The Persisting Justification of Racism

Note: Been dealing with some formatting issues on the site e..g the spacing in this article. Working on it and will hopefully have it resolved soon.

When I was younger I had stereotypical notions of Texas being the most racist state in America. The Deep South still has a terrible reputation but more recent research I’ve done on America’s racial climate brought Massachusetts, and Boston in particular, to the forefront. As I was looking through an article detailing Boston athletes’ comments on Boston’s racism, I came across this comment:

 

It is no secret that Boston has always worn the label as a racist city. A well deserved one at that. But until people STOP using labels to describe ethnic group it will never stop. And that includes all groups. The African-American community needs to stop using the N word for everything. Lose it from your vocabulary . It doesn’t help your cause when you call each that name excessively. Maybe if the word disappears some of these hateful things can be avoided. Sounds a little naïve but it has to start somewhere”
This poster is right, his comment does sound naive. I almost don’t know where to start with this comment. The article detailed several testimonials about racism athelets received in Boston stadiums and Boston as a whole during their time playing for Boston sports teams. After reading all of the experiences, all this man can say is that maybe things like this wouldn’t happen if we didn’t use the N word.
“You’re the ones we learned it from. I heard nigg** back in 1971.” (Ice Cube: ‘Gangsta Rap Made Me Do It’).
It is not like blacks historically used the N word to refer to themselves, and then white people used it to insult us. The use of the n word is a re-appropriation of a term that is still used to denigrate the black population. I have heard people arguing that the true injustice is that black people can use the term and they can’t. After all, shouldn’t we be equal?
Firstly, this argument is dripping with paternalism and condescension. Secondly, it ignores context and history. Third, I would gladly trade not being allowed to say the n word for all the benefits that come with whiteness.
On average
1) Girls are more likely to date you
2) People will be more welcoming if you move into their neighborhood
3) People will be more willing to send their kids to school with your kids
4) You will be more likely to be hired for a job (Affirmative action actually benefits white women the most)
5) Less likely to get followed when you shop
6) Less likely to get pulled over by police
7) Less likely to get killed by police
Now, if someone said I can get all that but I won’t be allowed to say the n word, I would gladly take that deal. The white people who think they are victims because they can’t say the n word, represent the true “triggered” victims they always mock. They are surrounded by benefits and privileges that make their lives easier (as a whole), but they ignore all of that and focus on things that are trivial in comparison. I remember reading a testimonial from a woman who was upset because she saw a fruit stand that had a black Jesus painted on it. She felt victimized and ranted about how black people would get upset if she put up a white Jesus at her business. I remember reading this piece as part of my research for my Master’s paper, as best I can remember it came from White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism but I may be mistaken.
This woman is blind to how white supremacy has created the popular image of white Jesus. European painters depicting Jesus in the 14-16th century were very unlikely to depict him as anything but white due to their own views on other races. Centuries later, depictions such as the Sistine Chapel still fuel the American conception of Jesus. This has been cemented by the most popular depictions of Jesus on film and on television. So, this woman ignores the dominant images of white Jesus all around her but feels the need to lash out at a fruit stand for showing something different. It is true that recently there have been more rules regarding displays of religion in some workplaces, which can sometimes affect displays of Jesus. That is not an issue of white Jesus vs Black Jesus though, it is often more of an issue of Christianity vs other religions, which is a whole other article.
Moving back to the comment that inspired this article, the poster also says that we can eradicate racism by simply getting rid of labels. It is true that the labels of “black”, “white” etc. were birthed for the purpose of creating legal and social hierarchies. Hence, the frequently cited argument that race is just a social construct. However, people are not blind. They have always noticed skin colour. The desire to create a hierarchy was a result of the idea that people with darker skin were inferior. Even in the bible, the Cushites (called Ethiopians in the King James version) are described as dark-skinned Africans.
People will still see colour if we remove the categories of race. People already factor in skin colour when deciding what areas they want to live in, who looks suspicious, and who they want to date or marry. I have a hard time believing that tendency will disappear simply because the dark-skinned folk aren’t called “black” anymore. Dating profiles will say “no dark-skinned guys” or no “guys of African descent.” People will cross the street when they see a “dark-skinned guy” approaching. You see where I’m going with this.
What truly baffles me about this post is that this poster doesn’t spout the usual “I don’t even see colour” rhetoric that I would associate with his comments. His comments on removing the categories of race displays the same naivety that the colour-blind worldview does, but he, let’s call him “Blind”, actually acknowledged that Boston is a racist city. Many people would be happy to tell the Boston athletes that the racist incidents were very isolated ones or that they brought it on themselves somehow. Blind displays some more conviction but undermines it by shifting the conversation to race labels and the black community’s use of the n word.  Although he might not mean to, he resorts to blaming the victim. It’s the equivalent of asking a rape victim how she was dressed.
Although “Blind” didn’t make this argument, his comments also reminded me of the black-on-black violence cop-out that is often used by racists to shut down discussions of police shootings of black civilians: “Well black people are killing each other all the time anyway. Maybe they should work on that first instead of race-baiting.”
White people are also killed mostly by other white people, at least in the US. The next time a black person kills a white one, can I just retort that white people are killing each other off anyway?
Even the people who can acknowledge that racism is an issue, can have backwards ideas about its causes or resolutions. I believe that part of this problem is that some white people take it personal when you discuss acts of institutional racism or individual prejudice. They hear you discuss racism and get a knee-jerk reaction to accuse you of racism, or to simply discuss how enlightened and colour-blind they are: “I don’t even see colour, you’re so racist for talking about it.”
These people will then get “triggered” if they see a movie where a white character got changed to a black one (even though this happens less than whitewashing) : “Why is Hollywood forcing diversity on us? I hate this liberal propaganda.”
Welcome to the new colour-blind era.

My Racial Awakening

In this brave new era people who discuss racism are viewed as society’s greatest dividers and agitators. Meanwhile, the people who’s lives are structured around racist assumptions and beliefs use the excuse of “colour-blindness” to shut down any discussion of racism. I have discussed this in my previous piece, which Talib Kweli was gracious enough to read and retweet. Since that piece discussed my current passion for the topic of race, I wanted to use this piece to discuss the reason I joined the discussion.

Until I was about thirteen, my view of the world was similiar to most conservatives. I thought racism was something historic, with only a few outliers remaining, such as the Klu Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis. Elementary and high school taught me about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and Jim Crow, but never taught me about the more subtle forms of racism that are far more prevalent. My lessons on stereotyping and racial profiling were all extra-curricular ones until University. My experiences fortunately did not subject me to violence, but I don’t think they should be ignored simply because they didn’t result in violence or death. No matter what justifications people will want to use, my experiences show that people are not as “colour-blind” as they claim.

When I was thirteen my stepdad (at the time) and my mom announced that they were moving to England due to a work transfer. While they sorted out the move, I lived in Jamaica for one year with my uncle.

I think my time in Jamaica actually offered the most stark contrast possible to the experiences I would have in England. I moved from a country that was over 90% black to one that was less than 5% black. Of course, Jamaica has its own issues of discrimination, with colourism becoming a growing phenomenon, which is also leading to more skin bleaching as people try to lighten their skin to something they view as more beautiful.

However, when I was in Jamaica, I definitely didn’t receive the same level of scrunity for my skin colour as I did in London. At thirteen, I wasn’t as self-conscious as I am now. I initially ignored people staring,  people crossing the street or holding their purses tighter when they saw me. London has a decent black population, but the area I was living in was apparently one where they weren’t as welcome. Some people will be quick to say that this is an issue of class then, not race. However, I retort that this is an issue of race and class intersecting. What I experienced would not have happened to a white thirteen year old living in London.

I was one of the few black people at the first school I went to in England, and I think this also facilitated my release from blissful ignorance. Of course, being one of the few black people did not guarantee racism. I didn’t mind that people noticed I was black. I was never conservative enough to view their ability to see me as a mark of discrimination. Contrary to conservative doctrine, seeing someone’s colour isn’t racist. The issue is how you treat them due to their skin colour. I never felt discriminated against at the school like I did on the streets or in my own apartment. The issue at school was a more harmless form of ignorance, that nevertheless made me realize how different my race made me. As mentioned before, my mother didn’t want me growing my hair long, and this is a habit that has stuck with me. However, I would usually grow my hair out for a few weeks before getting it cut. I’d have a nest of curly hair less than an inch long on my head, which still managed to fascinate some of my classmates. I can remember plenty of them running their hands through it.

Yes, London may be a relatively diverse city but these kids didn’t grow up in that London. Southbank International School was a home for the children of wealthy Brits and expats, many of which apparently didn’t mingle that much with people of other races. There was even a rumour that I was related to the only other black person at the school, a girl a few grades older than me. This girl and I never spoke. I didn’t even know her name. It seems like people assumed we were related simply because our skin was the same tone. At the time, I didn’t consider this a subtle manifestation of racial ignorance. Although I realized how ignorant the assumption was, I found amusement in it. I didn’t find amusement in what greeted me outside the school.

I loved the gated complex we lived in, courtesy of my step-dad’s company. It was amazing seeing so many high end cars in the parking lot, everything from Aston Martins to Maseratis. The building’s staff were very familiar with my parents, and knew me well. As I look back on the experience, I realize how warm and welcoming they were to us. While I revelled in this new environment, certain things started to annoy me after a while.

“Do you live here?”

This was a question I received from other residents. This question was never an attempt to start a conversation. It wasn’t followed by a request for directions, an introduction or any form of small talk. Usually the only response I received was a stare or maybe “Just checking.” I answered this question with a smile on my face the first few times, not thinking that my skin colour could make someone question my presence. Sometimes I may have walked through the gate after someone else, and I thought it was a fair question since I didn’t enter the security code myself.  Other times, I thought that maybe my casual dress begged the question. However, some of the residents asking me were also dressed casually. Before racist assumptions come into play, I have never been one to wear excessive jewellery or baggy pants hanging low. I don’t wear hoodies often either.

Sometimes I was dressed more formally than the residents interrogating me. The uniform for one of the schools I went to was a suit, complete with a green blazer. This uniform was nothing like the uniform worn by the staff and also should have signified that I wasn’t a homeless person wandering into the building. Additionally, I was often clean cut and sported no facial hair at the time (mother’s orders). As I look back on my justifications for the questioning, I wonder what the residents thought I planned to do if I didn’t live there. Did they think I was planning to sneak past the security at the front desk and ransack as many apartments as I could find?

These experiences continued to pile up, and after a while, I could not help but ask why I kept getting asked this question. The answer didn’t really come to me until a flight back to Canada during one of my school breaks. My stepdad and I had first class seats and while I enjoyed the privileges that came with it, the experience was somewhat overshadowed by an encounter with a flight attendant. I went to use the first class bathroom, and she stepped in front of me and pointed to the bathroom in coach.

I was confused, but didn’t think to argue. I had to pass my stepdad to reach coach, and he stopped me to ask where I was going. When I explained that I couldn’t use that bathroom, he assured me I could and told me to walk back towards the front. When I did, the same flight attendant stopped me and pointed to coach again. My stepdad saw everything this time, and angrily pointed to my seat “He sits here.” With that said, the flight attendant finally let me use the first class bathroom.

It took me a while to accept what happened. I remember fuming in my seat, wanting an apology from the flight attendant. Once the initial rush of anger passed I tried to justify what happened. Maybe my age had something to do with it? This proved to be a faulty justification since teenagers have parents who could have possibly paid for their ticket. My dress?  I remember that the weather was warm at the time so I know I wasn’t wearing a hoodie. I was dressed casually but there was no afro, low-hanging pants, excessive jewellery or metal gilded teeth in sight. There was no valid reason for this flight attendant to assume I was a delinquent sneaking in from coach to use the first class bathroom. She didn’t even ask me if I was in first class or ask me to present my boarding pass. She didn’t say a word to me. She just blocked my path and pointed to where she thought I belonged. The fact that I COULD be in first class didn’t even register in her mind.

Needless to say, by the time I moved back to Canada at age fifteen, I wasn’t a blissfully ignorant person anymore. I was embittered, injected with righteous indignation. Although I am still committed to exploring and denouncing racism, I know that this period was one where it dominated my life in an unhealthy way. I wasn’t just aware of how the world worked, I saw it as a poisoned entity. There were times in the years ahead where I genuinely saw racism where it didn’t exist. However, I think this stage is a natural one for anyone who was taught by his insitutions that racism is long gone, and then gets kicked in the teeth by reality.

By the time I entered the University of Ottawa, I still had more to learn. I was followed while shopping for the first time while in a SAQ in Hull, Quebec. A white friend and I entered the store, and an employee rushed over after a few minutes to ask if I needed help. I had my hands on a bottle of Appleton and advised her that I was fine. As I waited for my friend to make his selection I noticed the employee leaning on a shelf near to me, keeping her eyes trained on me while ignoring my friend. Although I was well aware of racism, this was a specific type of profiling I had either never experienced or never noticed.

There are plenty of minorities that will often argue that a racist incident, or a form of racism, must be a fabrication because they’ve never experienced it themselves. I never denied that black people could be watched more intensely than whites when they shop, but I somehow thought Canada was immune to such idiocy. Most of the time I saw it in entertainment or heard about it, the employees made some attempt to be subtle. I thought that maybe she was watching me because I had a bag on, which could be used to conceal items, but my white friend had a bag as well. Maybe some part of me wanted to believe she was just admiring me for my good looks.

I went to SAQ for a second time years later. My friends and I were travelling through the area and decided to stop in. While they were mainly focused on cheaper alcohol, I was eager to see if my first experience with SAQ was an isolated one. Lo and behold, I see an employee on the other end of the store move to a wall that gave him a good view of the entire hard liquor section. He folds his arms and leans back as he watches me move down my desired aisle. Two of my friends were in another section of the store and the employee ignored them. A group of at least four white girls walked in a few minutes after us, and they were also ignored.

There was no bag on my back this time, so it wasn’t like I could shove a 40 ounce bottle of liquor down my pants and try to walk out. I don’t believe in God, but I can’t help but feel like some force conspired to give me the perfect circumstances to test out SAQ’s racism. I say SAQ’s racism because “watch black people when they shop” appears to legimitately be a company policy. Two different employees, years apart, adopted the same protocol. Either they support the racist ideas that fuel that policy or they disagree but feel the need to just follow orders like the Nazis did. As soon as I left SAQ that day I knew I would never step foot in one again.

I remember watching Raoul Peck’s I Am Not Your Negro, and hearing a modicum of hope from James Baldwin when he says (don’t remember the exact phrasing) “I must have optimism because I am still alive.”

Believe it or not, there are many people out there who have and continue to be experience far worse racism than I have. There are unarmed men shot dead by cops or wannabe vigilantes, whose deaths are justified due to their status as dangerous “thugs”. The concept of arresting someone without killing them seems to disappear when black people are in question. “So what if two cops were lying on top of him before he was shot? He was a thug anyway.”

Society has a conscience, but its conscience has a blindspot. I have my own obstacles and experiences that bombard me with the truth about our utopic post-racial world. They exist, and no amount of willful ignorance or right-wing slander will change that. They impact me, but they don’t kill me. I’m alive, and going strong.

Talib Kweli’s Twitter Fingers

As a child, most of the music I listened to was whatever my parents were listening to. I heard the pop and rap on the radio, but also older R&B and reggae. When I was thirteen, I started listening to music independently, getting into the alternative rock that was popular in England (my home at the time). As I grow older, I continuously seek out older music of many genres, wanting to diversify my tastes.

I first heard about Talib Kweli Greene (known professionally as Talib Kweli) when I was doing my undergraduate degree at the University of Ottawa. I forget the context for his name being brought up, but I believe he may have been doing a show somewhere in the city. Years later, when I joined Twitter, I was randomly motivated to find his account. To this day, I have not listened to his music. I will, but this post isn’t about his artistry. Anyone who follows Kweli knows he isn’t afraid to engage anyone who tweets to him or about him. Some of these tweets come from people criticizing his career or music for one reason or another, but a lot of the ones I’ve seen are people who accuse him of being racist.

As I’ve discussed before, “colour-blind racism” is the modern racism. It is a naive mindset that racism, both instutional and individual, is dead now except for those pesky people wearing white hoods. It treats any mention of race as being racist, while also defending comments, mindsets and behaviours that rely on racist assumptions. People will say they don’t see colour, and then argue that black people would get killed by cops less if they just obeyed the law. People will say they don’t see colour, but then refuse to date anyone whose skin doesn’t match their own. People will say they don’t see colour, but then assume a black person with a good job isn’t qualified for it.

Racists are drawn to Kweli like moths to the flame. There is a sort of vicious cycle at work, where someone attempts to call Talib out for perceived racism, e.g. Talib’s declarations of being proudly black or his previous responses to another racist. Then once Talib dismantles this racist’s arguments, another jumps in to attack him because he dared to discuss race. Such is the hypocrisy of the colour-blind racist. While they have their own racist assumptions and beliefs, they are quick to throw out the word racist for those who call them out on it. “I’m not racist, you politically correct social justice warriors, (other right wing buzzwords) race-baiters are the real racists. I just think I should be able to say I don’t want more black people in my neighborhood without libtards attacking me. Black people are violent after all! That’s not racist, I have black friends.”

I have sometimes wondered why Kweli bothers to respond to these people, and some tweets from fans have also expressed the same question. Some of the haters accused Kweli of doing nothing but tweeting all day, but a look at his touring and musical output shows he is a productive artist. He handles time well, but I guess I still wondered why he bothers. Then I read Kweli’s own answer to the question, and it all made sense.

People are always quick to label racist online comments as the work of “trolls”, people who write inflammatory comments and derive enjoyment from the uproar they produce. The word “troll” implies that the poster doesn’t actually believe what they wrote, they are just saying it to see how people react. This kind of mindset, where we just ignore online racists, is downright irresponsible in this day and age. As Kweli points out, the alt-right is an entity that was birthed online. Real people reside behind the alt-right sites and comments that have proliferated online. These people have jobs, families and the ability to vote. They got Trump elected, with their own votes and their ability to spread misinformation that reinvigorated the resentment of minorities that many people in America harbour. Kweli combats racism through campaigns and events and he knows “twitter fingers” may not be for everyone, but it is one of the tools he employs to combat the ignorance that is stoked by this new climate of right wing backlash.

The people who decide to accuse Kweli of racism demonstrate one racist assumption after another, and a straw-man understanding of concepts like white privilege. User @adamant919 had the audacity to use the term “black privilege” to describe black people’s supposed natural gifts and our “handouts” with programs like affirmative action, which actually benefit white women more and don’t lead to unqualified applicants getting selected for jobs. Funny enough, the user appears to have deleted his account since. This isn’t the first user that has deleted his account following an encounter with Kweli and it gives me some hope that some people might realize the error of their ways. However, someone can delete their account out of a sense of embarrassment, without actually reflecting on their views.

This Slate article offers an interesting case study of the infamous Hunger Games (2012) racist backlash, where supposed fans were upset that the character Rue was played by a black girl, even though Rue is described as having dark brown skin in the book. One fan began collecting these racist tweets, such as “Rue being black ruined the movie” and created a tumblr account to showcase them. This article follows up on this tumblr account, reaching out to some of the twitter users to get their thoughts.

The user who wrote this tweet argued that she didn’t mean to be racist. She was just surprised that Rue was black since Rue was supposed to remind Katniss (the white, main character) of her sister. Firstly, “remind her of” doesn’t always mean “look like”. If she was truly “colour-blind” then Rue’s skin colour shouldn’t have even registered with her. Aside from the terrible excuse offered by the twitter user, the author brings up a point that a lot of people like to use for defending racists online: “This kind of drive-by scapegoating does not seem conducive to genuine reflection (and it definitely doesn’t encourage reflection in the individuals it scapegoats).  It allows us to point the finger at other, younger, relatively powerless people, rather than consider the ways in which we’re implicated in a problem that is much, much larger than a few misguided teenagers on Twitter.”

I have heard people say the same thing to Kweli about his Twitter comments, and it usually comes across as very disengenious. Some of the users from the Hunger Games example may be teenagers, but some of them are grown men and women. The same goes for the alt-right. People who throw out the “don’t shame people” argument out act as if there are no attempts made to examine racism on a much larger scale. There is plenty of information online, in classes, on tv that sheds light on the much larger problem of institutional racism. People choose to ignore these sources. People choose ignorance. They reject enlightenment as left wing propaganda, the work of libtards or social justice warriors. People surround themselves with friends and sources who share the same views and refuse to challenge any of their assumptions about the world. How exactly should their racist comments be dealt with?  Conservatives love to throw out the argument of free speech to defend bigotry and no one is saying they don’t have the right to make such comments. My question is: If someone is willing to go online and criticize someone’s skin colour or attack a rapper for his liberal beliefs, why are we discouraged from exercising our free speech and shining the spotlight back on them?

As Kweli says, if someone is already racist “when I respond to them, it doesn’t matter what facts I give or how much sense I make. They’re going to be who they are.” Being kinder to the racists won’t make them more prone to ‘reflection.” The real purpose behind responding is to avoid having your message become silenced. There were probably millions of people, viewing one racist comment after another from the alt-right and thinking that all those comments wouldn’t have any impact on their lives. They stayed silent, and let misinformation and racist rhetoric fill the void. They may as well have packed Trump’s things and moved them into the White House for him.

I Like My Bigots Out in The Open

I try to avoid spending too much time on Facebook, there’s only so much entertainment that I can derive from selfies. Earlier today I came across this interesting video a friend posted.

If you can’t watch it is a video by black photojournalist, Tom Jefferson. The incident begins with Jefferson at a anti-fracking rally in Mars, Pennsylvania. One bystander, John Pisone starts insulting the protesters and then turns his attention to Jefferson. He starts off saying all black people look the same to him, calls Jefferson a “chimp”, says his hair looks like a mop, and ends with some eloquent monkey sounds.

Pisone has since been fired for his comments and his comments are an example of racism that even Fox News would view as racist (maybe). This is probably the reason that the comments aren’t swarmed with complaints about liberal bias, “race-baiting” or “political-correctness”.  What bothers me is that racism needs to be this salient for people to catch on to it. The same people decrying Pisone’s comments might be the same ones saying someone wouldn’t have been shot twice (while restrained) if they just “obeyed the law”. Or who would complain about too many black characters in a tv show (e.g. Luke Cage).

Racist beliefs are much more common than we think and most people realize the stigma of racist beliefs. Therefore, they disguise their racism. They say they are “colour-blind” whenever racism is brought up, while also making decisions about their neighbourhoods, schools, partners etc. based on race. Do not look at Pisone and think “Thank God they’re aren’t more people like him”, say “It’s a shame more racists aren’t outspoken”. Let them say what they really mean, on video, on social media. Let others see how “colour-blind” they really are.

It is their free speech to share such thoughts. It is legal. It is also legal for us to criticize them, distance ourselves from them, or fire them due to their comments. Come forth racists. Don’t hide behind your black “friends”. Don’t say “I’m not racist but…”. Cut through the darkness with your white light.

Race Is Socially Constructed- But it Still Matters

images

I have recently made the commitment to post to my writing instagram account, “wmoviegrapevine” at least twice a day. I post to “moviegrapevine” 3-4 times a day, but posting to that account is generally easier. It only requires finding suitable images and offering some commentary. For wmoviegrapevine I also need to come up with original writing or find excerpts from my previous works, and then find a suitable image. For a while I was only doing one post, but I noticed a relatively quick increase in followers when I started posting more. The momentum took me from 73 to 84, where it has now stalled again. Either way, 2 posts are better than one and I think my laziness stopped me from committing to 2 earlier. It can be hard to post when juggling several other responsibilities, but I prefer trying to make time, instead of excuses.

Finding a topic to write on is usually the hardest part. I sat on the bus for a few minutes thinking of what I wanted to discuss and I remembered one of the arguments about racism that I detest the most. I have read many comments online saying that the discussion of race and racism is unnecessary, since we are all one race, the human race. After all, race is socially constructed, so it has no real impact on our lives and doesn’t matter. Firstly, the sentiment that we are all one race is lovely, but I hate the fact that it is often used to downplay the impact of racism in cases of police brutality, hate crimes, employment discrimination and so on. It is a convenient platitude offered to silence people who truly want to engage with an issue. If you just blurt out “we are all one race” you can bask in the glory of your own enlightenment while also ignoring facts that demonstrate that many institutions and individuals don’t act on that principle.

images

As a starting point, I’d like to ask these enlightened ones to read this study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Research Fellows Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan sent out resumes in response to over 1300 employment ads, ranging from clerical work to customer service roles. The resumes were crafted to display identical levels of skill and qualifications. Some resumes had names that people may think of as “white names” or more race-neutral ones, such as Jacob and David. Others had names that people tend to associate with people of colour, such as “Jamal”. Despite equal levels of qualifications the resumes with white names received more callbacks for interviews. Each resume with a white name needed 10 resumes to get a call back, resumes with black names needed to send 15 to get a call back. If the resumes display the same level of skills and qualification, why is there a noted difference in callbacks? If people are colour-blind then the names shouldn’t have any impact. One of the most common beliefs among “colour-blind” preachers is that skill and a desire to work hard are all you need to be successful. Then why are “black names” (Jamal and many other names people think are black names are actually Arabic in origin) holding some applicants back? Keep in mind, these names are not all “ghetto” ones. What justification do you colour-blind people have for the results of this study?

The argument that a social construct doesn’t matter reminded me of Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows. The Pulitzer-nominated book mainly examines the impact that the internet has on our brains but Carr also includes an interesting segway that examines how societal constructs can change the way humans think. His example was the use of time and I think it provides a perfect parallel to the oft-cited “race is a social construct” argument. Although categories such as “white” and “black” have not always existed, there have always been people with different skin colours. Likewise, the units of time that we now call “hours” and “minutes” have always existed. The only difference is that we did not always have names for them and we did not always arrange our schedules by them. We used to rely on the sun and the moon to measure our days, but overtime we adopted more precise times for arranging meetings, transit schedules and so on.

Now imagine that you are late for work for a work meeting for the fourth time in a row. You walk into the meeting room and everyone is already seated, with your boss at the head of the table glaring at you. Why don’t you tell him that the start time of 10:00AM is socially constructed, so showing up at 10:10AM doesn’t matter. The sun is still up, so it is still the morning. You are still on time and you refuse to let foolish social constructs dictate the way you see the world, or the way you behave. Do you think that argument will go over well?

Racism-1-600x218

Getting rid of racial categories or pretending they don’t exist is not enough to end or even diminish racism. It is a fact that many people have racial preferences for their romantic or sexual partners. If we get rid of the category of “black”, people will just go from saying “I don’t like black guys” to saying “I don’t like dark-skinned guys” or “I don’t like guys with curly hair” etc. Cops won’t be more suspicious of “black people”, they’ll be more suspicious of people “of African descent”. It is true that race can at times be fluid, since some black people might be lighter-skinned than people of other races. However, people need to realize racism and discrimination as a whole aren’t just about melanin.

Everyone “sees colour”. The real test of whether or not you are racist is what you do with that visual information. There is nothing wrong with noticing that someone is lighter-skinned or darker-skinned, or that they are a different race. The issue is if you think less of them for it e.g. this person is black, therefore they are stupid. This person is black, therefore I will never date him. This person is black, so there is a greater chance he will attack me. That is racism.

Saying “I don’t see colour” just means that you don’t have the moral fortitude to actually make these distinctions. It is too hard for you to see colour and not be racist, so it is simpler just to pretend like you can’t see colour at all. Yet you will probably be the first person to argue that we don’t need affirmative action and that blacks would be better off if they weren’t so lazy. The next time you say “I don’t see colour” or hear someone else saying it, don’t get sucked into this black hole of denial. Ask them if they could see colour and still avoid being racist, which is what plenty of people manage to do. Ask them why they can’t wrap their head around that task. Better yet, ask them what they are physically attracted to, what they think that about black people disproportionately killed by police, or ask them what they think about affirmative action. You might discover that they do see colour after all.

 

 

Imperium- Racists Saying It’s Racist to Show Racists

imperium+poster

Daniel Radcliffe has undoubtedly been typecast as Harry Potter and he has worked hard to break out of the typecast since, with his roles in varied works like Equus, to his upcoming one in Imperium.

Imperium (2016) follows Radcliffe as a FBI agent who goes undercover to stop a group of white supremacists from carrying out a terrorist attack (yes, non-Muslims can be terrorists too).

The film got my attention and I went to IMDB eager to discuss Radcliffe’s latest attempt to escape his typecast. I have noticed that any film dealing with discrimination, such as holocaust or slavery films are always criticized for their depiction of racism. Far too many people see these films and get defensive, thinking that the films are accusing them of personally being racist. Or they think the film is trying to make them “feel guilty” and As a result, they argue that such films exacerbate racial tension and are the real cause of racism. Or they may even argue that racism would end if such films were no longer made. This ties into the colour-blind rhetoric that I have discussed previously, where people believe racism no longer impacts minorities. This leads to discussion of racism being viewed as unnecessary and an instigator for racial conflict. In terms of film, this mindset is very prevalent with Imperium.

I have stopped reading any online discussion since it is mostly one comment after another calling the film racist, because it explores racism or portrays white people in a bad light. These will be the same people to call you “politically correct” or a “social justice warrior” if you criticize negative portrayals of minorities in movies (which are far more common). This is the new order: arguing that negative portrayals of the dominant group (straight, white men) are part of an “agenda” while also arguing that negative portrayals of women and or minorities are meaningless. While whitewashing and one stereotypical minority character after another are cast aside as irrelevant, any negative depiction of white people makes the new colour-blind racist lash out.

“lisasmithandme” of IMDB explained it perfectly:

“Typical white racists who believe that only non-whites should be portrayed evilly. They do this type of complaining a lot in historical movies as well such as slavery and the holocaust. They think the media is ‘anti-white’ and is portraying them unfairly. Of course, when you complain about how blacks or other groups may be unfairly portrayed in the media, they start telling you to stop your “political correctness whining.” They are like reversed SJW except anything which isn’t positive about white males makes them go bonkers.

The other reason is that they secretly or subconsciously agree with white supremacy, so when you attempt to criticize it, they feel as if their ideals are being personally attacked and start to lash out and say incomprehensible things like: “I’m not a racist but this movie about white supremacist racists is…racist.”

On YouTube, you won’t see a bunch of Muslims invading the comment section of a video which speaks out against Islamic extremism. On the other hand, you will get a bunch of whites males attempting to justify white supremacy on any video which speaks out against white supremacy such as this movie. It doesn’t speak well for their character.

There’s really NOT much of a difference between a white supremacist and an Islamic extremist.
One will chop your head off for your RELIGION and believes you’re an infidel.
The other one would gas you for your RACE and believes you’re inferior. ”

Imperium

Aside from the colour-blind racists, we have the full on apologists who seem genuinely hurt that skinheads are being portrayed as racist. They are only people trying to “protect their country, their heritage” etc. I know some people may be tempted to say all of these comments are the work of trolls, but it is highly unlikely that every single racist comment online is simply someone seeking attention or looking to start an online fight. If anyone is bothered to look it up, instead of living in a cocoon of denial, there is evidence that racism is still alive and well. Online discussions are just one place where we can see this at work.

Like my post on Jesse Williams, I am making this one to get some thoughts off my chest and attack some of the straw man arguments that have cropped up in the wake of the film’s trailer release.

1) This film is stupid since most racists aren’t even skinheads.

This argument is the equivalent of saying films about serial killers are stupid since most murderers aren’t serial killers.

This film explores a pocket or subgroup of racists, it is not meant to argue that all racists are skinheads. This is elementary level reasoning but it seems to elude people once their defensiveness gets in the way. When people hate something (because it makes them feel defensive), they will look for any reason to tear it down.

2) It’s films like this that divide us. Typical liberal Hollywood etc.

Racism exists. Exploring it, studying it, depicting it in fiction should not divide us. What really divides us are the colour-blind racists, the apologists and the people who are openly sympathetic to white supremacy. Whether it is because they believe everything is equal anyway, or because they believe whites are now oppressed, far too many people have a hard time facing this topic. While racist practices by Hollywood executives, employers, judges, cops etc. are either ignored or supported daily, these apologists and colour-blind racists think they are now victimized because a film about racists is being released.

Radical Islamic terrorism is an issue now as well, and avoiding the topic in the news, books and movies won’t make it go away. People confront very few problems with the mentality that if it is ignored or never discussed, it will go away. Racism isn’t a bully, it is a pervasive issue that affects everything from entertainment to housing and police brutality. We can’t simply ignore it.

Bringing up the terrorism analogy also brings me to the next straw man argument.

3) There are more important issues now, like Muslims, and this film wants to focus on skinheads.

This film doesn’t say skinheads are the world’s only threat. One film normally focuses on one issue or one set of issues. Have you ever seen a film try to address every single world issue in 2 hours? The stupidity of this argument is simply baffling.

Anyone who is not living under a rock knows that radical Islamic terrorism is an issue. There are movies and books on that too. People only use this argument for specific topics they don’t want to see on film. You won’t see people criticizing romantic comedies saying that “with all the issues in the world, these filmmakers decide to focus on romance?”. You know what, let’s not make movies on any topic that isn’t trending in the news.

“Deep Breath”

Think I feel better now. Imperium looks very interesting and it will be my first time hearing Radcliffe perform with an American accent as well. With all the negative feedback it doesn’t look like it’ll be a box office hit, and it could possibly bomb. Either way, this is one that I am planning on seeing in theaters.

 

 

 

 

Darren Wilson and Colour-Blind Racism

141125-darren-wilson-hospital-01_a0e997077817dda5b02d46609bb590ed.nbcnews-fp-1200-800

Darren Wilson, the police officer who killed Michael Brown in 2014, now lives on the outskirts of Missouri . After killing an unarmed black teenager, Wilson received support from the public, who raised nearly $500,000 for him through a GoFundMe campaign. Mike Brown wasn’t a saint, and it is possible that he did attack Wilson, like Wilson said he did.

People always love to say we should not let the media vilify someone. We should let the jury make their decision. However, this logic does not seem to apply for the people who raised money for Wilson ahead of his trial. There is a disturbing trend where police murders of black males are always defended and the public views the cop as a hero, even before any facts come to light. We are just violent thugs that needed to be taken down. That is how we’ve been viewed for a long time, and the continuing strength of this image is a testament to the power of America’s racist legacy.

I came across this New Yorker interview of Darren Wilson, where he discusses some of his views concerning race and racism in Missouri. I always expected that his racial beliefs, like those of his supporters, would be anchored in colour-blind racism. I was right. Colour-blind racism, as I have discussed before, is a post-Civil rights belief that racism is now eliminated and that all races receive the same treatment in society. Colour-blind racists will often isolate racism to a fringe, a few outspoken bigots or organizations, while denying the presence of lingering institutional racism. Well documented gaps in achievement between whites and minorities in America are entirely the result of minority work ethic, according to colour-blind racists. Wilson’s thoughts on race serve as a perfect example of this mindset.

Firstly, he believes that Brown was wrapped in a culture that is “everywhere in the inner cities”. “Inner city” is often used as a euphemism for poor parts of a city populated mostly by minorities. When asked if the lack of jobs in Ferguson contributes to crime, Wilson denies that and says the lack of initiative to work is the problem. In his eyes, the (mostly black) people in Ferguson are just too lazy to work hard and get jobs. Wilson also believes that the only people affected by racism are those who lived through the civil rights era. Everyone else is just using it as an excuse for criminal behaviour. First checkmark for colour-blind racism.

The next checkmark comes when the interviewer asks Wilson about the systemic racism highlighted by a Justice Department Report. The report includes statistics on how black drivers were searched for contraband at a higher rate (by percentage of blacks, not population) than whites. Meanwhile, they possessed contraband less often, 26% less to be exact. Wilson says he has never read the report, but also argues that the statistics could “fit whatever agenda you want”. As I’ve discussed before, bigots always view any move towards equality as an “agenda”. Meanwhile bigoted policies are viewed as natural. While Wilson concedes that there are a few racist cops, the proverbial bad apples, he simply does not believe that the Justice Department’s report has any merit. Although he has not read it and has no facts to support his view.

This is the man who was given nearly half a million dollars by the public so he could buy a new home with his wife, who is also a cop. This is the man who the public and other police officers continue to send letters of support to. Sometimes, I truly hate America.

White Privilege and Straw Man Arguments

white privilegeThis blog post is the first in a string of posts that I will try to post to the site daily from now on. The pieces may not always be very long but I am trying to commit to writing one article everyday from now on. The pieces I post on my Instagram-wmoviegrapevine- will probably serve as the inspiration for these longer pieces.

Today, I came across a post from a user on Instagram. Like my first Instagram account-moviegrapevine- this user’s content focuses on movies and comics. However, there is the odd post that will tackle a political or racial issue and this user demonstrated that his views are pretty liberal, just like mine.

Anyways, today he posted a piece discussing how he was growing increasingly frustrated with accusations of “white privilege” being levied at him. The way he sees it, that term means he was born with a silver spoon. I was able to discuss the post with him in a private message and we both cleared up each other’s confusion. However, the post did bring up some pretty prominent straw man arguments that get applied to the discussion of racism and white privilege. White privilege is a system of benefits that benefit white people and it is important to understand it is a complex issue.

  • White privilege does not mean that all white people are racist

 

The user I talked to mentioned that he hated getting lumped into the same group as racists since he was not racist himself. I have previously discussed how many racists will not admit to being racist in this supposedly “colour-blind” era. However, I believe that this user truly isn’t racist.

Realize that even if you are not racist, you benefit from white privilege. For example, cops are more likely to view you as innocent (Chaney and Robertson, 2015) and you are statistically less likely to get jail time ( as opposed to fines, probation etc.) for criminal charges, especially drug charges. Having a “white” or racially ambiguous name (like Jacob, David) can also help you get more callbacks for interviews if hiring managers are judging candidates only by resumes. Some people might want to argue that “ghetto names” might be a factor, but realize that the resumes in this study were manufactured to have the same level of skill. If merit is all that matters in this great colour-blind society, then who cares about a name? Also, many names are definitely not ghetto but are still not “white names”, like Jamal or Cadeem (my name)

 

  • White privilege does not imply that white people do not work hard or that minorities should not.

 

People love to say that anyone who discusses racism has a “victim complex” or is too busy whining to work hard. Acknowledging racism and working hard are not mutually exclusive. Successful black people, like Obama, have acknowledged the impact that a legacy of racism still has on black people nowadays. Many black scholars, athletes and entertainers have all discussed racism at one point or another. My mom never raised me to think that I should not bother working hard because of racism. She raised me to believe that I would have to work twice as hard as a white person to get the same level of success.

If you are a white person who works hard and never asks for any “handouts” then realize you probably still benefited from having a “white” name on your resume. If you don’t have a white name, fair enough, you don’t benefit from that privilege. How about the privilege of cops being more likely to see you as innocent (Chaney and Robertson, 2015). How about living in a nice neighborhood, without people wondering how you make your money or if you actually belong in the neighborhood. Benefitting from these privileges doesn’t mean you’re racist, or that you’re lazy. It is just a fact that there are many benefits you reap even if you are oblivious to them or openly oppose them.

 

Works Cited

 

Chaney, Cassandra and Ray V. Robertson. (2015). Armed and Dangerous? An Examination of Fatal Shootings of Unarmed Black People by Police. Journal of Pan-African Studies 8 (4), 45-78.

The Sad Truth

It’s a truth that I denied for as long as I could,

I can’t live in denial anymore,

 

One undeniable truth about being a minority is that people of different races will often outnumber you,

In some ways you will be at their mercy for social acceptance and employment,

I used to think that if I encountered racism in one area, then I could simply hope to find another area where people were more accepting,

Living in three different countries, and over five cities has made it clear that I was naïve,

Racism will always be present, I only get to choose the level of racism I deal with, and the group that I get it from,

Racism persists, not just in the odd person, but among the majority groups as a whole,

They use your skin colour to put you in a hierarchy and treat you like an alien, even if you have been in the country longer than they have,

There is no cultural mosaic,

This country is only a patchwork of different segregated communities,

Where different groups flock to their own, building their own insular communities and pushing out different groups.

Statistics on multiculturalism mean nothing when there is no true co-existence and acceptance between different groups,

 

As time passes, and people keep pretending the world is now “colour-blind”, this problem will only get worse,

People will keep rationalizing exclusionary behaviour, seeing it as only natural for people who look the same to flock to one another and reject difference,

There are those who think humanity is on the right track to racial progress,

But I believe we’re regressing,

Colour-blindness only pretends that we all have the same experiences, negating minority experiences of rejection and racism,

It is nothing more than a tool for avoiding the discussion of racism

 

 

Whitewashing and Double Standards

Some may be familiar with the term, “whitewashing”, which is used by online communities to describe instances of characters of color being portrayed by white actors in live action films. As many will be quick to point out, Hollywood is a business. A business whose largest domestic segment is middle-class white people, which is why Hollywood films are crafted to appeal to this demographic (Stoddard 27).

Studio executives also believe that crafting a film for this demographic requires white actors, since they are deemed more relatable for other white audiences. However, racially homogenous China is Hollywood’s biggest international market. This is despite the fact that Asians comprise less than 3% of Hollywood’s lead roles. Although a country like China may look past the race of actors to enjoy a film, it is assumed that American audiences cannot do the same. White actors are deemed as normal and universal.

Predictably, instances of whitewashing often result in online debate, where some argue that whitewashing is no big deal since “It is acting after all” or that any critics should just “let the movie be”. For many readers, they have either used these arguments before or heard them from someone else. In many ways these arguments echo a valid sentiment: we should be color-blind. Let’s not judge someone’s race, only their talent or marketability. However, it is a fact that Hollywood is more willing to take risks on an unknown white actor over a minority one, indicating that white is inherently viewed as more marketable (Stoddard 373). This also means it is easier for an unknown white actor to get roles that can eventually lead to them becoming a marketable box-office talent. Also, the true test of this color-blind theory is if it applies to instances of actors of color playing notable white characters.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

The most recent example of whitewashing controversy that can be used for comparison is Ridley Scott’s Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014), where ancient Egyptians are portrayed by white actors. Like Ridley Scott said, he couldn’t get the movie made if his lead actor was “Mohammed so-and-so”. Scott previously said that Egypt was a “confluence of cultures”, which is what explains the white actors. However, the Mohammed comment makes it clear that minority actors were never considered for the part. In addition, the only roles that went to minorities were those of servants, guards or soldiers.

DF-00727R - Seti (John Turturro, background) presents the future leaders of Egypt: Ramses (Joel Edgerton, left) and Moses (Christian Bale).

Seti (John Turturro, background) presents the future leaders of Egypt: Ramses (Joel Edgerton, left) and   Moses (Christian Bale).

Although the instinct may be to argue that Exodus is a mythical tale, Scott said that he did not want to treat Exodus as a fantasy, since real historical figures like Ramses II are portrayed. The race of Ancient Egyptians is still contested and the purpose of this article is not to say that the casting is necessarily incorrect. The purpose is to study how Exodus’s casting is defended with arguments such as “best actor for the part” and “marketability”, while instances of race changing in other films are criticized when minorities are cast.

For many who grow tired of online debate about these issues it is easy to become defensive and fall back on the “just a movie” argument. However, it is also interesting to compare the reaction that a film receives when a minority actor portrays a white character. In the case of films like The Hunger Games, Fantastic Four (2016)and Star Wars Episode VII (2016), there is even greater excuse for changing the race of actors since the stories are not inspired by any historical figures or conflicts. Yet instances of black actors getting roles in these films resulted in a flurry of online racist remarks. Along with the aforementioned films I will also be referencing The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) to study how audiences react differently to whitewashing, than they do to instances of minorities playing white characters or inhabiting roles that they deem more appropriate for white people.

For many who grow tired of online debate about these issues it is easy to become defensive and fall back on the “just a movie” argument. However, it is also interesting to compare the reaction that a film receives when a minority actor portrays a white character. In the case of films like The Hunger Games, Fantastic Four (2016)and Star Wars Episode VII (2016), there is even greater excuse for changing the race of actors since the stories are not inspired by any historical figures or conflicts. Yet instances of black actors getting roles in these films resulted in a flurry of online racist remarks. Along with the aforementioned films I will also be referencing The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) to study how audiences react differently to whitewashing, than they do to instances of minorities playing white characters or inhabiting roles that they deem more appropriate for white people.

The Hunger Games

Rue, from The Hunger Games, was described as having “dark brown skin and eyes” in the book. The author also said that Rue, and the character Thresh, are “African-American.” However, Twitter provided a refuge for hundreds of angry fans after they either heard about the casting of a black actress (Amandla Stenberg) for the part. A Canadian fan began identifying racist tweets about the casting by using “#hungergames”, and he eventually compiled hundreds of tweets and posted them on his Tumblr, Hunger Games Tweets. If audiences were truly color-blind, would they write tweets like “Why is Rue black?!?!” Or “I was pumped about The Hunger Games. Until I learned that a black girl was playing Rue.”

 

rue-hunger-games

Racist Twitter

Another defense mechanism is probably to argue that these are just a few idiots online. Why bother analyzing them and thinking they represent anything significant? The problem is that hypothetically, these people who criticize this casting could be the same ones denying any discussion of casting discrimination when a character gets whitewashed. This isn’t just one troll, these are hundreds of people from only one case study. As the website’s anonymous creator, “Adam” says, “That tweet was very telling in terms of a mentality that is probably very widespread.” It is important to acknowledge and understand the double standard present in audience reactions to race-changing.

Color-Blind Racism and The Fantastic Four

MichaelB.Jordan

Michael B. Jordan as The Human Torch

Although the increased discourse of color-blindness is ideal in theory, groups such as the American Psychological Association have denounced it because they realize that people who claim to be color-blind are more likely to support racism. As a result, scholars have coined the term “color-blind racism” to describe this new, superficially post-racial mindset.

Color-blind racists view racism as an issue of the past, which leads to a denial of racism and a belief that all races receive equal treatment. With this mentality it is easy to ignore any alleged whitewashing, since color-blind people don’t acknowledge discriminatory casting. For a colour-blind racist, race should be a taboo topic since they believe acknowledging race perpetuates racism. The discussion of racism is only relevant to a color-blind person if the act of alleged racism is deemed damaging to whites, which demonstrates the racial bias of this colour-blind veil. To colour-blind racists, whiteness is normal, while color is seen as threatening or subversive.

To color-blind racists, the casting of Michael B. Jordan as the Human Torch in The Fantastic Four can then be interpreted as an example of minority privilege. Instead of seeing Jordan’s casting as a selection of the best actor, color-blind racists see this casting as an example of minorities getting special treatment. The belief in minority privilege then frames whites as the targets of “reverse discrimination”.

Although there are numerous examples of whites playing people of color over the past ten years, color-blind people will ignore or rationalize these changes and then focus on the fewer examples of minorities playing white actors. While 30 Days of Night (2007), Dragonball: Evolution (2009), Prince of Persia (2010), The Last Airbender (2010), The Lone Ranger (2013), Pan (2015), Aloha (2015) and others are defended for various reasons, The Fantastic Four becomes an easy target for colour-blind racists.

Like Rue and The Hunger Games, Twitter provided a refuge for racist comments when the casting was announced. The Fantastic Four casting is incorrect; Johnny Storm has always been depicted as white. However, if audiences were truly color-blind then Michael B. Jordan’s race would not be a problem for the casting. Online comments would not say the casting is an example of “political correctness”, or that it is “racist”. Shouldn’t there be more comments arguing that race doesn’t matter, and that studios simply pick the “best actor for the part?” Even if his sister is white in the film, that should not bother someone who is truly color-blind, since they do not see color. Jordan is already familiar with the complaints. As he said in May, “Some people may look at my casting as political correctness or an attempt to meet a racial quota, or as part of the year of ‘Black Film.’

Quick Comparison: The Hobbit and The Last Airbender

Avatar:The Last Airbender (ATLA), set in a fictional world, was a particularly interesting case of whitewashing since the casting was sometimes defended by arguing that the fictional world makes the intended race of the characters irrelevant. Even though the creators have described the series as a “fictional Asian world” and said that they wanted to create a fictional world like Lord of The Rings, but use their love for Asian cinema to take it in a different direction. The show and its depiction of Asians was also a source of confusion for some since Asian characters were not depicted with the stereotypical markers audiences are used to in Western TV and cinema, such as slanted eyes and yellow skin. Since the show was influenced by Korean animation, ATLA’s animation style reflects the practice of avoiding these markers.

1/2006

ATLA’s Asian character. Aang (front) and the Inuit characters Katara(middle) and Sokka (Back)

Some audiences may see the characters depicted in anime and assume that they are not meant to be Asian since they lack these markers as well, but these characters are judged by Western standards. Another way to think of it is by using the example of a stick drawing. If we draw a stick person in a country that is mostly white, such as America, England, France etc. we will assume the stick person represents a white person unless we give the figure stereotypical markings e.g. brown skin, curly hair.

In Asian countries, such as Korea or Japan, where the population is over 90% homogenous, they will assume the stick figure represents an Asian person. This principle also applies to their animation. The confusion only arises when their animation is exported to other countries, where audiences get hung up on the appearance and ignore any other signs of an Asian world, or an Asian-inspired one.

People will decry the presence of black extras in The Hobbit, a world inspired by European mythology. Yet people will also defend the casting of white actors in The Last Airbender, a world inspired by Asian and Inuit architecture, clothing, mythology and philosophies.

The Last Airbender

Pictures displaying the whitewashing of the Inuit characters, Sokka and Katara.

(Some may be quick to get defensive, ignore the brown skin and point to the blue eyes as a sign of whiteness. In Avatar: The Last Airbender, there are individuals who have the ability to manipulate the element of their tribes or groups: earth, water, air and fire. The eye colour serves as an indicator of a character’s element. In the show the Air Nomads have grey eyes, the earth nation members have green eyes, water tribe members have blue eyes and the Fire Nation have orange eyes.)

These blatant double standards cannot be ignored. Double standards where criticism of whitewashing is ridiculed as the work of “unemployed” people with nothing better to do, while minority casting generates rants about the negative influence of political correctness.

 

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

The last example I will use from this article, and the second one from this year alone, is John Boyega’s casting in Star Wars: Episode VII. When the first trailer for the film debuted Boyega was briefly glimpsed in a stormtrooper costume.

Black stormtrooper

At this point, we could not be sure whether his character used it as a disguise, like Luke and Han did in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. However, many disgruntled fans believed he was meant to be a clone of Jango Fett, like the soldiers from the prequel trilogy. The only time Jango Fett was pictured without a face-concealing helmet was in the prequels, where he was portrayed by Maori actor Temuera Morrison.

jango

However, the producer of the television show, Star Wars: Rebels, indicated that the last of the clones would be “old and grey” by Episode IV. Any stormtroopers pictured in Episode VII will be people recruited from the general population. This means that Boyega’s character is not meant to be a clone of any previous character. However, the damage control came too late for Boyega, who also witnessed a flurry of online racism that led him to tell critics to “Get used to it.”

According to a 2015 Hollywood Diversity Report, 1 in 10 films have a minority lead. This is despite the fact that America is becoming more diverse and despite the fact that Latinos comprise the largest portion (over 25%) of American moviegoers, even though they are only 16% of the population. Additionally, only 7% of Latinos identify as white as of 2010. This demonstrates that the out-dated notion of needing a white actor to draw in a bigger audience is overstated and only serves as an excuse to limit the roles available to minority actors, and in some cases, take those roles away and give them to a more “marketable” white actor. This only creates a cycle of unemployment where minority actors are not given the same opportunity to display their talent, since they are not seen as marketable or relatable enough.

Directors and actors who are involved in whitewashing rarely voice a critical opinion of the casting, with director Cameron Crowe being one of the few to openly criticize his own casting choice. While Joel Edgerton said he empathized with those who opposed the Exodus casting he also added, “it’s not my job to make those decisions…I got asked to do a job, and it would have been very hard to say no to that job.”Additionally, few actors speak out against instances of whitewashing, possibly because they fear backlash from potential employers.

Meanwhile, the few instances of minority actors receiving a role that could go to a white person are met with an onslaught of racist comments. From The Hobbit, to the The Fantastic Four and Star Wars, people will throw out the same arguments about representation and racial accuracy that they would ignore if a character was whitewashed. With this warped mindset, it becomes easy to see “reverse-racism” as the real problem in the film industry, and even America as a whole (Bonilla-Silva and Dietrich 192).

Is race-changing ever a right thing to do? That is not the question of this article. The question is do we react in a consistent, logical way to instances of race changing. Or are their obvious preferences in what we choose to care about?

Works Cited

Baker-Whitelaw, Gavia. “Ridley Scott Responds to ‘Exodus’ Backlash.” DailyDot. DailyDot, 29 August 2014. Web. 16 July 2015.

Bonilla- Silva, Eduardo and David Dietrich. “The Sweet Enchantment of Color-Blind Racism in Obamerica.” The Annals Of The American Academy of Political and Social Science 634.1 (2011): 190-206.

Brook, Tom. “How The Global Box Office Is Changing Hollywood.” BBC. BBC News., 20 June 2013. Web. 10 April 2015.

Chan, Wilfred. “‘Star Wars Episode VII’ Actor John Boyega Takes Aim at ‘Black Stormtrooper’ Racism.” CNN. CNN. 1 December 2014. Web 17 July 2015.

Chesler, Mark A., Melissa Peet and Todd Sevig. “The Political is Personal: The Influence of White Supremacy On White Antiracists’ Personal Relationships.” White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism. Eds. Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. New York: Taylor and Francis Books, Inc., 2003. 253-267. Print.

Dickens, Donna. “316 Days Until Star Wars: Lucasfilm Quietly Confirms Stormtroopes Aren’t Clones.” Hitfix. Hitfix, 4 February 2015. Web. 17 July 2015.

Helen, Neville, Roderick L. Lilly, Georgia Duran, Richard M. Lee, LaVonne Browne. “Construction And Initial Validation Of The Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale.”Journal of Counseling Psychology 47.1 (2000): 59-70.

Jones, Alice. “Ridley Scott, it’s about casting ‘Mohammad so-and-so’, it’s about realising you have a duty to make stars of non-white actors.” The Independent. The Independent, 28 November 2014. Web. 16 July 2015.

Holmes, Anna. “White Until Proven Black: Imagining Race In Hunger Games.” The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 30 March 2012. Web. 17 July 2015.

Lawler, Kelly. “Crowe Apologizes For Emma Stone Casting.” USAToday. USA Today., 3 June 2015. Web. 23 July 2015.

McClintock, Pamela. “The Secret To A Smash Movie? Lure Hispanics.” The Hollywood Reporter. Hollywood Reporter., 2 October 2012. Web. 10 April 2015.

“Questions Related To The Last Airbender.” Racebending.com. Racebending., 2011. Web. 19 July 2015.

Romero, Dennis. “How Hollywood Keeps Minorities Out.” LaWeekly. LA Weekly., 25 February 2015. Web. 13 April 2015.

Rosen, Christoper. “Ridley Scott Addresses ‘Exodus’ Casting Following Whitewash backlash.” The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 29 August 2014. Web. 17 July 2015.

Roxborough, Scott. “Joel Edgerton Addresses ‘Whitewash’ Criticism of ‘Exodus’.” The Hollywood Reporter. The Hollywood Reporter., 19 August 2014. Web. 22 July 2015.

Santos, Ridley. “Just Saw The Hobbit: Officially Over The Concept of Fandom.” Groupthink. Groupthink, 12 December 2013. Web. 17 July 2015.

Stoddard, Jeremy D. “The Burden Of Historical Representation: Race, Freedom and ‘Educational’ Hollywood Film.” Film and History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies 36.1 (2006): 26-35. Print.

Toro, Gabe. “Joel Edgerton Addresses Controversy Over Exodus: Gods and Kings Casting.” CinemaBlend. CinemaBlend., 23 September 2014. Web. 23 February 2015.

Toro, Gabe. “Michael B. Jordan Addresses Controversy Over Fantastic Four Casting.” CinemaBlend. CinemaBlend., February 2014. Web. 22 February 2015.

“USA.” Quickfacts. United States Census Bureau, 31 March 2015. Web. 10 April 2015.

Valby, Karen. “Team Hunger Games’ talks: Author Suzanne Collins and director Gary Ross on their allegiance to each other, and their actors- EXCLUSIVE.” Entertainment Weekly. Entertainment, 7 April 2011. Web. 16 July 2015.

Vasconcelos, Eduardo. “Interview: Avatar’s Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante Dimartino.” IGN. Ziff Davis, 6 September 2007. Web. 17 July 2015.

Weaver, Andrew J. “The Role of Actors’ Race in White Audiences’ Selective Exposure to Movies.” Journal of Communication 61.2 (2011): 369-385.