Elliot Rodger, Exodus and Choosing Ignorance

Over the past few days, The 2014 Isla Vista Killings came to the forefront of my mind again. I previously did an article on Elliot Rodger that was directed at the people who disavowed the arguments that Rodger was misogynist because most of his victims were men, and disavowed the argument that he was racist because he was half-Asian.

As a quick recap of my previous article:

  1. Rodger was misogynist. In his manifesto, “My Twisted World” he says women make poor decisions about who they date (a.k.a men who weren’t him) since their brains are less developed than men’s. Yes, he killed mostly men, but those men represented the men who took the girls he felt entitled to. Let’s not forget that Rodger’s primary target was a sorority house, but since he couldn’t get access to the people inside he settled for killing people nearby.
  2. Rodger was half-Asian, that doesn’t mean he can’t be racist. While the alt-right and other conservative groups love to complain about white people always being the target of accusations of racism, they also tend to use the “but he’s a minority” excuse to derail conversations on racism. In Rodger’s own words, full-blooded Asians are “disgusting ugly”. Rodger only wanted white girls, particularly blondes, and he repeatedly expresses frustration that other men, especially minorities, could get white girls when he couldn’t. “How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me?…I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves. I deserve it more.”

Now, with those arguments out of the way, I had to get some thoughts of my chest regarding people’s willingness to choose ignorance. All of the people who deny that Rodger was racist or misogynist likely didn’t bother to do any research to prove their point. They looked at the most basic statistics, his half-Asian identity and the demographics of his victims, and then dropped the mic on the conversation. This method of argument is easy and convenient, and is becoming all too popular. Despite being able to access information easier than ever, it is also easier to block out the information we don’t want to see.

I previously remember seeing this phenomenon when I was doing research for a paper on the racial portrayal of Egypt in Hollywood films. I argued that racist conceptions fueled the dominant portrayals of Egyptians as either white or Arab, but rarely black. I used Exodus: Gods and Kings (Exodus) as a case study, finding information on the time period (1300 BCE)  to prove that the portrayal of a white Egyptian royal family clashes with known history. I did research on Ancient Egypt to prove that dark-skinned black Africans did rule Egypt at numerous points in history and accounted for a significant portion of its soldiers, civil servants and royalty, at least until the Greek invasion later in Egypt’s history.

Another part of my study was analyzing moviegoer’s thoughts on Exodus and it’s portrayal, analyzing the arguments people used to defend it. While some people resorted to the easy “it’s a movie” argument (which they would probably reject if they saw a black person playing an ancient Greek), some argued that Ancient Egyptians were white. I remember a thread on IMDB’s forums, which no longer exist, where someone presented a link showing proof of Cushite-ruled Egypt. Cushite is a term for those who came from “Kush”, an area located in or near modern-day Sudan (Bennett 499). The term Cushite refers to dark-skinned Africans and is replaced by “Ethiopians” in the King James version of the Bible (“Communications” 683). Instead of checking the link, one poster simply responded that he refused to read that “liberal propaganda”. Now, this person could have Googled “Cushites”, or “Cushite-ruled Egypt” to see that the term isn’t just propaganda.

Although it may be easier to read through a link, it is also easier to ignore a link someone sends you than to read a book or passage that they present in person. The above user chose ignorance when he decided that he simply didn’t want to read any information that might disprove his world view. I can’t just blame this random IMDB user either, this is something many people do that erodes the intellect we’re supposed to possess in this techno-savvy era.


Works Cited

Bennett Jr., Robert A. “Africa and the Biblical Period.” The Harvard Theological Review 64.4 (1971): 483-500. Print.

“Communications.” The William and Mary Quarterly 54.3 (1987): 682-690. Print.

The Unwhitewashing of Geek Culture

“The title of this post is in reference to this blog post I came across a few days ago. The post examines recent and upcoming instances of white comic book characters, such as Iris West on The Flash, being cast with people of colour (poc).


The blog post has a very optimistic mindset, arguing that those who focus on instances of whitewashing are ignoring the progress being made. I disagree with the writer, but unlike some of my other posts, I don’t aim to vilify her. The idea for this blog post actually came out of our pleasant exchanges in the comment section.

Some successes do not overweigh failures in Hollywood’s casting decisions. Of course, I am happy for these successes but I believe that we can’t rely on the mindset that “things are so much better” to avoid pushing for things to be right. Of course, some progress is being made in terms of diversity in Hollywood and I am happy to see it. The author is right to say that we have come a long way but I don’t think complaints of whitewashing overshadow the positives, I think the positives overshadow the continuing legacy of whitewashing. The 2015 Hollywood Diversity Report showed that 17% of lead roles in Hollywood films go to a minority. This is despite the fact that minorities nearly make up 40% of the US population. Some may be quick to argue that there must be a shortage of actors from people of other races, but I don’t think I even have to dignify that argument with precise statistics. If there was a severe shortage of aspiring poc actors, we wouldn’t be able to make productions like The Get Down, Luke Cage and Straight Outta Compton. Not to mention a slew of diverse or minority dominated indie films like Dope. These indie films have numerous poc who wish to be on the big screen someday.


Some may also argue that poc just aren’t as talented, but doesn’t their talent become a moot point if they are denied a role because their race isn’t viewed as marketable enough? Let’s use Ridley Scott’s Mohammad so-and-so comment to illustrate. Ridley Scott originally argued that Exodus featured a white cast since Ancient Egypt was a “confluence of cultures”. He later admitted he just couldn’t cast Mohammad so-and-so to get a film financed.  Very few people will deny that Hollywood favours white people for roles. They just find ways to defend it: “best actor for the part, race doesn’t matter” “It’s not about race, it’s about being relatable and marketable”. Yet if a character that is supposed to white is played by a poc then it is “reverse racism” “political correctness” or a “liberal agenda”. I have already discussed this blatant double standard in depth in two articles.

With those two arguments out of the way, I wanted to discuss the part of my conversation with the blogger that interested me most. I do enjoy my ongoing discussion with the blogger so yet again, this isn’t meant to vilify her. However, our discussion brought up a very important misconception about America that fuels Hollywood’s casting decisions, and is also created by them. The blogger used the oft-cited argument that whitewashing is about “relatability”- creating characters people can identify with. Firstly, this argument assumes that someone must be of the same race for you to relate to them. It is possible to relate to someone’s motivations, upbringing, struggles etc. if you are not of the same race. Why does Hollywood and members of its audience think that people can care about robots and talking animals, but not care about poc? Next, you don’t have to be able to relate to a character to care about them. Also, poc are meant to care about characters that are a different race and would likely be considered racist if they skipped out on a movie because it had too many white people. Main point: Hollywood creates the idea that whiteness is universal. Everyone will go to see white people, but only blacks will see blacks, Asians will see Asians etc.


If someone needs to look like you to be “relatable” or marketable why was this movie so successful?

Once I responded with these facts, the blogger then brought up the misconception. When I referred to movies with mostly poc casts, she assumed I meant foreign ones; arguing that their lack of popularity is more related to the influence of their respective industries, which will likely pale in comparison to Hollywood. I was talking about American productions, like the ones I mentioned above. Hollywood has, for the most part, presented a very white America. Obviously there are prominent poc actors, but compare their numbers to the prominent white ones. Although people always deny the societal impact of films, films are shown to have a significant impact on how people view a certain city, region, country etc.


“Considerable public concern has arisen over the issue of media diversity, as it is generally accepted that mass media has strong social and psychological effects on viewers. Film and television, for example, provide many children with their first exposure to people of other races, ethnicities, religions and cultures. What they see onscreen, therefore, can impact their attitudes about the treatment of others. One study found, for instance, that two years of viewing Sesame Street by European-American preschoolers was associated with more positive attitudes toward African and Latino Americans. Another study found that white children exposed to a negative television portrayal of African-Americans had a negative change in attitude toward blacks. (Diversity in film and television: MediaScope)”

People may be quick to argue that they are much less impressionable than children but ask yourself honestly: Has the depiction of a certain area on tv or in a movie, ever affected your perception of the area, whether it be the demographics or crime of that region? I have heard plenty of friends complain of a region being depicted as too diverse, too crime-ridden and so on. People do notice these things and I don’t believe it is a stretch to say that someone who is unfamiliar with an area can form an impression of it from films. This blogger is likely American and also is not white, so she likely knows what America looks like. Yet years of Hollywood films disproportionately dominated by white people still creates the assumption that a mostly poc cast is the work of foreigners. Such a thing does not exist in America. The blogger has not responded to my most recent post where I pointed this assumption out, so we will see what other insights come from this. Either way, I thought it was a great example of how the impact of films.


Update: My last comment to the poster appears to have been deleted. I am assuming that the blogger is the only one who is allowed to do this, so it appears she didn’t take kindly to me calling her out on her assumption.