Chris Rock recently hosted the Oscars, drawing attention to the lack of black actors among those nominated.
Right out of the gate, his opening monologue blistered that obvious oversight, calling the Oscars "the white people's choice awards."
He continued: "If they nominated hosts, I wouldn't even be here. And ya'all would be watching Neil Patrick Harris right now."
Rock was funny, brash and painfully truthful. He did a stand-up job at skewering the fact that there were no black actors nominated. But he also begs the follow-up question that diversity goes beyond one particular color.
In fact one of the skits during the Oscars involved Rock introducing a group of Asian-American kids on stage as junior accountants, using them to make fun of a stereotype among this group.
I'm not sure of Rock's reason for being part of this unfortunate bit, but it wasn't funny. And it ultimately was counterproductive to the argument that he had been making.
The bottom line was that he scored no points by stereotyping another group in response to a massive slight on the part of the Oscar nominating committee towards his own race.
Diversity needs to be inclusive, or it isn't diversity.
This is simply how diversity works.
Especially in the US these days, some candidates for national elected office make no bones about showing their extreme lack of understanding of this issue.
Some candidates seem to think it's socially acceptable to belittle ethnic groups. But candidates that puff themselves up at the expense of others aren't worth our vote. Including those who court the attention of Christian-leaning folks, while encouraging us to hate each other.
I recently read a very powerful post by an evangelical who attended a rally of the front runner for their party. The writer was not a supporter of this candidate, but wanted to get an understanding of why others were supporting the party's front runner.
The evangelical was frightened at the sheer force of the hatred in the crowd and how the candidate stoked it.
From the writer's perspective, the candidate could have cared less about the people in the crowd and in fact, spent most of the speech talking about his own accomplishments while freely ridiculing his opponents. It was painfully obvious, from where the writer stood, that the candidate's supporters were woefully mistaken if they thought the candidate had the slightest bit of empathy for them or would care about their welfare if elected.
Please don't take my word for it. You can go to youtube and take a good look at any of this candidate's victory speeches to date. They all show a complete lack of empathy for anyone except the candidate.
While this front-runner is causing extreme embarrassment among his party's establishment, the second-in-line is not much better, and possibly worse. (The second-runner led a misguided attempt to shut down the federal government a few years back. As a result this candidate could find only a single senator who will endorse him. Making one wonder: If this person becomes his party's candidate, how is he going to build any sort of consensus to overcome legislative gridlock within his own party, let alone all of Capitol Hill?)
The bottom line of it is that diversity helps promote empathy. And in a multi-ethnic country that seeks to remain civil and functioning, it's necessary.
It's noteworthy to add that the evangelical who wrote the post about visiting the leading candidate's rally ended by calling for faith (as in God) to lead the way towards hope. After considering the alternatives, I'd have to cast my vote for faith and hope as well.
P.S. In case you missed it, here's a clip of Rock's opening.
Photo credit: www.personnel.ky.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment