Khan and racism

[Jim]

Everything that they do is based on race, every act, every decision. That makes them racist scum, period.

Well, I think MLK would have characterized himself that way (well, maybe after serving Jesus), but you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone he was racist scum.

I admit that my response was a little harsh due to my annoyance over the subject.

[Mikey]

I don't believe ancestor guilt is the emotion the whole white privilege thing is going for. I think the idea is that racism is still continuing today in more covert and subtle but still significant forms and therefore one has benifits or doesn't suffer various detriments by being white.

Doesn't matter. I know to what the term "white privelege" refers; the point isn't what that is, but that the only way to express a declamation of that idea - barring the color-blindness which you decry - is to express that "ancestor guilt" as you term it. The problem is, as I've illustrated, that such an expression is of itself offensive to the subject in question. I also still fail to see how an attempt to not be racist is offensive as you have mentioned.

Wait a tick. I think I've got it. You are defining "color-blindness" as one being completely insensate to any sort of non-value descriptor, while I see it more as the effort (or tendency, really) to be able to acknowledge such descriptors ("Joe is African-American, he has darker skin than I") without attaching any sort of biased value judgement ("Joe is African-American, he probably is more prone to theft than I.") That is an extreme example, of course, but you get the idea.

[Jim]

I don't believe ancestor guilt is the emotion the whole white privilege thing is going for. I think the idea is that racism is still continuing today in more covert and subtle but still significant forms and therefore one has benifits or doesn't suffer various detriments by being white.

Doesn't matter. I know to what the term "white privelege" refers; the point isn't what that is, but that the only way to express a declamation of that idea - barring the color-blindness which you decry - is to express that "ancestor guilt" as you term it. The problem is, as I've illustrated, that such an expression is of itself offensive to the subject in question. I also still fail to see how an attempt to not be racist is offensive as you have mentioned.

Wait a tick. I think I've got it. You are defining "color-blindness" as one being completely insensate to any sort of non-value descriptor, while I see it more as the effort (or tendency, really) to be able to acknowledge such descriptors ("Joe is African-American, he has darker skin than I") without attaching any sort of biased value judgement ("Joe is African-American, he probably is more prone to theft than I.") That is an extreme example, of course, but you get the idea.

I would go with, Joe is African-American, he is probably more physically fit than I and has a bigger sausage...

[sunnyside]

Doesn't matter. I know to what the term "white privelege" refers; the point isn't what that is, but that the only way to express a declamation of that idea - barring the color-blindness which you decry - is to express that "ancestor guilt" as you term it.

I think the declamation they're looking for is more along the lines of "I've had it easier than you have and can't fully understand race issues from your perspective due to not having had to think about them".

Wait a tick. I think I've got it. You are defining "color-blindness" as one being completely insensate to any sort of non-value descriptor, while I see it more as the effort (or tendency, really) to be able to acknowledge such descriptors ("Joe is African-American, he has darker skin than I") without attaching any sort of biased value judgement ("Joe is African-American, he probably is more prone to theft than I.") That is an extreme example, of course, but you get the idea.

More like that. Nobody in those articles were criticizing Cumberbatch for being a bad actor, they just have an issue with the casting. They're pushing for more race consciousness but less bigotry.

Though again in this particular matter it's more like the producers got stuck between the Scylla and the Charybdis.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"

[/quote]

Well, yes, but there's also a flavor that diversity and impressions are part of a total package.

For the record I still hold onto hope that someday races more broadly can just be a silly fun difference that doesn't mean a lot, sort of how the differences between where your ancestors came from in Europe have become in much of the US. You just maybe have some slightly different holiday traditions or something. We just aren't there yet.

[Mikey]

I think the declamation they're looking for is more along the lines of "I've had it easier than you have and can't fully understand race issues from your perspective due to not having had to think about them".

My point being that not continually announcing that fact doesn't mean that one isn't cognizant of it.

stuck between the Scylla and the Charybdis.

This. If you ignore race completely, then you're a bigot for not casting an ethnic Indian as an Indian character. If you are conscious of race in your casting, then you're a bigot for not looking past race.