The film "Precious" premiered in select cities Nov. 6, and reviews are pouring in about the movie with a Harlem teen whose life transforms through education. To say that the circumstances of Precious Jones' life are bleak would be an understatement. Precious is illiterate, living with HIV and has been victimized by her parents in numerous ways, including sexually. Her father has twice impregnated her, and one child she's borne by him suffers from Down syndrome.

"Precious" tackles an array of issues. Because the protagonist is black, however, both the media and the public have raised questions about its effect on race relations. I've summed up two major questions about the film below:

Why do white audiences eat up black films and novels that depict dysfunction, poverty and abuse?

Why are the villains in "Precious" dark-skinned and the heroes light-skinned?

"Precious" is based on the novel Push by Sapphire. Both the film and the book have been compared to Alice Walker's The Color Purple and Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye in that they, too, garnered praise from white critics and featured emotional and sexual abuse of black youth by family members. The fact that these works feature abuse isn't in and of itself a problem. The problem is how the mainstream receives these works. I have no problem if viewers and critics regard "Precious" et al. as representations of particular black families. On the other hand, I do object to viewers and critics who regard a film like "Precious" as the only authentic black experience and a television program such as "The Cosby Show" as inauthentic. The fact is both of these slices of black life are authentic.

I do understand, though, why some members of the black community have criticized "Precious." Positive images of blacks in the media remain few and far between. In comedies, blacks are portrayed as buffoonish, cartoonish and uncouth. Films such as "Norbit," "Doctor Dolittle" and "Big Momma's House," not to mention any Tyler Perry flick, mock black womanhood. And on the dramatic end, we've had stories of gang warfare, virulent racism and abusive or absentee parents.

There's no doubt in my mind that media portrayals of people of color can lead to racial stereotyping. I'm reminded of a former classmate from a Mexican-American family from East L.A. Her roommate freshman year was a Midwesterner who, upon seeing the gang film "Mi Vida Loca," said that she didn't realize my classmate had lived such a hard life. My friend laughed and told her that she had little in common with the "Mi Vida Loca" characters.

In the case of "Precious," critics not only fear that the film will lead to racial stereotyping but that it constitutes "poverty porn." This refers to films that cater to privileged moviegoers who get off on taking in images of poor people in desperate situations. After watching such cinema, the privileged feel like better people just for having seen the film but do nothing to make change in the world they've witnessed on screen.

In a New York Times Magazine interview, director Lee Daniels confessed that he worried about screening "Precious" for a European audience.

"To be honest, I was embarrassed to show this movie at Cannes," he said. "I didn't want to exploit black people. And I wasn't sure I wanted white French people to see our world."

He added, however, that because the world now has a black role model in Barack Obama, a story such as "Precious" can be shared without fear of racial backlash. I don't agree with this, considering that Obama is likely viewed by those in the U.S. and outside of it as the exception rather than the rule as far as African Americans go.

I was also eager to hear Daniels discuss how he feels about exposing audiences to the thread of "colorism" that runs through "Precious." While the evil characters in the film are dark-skinned, the benevolent characters are played by actors so light-skinned they're not easily identifiable as black.

"I'm prejudiced against people who are darker than me," Daniels remarked in New York Times Magazine. "When I was young, I went to a church where the lighter-skinned you were, the closer you sat to the altar. Anybody that's heavy like Precious -- I thought they were dirty and not very smart. Making this movie changed my heart. I'll never look at a fat girl walking down the street the same way again."

I'm glad that Lee's prejudice dissipated during the course of making "Precious," but that doesn't change the harmful message sent by the colorism in his film. In the book "Precious" is based on, a dark-skinned teacher with natural hair changes Precious' perceptions of dark skin from negative to positive. This powerful transformation is lacking in the film because a fair-skinned actress was cast to play Precious' teacher. If Daniels really did become less prejudiced about size and color while making "Precious," hopefully his next project will feature dark-skinned blacks of strong character rather than violent, exploitative brutes with dark skin.

When I posted a blog about Harry Connick Jr. objecting to a group of Australian performers wearing blackface, many readers suggested that it was silly to take offense to the Jackson Jive's performance because group members were of Indian and Lebanese descent and, therefore, couldn't be racist. I tried to explain that the ethnicity of the performers was irrelevant, as people of color are capable of racist behavior as well.

Tyra Banks of "America's Next Top Model" is a case in point. The supermodel-turned-television personality created an uproar last week when her show featured white contestants in dark makeup. The goal was to make the girls appear to be biracial. Banks called it a "fashion interpretation" of culture.

But Dodai Stewart, deputy editor for women's site Jezebel.com, took issue with the "biracial" shoot.

"Race is not silver eye shadow, a bubble skirt or couture gown," she remarked. "It's not something you put on for a photo shoot to seem 'edgy.' Race is not trendy."

Although Stewart, who is biracial, hoped the fact that Banks is black would make her more racially sensitive, Stewart did not completely vilify the television star.

"I have to assume her intent was probably to showcase biracial beauty," Stewart said. "Is this a case in which the action can be forgiven if the motive comes from a good place?"

I'm not sure the intent matters if an act proves to be racially insensitive. Those hurt by racist behavior likely don't care if a perpetrator meant no harm. Take the Jackson Jive, for example. I doubt that those performers had any clue that wearing blackface would offend Harry Connick Jr. and other Americans. The fact of the matter is that their behavior hurt nonetheless.

These recent displays of blackface in fashion--from "America's Next Top Model" to Vogue--do raise questions about whether there can ever be an artistic reason for a white person to don dark makeup. Do these fashion shoots challenge the construct of race for both models and their audiences, or do they simply reduce race to costume?

No baggy pants, no baseball caps, no athletic wear.

These items are among the apparel bars and clubs across the country ban to keep out a certain element. But are African Americans the element they have in mind? According to Macon D., who is white and runs the blog Stuff White People Do, the answer is yes. To make his case, Macon pointed out the public uproar surrounding six black Washington University students denied entry into a Chicago bar Oct. 17 during their senior class trip to the city.

The students claim that white classmates, also wearing baggy pants, were allowed into Mother's Original bar. In addition, the students say that they offered to go back to their hotel and change but were told even switching clothes wouldn't get them into the bar. Adding insult to injury for the students is that the senior class had contacted Mother's before their trip, according to senior class treasurer, Regis Murayi. The treasurer helped plan the Chicago trip to find himself unable to celebrate with his classmates.

"We had prearranged this agreement," he told the Tribune. "We had spoken to these people prior. We had brought a lot of business to them."

In response to their treatment, the students last week filed complaints with the Illinois attorney general's office, the Chicago Commission on Human Relations and the U.S. Justice Department, the Tribune reported.

For its part, Mother's says that some blacks were allowed inside of the bar on Oct. 17 and that gang violence in the area prompted the baggy pants ban. That's fine, but if Mother's is to have such a ban in place it must forbid not just black men who wear baggy pants but white men, Asian men, etc. Assuming that any black man who wears baggy pants belongs to a gang amounts to racism, and if Mother's made this assumption, I hope swift action is taken against the bar.

Mother's human resources manager may have told the Tribune that some blacks were allowed inside, but I'm curious to know if these blacks were male or female. It's no secret that bars benefit from having plenty of female patrons. Also, black women are unlikely to be stereotyped as gang members. Given this, it says little if Mother's allowed attractive black women into the club while denying entry to black men it labeled dangerous.

Unfortunately, this dress code incident isn't isolated. Macon D. posted a roundup of dress codes at bars and clubs nationwide that have sparked cries of racism. One dress code I found particularly disturbing barred admission to anyone with dreadlocks, braids or cornrows, all traditionally black hairstyles. If this isn't a move to keep out blacks, I don't know what is. African Americans of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds style their hair in such ways, so this clearly targets far more than potential gang members.

So, what's going on here? Are these dress restrictions simply 21st century code for "no coloreds allowed?"

By now, you've likely heard about the Louisiana justice of peace who recently denied an interracial couple a marriage license. The justice's move has sparked public outcry.

After all, no matter his opinions on interracial unions, it's no longer illegal for mixed couples to marry. Therefore, Keith Bardwell, the justice of peace in question, overstepped his bounds by refusing a marriage license to Terence McKay, who is black, and Beth Humphrey, who is white. Quotes attributed to Bardwell suggest that the justice considers his refusal to grant McKay and Humphrey a marriage license to be an act of conscience.

According to MSNBC.com, Bardwell said, "I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves. In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

Bardwell also commented that he feels neither blacks nor whites accept the children produced by interracial unions.

He shrunk away from the suggestion that racism motivated his actions.

"I'm not a racist," he told the Associated Press. "I just don't believe in mixing the races that way. I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

The fact that Bardwell is patting himself on the back for allowing African Americans to use his bathroom speaks volumes. Separate bathrooms for whites and blacks, along with interracial marriage bans, are relics of the past. That Bardwell is proud of himself for allowing blacks to use his restroom suggests that he still views African Americans as inherently different from whites. Despite his claims to the contrary, his words and actions, alike, belie a racist mindset. The top excuse racists use to protest interracial marriage is the fate of mixed-race children. This reasoning is rooted in the "tragic mulatto" myth which suggests that biracial children are doomed to be tortured misfits whose black ancestry prohibits them from reaping the privileges that white people enjoy. The problem with the tragic mulatto myth is that it blames biracial people for any distress they might endure rather than racism. In reality, mixed-race individuals have emerged as leaders in American society for centuries--from abolitionist Frederick Douglass to President Barack Obama.

There's no denying that biracial people, like any oppressed group, face challenges. But by teaching mixed-race kids to embrace each of their cultures, placing them in schools that celebrate diversity and living in multicultural communities, raising biracial children who are happy and healthy isn't a problem. There's no reason the tragic mulatto myth should be perpetuated in 2009.

As for Keith Bardwell, I have one question: Do you realize that marriage isn't necessary for biracial children to be born? Interracial marriage was banned until the 1960s, yet mixed-race children have been staples of American society since colonial times. Louisiana, in particular, was one of the states where miscegenation boomed. Just read the works of Kate Chopin, who published literature in the late 1880s, to spot this trend. Her writing, much of which takes place in Louisiana, is filled with a catalogue of mixed-race characters. References to "mulattoes," "quadroons" and "octoroons" occupy her pages.