Question for Asians

[k_amp_s]

<p>

Umm, Ashkenazic Jews have a common genetic ancestry (although less common now due to a multitude of factors) which varies significantly from the general European population. To deny this is to deny reality.

</p>

<p>I’m not disputing that – nonetheless, that still doesn’t make them a different race. Arabs, Persians, Northern desis don’t have common genetic ancestry with the general European pop. and yet they are considered part of the Caucasian race.</p>

<p>

Obviously. See, you understand how Hollywood works.

</p>

<p>And the one LONE exception in progress in portrayal seems to be Asian males (and yeah, I know the reason for why that is too).</p>

<p>

That seems weird, because all the examples that you have given previously seem to not fit those typecast roles. Are you talking specifically of movies? I think the issue is significantly more complex than we are talking of it. Lets talk about the biggest Asian males in Hollywood right now: Jet Li, Jackie Chan, who else? I think the main issue is underrepresentation (or perhaps it’s just low representation). Those two actors built their careers doing action, so yep, they will be type cast as action stars. Others (WM/BM) have made the same mistake.

</p>

<p>Case in point – the biggest Asian males in Hollywood are all FOREIGNERS who are martial artists (well, actually, Jackie Chan technically isn’t).</p>

<p>The biggest black stars? African-Americans and not black Africans.</p>

<p>The biggest Hispanic stars? Mostly Hispanic Americans.</p>

<p>The biggest Asian female stars? Asian-AMERICAN females.</p>

<p>

Maybe it’s just a reflection of the dating market?

</p>

<p>What about the dating market reflects that a reasonably attractive Asian-American male can’t get a kissing scene for 14 years (after all, there are plenty of short, bald and fat WM actors who don’t seem to have a problem getting “some action”)? </p>

<p>

Are we talking about men’s products?

</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>

This is a pointless argument. If the shows does well (Will & Grace) then obviously the calculated risk they took was right. It made a ridiculous amount of money so the portion of the population it turned off was really irrelevant. Regardless, I’d think most of the watchers of that show were female anyway.

</p>

<p>Case in point – “Sex and the City” which has a predominantly female audience. B/c of their core audience, the show could take some “liberties” with regard to the portrayal of gay men and IR relationships (tho IR relationships are also seen in male-dominated shows such as “24”). The 4 female leads of the show were partnered with American WMs, foreign WMs, black males and Hispanic males (and even a lesbian). The one exception …Asian males.</p>

<p>Otoh, there were numerous portrayals of AFs in the show – all partnered with WMs.</p>

<p>The only AMs seen on the show were bit parts as workers in Chinese or Japanese restaurants (where are the AM doctors, lawyers, Wall Street, etc. guys?).</p>

[Squirrel_Monkey]

<p>Asians being stereotyped as piano-playing nerds isn’t all that bad. And anyway, being smart or educated doesn’t mean you’ll be good at leadership. Although I do find it kind of weird why no smart person ever goes into leadership at my school…</p>

[bubbly]

<p>Eh, I don’t mind it at all. Actually, I think they’re very true…</p>

[Squirrel_Monkey]

<p>It’s not bad being stereotyped as a nerd. It is, I suppose, somewhat true… at least for most Asians at my school.</p>

[aikomidori]

<p>to the OP:</p>

<p>I hate the stereotypes!</p>

<p>and I am Indian…:D</p>