11 ms·

I haven't seen Homeland past the first season - but can someone who has seen more shed light on the alleged "racism" of the show? Is the show actually racist in

• drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Well, the show depicts largely terrorists and criminals. Activists apparently want long diatribes about how wonderful Arab and Muslim families are to "balance" it out. Homeland isn't a documentary. Its a dramatic show about national security and as such it will probably not paint a realistic picture of the average Muslim, because average Muslims aren't really what its supposed to portray. The same way professional wresting doesn't portray the average man's body or reality tv about wealthy people doesn't portray the average person's lifestyle.
  • hackuser 11y ago
    > Homeland isn't a documentary ... True, but I don't feel it's not enough for Homeland's producers, or anyone, to say 'it's not our problem'. We all live in a community and are responsible for taking care of it and for the consequences of what we do. "No man is an island." People absorb their views of the world from TV, in part. With widespread prejudice against people who believe in Islam, portraying stereotypes of that prejudice worsens a dangerous situation. Many, many very bad things in history have resulted and are resulting from that kind of prejudice. It's similar to portraying all black skinned people on TV as drug dealers; many people, seeing only stereotypes, come to believe them.
    • dalke 11y ago
      For an example of how the fake TV world can be used to justify real world beliefs: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/20/justice-scalia-hearts-jack-bauer/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/20/justice-scalia-hearts-ja... > The Globe and Mail reported that Scalia came to the defense of Jack Bauer and his torture tactics during an Ottawa conference of international jurists and national security officials last week. During a panel discussion about terrorism, torture and the law, a Canadian judge remarked, “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ ” > Justice Scalia responded with a defense of Agent Bauer, arguing that law enforcement officials deserve latitude in times of great crisis. “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia reportedly said. “Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” He then posed a series of questions to his fellow judges: “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?” > “I don’t think so,” Scalia reportedly answered himself. “So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        • dalke 11y ago
          "it's just a way of relating" Yes, I believe that it my point. By creating constructs like Bauer, the underlying topic that torture is justifiable became easier to relate to. Thus, it's not correct to absolve the creators of those shows simply, as drzaiusapelord did, because 'Its a dramatic show'. I have no idea what your last line means.
          • deleted 11y ago
            [deleted]
        • justizin 11y ago
          You do know that the CFAA was authored in response to the fictional threats depicted in, "War Games", right?
        • DonHopkins 11y ago
          Hello, Star Wars.
        • TeMPOraL 11y ago
          It also provides anchors and examples for availability heuristic[0]. It then leads some people to generalize from fictional evidence[1]. [0] - http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Availability_heuristic http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Availability_heuristic [1] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...
        • anigbrowl 11y ago
          If you don't think art has an ideological function then you are my target audience. Manipulating political discourse is a major motivation for my creative activities, probably the primary one in fact - I falsify the world in order to improve upon it.
    • drzaiusapelord 11y ago
      >many people, seeing only stereotypes, come to believe them. Seems like the local education system has failed if people can't think critically or rationally. Blaming the arts is wrong and only treats the symptom. Do you believe that all information needs to be carefully controlled so that people don't get the wrong ideas? If so, what are you doing on an open/liberal/libertarian forum like HN then? Anyone can post anything here, pretty much. Seems to me that you're going your own advice by being present here.
      • ashwinaj 11y ago
        This. Thanks for posting this. Everyone likes to shirk personal responsibility and put the blame on others. If you are too challenged to distinguish between real life vs reel life, you should excuse yourself from such matters. EDIT: Thanks for the down votes, the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't it?
        • lotyrin 11y ago
          And matches are perfectly safe, if you don't happen to be surrounded by flammables. The simple facts are that we have a huge amount of ignorance in the audience for this show, this show takes advantage of that (it is targeted to folks who are not informed about the places and people and groups depicted, otherwise it wouldn't take such extreme artistic license with them) and will have an effect on the views of its audience. It doesn't matter what society we'd like to live in or how that might play out in theory.
          • ashwinaj 11y ago
            > And matches are perfectly safe, if you don't happen to be surrounded by flammables. My point goes back to personal responsibility. Whose fault is it if you're surrounded by flammables labeled appropriately? The analogy is that this is labeled as a "TV show" not a documentary.
            • lotyrin 11y ago
              You seem to have gotten caught on the analogy and failed to read my argument. It doesn't matter if something is fiction, the reality is that fiction has a great impact on its audience, and that impact comes with proportional responsibility. It does not matter what ideal rational actors should theoretically do when it comes to managing their opinions and knowledge about the world in the face of fiction, we don't have any of those. We don't get to pretend society works a particular way, just so we can justify bad television that uses real places and real names of groups in a farcical way because it's capitalizing on a contemporary societal phenomenon of fear and ignorance of those things.
  • Retra 11y ago
    There's no such thing as an average person.
  • zhemao 11y ago
    Well, it apparently can't even depict terrorists correctly, because suggesting that Al Qaeda and Hezbollah would ever work together is just ludicrous. And I can totally see why Lebanese would be pissed off at seeing Hamra street completely misrepresented in that way. And even if the show isn't supposed to depict "average Muslims", do you really think all the viewers of the show will get that nuance? If all of the Arab/Iranian/Pakistani characters in the show (and the show doesn't seem to make much a distinction) are painted with a broad brush, that sends a certain kind of message to viewers.
    • briandear 11y ago
      Might we also criticize the portrayal of Jews in Palestinian kids cartoons? I am not certain there are many Muslims complaining about those portrayals.
      • hyperpape 11y ago
        Also implies "and", whereas you seem to mean "instead".
      • pessimizer 11y ago
        Or the portrayal of Minnesotans in Fargo. I'm not sure that you're required to talk about every portrayal everywhere before complaining about any specific portrayal, though, so it's probably irrelevant.
      • chris_wot 11y ago
        Well, yes! But you've not negated the points being made, you've merely shown that ignorance is bad no matter where or who portrays it.
    • merpnderp 11y ago
      Some of the Arab/Iranian/Pakistani characters are critical members of the portrayed CIA team.
  • chipotle_coyote 11y ago
    Maybe the activists just want the show to put the relatively minimal effort into getting basic facts right, which the linked article gives several examples of them failing to do. If I write a novel set in a neighborhood in present-day Detroit, and I describe it looking like downtown Palo Alto and say the economic hard times there were caused by everyone losing their jobs at the local salmon fisheries, I doubt I could deploy "but it's fiction!" as a Get Out Of Criticism Free card.
• huac 11y ago
  Easier to read the linked articles. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/02/homeland-is-the-most-bigoted-show-on-television/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/02/... http://www.hebaamin.com/arabian-street-artists-bomb-homeland-why-we-hacked-an-award-winning-series/ http://www.hebaamin.com/arabian-street-artists-bomb-homeland...
  • ethbro 11y ago
    Let's just sum it up and say it's "24 with more intelligence community office politics."
• jacobr 11y ago
  Would it matter though? For how long is "ignorance" an excuse for one of the biggest TV shows ever?
• gizmo 11y ago
  Homeland is not intentionally racist, but that isn't the main concern. Homeland leans on lazy stereotypes way too much, and that's harmful regardless of intent. This opinion piece from last year has details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/02/homeland-is-the-most-bigoted-show-on-television/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/02/...
  • Retra 11y ago
    Indeed. I haven't seem very much of the show, but I found its depiction of the military and suburban lifestyle to be nauseating and trite. I can't imagine they'd do any better depicting foreign cultures.
  • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >Homeland is not intentionally racist Isn't strongly leaning on lazy stereotypes a form of intentional racism? It may not be with malice, but it is an intentional choice to use those lazy stereotypes.
• lifeformed 11y ago
  A racist TV show does the same damage regardless of whether the creators were ignorant or malicious. Wide reaching mediums like TV shows have a lot of power in influencing our culture. Media creators have a lot of responsibility.
• rndn 11y ago
  'The series dangerously feeds into the racism of the hysterical moment we find ourselves in today.'
• wmil 11y ago
  The writers can't keep up the quality as they write the season. They're rushed for the later episodes. So characters start out as nuanced and then become more one dimensional towards the end of the season. Also they need to deliver twists and shocks. So it's not exactly stupidity but it's not really intentional either.
  • e15ctr0n 11y ago
    The main writer of Homeland died unexpectedly in 2013 [1]. The new writers are clueless. That's why the show has lost its nuance and most of its discerning audience. [1] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/homeland-writer-producer-henry-bromell-429701 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/homeland-writer-produc...
    • paganel 11y ago
      Oh, so that explains it. IMHO the first season was really great, one of the most subversive shows aired on TV in the last 15 years. I know the word "subversive" gets thrown a lot in many discussions lately, but the first season certainly deserved it (warning: spoilers for season 1 following), I mean, we've got an American war hero praying to Allah, getting elected as a congressman while conspiring to kill the Vice-President and only at the last second deciding not to do it, and not because he believed in America or western values, whatever that means, but because of his kids. Plus the entire higher echelons of the CIA getting bombed off to pieces at the end, you don't see that in many shows/movies.
• gotchange 11y ago
  A minor correction, Arabic is the language while Arab is the ethnicity.
• aikah 11y ago
  Brown person here, I find Homeland stupid but not racist, let's cut the crap. Some Muslims do more damage to the Muslim community than a single show that paint a few Muslims as terrorists. Even 24 which was deemed controversial wouldn't qualify as racist in my book. They somehow managed to show that terrorists were manipulated by some higher interests , and were no more than "useful idiots". But it never painted the whole Muslim community as terrorist , nor does Homeland. It's always more about US policies and its consequences than anything else. If we put the "racist" label on everything a little bit controversial then the word itself becomes void of any meaning.
• danans 11y ago
  I don't know about racist, but the show is quite dishonest in its depiction of an alliance between the Iranian government and Al-Qaeda, when in the real world the link is between Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and their respective sponsors in the Gulf Arab states (Saudi Arabia, etc.) I enjoyed watching the show until they dropped that plot twist, then I rolled my eyes and quit. It's concerning because viewers who are less informed about the actual alignment of powers in the middle east may take the show's plot line as being inspired by reality, when it's fact it's far from it.
• draw_down 11y ago
  Racism is stupidity. Hanlon's Razor says nothing about the kind of stupidity in play.