Jump to content

Talk:Magical Negro/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Juba from Gladiator

The Nubian is an example of the magical negro archetype. he possesses knowledge that Maximus does not (how to treat the wound on Maximus's shoulder) and he helps the protagonist. And Juba may not have been able the same great things that the hero does. Whoever left the Edit summary "Juba is not magical" when they deleted him from the list misunderstands the archetype; the magical negro doesn't necessarily have to put on a wizard's hat and cast spells with a wand to be "magical". Gatherton 05:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I beg to differ. The Nubian is not a unique character. He is a fighting slave like all the others. The fact that he is treating Maximus' wound is irrelevant since his position could easily be taken by any number of other nubian, arabian or italian slaves that were in tow on that caravan. Part of this stereotype is that it specifically references 'deus ex machina' and the nubian fighter in this film does not act as deus ex machina for the protagonist. Additionally his blackness is never a focus nor is he, in any way, a side-kick to Maximus. He happens to be from a different land and is the closest thing that the protagonist has to a friend by the end of the film. His station, additionally, is never portrayed as lower than that of the protagonist. -Onimantu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.216.88 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 June 2007

God? Lucius? Rufus? Kazaam?

How in the name of God is... God part of this stereotype? God is an uneducated simpleton?

The list is frankly ridiculous. Basically it boils down to "black people who help the protagonist but aren't the protagonist".

I agree, God really shouldn't be on that list. God, in Bruce Almighty, isn't helping the white protagonist in the same sense as the Magical Negro - if God so wanted, he could strike down Bruce with a lightning bolt. Insofar as the God character is supposed to reflect some idea of the Christian God, He helps specifically because he is a being who is superior in all respects to the white protagonist of the film, not because he is somehow a convenient subservient character to whom the protagonist turns when he needs help solving a problem.

I completely disagree. God is by definition magical. The fact that God is being personified by a black man, instead of promoting a positive image of black men, it reinforces the the magical negro stereotype. It's ham-handed attempt to put blacks in a positive light. "Look! God's black! God is good. Therefore blacks are good too!"
The problem people are having with "Black God" as being a Magical Negro, comes from the fact that people are focusing on the simpleton aspect (and being offended), rather than the "I'm the token minority whose sole purpose to to show the white protaganist a Greater Truth, like 'family is the most important thing in the world.'" That's the "magical" aspect. There doesn't have to be any overt magic, and it's absurd to believe that there has to be. It's the pseudo-enlightenment element that's offensive. Especially considering that the pseudo-enlightment comes from the fact that Magical Negro has a "simpler" life. He's a salt-of-the-earth character.
67.188.7.78 06:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. God is SUPERNATURAL, not magical. Magic obeys certain rules. God makes the rules. As far as Morgan Freeman, I am white and I totally believed him as God. I am pretty picky about people personifying God, as I am a Christian, but I liked him in the role. George Burns was pretty good too, but I actually prefer Morgan Freeman. He portrays the wisdom, intellect, and compassion of the character well, and also his sovereignty. I can't think of any other actor I would like as much in the role, though I am open to any suggestions-I mean, maybe I have forgotten someone. Definitely NOT a Magical Negro. Just a really good actor portraying a deity. Of course, many of the things in the movie I don't think God would ever do, but it is just a work of fiction and I can enjoy it as such, but if someone who couldn't carry the role had played God, I probably wouldn't have watched it.Ronar (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good example either. He's God.
Any aspect of the characters role as 2nd fiddle is funny because its God being played, not a black man.
If a reliable source calls Freeman's portrayal of God a "Magical Negro," then there should be no problem with listing him on the page. There is no reason to get into a religious discussions over whether Gods is supernatural or magical. Citing religion and deleting something based on that slants the page away from NPOV. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Define "reliable". Of the sources confirmable online which mention the role, we find an article in the Faith, Spirituality and Sacrilige section of the online magazine "Slate" and an article in The Onion (why in God's name is a satirical newspaper used as a Wikipedia reference anyway?). In truth, I'm finding myself questioning why that role is listed as Magical Negro due to the spirit the term is used in. A "Magical Negro" as defined by this very article is used as a racist throwback. As is also stated within the article, the Magical Negro is ultimately subservient to the European-American. And while it is unquestionably true that God's role in this movie is the enlightenment of Bruce, he presents himself to be in no way subservient. By his first meeting with Bruce it is made blatently obvious that God is doing this not because of any percieved obligation to Bruce, but because he's fed up with Bruce's habit of blaming the divine for all of his problems and is enlightening Bruce for his own ends. Quoting the character "You think you can do it better, so here's your chance". Really, I don't see this as fitting the spirit of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.90.236 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Is it possible, just POSSIBLE, that Morgan Freeman was cast as God in two movies in the 2000s, not because he's black, but because he's MORGAN FREEMAN??? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes Morgan Freeman is just. Morgan. Freeman. Oh my sweet and fuzzy *raceless* Lord. It seems like thinking that a black man can only be cast to play God in a mainstream American movie for a "pseudo-enlightened" stunt is, wait for it, pretty racist. Also, the whole Magical Negro-simpler life comparison does NOT work here. That's what both movies were about! God can't fix things without taking away free will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.43.249 (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you commenting on the articles statements supported by verified statements from reliable sources - are are you just using the space for a forum? In the second case, I will be removing the comment above. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I was a little ticked off when I typed that. Feel free to delete, it does seem more appropriate for a forum. I'll restate it here without the extra irritation- I doubt the credibility/facts of sources that don't take into account the fame of an actor and the nature of a role, and instead seem to blindly categorize all African-Americans that play roles that are in any way supernatural, as magical negroes. It just doesn't make logical sense in this case, and it would appear that there are others who have the same objection. Yes, that's OR, but I'd appreciate if someone could find a source on it. I can see the logic of many of these, but that one just stuck out as particularly racist, even/especially in light of the subject matter of the article. The role of God within the Almighty movies does not appear to fit the criteria for Magical Negro put forth within the article, and from what I can see, the source cited does not make reference to Morgan Freeman as a black man portraying God, except in the comments section, which would render it OR/the opinion of the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.43.249 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
>instead of promoting a positive image of black men, it reinforces the the magical negro stereotype. It's ham-handed attempt to put blacks in a positive light.

Oh come on. You know people would be just as offended had the cast a white man as God. You would be saying "Oh so God is a white man?". I would say they cast Morgan Freeman because he's been the narrator in so many movies, which is similar to God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is not to discuss personal opinions about this matter. It is to discuss the article and what reliable sources have said about the topic in sources that we can verify. If you do not wish to discuss how to improve the content of the article by providing additional reliable sources that speak to the topic, please take your personal rants elsewhere. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just popping in again, but I seriously debate the "reliable sources" part. As I stated priorly, the sources used in the article were an article in "The Onion" and an article in "Slate". I wouldn't classify either as "trustworthy or authoratative in relation to the subject at hand". 68.5.90.236 (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Your comment about previous sources used is noted. Future comments related to improving the current article are welcomed, but article talk pages are not a forum. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
So, ARE the sources used to denote the portrayal of God by Morgan Freeman an example of the "magical negro" phenomenon verified and reliable? I don't have much experience with them, but just because one or two yutzes made that connection in a movie review doesn't necessitate its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Regardless of my personal opinion, those citations seem as though they are MISAPPLYING the term drastically. The definition offered on this page indicates the same sentiment. Maybe the list itself should be retitled...?--Hawkian (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman

Wow. Four entries. He really made quite a lot of his career playing MNs. Speaking of which, would his role in Hard Rain count as well?

I've removed The Shawshank Redemptionfrom the list. In the original novella, Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, Red is a white male "with a big mop of carroty red hair"; that is, he wasn't written as a magical negro. Does casting a black actor in a role wherein his or her character in any way helps a character played by a white actor automatically render the former a magical negro? 199.221.98.4 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that is what the whole article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.45.45 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I was just coming in here to comment that there's several of the examples that are not legitimately MN. MN refers to characters that:

  • are tribalistic or deeply stereotypical in some other way
  • posess special mystical powers or abilities that are never explained beyond that they derive from the character being (it was very well stated in the article) "closer to the earth"
  • use their special powers to help the emblematic white lead character

In other words:

John Coffey in The Green Mile - Good example. Coffey is slow witted and physically oriented. He has mysterious powers that seem like voodoo and he subjugates himself to the white lead character and uses his powers to help the white people.

'God' in films Bruce Almighty - Bad example. In these films Freeman plays God. God is not a sterotypical 'negro'. His powers are not mysterious or culturally derived. He's simply omnipotent because he's God. While Freeman does do janitor-esque work in some parts of the films he does this for his own amusement rather than as a form of being subjugated. In fact, at no point in the films is the God character subject to the white lead actors. Quite the opposite is true. The God character helps the lead characters out of compassion toward a lower being rather than out of subjugation to the white man.

Try to imagine The Green Mile with the exact same dialog and plot except that Michael Clarke Duncan played the warden and Tom Hanks played John Coffey. This obviously does not fit. Now try to imagine Bruce Almighty with Morgan Freeman and Jim Carrey's roles reversed. It fits just as easily as the film that was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.253.141 (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I re-removed The Shawshank Redemptionfrom the list. and will continue to do so until a new source is referenced. www.fortheretarded.com is not an authoritative source for an encyclopedia. (NOT EVEN REMOTELY!). furthermore the cited reference makes no argument whatsoever that it should be concluded other than that one character is white and the other black. 1. red was written as an irish man. 2. he is clearly not actually magical. 3. his "power" as being "the guy who can get it for you" is not even unique or special, as andy states that he "had to go through one of your competitors". 4. Red does not disregard himself to dutifully serve the white protagonist as magical negroes do. 5. Red is a protagonist in his own right in the film. Grabba (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

132.241.245.49

this user made the folowing changes [[1]] and [[2]]. I think they were totally wrong and unfounded. they also summarizd the first edit with "dumbest article ever." I think this shows that they don't know what they're talking about. I reverted their edits and assume that the other users will back me up, since it was they who made those contributions originally. Additionally, those of us who edit this page must consider it something other than "the dumbest article ever." Gatherton 00:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed Lucius Fox

Much of this list is off-topic, but particularly Lucius Fox. He's not particularly mysterious, as he tells Wayne and the audience his story, and he has no magical powers of any sort. He's basically an ally, like Alfred & Commissioner Gordon, who happens to be black.

This list is just sad. Some people need to go have a good read up on archetype, sidekick, stock character, leading actor, role (performing arts) and related themes and come back when they're better informed.
Someone needs to take a hatchet to the "list of examples"--which is no longer a list of examples, which REALLY annoys me--I keep saying it. Anyway, if no one else prunes this, I shall.
Quill 00:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I took out a couple of the worst "examples." Really, doesn't "Baggar Vance" serve as the best example? Are any other necessary? Sir Isaac Lime 12:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fox provides all the tech for Warne...the modern equivalent of magic. Then, in the latest film, he provides Batman with an out for using the cellphone device which defies reality...much like magic does in a narrative. I think the way Lucius Fox is depicted is absolutely in line with this article and does serve the role of the "Magical Negro" in these films. Vaginsh (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucius Fox is a DC Comics character dating to 1979. He is portrayed in the films Batman Begins and The Dark Knight by Morgan Freeman. If you wish to indicate that the original character (in the comic medium) was an example of this stereotype, make that clear in the article and find reliable sources... otherwise, I'm pretty sure comic book characters are off-limits. Interestingly, his fictional biography begins with the line, "CEO of Wayne Enterprises, Fox has the "Midas Touch," an ability to turn failing businesses into successful conglomerates."

This is getting rediculous, why don't we take a vote? Post here with your opinion on the Lucious Fox issue. Gatherton 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove it. Sir Isaac Lime 12:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove it. --kchishol1970 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove it. Good God Almighty--what are people thinking? Are people thinking???! Quill 00:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

5 Primary Examples?

Any chance we could agree on around 5 or fewer examples that show the Magical Negro stereotype? There is no reason for the article to become a definitive list of what is and isn't a stereotype, it should just explain it, and show a couple things COMMONLY thought of as belonging to that stereotype.

My votes would be for: Mother Abigail in The Stand, the Green Mile Guy, and Baggar Vance. Maybe Uncle Remus. Sir Isaac Lime 13:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

not the green mile, I don't think. John Coffey was the central figure, even if it wasn't told from his point of view. I thought the theme was one more of martydom. Novium 08:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
We should be using the term's Spike Lee's actual examples as a guide[3]. He coined the term, after all.--Pharos 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Uncle Remus and Bagger Vance are the only examples that need to be cited, in my opinion... unless a particularly notable source used one of the others.--Hawkian (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kazaam

I removed the Kazaam entry. I've never seen any accusations, and intuitively, Shaq does not appear to have been cast as a genie for his mystical qualities, it was the whole hip-hop theme. RadioYeti 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if 24.0.91.81 would give some reasoning behind adding Kazaam back to the list, besides "obviously does" on the editing history. I don't want to start some sort of edit war but the addition seems sort of silly to me and I don't have whatever reasoning is behind it.RadioYeti 03:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

Jules Winfield, as played by Samuel L. Jackson, is a scripture quoting, bible toting, hit man. In the apartment gunfight scene, somehow he is magically able to avoid injury although many bullets from several guns are fired directly at him at point blank range. He begins to think that God has a greater plan for him, and seeks redemption. He is the only character to emerge unscathed at the end of the film.

Jackson is not supposed to be a magical negro in pulp fiction. His religious outlook and his surviving the scene in which he is shot at several times is meant to contrast the next scene in which John Travolta accidentally shoots the guy they're taking to vin rhames. He is not a magical negro, he's a plot device. I dont see why you keep removing the other two entries for Jackson. They fit the definition and are a notably demeaning portrayal of the magical negro. Please explain your reasoning, and when you leave a comment put four ~ (tildes) at the end so other users can see your signature. KI 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it is because you don't explain your additions. 155.84.57.253 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Valid additions do not need to be discussed before they are added. Now it has been explainied nonetheless. KI 15:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples

Examples should be limited to those that actually fit the archetype and clearly explain the qualities inherent. All these additions of every black character is ridiculous. (Particularly the Three Wise Men.) We really need to find a couple primary examples. Perhaps it should be limited to those that are discussed in the external links (Stephen King's characters, Baggar Vance, et cetera). Sir Isaac Lime 22:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just re-removed many of the characters that clearly do not fit the archetype or are not justified in the links. Perhaps any additions to the list should be annotated with were they appear in discussions of the Magical Negro. I left characters in that I did not know whether or not they applied. Since Can'tStandYa persists in reverting every edit that I do, I'd like to ask that he/she justify the inclusion of those names deleted from the list. Sir Isaac Lime 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this is absurd. Please, to those reverting back changes with no justification, give your reasons for the examples on this page. That is what it is for. Sir Isaac Lime 02:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You have been warned for vandalism on other pages in the past. Clearly you understand that mass deleting entries without any consensus falls under vandalism. No one else wants those removed. That's why you're edits have been repeatedly reverted. Also, when adding a new topic for discussion, add the topic at the bottom of the page, not the top. Thanks. KI 03:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about putting this post at the top originally. I believe the following examples are incorrect for the following reasons:

The Three Wise Men- Please. The three are nearly identical, there is no subservience apparent in the African wiseman. He does not help the main character understand himself. The Magical Negro is, as another user said, and American archetype.
Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor in Superman III)- Has no magical powers. Does not help Superman's soul. Simply your standard comic foil.
Oda Mae Brown- Discussed elsewhere. Not subservient.
Kazaam- Discussed above. Silly.
Apostle Rufus- Not subservient. Not any more magical than anyone else in the movie. Does not help anyone reach an understanding. Simply there (like most characters in the movie) for a couple one-liners and to get the characters on their way.
The Oracle - Not subservient. Not cut and dry, but I think it is vague enough that it doesn't make a valid example.

Holy Cow! I disagree with that. Her entire purpose is to midwife the birth of the chosen one. Like some metrosexual black widow spider, he might as well bite her head off and eat her after she's done her bit.

Mateo from In America - Doesn't come close to fitting the stereotype. Not subservient, not magical. Does not help the main character's soul, the children help his soul, and he helps with money. In a way, the opposite of a Magical Negro.
Eko from Lost - Not subservient. Not magical. Does not help character make peace. Essentially a similar character to Locke, but African.
Rose from Lost - Not subservient. Not magical. A real stretch to include her. She is simply a normal person in nearly every way possible.
Sam from Danny the Dog - Not subservient; Jet Li is not "above" Sam. If he were, there would be a valid case for it, but as it is, no.
Priestess Elosha - From what I have seen of the show (just first season), there is nothing to support this. Simply a priestess. A minor character, does not have any of the qualities of the Magical Negro.
Guinan from Star Trek - I think not really. Posted further about it above.
What does everyone else think? Sir Isaac Lime 06:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to catalog every instance of the archetype, lets keep the list low enough to provide the most blatant examples. The point of examples is to illuminate, not to provoke controversy. Wikipedia is not a battleground. hateless 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've kept the list as is but moved it to a separate page. I dont mind deleting a lot of those though. KI 23:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There's discussion on AfD about merging the list into this article. I think it is sensible, and I think Sir Arthur Lime's suggestion that references be made to where the characters were referred to as "magical negros" would be helpful. Ones that don't cut it could be kept on the talk page until consensus is formed. Other examples I can think of are the "It's A Wonderful Chest" skit from Chappelle's Show (MN played by Dave Chappelle) and the magical negro skit from The Man Show played by Jerry Minor. Esquizombi 08:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Trimmed Examples List

Just wanted to re-post this comment at the end of the Articles for Deletion/List of Magical Negros discussion. "Comment from the closing admin: The main article explains the matter well, and has enough examples. This one is full of items that don't fit, and doesn't have a single reference. It's not listcruft. Cruft is a mass of useless true things; this is a list of potentially useful but completely unverifiable things. Merging was not a possibility; it would've moved the problems from here to the main article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)" Rather then full reverts to the old list, I'm of the opinion that relevant, supported examples should be added individually. Sir Isaac Lime 22:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't want to start an edit war, so I'll just ask here. 155.84.57.253 is of the opinion that everyone on the list qualifies as a Magical Negro. I believe the article should just mention those mentioned in other sources. To cite Wikipedia's Vefifiability policy:
Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
I had footnoted a couple of those examples with their sources, so that others could add others to the list, footnoted in a similar fashion. (See my edit on 22 March). However, 155.84.57.253 has decided to revert (with a snarky comment) the whole page, despite the many posts on this page and on the "List of Magical Negros" discussion page that the examples list is too long, not from a neutral point of view, and original research. Any one want to weigh in? Sir Isaac Lime 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so I was weak and reverted the page one last time. I figured that, since a vote was taken on the List of Magical Negros page to delete the list, when merging was a possibility, the list has been deemed, by the community, as unnecessary. Again, I'm not saying some of those deleted examples shouldn't be on the list, I'm just saying they need to be cited. Sir Isaac Lime 20:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Johnson from O Brother Where Art Thou?

Just another suggestion. --Steerpike 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you find multiple citations? Sir Isaac Lime 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Annotating Examples

Please reference all examples added. All examples should be mentioned in another source/sources in regards to the Magical Negro archetype. Remember, no original research. Previously, this list became a catch-all list of all African-Americans in movies, almost all of them unsupported. The Magical Negro is a very specific archetype, and adding examples that isn't a glaring example weakens the overall article. I don't think Wikipedia should be here to say what is and isn't an example of a Magical Negro, but merely to point out to people the most glaring examples of this archetype.

I have been using the standard Wikipedia Footnote system. You can check the Wikipedia:Footnotes page for more information on how to add footnotes. For those articles already footnoted, you can use the same name in the footnote, so they show up as the same footnote number in the references section (and are not repeated). You can then reference that footnote by merely using <ref name="NAME OF FOOTNOTE" />. This also saves copying the whole URL. Make sure you use it after a previous usage of that footnote, however. The names already used are:

As with any article about a contentious subject, the article has had to go through some major overhauls in the past. Since many examples were not clear-cut, they were frequently added, removed, added, discussed, removed, and so on (as looking at the early discussions and history of the article shows). Keeping everything referenced will hopefully keep that from happening again. Thanks, Sir Isaac Lime 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

God

I don't think that God in Bruce Almighty is a Magycal Negro. At less not so much as God in Bedazzled :) By the way, I think that Juba in Gladiator and Frozono in The Incredibles were perfect Magycal Negroes.

Unless you can find a reputable source that says as much, the point is moot. Remember, Wikipedia is not for original research. This is a very specific archetype, as discussed by various social commentators. If the list were merely "Do you think about this character who is of African descent isn't all that great?" (as it once was), it would quickly become a free-for-all of people adding and removing characters with no logical reason.
Frozone is a perfect example. I, for instance, would disagree. He fails to have any of the main attributes of the Magical Negro. He is not mystical (note that mystical implies not superpowers, but a mystic ability to see into characters), he is not part of the plot merely to save the day at an opportune time, but instead a deliberate parody of all sidekicks. He is, if anything, closer to a Tonto (Lone Ranger character) type character than a Magical Negro. Whether or not we disagree, however, the important thing is that other sources do not claim he is a Magical Negro, so he is not on the list. Sir Isaac Lime 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
ROFL! When I dropped into this discussion, I thought you were talking about Fasto from Minoriteam, not Frozone ... both of them are better examples of the Stepin Fetchit kind of negro archetype.
But the point remains, just because a black character has some kind of power does not automagically make them a Magical negro, anymore than George Burns playing God makes him a Magical Jew. (Jebus, didn't it explicitly exclude "playing God" from the frelling definition?) --Dennette 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Then you can't include Will Smith as Bagger Vance either as the character of Bagger Vance is Krishna from the Gita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.53.86 (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Girl, Interrupted (film)

The Contoversy section of that article contains the phrase, "... the sympathetic nurse character played by Whoopi Goldberg embodies the magic negro stereotype."

After researching the character's name and adding an entry to this article, someone summarily deleted it ... maybe because I didn't include an explicit reference to the above mentioned Wiki article as the source?

Anywho, if anyone else agrees with me, would you please put it back? (That way it's not just my opinion. :-) -- Dennette 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was probably me. There are a lot of superfluous examples added to this article, and if they're not referenced, I delete them (there's a long story, and many community discussions behind this). By all means add it back, just try to find where someone outside of Wikipedia said that the character was an example of the Magical Negro archetype. Then just add the URL for that site or sites at the end of her name, on this page, or according to the footnotes description above. Hope I didn't make you feel like your contribution was without merit, it just got thrown out with the bathwater. Like I said, find a citation. Also, it seems that the part of the Girl, Interrupted article you mentioned was deleted for the same reason: no citation. Sir Isaac Lime 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (EDIT: My mistake, I was looking at the page for the book, not the movie. However, after you find some citations, I'd say add them to this page and the Girl, Interrupted (film) page.Sir Isaac Lime 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
Uhh ... that was the question ... can a link to the Wiki page for Girl, Interrupted (film) be used as the citation? Isn't it sufficient that Magical negro has Girl, Interrupted on its What links here page? Or must there be an explicit citation from a non-Wiki source?
Oh, wait ... you're implying that the mention on the Girl, Interrupted page also needs an external citation, aren't you? Belgium! --Dennette 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. They both need outside citations.Sir Isaac Lime 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Scatman Crothers in The Twilight Zone

Doesn't he qaulify as being the Magical Negro in the Rest Home bit of the movie. He certainly was magical, he was wise, he helped the white residents acknowledge and overcome thier faults. I think he's a perfect example.

Score two for Scatman with Morgan in the lead still. --Skeev 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find and cite a reputable source outside of Wikipedia that says Scatman in The Twilight Zone is a blatant example of the Magical Negro archetype, then add it. Otherwise, it is considered original research. The page doesn't need to list every time the archetype is used, just the most blatant ones, to give readers a better idea of the topic being discussed. Sir Isaac Lime 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

God in Bruce Almighty

People keep adding Morgan Freeman as God in Bruce Almighty as an example of a Magical Negro ... they have totally failed to grasp the concept of this archetype. The character of God could just as easily have been played by a white man, or by a woman (like Alanis Morissette in Dogma) ... this was a casting decision, pure and simple. They will never find a reputable source to cite for this example! --72.75.71.147 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cited. And the point is *any* of the magical negro characters could have been played by any race, but were cast as black to fit the archetype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejitaru (talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 December 2006
That is not the point at all ... the majority are created that way by the authors (see the Stephen King examples), i.e., their physical description, backstory, and scripted dialog all preculde them being "played by any race", rather than having been "casting" decisions.
The point is that "God" is not a fictional character created by the author, and in this specific instance, a "little old Polish cleaning woman" could have read the same lines in nearly every scene as the "elderly African American janitor", since they were neither race nor gender specific, quite unlike the fictional "13th Apostle" character in Dogma, who repeatedly blames his obscurity on institutional racism ("A brother can't catch a break!") ... you could not have cast Alanis Morissette in that role!
But this entire discussion is now moot ... a citation has been found to support the opinion that this is a valid example of the archetype ... please, just don't add "Queen Latifah a ghetto goddess in Bringing Down the House" as another example just because it's in the same article ... I think that we have enough examples already. --72.75.105.165 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Riiiiight. I suppose casting Jack Nicholson as God would upset black rights groups. I don't know who could be cast as God without offending someone. Perhaps Halle Berry? --132.69.234.73 (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortune in Rudy

I changed an earlier addition of "That black dude in rudy" to "Fortune (Charles S. Dutton) in the film Rudy (1993)" to make the reference meet basic style requirements. However, I do not remember anything magical about Fortune. He shared bits of wisdom with Rudy, was a friend, and turned a blind eye to certain things, but that does not make him magical. I would like other opinions. --Willscrlt 11:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct ... this is not a valid example, so I have reverted that entry (and that editor's vandalism) ... when you edit the section, it clearly states:
**WARNING** Do not add an example unless you have a reference!!
Otherwise, such entries violate WP:NOR, and this article has already become a cruft magnet for movie fanboys, like this reference to Rudy. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 14:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew the info as-submitted was worthless, but I thought I'd clean it up a bit and wait for a second opinion. :-) --Willscrlt 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreement among a choir

I dont think there can be an agreement which last a 1000 years blocking. Blatent examples are being hidden from the reader this violates the development of this article. Editors cannot have a rule which is so strictly applied to only one section of teh article, they also cannot add WARNINGS telling other editors what they can add by some choir agreement. The entire description violates WP:NOR. This article must be open to others to investigate what exactly is going on here. Please do not continue to remove examples because of some broad application of OR, when the description has ZERO refernces and thus is OR by that standard! This page seems to be edited by a sub-group of wiki which picks which rules to use and where to apply these rules, where in OR does it say you can do this?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason the OR rule was applied more strictly to the list of examples is because that is where the most egregious errors were. The page had become a listing of every character played by a black actor. This watered down and confused the issue of dealing with what, exactly, this stereotype is and why it is harmful.
The description had no references, true, but that's because it needed them. If one area does not contain references, that does not mean that the entire article can be free of citations. Please see previous edits of the article, and read through the talk page, for an understanding of how a consensus was reached in regards to examples in this article.Sir Isaac Lime 17:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Here via the Request for Comments. Tagging parts of the article as possible original research was appropriate; those things should be cited, and anything that remains unsourced after 2 or 3 weeks should be cut. However, the fact that not everything in the article has a citation yet is not a justification for adding uncited items to an otherwise well-cited list. It's not essential to the article to name every possible example, anyway; a few of the best and most commonly named ones is enough.

If Guinan is such a good example, then there should be good sources saying so. Why not look for those sources rather than trying to fight a very well-established policy? —Celithemis 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I also came via the RfC. Quite simply, there must be a reference in order to add material to a page like this. This is a pervasive problem on wikipedia - for example, look at List of flops in entertainment, which I nominated for deletion. Dozens of editors have simply added what they feel to be appropriate examples, with no references. Frequently these examples are simply wrong. This is not a matter of any editors out to "get" HalaTruth, nor is it a broad application of the OR rule, it is the OR rule.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

the issue has been fixed as all editors have agreed sources r needed everywhere. wish someone would apply this rule to the rest of wiki.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression that sources were not emphasized nearly as much a year or 2 or 3 ago; it's relatively recent that a consensus has developed to make this as reliable a resource as possible. So there is now a constant battle to improve existing articles without deleting them or ruining them. Cases like this article are a relatively easy fix - just don't add to a list without a source. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
To me Guinan is such an obvious magic negro, I was going to add her. Then I realized that every item on the list was cited, so I went searching for a cite. I found one, then realized it was quoting a former version of this page. She's definitely a magic negro, but we need a cite.
Also, the World's Smartest Garbageman in Dilbert fills a magic negro sort of role, but he's white.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Drudge / LA Times

This article was linked to by the LA Times, mislinked actually "http://en.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro". Drudge has linked to this article, so expect high traffic. (Ehrenstein, David (2007-03-19). "Obama the 'Magic Negro'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-03-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it Topical, Not Political

Removed the reference to David Ehrenstein's article. One statement by one opinion writer in one newspaper is not sufficient justification for making a link between the archetype and Barack Obama. 64.173.255.7 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Brandon P

Try looking at it from this angle

Maybe the use of 'magical negros' is needed to show the difference in the experiences of the two major races here (white and black). The MN is used to show that the 'hero' that needs help is having a hard time because his spoiled ass has never had to overcome adversity. While the MN has had to endure racism, slavery, etc...

I can see how this is not the best light to show African-Americans, Negros, what have you, in - but I posit that it does show a respect for wisdom and strength while in the same breadth acknowledging the white mans easier road and immaturity as a result of no proverbial mountain to climb.

The MN is grown and stronger helping a child on his way. Not the worst way to look at it right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.253.196 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your remarks. The article does make a strong case. However the contrarian in me wants to look at the other side too. The magical wizard, helper, advisor to the hero is a common feature in many stories. Look at Gandalf, Merlin, Olbi Wan Kanobi. They filled much the same role as the magic negroes, yet they were not black. Besides, the casting of black actors in these roles at least gives them some work. :-) Seriously, there are many movies with blacks in the lead roles as well. Steve Dufour 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, Ill just assume by adversity you are are always referring to the racial sense of the word. Adversity comes in many forms besides race, in fact where ever the is social divisions based on wealth, religion, ideology, sex etc. Every person overcomes adversity an thus grows, even whites, they just may not do so in the racial sense.
Anyway I see your conflict on how to feel about this. Do we admire the MN for enduring, having what it takes to persevere, and enlightening white people? On the other hand, do we blast this notion of "honoring" the MN in a sense that ironically still places them in the role as a servant to he white man? Personally I choose the former, as it is less restrictive to free speech, though I think Steve brought up an interesting point.
In any case this is pointless because this is not the kind of discussion we are supposed to have here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM LarsendeSLO (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama the 'Magic Negro'

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bnguyen (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Text dump of copyrighted article removed; people can click on the link to read it. -- Infrogmation 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magical_Negro/Archive_2&oldid=1264998256"