What is she mixed with?
-
knight_sentinel — 15 years ago(January 10, 2011 05:49 AM)
If she were looked at as just black, this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.
There are many black female actors on this site and you won't find this a topic of discussion. I've never seen that question asked of the model and actor Beverly Johnson, Diana Ross, or Chaka Khan who hasn't aged well and is only a few years younger than Ms. Grier and is the same age as Beverly Johnson.
I think some people have a need to have validity that a black woman can only be beautiful if she's mixed, and that is why they ask these questions, and I've seen post by people I can only assume who are white that say they don't find black women attractive but they do think women like Halle Berry, Alicia Keyes who are both mixed race.
I've never heard anyone post anything like this about Aretha Franklin either.
I don't look at the race to decide if I think someone is attractive.
Unfortunately the question will always be asked somewhere.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good. -
knight_sentinel — 15 years ago(January 10, 2011 05:34 PM)
It was asked once before but threads get deleted by the administrators fi they're the same topic, and if you search the internet you'll find it's been asked before, you may even see a few websites if they're still around that have a list of black entertainers listed as being either mixed or not mixed.
If you look through the threads even one of the posters states they had posted a link to an article awhile back for a similar thread.
I've seen post like this on a lot of black female actors and musicians pages on the site, obviously some of them clearly are mixed it's even in their bio.
Trust me, this stuff gets asked about a lot on this site, even with white female actors who aren't black but to some people apparently look black to these people, whatever looking black is suppose to be I guess.
Go over to Nia Long's page on this site, someone posted whether she might be mixed with Asian, I guess it's possible, but I think she's stated at least one of her parents came from Trinidad and it has had British, French, Dutch and Courland travelers come through those islands, but Trinidad unlike Tobago has always been under British rule.
It's an odd topic for someone to bring up, I always comment when I run across them because i just find it odd that people want to know what race or ethnicity someone is descended.
I usually ask the OP why they're asking, and I've never once gotten a reply back. I didn't ask on this one because the other post about the same topic had been deleted.
Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good. -
marbleann — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 09:49 AM)
I wanted to add that Pam has been caught lying about her relatives a few times. She is related not only to Rosie Grier but also to David Alan Grier. In bio for the L Word she states that and in a few other places. Well a while back she said she was not related to Rosie Grier and didn't even know him and had no idea where that rumor came from. Well that is is lie. Take a look at link below. So I would be very suspect about her talking about her ethnicity. She never said she was anything but a black woman until it became vogue to be mixed.
http://blast-from-thepast.com/blog/?p=843 -
knight_sentinel — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 10:27 AM)
I heard them both say they were related in the past, I've never seen or read an interview where she talked about being mixed, actors say a lot of things to further their careers, I just don't get why I constantly see people asking if an attractive black female actor is mixed because she's beautiful.
Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good. -
marbleann — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 10:51 AM)
I agree with most of what you stated with the exception of one thing. Yes I think women were much younger when they got married back then but I am not 100% sure( I think I read the difference in age was not much different then it is now so I have to look that up again). But in any case we are talking about a slave holder. And the idea of him having sex with his slave is to make more slaves not to start a family. She was a companion for his daughter and a person he owned and did not grant freedom to as he promised for christ sake. The whole thing is just unseemly.
The reason why white people ask if a pretty black person is mixed is because some white people want to believe they had something to do with their looks. They not only ask about pretty or handsome black people but successful black people too. They cannot believe you can just be black and be successful, or good looking or both. It is a White Supremacist theory. And some black people ask because of the psychological damage of them believing also that white is better and better looking. It is sad but true.
As I stated in my message before if you are light skin and controversial or a criminal or have done something that white society does not approve of they never question if the person is mixed. How many times have you read or heard the question is Ice T mixed or anybody claiming that Malcolm X is mixed or the rapper T.I. who is very light skin is he mixed? No questions about them. So that is why I know the question is racist because these white folks only want to credit if the person is light skin or beautiful, successful and have not broken any of the rules. Look at how all of a sudden Vanessa Williams is now mixed but no one wanted to claim that when she got in trouble. Believe me if Halle Berry got caught in some drug dragnet, she would be just another nggr too and she is really half white. That is how obvious the hypocrisy is. -
knight_sentinel — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 11:23 AM)
They were having sex with these women to make more slaves, why would you make your own children slaves, they usually worked in the house and were still slaves legally, but they weren't treated as1354 slaves.
Slaves owners used other slaves to make more slaves, that's one of the things they would do at slave markets, and younger slaves especially men were sold based on their youth, strength, and to make babies.
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, with ultimate goal to raise the age to eighteen; the campaign was successful: by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen.
Although these same women weren't just doing this because they thought it was wrong, it's because men wanting children would take younger wives of child bearing age these women are typically the ones who were what they used to call spinsters who were beyond the age to have children or have uncomplicated pregnancies, yet they did still want to marry, but because the country was an agrarian based society a man without children to help him on his farm would be at a disadvantage when it came to having help, especially if he had to pay for farm hands, where another competing farmer could use his own children to work the farm. Besides marrying off a young daughter was a way to get a son in law to help out on the farm or ranch.
Like I stated I don't judge history by today's standards because things were different and laws were different.
There are still countries and Africa is one of them where young daughters are sold as a dowry to a suitor, I was asked many years ago by an African businessman my company did business with if I wanted to visit his village and pick a young wife, he stated that my being a successful black man in the U.S. would allow me to have my pick of available young women that his tribal elders picked out for me, I was 33 at the time and the gentleman was probably in his mid to late 50s, and he was promised the woman he married when she was around 14, he married her when she was 15 she stayed in Africa while he worked in the U.S.., she eventually came over some time later. I declined his offer by the way, i always liked older women when I was younger, and I wouldn't want a teenage girlfriend or wife.
Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good. -
marbleann — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 12:10 PM)
They were having sex with these women to make more slaves, why would you make your own children slaves, they usually worked in the house and were still slaves legally, but they weren't treated as slaves.
Free them. Simple as that. They had money send them up north, or to France. Anywhere. Get them away from slavery. That is what a parent would do if they wanted to protect their child5b4ren, not keep them as slaves. You think these slave owners wanted to keep their children close to them? Well how come they did not claim them at least and leave them some of the land and money they had like they did their white children? You act like these were normal nice people. Yes who would keep their children as slaves indeed? You think being a house slave was ok it might have been a little better then being a field slave. But they still are slaves. Read about the house slaves, they were not living just a little bit better. You think they have their own bedrooms in an the main house? You think if they did something wrong they would not be out in that field in a second. Or something happened to their white sibling they are in charge of watching. Like getting sick, they would not be blamed and sent to the next auction block sale. Or the wife got a wind and did not accept a child or a relationship with a slave that slave would not be sold in a drop of a hat? You ask who would treat their own children as slaves. A person who owned people and made them work for no wages and sell them at a market place when they could not work anymore. A person who would not allow slaves to keep their families intact because it was illegal for slaves to marry. Yes a monster. -
knight_sentinel — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 02:01 PM)
Why would they have freed them? This isn't the way people behaved back then and slavery was legal, African took slaves on that continent and did the very same things to people who were the same race and color but from a different tribe,
African tribes still fight each other all those Rwandans were murdered by other Rwandans.
I can tell you're one of these people judging history by today's standards, it's a moot point, and Sally Hemings' children were5b4 freed as most slave owners freed certain slaves.
I don't have a problem with how people were behaving back then it's the past, and besides people who wait to be freed as slaves will always be slaves, people who want to be free fight for it.
How do you know that they wanted to leave the only home they had known, most of the freed slaves actually stayed where they were at, they didn't own anything and had no money.
Also Sally Hemings' brother also went to France with her, and both he and Ms. Hemings were paid wages, slaves aren't paid wages, they're slaves because they work for free. it's also documented that ms. Hemings' children were allowed to stay at the house and perform light work.
"Jefferson-Hemings Report" (PDF). Thomas Jefferson Foundation. 2001-01. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070713105024/http://www.monticello.org/pl antation/hemingscontro/jefferson-hemings_report.pdf
.
This is from section 7.
Sally Hemingss children had unique access to freedom. (Appendix H)
Jefferson gave freedom to no other nuclear slave family. No other
Monticello slaves achieved their freedom before the age of thirty-one (except for Critta Hemingss son James, who ran away).
Harriet Hemings was the only enslaved woman freed in Jeffersons lifetime, and she was freed when she was twenty-one years of age. The liberation of Sally Hemingss children cannot be wholly attributed to Jeffersons practiceas reported by his granddaughter Ellen Coolidgeof granting freedom to those light enough to pass for white or skilled enough to make their way as freed people, since there were other Monticello slaves, as light-skinned or as skilled, who were not freed.
Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good. -
marbleann — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 04:31 PM)
I know that. That is why I mentioned they could of freed their children of slavery and sent them far away from it and I used France as a example. He had to pay them because slavery was illegal in France. He paid them about 2 bucks a month. But I know they did not get one red cent when they came back to this country, Today the ancestors of Sally Hemings IS Still trying to recognition from the Jefferson family.
There is nothing like Freedom that is what the slave strived for. Yes we know all these colonized countries in Africa are having problems. And it is wrong. But slavery in this country was wrong and dehuminizing. Black people in this country still suffer psychological damage that trace back to the roots of slavery. Jim Crow is not that far ago in our past. Second class citizens. You will set your children free if you cared about them. You would never keep them in bondage. Those slave owners who did not give their children freedom were self serving and selfish and monstrous. Case closed. -
knight_sentinel — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 09:03 PM)
Again your 5b4judging people and attitudes from the past, the article I gave as a reference clearly backs up what i stated the reason they weren't freed is because they would not have been hired to work anywhere, .
If you're going to judge the past by your standards and beliefs today.- Where were these freed slaves going to go?
- Who was going to pay them to do work, if you were getting someone to work for you for free, would you turn around and start paying them? Most of the farms made the profits they made because of slavery, they had people who were working for free. it's why multi-national corporations set up manufacturing facilities in places like China, Vietnam, and Mexico etc., to avoid paying wages that people could live on to survive in industrialized countries like the U.S. the people aren't slaves, but a sudo slave class, on average in China workers make about $0.50 to $0.60 cents per hour and that's at fairly decent companies.
- Even after slavery ended the only thing most of the freed in the slaves south could do to survive was to become sharecroppers, they were paid but you can hardly call what they were making a fair wage.
- The article clearly stated that slaves that were freed usually could pass for white or had skills to make it in society, be realistic if they couldn't read or write and there were laws against teaching slaves these things what were they going to do to live their li16d0ves and support themselves?
Most of them could not read, and who was going to pay for their education?
Even in the late 60s and early 70s there were people who were living in the south who were sharecroppers and they couldn't read or write proficiently enough to do anything else but be sharecroppers like their parents before them.
It's easy for you to judge history and say what these slave owners should have done, but to look at it logically and logistically, you would have had a lot of unemployed uneducated people in society.
The Chinese tried to move their people from an agrarian society at one time, and the people revolted because they didn't have enough people working on farms to grow food because they were required to work in factories, the Chinese learned the hard way that you just can't put a large number of uneducated people out into society without enough work and resources for them to support themselves and their families, it cost money to educate thousands of people.
I don't agree with slavery or taking advantage of people to make a buck, but slavery has existed all over the world even in Africa, they arrested a couple here in the U.S. who were not white who had a young girl working in their house as a slave. Not to mention all the stupid Asian massage parlors, that are just sex slave operations.
"I could, as a free man, look across the bay toward the Eastern Shore where I was born a slave, I didn't know I was a slave until I found out I couldn't do the things I wanted." - Frederick Douglass
-
marbleann — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 09:27 PM)
Are you actually saying to me that it would of been preferable for a slave to remain a slave instead of gaining his freedom? I hope you are not. If one remains a slave there would be no chance of them to go further in life. If a slave is given freedom they would have a chance to go further. There were plenty of freed slaves that did very well. Funny the system of slavery created conditions that that made it impossible for a slave to learn anything. So if a person remained a slave they would never have a education. Nor a family. I cannot believe you really believe that. And I do not care what year or century we are talking about it is never better being enslaved no matter what opportunities that are available or not. With your logic black people would never go to college because what is the need to go to college if no colleges in the south accepted black people. Or why try to be a doctor, there were no med schools that accepted black people. Yes we should just remain uneducated and ignorant because at the time there were no opportunities. Well see the lack of opportunities creates opportunities. School were segregated and were not equal. So people rose up and made sure the law was changed to undo segregation. Law schools and Med schools did not accept black people so years ago people fought for them to do so and now they do. I cannot believe you feel because there were a lack of opportunities for free slaves it would be better for them to remain slaves. Crazy.
-
knight_sentinel — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 11:06 PM)
At that moment time yes. why are you judging the past, and it's not crazy, it's stupid to judge people for the way they believed and behaved in the past. Since you can't change it. i think all slavery is wrong, but they weren't going to free a bunch of people that for all intents and purposes would not have been able to make a living to support themselves.
Yes they were better off, to gradually be integrated into society, and the U.S. found this out years later when the great depression hit, most of the whites who were affected the hardest by the depression were poor uneducated, unemployed, illiterate and undesirable and it gave rise to bank robbers like Bonnie and Clyde, and John Dillinger the difference was they were allowed to have weapons, where black slaves were not.
Black slaves didn't own and were not allowed to own guns so they couldn't fight for their freedom and that is only way slaves become free, if a slave waits to be freed they'll die a slave, they couldn't read or write. Are YOU seriously telling me that they would have been better off just being set free all at once. that would have had disastrous effects for everyone. The slave owners didn't have the money to pay them, that's was the whole point in owning slaves. saving money on labor.
So if they were freed, and I'll ask you again since you failed to answer the question who was going to pay them to work?
After having them work for free. who was going to pay to educate them no one, they were slaves they didn't own anything so how was just setting them free going to do them any good?
The slaves who were freed in the south after the Civil War were had nowhere to go, and nothing to do except become sharecroppers working the same land they had as slaves, where they ended up giving most of the wages they earned back to their former slave owner, they also paid the former slave owner rent to stay in the homes they had lived in as slaves, they were basically still slaves, and they were still uneducated, and most lived in poverty with just the bare essentials to live. part of the problem with Black slaves is that they waited for someone to free them, and when they were "JUST FREED" after the Civil War as you claim they should have been all along, they still behaved like slaves, and it set up the conditions that didn't change until the race riots.
I'm sure there is nothing like being a free man with nowhere to go, and in essence not being free, I can remember seeing the bathrooms and water fountains in the south that had whites only, and that was in the late 50s and and early 60s. how much better would it have been for a bunch of uneducated, illiterate former slaves if they had just been set free into a world that didn't want them?
It's easy to spout out the rhetoric, but it's not logical, and history has proven that the freed slaves didn't know what to do with themselves.
People who just what change instantly are the most dangerous, they don't think things out long term or what the long term ramifications will be, they just make excuses afterwards as to why something didn't work, when they were told beforehand what the outcome would be.
You keep saying this stuff but you aren't answering my questions you keep spouting out what they should have done.
It's easier to just tell some one they should or could have done something, it's not so easy to have a logical viable solution without thinking it through first. Knee jerk reactions to a problem never work and always make things worse.
Most of these slaves weren't educated, again what were they going to do to SUPPORT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES?
The conditions were what they were.
It still doesn't change the fact that there would still be a large percentage of the population who would have been uneducated, unemployed, and undesirable.
Again, your judging the past, by your way of thinking NOW. You can't do that people didn't think this way. and in the future there will be people like you who will judge the world by whatever standards they have in the future.
I live in city where marijuana is legal, 10 years ago this would have been something that was unacceptable. The law changed because people attitudes changed, and the only reason attitudes toward slavery changed was because societal ideas were starting to change.
If you were getting something for free right now, and someone stated, you now have to pay for it, would you still want to pay for it after getting it for free all this time. That's not human nature.
Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Freedom means you are unobstructed in living your life as you choose. Anything less is a form of slavery. - Wayne Dyer
They could have just freed them, but as Mr. Dyer's quote clearly demonstrates the slaves freed after the Civil War were obstructed and were still slaves for all intents and purposes, yes they were free, but they had no money to leave or go anywhere else. Someone lik -
marbleann — 15 years ago(January 12, 2011 08:00 AM)
There is no justification for keeping anyone in slavery. You can quote a million people and write a thousand lines. And nothing you will say will ever justify keeping a person in bondage simply because the lack of opportunities. I never heard of anything so outrageous. Tell me when is there ever a plethora of opportunities for a slave? Remember most of the history of slavery were written by white folks. Of course it was self serving to This was not like in Roman times the slave got money and a chance to own property. There is nothing more then I can say other then you must of been looking at too many Gone With the Wind type movies. Because no person would ever believe something like that unless they condoned people being treated like animals. You act like the slaves were treated nice. And l16d0ived under good conditions.
With your logic during the first half of the 20th Century abused women should of never left their hubby's because there was a lack of opportunities, society frowned upon that and she had no where to go in most cases. And today a lot of abused women have no place to but they leave with their children even if it is a shelter. Or abused women do not believe they are abused because they are so use to bad treatment they think it is ok. Sort of like the attitude many slaves had.
Or let's keep the Jews in the concentration camp because if they were let go there would be no homes or jobs to go back to And if you think being a slave is not as bad as being a a abused wife of in a concentration camp doing forced labor you really have a skewed vision of slavery. The fact is they were not getting paid anyway and they lived in atrocious conditions. So at least free them so they could at least try to find opportunities and indeed they did. There is no justification for your position. -
knight_sentinel — 15 years ago(January 12, 2011 08:39 AM)
Again you're judging people who are dead, and believed differently than YOU, it's history and it's over, but people like yourself are more condemned to repeat these mistakes because you're not looking at it as HISTORY, YOU"RE judging by your beliefs NOW!
The bible itself clearly states it's alright to take slaves, I'm an atheist, but people during Jefferson's time, before his time and after he was long dead took things in the bible literally, and they BELIEVED it was the right thing to do at that time because the bible stated the taking of slaves was justified.
History is meant to be learned from not judged.
The 15th century Portuguese exploration of the African coast is commonly regarded as the harbinger of European colonialism. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" to hereditary slavery which legitimized slave trade under Catholic beliefs of that time.
Source: Allard, Paul (1912). "Slavery and Christianity". Catholic Encyclopedia. XIV. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm.
I'm black and I'm an atheist which means I'm an unbeliever, and for those two reason I would have been a considered someone who could legitimately become slave back "THEN", times have changed as have people's attitudes, but even in "THIS TIME" they're are still people who believe and carry out crimes in the name of religion.
Which is what these Christians were doing when they decided that slavery was a legitimate business. Mr. Jefferson was a deist.
Honestly you sound angry over something that has been long dead buried and over with for over a century.
"I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past." - Thomas Jefferson
"We are not makers of history. We are made by history." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again. - Maya Angelou -
marbleann — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 09:08 AM)
Knight I agree completely. My question is if she is mixed what is Rosie Grier, the football player? Also I noticed publicist always want to push the mixed ethnic thing so white audiences will find black people more palatable to watch. See because white folks cannot get into their heads that a person can just be a black person if they are pretty, smart and rich. Some reason they feel if we are any of those things we have to have white blood in us. They are responsible for it. Notice they never ask about black people who look Asian. What I feel is hypocritical, if you you do something white folks do not like you are just a nggr. Look at Malcolm X and Ice T. No one is trying to hijack them into the white race. See because those two have espoused opinions that are controversial. Ice T writing Cop Killer permanently bared him from getting a invite to the white race. Vanessa Williams is all of a sudden mixed but when she was Miss America and they caught her making those nude pictures she was just another nggr. But she was able to rehabilitate herself from that fiasco by becoming a successful singer and actress so she all of a sudden has a invitation to the white race. Look at Tisha Campbell, certainly light then Pam Grier or most black people. But because she doesn't have the typical white features of long hair and thin lips, no one is calling her mixed. Barack Obama has turned into a black man from a mixed man ever since those crazy Republicans have been on his case from the day he took office. Now he is a black devil with ties to Muslims.
Another thing I want to add is in the 60's when Pam Grier was making all of those sexy movies and white folks would put blaxipolitan flicks down. THose movies were the laughing stock of Hollywood, nobody was talking about her being mixed. Now because of that moron Quentin Tarantino she is respectable. But before she was just a black woman who took her clothes off in movies. Since a white man Quentin approves of her she is ok.
One last thing to the person or persons who talked about that slave holder pedophile Tommy Jefferson having a love relationship with a slave. Listen she was his subordinate and she was a child. She was sent to Paris to be a companion for his small daughter. The fact that she was part white and was very light did not keep him from keeping her a slave. He mother was a slave who was raped by a ship captain. The only reason she returned to the US, because she would of been free if she stayed in France is because Tommy promised her and the child she was carrying freedom. Something that never came to after his death. This was not a love relationship. He did not even free his slaves as he promised he would do with their children. The fact is we do not even know if they had all of those children because he never acknowledged them. Yeah sounds like a stand up guy to me. If he was not the President of the US and if her family did not try so hard to get recognized as Jefferson's(which they are still fighting) he would of been just another slave master taking advantage of one of his slaves. You think somehow because he was a President he was any different then the other slave masters? Do you think most of them were not having multiple children with one of their slaves? They had concubines. Oh and why didn't he give her freedom? Did he set their children up comfortable somewhere up north away from the clutches of slavery? No. He did not even give them the freedom he promised them. Because he wanted to keep her a subordinate. It had nothing to do with love. He was a monster. And I am ashamed to say he was the President of this country and you should be too. Some of you folks have this sick fantasy about black women in slavery having consensual sex with their slave master. You all need to get some help now. Do you think a 45 year old female teacher fooling around with a 15 year old student is a love relationship? People go to jail for that. So why do you think a 13 year old SLAVE is going to have a love relationship with her master? -
knight_sentinel — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 10:20 AM)
I had mentioned Thomas Jefferson because the actor Robin Givens had claimed and even played character that was suppose to be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, several years ago their were DNA test done to try and verify the actual descendants, ti's is list in county records that some of the mixed race children Thomas Jefferson fathered looked white, and it is true he did not free any of his slaves until he died, which was usually what happened in the north, when a slave owner died, I believe Samuel Adams did the same with his slaves when he died.
You are right about those blaxploitation films, the only ones who made any real money off of them were the studios that made them, and they were seen as laughable by Hollywood, but then again so were "B" movies made by whites actors in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s and to some extent still are except they're called straight to video.
I'm not ashamed that Thomas Jefferson was a President he was actually very foresighted, and I don't judge history by today's morals or standards, it was legal to have a young girl as a wife back then, one the the suitors sent to be a possible husband for Queen Elizabeth I was only 10 or 11 year old boy, but he was heir to one of the thrones in Europe.
Older men were usually the ones who were established and they usually married young girls who had reached puberty to give them heirs, and you also had young teenage boys and girls who also wed, and usually stayed with their parents. In most cases this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.
It seen as necessary since the culture was an agrarian society and most people lived and worked on farms having a large family to work it was required so as soon as boy or girl were of marrying age they were encouraged to marry, and the same was held for slaves, a young child baring teenage girl could give the slave owner young potential slaves or slaves to be sold or traded.
You can't judge history or people for things that were socially and legally acceptable. It was legal for a girl to marry at 12, 13 and 14 and well into the early part of the 20th century most the laws didn't start to change until the 1920s when most states changed the age of consent to 18. You also have to remember people didn't live that long, it was almost unheard of for someone to live to be in their late 70s, 80s and 90s, and 40 and 50 were considered to be old. So people started early and died young by today's standards.
Well I've always maintained that blacks that are more acceptable looking by whites in the entertainment industry do much better. I like Halle Berry but I think there are more talented actors that are considered to be black than Ms. Berry but they aren't going to get as much work as she gets, and since she gets a lot of work it allowed her to showcase her talent and win an Oscar, but if more black actors were given the opportunity to do those roles I believe they would be just as good if not better and receive the same accolades.
There was a black reporter who did a series about this very subject, Alicia Keyes, Nia Long, and some other female entertainers were interviewed and Ms. Long's stated it was hard for women in general because they only have a short time to establish themselves before they were perceived to be old, and it was even harder for black female actors, experience and perception in the entertainment business was very different from Ms. Keyes he asked Ms. Keyes if looking the way she looked helped her get more acceptance universally and she stated yes, she's very talented but like the reporter stated would she be as acceptable if she were darker skinned? He even held up pictures of successful black female entertainers and most of them were what whites perceived as beautiful.
I wish i could remember the series because it was online earlier last year and it was very informative and revealing. It was aired shown on PBS.
I also found it interesting when he asked a white director and producer what type of films sale better and he stated people always like love stories, and when asked which sold better when it came to inter-racial relationships he stated a white male attractive lead, and a black light skinned attractive female stories always do far better than a black attractive male and and attractive white female, and he stated that is just the way it is in Hollywood, and this producer /director was born and raised in another country and became a citizen in the U.S. but even he stated he had always seen differences in how Hollywood perceives it can make money and with whom they can make money.
Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good. -
leroyol — 15 years ago(January 12, 2011 02:29 PM)
Just saw the repliesmy appologies, didn't mean to word it like that knight_sentinel. I just got a little frustrated but its cool, I read your retort and I agree with the part where you made the comparison to Tyra Banks and Beyonce and how "people" try to do that.
Im cool with it for some reason (I guess because she isn't saying she's mixed with 1/3 Irish, 1/8 Scotish, and all that other BS like some black celebs do LOL. I can understand honoring your heritage, but when people say"Im not black" (Im speaking to you Kid Cudi lol) it pisses me off too.
AnywhoI know where your coming from tho
"I have a lot of energy. I'm a lot stronger than most people." -Rutger Hauer