Daily Archives: February 26, 2017

When Vanessa Redgrave unleashed hertirade against Zionist hoodlums at the 1978 Academy Awards, she became one of themost notorious examples of how things can go horribly wrong when celebrities talkpolitics on Hollywoods big night.

var _ndnq = _ndnq || []; _ndnq.push();

The hoodlums were Jewish groups who protested the acclaimed British actressfor helping to make apro-Palestinian documentary.Her belligerent, self-righteous rant didnt go over well. After Redgrave left the stage, author and Network screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky came out and blastedRedgrave and other celebrities who thinkits OKto get political at the Academy Awards.

He said, Im sick and tired of people exploiting the Academy Awards for the propagation of their own personal propaganda.

The crowd broke intothundering applause. But dont expect that kind of affirmationthis year for anyone who saysstarsshouldnt make political speeches. Thats because somespeechesare likely to get political tonight very political.

And the tweets and headlines going viral will be less about red-carpet fashion disasters or surprising wins or snubs, but about which left-leaning celebrity delivered the most laceratingtakedown of President Donald Trump and his controversial policies.

This awards season has already been marked by viral political speech moments.At the Golden Globes, Meryl Streep drew enthusiasticapplause and a presidentialhate-tweet when she spoke out against Trumpsderogatory rhetoric against immigrants, people of color and people with disabilities.

Like our Facebook page for more conversation and news coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.

And at the Screen Actors Guild awards, Oakland native and supporting actor nominee Mahershala Ali moved hearts with hissubtle but powerful speech about diversity and inclusion. He tied his characterin Moonlight, a man who takes in a neglected child bullied for his potential homosexuality, with his own experience of being different notably hisdecision 17 years ago to convert to Islam.

The speeches by Streep and Ali, as well as Redgraves historic misfire, show why politically-mindedcelebrities need to take care in how they delivertheir messages tonight. That is, if their goal isnt just to indulge their own sense of self-importance but to genuinelywin hearts and minds to the positionsthey care about.

Following are some of themost famous political speeches from Oscar history, as well as reasons that some were more likely than others to win support for the speakers causes. No surprises here, butstars who whined, spoke condescendingly of opponentsor cameoff as self-righteous and self-indulgent turned people off, while those who displayed grace, humility and genuine emotionwere more likely to win theday.

1972: Jane Fonda scores by shutting up about Vietnam

Producers of the 1972 Academy Awards no doubt worried about what outspoken Vietnam War opponent Jane Fonda wouldsay if she won that years best actress award for Klute. But three months before her infamous trip to Hanoi, Hanoi Jane kept her acceptance speech short and gracious. But that doesnt mean that what she left unsaid didnt speak volumes. She addressed the proverbial elephant in the room by beginning her speech with: Theres a great deal to say and Im not going to say it tonight. And then she offered sincere appreciation Iwould just like to really thank you very much and left the stage.

1973: Marlon Brandos surprising victory for Native Americans

When most people think of political speeches at the Oscars, Marlon Brandos stunt at the 1973 awards usually comes to mind. Looking back through the lens of Brandos declining years as an actor morbidly overweight and massively overpaid for any film he deigned to appear in its easy to dismiss this Oscars moment as the product of a movie star indulging in the worst form of self-aggrandizing. But there was a lot more to it, as some accounts have noted.

To go back, Brando was expected to win the leading actor award that year for The Godfather.But when his name was announced, there was no Brando. Instead, a woman in Native American dress took the stage. She identified herself as Sacheen Littlefeather, president of the National Native American Affirmative Image Committee.

She informed the crowd thatBrando was declining the honor to protest the stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans in film and television. She also referenced recent events at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, where federal agents clashed with Native American protesters starting in February 1973.

While some in the audience booed Brando for daring to criticize the academy, and the academy thereafter banned winners from sending proxies to accept awards on their behalf, leaders of the American Indian Movement considered the speech to be a major victory for their cause.

According to accounts, Littlefeathers speech refocused media attention on the occupation at Wounded Knee. In turn, that attention may have stalled U.S. military against Indian protesters, and it possiblymadeAmericans more aware of longstanding injustices related to indigenous people in the United States.

1978: Vanessa Redgraves Zionist hoodlums bomb

As suggestedabove, Redgave didnt do hercause many favors with her speech, in which shealso was gratinglyself-referential in praising the academy forgivingher an award. She said, I think you should be very proud that in the last few weeks youve stood firm and you have refused to be intimidated by the threats of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world and to their great and heroic struggle against fascism and oppression.

Whether or not it was a direct result of her speech, or of Chayefskys rebuke, making political speeches at the Oscars became considered, well, bad form. This norm of polite Oscar behavior generally continuedthrough the next decade and a half.

1993: Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins hog the spotlight

This year marked the return of high-profile political speeches, but with mixed results.

It started with Richard Gere. The American Gigolo actorcame on stage to present the award for best art direction. But rather than pay tribute to the creative contributions of production designers and art directors, the actor, a high-profile friend of the Dalai Lama, condemnedChinas history of human rights violations in Tibet.

A little later on, former couple Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon kicked off their presentation of the best editing award by calling attention to Haitians being held in Guantanamo Bay, barred from entering the United States because they had tested positive for HIV. Sarandon asked for federal officials to admit that HIV is not a crime, and to admit these people into the United States.

In both cases, the audience applauded, probably because they found both causes to be noble.But Gil Cates, the producer that year, said it was distasteful and dishonest for presenters to use their time on stage to express political beliefs.

Hes got a point in the sense that Gere, Sarandon and Robbins essentially hijacked attention from the winners they were supposed to be honoring.

When it comes to Oscar speechifying, winners seem to have more leeway than presenters, the thinking goes. After all, winners haveearned their big moment on the Oscars stage, as well as some discretion in using that moment in away they see fit. But presenters should just do what they are asked to do: name the nominees and then announce the winner.

If nothing else, Gere, Sarandon and Robbins attention-grabbing maneuvers were disrespectful to the nominees and winners. Fortheir actions, the three stars were banned from presenting at future Oscars, though theyve been back since.

2002: Halle Berry squanders her historic moment

A fair number of lists of famous politically charged Oscarspeeches refer toHalle Berry andher emotional acceptance of the best actress award for Monsters Ball.

Yes, Berrys win made her the first black actress in Oscar history to win in the leading actress category. And for the occasion, she managed to say some memorable things:This moment is so much bigger than me.

She continued: This moment is for Dorothy Dandridge, Lena Horne, Diahann Carroll. Its for the women that stand beside me, Jada Pinkett, Angela Bassett, Vivica Fox. And its for every nameless, faceless woman of color that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened.

All this was moving, but these sentiments only came in the very first part of her speech, which, yes, was very emotional. As Berry continued to sob and try to catch her breath, things went downhill.

She went on for nearly four minutes an eternity in Oscar speech making and she used up the bulk of her timeto become famous for another reason: as one of the worstoffenders of aparticularly annoying Oscar speech habit. She ran through an exhausting list of various people to thank manager, lawyer, agent and other Hollywood types that the public would prefer not to hear about. So, Berry spent less time honoring Dandridge and Lena Horne than in thanking Lions Gate studios, CAA, Joel Silver and Warren Beatty.

And its probably not Berrys fault, but her win did little to open the doors of opportunity for African-American women in Hollywood, including for herself, as became clearas recentlyas2015 and #OscarsSoWhite 2016.

2003: Michael Moore proves prescient

After winning in the feature documentary category for Bowling for Columbine, provocateur documentarian Michael Moore wagged his fingerand chastised then-President George W. Bush for the Iraq War, which had started just days prior.

Moore called him a fictitious president who won in a fictitious election and who sent us to war for fictitious reasons. He ended his speech with a message to Bush:Shame on you!

The audience reaction was a loud mix of applause and boos.

Doubtless, there would have been far fewer boos if Moore had delivered that speech a couple years later when it became clear that he had been right about the fictitious reasons the U.S. went to war.

And imagine how such a speech would go over this year. Someone telling President Trump he should be ashamed of himself? Its easy to guess how that would go over in this Hollywood crowd

2006: George Clooney confirms the worst out-of-touch Hollywood stereotype

At the Cesar ceremony Friday night in Paris, George Clooney delivered a powerful takedown of Trump and his policies while accepting an honorary award from the French film community. He mixed humor and gravity in a speech designed as a call to action, saying, Ascitizens of the world, were gonna have to work harder and harder to not let hate win. He added, Love trumps hate. Courage trumps fear.

But George Clooney was far less inspirational 11 years earlier when he accepted his award for best supporting actor for Syriana. His started with humor, joking about his People Sexiest Man Alive cover and his disastrous turn playing Batman.

However, when political Clooney took over, the best he could do was offer lame criticism of theout-of-touch Hollywood stereotype; his criticism only confirmed the reason the stereotypeexists.

He said being out of touch was probably a good thing because it supposedly made filmmakers more courageous and visionary in tackling issues that society shies away from. Were the ones who talked about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasnt really popular, he said.

His points are highly arguable. Plenty of film and culturalhistorians would say that Hollywood has a pretty sketchy record on presenting noble stories with controversial subjects taking on importantissues too late or taking them on in the most non-confrontational way possible so as not to upset the sensibilities of mainstream audiences. Just one of many examples: the whitewashing tendency in the late 1940s and 1950s to cast white actresses in the roles of biracial heroines battling prejudice.

Clooney even went so far as to praiseHollywood for being brave in giving veteranblack actress Hattie McDaniel an Oscar for 1939s Gone with the Wind, when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters, he said.

In referencing McDaniel, Clooney missed a key point in the story that makes him sound out of touch. It is that the ceremony for the 1939 films took place at the Cocoanut Grove, a favorite nightclub for Hollywoods elite. The club had a strict no-blacks policy, which was in place until 1959.

That night, McDaniel couldnt sit at the table with the rest of the GWTW crew, including nominated co-stars Vivien Leigh, Clark Gableand Olivia DeHavilland. Instead, she had to sit at the back of the room, at a table next to a far wall.The only reason she was even allowed into the building was because producer David O. Selznick called in a special favor.

2009: Sean Penn, Dustin Lance Black give shout-outs to gay rights

Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black captured the progressive zeitgeist of the timeswhen they took their separate turns accepting their awards for, respectively, best actor and best original screenplay. They were being honored for their work in Milk, the biopic of pioneering San Francisco gay rights leader Harvey Milk.

While Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, the other news that yearwasnt so good for progressives or for CaliforniasLGBTQ community: Proposition 8 passed in the state, banning same-sex marriage.

Penn, who portrayed the slain activist, said those who voted for Proposition 8 shouldsit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildrens eyes if they continue that way of support. He added: Weve got to have equal rights for everyone.

For Black, the issue was more personal, and he spoke movingly of how Milks story gave him hope when he was a teenager, letting him believe he would one day be able to live openly as who he truly was and even get married. If Milk had not been killed, Black said, I think hed want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight, who have been told they are less-than by their churches, or by their government, or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value.

2015: John Legend, Common and Patricia Arquette hit the right notes

The emotional highlights of the Oscars this year included John Legend and Common celebrating their win for best song for Glory from Ava DuVernays film Selma and supporting actress winner Patricia Arquettemaking a powerfulplea for wage equality and equal rights for women.

These moments touched on long-simmering issues in Hollywood: the dearth ofopportunities for people of color and for women. And the speeches showed how celebrities can use their platform to speak out on issues in personal, heartfelt ways that resonate with audiences.

The speech by Legend and Common followed their stirring performance of the song Glory, with its message of inclusion and diversity. Their speech was especially relevant that yeargiven the outcry over Selma director DuVernay not being nominated for best director and for actor David Oyelowo not scoring a nomination for his portrayal of the films hero, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

In his speech, Common said: Recently John and I got to go to Selma and perform Glory on the same bridge that Dr. King and the people of the civil rights movement marched on 50 years ago. This bridge was once a landmark of a divided nation. Now its a symbol of change. The spirit of this bridge transcends race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and social status.

Legend added this call toaction. We wrote this song for a film that was based on events that were 50 years ago. But we say thatSelmais now, because the struggle for justice is right now. We know that the Voting Rights Act that they fought for 50 years ago is being compromised right now.

As for Arquette, after winning for her performance in Boyhood, she first ran through the traditional list of Hollywood thank yous, then spoke forcefully on behalf of womens rights.

To every woman that gave birth, to every taxpayer in this nation, [women] have fought for everybody elses equal rights, Arquette said. Its our time to have wage equality, once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

Excerpt from:

When Oscars speeches get political: the best, worst and most annoying in Academy Award history - The Mercury News

The greatest weapon the colonial powers have used in the past against our people has always been his ability to divide and conquer. If I take my hand and slap you, it might sting you because these digits are separated. But all I have to do to put you back in your place is bring those digits together. Malcom X

In mid 17th century Virginia, long before civil rights or even abolition, poor whites and black slaves came together to demand justice from the ruling class. The rebellion failed but not without a valuable lesson for the elites: a unified citizenry is dangerous.

The ruling class managed to divide and conquer the poor whites and the slaves by changing the social hierarchy. The indentured whites were given more rights and privileges, ensuring that no matter how marginalized they were, theyd still believe themselves above the slaves.

Future alliances were a long time coming as attitudes would have to change amongst more of the white population, but they did come. Each time, different groups, divided by race and/or social class, converge to achieve a greater human goal. Usually restoring some sort of balance before the hegemony divides and conquers again.

As the Civil Rights movement wound down in the late 1960s, the people were less divided by overt Jim Crow racism, but still divided by race. America declared a victory for equality even as whites ran from cities to the protection of middle-class suburbs, where poorer minorities couldnt follow.

The once secular communist boogeyman has becomea symbol of the conservative movement and made nationalism popular again.

During this time, racist ideologies evolved and the language became more subtle. The new post-racial narrative was devoid of racial overtures yet still played off white fears. Politicians effectively used this white fear to make policy, strengthen their base, and stay in power.

At the start of Nixons drug war in 1971 (the drug war has been around in one form or another since before prohibition), the post-racial zeitgeist introduced law and order, a phrase that treads carefully around race. It became a rallying cry all across America, starting in white suburbs where fear of spreading inner city crime was strongest. Though, by the mid-1990s law and order policies had garnered some wary support in the black community.

[White] America quickly focused on its new enemies: drugs and crime.

Politicians of the day did their part, painting bleak pictures of inner cities without having to resort to racially charged rhetoric, while white TV screens were inundated with images of the dangerous black criminals.

To absolve itself, white America pointed to its black friends and colleagues as evidence of being post-racial, and brushed off the hypocrisy. They also kept their hypocritical and irrational fear of the black man passing them in the street quietly to themselves.

Today, the post-racial narrative sports Internet memes of white cops playing withblack kids, black and brown faces on mainstream television, and prominent black conservatives claiming that racism is a thing of the past. The period at the end of this post-racial story is a popular two-term black president. Problem solved.

More here:

The Old Divisions, They Do Divide Us - The Good Men Project (blog)

The latest wave of populism is alarming because contemporary world politics is experiencing resurrection of majoritarian identity politics intertwined with populist zeitgeist

Donald Trump is amongst the many who personify populist zeitgeist in the West.

More than a decade back, Dutch political scientist, Cas Mudde argued today populist discourse has become mainstream in the politics of Western democracies. Indeed, one can even speak of a populist Zeitgeist. In linguistics, the term zeitgeist means spirit of the times, however in combination with populism the term has a specific meaning: it connotes an ideology that values politics of identity based on ethno-cultural and religious superiority. The observation made by Mudde has proven prophetic; for now, the grand theatre of world politics justifies the claim.

Populism, as the name suggest, focuses on the people. However, populists have a very exclusive definition of the people that precludes certain identities being labeled as others. This rationale us versus them fuels populism. Furthermore, within the ideology there are two camps: far-right and far-left.

Populists on the political right tend to view the people sharing a common religious-ethno-cultural background. As in the case of contemporary world politics the people refer only to the white European and of Anglo-Saxon origins. Thus, all those who do not share these particular social, cultural, physiological traits are not considered the people.

On the other hand, the far-left populist discourse excludes a certain class of those elites who favour liberal values of freedom, equality and liberty for all, irrespective of class, gender, age, colour, religion and culture. It does not matter if the excluded elite have the same social, cultural, physiological attributes as the people they are disqualified because they belong to different economic class and have liberal attitudes.

Far-right or far-left, in populist way of thinking the people are fundamentally monolithic, a single entity devoid of any divisions across social, cultural, physiological, economic and religious lines. Populists argue liberal and multi-culturalist elite denigrate communitys values and promotes inflow of immigrants from hostile cultures. Furthermore, they contend liberal representative democracy has undervalued the monolithic cultural and social identity of the people.

Ironically, they are the majority but are now forgotten. Since political institutions in liberal democracy necessitate procedures in which plurality of views is included; such procedures however neutralise the people. Populists strongly believe liberal democratic arrangements devalue vox populi: political institutions, therefore must proceed based on the identity of the majority.

This year when citizens in Netherlands, France, and Germany vote for their prime minister, president and chancellor respectively; the citizens choice in these countries will have an unprecedented effect on world politics.

Though, politics of identity certainly has legitimate space in any functional democracy, however, if identity derives its strength from within the democratic framework. The advocates for politics of identity ought to frame their concerns within the democratic principles such as political equality, liberty and freedom for all. But if adherents contrive to supersede and subsume democratic principles it is death knell for the prized pluralism in liberal democracy.

This latest wave of populism is alarming because its adherents believe it is their existence that shall rein in unruly liberalism. The populist idea that the good, homogeneous people are betrayed by evil minorities and corrupted elites is potentially very attractive to voters. For example, rise of the alternative-right (Alt-Right) movement in US is one such example the movement is led by so-called white nationalists who believe in nativism and demand creation of separate, racially exclusive homelands for white people. Furthermore, what makes the recent wave exceptional is its semblance to fascism.

It seems, contemporary world politics is experiencing resurrection of majoritarian identity politics intertwined with populist zeitgeist. By reviewing the election manifestos of the populist political parties, such as Front National in France, British National Party in UK, Party for Freedom in Netherlands, and Germanys Alternative fr Deutschland (AfD) through them we can ascertain the extent of nativist zeal in this latest populist zeitgeist in the West.

With this long prelude, let us look at what is happening the worldover.

The episode of Brexit was the first episode that signaled majoritarian version of the politics of identity. Surprisingly, long before Brexit we witnessed the Scottish Referendum. The result of the referendum (though) was positive in a sense that the British Isle remained a unified political entity. The result of the Brexit referendum, however, was negative in its effect. And, the result further stoked populist zeitgeist in Western democracies.

Traditionally, identity politics was considered to be the politics of marginal groups. However, contemporary rejuvenated politics of identity can be conceptualised as majoritarian version of identity politics. In the West, the majority among the people claim to be the new minority.

For example, a recent book The new minority: white working class politics in an age of immigration and inequality by a US-based political scientist Justin Gest looks into white populists distrust towards their political elite and liberal institutions. His findings are indicative of the rise of populism in a sense that all his interviewees (white working class in US and UK) strongly believe their political institutions have betrayed the majority natives (i.e., white population). They fault political correctness of the institutions, and democracys inclusive framework.

Gest contends political entrepreneurs thrive on this purported betrayal by fanning fear amongst the white working class. What more? This populist wave thrives on narratives constructed by conservative zealots that demonise the dynamics of free speech in democracy: terms like Islamisation, mass immigration, and leftist agendas serve to frame hysterical narrative and is endorsed by an exclusive the people just look at what right-wing Breitbart News website produces on regular basis. According to a US-based civil-rights think-tank Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the number of anti-Muslim groups in US has increased from 34 in 2015 to 100 in 2016.

The undeniable fact of contemporary world politics is that Donald Trump is amongst the many who personify populist zeitgeist in the West. Others like him are unified in their abrasive demeanour and disregard for democratic institutions. Trump is not the only in Western democracy to spearhead the course against immigrants; the others in Europe are in pursuit to emulate him.

This year when citizens in Netherlands, France, and Germany vote for their prime minister, president and chancellor respectively; the citizens choice in these countries will have an unprecedented effect on world politics.

Netherlands witness elections next month, and there are pre-electoral surveys that put populist leader Geert Wilders in carving a comfortable position for his far-right Party for Freedom in the Parliament. In France, the political party Front National, led by Marine Le Pen, rides on the populist wave. Experts believe she will make to the second round of presidential elections (a feat that was never achieved by her father).

Germany is a rather an interesting case for there are signs that incumbent Merkels Christian Democratic Union of Germany (the center-right, conservative party) might be ousted by the center-left Social Democratic Party of Germany. Though the two parties seem to have favourable policy towards refugee influx and on the EU, how will they campaign on these issues will only be unfolded in due course. A lot now hangs on several European elections this year. Wait and see what unfolds in the upcoming elections in Netherlands, France and Germany.

View original post here:

The age of the people | TNS - The News on Sunday - The News on Sunday