The problem truly is that the MEDIA is controlled by white enterprises, which means we're being fed stereotypes everyday without even knowing it so, the wider society thinks what the MEDIA tells them, and the sad truth is that no one can't scape racist ideas.

The only solution is more people like Tyler Perry who show the different faces of the Black community.

As for what to do…well, it's prudent for me not to say what I think in public.

Reed's reaction seemed to parallel your response to GAB. In my view, you were concerned by a group professing a certain cause, furthering that cause by exploiting a demographic for emotional value, then proceeding to not even offer proper recognition. Precious advertises social progression by exploiting the racial implications of the "black" demographic, then completely ignores any explicit recognition of that culture's pathology/anthropology.

Its technically possible to assemble a cast that reflects a flipped hierarchy, but no its not socially feasible because of the racial interpretations and expected representations Reed is worried Precious perpetuates. So to bring this back home. I agree with your post overall, but I also feel Reeds general reaction is justified because in the context of present-day America, Precsious is firmly rooted in a racial quagmire. To me the paradigm Reed supposedly empowers is the direct byproduct of the "white" imagination. The paradox here is that indignant outcries, though fully justified in my opinion, actually feed this delusional "white" imagination we're trying to counter. Racial outcries are immediately labeled as racist outcries that are now just ammo for the newest, self-satisfying, post-racial delusion you identified in The Obama Placebo. My question is what to do?

I don't even understand the point of that comparison. It's not even feasible.

… For instance, lets take the skin complexion range of the main character Precious and Mariah Carey as boundaries. Lets now take that range and flip it.

1) You admit there IS a complexion hierarchy of which 99% of the range is self-contained within an institutional concept of "blackness," which is why Precious is a black movie.

2) If you flip that hierarchy it puts "whiteness" at the bottom which upsets the entrenched "power" dynamics of hollywood and would immediately bring Precious' racial implications to the forefront.

3) Accurately portraying that flipped range would require more than an "all-white" or an "all-black" cast. It would require a mixture to represent what Precious' character from the white end of the spectrum. Consequently, Mariah Carey's guiding character would be represented with a much darker skin tone. In this mixture of race-roles where whiteness has been interchanged with blackness, America would be forced to reconcile the representation of BOTH "races" on screen but with flipped complexion-based roles.

4) For the sake of a scientific control, outside of this interchange of race roles, EVERYTHING else about the movie remains the same. There is no shifting of anything else or any other details to compensate for this flip-flop. In other words, no making "…evil characters less appealing physically in other ways." If Precious isnt racial then there should be the ability to leave the movie completely unaltered AS-IS in EVERY way except ONLY the skin complexion of the characters and references to them.

5) If the movie was re-filmed as you're describing to be marketable in an "all-white" context then sure, the critics opinion might actually be more positive. However, even in that scenario, the movie is just as racial, implicitly or otherwise.

6) So now I have to rephrase my question … If the movie Precious AS-IS with all the references to "black" culture in place was changed ONLY by shifting the skin complexions based on my explanation above…you think the critic's response wouldve stayed the same?