Talking about race with white people

Talking with Japanese actors about whitewashing in this case. But it is a great and telling interview about the subject, about racism, and about cultural differences. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ghost-shell-4-japanese-actr...

In the course of the article they pretty clearly get past the superficiality of that idea to the racism that was behind it. That's what I took from it, anyway.

And as for the characters, it is also clear that it isn't just about looks.

I'm sure there are movies out there that are guilty of whitewashing but I don't think Ghost in the Shell is one of them.

One of the women in the article above points out that scarlett johansson's eyes didn't have any emotion (or something to that effect) when meeting her mom.  It might just well be because she's portraying a cyborg.  There seems to be a lot of "Japanese wouldn't at that way LOL" from the women.  Given that actors don't decide their own lines or scenes I don't think it would have mattered what nationality was casted in the lead role.  I guess the only way to really pick up on those nuances would be if it was a Japanese directed move. But the Japanese didn't direct this movie or write the adaptation. The developers/writers of Ghost in the Shell had to have sold the rights to make the movie, it's their intellectual property.

A very interesting article, and well written.

But in terms of "insights per word" it did get slightly upstaged by the title of a link at the bottom:

"I Haven't Read Rachel Dolezal's Book, But I Identify as a Person Who Has".

And who are we to throw shade on that man's "lived reality"?

Quote:

Yeah, there are a few people trying to pass racial dysphoria off as a real thing , but there is still a big difference between getting your black identity from old National Geographics (and trying to not get tripped up in lies about TV) and people who can't walk into any bathrooms without either getting screamed at or punched.

That's kind of what interests me about the whole Rachel Dolezal thing (sorry, no, I'm not going to google her new chosen African name, because I'm too lazy).

If she had not existed, and if some blonde-haired white guy had said "OK, fine then, can I just 'identify' as black and now I'm black and people should validate that?" I think that guy would have been condemned as a "shitlord", or assumed to be "stirring the pot", and certainly would have been told that his comparison was absurd and ridiculous and would never happen, like gay men marrying a tennis raquet.

And then it really, actually, honestly DID happen.  So now we actually DO have to discuss it, and in particular, discuss what limits (if any) there should be on the whole "I identify as...." phenomenon.

If we should support her identifying as black when she's clearly not, then why not as a "wolfkin"?  What's the difference?

And if we need not support her claims of blackness, then what onus should there be on anyone to support someone's claim of being "gender fluid"?  To be fair, at least "black" (and for that matter, "wolf") are things we all agree exist.

Loved the article in The Stranger. Ijeoma Oluo is a brilliant writer, and I thought she handled Dolezal more kindly than she had to. Dolezal clearly has some mental health issues, but I don't think indulging her fantasies that she's black are doing her any favours.

PS: Smith, it's "Belaney". :) 

I thought your comparison was with people who try to change their race.

And did I need to clarify my point that gender dysphoria is in the DSM as something which is neither an illness nor a delusion?

Anyway, here's another take on it, with some stats on those suicide numbers:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/no-its-not-like-gender-dysph...

I wanted to post this in the most recent black lives matter thread. Could someone suggest how I can use the search engine to find it? 

Patterns Of Death In The South Still Show The Outlines Of Slavery

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mortality-black-belt/

Quote:

And dysphoria is just not feeling that you are the gender you were assigned at birth. There is nothing specifying that it is binary.

Well, other than pretty much all of the animal kingdom.  And most of the plant kingdom, too.  How's "gender-fluid" corn faring these days?  Reproducing?  If so, as sperm or egg, or "please don't label me"?

I see.

So if I wish to be addressed as "he" today, and "she" on Sunday, and "they" seven days after that, there's plenty of evidence that this is a normal part of nature and not just me being narcissistic?

I suppose one could come at this from a variety of different angles.

One would be the idea that, having written a play (which will necessarily be interpreted by persons other than yourself) you should get to dictate who those others must be.  A bit like if Bob Dylan licenced the performance of "Blowin' in the Wind" on the strict condition that it be played on a Gibson guitar.

Another would to wonder what it means to be an actor, if not to pretend to be someone you're not.  In some theatre/movies, this could be problematic (e.g. when a character's exact form is ambiguous or unimportant) and in others, quite necessary (e.g. when you have to play a Romulan, and they can't seem to find a Romulan actor for the role).

If Albee were still alive, and had things to say, I'd at least listen.  But are we supposed to care what his children's children think about a casting decision??  At some arbitrary point in time his heirs' copyright claims will expire, at which point anyone would be free to stage a performance of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" with an all Muppet cast.

Personally, I don't have any concerns over whether this or that character in the play is performed by a person of colour.  I feel like that's the chance you take when you author a symphony, but cannot play all the instruments, or author a play, but cannot play all the parts.  To me, whether this is a "good" or "bad" thing is entirely immaterial.  If you write a play, and cannot perform all the parts yourself, then someone else must, and they'll bring their own thing to it.

I guess, to put it another way, I think that authoring a play, or authoring a piece of music, necessarily means understanding that someone else will take your work and interpret it.  That's different from (say) a painter or a sculptor who create free-standing works that don't need to be interpreted by anyone other than the audience (which is always the case).

@ Magoo

Well, what we might wish the copyright laws to say, and what those laws actually do say, could be two different things. I'll just say that if the law gave me the power to veto casting choices for WAOVW, I would give serious thought to exercising that perogrative in the event of a non-white actor being cast.

In fact, you could make an argument that casting a black person as Nick hinders an honest portrayal of racism in America. Because the implication would be that American society in the 1950s was so colour-blind that a middle-aged man and his wife could spend an entire night trying to torment and humiliate a younger couple, without once making a racist crack about the couple being interracial.  

Well, I guess I'm suggesting that authoring a play (that other artists will interpret) or writing a symphony (that 100 or so artists will interpret) necessarily means understanding that you can control one half (the script or the notes) but others will interpret the other half.  This isn't like a painting or a sculpture or a book, where the only other necessary participant is an audience, who will always be free to make what they will of it.

Quote:

Doesn't change the fact this is a ridiculous decision that flies in the face of every time a white actor got cast for a non-white role.

I feel like this hangs on a small knife's edge.

If a white actor is chosen to play Othello in blackface, pretending to be black, that's beyond disgusting.

If a white actor is chosen to play Othello as a white man, to explore (for whatever reason) how that might inform the character of Othello, then my mind is open.

This is, after all, why we can have a female Thor.  She's not pretending she's a male Thor.  I'm OK with that no matter the character or the actor, because there's nothing dishonest about it.  Again, every actor pretends to be something they're not.  But a white actor "pretending to be a black actor", who in turn is pretending to be "King Othello" is a different thing.

Like this article says, lots of theatres believe in colour blind casting, so long as the actor is white. And the link about the RSC Hamlet production is also worth reading:

http://jezebel.com/5980419/many-major-theaters-believe-in-color-blind-ca...

And some numbers.

https://qz.com/842610/broadways-race-problem-is-unmasked-by-data-but-the...

So despite the fact one theatre backed down in Edmonton after complaints, the yanking of the rights that happened with Albee's play (and the lame excuse) is more the norm.

Well yes, but the character isn't Archie Bunker is he? And the character's race isn't critical to the story. The only thing they are hanging this on is a few references about complexion. I don't have a hard copy on my shelves and I'm not going to haul out the movie and watch it, but who's to say those references couldn't be delivered ironically to turn around the meaning?

Ever seen Julie Taymor's Titus (which has a fabulous line about race delivered by a black character)? I didn't read any critics taking issue with her radical change of Shakspeare's text at the end of that film.

(and as an aside, in the only stage production I have seen of that play, Aaron was played by a white actor, which is much harder to work around than in Albee's play, if you are familiar with the story)

But the bigger point is not about altering text or staging to deal with those small issues, it is the fact this gets jumped on as as something impossible to change, and you don't hear that nearly as often when it is a white actor.

Had there not been that stark double standard I would have been fine with a white woman playing Othello. In principle there is nothing wrong with it, and making the character a woman is an interesting take on it. But in the current climate, including protests about how white the Academy Awards are, it is a case of the last straw.

From 6079_Smith_W:

Well yes, but the character isn't Archie Bunker is he? And the character's race isn't critical to the story. The only thing they are hanging this on is a few references about complexion. I don't have a hard copy on my shelves and I'm not going to haul out the movie and watch it, but who's to say those references couldn't be delivered ironically to turn around the meaning?

​What in fact they are 'hanging on' is the express wishes of the author of the play. And as far as 'turning around the meaning' I suggest if you don't like the meaning of the play, you write your own. Here is a portion of the letter from the Albee Estate to Streeter:

Regarding the matter of your request to cast an actor who is African-American as Nick in VIRGINIA WOOLF?, it is important to note that Mr. Albee wrote Nick as a Caucasian character, whose blonde hair and blue eyes are remarked on frequently in the play, even alluding to Nick's likeness as that of an Aryan of Nazi racial ideology.  Furthermore, Mr. Albee himself said on numerous occasions when approached with requests for non-traditional casting in productions of VIRGINIA WOOLF? that a mixed-race marriage between a Caucasian and an African-American would not have gone unacknowledged in conversations in that time and place and under the  circumstances in which the play is expressly set by textual references in the 1960's.  

This provides clear evidence that productions of WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? must, indeed, continue to be cast per Mr. Albee's intention, and according to the legal rights held by his estate, which works with great care to ensure that the author’s intent is upheld as closely as possible and with great consideration given to his stage directions and dialogue.  

voice of the damned wrote:

 In the context of what we're talking about, what might be a "non-black" role?

Well, for example, I think Archie Bunker only worked when portrayed by a white guy, or at least someone who could reasonably appear white. His diatribes against African-Americans would have sounded pretty bizarre coming from Redd Foxx.

And for what it's worth, I fully agreed with the Walterdale being asked to pull their production of Othello.

So what did you think of Sherman Helmsley's "George Jefferson" character(a character that first appeared on All In The Family), who was, in fact, INTENDED to be a black Archie Bunker-as prejudiced against whites as Archie was against blacks(and who took years to accept his son's marriage to the daughter of the mixed-marriage neighbors he could barely abide)?

George Jefferson softened as a character as the years went by, as did Archie Bunker himself, but he started out as a deeply bigoted guy.

Update.

Quote:

A Washington state college was shut down Thursday following a threat sparked by racial tensions on campus.

Evergreen State College, a liberal arts college in Olympia, Wash., found itself in the middle of a national controversy after activists requested white people remove themselves from campus for a "Day of Absence" in April and one professor refused.

Did a white supremacist threaten to blow everyone up unless whites were re-welcomed?  Did an anti-racist activist threaten to blow everyone up unless Bret Weinstein agrees to stay away?  Here's hoping we'll all find out just as soon as Evergreen administration gets tired of playing "I've got a secret".

The Evergreen College story is a perfect topic fo rthis thread, and a perfect example of how toxic a particular brand of social justice politics has become. There is no meaningful way for the people accused of being racists to defend themselves against this mob, or to condemn or denounce the decision to organize the day of absence in this particular way this year, within the confines of a narrative that says that when racialized people tell white people about racism, white people need to listen.

Some background: historically, Day of Absence is a day on which black faculty and students depart campus to make a point by their conspicuous absence. This year, they wanted white people to leave campus for a day instead. It then appears that the protesters took over the campus in a horrendous fashion, chanted slogans, threatened faculty and administrators, and demanded Bret Weinstein be immediately be fired.

All of this is doing tremendous damage to one of the most progressive universities in North America. Nobody is going to want to go there now. The college is having its name dragged through the mud and quite frankly deserves it in some respect, because this shit HAS to be condemned, denounced, BY US on the left especially. Of course, I'm just a white guy saying this, right?

I won't even deny that I'd take a certain perverse pleasure in being asked to leave campus for a day because I'm white. Outraaaaaaage! But my outrage would be more justified than these protesters' outrage, because what they're doing is disgusting, and if they tried it at a college that's as racist as they claim Evergreen actually is, they'd be shot like the animals they're acting like.

[youtube]1XkFiuq0PbI[/youtube]

[youtube]_Y_zuh8SjY0[/youtube]

[youtube]H9f4Td7h9ek[/youtube]

STOP TEACHING AND ENABLING THIS SHIT, PROGRESSIVES. THIS SHIT IS HARMING THESE KIDS' MINDS.

Look at that pathetic university president. The word "cuck" was invented for figures like this man. That kind of failure to stand up to bullshit is so utterly revolting.

Actually the real origin of this context is in a book that Steve Bannon is fascinated by "The Camp of the Saints". Michael Moriarity posted a great link by the young turks a month or so about it. The way it was used in that 1973 book is exactly the same way as the alt-right uses it now.

https://mic.com/articles/170447/steve-bannon-s-obsession-with-this-racis...

For maybe the first time in my life, I completely understand how Andrew Breitbart felt:

[youtube]1gJlOz7bVb0[/youtube]

[b]Freaks and animals.[/b]

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, I guess I'm suggesting that authoring a play (that other artists will interpret) or writing a symphony (that 100 or so artists will interpret) necessarily means understanding that you can control one half (the script or the notes) but others will interpret the other half.  This isn't like a painting or a sculpture or a book, where the only other necessary participant is an audience, who will always be free to make what they will of it.

Quote:

Doesn't change the fact this is a ridiculous decision that flies in the face of every time a white actor got cast for a non-white role.

I feel like this hangs on a small knife's edge.

If a white actor is chosen to play Othello in blackface, pretending to be black, that's beyond disgusting.

If a white actor is chosen to play Othello as a white man, to explore (for whatever reason) how that might inform the character of Othello, then my mind is open.

This is, after all, why we can have a female Thor.  She's not pretending she's a male Thor.  I'm OK with that no matter the character or the actor, because there's nothing dishonest about it.  Again, every actor pretends to be something they're not.  But a white actor "pretending to be a black actor", who in turn is pretending to be "King Othello" is a different thing.

I'm okay with Thor as a woman too. I would not be okay if the Wonder Woman movie was changed so that the main character could be Wonder Man.

Sex, "male" and race "white" are the default for characters. Police officers are white men unless someone specifically decides they want a woman cop or a black cop or an asian cop or hispanic cop which they usually do now in an effort to be diverse but the default is still white male with others sprinkled in and female cops and detectives still run around in high heels.

So, when an opportunity presents itself to cast individuals that are generally not considered for the default white roles  and a white person is selected anyway it is like turning Wonder Woman into a man.

I haven't seen the movie but to me to justify choosing a white actress they would have to acknowledge that white, female and sexy were default criteria for a reason. Why did they choose a Japanese brain? Was it a racist assumption that they are smarter, or was it acknowledgement that race doesn't matter? Was the cyborg intended to be a femme fatale or blend in unless being activated for some task that couldn't be concealed? Does a female brain have to go into a female cyborg?

From what I have heard so far this is a shallow movie, sex sells, they wanted a big name sexy actress to play the lead. The plot never mattered at all. The controversy is a bonus. There is no such thing as bad advertising for this kind of movie. People that want to see a sexy woman kicking ass will flock to it. It's even woman power! Bionic woman! Charlie's Angels! "Girls" kick ass! It's a date movie. It's meant to be fun. Try criticizing it to many if not most people and they will think if not say that you are being too serious about everything and there are bigger problems to think about.

As for Ghost in the Shell, just watch the 1995 anime movie.

Quote:

I haven't seen the movie but to me to justify choosing a white actress they would have to acknowledge that white, female and sexy were default criteria for a reason. Why did they choose a Japanese brain? Was it a racist assumption that they are smarter, or was it acknowledgement that race doesn't matter? Was the cyborg intended to be a femme fatale or blend in unless being activated for some task that couldn't be concealed? Does a female brain have to go into a female cyborg?

From what I have heard so far this is a shallow movie, sex sells, they wanted a big name sexy actress to play the lead. The plot never mattered at all. The controversy is a bonus. There is no such thing as bad advertising for this kind of movie. People that want to see a sexy woman kicking ass will flock to it. It's even woman power! Bionic woman! Charlie's Angels! "Girls" kick ass! It's a date movie. It's meant to be fun. Try criticizing it to many if not most people and they will think if not say that you are being too serious about everything and there are bigger problems to think about.

News flash: the vast majority of those who will see the movie in theatres are white.