L.A. Film Festival head resigns over Prop. 8 donation

[cboy4]

3:57 PM, November 25, 2008

Southern California -- this just in

Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival who has been at the center of controversy ever since it was revealed almost two weeks ago that he had contributed $1,500 to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California, resigned from his post over the weekend.

The nonprofit arts organization Film Independent sponsors both the Los Angeles Film Festival, held in May, and the popular Independent Spirit awards. Raddon is a member of the Mormon Church, which actively called on its congregants to work for the passage of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. It has been estimated that Mormons gave more than $20 million in support of the recently passed ballot measure.

After Raddon's contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from "No on 8" supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/la-film-festiva.html

Actions have consequences

[GodlessBiker]

1. Good. Not a tear should be shed.

[marmar]

2. It's rather distressing that a Film Festival director would be a Prop 8 supporter....

.... One place you expect to be a refuge from this idiocy is the arts.

[Downtown Hound]

16. I thought the same thing. n/t

[skiddlybop]

3. Good riddance

to bad trash.

Who can be an artist with that kind of hatred and bigotry inside of him?

[Duncan Grant]

4. Let us remember that Prop 8 REMOVED civil rights from gay people.

There is no context which justifies the revocation of state sanctioned civil rights from gay people. If "Yes on 8" supporters and contributors are surprised by the backlash -- too fucking bad.

Don't feel sorry for Richard Raddon. He didn't give a damn about gay people when writing that $1,500 check...

[tavalon]

11. I agree. Not only did he lose his job but he wasted his $1500 dollars

Prop 8 will be struck down and probably national marital parity will come a decade before it might have without the meddlesome Mormons getting their nose into it. So, for this guy, it's a lose/lose. And I'm glad.

[Maven]

5. Good. ZERO tolerance for those who advance hate with their voices and their wallets.

[bluedawg12]

6. Byee...don't let the door hit you in the back

where the good Lord put the crack.... :rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

7. Bigots that voted for Prop 8 would have voted for Hitler's Nuremberg laws of 1935

The Nuremberg Laws

The first law, The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, prohibited marriages and extra-marital intercourse between “Jews ” (the name was now officially used in place of “non-Aryans ”) and “Germans ” and also the employment of “German ” females under forty-five in Jewish households. The second law, The Reich Citizenship Law, stripped Jews of their German citizenship and introduced a new distinction between “Reich citizens ” and “nationals.”

The Nuremberg Laws by their general nature formalized the unofficial and particular measures taken against Jews up to 1935. The Nazi leaders made a point of stressing the consistency of this legislation with the Party program which demanded that Jews should be deprived of their rights as citizens.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/nurlaws.html

The purpose of the Nuremberg laws was to isolate Jews from society, making them outcast. The purpose of Prop 8, and other oppressive proposals advocated by Prop 8 proponents, is to isolate LGBTs from society.

1938 - Kristallnacht (the night of broken glass), a pogrom in which Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues were destroyed.

1940 - Jews were forced from their homes and put in ghettos.

1941 - Final Solution begins.

[Toasterlad]

8. Disappointed in Don Cheadle

I don't know anything about his politics, but I've always liked him, and thought he was a good guy. I'm sure he would say he was respecting the man's right to his own opinion. I think Don might have have viewed things a little differently if the man had donated money to overturn Loving vs. Virginia.

I say, out every single one of those Prop 8 donors and put terrible, horrific, agonizing pressure on them and any business connections they may have, particularly anything with a strong gay constituency or connection, like the entertainment business.

[bliss_eternal]

10. All black men aren't necessarily "pro" interracial relationships...

...(even when involving someone that shares their ethnic background). So in this case, you might be mistaken. Case in point, Spike Lee. The Nation of Islam tends to look unfavorably on interracial marriage as well, and did not support it becoming legal (to my knowledge).

I'm not posting this comment to be contrarian, but to say it's fine if you choose to dislike or be disappointed in Mr. Cheadle, based on this. But his possible stance on the legality of interracial marriage, (I presume you base on his ethnicity)is a separate issue.

[racaulk]

12. Cheadle's long-time girlfriend is multiracial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgid_Coulter

One of her parents is African American and the other is Caucasian. Her parents' relationship (I don't know if they are married or not) would undoubtedly be affected if Loving v. Virginia were overturned. So I think Cheadle would take it quite personally if someone were to donate to that cause, if it exists.

I can't presume to speak for Toasterlad, but I think this is what he may have been referring to.

[bliss_eternal]

17. ????

Quote:
I can't presume to speak for Toasterlad, but I think this is what he may have been referring to.

What part of sharing what you think someone outside of you is referring to, is not "speaking for someone else?"

[racaulk]

18. Well...

"This is what he meant." = speaking for someone else (from a place of 100% certainty)

"This is what I think he meant." = not speaking for someone else (rather, your interpretation of what the other person meant to say)

I used the latter sentence format. That's a subtle difference, IMHO, but I hope that clears up my intent above.

[bliss_eternal]

19. Either way...

...you aren't him, and as such can't speak for someone else.

But I'll address you on YOUR comment.
Apparently you aren't aware that many in society(yep--including caucasians), and a large segment of the black community, consider multi-racial individuals "black." If they "look" yellow, beige, or slightly brown--they're still labeled as black. That's what they are, in their eyes. As such, Cheadle may not consider his partner "multi-racial." In his eyes, he may believe and see his partner as a black woman.

BUT--in the grand scheme of things, none of that really matters (in my opinion).

Mr. Cheadle's possible stance on something that was voted on before he was voting age is a separate issue.
I don't see it as relevant. I get that you (and the member I responded to do)see this as somehow relevant to his choice to be supportive of the guy discusssed in the op. You choose to judge Mr. Cheadle, based on his possible stance on something voted on before he could vote. Your choice.

[Toasterlad]

21. I Don't Believe racaulk WAS "Speaking for Me"

He made it quite clear that he believed it was something I MIGHT be referring to. (It was, in fact, not.)

But you're right: it's my choice to judge Don Cheadle for his support for the mormon asshat, as it is my choice to assume he would not back an attempt to overturn inter-racial marriage. Your opinon of my opinion's relevance is irrelevant. I have no doubt that the majority of people to read my post understood - and agree with - my point.

[bliss_eternal]

27. Interesting...

...that you immediately jumped on 'disappointment with cheadle' regarding this story. That you didn't bother to question why cheadle and whitaker were even mentioned for "giving a vote of confidence" to the guy (or what the reporter meant by this comment, or why it's relevant to this article).

You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions based on the mention of "a vote of confidence" by two prominent "black actors" in a report about proposition 8.

Think I'll comment on this "article" in a letter to the Times. They should be commended on their fine work of dividing communities. Your comments reflect how easy their task is to accomplish.

[racaulk]

22. Just so I understand...

If the topic at hand were Lady Macbeth's "Out, damned spot!" monologue, and I were to say "I think Lady Macbeth meant xxx," would you say that I were speaking FOR William Shakespeare? Or would you say that I was interpreting what his words were? :shrug:

...you aren't him, and as such can't speak for someone else.

I agree, and I never said that I was trying to. In fact, I made that intent quite clear in my first post to you in this subthread. But continue to parse my words and look for intent that is not there if it makes you happy, but you will do so without any further comment from me.

I do thank you for addressing what the POINT of my original reply was, instead of continuing to focus on a tangential comment that wasn't even that important. And yes, I am fully aware how some in our society can view multiracial people as "black." In fact, I have seen this in my own family. My Caucasian aunt and her Native American husband have two children, and they are treated quite differently based on the respective colors of their skin. Their son, who is blond with blue eyes, is treated by and large as "white," while his younger sister, who has her father's brown eyes, dark brown (almost black) hair, and olive colored skin, is seen and treated as Native American. In fact, today she is married to an African American man and they have a beautiful, truly multiracial daughter who is four years old...and is seen and treated as "black."

With your "apparently you aren't aware" comment, I fail to understand how you can claim that I am blissfully aware of all of this based solely on my comments above. I made no comments whatsoever about race relations upthread. Toasterlad mentioned Loving v. Virginia in his reply about Cheadle, and you stated that his position on this issue cannot be assumed based solely on his ethnicity (a point which I completely agree with). My intent was to show how that case COULD be important to Cheadle on a personal level. That's all I said. How you can infer from that anything about me personally is beyond me.

Oh, and one more thing...

Cheadle may not consider his partner "multi-racial."

Ummm...you aren't Cheadle, and as such you cannot speak for him. :eyes:

Now, see how silly that last sentence was?

[bliss_eternal]

24. What's silly...

...is the fact that I attempted to talk with you, when you are hell bent on being argumentative, divisive, derisive and antagonistic.

Trust me, it won't happen again.

***on edit, this means you are now on ignore. I won't see any future responses (thankfully).

[racaulk]

25. Let's review.

Quotes from you upthread:

--Either way you aren't him, and as such can't speak for someone else.
--Apparently you aren't aware that...
--You choose to judge Mr. Cheadle...

You made all of these comments, about me personally, and not one of them are true. Now you claim that *I* am the one that is "being argumentative, divisive, derisive and antagonistic."

Well, OK then...

Funny thing is I was trying to talk with you as well, and I attempted to make my post more personal by sharing with you information about my family and how I, as a Caucasian male, can still see how racism and preconceptions affect those that I love. It's a shame that we misjudged each other's intentions, but considering how imperfect the medium of electronic communication can be, I'm not too surprised that it occasionally happens.

This will be my last post on the matter, because I'm truly not looking for an argument. Peace to you.

[Toasterlad]

20. In Fact, I Did NOT Know That

I WAS basing my assumption on his ethnicity, and the impression I've always gotten from him that he was an intelligent, fair-minded individual. I can't imagine that he would oppose inter-racial marriage because I can't imagine that he's a racist.

Of course, I was a little shocked at the full confidence vote for the mormon asshat, too, so who knows?

[bliss_eternal]

26. oh. ok.

Now, I get it. You equate opposition to interracial marriage with bigotry, in all instances. No shades of grey, or other variables to consider (like when the person belongs to the racial group in question)? Got it. And thanks for that. How did I not know I was talking w/an expert on this issue? :eyes:

This from the same guy that doesn't see the inherent harm in slurs and language use.

Just to refresh your memory, you ripped me a new one while supporting some asshat, who routinely defended the use of slurs (though I didn't get the sense you were aware of that). The point being, you reamed me from your a place of cluelessness. You also proceeded to get rather urinary with me (in a different thread) for taking someone to task for the use of homophobic slurs. Because I have this bizarre notion that slurs are oppressive and work against equality. YOU didn't see the "big deal."

But you want to take someone to task, based on your assumptions of what constitutes 'racial bigotry' (based on Cheadle's ethnicity)? You who've defended the use of slurs (racial and otherwise) and those that use them? How lovely. :eyes:

Oh, and just so you know--I had forgotten the instance I referred to. I just reminded myself of all this, (search is such great function, btw). When something about your comments seemed oddly familiar. So you'll forgive me as I excuse myself from this thread and your presence, I'll do you the favor of adding you both to ignore.

[madmadmad]

9. betcha he'll think twice before he tries to take away anyone's civil rights again...

too bad the board, which includes several minorities, couldn't have said they will not tolerate bigotry from any member instead of giving him a unanimous vote of confidence. shame on don cheadle and forest whitaker for forgetting the lessons of the past.

[qb]

13. K&R Keep the pressure on! I hope the churches that pushed Prop8 lose their tax exempt status. nt

[mondo joe]

14. YES!

That one made me really happy.

[Downtown Hound]

15. Another one down....

NEXT!

[donco6]

23. "Hmm, which side WAS my bread buttered on . . . ?"

Guess he found out. Dumbass.