Dear Kevin Fallon,
I don't know how to reach you, but I wanted to make sure I did. That's why I, crazy Latino that I am, created this page just for you!
I read your Daily Beast article from March 26th (link below), responding to Deadline's 'Ethnic Casting' Piece.
First off, thank you for even taking a stance that pushes for more diversity. You are right, DeadLine's piece on diversity lacks insight and doesn't reflect the true meaning of diversity. Again, thank you for that.
Except, and excuse me for coming across confrontational and being so blunt, I wonder, since this is a conversation about diversity, if you lack something in YOUR definition of diversity. Is your definition of diversity bilateral in nature, Mr. Fallon?
By now, you're probably wondering what does that mean, what is a bilateral definition of diversity-- and why is this guy (this little, annoying Latino) coming to me with this question? Again, please forgive me for coming across confrontational and for being blunt.
Black and white (who you also call caucasian).. those 2 groups of people (combined), are mentioned close to 20 times in your piece.
When I saw that, and then noticed that no one else was highlighted as much, I questioned if you felt adverse to mentioning that we also need more Latinos on English speaking networks. Check your piece, like actually check it... you say black and white (caucasian) about 2o times combined... the word "Latino" never comes up once! And I find that interesting.
Heck, you could've at least called us Hispanic in your article. Hispanic, a word that minimally and barely captures who we really are but, hey, even that word would've helped you recognize us somewhat. But, nope, even that was missing.
Considering that we don't see many latinos shows (or even Latino actors) on English speaking networks, and considering that we are the fastest and biggest growing population in the USA, I was baffled by your piece that spoke on the diversity yet left the most "diverse minority" group in the USA out of that conversation.
Yes, this past year saw 2 Latino themed shows on TV. TWO!!!! Hurray, we made it!!! I think there's a 3rd one by now! Oh, no.. 3!!!
But while we "made" it, you never mention the need for more Latino shows. Is asking for more Latinos not part of the diversity issue on TV? We get 2 (maybe 3) shows, God forbid we want more! Sorry, I can't help being confrontational. I think it's the Latino in me.
You want to talk about how we need more diversity, yet don't mention latinos? OK, yeah that's inclusive of diversity!
In your credit, you do mention Asians once. ONCE!!! Congratulations, you win the prize for the discussion on diversity!
I am sure you know this fact, but I will throw it in just for fun: Combined, Asians represent 2 billion people on the planet! 2 billion Asians on planet earth!! Yikes! That is more than Black and White people!
In other words, writing Asian more than once in your piece would've been OK!! Me, I am going overboard, I've written Asian 5 times so far (including this sentence where I wrote Asian again to make my point -- so, that makes it 6 times). I better stop writing ASIAN!
Again, you highlight black and white (caucasian) about 20 times (combined) in your piece.
Is that the kind of diversity you clamor for? Where any and all discussion on diversity are mainly about, and between, Black and white? Sorry, but that is a bilateral definition of diversity. Black and white is still a black or white world. Everyone else, the "greys" if you want to call us, -- or whatever you want to call us, just fall through the cracks in such a world.
I'll take it a step further. You NEVER mentioned that Native Americans have NEVER had a prime time TV show in your article! Why not mention that important fact in your article too? That's the kind of diversity we need more of, why not mention that? Is that TOO much discussion about the kind of diversity that is lacking? I don't know, but I believe we need more diversity -- and not just the black and white kind, but everyone! We even need shows that highlight Arabs and Iranians OUTSIDE the terrorist story line!
It's important that any discussion around diversity embody a definition that is inclusive of ALL. Me, I haven't even touched on conversation that deals with ideological diversity (beyond racial) or even body issue diversity, which we need more of too!
I know, we must settle down, us "greys". You know, let's keep our priorities straight here. Let's use the bilateral definition of diversity, that both Afro-Centrists and Euro-Centrists like to use. Black and white. Let's stick to THAT definition of diversity!
Mr. Fallon, the world is more (America is more, and was built by more) than just black and white. This might come as a shock to you, but there are tons of colors, and other forms of diversity. Why not discuss those "others" as much too? Or is the rainbow too bright?
Sir, I would hate to think that you (with the number of readers who follow you) believe diversity must mainly occur, first and foremost, between black and white. With those 2... you got it ALL! All mocking aside, most North Americans do think that way.
Most U.S. citizens believe that if you keep the discussion on race and diversity framed, in such a way, where you focus it around black and white, as the center pieces, then you represent ALL diversity.
Everyone else, on a good day, you might mention once -- maybe twice. Native Americans need not apply.
Mr. Fallon, I feel your article doesn't highlight true and inclusive diversity. Rather, I feel it highlights a bilateral view on diversity. Your piece is essential, but it could've have gone further. For whatever reason, you didn't take that leap. As a result, your piece falls short on the bigger definition of what diversity really means. So I feel it's not much different than Deadline's piece. In other words, until those of us who clamor for diversity do not overcome our own limitations on it, we can't expect others to do so. When we change, we can help "others" change too.
In closing, I will add this. My friend wrote me the following regarding what I write here to you - and he's Asian and wears glasses, so maybe he has a better point to make than I do: "If your intent is to be confrontational and antagonizing [with Kevin Fallon], it hits the mark. I do think he over simplifies his arguments. However, in my initial read of his article, it seems like he means well."
I agree with my friend, I think you mean well. But meaning well is only half the battle.
KEVIN FALLON'S ARTICLE ON DIVERSITY:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/25/hollywood-s-still-racist-why-the-deadline-ethnic-casting-piece-is-dangerous.html
I don't know how to reach you, but I wanted to make sure I did. That's why I, crazy Latino that I am, created this page just for you!
I read your Daily Beast article from March 26th (link below), responding to Deadline's 'Ethnic Casting' Piece.
First off, thank you for even taking a stance that pushes for more diversity. You are right, DeadLine's piece on diversity lacks insight and doesn't reflect the true meaning of diversity. Again, thank you for that.
Except, and excuse me for coming across confrontational and being so blunt, I wonder, since this is a conversation about diversity, if you lack something in YOUR definition of diversity. Is your definition of diversity bilateral in nature, Mr. Fallon?
By now, you're probably wondering what does that mean, what is a bilateral definition of diversity-- and why is this guy (this little, annoying Latino) coming to me with this question? Again, please forgive me for coming across confrontational and for being blunt.
Black and white (who you also call caucasian).. those 2 groups of people (combined), are mentioned close to 20 times in your piece.
When I saw that, and then noticed that no one else was highlighted as much, I questioned if you felt adverse to mentioning that we also need more Latinos on English speaking networks. Check your piece, like actually check it... you say black and white (caucasian) about 2o times combined... the word "Latino" never comes up once! And I find that interesting.
Heck, you could've at least called us Hispanic in your article. Hispanic, a word that minimally and barely captures who we really are but, hey, even that word would've helped you recognize us somewhat. But, nope, even that was missing.
Considering that we don't see many latinos shows (or even Latino actors) on English speaking networks, and considering that we are the fastest and biggest growing population in the USA, I was baffled by your piece that spoke on the diversity yet left the most "diverse minority" group in the USA out of that conversation.
Yes, this past year saw 2 Latino themed shows on TV. TWO!!!! Hurray, we made it!!! I think there's a 3rd one by now! Oh, no.. 3!!!
But while we "made" it, you never mention the need for more Latino shows. Is asking for more Latinos not part of the diversity issue on TV? We get 2 (maybe 3) shows, God forbid we want more! Sorry, I can't help being confrontational. I think it's the Latino in me.
You want to talk about how we need more diversity, yet don't mention latinos? OK, yeah that's inclusive of diversity!
In your credit, you do mention Asians once. ONCE!!! Congratulations, you win the prize for the discussion on diversity!
I am sure you know this fact, but I will throw it in just for fun: Combined, Asians represent 2 billion people on the planet! 2 billion Asians on planet earth!! Yikes! That is more than Black and White people!
In other words, writing Asian more than once in your piece would've been OK!! Me, I am going overboard, I've written Asian 5 times so far (including this sentence where I wrote Asian again to make my point -- so, that makes it 6 times). I better stop writing ASIAN!
Again, you highlight black and white (caucasian) about 20 times (combined) in your piece.
Is that the kind of diversity you clamor for? Where any and all discussion on diversity are mainly about, and between, Black and white? Sorry, but that is a bilateral definition of diversity. Black and white is still a black or white world. Everyone else, the "greys" if you want to call us, -- or whatever you want to call us, just fall through the cracks in such a world.
I'll take it a step further. You NEVER mentioned that Native Americans have NEVER had a prime time TV show in your article! Why not mention that important fact in your article too? That's the kind of diversity we need more of, why not mention that? Is that TOO much discussion about the kind of diversity that is lacking? I don't know, but I believe we need more diversity -- and not just the black and white kind, but everyone! We even need shows that highlight Arabs and Iranians OUTSIDE the terrorist story line!
It's important that any discussion around diversity embody a definition that is inclusive of ALL. Me, I haven't even touched on conversation that deals with ideological diversity (beyond racial) or even body issue diversity, which we need more of too!
I know, we must settle down, us "greys". You know, let's keep our priorities straight here. Let's use the bilateral definition of diversity, that both Afro-Centrists and Euro-Centrists like to use. Black and white. Let's stick to THAT definition of diversity!
Mr. Fallon, the world is more (America is more, and was built by more) than just black and white. This might come as a shock to you, but there are tons of colors, and other forms of diversity. Why not discuss those "others" as much too? Or is the rainbow too bright?
Sir, I would hate to think that you (with the number of readers who follow you) believe diversity must mainly occur, first and foremost, between black and white. With those 2... you got it ALL! All mocking aside, most North Americans do think that way.
Most U.S. citizens believe that if you keep the discussion on race and diversity framed, in such a way, where you focus it around black and white, as the center pieces, then you represent ALL diversity.
Everyone else, on a good day, you might mention once -- maybe twice. Native Americans need not apply.
Mr. Fallon, I feel your article doesn't highlight true and inclusive diversity. Rather, I feel it highlights a bilateral view on diversity. Your piece is essential, but it could've have gone further. For whatever reason, you didn't take that leap. As a result, your piece falls short on the bigger definition of what diversity really means. So I feel it's not much different than Deadline's piece. In other words, until those of us who clamor for diversity do not overcome our own limitations on it, we can't expect others to do so. When we change, we can help "others" change too.
In closing, I will add this. My friend wrote me the following regarding what I write here to you - and he's Asian and wears glasses, so maybe he has a better point to make than I do: "If your intent is to be confrontational and antagonizing [with Kevin Fallon], it hits the mark. I do think he over simplifies his arguments. However, in my initial read of his article, it seems like he means well."
I agree with my friend, I think you mean well. But meaning well is only half the battle.
KEVIN FALLON'S ARTICLE ON DIVERSITY:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/25/hollywood-s-still-racist-why-the-deadline-ethnic-casting-piece-is-dangerous.html