The owner of the diner in 1955 tells the black worker he has that a colored person can never be a mayor. I am paraphrasing here a bit but the point is the same. Thats very troubling they wrote this line in the movie. And to label the person as colored nonetheless.
shareYour post made me look up first black elected mayor of a major U.S. city
One of the first ~ Carl Stokes elected November 7, 1967.
Cleveland, Ohio
Don’t like it, film your own Back to the Future.
shareLOL
But seriously folks, that line is a product of 1950s thought that ends up being refuted by Goldie's success story.
Or they just wanted to add another easter egg that gets paid off later in the movie for those paying attention.
Either way.
Racism should bother you. Racism was very real in 1955. It's also very real now.
The line and the belief are accurate, and the writers are trying to accurately portray 1955. So the line doesn't bother me. The racial mentality of 1955 bothers me.
Racism was very real in 1955.
It's also very real now.
All snips like this do is fuel the racial divide in this country, rather than repair it.
shareThe black worker in BTTF got off extremely easy. Around the same time, white supremacists, Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members were actually HANGING black people just for BEING black!
That is true. It was happening. But pretty rarely. THREE blacks were lynched in 1955. So, in the whole country over a year, there were KKK types lynching. But the odds of any random black guy talking to a random white guy getting lynched was pretty low.
We really don't give enough credit to the people pushing civil right before the big names of the 60s. They really made a lot of progress.
the other thing was it was California vs the deep south. Okay it was a small town in California. But this being California is probably why the owner of the diner reacted as he did to the young Goldie.
shareBut not in California. We are in 1955 California here, still racist, but that was not Dixieland?!
School segregation officially ended 1954 in California, but it took several years to properly end segregations. In a small town like Hillvalley, I doubt, that Goldie had a chance of proper education at that time.
There was no cancel culture... there was no social media... there weren't even many labor laws back in the 50s... also wasn't this a time in which segregation was still 'a thing'? A lot of people probably spoke-behaved-had that mentality without any consequences... nor did the thought cross their minds that what they were doing was wrong in any way.
If Back To The Future were to be remade today I doubt that scene would be allowed to be filmed with that line... even though 100% REALISTIC for the era... everything is censored so studios wouldn't allow it.
To me it's part of that character and realistic for the time the 'past' takes place.
"If Back To The Future were to be remade today I doubt that scene would be allowed to be filmed with that line... even though 100% REALISTIC for the era... everything is censored so studios wouldn't allow it."
Are you saying we live in times, where accurate depictions of historical racism are NOT allowed in movies?
Wouldn't that be very good for bringing awareness about racism and helping people understand the plight of the victims of racism?
As if we're not having the exact same, matter-of-fact-style racism against white, heterosexual male people now - just to mention a viewpoint to racism. What black people suffered in 1955, white people are suffering now, but no one cares, because white, heterosexual males are not allowed to have victim status.
There is also a big part of slavery that has been silenced, the WHITE slaves were conveniently forgotten, because this part of history doesn't fit the agenda. So racism ALWAYS means racism against black people (except when it SOMETIMES means racism against asians). This is racism at its worst, because you're not even allowing the victims or anyone else to RECOGNIZE their plight, let alone talk about it.
He agrees with you , he just likes to pretend it couldnt be done these days in order to have something to be triggered about ,
So because 'racism is bad', period pieces should never portray racism, let alone accurately?
Sure, it was racistic, but at the time, it was seen as normal. The makers of this movie are not saying it SHOULD be still seen as normal, they're just saying 'in 1955, people were racist bastards, but times changed'.
Why would you have a problem with this? It's like you wouldn't allow someone to tell an accurate story about racism in history, because 'racism is bad' and it's not like that now. WHAT?
Are you just trying to provoke reactions? (I think this is healthier way to say this, instead of using the fishing metaphor that people confuse with a mythical being, because no one thinks what the F they are writing, saying or even thinking, they are just repeating common phrases and trends withotu research or any kind of processing)
I'm just highlighting how crazy the democrat politicians and their voting base really are.
shareThe line is perfect. It is of course reflective of the time. It is also meant to be comical because the guy does in fact become mayor. The line both reflects the historical truth, and at the same time parodies racism. It would be a shame if the movie were remade today without that line.
shareIt’s not troubling, he was just being matter of fact. 1955 was before the civil rights act. They were allowed to legally discriminate against him. There was probably the thought that white people wouldn’t vote for him anyway. Also colored was the preferred term for the time.
That guy was probably considered woke for 1955 for even hiring a black man.
Movies depicted from that time period should use revised and or alternate history so that racial discrimination is not shown on screen
shareI’m going to assume you are being facetious. The reason they touched on racism at all was to show how much things had changed. In 1955, it’s laughed off, no way it could ever happen. By 1985, he’s mayor.
share