The Big Picture: Skin Deep

[Jabberwock xeno]

In my opinion, there are _ factors to consider when casting somone for a role:

- How much they look like the character

- How much they can give off that character's personality.

- How good they can do acting as that character.

Now, if a person looks noething like a character, but can give off the personality and act REALLY well, and there's nobody else who can look like them and still do a good job with the other two, then go ahead.

To me, it's not an issue of race: I was angry at evolutions's goku not because he was white instead of asian (he's not asian anyways, he's an alien), but because

- He didn't LOOK like goku

- He didn't act as goku does or would

- the actor didn't do a great job anyways.

Also, I am the only one who STILL wants another DB/Z live action film?


Evolutions was going to be MUCH closer to the original Dragonball, it's just after all the years of the script being tossed around, most of it was removed.


Also, I wonder how moviebob felt about evolutions...

 

[SkellgrimOrDave]

The only issue I have with the whole black heimdall situation is that if from the very start they'd said "OMG WE NEED BLACK CHARACTER TO NOT LOOK RACIST" then that's bollocks, but if (as I hope they did) said "right, get a load of actors to play heimdall, what, one of them's black? what does that matter?", then awesome, he gave a great performance and to everyone storming over the whole norse god issue, a bit of sense:

This is a comic book movie, not a document on the heathen gods (which I personally believe in), ergo I have no problem. If someone decides to make the stories of the Voluspa and Loki and Thors travels to Utgarde into a film designed to portray the realism of the matter and tries to make Thor a wisecracking black guy, then i'll take umbridge to it, it's not racist, it's just how things were written back then, no point rewriting history to make things more culturally sensetive to people.

In regards to the whole moviebob main point, I am still wholly against double standard. I'm also wholly against racism, slavery and all that, but the solution is to accept that although even 3 generations ago we might have had a hand in some very bad shit, WE NOW are not the ones who should be held to direct account. Anyone who says "yes i'm proud my grandad owned slaves and he was right to do so" should get a royal kicking, but trying to put the blame for the slave trade at joe white guy's door isn't the way to go about it.

 

[DanDeFool]

I'd be totally down with a full-length episode about the Samurai Pizza Cats. That show was one of the best parts of the 90s.

 

[DanDeFool]

... we are being forced down our throats that until children of all colours and religions dance under a rainbow, we need to be more tolerant.

You have earned the Button Pusher badge!
You got this badge by finding a button and pushing it.

The button was the word "tolerant" up there.

I'm tolerating the noise of a hedge-trimmer or chainsaw or leaf-blower or something like that.
I tolerate traffic.
I tolerate people walking those strange little creatures that they call dogs despite them being snack-sized to an ocelot.
I tolerate dandelions in the lawn because I'm too lazy to go round and get rid of them all.
I tolerate having to wait to use the microwave.
I tolerate bad weather.

I don't tolerate litter building up in my garden. I get rid of it.
I don't tolerate drakes raping ducks in my garden. I chase them off, and am getting closer and closer to shooting one of the bastards.
I don't tolerate pigeons, grey squirrels or rats. I shoot them. (Yes, "*boom* headshot" and all that.)
I won't tolerate people raiding the birds' nests around here. It's going to be hard to climb a tree with both your arms dislocated and broken, isn't it, kid?
I don't tolerate crap radio stations when I'm driving. Don't push it.

I don't tolerate homosexuality or black people or inter-racial marriages or Buddhists because I don't see anything there to tolerate. Do you tolerate rivers existing on other continents? Do you tolerate the fact there are planets orbiting other stars? Do you tolerate birdsong a hundred miles away?

Yeah, YOU don't see anything there to tolerate, and while I certainly like the cut of your jib, you've got to remember that the message of tolerance is only really for people that already hate. We want them to tolerate others, regardless of what their personal feelings might be, because we want to live in a free and open civilization where people don't get abused for things they can't change.

 

[vorkon]

I don't have time to read all these comments, so I'm sure this has already been said, but even so it deserves to be said again:

An entire episode devoted to Samurai Pizza Cats?

Man, that would ROCK!

 

[Smokescreen]

We ought to work for the ideal world.

And in that ideal world, people will be judged for how they behave.

If that man or woman kicks ass, I could give a fuck what they look like.

But we still have a ways to go. Let's keep going there.

 

[BmoreAkuma]

I could not disagre more with bobby here. You made some good point, but when you draw the Slave card i lost all hope. As i have stated before i'm from Sweden. We did not had (as i know) any slaves here in the 16-19 century. We hade WHITES slaves when we were kicking ass as vikings, but no black slave. I appriced that you said that you saw it from an american perspectiv and you made a good point at that, but I'm sooooo tired of all that bullshit that we whites have to be the bad guy for something that our anncestor did 150 years ago. Did you know that african tribes helped the europens to get slaves in return for guns and booze? And that Arabic took alone 100 milones black slaves for more then 1000 years, and they were worse?! So my point is: I don't care about what YOUR damn accenstor did. I'm just getting really tired of that we have to pay back.

/rant over

But then you use the "African had slaves" card so unfortunately your point is just as mute as his. When a discussion of racism comes about many (including you) be so quick to use it as a defense for their argument. What you have also failed to noticed that he agreed that it is a double standard and people that would use the "replace black with white" is right. Go view that video again.

Am I upset about a black guy being cast in a white role? Nah. Don't care really. ESPECIALLY if he was as awesome as everyone says. I think they are allowed to change a character, especially through if they are modernizing it.

My only issue is that we shouldn't be allowing double standards at all. Sure, slavery was one HELL of a double standard that puts the "movie role" double standard to quintuple shame to the power of infinity, but a lesser injustice is still an injustice, and should not be allowed. Me robbing your store doesn't give you the right to step on my son's foot.

Am I being idealistic? Not exactly, because I'm not saying we shouldn't tolerate double standards, or that the only acceptable situation is when there are no double standards, only that we should constantly be aiming for as few as possible. We should not give free passes to a group who was fucked over centuries ago, simply because as long as they get that free pass, we as a society will never truly move on. It will continue to haunt and hurt both sides and I'd prefer we work towards that no longer happening.

The problem is that so many of these harsh imagery hasn't past the 50 year mark yet. The same can be said about the different civil rights movements. I don't think it is possible right now. Just because one don't see the signs out there doesn't mean it don't exist. Dammit many of the hateful prejudice individuals during the civil rights movement are still alive and some of them are in office (allegedly). Shoot our country still have a hardtime giving gays and lesbians a chance to get married.

 

[Blunderman]

Yes, we have already established that it "caters to a double standard". What we have also done, however, is established that the double standard is justified, given the past 200 years that have effectively defined the relationship between blacks and whites. Nice of you to rehash an already dismissed argument, though.

The definition of racism aside, in which we have different views, this is the core flaw of your entire position. You're claiming that we should solve inequality with more inequality, in other words fighting fire with fire. This is neither logical (which is ironic since you're accusing me of using poor logic) nor effective, as it would merely skew society's perspective in another direction instead of getting it on the right track. You don't build houses on impermanent foundations. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is really basic logic that both you and MovieBob fail to grasp.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

Actually, what I said from the very get-go is "slavery, Jim Crow, etc." Which speaks to a historical continuum that extends beyond slavery (the Jim Crow era post-dates the era of slavery) and one that arguably continues to this day. It doesn't neatly stop at just slavery nor did anything I said attempt to limit it to just slavery. You're the one attempting to end the history of racial oppression and marginalization at slavery. So you can neatly say "that was yesterday, it's got nothing to do with me today." And, frankly, if that's the best you can come up with, I can't be bothered discussing the issue with you.

There are actually two seperate discussions here.

Discussion #1: should the severity of the SRs, SBs, or JRs be applied to JBs

In this discussion, set aside for a moment that I don't take responsibility for slavery or Jim Crow (see discussion #2).

Slavery and Jim Crow are two distinct things. When you describe people who were responsible for slavery and people responsible for Jim Crow, you are describing 2 different things, even if you believe both sets to have the same contents: all white people for example. Likewise the same applies when you describe people who benefit from slavery and Jim Crow. All together we end with four different sets that may not necessarily have the same contents and their definitions remain distinct even if they do have the same contents. There are of course overlaps between these sets.

The 4 sets:

SR = Responsible for slavery
SB = Benefited from slavery
JR = Responsible for Jim Crow
JB = Benefited from Jim Crow

It should obvious both that it is worse to do something bad than to inadvertently benefit from something bad and that slavery was more severe than Jim Crow. I would also contend that SRs and SBs represented a minority of whites in their time and they are also now long dead.

You claim that all white Americans are JBs and let's assume that is the case. The racial debt of JBs should limited specifically to being JBs and should not extend to those other more severe groups of which the JBs are not members. If who we are defines our racial debt then the definition of our racial debt should remain static for the duration of the argument. You cannot, on the one hand, take a very loose definition of the racial debt to net as large a group as possible and then, on the other hand, take a very harsh of definition of the racial debt to come down on said group as hard a possible.

Discussion #2: are all white Americans JBs?

I'm not attempting to, in your words, "end history". I'm simply stating that I am not responsble for it. Everyone is born with a balance of 0. You say that I was born with this debt, it seems nuts to me. Would my children be born with the debt too? Grandchildren? Just for having white skin and being born in America?

 

[Ursinedriver]

Yeah but modern folks aren't responsible for that slavery so to use that as an excuse for double standards is also silly.

As an African American i get real tired of the "I didnt own any slaves" argument against the effects of slavery.

True, no one alive today owned any slaves, but whether you admit it or not, you are a direct benefactor of the institution of slavery, and institutionalized racism. And conversley those elements affect me and others on a daily basis.

I never said I didn't benefit I said I'm not responsible for it so you shouldn't try to make me feel guilty about it. Hell I highly doubt my ancestors owned slaves since it seems like most of them immigrated to the U.S. after slavery ended.

But the fact remains that you benefit from not only slavery, but the long history of America's institutionalized racism. No one's -- I don't think -- trying to send you off on a guilt trip. Rather, the point is that if, after all those years, you, as a member of the majority group, are now being made to carry the burden in the form of some sort of "affirmative action" which cuts you a bad deal so that the formerly marginalized groups can finally get a decent deal, then that seems to me entirely fair.

As a member of that formerly marginalized group, I have to ask, how is that fair? Why should any one have to pay for the sins of there fathers? My fathers father was a thug and my Mother's grandfather was a con-man. Should I have to feel guilt or the people my grandfather killed? should I have to pay the decendents of the people my great grandfather scammed? Like wise, even if you got a leg up because your ancestors did reprehensible things, should you have to where a weighted chain to "make it fair"? None of us have any say in what we are born into, all that should matter is what we do with it.

 

[Nurb]

I can understand Bob's thoughts and can see where he's coming from, but I don't go for this "white privilage" that is supposed to still exist, like some old rich bastard being a dickhole to someone non-white is going to give me a check in the mail or reserves a job for me somewhere.

I had to deal with this when I was a tech; I was one of 4 white people in the whole damn building and one of 4 techs. We all applied for the "lead technition" promotion and I got it despite him being there longer, but the black guy, who I've been friendly and joked around with and talked to a lot, started saying to others I got it because I'm white and our boss is white. I found this out from one of my co-workers.

He didn't consider it was the customer complaints about him being rude and arguing with other managers that kept him from being picked, it was because I was white and he was the victim. He also didn't consider the other techs didn't get it because the hispanic tech couldn't work the schedule it required and the other white tech was being a problem.

This prejudicial (pre-judging) assumption was not only insulting because we were getting along pretty well, it also created tension with other employees he told. Like I'd work at a place where I was one of only 4 white folks if I had a problem with race.

So yea, assuming someone does well because of "white privilage" is just as stupid as assuming someone non-white is where they are because of "political correctness, and it's a double standard that is not acceptable

 

[JDKJ]

Actually, what I said from the very get-go is "slavery, Jim Crow, etc." Which speaks to a historical continuum that extends beyond slavery (the Jim Crow era post-dates the era of slavery) and one that arguably continues to this day. It doesn't neatly stop at just slavery nor did anything I said attempt to limit it to just slavery. You're the one attempting to end the history of racial oppression and marginalization at slavery. So you can neatly say "that was yesterday, it's got nothing to do with me today." And, frankly, if that's the best you can come up with, I can't be bothered discussing the issue with you.

There are actually two seperate discussions here.

Discussion #1: should the severity of the SRs, SBs, or JRs be applied to JBs

In this discussion, set aside for a moment that I don't take responsibility for slavery or Jim Crow (see discussion #2).

Slavery and Jim Crow are two distinct things. When you describe people who were responsible for slavery and people responsible for Jim Crow, you are describing 2 different things, even if you believe both sets to have the same contents: all white people for example. Likewise the same applies when you describe people who benefit from slavery and Jim Crow. All together we end with four different sets that may not necessarily have the same contents and their definitions remain distinct even if they do have the same contents. There are of course overlaps between these sets.

The 4 sets:

SR = Responsible for slavery
SB = Benefited from slavery
JR = Responsible for Jim Crow
JB = Benefited from Jim Crow

It should obvious both that it is worse to do something bad than to inadvertently benefit from something bad and that slavery was more severe than Jim Crow. I would also contend that SRs and SBs represented a minority of whites in their time and they are also now long dead.

You claim that all white Americans are JBs and let's assume that is the case. The racial debt of JBs should limited specifically to being JBs and should not extend to those other more severe groups of which the JBs are not members. If who we are defines our racial debt then definition of our racial debt should remain static for the duration of the argument. You cannot, on the one hand, take a very loose definition of the racial debt to net as large a group as possible and then, on the other hand, take a very harsh of definition of the racial debt to come down on said group as hard a possible.

Discussion #2: are all white Americans JBs?

I'm not attempting to, in your words, "end history". I'm simply stating that I am not responsble for it. Everyone is born with a balance of 0. You say that I was born with this debt, it seems nuts to me. Would my children be born with the debt too? Grandchildren? Just for having white skin and being born in America?

I'm almost sorry that you took such pains to make a non-existent point. Aren't you aware that the enactment of Jim Crow laws by the South was an outgrowth of and a direct reaction to the abolition of slavery and was intended to keep the newly free slaves in their place? Slavery and Jim Crow aren't at all "two distinct things." No more than sunrise is distinct from sunset.

 

[JDKJ]

Yeah but modern folks aren't responsible for that slavery so to use that as an excuse for double standards is also silly.

As an African American i get real tired of the "I didnt own any slaves" argument against the effects of slavery.

True, no one alive today owned any slaves, but whether you admit it or not, you are a direct benefactor of the institution of slavery, and institutionalized racism. And conversley those elements affect me and others on a daily basis.

I never said I didn't benefit I said I'm not responsible for it so you shouldn't try to make me feel guilty about it. Hell I highly doubt my ancestors owned slaves since it seems like most of them immigrated to the U.S. after slavery ended.

But the fact remains that you benefit from not only slavery, but the long history of America's institutionalized racism. No one's -- I don't think -- trying to send you off on a guilt trip. Rather, the point is that if, after all those years, you, as a member of the majority group, are now being made to carry the burden in the form of some sort of "affirmative action" which cuts you a bad deal so that the formerly marginalized groups can finally get a decent deal, then that seems to me entirely fair.

As a member of that formerly marginalized group, I have to ask, how is that fair? Why should any one have to pay for the sins of there fathers? My fathers father was a thug and my Mother's grandfather was a con-man. Should I have to feel guilt or the people my grandfather killed? should I have to pay the decendents of the people my great grandfather scammed? Like wise, even if you got a leg up because your ancestors did reprehensible things, should you have to where a weighted chain to "make it fair"? None of us have any say in what we are born into, all that should matter is what we do with it.

Should you have to pay the descendents of the people your great-grandfather scammed? Yes. If he died and willed you the entirety of his estate, then you should pay back the descendents of those he scammed. Why should you get to keep those ill-begotten gains?

 

[TiefBlau]

I still disagree. If I were to go to a country that was 90% black, and 10% white (somehow through the power of magical hypotheticalness there are no other minorities), I would not start demanding they change roles simply to suit "white people". I also wouldn't demand they keep roles within gender bounds either. I'd demand (or perhaps merely suggest) they go with what works. In the Thor example, it seemed to work quite well. There was nothing about the story that required him to be white, they are magical freakin' gods.

Uh, yeah. I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't go with what works. I do believe saying "something that works is okay" is more or less implicit. The question is surrounding that pivotal "whatever works" part, and black Santa "works" a lot better (or at the very least, with more leniency) than white Panther. This is because, again, in practice there are numerically fewer suitable roles traditionally suited for white people than there are for black people, and so we tend to give the benefit of the doubt to traditionally white roles moreso than to traditionally black roles.

As for the Thor examples, the "magical freakin' gods" are traditionally envisioned as white. I don't think there would nearly be as much defense for a black Heimdall if Heimdall was the god of fair skin. The idea is that Heimdall was made by white Norse folk, envisioned as white Norse folk, and in Marvel comics, depicted as a white Norse folk. Again, we're arguing traditional depictions. If Oscar Schindler was played by a black guy, suspension of disbelief is thrown straight out the window.

I believe in meritocracy. Roles should be given to whomever can play them the best, irrespective of race. That goes both ways.

And how well you can play the roles is strongly dependent on the cultural sentiments on the time. If anyone from the 90's saw Heath Ledger's depiction of the Joker, a good "What the fuck!?" would be in order. The cultural relevance of The Dark Knight was what made it work. In the same vein, the cultural sentiments of our modern times evidence compensation for long, continuing effects of ethnic prejudice, so, again, black Karate Kid is more acceptable than white Beverly Hills Cop.

I'm not saying this is a logical absolute. I don't think anything I've said is a logical absolute. The fact of the matter is, that if a white guy plays a traditionally ethnic role, he's fighting an uphill battle. Moreso than vice-versa.

 

[Ursinedriver]

@ DUKENUK3M

Although I understand what your saying, and agree with you on Jim Crow & slavery being intimately related I have to say, Sunrise and Sunset are 2 completly different things. Related, yes but utterly different in every important way.

 

[JDKJ]

Yeah but modern folks aren't responsible for that slavery so to use that as an excuse for double standards is also silly.

As an African American i get real tired of the "I didnt own any slaves" argument against the effects of slavery.

True, no one alive today owned any slaves, but whether you admit it or not, you are a direct benefactor of the institution of slavery, and institutionalized racism. And conversley those elements affect me and others on a daily basis.

I never said I didn't benefit I said I'm not responsible for it so you shouldn't try to make me feel guilty about it. Hell I highly doubt my ancestors owned slaves since it seems like most of them immigrated to the U.S. after slavery ended.

But the fact remains that you benefit from not only slavery, but the long history of America's institutionalized racism. No one's -- I don't think -- trying to send you off on a guilt trip. Rather, the point is that if, after all those years, you, as a member of the majority group, are now being made to carry the burden in the form of some sort of "affirmative action" which cuts you a bad deal so that the formerly marginalized groups can finally get a decent deal, then that seems to me entirely fair.

I don't think that's fair and I don't think the ends justify treating people unfairly.

What one thinks is "fair" or not is often a function of whose ox is being gored.

 

[JDKJ]

@ DUKENUK3M

Although I understand what your saying, and agree with you on Jim Crow & slavery being intimately related I have to say, Sunrise and Sunset are 2 completly different things. Related, yes but utterly different in every important way.

One man's sunset is another man's sunrise. It's the exact same Sun in both circumstances. The only difference is where those two men are located on the Earth.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

Actually, what I said from the very get-go is "slavery, Jim Crow, etc." Which speaks to a historical continuum that extends beyond slavery (the Jim Crow era post-dates the era of slavery) and one that arguably continues to this day. It doesn't neatly stop at just slavery nor did anything I said attempt to limit it to just slavery. You're the one attempting to end the history of racial oppression and marginalization at slavery. So you can neatly say "that was yesterday, it's got nothing to do with me today." And, frankly, if that's the best you can come up with, I can't be bothered discussing the issue with you.

There are actually two seperate discussions here.

Discussion #1: should the severity of the SRs, SBs, or JRs be applied to JBs

In this discussion, set aside for a moment that I don't take responsibility for slavery or Jim Crow (see discussion #2).

Slavery and Jim Crow are two distinct things. When you describe people who were responsible for slavery and people responsible for Jim Crow, you are describing 2 different things, even if you believe both sets to have the same contents: all white people for example. Likewise the same applies when you describe people who benefit from slavery and Jim Crow. All together we end with four different sets that may not necessarily have the same contents and their definitions remain distinct even if they do have the same contents. There are of course overlaps between these sets.

The 4 sets:

SR = Responsible for slavery
SB = Benefited from slavery
JR = Responsible for Jim Crow
JB = Benefited from Jim Crow

It should obvious both that it is worse to do something bad than to inadvertently benefit from something bad and that slavery was more severe than Jim Crow. I would also contend that SRs and SBs represented a minority of whites in their time and they are also now long dead.

You claim that all white Americans are JBs and let's assume that is the case. The racial debt of JBs should limited specifically to being JBs and should not extend to those other more severe groups of which the JBs are not members. If who we are defines our racial debt then definition of our racial debt should remain static for the duration of the argument. You cannot, on the one hand, take a very loose definition of the racial debt to net as large a group as possible and then, on the other hand, take a very harsh of definition of the racial debt to come down on said group as hard a possible.

Discussion #2: are all white Americans JBs?

I'm not attempting to, in your words, "end history". I'm simply stating that I am not responsble for it. Everyone is born with a balance of 0. You say that I was born with this debt, it seems nuts to me. Would my children be born with the debt too? Grandchildren? Just for having white skin and being born in America?

I'm almost sorry that you took such pains to make a non-existent point. Aren't you aware that the enactment of Jim Crow laws by the South was an outgrowth of and a direct reaction to the abolition of slavery and was intended to keep the newly free slaves in their place? Slavery and Jim Crow aren't at all "two distinct things." No more than sunrise is distinct from sunset.

I never said that were not related, but that they were two different things. Distinct items that are related.