Is George Takei now persona non grata in entertainment industry?
Actor’s nasty remarks edited from televised interview
Why, Mr. Sulu? WHY?
George Takei of Star Trek fame made a wild accusation in an interview with Phoenix-based Fox affiliate.
The televised portion of the interview went as you’d expect: long-time gay rights advocate is thrilled with advances in gay rights. “We’re overjoyed, we’re proud, and we feel fully American,” said Takei. George discussed having to stay in the closet so he could have a career in Hollywood and the disappointment he felt when Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed California’s gay marriage legislation.
“We’re doing this for the straight couples of today because they’re going to having the gay babies of tomorrow and they won’t have to have those discussions.”
The televised interview:
Takei’s racist tirade was edited out of the televised interview and relegated to the station’s YouTube channel.
Discussing the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision with a local news correspondent, Takei lashed out at Justice Clarence Thomas. “He is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there,” said Takei angrily.
“For him to say slaves had dignity. I mean, doesn’t he know that slaves were in chains? That they were whipped on the back? If you saw the movie Twelve Years As A Slave [sic], they were raped. And he says they had dignity!”
“This man does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America.”
I refuse to live an Overly Politicized Life. I don’t boycott actors who’s political ideology isn’t congruent with mine. They’re entitled to their opinions. As long as they make good movies I don’t really care what those opinions entail.
I also whole-heartedly reject the Outraged Life. That is to say, the compulsion to be outraged over every stupid thing a public figure says or does. Life is far too short to be perpetually pissed off by attention-seekers. Plus, stress gives you wrinkles and no one wants more wrinkles than they’ve earned honestly.
But (yes, there’s a but here), because of rampant over-polarization, we are required to run Takei’s remarks through the “Imagine if a Republican Said This” test. There they fail miserably. Had a right-winger used the words “black face,” in any context, they’d have been tarred, feathered, and sacrificed upon the altar of Political Correctness.
Black-faced clown? Really? REALLY? Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that, dare I say, racist? And all the while Takei has been preaching tolerance and equality. That’s some major self-awareness fail right there.
Seriously bad form Mr. Sulu.
Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Look What Gay Marriage Did To The Freedom Of Speech In Canada” (for your consideration)
“In an excellent piece in Aleteia, Dawn Stefanowicz, a woman who lives in Canada and was raised by gay parents, pens a warning to the United States: We don’t want to embrace gay marriage, and Canada is proof.
Canada federally mandated gay marriage about 10 years ago in 2005. Since then, their freedoms have eroded.
Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.
It slowly creeps up, and before you know it, you can’t speak about the traditional family of a man, woman and children without authorities considering it “hate speech.” In fact, you couldn’t even have this kind of debate in Canada, because everyone would start shouting, “OMG you’re so homophobic and bigoted!” (Sound familiar?) But it doesn’t end there.
Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.”
In an excellent piece in Aleteia, Dawn Stefanowicz, a woman who lives in Canada and was raised by gay parents, pens a warning to the United States: We don’t want to embrace gay marriage, and Canada is proof.
Canada federally mandated gay marriage about 10 years ago in 2005. Since then, their freedoms have eroded.
Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.
It slowly creeps up, and before you know it, you can’t speak about the traditional family of a man, woman and children without authorities considering it “hate speech.” In fact, you couldn’t even have this kind of debate in Canada, because everyone would start shouting, “OMG you’re so homophobic and bigoted!” (Sound familiar?) But it doesn’t end there.
Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/29598-look-what-gay-marriage-did-to-freedom-of-speech-in-canada
Well you know what they say about getting into show business.
“The way you get into show business is you just put a bunch of marbles in your mouth and start talking. The first thing you know a marble will come out and then another, and by the time you lose all your marbles, you’re a star.” – Junior Samples.
To be fair, the vicious concept isn’t the weird perversion of the word “marriage”, but rather the concept of a “hate crime”; not the same thing at all.
Why the Gay Activist Agenda has been so obsessed with calling whatever the hell it is they want to do “marriage” has never, at least to me, been clear. But the motivation behind the push for normalization of “hate crimes” is very obvious. They want, eventually, to be able to denounce any criticism, no matter how true, just, or logically constructed, as “hate”, and therefore itself a crime. A long-range goal, to be sure, but a goal nevertheless. And a grotesque one.
Agreed!
And RE: “Why the Gay Activist Agenda has been so obsessed with calling whatever the hell it is they want to do “marriage” has never, at least to me, been clear.”
It’s all about “sticking it to the man”…so to speak – no pun intended!
That, and getting Federal Social Security benefits for couples comprised of men (higher income than a man and a woman) with fewer expenses (children).
Far too many of our laws controlling taxes, inheritances, custody, property, etc. are tied to marriage. But even so, that should be an easy fix; a few regulations have to be reworded slightly, so that instead of marriage they involved marriage or (insert appropriate arbitrary phrase here, something like “civil union”), and the problem would be solved. Probably the bureaucracy could handle it in a low-profile way, so there’d be no annoying objections from the public. The legislature and the courts would not have been involved at all.
But apparently that’s not what the Activists were after. The agenda requires a redefinition of “marriage”, and I’m assuming there’s a specific reason why they were so hot to get that.
It’s all about “sticking it to the man”…so to speak – no pun intended!
Could be … but I still suspect that there’s something more crafty, and probably more sinister, behind it.
Canada has a codified Bill of Rights that includes freedom of speech. But it is not “the supreme law of the land,” as is our bill of rights, and they only give a nod to the fact that their rights existed before the establishment of the current government. (Although that concept is established firmly here, too many Americans are unfamiliar with it, and it is at risk simply for not being widely known.) However, Canada also has statutory law that says the rights of Canadians can be overcome by statute, when the statute expressly intends to infringe upon a right. A Canadian’s rights are subject to legislative process, not sheltered from it as are our rights are (nominally) here.
Gay marriage or not, the left was and is coming for our rights, including freedom of speech. If it wasn’t “gay rights” as the impetus for the assault, it would be some other group of snowflakes claiming shelter from offense and asking that the government provide it. No need to oppose the tools, just deny the principle that uses the tools – nobody has the authority to shut down political opposition here, therefore nobody has the authority to delegate such power to the government. You can’t delegate authority to the government that you don’t have yourself. This is a one-size-fits-all solution that replies to any leftist cause du jour. (I don’t think “gay rights” is a leftist cause. It is a cause adopted by the left because it knows it can use it as a front for its real objective of establishing progressive totalitarianism. The left doesn’t give a flying frack about gay people, or immigrants, or blacks, or anybody else.)
I think TV Land has to stop playing re-runs of Star Trek now.
I think it’s time TV Land go to Michael Jackson’s Never Never Land Ranch.
The Dukes of Hazzard was a Top 3 rate TV show in the country in 1980-81, Confederate flag paint job and all.
When an interviewer pinned William Shatner down on the issue of Takei, he was clearly uncomfortable with the subject. But once he got talking, he said Takei believed Shatner and Nimoy thought themselves the stars of Star Trek – which they were, of course. And Takei resented Sulu had not been promoted to Captain far earlier in the series of movies.
Shatner noted that giving Sulu his own command would have meant writing him out of the movies. So maybe it was a good idea after all.
1) You can’t define who someone is 2) He learned about slavery… from a movie? (I’ll bet Thomas had stories handed down from his ancestors), 3) Thomas was comparing modern slavery of the welfare state to the slavery of plantation days where, at least (this was his point), work is more ennobling than idleness. He wasn’t glorifying slavery in any form, just the opposite, 4) Thomas is a beautifully clear-minded thinker. Takei gives the impression of an hysteric who follows each fashionable idea like… uh, a fashion slave, 5) He didn’t hide it all that well: if you didn’t know Sulu was gay, you were lacking in the perception department. (Same with Hudson: he kissed girls like he was doing something heroic and final, like jumping on a grenade)
Who Hudson? Is that another Star Trek thang?
Rock Hudson?
Yep. Gomer Pyle’s boyfriend.
Seriously.
Did you know that AIDS came into California in the back of a Hudson?
Oh, Hudson! When he died he had not a friend in the world. Yet he had Neighbors up the @ss.
Oh Rock Hudson of non-Star Trek fame.
Thanks.
I refuse to live an Overly Politicized Life. I don’t boycott actors who’s political ideology isn’t congruent with mine. They’re entitled to their opinions. As long as they make good movies I don’t really care what those opinions entail.
Admirable, but it seems to me that there could be limits. Jane Fonda is both a great actress and an despicable human being. Under no circumstances would I spend a penny for any movie of hers.
If America were still a just society (it isn’t anymore) Fonda would have danced Danny Deever long ago for her treason. But fortunately for her she remains both free and rich, while thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese murdered at the hands of her precious Communists remain dead.
There are indeed limits. I have no problems supporting a left leaning actor who mostly keeps his politics out of his personal appearances. But when some marginally educated mouthpiece decides to use their soapbox to spew nonsense, I stop buying tickets.
At the height of his career, Michael Jordan was always being asked to endorse a candidate or a cause. He always refused to do so because “Democrat and Republican alike, I want them all to buy my shoes.”
I also recall the response of lefty actor Sean Bean when a British talk show host interviewed him right after the parliamentary election that first made Tony Blair Prime Minister. Bean was reluctant to talk politics and tried to keep the interview about the movie he was promoting. But the talk show host kept coming back to how Bean had voted earlier that day. The actor finally told the host that how he voterd was none of the host’s f–king business.
If you want to watch a despised actor’s film, don’t go to the theater, don’t rent it from anywhere, don’t buy it at the store. All of these things puts money in the actor’s pockets. Wait for the disc to show up at a used book or music store (they often sell used discs) and buy it there. None of your money will go to the actor and you still get to see the movie. (Although it may take some patience.)
Heck with all that; just download a pirate copy. That way you’re screwing everybody.
On the contrary, my method screws nobody. The movie makers (including the actors) have already made all the money they were going to make from the theatrical release. The disc has already been bought at retail by someone (so they already made their money from its sale), or it was a rental disc before it was sold by the rental agent to a buyer of used discs (through which process the makers again make their money). So by the time the disc is being sold as “used” in a second-hand shop, the makers have already made all the money they can from the process, because the alternative to selling an unwanted disc to a second-hand shop is throwing it away, a course in the life of the disc that makes just as much money (none) for the movie makers as the second-hand purchase of the disc.
Sulu ‘did’ have a ‘daughter’ in the movie versions. Takei’s version of d’Artagnan is the best clue to his sexual preference. Sulu ‘flew’ a Huey from the wrong (left hand) seat in “The Voyage Home”. The scene in the same movie where Sulu meets his grandfather was cut out and left on the floor.
Other than that, Takei brings nothing to the table.
We did have slaves who had dignity, and they used their freedom to establish colleges and churches. Their descendants had dignity, too, which was the whole point of Dr. Martin Luther King’s demonstrations. His idea of restraint in protest was to demonstrate that these people are worthy of citizenship, a concept that is distinct from being entitled to it.
Takei must have been on a roll. He also had some nasty things to say about Donald Trump. It seems that The Donald went to a gay wedding celebration, and failed to mouth off about it to the other guests. This demonstration, of courtesy and toleration toward those with whom one disagrees politically, was characterized as “hypocrisy.”
If I was guessing, I would guess that Takei resents being gay. Just guessing, of course.
In my considerable experience, “being gay” means anything but being a happy person, and not only…or often even principally…because of the effect of other people in your life.
It often means living a short, sad, empty life.
Valerie, the implication of your opening sentence is that only those slaves who started schools had dignity, but the others did not. Dignity is like freedom, everyone has it, no one can give it to you or take it from you. However, you may lack dignity in the eyes of others by the way you comport yourself.
“If you saw the movie Twelve Years As A Slave [sic], they were raped. And he says they had dignity!”
Learning history from a movie? Seriously!?
Tell me, Mr. Takei: why can’t I take a warp-speed trip around Jupiter in the U.S.S. Enterprise? Where is Starfleet Academy located and where do I sign up?
You must know these things; you were there! It was in a movie, therefore it must have happened exactly as portrayed!
I would say Takei is mentally unstable, but not because he’s gay.
Because he’s a liberal.
Actually it’s both. They each tend to feed the other.
Takei says the straight couples of today have the gay babies of tomorrow. Read, the future abused teens of America.
As for criminalizing “hate speech”, the way to scotch it is monitor your local mosque,especially if it’s African-American, and sue the bejayzas out of them for causing “mental anguish” the next time the imam reads the Qur’anic passage about Jews being turned into apes and pigs, or speaks of Jews as relatives of such. Or, dig up some middle-age Lefty candidate’s youthful statements about the “Fascist insect” or similar buzzword of the Silly ‘Sixties and Sillier ‘Seventies, and bring hate speech charges against him. The Left will discover the meaning of Brandenburg v. Ohio in a trice if that happens.
Takei’s father was an Anglophile who named hi son after King George VI. I suspect George learned proper English in the cradle.
Thomas’s father was a ne’er do well the son never knew until he was in middle age. Thomas was also born into the Gullah culture of the Georgia and Carolina low countries. They speak a dialect that is considered uncultured by a lot of blacks from other areas. In college Thomas still didn’t feel he spoke proper English, which was why he majored in English.
I suspect if Takei had begun life with Thomas’s burdens he would be a complete unknown today.
OH MY!!!
As an antidote to the strident, angry gay activists we so often hear from in the media, this is from the “Humans of New York” Facebook page, usually quite reliably liberal-leaning:
He gets it. So do a lot of people actually, I think. We just don’t usually hear from them because they’re not the ones raising hue and cry in the media.
Not only does he get it, he’s much less likely to ever be one of those dudes tossed off a building by ISIS when they get really hot here. (just a matter of time)
Time to introduce the Miranda-for-Media Rights/Warning
George…discontent with the depth of his hole…keepa digging…
***A few fans have written wondering whether I intended to utter a racist remark by referring to Justice Thomas as a “clown in blackface.”
“Blackface” is a lesser known theatrical term for a white actor who blackens his face to play a black buffoon. In traditional theater lingo, and in my view and intent, that is not racist. It is instead part of a racist history in this country.
I feel Justice Thomas has abdicated and abandoned his African American heritage by claiming slavery did not strip dignity from human beings. He made a similar remark about the Japanese American internment, of which I am a survivor. A sitting Justice of the Supreme Court ought to know better.
I have expressed my full thoughts on the matter here.***
Justice Thomas was exactly right. What others do does not strip you of your dignity.
I thought this was well expressed in “Rob Roy” (yeh, a movie, but we get a lot of our culture from movies), when Rob was telling his boys about honor.
“It’s a thing no man can give you, and none can take away.”
and…
“It’s a gift a man gives himself”.
George is the one who ought to know better, but he might despise his parents for their loss of face, and feel he has no human dignity in some part of his partly Japanese soul.
Japanese culture is deeply racist.
Why would Takei be persona non grata in Hollywood? 99% of Hollywood agrees with him, just doesn’t have his cover to say so publicly.