Maxine Hong Kingston protests Seinfeld as "racist"

[alt.tv.seinfeld added]

thanks. i'll check it out.

In article ,

Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote in message ...

Sounds like Kingston is hypersensitive and needs to get a life.

I am sure the 'famous' Ms. Kingston can line up and lobby Sony for their production of Seinfeld through their subsidiary Columbia TriStar. Let's hear from SONY and why they have portrayed Asians so 'poorly'. -

However I do agree the Nancy Kwan issue is a very valid one. THAT deserves an apology and some heads to fly!! But that has nothing to do with a Seinfeld newsgroup.

Maxine Hong Kingston wants an apology?

Tell her to take a number.

protesting the use of the term "Chinaman's >Nightcap" on the NBC sitcom Seinfeld. She called the studio >"insensitive" and "ignorant".

     Same kind of critique Norman Lear faced 25 years ago
over the Archie Bunker character for the same reason. The
whole point of Seinfeld over the last 9 years was to satirize
the worst and most insensitive side of urban Americans...the
side so many of us show in our own lives so often.
     Some people interpreted the satire as serious...and some
people are doing it now...

Bob Smith, afternoons WXXI-AM 1370, Rochester NY

i just heard that NBC Seinfeld apologized for burning the Puerto Rican national flag. is that true?

are there similar cultural bigotry/insensitivity displayed in the last episode?

Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote:

Yeah - Some big fat suits sat in a board room counting their money and said lets flip a coin to see who apologises to the PR's - then they went for lunch.

In rec.arts.tv on Sun, 17 May 1998 23:03:34 -0400, "The News Guy(Mike)" wrote:

Those of you who saw the season finale know that Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer have been punished for nine years of callous insensitivity. We at the network have never condoned their behavior, so we resent those who believe that we share the boorish values displayed by Jerry & company.

BTW, I'm not fat and I do not handle cash -- particularly small change. We used a dartboard; then we had an early dinner.

What's the big deal? It's just a piece of coloured cloth...it's freedom of speech...<insert all the other excuses the left uses>.

Why is it acceptable (according to the U.S. Supreme Court) to burn an American flag, but it's "insensitive" to burn the Puerto Rican flag?

In article , [email] wrote:

The funny thing is, the Puerto Rican activists that 'boycotted' the last episode (yeah right) said point blank that if any other flag was used, they'd be verging on ecstatic. Basically, if Kramer lit the Statue of Liberty on fire, they'd not care. Apparently this offensiveness standard only applies to *them*.

Which is the irony of people like this Tomoyuki fellow, who keep bitching about 'racism' and undiversity on NBC, but the bottom line is that they don't want diversity -- they want their groop overrepresented. NBC is probably the most diverse of the 'major' US networks, actually.

Cheers, Lulu, who would've thought it funnier if Kramer had lit a US flag, cos it would've pissed off even more people. It IS just a bit of fabric, you hypersensitive boors.

Lulu wrote in message ...

(snip)

"Just a piece of fabric"?! "JUST a piece of FABRIC"??!!!! I'll have you know that the American Flag is NOT just a piece of fabric!!!! War veterans DIED for that "piece of fabric", as you call it!!!

Without that piece of fabric, why, we'd all be saluting empty flag poles!!!

The American flag should be enshrined and desecrating it should be punishable by DEATH!!!!!

This would be a much better country then!

I don't care about the Constitution, or about any of America's social problems. But the FLAG; --that's what matters!!!

I'm just kidding. Actually, I fully agree with you. Fuck the flag.

On Tue, 19 May 1998 01:32:51 -0400, "Eric Perlin" wrote:

No, they died: 1) To keep totalitarianism from taking over other continents, hence compromising our national security; 2) To preserve our WAY OF LIFE, NOT our flag! It would be heinous stupidity to sacrifice even one life for a piece of cloth. And that piece of cloth has changed repeatedly since the Revolutionary War, so its not even a constant symbol like the eagle and certain other things.

Only mindless super-patriots believe soldiers die for cloth. What they DO die for is so that we can vote for our own rulers....and wouldnt you know that more than one out of two citizens repay their sacrifice by staying home!!!!

Probably the same people who wave the damned flag!

Iconoclast wrote: <snip>

Except when those with power want a different ruler they have the peoples' choices assassinated. JFK-MLK-RFK-MalX etc...

In article , "The News Guy(Mike)" wrote:

Um, sorry, horrible choices, honey, considering only one of them could be called a 'people's choice ruler'. The other three weren't elected to positions of immense power. C'mon, use the obvious ones like Lincoln or summat, not dodgy ones like the Kennedys or people who weren't in power at all.

Cheers, Lulu

Lulu wrote:

The News Guy(Mike) wrote:

"Summat" = "Something"

The News Guy(Mike) ([email]) wrote:

The Kennedys were killed by nuts, Doctor King by a racist idiot, and Malcolm X by someone within his own community. Besides, what the hell were/are the Kennedy clan but "those with power?"

tim gueguen 101867

TIMOTHY GUEGUEN wrote:

...and if you REALLY believe that I have some swamp land you might be interested in...

Yep, I think so

No, actually they were 'new on the scene' outsiders to the power game. Rich yes, and that got Joe Kennedy (the dad) a lot of influence. But they were always considered (God please lets not start another racists thread...) the Irish Catholics and not part of the power network in Washington and the rest of the US.

Americans feel about their flag the way citizwns under monarchy feel about the King or Queen. One shouldn't burn a flag, or behead a monarch, but it happens.

Toffee

In article , "Eric Perlin" wrote:

*giggles* Bravo on a job well done. I'll have you know that the ONE time I worked at an American newspaper, I wrote a commentary on how it's hypocritical to claim flags can't be burned because of war veterans (they fought for freedom, not for a cloth, etc), I actually got *death threats*. That was the end of me working US journalism, I'll have you know.

Cheers, Lulu

In article , Eric Perlin wrote:

"I just want to say one word to you . . . just one word."

"Yes, sir."

"Are you listening?"

"Yes, sir I am."

". . . Lithium."

Because you are confusing "legal" with "acceptable". It is indeed offensive to burn someone's flag. However, if you Americans are going to keep that freedom of speech nonsense you are so enamoured of, that includes the freedom to be offensive, (and the freedom to criticise the offense).

have you ever seen an US flag burned in a TV comedy show?

Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote:

Oi! Victor Kayam, do you think you cross-posted this enough?

It's all a terrible conspiracy you know

On 23 May 1998 20:53:21 GMT, [email] (Tomoyuki Tanaka) wrote:

It is not "acceptable" to burn the U.S. flag, but it is protected free speech. Same with the Puerto Rican flag, though it would be rather *ridiculous* to express political views by burning the Puerto Rican flag (since Puerto Rico, so far, is a U.S. possession). Citizens of the U.S. who hate the government agree with burning its symbol, but most citizens don't. They just know that you have to protect the most hated form of speech or none will be safe.

Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote:

No, but if I did, I wouldn't let it upset me. If it was used for comedic purposes (as the Puerto Rican Flag was) I would laugh along with everyone else.

Jaclyn

What if you were in another country watching a local TV show and saw an American flag being burned? Although it might be used for comedic purposes, I can't understand why anyone would argue that it isn't insulting to have an object that represents a people's freedom, culture, and nationality being massacred on televison. If I saw a Canadian flag being burned on a show I'd be upset. We're all raised to respect the flag of our country; the demonstration we saw on Seinfeld just stepped on that respect. Not funny. I personally think flag burning should be left off TV and kept only for those special protest events.

Norm

btw: I enjoyed the rest of that episode.

Its called freedom of speech. He's allowed to do it, you're allowed to hate it. And I'm allowed to say "get over it".

Norman Nasser wrote in article ...

with

Yes but Rico is part of the U.S.... Chugman!!!

1) Yes, if it were used for comedic purposes I would laugh just the same, whether the show was in the US or another country.

2) Puerto Rico is a part of the US. Seinfeld is an American show. What exactly is your point?

:

:

:

:

:

:

His point is he enjoys being outraged. Some people aren't happy unless they're complaining about something. Imagine if NOTHING offended anybody. What kind of disgustingly boring, white-bread world would we be living in? It would suck. Big time, but Tanaka would be happy.

I didnt see the Puerto Rican show but I seem to remember someone saying this was one more case of something happening due to ineptitude. That the flag wasnt set on fire on PURPOSE and that Kramer wasn't being disrespectful, he was trying to put out the fire. If this is correct press 1....OOPS, back in Movie Fone....if this is correct, then they are really making a mountain out of a molehill by protesting. Unless there are now groups who are politically against the mistakes that boobs make.

On 26 May 1998 18:26:31 GMT, [email] (Norman Nasser) wrote:

well, the saving grace sort of is that at least the seinfeld characters occasionally get their just desserts. ideally kramer shoulda gotten beat up a la the aids walk thing, but maybe they figure they done that already, so instead they bounce jerry's car into a stairwell.

i dunno, tho maybe i coulda seen them making it st patty's day parade, and a bunch of drunk irishmen out to pound kramer, i have a really hard time imagining it being veterans or memorial day and an american flag being burned, even accidentally. even with all the disrespect seinfeld tosses around, maybe they still have some sacred cows. i'm not such a tremendous seinfeld fan that i know every episode; did they ever lampoon veterans groups, or american patriots of any sort?

msg

In article , [email] wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 20:10:42 GMT, [email] (na-glu) wrote:

I would have laughed even harder if it was a veteran's day parade and there were all these old vets with missing limbs and then Kramer accidently starts a flag on fire and gets chased by patriots in pickup trucks throwing budweiser bottles at him.

this is the kind of thing NBC Seinfeld would never attempt to do, for it would unnverve its targeted audience of mindless whites.

In article , [email] (Tomoyuki Tanaka) wrote:

Geez, the whole premise of the show was "the weekly adventures of mindless whites". Sorry, I am not offended. However, I may not be an expert as I do not have my own News Group.

Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote:

So Mr. Tanaka shows his true RACIST colours. I have told this group that HE was the racist one and his pretence to stop racism was based on his own personal hate mongering. He sits at his government supported computer at his government supported university position to spew his hate into other people's lives.

Begone you insignificant pest.

Mike

But Tanaka can't be a racist, he's a minority. Haven't you heard the rhetoric? Only those in power can be racists. Ask Reginald Denny.

Joe wrote:

That actually would have been funnier, because American flag waving is a sensitive issue. (No, there is nothing funny about people giving limbs for the defense of their country).

Whe I heard about the incident (I didn't watch the show), I thought it was funny, and that the *point* was supposed to be that the PR people misunderstood. No disrespect was ever intended (for a change!!!) by the Seinfeld people on this one.

Susan

In article ,

No, but they made fun of one of society and television's most sacred cows: extremely ill children. Once they had George cheat at Trivial Pursuit with the Bubble Boy, everything else became fair game.

Alan Sepinwall * e-mail: [email] NYPD Blue page: http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~sepinwal/nypd.html

RANDOM QUOTE:

"Okay, here's the deal. I'm going to take Mary home right now. Then I'm
 going to find Lewis. And when I find him, I'm going to kill him. I'm a
 very clever detective and I will kill him in such a way I will not be
 caught. He will simply disappear. And like all sphincters before him, he
 will not be missed."
	-Andre Braugher searching for the perfect revenge
	 to a practical joke, "Homicide: Life on the Street"

On 2 Jun 1998 16:24:44 -0400, [email] (Alan

Yeah, but even there, there was that delicate balance. George was allowed to cheat the Bubble Boy because the Bubble Boy was obnoxious. That's why I don't buy the notion that the Seinfeld finale was some long-awaited comeuppance -- they tended to get justice done to them on a fairly regular basis anyway, whether it was as being caught on the embarassing end of some faux pas or in the broader sense that no matter how much crap they pulled, the characters were never truly happy.

I think a much bolder final episode would have been to show the characters do something *really* craven and mean-spirited (more than ignore a fat guy in distress), and then, instead of just desserts, receive an inarguable happy ending -- everything they ever wanted. But that might have been stretching disbelief a little much, not because of the averted sense of justice, but because I'm not sure what it would take to make those characters well and truly content.

In article ,

But the mere idea of playing a deathly ill boy -- always presented as saintly martyrs by the media -- as an obnoxious punk was TV heresy.

Alan Sepinwall * e-mail: [email] NYPD Blue page: http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~sepinwal/nypd.html

RANDOM QUOTE:

"This coke is pure shit." "That's good shit, right?" "It's bad shit." "Bad shit? As in the shit is bad?" "It's shit shit. This shit isn't worth shit. There's barely enough shit in here to attract the dogs. Anyone caught on the street with this shit would be in deep shit." -A foul-mouthed police chemist and Gregory Hines, "Running Scared"

In article , [email] (Scott Hollifield) wrote:

George had this really shameless side (which was softened when David left) which inspired the bubble boy thing, the eclair thing, the thing with the bedbath for the girl next to his mom's hospital bed, etc, etc. He would do just about anything if he thought there was even a chance he could get away with it.

Kramer was more of a physical schlemiel - doing damage by accident, not by design. So I dont agree with grouping George's stuff in with a Kramerian antic.

The Seinfeldians curse is that even though they had everything they could want, they were never happy, though they always managed to shrug their shoulders, individually or collectively and get through whatever crisis had happened - and usually they had brought it on themselves. So there could be no happy ending, and the ending that occurred is not out of context. They adapted (arranged a la Monks) and kept on. Why radically change into something after 9 years of nothing?

<
    On the whole, I agree with you, but Kramer did commit his share of
intentional mischief.<
    Remember, it was his idea to scam the post office by shipping
Jerry's malfunctioning stereo and claiming it was damaged in transit.
Didn't he arrange for a (very dangerous) steam explosion in the bagel
shop he was striking? (*all it did was flatten Elaine's hair).<
    I'm sure others can come up with more Kramer ``crimes''

   Query: Did George actually cheat?<
   It's been a while since I played trivial pursuit, but I seem to
remember the rules on the box that declare the printed answers to be
final.<
   Was it George's fault that there was a typo on the card? True, he was
a bit of an ass for not agreeing that Moops was a typo and Moors was the
right answer, but if that's what was on the card ...

Heinlein wrote:

The Trivial Pursuit people put a few deliberately wrong answers in just to make sure nobody completely copied their game. Typos could be part of the plan as well.

Susan

The St. Patrick's Day parade idea might have worked, but Veteran's or Memorial Day wouldn't because they don't *have* a huge Veteran's Day or Memorial Day parade in New York. The Puerto Rican Day parade, though, is huge. I thought the circumstances of the episode were hilarious because I remember living in New York and EVERY YEAR getting stuck in traffic because of the Puerto Rican Day parade. I don't live in New York anymore, but I'm guessing that New Yorkers "got the joke" a lot easier than the rest of us.

angela.

In article , Jeff and Angela wrote:

Finally someone said it! That's exactly it. Problem is, I think the vast majority of people complaining are not aware that Puerto Rican Day is a REAL EVENT. And it's a lot like that. Everyone keeps saying, 'Why didn't they pick <fill in the blank>?' Because it's the wrong time of year! It was about right for Puerto Rican Day though...obvious choice.

It's not racism, it's reality.

Cheers, Lulu

Jeff and Angela wrote:

Oh, that would have worked even better, because then they could have dragged the IRA wannabes into it!

Then you'd have people like me complaining that all us Micks aren't drunks! :-)

They *don't*? That's terrible!!!

Ah! So it was really area-culturally specific, then!

Susan

Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote:

No, but

a) that doesn't mean there wasn't a show I missed where it happened.

b) I've seen two separate shows where it was worn on someone's backside - and part of the plot. I've seen plenty of displays many would consider disrespectful on other shows where it was just the costuming.

Susan

There were the US flag condoms in "LA Law"...

No - they usually reserve those scenes for the evening news, talk shows, magazine shows, etc.; all the while explaining how important freedom of speech is in this country...

i bet you are a lot of fun to hang around with