Afrofuturism and the Paradox of Oppression
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- This video looks at a problem for writers and artists called the paradox of oppression, about the portrayal of oppressed groups in fiction and how techniques from Afrofutruism can help to resolve it.
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Andy Capone, Andreas Froestl, The Jack Bancroft, Jakey, Andrew Sullivan, Eugene SY, Tyler James, Antoinemp1, Dennis Sexton, Joao Sa, Joshua Furman, SirSpammenot Multitude, Ploney, Avatar, Diéssica, GhostlyYorick, Hendrick McDonald, horace chan, Will DeRousse, Star Gazer, Paul Linkogle, Julian Seidl, Doǧan Çetin, Thomas Kristic, Panos Tsivi, Jesse Willette and Daniel West. Thanks for your support on Patreon! If you want to become a patron, follow this link: / carneades
Here are some videos you might enjoy:
The 100 Days of Logic ( • 100 Days of Logic (Full) )
History of Philosophy ( • Four Weeks of Famous P... )
Ancient Philosophers & Zeno’s Paradoxes ( • Schools of Ancient Gre... )
ExPhi Experimental Philosophy ( / @experimentalphilosoph... )
Map of Philosophy ( • The Map Of Philosophy )
More videos with Carneades ( / @carneadesofcyrene )
Philosophy by Topic:
Epistemology: • Epistemology
Metaphysics: • Metaphysics
Political Philosophy: • Political Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion: • Philosophy of Religion
Ancient Philosophy: • Ancient Philosophy
Philosophy of Science: • Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language: • Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Art/Aesthetics: • Philosophy of Art (Aes...
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more!
![How Did The Wealthy Gain Power In The Past? - Yuval Noah Harari [2015] | Intelligence Squared](/img/1.gif)
One possibility I'm surprised was not mentioned is that a single work can feature multiple characters and so show different aspects of the experience of people of an oppressed group simultaneously, one character's story focusing on aspects unrelated to the oppression of their group, and another focusing on (or at least illustrating) that oppression. Of course that has to be handled carefully so it doesn't just look like "oh see, these people CAN live perfectly fine non-oppressed lives if they just make the right choices like this one and unlike that one".
Also, a story can feature members of an oppressed group in a realist fashion where the oppression exists in their world, but isn't the focus of the story. The story is set in a world where oppression occurs like it really does, but just as an oppressed real person would likely not describe their life first and foremost in terms of their oppression but instead focus on their unique experiences, a story can focus on that kind of thing too, just against setting where oppression is an unremarkable given fact about reality that doesn't need to be highlighted for audiences.
Compare, for example, a story set in a world where there are cars, and they might occasionally be mentioned in passing as characters use them in normal ways in the course of the story, but it's not a story *about* cars. The choices aren't "story about cars" vs "story set in a post-car world"; a story can be set in a world where cars exists, but not be *about* them. Likewise oppression.
Even though I do not use expressions as "oppressed groups", I really agree with you. Discrimination or disadvantages of being of a certain group can be shown as a secondary feature in a portrayal, and not to be a regular main theme
I feel like The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is a decent example of this. It celebrates black culture but doesn't ignore that oppression exists in their world. Some episodes ARE about oppression but there's plenty of other material in there
That BP image is nice!
The case of Roosevelt Franklin from Sesame Street is interesting. Sesame Street realized that all of their muppets were based on white archetypes. So, they made Roosevelt to be based off of black archetype. The black community was not happy with Roosevelt.
There's a lot of speculation that Bert was black. But the DNA evidence is inconclusive.
Then afterward had latino ...but not much else particularly much puppet wise. However then actually more diversity later with people and puppets.
The biggest insult is, not following the rules the original writer put in place. Even when the writer changes the rules, it's an insult but that doesn't stop people deciding if it's turned their work into a piece of bleep.
If it's a historical drama etc, I have no problem if the "actor" is, so long as they can pass it off with makeup etc.
Black Panther (And certainly, Wakanda forever.) was rubbish, like most superhero movies these days, even with some great acting.
Because they're failing in the creativity, story telling department, they flood the press with lies using ideology and false hope that they did great this time. This will only work for so long, even the best reputations can be lost.
'It's a racket' and these sickos need to lose their jobs for using things like race, sex etc, because they clearly don't have a creative bone in their body.
Feels like a Fahrenheit 451 moment to snuff what people can or can not.
@@Chamelionroses RUclips won't allow me to tell you what I think should be done to those responsible, for the Ghostbusters remake.
There's letting people do what they want, doesn't mean I can get away with everything I want to do. The question tho, is, am I on a level playing field? I refer you to my RUclips comment.
@@wtfamiactuallyright1823 that is, violence and murder? This feels a bit insane.
Have you considered giving way less of a shit about bad remakes? I guarantee you it's a healthier outlook on life.
@@bognome5374 "that is, violence and murder? This feels a bit insane." Did I say that? No, tho I wouldn't be surprised if others have considered it.
"Have you considered giving way less of a shit about bad remakes? I guarantee you it's a healthier outlook on life." You've gotta care about something, otherwise, what's the point? It's not so much the remake in and of itself, it's the societal effects I'm far more concerned about and the continual attempts to burn down everything that is held in high regard, by a majority of people at least. This goes far beyond the film industry etc, it's just that the film industry is one of the best ways to propagandise the general public, kids more than anything else.
Why do you care so much, what I think or feel? Have you considered that giving way less of a shit about my feelings on the matter? I guarantee you, it's a healthier outlook on life if you don't... 🙃
@@wtfamiactuallyright1823 I think you want someone to talk to, I'm happy to be that person today. I think you're addicted to anger, because you deeply fear apathy. I too, fear apathy. It's well said that we all gotta care about things, and I think I agree. Here's what I want to add: what about curiosity? what about sadness? empathy? hope?
I was born with a hunger for curiosity and a dislike for anger. But I realised I rarely felt much else, and that curiosity on its own wasn't enough to ward off apathy. I wanted to care in new ways, and so I learned to do so! Isn't that cool? To care about things in completely new ways? Perhaps it's my curiosity who's talking - but I'm sure you're deeply curious too, that's why you're here and you like philosophy. Let the curiosity take over sometimes.
Good exploration of the concept, thanks!
Art isn't above moral or political critique. Nothing is above moral critique. Nothing is above technical or aesthetic critique either.
Which moral? Have we a supermoral whith a privileged view sub especie aeternitatis?
So, what is a Critical Theory of Disability vs. a Naturalistic or Christian Moralistic (Demonic Posession) or some other theory of disability?
Carnades just lost my respect by calling that Humanistic crap "paradox".
Gibs me dat
We wuz kangs
Das Raycis
I tend to take a pragmatist's approach on this topic. There are far too many people obssessed with the notion of oppression,(especially today now that a semblance of equality has been given by law & commonplace), that they'll ignore facts or relevence only to demand benefits, status, rights, and rewards over another human being. And in order to accomplish this, they have to stare at race, at make their judgement, the wrong way to go about anything.
Glaring at race creates broken logic, and self-centered goals like Jessie Smollett's. As well as a society that protects that. Once equality is set, and law guards it, the only thing people can do is lead the next generation toward logical morals. Furthermore, like crime discrimination will always exist as an outlier, but for people to claim benefits or rights over another like they try today sickens me, and should anyone who's rational in their ideals. Just because someone of one race commits a crime, does not mean the entire race is criminal, with that same logic just because one person commits discrimination (the crime), does not mean their entire race is guilty or to be taxed.
The solution? People live their lives fairly, they create their own movies, their own Oscars, and their own roles. This requires change, and moving out of the areas full of crime & segregation no matter the honied words of politicians. We are at times our own worst segregators, often promoted by false promises and broken logic spewed by the rich and elitists. Slanted data is not used to misguide equal starting point. If one's discriminated against unfairly, only through unbiased hard evidence will the criminal be punished, and dues collected. Innocent, until proven guilty. Lastly, children are raised unbiased and taught there's only one race, human race, and to protect this human race, laws are based on fairness to the highest degree, thusly social oppression political propoganda is kept out of every jury, judge's and most importantly executioner's hands. Any social political ideals or propoganda is kept to politics, scrutinized, and debated scholars (not a bunch of crusty old corrupt hierarchical politicians) elected by their population.
To quote Martin Luther King Jr. "“Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro. A section of the white population, perceiving Negro pressure for change, misconstrues it as a demand for privileges rather than as a desperate quest for existence."
@@james-cal And to that, I already said"If one's discriminated against unfairly, only through unbiased hard evidence will the criminal be punished, and dues collected", the desperate quest of existence Martin Luther has requested is already obvious, and realized, and if one wants to charge people for crimes they haven't committed on the basis of white alone, using this quote as "counter" evidence via manipulting the basis of the buzzword privilege. Then they're far beyond logic, and already entered the radical idealism of Jussie Smollett type of rationalism.
Furthermore, once society is set equal, discrimination can go both ways, and laws can go both ways, trying to use laws to only benefit one aisle of division is what sickens me, not paying the victim of actual, tangible, visisble discrimination. Not just because someone cut someone else off on a way to work, or someone was speeding and got pulled over by a cop, or someone says something controversial and disagrees with the logic of the newly found "victim". Above all MLK demanded justice, and by law it's here, "The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges." You should look up who actually murdered MLK for political gains, who's currently in charge of that radical part of the group, and who his family sued(and won) to prove this to find more of the truth, and reality behind this subject.
Tell me you're not a minority experiencing systemic oppression without telling me you're not a minority experiencing systemic oppression
@@Millie-um2bi Tell me you're not a racially judgemental human being, without telling me you're not a racially judgemental human being. 1. Minorities aren't the only ones that suffer in a society. 2. You're trying to racially profile me to literally prove your Jessie Smollet propoganda ideals, thanks for proving my point exactly.
Furthermore, tell me you're not using informal fallacies, and illogical divisional propaganda without telling me you're using non-logical divisive propoganda. Systemic oppression does not exist, as the very ideal of it is irrational in its basis on the fact there's no system of law that of which holds down *Select* individuals. For any and all oppression that does exist anymore, America's is far from it versus other nations' literal slavery, and only exists in a politically inncorrect dying breed. 90% of which, gangs, literal criminals. Discrimination, like all crime will always exist, on every possible divided point, but to further use that discrimination to fuel more prejudiced discrimination, let alone things based on race is pure ignorance and the unyielding downfall of any counter argument.
I've got a concept for you called systemic oppression. Look it up
While this topic is being deeply considered, there are real problems in the world.
Racism and the ongoing oppression of minorities is a real problem. We get it, you're not concerned and don't care about the suffering of others but please do so quietly