MovieChat Forums > Waitress (2007) Discussion > 'Waitress' and the race question.

'Waitress' and the race question.

posted 15 years ago by owenrcarpenter
33 replies | jump to latest

First of all, I must confess that I loved 'Waitress'. Adrienne Shelly was one of my favourite actresses and I firmly believe that this film would have been her passport to a long overdue mainstream success. 'Waitress' was both witty, wise and compasionate, and I thought that if any film about unplanned pregnancy deserved an Oscar it would have been this one, rather than Diablo Cody's 'Juno'. That said, there is one thing about 'Waitress' that does bother me quite a bit. Where are the black people? Or the Latinos? I don't remember seeing any of them in Jenna's town. Surely a film set in the American South should have SOME non-whites around the place! All I saw from the opening titles to the closing credits were a parade of WASPs!

Does anyone out there know how realistic this is? I am aware that in some areas segregation was an unfortunate part of Southern life up until the 1970's. Even though the last of the race laws was (officially) abolished during the Nixon era, people still had a tendency to stick within their own communities for many years afterward. Is the fact that the film is so 'whitebread' a flaw, or is it an accurate representation of insular life in a small Southern town? If it IS accurate, should Shelly have 'fixed' this unpalatable fact when she was writing the script? Most Hollywood sreenwriters are happy to re-write their country's history by having multi-racial platoons of US infantrymen storming Japanese bunkers on Iwo Jima. They simply ignore the harsh truth that 1940's military were legally segregated so that their movie will be more inclusive and PC. Should Adrienne Shelly have done the same? Her film was deliberately unrealistic on many other levels, should she have also ignored reality here too? Or was the uni-cultural nature of the town a metaphor for how isolated from the cosmopolitan world Jenna's community really were? I didn't see any religious or sexual minorities in the town either, so why should there be people of different races around?

I am British and I don't know ANYTHING about the American South, so I would appreciate some input from those who do. For the record, I do not believe that Adrienne Shelly was gulty of racism on either a conscious or unconscious level. She was a woman of Russian Jewish backround and held extremely liberal political principles. Nevertheless, a film about the American South that has no black people within it seems rather incongruous to me. Did this film acknowledge reality, disregard people of colour or simply give a singular voice to that long-ignored group, the Poor Whites of the South?

Please let's discuss this.

[–] louise-litchee 15 years ago

First of all, let me just say how SICK I am of people that are constantly analyzing works of fiction to verify that they are politically correct. You are the reason why spontaneity is slowly disappearing from popular films and TV shows, because no writer or director can say anything without being torn apart by you superior wardens of public opinion.
Second of all, sorry to break this to you, but fiction isn't realistic. Fiction is not a reflection of the real world. And one the reasons for this is that you simply CAN'T reflect all the complexity and the contradictions of the real world in a 1h30 film.
Otherwise the characters would be stuttering and searching for words every five seconds. They would change their minds at inappropriate moments. The phone would ring and it would be some insignificant friend of the family, calling for absolutely no reason. Etc.
To convey a message (and I don't mean a political one, just a pure fictional message from the creator to the spectator) and be consistent, fiction has to draw apart from reality.
Here, none of the characters were black because none of them were written black. If one of the characters was black, the story would have been different, just like it would have been different if the main character had been gay.
The writer wanted to tell a certain story that she created from scratch and came from her heart and soul. You can say it should have been different, but the only answer to that is go and write your story, which will be exactly like you want it. (And see how you feel when someone criticizes it because none of the characters are obese, which is clearly contradicting the reality of today's society.)

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

First of all I must express my sincere thanks to Louise-Litchee to responding to my post. I was beginning to think that nobody would bother. However, I am afraid that that she has totally mis-read my position. The last thing that anyone could call me is 'politically correct'. For example, though I am a keen feminist, I am also a regular on the 'Secretary' message board. Steven Shainberg's wonderful movie about the kinky relationship between a slap-happy boss and his pervy PA could be called many things, but PC is certainly not one of them! If she does not believe me, I would suggest that she review my thread "A Long-Awaited Celebrity 'Coming-Out!'" which deals with Nicole Kidman's recent confession of a taste for fetishistic bedroom games. It is possible that she may like to contribute to that discussion. I hope so.

As I said in my OP, I know NOTHING about the American South. I am totally ignorant of small-town life south of the Mason-Dixon line and have absolutely no axe to grind. I loved 'Waitress' and I was heartbroken to learn of Adrienne Shelly's brutal murder in 2006. I have been a fan of Adrienne for almost twenty years and I am currently attemping to get the British Film Institute to screen a retrospective of her work at the Southbank Centre. I firmly believe that if it had not been for her untimely death she would have gone on to be recognised as the major talent that she was. I did point out that 'Waitress' was unrealistic, but I also stated that it was deliberately so. 'Waitress' was never intended to be a realistic portrayal of domestic abuse in modern America. It is a re-working of a fairy story in a contemporary setting, and not a gritty slice-of-life. I did not say at any point that I thought the film should have different. I liked it just the way it was.

What I DID do is ask a question that I think needed to be asked. And if I don't ask it, believe me when I tell you that sooner or later somebody else will! I am no troll, and I am not attempting to start a flame-war. I have been posting on this board for almost two years now and my posting history is open to public inspection. I am not accusing 'Waitress' of being flawed because it it not include a token black, gay or jewish character. In fact I am not accusing 'Waitress' of being flawed at all. There may very well have been a very good reason for the town being so WASPish. After all, it was a very small town. And small towns - particulary in the American South - have a reputation for being insular and conservative. This would explain the 'uni-cultural' nature of the community. Then again, perhaps Adrienne Shelly wanted to tell the singular story of a group of poor whites without opening up the proverbial can-of-worms that is Southern history from the 1950s to the 1970s. As far as I am concerned, either of these is an entirely legitimate reason. Though I find it to be a little incoherent in places, I gather from her post that Louise-Litchee believes that the latter is the case, and so I thank her for her contibution.

Does anyone else have any thoughts?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dichotomymom 15 years ago

Good grief. I grew up in a small Indiana town (live in an even smaller one now) and there were 2 latino families and the rest were white. It does happen and it doens't mean they are sundown towns. We're the majority so of course there will be places where we are predominant.

[–] dalejrfan01 15 years ago

Who cares what color the characters are? Besides, I've seen movies and tv shows that were predominantly one race that wasn't white and nobody ever asks why there aren't white people in it. Just watch the damn movie or don't. I'm tired of this PC crap.

[–] Cafe_Dreamco 15 years ago

maybe she just hated people of color, especially illegal ones,
can't say I would have blamed her, the man should have never been in this country,
if we had better laws protecting this country, this would have never happened to her,

Give me a break - you haven't the slightest idea of how this system works. The fact is that illegal immigrants are a staple of industrial economies all throughout the United States because they are cheap and easily exploited. The immigrants themselves are happy to come because, for the most part, they have been suffering from the ill effects of the neo-liberal systems that have been rammed down the throats of the countries from which they came, by the Western world. Of course, the illegal immigrants are not to blame - much like you, they are the consequence of an economic system that puts profits ahead of people. But we're not supposed to critique the real source of the problem - so our attention is diverted to scapegoats, as it has been all throughout history. Just as Germans believed the Jews were responsible for the ills of the German nation prior to WWII, the US population is driven to believe that illegal aliens are responsible for their problems. A classic diversion tactic which unfortunately works - you yourself are a shining example of the effects of the propaganda model. As long as we keep turning on each other, the system that is working against all of us will continue to flourish without too much trouble. Well done!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Cafe_Dreamco 15 years ago

nice speach, where's your soap box?

Maybe you should apply that question to yourself, since it was your tirade that I was responding to in the first place. Or are you the only person here allowed to pontificate on political matters, you hypocrite? Let's face it - suddenly your monopoly on the discussion of this issue was disrupted, so the best you can do is come up with this kind of hypocritical response. It's beneath anyone who can read this.

it's been argued many times that the
illegal immigrants do the jobs that nobody wants

It's nice that that's "been argued many times" but since that was not my argument nor is it, I fail to see the relevance of you bringing it up. In fact, I would argue that many people would want to do those jobs. But like I said, illegal immigrants are cheap labor and easily exploitable, so they get the work.

if we got rid of the illegal immigrants

Quite the humanitarian choice - send them back to their country so they can continue suffering from the ills of the harsh neo-liberal economic models that we have forced on them. Only someone who thinks that the US should be running the world like it was their backyard could possibly come to this conclusion. Seriously, what a load of absolute garbage - people have no rights to come to this country at will, but you say absolutely nothing about how we apparently have every right to dictate the kinds of economic reforms that work to drain the country from which that person comes of its resources? What utter nonsensical hypocrisy.

and didn't give the free loaders welfare

The United States give less social welfare to its citizens than just about any other country in the industrialized world - and, as a consequence, has one of the largest disparities between the wealthy and the poor of any other country. In fact, it is utterly incomprehensible how a country with such an enormous wealth can also have such enormous levels of poverty, much larger than virtually any other free market society. It is nothing short of absurd (perhaps beyond absurd) to suggest that the United States gives "free loaders welfare" when the facts show that the country does less than just about any other industrialized nation when it comes to giving any kind of welfare to its people. It's lunacy of the highest order to argue that one of the few countries in the world who doesn't give all its citizens free access to health care is giving free loaders welfare.

a staple of industrial economies? right,, they pick peaches for 2 bucks a day yet we still pay through the nose for them

Actually, we make money from illegal aliens because, to repeat, they are cheap and easily exploited. That's why the business community is pretty much unanimously in favor of illegal immigration despite occasionally paying lip service to the contrary position. Do you seriously think that if illegal immigration was a detriment to the economy that they would still be being hired all throughout the country for decades upon decades? Get real. Like I said, it's fashionably easy to scapegoat illegal immigrants in order to divert attention away from real, and serious problem with the way the system works so, naturally, we have to concoct fantasies about paying "through the nose for them".

the only ones benefiting from their labor are the companies, they don't pass the savings on to the people

Uh, yeah - that's how capitalism works - whether you're talking about illegal aliens or anybody. Again, the problem is with the system not immigrants - they're just the scapegoat to prevent real systemic critique.

well... one such illegal alien was certainly a problem for Adrienne Shelly.

Yes, and I'm sure Hitler could have pulled out a few examples of terrible things done by Jews in order to demonize the whole race - but it would have just as stupidly meaningless as your example. Sorry, but the world doesn't actually work like that - you can't take one case and assume that speaks for the whole - that's what's called making a generalization and this has absolutely no place in any serious discussion, which I'm quite sure you're not even interested in having given the level of debate you usually stoop to and that you've stooped to here. Maybe once you stop being statist reactionary vulgarian, you might be able to say something worth discussing.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Cafe_Dreamco 15 years ago

you're right, how bout this.... this country should put up signs along it's boarders...."CLOSED" "NO VACANCY" "KEEP OUT" I think that's reasonable

Well, you would have to first take down the sign that says "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” – which is the mantra that probably brought your ancestors to the country.

Furthermore, not only is your claim unreasonable, it doesn’t even reach elementary moral standards. The fact is that the United States is the most interventionist country in the world, dictating by force the economic policies of every other nation state. Given that that has been the standard of the country since WWII, we are just not in the moral stratosphere to dictate who comes and goes from the country. You can’t pretend to be isolationist without first dealing with the long history of US interventionism.

you must live in utah or fantasyland, take a guess how many people are on welfare in los angeles, new york city, miami, detroit, chicago, boston, or new orleans.
and guess how many of those freeloaders have jobs under the table.

Both of us would have to guess since there is no evidence for this either way. The fact is that this quotation is just a bunch of smoke being blown in response to my point that the United States “does less than just about any other industrialized nation when it comes to giving any kind of welfare to its people”. That is exactly what I said and it is exactly true. In terms of percentage of GDP, the United States falls below the following countries: Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Norway, Poland, UK, Portugal, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Slovak Republic, Canada, and Japan.

Regardless of “how many people are on welfare” in the cities you mentioned, my point nevertheless is accurate that the country does less than just about any other industrialized nation when it comes to giving any kind of welfare to its people. In fact, of industrialized nations, only Ireland, Mexico, and South Korea do worse.

Last time I looked, millions of these freeloaders pay zero for their health care
which is provided by our country via medicare and other government programs

My hunch is that you haven’t looked at all, since these numbers aren’t available. Furthermore, I am quite simply unconvinced. The amount of money the United States gives in social welfare is a mere pittance to the welfare state it has created for the wealthy. The government spends most of its money funding its military and private tyrannies who are unaccountable to the public. This is a far greater problem than welfare fraud.

when you get free access to health care you get treated by doctors that make very little money,
and the quality of care leaves much to be desired, the best hospitals, research
labs and doctors are in this country, many patients from all the world are flown
into this country to the massachuettes general hospital, brigham and women's
dana farber, lehey clinic, etc, because they don't have the doctors and technology
we have in this country, our doctors are paid more than any other country,
remember, you pay peanuts.... you get monkeys.

The health care system in the United States is a joke. It has about twice the per capita costs of other industrial societies, with roughly 50 million people without insurance. It is the only health care system in the industrial world that is based on unregulated, private insurance companies and a powerful drug industry – so powerful that the government is barred by law from negotiating drug prices with big pharmaceutical corporations. When you have an unregulated insurance system and an unregulated pharmaceutical industry that is free to do whatever it wants and benefits from enormous amounts of government welfare, then the inevitable consequences are an extremely wasteful and inefficient health care system, which is what it is. On top of it, John Ehrlichman, a top planner in the Nixon Adminstration responsible for constructing the kind of health care system that exists today, argued that because the health care is run as a “private enterprise” then “All the incentives are toward less medical care because the less care they give them, the more money they make.” Ehrlichman’s point here is crucial. By US law, a private enterprise must place profits before anything else and a private health care system can profit best by giving “less medical care”. The very system, then, is constructed upon the principle of giving shoddy care. In that sense, then, it simply does not matter that “Doctors are paid more than any other country”. Rather, this fact alone is what contributes to the poor health care Americans are getting, along with the other significant reasons above. To even begin to favorably compare a system that is structured to provide as little care as possible with other more productive and efficient and less expensive health care systems throughout the world is telling of just how steeped you are in indoctrination.

[–] marcia_lou 15 years ago

I'm sorry your intelligent question has raised so many heated and off-topic responses. I don't know much about the American South either as I live in the Northeast, but I am glad to see that someone else notices the anachronism of an integrated army in WWII.

Marcia

"Oh Mr. Van Damm, you are Jewish." Judi Dench as Laura Henderson in Mrs Henderson Presents.

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

Thank you very much, Marcia Lou. I believed that I had made it quite plain in my OP that I had no complaints about either the film 'Waitress' or the writer-director Adrienne Shelly. I have nothing but boundless admiration for both the film and the film-maker. I am astonished that that so many people felt obliged to put words into my mouth and ascribe to me attitudes and sentiments that I do not hold. Perhaps they felt the need to curse my question because they did not know the answer...

I used to be a keen viewer of the Baltimore-based cop series 'Homicide - Life On The Street'. In one episode the former NYPD Detective Frank Pembleton freely admitted that he moved south of the Mason-Dixon line because Baltimore was a 'brown town'. It had a 'brown' Mayor and a 'brown' Police Chief, thus giving him a more favourable chance of promotion that than he would enjoy up North. Frank Pembleton was simply making a calculated decision to take advantage of the racial demographics in the state for his own advancement. As I believe that Baltimore's racial make-up is not unusual in the South I thought it odd that Jenna's town did not seem to have any non-white inhabitants. I did not have any kind of agenda when I posted my question. I just wanted to know a little more about the world that I live in.

As a matter of interest, Adrienne Shelly once guested in the first-season 'Homicide' episode entitled 'A Many Splendored Thing', a quite remarkable piece of television which I have made reference to on another thread. Her friend and collegue Michelle Forbes (who starred with her in the thriller 'Roadflower') was later to join the cast as a regular character, the Medical Examiner Doctor Julianna Cox. In 2008 I saw Michelle break down in tears as she described her relationship with Adrienne and how distressed she had been at the news of her atrocious murder. When I passed Michelle the contact details of the Adrienne Shelly Foundation, the charity set up by the late film-maker's family, she was so overcome that she hugged me.

Michelle Forbes's birth name is Michelle Rennee Forbes-Guajardo, and she hails from Austin, Texas. Those posters that have suggested that Adrienne Shelly hated hispanics should bear this in mind before they end up incuring serious grief.

[–] lovedtobescared 15 years ago

you took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone can find something that offends them if they really try in any movie. The point is, its a movie! Take it for what it is. I'm tired of people being cry-babies about everything.

[–] Lydia_Z83 15 years ago

It's not politically correct, it's factually correct that the south has large populations of black people. And as for characters being "written" as black, there are plenty of movies with race-blind casting processes. You don't need to write a character as a certain race in order to cast them as such.

[–] ElleRose 15 years ago

There are many small towns all over America where one race is heavily dominant. In fact, it isn't just in small towns. I live in a town with a 95% Hispanic population, and we are a HUGE neighborhood outside of Chicago. Had cameras pulled in and filmed a "waitress" situation here, anyone black, asian, or white would be seldom seen. I've also been on many vacations to places in the north, south, east, and west where I saw nothing but white individuals. In some places it is coincidence, in others it is simply tradition, and yes, there are some small towns where a person of an opposing race would be met with hostility. This movie was set in small town America, however, and it truly isn't rare for there to be an all white town in the south.

[–] fishinbuddy2 15 years ago

Well lets see if I can answer this question nicer than most of the others have answered it.

I live in a southern town and its pretty small. How small you ask? Its so small when the duck died they had to close the zoo. <insert laughter here>

With that said, I can explain not seeing anything other than white people in this movie.

The majority of the movie took place in the restaurant and restaurants and churches are really the two places in small southern towns where each race sticks with their own "people". You dont see white people coming to church with blacks and you dont see blacks coming to white people's churches.

There are usually one or two "cafe's" in a small town and the whites usually gather there. Then there will be one or two places that are black owned businesses and its where blacks like to eat.

Its not mandantory that they do this, its just how it is. Seperate but equal. When I drive 20 minutes to Memphis, Tennessee its a different story, its a much bigger city and even though its still in the south you will see blacks and whites at the same restaurants, especially fast food restaurantslike McDonalds, Burger King etc.

Its the small town cafe's where you see the seperation of the races the most. Blacks are more confortable with blacks and their choice of music on the jukebox and whites are more comfortable with whites and their choice of music on the jukebox so each race goes to the restaurant to which they feel the most comfortable.

I imagine the writer wasnt trying to be racist. She's obviously visited (or lived in) a small southern town or else she would have done like most Hollywood directors and thrown all the races together whether its accurate or not.

I hope this answers you're question and sorry for some of the angry the rants from some of the other posters. You simply asked a question and sometimes people get their panties in a wad over nothing.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

Thank you, Fishinbuddy. Thank you VERY much! I was worried that my question would provoke nut-jobs of various hues from posting. Especially when one considers the sad fact that Adrienne Shelly was a white woman and her killer was a latino male. There are a lot of people of the 'Adrienne Shelly' message-board who have seized on this and have used the board as a platform for their own extreme views. Most of these people know nothing about Adrienne Shelly or her work and simply wish to create ill-feeling and hostility. It is good that someone who actually has first-hand experience of small-town Southern life has contributed to this thread, and has answered in such a clear and rational manner. I was also pleased that you said that Adrienne had clearly done her research before she wrote the screenplay for 'Waitress'. There were some people posting on this board claiming that Shelly had no right to make a film set in the South because she was from New York!

In the UK, Richard Custis's 'Four Weddings And A Funeral' attracted a degree of criticism for containing no black characters. I believe that this criticism was totally unjustified. The film centered around a small group of people from a very narrow section of society (some refer to the movie as 'Toffs On The Pull') and, rightly or wrongly, that class is almost exclusively white. In contrast, the film 'Notting Hill' was widely - and justifiably - ridiculed for its portrayal of that neighbourhood. Notting Hill and Brixton are to London what Harlem and the South Bronx are to New York. In the film the community appeared to have been the subject of ethnic cleansing. One popular cartoonist even depicted movie grips running around the set with butterfly nets attemping to catch any black people who strayed into shot.

For the record, Adrienne Shelly was a woman of extremely liberal values and would have been repulsed by many of the sentiments that have been posted over the last few days. Her husband, film producer Andy Ostroy, is so far to the left he makes Michael Moore look like PJ O'Rouke in comparison. Despite the horrific circumstances of his wife's death, his current affairs blog 'The Ostroy Report' has maintained its commitment to immigration, welfare, abortion rights, gay rights and the withdrawing of Western troops from the Middle East. The only 'right-wing' opinion he holds is his belief that, in some cases, the death penalty is justifed. And, to be quite honest, I cannot find it in my heart to blame him for that.

[–] NoWeaponForged 15 years ago

I am British and I don't know ANYTHING about the American South,

You made sure to state this twice, so your assumption about Southern cultures are odd, I think. I guess I just don't understand where your assumptions are coming from if you claim to know NOTHING about it.

Anyway, on to your question, while some of what fishinbuddy2 has to say is overall in general correct, referring to African American as "The Blacks" will often result in a less than cordial retort. I'm white and I don't appreciate, and all my friends of color would have a look on their if they heard that. I've lived my entire life south of the Mason-Dixon line, and people with respect simply no longer use that phrase.

Yes groups tend to go together, but there is a typically a certain amount of mingling. If this were real life as the diner is a pie shop people of different races in the area probably would have had a certain level of frequency. However as this is a movie the simple explanation could be that of the actors that came in to audition, Adrienne Shelley picked the best ones she saw who didn't have scheduling conflicts. This film was shot in less than 30 days, so it doesn't always leave time, or budget, to allow for all considerations.

These are not sports, these are drunken dares. Different, or are my standards fierce?

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

Thank you, Werewating. You are quite correct, I should have been clearer. What I meant to say was I have no FIRST-HAND experience of the American South. I know a little bit about Southern history from documentaries and movies, and I have met one or two Southerners in my time, but I have never been south of the Maxon-Dixon line in my life. When I said that I knew nothing about the South, I wished - and still wish - to make to plain that I am not attacking Adrienne Shelly's film in any way over this issue. I am almost entirely ignorant of this subject and I seek an education.

However, I did have a vague idea that the South - even the small-town south - was more integrated than was depicted in 'Waitress'. If that was an assumtion, then I guess that I am guilty as charged. As the 'Silence Of The Lambs' heroine Clarise Starling once put it "When you ASSUME something, you make an ASS out of U and Me both!". Mea Culpa. Still, you have added a new dimension to the picture, and I must extend my most sincere apppreciation.

By the way, is 'black' an insulting term in the US now? In the UK, black people are still 'black and proud'!

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to learn to keep up!

[–] NoWeaponForged 15 years ago

I know in the UK black is a fairly familiar term. However, in the south it is not. It is a "good ole boy" term that is deemed disrespectful. Even those without great worries of being politically correct, such as friends and/or family, "The Blacks" is not a termed that is typically used. I never use it amongst my friends and I don't hear them use it either. Now I have friends who refer to themselves as "being black" they do not refer to themselves as "The Blacks," there is a distinction.

Like I said this is a movie and Adrienne Shelley had very little time to work with, so she probably just cast things very quickly.

These are not sports, these are drunken dares. Different, or are my standards fierce?

[–] fishinbuddy2 15 years ago

I have to disagree with you Wearewaiting. Referring to someone as "black" is not the slur that you think it is. When I said "the blacks" go to one church, and "the whites" go to another church", I was simply talking about them as a group and showing how they separate into their own color group in a small town where churches and restaurants are where you see the most of the segregation occurring.

I don't think blacks mind being referred to as black. I think its the term "colored" that is what is so offensive to them, that term came out of the good ole boys handbook back in 1930's Mississippi. Negro is another name blacks probably feel is a slur, and to me, calling them that would get me a "look" as you called it.

Calling someone black however shouldn't cause them to give me "a look" because its what Martin Luther King, in his "I have a dream speech" said: (see below)

"I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today."
________________________
Again when I said "the blacks" it was simply a description of the group and not a slur. I was simply describing the group the same as I did when I described the other group as "The Whites".

I live in Mississippi and I have never called my black friends "African Americans" and they have never called me Caucasian. Maybe in larger southern towns its a different story but my experience in small towns-- blacks and whites do stick to their own people mostly and they refer to each others group as whites and blacks. In every small town I've lived in or visited I didnt see much "mingling" ( as you called it) between the races. Most are work friendships or school friendships and thats the extent of the friendship, it stays there. You dont see them going to movies and sporting events together. This isnt true of all people in small towns but it is rare to see mingling in a leisurely environment. Again I'm sure its different with larger towns. What I saw in 'Waitress' (even their mentality) is what I see in most small towns.

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

Some words have more power than others in different locations. I have just finished updating my posting to the thread 'Attractive People Have Affairs?' in which I addressed this very matter. The word 'slut' in the US seems to be fairly innocuous. I have even seen episodes of 'Friends' where Monica and Rachel argue about which one looks or acts more 'slutty' without a trace of rancour or hostility. It was almost considered to be a point of pride between them. In the UK one of those girls would have gone home with a scalp tied to her belt! I'm not kidding. The word really IS that bad!

In fact, the term is so offensive that back in the 90s the publishers of a popular satirical magazine decided to run a strip about a pair of chubby good-time girls under the title 'Fat Slags' rather than 'Fat Sluts'. The term 'slag' (an industrial term for toxic filth) is regarded as far less insulting than 'slut'. Interestingly, as the magazine became more mainstream, younger people began to apply the word 'slag' as a synonym for 'tart'. This has led to some confusion between the generations, as the conventional use of 'slag' was as a police/prison synonym for 'scumbag'. The term was more usually applied to men rather than women.

[–] NoWeaponForged 15 years ago

I've grown up in Texas all my life, I think I know a little something about these things too.

These are not sports, these are drunken dares. Different, or are my standards fierce?

[–] suzeclark 15 years ago

well, I'll respond to the original post since it seems to have gotten off track. AS said the story was written as a "fairy tale" and thus any character of color would probably have been an at least sort-of un-pc caricature. Maybe that's why she left them out.

All the characters were caricatures of some sort, in my opinion. I didn't care for the movie very much and I was prepared to really like it.

I can't expect others to share my virtues, it's good enough for me if they share my vices.

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

Fairy tales come from all parts of the world and many feature characters of various colours, so I don't see why a 'minority' character should automatically be a racist stereotype. However, in all fairness children's books written in the first half of the 20th Century can be a bit painful to comptemporary eyes. Enid Blyton's favourite villian, a 'naughty gollywog' in full Southern Minstrel costume, had to removed from the modern editions of her collections!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

Thank you very much for your contribution, Dlander. It was my understanding that back and white soldiers were not just recruited, trained and billited seperately before Eisenhower, they also fought in segregated units in the theatre of operations. The reason being that some US soldiers would find it objectionable to take orders from someone of a different race,

If such units were integrated while in the field, then I find this very surprising. Would this have not been a violation of military law? I appreciate that men of different races fought alongside each in the general sense, but I always thought that the archetypical WW2 platoon with a white Lt, a black Sgt and a mixed band of privates was simply an invention of post-war Hollywood.

The subject of integrated WW2 combat units is slightly OT, but still relevant to the issue at hand. Does anyone know more about this matter?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

Thank you for the clarification, Dlandcher. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I am SO relieved that some rational people are posting on this thread after that bizarre exchange that broke out (and thankfully, died out) early on.

[–] OuchDontSpankSoHard 15 years ago

You have a valid question so I will try to answer it to the best of my capability.

Being that I'm African American and from the South, I will tell you that there are towns that are predominantly White. It is rare but they exist. You have to also factor in that this was a small Southern town and if there were minorities they probably stayed within their own communities.

Your other question in regards to sexuality and religion are interesting but please keep in mind that Southerns are either strict Southern Baptist or Pentecostal. There is no room for homosexuality. Hope you can sense the sarcasm there. : )

[–] owenrcarpenter 15 years ago

Thank you very much, OuchDontSpankSoHard. By the way, may I congratulate on your wonderful handle. To be honest, with one like that I'm surprised that I haven't seen YOU posting on the 'Secretary' message board!

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 15 years ago

The US South is probably less residentially segregated now than other regions of the country but there is a very high level of residential segregation. The absence of minorities is a bit odd but the film mostly takes place either at the doctors office or at the pie diner and really only among about eight characters.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."