While I like this doco, it's sad that it was made in this era of unremitting wokeness. 14:17 : "The infamous Charlie Chan character" ....What?!? Actually, the Kuomintan (Chinese Nationalist Party) liked and very much approved of the Charlie Chan character. They thought his was a positive characterization of Chinese men, especially considering what came before. What bothered them in regard to characters played by Warner Oland, was the Fu Man Chu character -- a kind of "Yellow" bogeyman from a generation earlier (a symbol of the Yellow Peril of the beginning of the Twentieth century). They thought Charlie Chan was a big step up from those earlier characterizations. ....The performer they really disapproved of was Anna May Wong. They thought her characters were too sexy, too whorish. (She frequently played vamps and prostitutes, who was not shy about revealing a lot of skin.) ....Plus, Madame Chang was a "sincere Christian"; and her American female mentors taught her to despise the erotic characterizations of Asian womanhood.. (Also, they taught all of the upper-crust College-bound Chinese coming into America to hate the Chinatown Chinese -- who, in any event, were Cantonese and Taishanese speakers.)
Who cares about the Kuomintang and what they thought? After all, the NAACP criticized "Birth Of A Nation", didn't stop Hollywood from showing it, did it? How many Italian groups protested "The Godfather"? Hasn't stopped Hollywood there either, has it? This isn't about what white people think confirms their view, it's about what WE think confirms our view of how we in other ethnic groups see ourselves portrayed. It's like the N word; white people want to know why they can't use it but it never occurs to them that they were the ones who used it to begin with as a derogatory term. It was WE in the African American community that repurposed the word (Not that it's a universally held belief among African Americans) So, no you don't get to use it again under any circumstances. This is all about how WE control the images that depicts us, not whether you think it "woke" or not. It's not about you.
@@dangelo1369 I’m not sure if I agree with you 100%, but if someone wants to look at the moral standards of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek and the good Madame Generalissimo, I suggest they research what General Joe Stilwell and General Frank Dorn thought of the whole leadership of the Nationalist Army, and how it was different from that of Zhou En Lai. Anyone inclined can look at how the Nationalist press hounded not just Anna May Wong, but native Chinese actresses-to death. Historians indicate there were 100,000 prostitutes in Shanghai in 1936. Yet there was this puritanical edge to the Nationalists, pointing to the actresses, who merely reflected the reality, as the scourge. Of course doing nothing, or even profiting from sex commerce.
Amazing documentary on an amazing woman. Thank You
Thank you for posting this documentary. It is a real service and good deed, not just for AMW aficionados, but for all Americans.
While I like this doco, it's sad that it was made in this era of unremitting wokeness. 14:17 : "The infamous Charlie Chan character" ....What?!? Actually, the Kuomintan (Chinese Nationalist Party) liked and very much approved of the Charlie Chan character. They thought his was a positive characterization of Chinese men, especially considering what came before. What bothered them in regard to characters played by Warner Oland, was the Fu Man Chu character -- a kind of "Yellow" bogeyman from a generation earlier (a symbol of the Yellow Peril of the beginning of the Twentieth century). They thought Charlie Chan was a big step up from those earlier characterizations. ....The performer they really disapproved of was Anna May Wong. They thought her characters were too sexy, too whorish. (She frequently played vamps and prostitutes, who was not shy about revealing a lot of skin.) ....Plus, Madame Chang was a "sincere Christian"; and her American female mentors taught her to despise the erotic characterizations of Asian womanhood.. (Also, they taught all of the upper-crust College-bound Chinese coming into America to hate the Chinatown Chinese -- who, in any event, were Cantonese and Taishanese speakers.)
Who cares about the Kuomintang and what they thought? After all, the NAACP criticized "Birth Of A Nation", didn't stop Hollywood from showing it, did it?
How many Italian groups protested "The Godfather"? Hasn't stopped Hollywood there either, has it?
This isn't about what white people think confirms their view, it's about what WE think confirms our view of how we in other ethnic groups see ourselves portrayed. It's like the N word; white people want to know why they can't use it but it never occurs to them that they were the ones who used it to begin with as a derogatory term. It was WE in the African American community that repurposed the word (Not that it's a universally held belief among African Americans) So, no you don't get to use it again under any circumstances.
This is all about how WE control the images that depicts us, not whether you think it "woke" or not. It's not about you.
@@dangelo1369 I’m not sure if I agree with you 100%, but if someone wants to look at the moral standards of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek and the good Madame Generalissimo, I suggest they research what General Joe Stilwell and General Frank Dorn thought of the whole leadership of the Nationalist Army, and how it was different from that of Zhou En Lai.
Anyone inclined can look at how the Nationalist press hounded not just Anna May Wong, but native Chinese actresses-to death. Historians indicate there were 100,000 prostitutes in Shanghai in 1936. Yet there was this puritanical edge to the Nationalists, pointing to the actresses, who merely reflected the reality, as the scourge.
Of course doing nothing, or even profiting from sex commerce.