Boggs was putting into personal action the political solidarity between people of color traditionally pitted against one another by white supremacy. Perhaps her acceptance of the name was even a revolutionary act that flew in the face of the laws of a country that said race must determine whom you choose to love?

Or maybe, in 1953, a deeply political Chinese American woman marrying a black man simply had bigger fish to fry than worrying about her last name? Of course, these arguments are just as much speculation as the first. Still, I’d argue it is Boggs’ life-long record as a thought leader in the labor, civil rights, women’s rights, and environmental justice movements that actually defines her identity.

Boggs put into action hooks’ concept of ideas over identity long before the rest of us even started talking about it. That’s an example that could do us all some good.

—In all of the recent controversy about what women should and shouldn’t be doing with our last names, I think Dr. Sarah Jackson echoes my sentiment. Check out what she said on the R today!

afrokinkx:

你有没有在做梦? Are you dreaming?

你有没有在穿东西? Are you wearing anything?

你有没有梦过这心话? Have you ever dreamed of these words?

你好。Hey.

我爱你。I love you.

我爱你。I love you.

(via fuckyeahinterracialromancenovels)

image

This collaboration has been a minute in the works but, considering the cumulative—and sometimes contentious—conversations we have about the subject on the main website, we at the R couldn’t think of a more appropriate film to co-promote with Maysles Cinema.

A summary of The Loving Story, from the Maysles Institute’s website:

This Oscar-shortlisted film is the definitive account of the landmark 1967 Supreme Court decision that legalized interracial marriage: Loving v. Virginia. Married in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 1958, Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter returned home to Virginia where their marriage was declared illegal—he was white, and she was black and Native American. Hope Ryden’s luminous, newly discovered home movie footage of the Lovings and their feisty young lawyers and rare photography by Grey Villet are stitched together in the debut feature by Full Frame Documentary Film Festival founder Nancy Buirski in a film that takes viewers behind the scenes of a pair of unlikely civil rights pioneers and their real-life love story.

The R’s Associate Editor Andrea Plaid will moderate the post-showing discussion this Sunday, December 16. The movie starts at 7:30PM, and the chat will start about 8:45PM.

Check out the R’s main site for what the critics are saying and the chance to win two free tickets to Sunday’s showing and discussion, and check here for more info. See you Sunday!

mayslesinstitute:

Well-timed and well crafted in equal measures, The Loving Story is a thoughtful, terrifically intimate account of the case that dismantled this country’s anti-miscegenation laws 100 years after the abolition of slavery. The story of Virginia couple Mildred and Richard Loving’s efforts to live and love each other freely captures a critical moment in a civil rights movement whose most recent strides—for same-sex marriage—are just a few weeks old. First-time director Nancy Buirski’s focus on the constitutional tangles that brought Loving v. Virginia before the Supreme Court in 1967 also complementLincoln’s warm, wonky embrace of the democratic procedural. A wealth of archival footage gives The Loving Story an oddly modern quality.

—Michelle Orange, “The Loving Story,” 12/5/12

Maysles Cinema is pleased to be the theater to premiere Nancy Buirski’s documentary. The movie runs from now until Sunday, 12/16. 

Those who will attend tomorrow’s showing will get the extra treat of talking with Buirski after the film. For more details, check here.


(via mylovelylifelongings-deactivate)

Arrianna: Also, the dynamic of Fitz telling Olivia that she was not his Sally Hemings was … interesting. It’ll take more thought for me to unpack that.

T.F.: Yea, it’s not really his call to make, is it? I’m also intrigued that Shonda has Olivia be the one to invoke the Hemings reference. To be honest, her throwing Sally Hemings in Fitz’s face was the first time I found their romance remotely interesting.

Anyway, I’m not sure who we’re supposed to side with in Fitz and Liv’s exchange. Having the heroine of the show raise the issue invites viewers to identify with her to some degree, but I think we’re also meant to see Fitz’s side of things as well — that he’s in this untenable position of having found the love of his life, but being unable to act on it in any honorable way, and apparently also unable to not act on it.

Which personally I think is a load of crap. Sure, he’s in a tough position as president, but there’s very little about Fitz/Liv’s relationship that says “great love” to me. It may very well be that they can’t stay away from each other, but that isn’t necessarily love. More like toxic and codependent.

I couldn’t quite figure out why I raised my eyebrow at Shonda Rimes’ dropping the Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson reference on Scandal. Check out T.F. Charlton’s and Arrianna Conerly Coleman’s take on the rather questionable exchange between the show’s Olivia Pope and President Fitz Grant on the R today.