The Big Picture: Skin Deep
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So I take it from your comments that you are completely unwilling to consider the idea that white privilege, while not being at the level of owning other human beings like it was 150 years ago, is still a prevalent force in America and in the world today? That white people have an easier time as a group than other ethnic groups?Father Time said:
Indeed it is.PattyG said:
However all sarcasm aside, you'll notice I was careful to say within our territories. Racism still exists, but largely it's present throught he second and third world. You see a lot of it in places like Asia (directed towards us for that matter) or throughout third world Africa and The Middle East with various active efforts at ethnic cleansing going on and so on.
Racism in the first world largely exists as a political tool, because the spectre can be used to invoke strong feelings and get people to rally simply due to it's negativity. However the very fact that it can be used that way is also a sign that it's dead, if racism existed as a major force within society, accusations of racism would be met more with a "yep, so?" or "of course I'm racist, that's the way things are" rather than causing people to rally, or become defensive at the accusations. Racism can be invoked as an issue specifically because it no longer exists as a mainstream societal force and can be a rallying point. This is touched on in a lot of sociology classes, basically as soon as you can get support from society in general by complaining about something, that means that there is no oppression involved.
In general the biggest problem in the USA today is that racism provides an excuse for minorities to not even have to try. To put it bluntly it's easier to "fight a war" or claim a group of people is keeping you down, than to head out there and have a life. As guys like Bill Cosby have pointed out (albiet within his sphere which is Children's education, where he has a PHD), all the oppertunities are the for black america, it's not being "oppressed" or "discriminated against", the issue is people going out there to take those oppertunities. People have literally been lining up to send books, computers, and supplies to the schools in the inner city and poor "ethnic" areas, only to find those supplies destroyed by the people they were brought to. Basically black america has gotten it into it's head that it's only proper to be at the very top, or very bottom of society, being normal and getting into the same rut as everyone else is seen as selling out. People who try and become educated and fit into th enormal rungs of society are viewed as being "Oreos" as in black on the outside, white on the inside. You might be thinking "But Therumancer, doesn't that make it a matter of racism?" and the answer is "no", it's a racial ISSUE, not racism, it's something that black america has to work out on it's own, the problem largely coming from the simple fact that the EASY part was done by the civil liberties movements, it's comparitively easy to rail against society and make noise. But as guys like Martin Luthor King Jr. pointed out, after his time comes the actual hard part when people need to put all that aside, shut up, and embrace the oppertunities that they fought for. The civil liberties movement was about enabling people to live normally within society, not for all of the minorities to jump ahead into the upper percentiles of wealth and prestige.
The thing is though, that with people being bombarded with messages of "OMG Racism" every minute of every day as people use it as a tool, it can be very easy for people to overlook that there is nothing behind it.
Now like anything there are exceptions, there ARE racists in the US as it's a free country, the same can be said of most first world countries. They are a tiny, powerless group of people who basically hide under their beds on the fringes of society. They have absolutly no power over, or influance on anything, and are not a factor because society moved away from them.
What you might think of the guy himself, Obama is also a good sign as to how dead racism is in the US, after all he could never have made it to the highest position in the country entirely on minority support, he's there because society just doesn't care what his race is. It gets pointed out largely by simply being a sign of how much the US has changed compared to say 60 years ago when racism WAS a societal force.
At any rate, the point here being is that the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and other first world nations largely founded by white people, have more or less ended racism within our borders. What's more through trade, business, the spread of ideas, and so on we are having a huge influance throughout the world on that score, though by no means enough to end it. In more than a few cases our peacekeepers have shown up to basically stop acts of ethnic cleansing and the like as well, and fear of intervention by the what are currently the most powerful nations on earth has influanced a lot of things just by our being, since nobody wants us to invade.
I could say more on the subject, but the point is that the sarcasm isn't warrented. Right now the only people who claim that there is any kind of mainstream racism in the US are those who have something to gain, even if indirectly, by it's existance... however the very fact that it can be used as an issue to garner mainstream support also goes to show how dead it actually is.
Really, sometimes I wonder what they teach people in school nowadays, a lot of this was being covered in sociology when I was growing up. But then again I've also had people on these forums tell me that the colonists on the Mayflower were basically communists who set out to establish communal living... and never having heard of John Carver or William Bradford who were you know... elected leaders... and how they wouldn't leave the boat until a leader was elected and so on. Under the circumstances I guess it shouldn't be surprising that there are people who think that the US is still a racist society despite those battles having been won decades ago, with the passage of time cementing those victories.
Ask 10 black people whether they've been the victim of racism before. Essentially what's happening here is you (I'm assuming you are white) are attempting to speak for them saying their experience is totally null and void. Yes, black leaders are pushing for more personal accountability on the part of the black community, as well they should. They'll say don't blame others for your problems because that's a self-empowering message. But I don't think you'll hear any of them say racism is relegated to history.Therumancer said:
Anyway, I don't want to pick apart your entire piece. Let me just mention one point: having Obama elected President doesn't mean the races are now treated equally. Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law, George Bush was an alcoholic who ran his dad's businesses into the ground. When a black guy who is referred to as an "obnoxious drunk" by his father's associates can get elected President, then racism will be over.
PattyG said:
You won't pick my statements apart, because it can't be done. You might be able to convince yourself you did it, but this is one of those cases where I'm simply right.
The thing is that you can't ask ten black people if they have been victims of racism fairly, because of the simple fact that the accusation of racism is a powerful tool. It also enables someone to blame some kind of nebulous racial oppression for their problems, rather than having to face them, and perhaps admit that they are their own problem. The use of the "race card" is one of the biggest problems we're dealing with on society today, and really the only way to deal with it is to stop letting it have an effect.
See, the thing is that the very fact that you really have to search long and hard to find someone who seriously believes in the racial inferiority of a group of people (or the inherant superiority of his own people) within nations like the US is why it's dead. You have to search because the people who would admit to such things face social censure for their beliefs, because the rest of society clearly does not agree with them. That means that racism is dead. If racism was alive, you would have the majority of messages on TV and in the media being about oppressing "lesser" peoples as opposed to oppressors being universally defined as the bad guys, and nobody would be concerned about being racist, because there wouldn't be any repercussions for it.
The thing is that I'm not saying that "their experience is totally null and void" but simply that "they" never had those experiences to begin with. In most cases racism is being used as a scapegoat for personal failure, and not wanting to do hard work. You lose in the rat race, then it was racism, your life isn't where you wish it was (and news flash, very few people are where they aspire to be), then it's time to blame whitey, etc... Some of them might even believe it, but that hardly makes it the case, and all you have to do is take a look at what's going on and how racism is treated and it's pretty obvious. Simply using the "N" word can get people in tons of trouble socially if not legally because of what society in general actually believes and supports.
Of course a lot of this comes down to politics and voting blocks as well, there are people who have a vested interest in convincing others that racism is alive and everywhere. People who will tell minorities (and not just blacks) that they are being oppressed, because it brings the people together, what's more people generally want to be told that their problems are not their own fault, that there is someone to blame... as racism was a problem, trying to pretend that it's still a force in society is a logical tool. The people flock to the leaders who tell them what they want to hear, and those leaders become powerful due to the support, and can leverage that following into political favor by pretty much acting as a mercenary voting block, whomever favors the leaders are the ones he tells the people who listen to him to support, and then they get better numbers in the polls.
Understand, I never said that there aren't people who don't believe racism is an issue, simply that it really isn't one.
It's just like the point Bill Cosby sort of makes, just because people don't want to do the hard work and acknowlege that equality means fitting into the same dis-sastified rut as everyone else, doesn't mean they are being oppressed. The oppertunities are there, the books, computers, money for education, however embracing those things just means you get the same shot as everyone else, it doesn't mean your guaranteed any kind of success any more than anyone else. Equality means that you go to school, you study hard, and then chances are you wind up doing a crappy job to make ends meet, that's life for everyone irregardless of race. However for a few people, again irregardless of race, they are going to do really well and break into that upper 1% of society. The problem is that we're dealing with an inherant sense of entitlement, with equality being viewed as "equal to the top 1% of society", which is hardly the case.
At any rate we're doubtlessly going to have to agree to disagree, but honestly you probably should have learned a lot about this kind of thing in sociology.
As far as the presidency goes, dress it up as much as you want, the bottom line is that if there was mainstream racism Obama could not have won, he would have been considered inferior on merits of race, and probably wouldn't have even been allowed to run for office, never mind garner the support (which goes accross racial lines) in order to win.
Also understand something, when your looking at presidential cantidates, it's not so much about the man himself, as about his organization. Presidents are just a face put on a coalition of interests, the guy who has been able to convince all the right people that he's best able to do the job they want done. There are tons of people all competing for the honor of bring the dude who gets run, and in the true nature of American competition the best guy comes out on top. "Best" can mean anything from intelligent, to charismatic, to just plain ruthless, or some combination of all of those.
Just to get the support to make it into a primary, with all the diverse interests that requires to say "your the guy we want" means that racism has to be dead, before it even goes to the people themselves. If some really pragmatic guys thought Obama was inferior, or that people would view him that way, they never would have considered him for their face, given that there were tons of people they could have used beforehand.
Yes, this is a very cynical way of looking at politics, but it's also accurate. In general politics reflect on the needs of society becase the guys paying the money for these campaigns and wanting their interests represented, want the surest bets they can run.
Honestly I think your a little too offensive about Dubbya because you don't like him. Me, I voted for him twice, but have mixed opinions. In the end, the bottom line was tha his backround convinced an entire organization of interests that he was the guy they wanted. Was he the smartest, the most charismatic, ruthless, or whatever? We don't know exactly what the respective thinking of the people was, but the guy won *TWO* elections despite his dirty laundary being out there, oh granted they WERE very close elections, but he still won them. Truthfully though I kind of suspect he won the first one due to Al Gore's own people (pretty much the "Clintonista" faction) pole-axing him despite the recounts. Do some reading on Gore and dirt digging and you'll notice that towards the end of the campaign there was a big deal being made about how he was receiving campaign financing from China that was being fronted through Buddhist temples. Given all of the problems with Clinton and the speculation that he didn't LOSE a bunch of military tech to the Chinese through incomperance but sold it to them, that could very well have been a big deal, a President caught being run by foreign interests that were rapidly rising to be enemies of the country? If you think the Obama-Citizenship issue is, big, that would have been bigger. I also think that's why The Democratic party pretty much lowered the boom on Hillary and bought her off with a promised cabinet position, if she was in the forefront all that garbage would have been thrown at her... but yeah at any rate this is all irrelevent supposition. The point I'm getting away from is that both Bush and Obama convinced the right people to back them, and in the end that's really what it comes down to. The very fact that Obama could do it, is a sign that racism is dead as a mainstream phenomena, just by becoming a cantidate, and then to win the election... well obviously nobody was saying "we can't have a racially inferior president" and not voting for him.
We're going to have to agree to disagree, and I probably won't write any more responses to this because if we seriously get into it, it won't go anywhere good. I've said my piece. The bottom line is that at least as far as race goes, it's not so much an opinion, as it is a pure sociological fact. As a society, the USA, and the first world in general, are not in any way, shape, or form racist. There might be a few racists on the fringes, but due to societal hatred they pretty much stay hidden because the merest hint of serious racism is enough to ruin careers, get someone beaten up, or face all kinds of social censure.
Respond or don't, I don't particularly care. But this is a public forum and I feel it's necessary for all potential readers to show your arguments are weightless.Therumancer said:
Look, if you aren't going to trust people about their own experiences then all you're left with is what you want to believe. Black people say they've been the victim of discrimination? Well you don't want that to be true so you'll never bother to investigate and assume they're all liars. Hell, you could throw that into a million other arenas. Don't think OJ killed Nicole? Well then I'll just ignore the testimony and evidence. Don't want to think the Eiffel Tower is in Paris? Well I've never been there so I don't believe it. What a comforting world view you've constructed for yourself. You never have to try to see the world through the eyes of anyone but yourself. But as warm and snuggly as you may find your blanket of a philosophy it's the same branch of thinking that goes directly to holocaust deniers -- they don't want to think it's true so all the survivors are liars. And world-wide food shortages? That's too depressing so those starving kids must all be liars.
As far as your "sociological fact" goes, I studied sociology in college and my mother is a professor of sociology so unless you have similar credentials on the subject, I'm not going to be condescended to by you and your make-believe nonsense that you characterize as fact. Didn't want to get to that level of discourse but you did say, "You won't pick my statements apart, because it can't be done. You might be able to convince yourself you did it, but this is one of those cases where I'm simply right."
Finally, your definition of what constitutes racism is way off the mark anyway. As anyone with any sociological education could say, racism in the world today isn't defined so much by the ability of one ethnicity to own another as it is by the million different subtle ways in which whites are advantaged without anyone having to come out and ever say they like one race over another. To use one particular example, why are NFL quarterbacks overwhelmingly white when everyone else in the sport is more often black? Nobody every comes out and says "Black people don't have the brains and leadership skills." It's just a subtle thing that happens when coaches are choosing which one of their many athletes is going to choose and initiate the plays, and who's going to follow those choices. It's not a directly conscious decision, which seems to be the only racism you acknowledge. And it's the unspoken racism that is so easy to ignore, which is why it has stuck around for as long as it has. Fact is white people like to think that the advantages they enjoy are purely the product of their own efforts and endeavors, and never want to acknowledge that they might have benefited from their race or other things not in their control. Conversely, that makes people think those who are in bad situations are there because of their personal failures, having nothing to do with factors outside their control. You're saying black leaders will use the idea of racism as a rallying point for all the losers looking to blame external circumstances. That may be partially true, but the flip side to that is white leaders saying there is no racism, so you don't have to credit any external circumstances for your victories. And you seem to have missed my point entirely with Dubya. It wasn't whether he as a legitimate president or not. It was whether a black guy with the same personal failings as W could have won the presidency. I'm not an Obama fan, but nobody ever asked to see any other president or candidate's long-form birth certificate. John McCain was born overseas, but nobody seemed to care.
I quoted Louis CK in an earlier post, but I think it applies here: "If it was a choice, I would re-up with 'White' every year. I'll take white again, thank you." Yes he's a comedian his point it totally valid.
PattyG said:
Okay after this I'm done.
Racism is only one thing, the belief that someone is inherantly inferior to you based on their genetic makeup. That's it. Period. No other definitions apply.
People have tried to extend the definition to include other things because of the power of the term and by using "racism" it adds more weight to an arguement or situation that might not otherwise carry it. It's sort of like how the UN has tried to re-define Genocide as something other than wiping out a Genotype. That's incorrect, it's just the "ultimate evil" carries so much weight that people want to use it for other things, such as going after people for having a differant culture or stomp out a set of ideals. It gets paticularly lulzworthy when examined since by the UN definition we attempted Genocide of the Nazis based on ideaology, but hey... in the end when nobody takes the term seriously anymore due to dilution it will be nobody's fault but their own.
All I can say is that your probably misunderstanding what your mother is telling you about sociology if your even telling you the truth. Either that or she's one of those involved in political reinventionism within the academic community. It's a big deal with certain things like sociology and history, political correctness taking precedence over education, and the way people learn science and history being based around what is politically correct as opposd to what is actually right.
What your talking about is referred to by many as the "Invisible Knapsack" theory, which is basically a piece of debunkd garbage in most cases, used to justify racist outcry for political purposes. The idea of the invisible knapsack is that all members of a majority within a divided nation are inhernatly racist, simply by being, and can't avoid it. It's because they carry around an "invisible knapsack" of benefits they don't see. Such as being able to walk into a buisness and asking to see the person in charge or the owner and having the odds vastly in favor of that person being a member of your race. The idea being that to a minority that very fact is oppressive and thus racist. This is a simplistic version of it, but it's the theory a lot of what your saying comes from. The reason why it's debunked is because by it's very nature it's pointless drek that basically says that there is absolutly no way to get differant people to live together, because a group with a majority prescence is always going to be oppressive just by being. It kind of destroys it's own goal of addressing racism by ultimatly saying that the only way to be fair is to have a mono-ethnic culture. I'm bring brief as to how it gets to that point, but let's just say I've spent a lot of time on it. If you learn things properly it's pretty much one of those things you learn so you can understand it due to the people who believe it, but ultimatly is dismissed academically. Of course that doesn't mean that there are probably people who subscribe to it who are sociologists and try and teach it as being viable. That's one of the problems with our educational system... a lack of standardization, and too many politics being involved.
Simply put the basic arguement comes down to the fact that you can't not be racist, so are thus wrong, and by definition minorities become oppressed and right in their claims.
The reason why racism is dead, has been explained. The very fact that we are having this arguement, and that it's an issue where both of us on opposing sides think it's wrong, and indeed just about anyone observing this arguement from in the US would agree that it's wrong, and so on means that it's not an issue. For racism to exist for the purposes of this arguement it would have to be openly practiced, and publically supported. Thus you are wrong, because it is not.
People being people will do anything they can to get ahead. Right now because racism is dead but remains a hot button issue because of how it WAS a big deal, someone can get a lot of attention by making accusations of racism. This works beause everyone is going to be against the alleged racist(s). People when hearing a racism complaint will not say "so what, he's right". The very attention the accusation gets means that it becomes a viable tool both socially and politically for people to get what they want. Plenty of blacks claim to be discriminated against, heck, I'll extend it to minorities in general, but that's because it is advantageous for them to do so, not because it actually happens. What's more the "invisible enemy" provides an excuse for personal failure, or simply not to try within society. After all if this nebulous conspiricy of people is going to sabotage you, that makes a good excuse not to do anything and act like it's someone else's fault. No reason to go to school if you can say "well I won't get a job anyway because I'm black" or whatever. In general it's an issue because if you go to someone making a race complaint, and say "okay who is racially oppressing you" chances are they won't be able to point to anyone involved, instead saying "well, it's everyone" or pointing a finger at an organization without being able to say "he did this". That's because in cases where someone is fingered, there is no racism involved at all. Some guy whose fired can make an excuse it was because of racial discrimination, but chances are if you go see his boss nowadays he's going to be able to show exactly why he was justified in firing the guy. The reason why is because even if it WAS one of those racist fringers, he has to remain in hiding, he can't act overtly, because if he did he himself would lose his job and face social censure.
Now don't get me wrong, obviously people can put on a massive song and dance routine on this issue. If they couldn't we wouldn't be having this discussion, and nobody would be playing the race card to begin with. All it is though is a giant song and dance routine.
Of course if it makes you feel any better, within 10 years or so white guys won't be the majority in the US anymore. It appears we're going to be outnumbered by the various spanish peoples, Latinos, Hispanics, etc. I imagine there will be changes, and I'm kind of interested to see what will happen when "the man" isn't quintessentially a white guy anymore. Incidently, in a truely racist society we wouldn't let this happen, seeing it coming we'd institute a cull because we wouldn't view the "lesser races" as full humans, and be far more concerned about it than we are right now. The fact that you don't see the goverment building concentration camps or anything is pretty much a good sign that your wrong.
As far as people saying black guys don't have the brains or leadership skills for jobs, I'll address that seperatly. Nobody says they don't have the brains. Leadership skills is generally true, but that's because you don't see many people in black America developing them through schools and such. Nobody is discriminating, as much as calling it like they see it. It would be an issue if people were holding blacks back from going to school, becoming educated, and developing those schools, but that's not the case... black America does that to itself (and the same can be said of a lot of other minorities). The oppertunities are there, people are lining up to equip those schools even in the worst ghettos in the country, it's all about these guys choosing to put their butts down in the classrom seats and learn. Failure to do that is a cultural issue, NOT a matter of racism. It's not racist to hire people based on qualifications... it's not the fault of an employer if the prospective employee is not qualitifed for the job due to never having taken the oppertunities.
We will have to agree to disagree, this is going to just get circular if we continue. Neither of us are likely to be convinced of other's position.
There's only so much verisimilitude that can be applied in a film.
I was really pissed off that they cast Russell Crowe in Gladiator, for example. I would have liked to see that role played by an Ancient Roman actor.
On a more serious note, one of the BIG race problems I've seen (at least in the US) is that white people who aren't racist think that, if they have conversations about race (conversations which definitely need to happen if we're going to make any progress), then they will be viewed as a racist.
This is a major contributor to the lack of discussion about race.
Oh, whoops, I'm a white guy who mentioned race. Guess I'm racist.
I was really pissed off that they cast Russell Crowe in Gladiator, for example. I would have liked to see that role played by an Ancient Roman actor.
On a more serious note, one of the BIG race problems I've seen (at least in the US) is that white people who aren't racist think that, if they have conversations about race (conversations which definitely need to happen if we're going to make any progress), then they will be viewed as a racist.
This is a major contributor to the lack of discussion about race.
Oh, whoops, I'm a white guy who mentioned race. Guess I'm racist.
As best as I understand, it was a pretty straightforward kids show in Japan (makes sense, really). However, the dubbers didn't throw out the script because they never got one. All they got was the video to dub over, so they had to come up with scripts from scratch based on the visuals they had. I don't know about whether the Japanese team said that the US version was better at all (in fact, your statement is the first I've heard of such a notion). I do know that it's become a MASSIVELY obscure cult classic known only to the few who fondly remember finding it on some off-beat station. It's still one of my favorites after all of this time.Russano_Greenstripe said:
I've spoken about the whole whitewashing of casts in movies like Dragonball and The Last Airbender with my friends, so I'm going to put my opinion here.
Fanboys and people screamed bloody murder when Katara and Goku and all those guys were portrayed by white people instead of people of their respective races. Understandable, a fanboy (actually a term I'm using here loosely, if you have a problem, shut up) wants to see as close to can accurate depiction as possible when his favorite cartoon is brought to the big screen. I didn't disagree with those fanboys when this all went down.
However, IF the casters would've put actors of the respective races into the roles that were "whitewashed", there would have been equal rights activists and all manner of those silly people jumping up and down and screaming even LOUDER bloody murder about racism and typecasting and whatnot, and that would've been an even bigger issue. Because THEN, we wouldn't just have fanboys screaming on forums and the board-that-must-not-be-named, there would have been national news coverage and possibly some legal action.
So, before screaming bloody murder about "whitewashing," think about what the alternative is.
Fanboys and people screamed bloody murder when Katara and Goku and all those guys were portrayed by white people instead of people of their respective races. Understandable, a fanboy (actually a term I'm using here loosely, if you have a problem, shut up) wants to see as close to can accurate depiction as possible when his favorite cartoon is brought to the big screen. I didn't disagree with those fanboys when this all went down.
However, IF the casters would've put actors of the respective races into the roles that were "whitewashed", there would have been equal rights activists and all manner of those silly people jumping up and down and screaming even LOUDER bloody murder about racism and typecasting and whatnot, and that would've been an even bigger issue. Because THEN, we wouldn't just have fanboys screaming on forums and the board-that-must-not-be-named, there would have been national news coverage and possibly some legal action.
So, before screaming bloody murder about "whitewashing," think about what the alternative is.
That was well said, and it made me think. Usually, I'd actually come down on the other side of the argument, but it's true that the past still affects the present, and to pretend otherwise is to oversimplify a complex issue.
I'd disagree.
Embracing discrimination in what levy and rights is accorded to individuals based on something as arbitrary and irrelevant as their skin colour, sex, sexuality etc. is utterly despicable in any way or form.
Each and every human should have, as an individual, equal human rights and dignity, existing independent of whatever collective group it belongs to, whatever grave sins its great great grandfather might've been up to.
Such collectivist "original sin" responsibility have no place in a world where each individual is evaluated only on its own merits, and far more importantly judged only on its own actions. It contradicts the most basic foundation of all justice, that nobody be deemed guilty and made to suffer for acts they have not committed. Which I find to be much too great a price to pay for speeding up the process of recovery from even the vast injustices of the past (certainly when it comes to something as small as what actors get what roles; AA can be temporarily justified in emergency situations where it alleviates significantly greater harms).
...
As for the specific case, I'd certainly hope that the actor in question got the part only because his talent made him the best choice for it - impressively in spite of his skin colour deviating from the source material - and not out of pity and a misguided wish to include a token black character; What self-respecting actor would ever accept pity parts being given to him not because of his hard work and prodigious acting skill, but because he was seen as a poor black man in need of some gracious slack, charitably bestowed upon him by Caucasians fit to get by on their own merits?
Is that really, truly, how black actors want to get their parts? Is what matter here their collective race affiliation, and not their dignity as individuals? If so, we have but eschewed one sense of racism for another, which might well be less harmful, yet every bit as demeaning; that racial minorities are inherently in need of "special treatment", and are to be evaluated and treated based on their group characteristics, whereas only the "normal" Caucasian is fit to be treated and evaluated as an individual.
Thus I'll opt to optimistically believe that getting this actor to play Heimdal was a stroke of unconventional casting brilliance, after seeing someone who was overall so perfect for the role that it eclipsed even his skin colour being off in regard to the source material. 'Guy did a good enough job that it isn't too unfeasible.
Embracing discrimination in what levy and rights is accorded to individuals based on something as arbitrary and irrelevant as their skin colour, sex, sexuality etc. is utterly despicable in any way or form.
Each and every human should have, as an individual, equal human rights and dignity, existing independent of whatever collective group it belongs to, whatever grave sins its great great grandfather might've been up to.
Such collectivist "original sin" responsibility have no place in a world where each individual is evaluated only on its own merits, and far more importantly judged only on its own actions. It contradicts the most basic foundation of all justice, that nobody be deemed guilty and made to suffer for acts they have not committed. Which I find to be much too great a price to pay for speeding up the process of recovery from even the vast injustices of the past (certainly when it comes to something as small as what actors get what roles; AA can be temporarily justified in emergency situations where it alleviates significantly greater harms).
...
As for the specific case, I'd certainly hope that the actor in question got the part only because his talent made him the best choice for it - impressively in spite of his skin colour deviating from the source material - and not out of pity and a misguided wish to include a token black character; What self-respecting actor would ever accept pity parts being given to him not because of his hard work and prodigious acting skill, but because he was seen as a poor black man in need of some gracious slack, charitably bestowed upon him by Caucasians fit to get by on their own merits?
Is that really, truly, how black actors want to get their parts? Is what matter here their collective race affiliation, and not their dignity as individuals? If so, we have but eschewed one sense of racism for another, which might well be less harmful, yet every bit as demeaning; that racial minorities are inherently in need of "special treatment", and are to be evaluated and treated based on their group characteristics, whereas only the "normal" Caucasian is fit to be treated and evaluated as an individual.
Thus I'll opt to optimistically believe that getting this actor to play Heimdal was a stroke of unconventional casting brilliance, after seeing someone who was overall so perfect for the role that it eclipsed even his skin colour being off in regard to the source material. 'Guy did a good enough job that it isn't too unfeasible.
Just one thing, and don't hate me for that...
Wasn't Goku "white" in the anime?
With the exception of the in "reality" impossible hair I think
the actor was right for the part.
Others maybe not. And the movie sucked.
Thor: Movie was good, Heimdall was one of the highlights
(and the Punisher playing Volstagg^^)
Captcha: ordsou universal
New interstellar evil company?
Wasn't Goku "white" in the anime?
With the exception of the in "reality" impossible hair I think
the actor was right for the part.
Others maybe not. And the movie sucked.
Thor: Movie was good, Heimdall was one of the highlights
(and the Punisher playing Volstagg^^)
Captcha: ordsou universal
New interstellar evil company?
I personally had no issue with the idea of casting a black man in the role of a white character in Thor (if the guy is a good actor then he deserved it, end of discussion), where I do have issue with Bob's opinion's in this video is the idea that some double standards are acceptable while certain other ones aren't.
Yes, the African slave trade happened, it was a very bad and shameful time in history for the people affected and if they were still around those people would have my sympathies, but they weren't the only ones.
White people have been enslaved too (look at the Roman empire, the majority of Europe were forced into subjugation and slavery, many were forced to work horrible jobs or to go off to fight and get themselves killed in the name of an Empire that had enslaved them), as have Asian people, Hispanic people and people of almost every race and background (the Irish have had a very bad history in the form of discrimination and being second class citizens for a long time in Britain and the US, Oliver Cromwell was an absolute douchebag to us yet I don't give the English a hard time over it nor would I demand anyone to try and make it up to me).
Slavery in general is bad (a fact so self-evident that it shouldn't really need repeating).
My opinion on equalty (or more importantly what equality actually is) means that if you start giving special treatment and favours to one group of people then it either has to be made universal or said people have to accept that these perks come with the attached disadvantage of inequality, you can't want to be equal and have the special bonuses that come with being unique (that's trying to have your cake and eat it, 'we're just like you but we still want to be treated differently' is pretty much what that's saying to me).
As a result I believe that all double standards are harmful, I personally believe that the idea that some people deserve preferential treatment because of the sympathy generated in the past by the minorty in question to be in and of itself a racist and discriminatory stance to take.
Yes, the world isn't perfect but is this an excuse for us to half-arse things and not even bother? No, just calmly stating that the world isn't perfect isn't really a good justification for the stance that some double standards are acceptable just because the people who benefit from them are viewed with more sympathy than the rest of us (an attitude which will only futher draw out and perpetuate feelings of alienation and potential hostility amongst the populace).
Before anyone responds to me citing that I'm one of the stereotypical self-entitled young white people who believes that society should bow down to me (while we're at it, that is also a racist stereotype in itself as well), I have no objection to the notion of equality provided that we all remember just exactly what equality is, being exactly equal to others (not special treatment or 'trying to make up for sins of the past' or any crap like that, just a pure, simple ambivilence towards the differences between various peoples).
Yes, the African slave trade happened, it was a very bad and shameful time in history for the people affected and if they were still around those people would have my sympathies, but they weren't the only ones.
White people have been enslaved too (look at the Roman empire, the majority of Europe were forced into subjugation and slavery, many were forced to work horrible jobs or to go off to fight and get themselves killed in the name of an Empire that had enslaved them), as have Asian people, Hispanic people and people of almost every race and background (the Irish have had a very bad history in the form of discrimination and being second class citizens for a long time in Britain and the US, Oliver Cromwell was an absolute douchebag to us yet I don't give the English a hard time over it nor would I demand anyone to try and make it up to me).
Slavery in general is bad (a fact so self-evident that it shouldn't really need repeating).
My opinion on equalty (or more importantly what equality actually is) means that if you start giving special treatment and favours to one group of people then it either has to be made universal or said people have to accept that these perks come with the attached disadvantage of inequality, you can't want to be equal and have the special bonuses that come with being unique (that's trying to have your cake and eat it, 'we're just like you but we still want to be treated differently' is pretty much what that's saying to me).
As a result I believe that all double standards are harmful, I personally believe that the idea that some people deserve preferential treatment because of the sympathy generated in the past by the minorty in question to be in and of itself a racist and discriminatory stance to take.
Yes, the world isn't perfect but is this an excuse for us to half-arse things and not even bother? No, just calmly stating that the world isn't perfect isn't really a good justification for the stance that some double standards are acceptable just because the people who benefit from them are viewed with more sympathy than the rest of us (an attitude which will only futher draw out and perpetuate feelings of alienation and potential hostility amongst the populace).
Before anyone responds to me citing that I'm one of the stereotypical self-entitled young white people who believes that society should bow down to me (while we're at it, that is also a racist stereotype in itself as well), I have no objection to the notion of equality provided that we all remember just exactly what equality is, being exactly equal to others (not special treatment or 'trying to make up for sins of the past' or any crap like that, just a pure, simple ambivilence towards the differences between various peoples).
Of course it's a double-standard. This entire fucking country was founded on a double-standard. It was founded by slave-owners who wanted to be free.
Sometimes people don't acknowledge this though. I think one of the biggest obstacles to trying to fix the long standing cultural inequality in the U.S is stupid people who refuse to acknowledge their own history. Some people genuinely believe that we live in the ideal world of genetically mutated ponies with the inexplicable ability to speak and reproduce despite having no genitals, or rather in this case a world where America was always a noble country. Somehow acknowledging historical fact that in most stories with historical accuracy American whites would likely be genocidal villains makes you unpatriotic, mind you i use the term "Patriotism" in the same tone of voice i use "Paranoid Schizophrenia" these days. It infuriates me that people would deny history and deny years of suffering in order to convince themselves that America is some kind of supernation from a fucking fairy tale, and it makes me all the more outraged that people who believe those lies try to deny the existence of cultural difference and call most people who still remember the horrid crimes of history racists. You would not believe the type of shit i have taken for treating Thanksgiving as a time of mourning due to my Native American heritage because questioning anything these deluded fucks take for granted makes me a cross between Hitler and Stalin who eats puppies and shits oppression. Here's a fun one: remind people the bible never actually gave a birth certificate for Jesus and that Christmas was never once mentioned in Christian text and that Christmas was in fact a pagan ritual hijacked by the Christians. Between that and justifying the Catholic praise of Mary to protestants, sometimes i wonder if i've got a death wish.
Sometimes people don't acknowledge this though. I think one of the biggest obstacles to trying to fix the long standing cultural inequality in the U.S is stupid people who refuse to acknowledge their own history. Some people genuinely believe that we live in the ideal world of genetically mutated ponies with the inexplicable ability to speak and reproduce despite having no genitals, or rather in this case a world where America was always a noble country. Somehow acknowledging historical fact that in most stories with historical accuracy American whites would likely be genocidal villains makes you unpatriotic, mind you i use the term "Patriotism" in the same tone of voice i use "Paranoid Schizophrenia" these days. It infuriates me that people would deny history and deny years of suffering in order to convince themselves that America is some kind of supernation from a fucking fairy tale, and it makes me all the more outraged that people who believe those lies try to deny the existence of cultural difference and call most people who still remember the horrid crimes of history racists. You would not believe the type of shit i have taken for treating Thanksgiving as a time of mourning due to my Native American heritage because questioning anything these deluded fucks take for granted makes me a cross between Hitler and Stalin who eats puppies and shits oppression. Here's a fun one: remind people the bible never actually gave a birth certificate for Jesus and that Christmas was never once mentioned in Christian text and that Christmas was in fact a pagan ritual hijacked by the Christians. Between that and justifying the Catholic praise of Mary to protestants, sometimes i wonder if i've got a death wish.
I usually don't like when things are changed when adapted, and that includes changing the ethnicity or gender of a character, among other things.
However, I do understand that if something is created with all characters white, or the default being white, and characters being anything else needing some kind of reason... there is a problem. And I can understand wanting to fix it in the adaptation.
Beyond that, this specific casting choice is something I can rationalize within the context of the story. The Norse Gods were seen by the Norse, who were all Caucasian. They "created them in their image", if you will. In this case, the Gods are actual people, but this specific one is the dude in charge of the door, i.e. someone Norse people have never seen and only heard of. That they didn't conceive for a second his skin could be a different colour is fine by me. It makes perfect sense even within the story that this guy doesn't look like the legends say he looks.
Yes, I realise he was white in the comic, I'm talking about the movie and the mythology here. Because if Thor had been black, for instance, and all his portrayals had been white, that would have been weird. Surely the Norse would have noticed something as unusual as a black dude and emphasized that fact. But it's someone I can assume they've never actually seen despite hearing about him, so his portrayals not matching what he actually looks like works fine for me.
I think Bob made a great point though from an actor's perspective. In North America, there aren't many roles for minority actors. When a role is designed specifically for them, one they match perfectly, and they don't get it because a white person (who has a lot more opportunities everywhere) was cast instead, that's pretty harsh.
When one of the many, many roles available to white people ends up going to a minority instead, white actors don't suffer much from it and it's good for the minority. So yeah, I totally get that.
I wish that wasn't how things are, but it is. When anything that needs to be adapted already has characters representative of the actual demographics, then yeah, switching it up will only be annoying to anyone who likes adaptations to respect the original material as close as possible (as it already is) instead of also having consequences which are different depending on the direction of the switch.
However, I do understand that if something is created with all characters white, or the default being white, and characters being anything else needing some kind of reason... there is a problem. And I can understand wanting to fix it in the adaptation.
Beyond that, this specific casting choice is something I can rationalize within the context of the story. The Norse Gods were seen by the Norse, who were all Caucasian. They "created them in their image", if you will. In this case, the Gods are actual people, but this specific one is the dude in charge of the door, i.e. someone Norse people have never seen and only heard of. That they didn't conceive for a second his skin could be a different colour is fine by me. It makes perfect sense even within the story that this guy doesn't look like the legends say he looks.
Yes, I realise he was white in the comic, I'm talking about the movie and the mythology here. Because if Thor had been black, for instance, and all his portrayals had been white, that would have been weird. Surely the Norse would have noticed something as unusual as a black dude and emphasized that fact. But it's someone I can assume they've never actually seen despite hearing about him, so his portrayals not matching what he actually looks like works fine for me.
I think Bob made a great point though from an actor's perspective. In North America, there aren't many roles for minority actors. When a role is designed specifically for them, one they match perfectly, and they don't get it because a white person (who has a lot more opportunities everywhere) was cast instead, that's pretty harsh.
When one of the many, many roles available to white people ends up going to a minority instead, white actors don't suffer much from it and it's good for the minority. So yeah, I totally get that.
I wish that wasn't how things are, but it is. When anything that needs to be adapted already has characters representative of the actual demographics, then yeah, switching it up will only be annoying to anyone who likes adaptations to respect the original material as close as possible (as it already is) instead of also having consequences which are different depending on the direction of the switch.