that last paragraph says it all.

thanks for posting.

Given the confusing way you've formatted this post, it's unclear to me how much of the above is your writing and how much is the Orville Lloyd Douglas piece you mention. But since you seem to commend the piece without reservation, I'll assume you agree with everything above, regardless of author.

As in previous posts on this and similar topics, you seem to insist on personalizing an issue that is better understood through an analysis of institutions. The questions you are led to ask are: is Angelina Jolie a bad or irresponsible person? why did Mariane Pearl permit this? and so on. Those questions are fine for gossiping with friends, but they don't really advance the movement for racial justice in any way. What are we supposed to do if it turns out Jolie is a bad person for taking this role? Boycotting her next movie or something similar would have no effect whatever on the struggle for racial justice.

Namecalling about the "White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy" is no substitute for real analysis. The relationship between white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism is very real, but it's a bit more complicated than you let on (the post seems particularly confused about the nature and role of markets). Sometimes these dynamics of oppression work together, but that's not always or automatically the case. Sometimes capitalism works against racism; sometimes racism and sexism work at cross purposes; and so on.

Focusing on the racial dynamics of particular celebrities is only productive when it's linked to a more general analysis of the role celebrity itself plays in sustaining white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism. This post seems to assume that it would be an unqualified advance for justice if Halle Berry had got this role. But while we're debating these issues, what pressing things are we being distracted from? And what are we missing about the way in which the cult of celebrity warps our ways of understanding ourselves and each other?

In the end Hollywood is focused on making profits. Angelina Jolie has a household name that brings in the revenue. Separate from that if we want to go beyond the economic (sometimes appearing racial) lines, we could have had a number of women of color of multi-cultural heritage such as Halle Berry, Victoria Rowell or Thandi Newton to play the role. And to bring in the house they could have had a well known actor e.g. Brad Pitt then die his hair black. But they didn't? Why? Is is that as mentioned as in the early 1900s there was no desire to have a woman of color paired with a white male actor? Have we not progressed? The debate shouldn't be based solely on race, economics and class. The issue is a composite of multiple factors. In college I wrote a paper entitled the "Jezebel: Survey of the Mythical Image of the Black Woman." In the paper, I noted the various images from Sapphire, Jezebel, and Mamie from 300 years ago until today that consistently reoccur throughout history. I believe instead of being reactive be proactive in creating opportunities to empower people of color while showing the dynamic talent and spirit in our people. I can critique til the sunshines; however I have arrived to a point that we need to re-transfer energy to something positive and productive. I hope you lead the way with me....I will through Creative Cause.

I agree with the above poster stating that Jolie was chosen b/c she can generate the publicity. Yes, there are many talented black women of mixed heritages that can act circles around Jolie but this is Hollywood......

But of an interesting side note, I read somewhere that Brad Pitt is either a major investor or co-owner of the studio that made "A Mighty Heart". If that's true then one can see why Jolie was chosen.

I totally agree Joann. And thanks Tambra, I'll check you out...

So I saw A Might Heart this weekend and I actually don't think that Jolie dons black/brown face. Post Jolie tanning, Ms. Pearl and Jolie are closer in complexion than everyone had let on.

But the movie still lacks political credibility as it turns viewers against Pakistani people by not explicating the political crisis in that region and making it appear as though desperate poverty alone has created terrorism. The movie was also filmed in India instead of Pakistan where the story is based, which to me says that white film makers can demarcate space and determine how it will be interpreted to the world.

Malena, making the movie in India more probably demonstrates that it's easier, safer, and cheaper to get permits to film a movie in a vibrant democracy than in an unstable military dictatorship -- especially when the movie deals with the alleged ties between the military leader's intelligence service and international terrorism. Or, yeah, I guess it could be white supremacy.