www.ditl.org

Two of the victims and the perpetrator in the Charleston shooting had past associations with my denomination, so the discussion of racism is extremely pervasive at the moment, especially among our younger clergy on facebook. One of them posted this link:

https://thsppl.com/i-racist-538512462265

Which in part says (I'll edit out some words as I'm not sure what our forum policy is)

Even when we make *explitive* up, we want it to be white.

And racism is the fact that we all accept that it is white. Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan in Star Trek. Khan, who is from India.
Is there anyone Whiter than Benedict *explitive* Cumberbatch? What?
They needed a “less racial” cast because they already had the
Black Uhura character?

That is racism. Once you let yourself see it, it’s there all the time.

Poking around, it seems that there have been a number of complaints about that. And perhaps even more to the point (from Wikipedia)

Co-producer and co-screenwriter Roberto Orci addressed the issue of the casting saying, "Basically, as we went through the casting process and we began honing in on the themes of the movie, it became uncomfortable for me to support demonizing anyone of color, particularly any one of Middle Eastern descent or anyone evoking that. One of the points of the movie is that we must be careful about the villain within US, not some other race."[54][55]

So it appears they cast him because they wanted to avoid giving offense at having someone who wasn't a cis white male be the bad guy, which seems to have caused rather more offense.

I'm curious if anyone here has any thoughts or insights.

Forum policy on swearing is that it's allowed. There used to be an autocensor that took out swear words, but honestly most people here just don't swear much so eventually we disabled the censor and let things be.

As for the rest... yeah. I can see both sides of that one.

There is certainly something to be said for being careful about how you depict non-whites in movies. Try watching some of the old time depictions of blacks in America sometime, of the "Oooo, yes massa!" variety. If that imagery is being thrown around then yeah, that's pretty horrific. Today nothing that outrageous would make it to the screen, of course, but there are still subtle implications in movies today. Just look at how women are depicted compared to men, for instance.

That said, it's really kind of silly to take the attitude that every single depiction of a non-white automatically broadcasts the message that everyone in his ethnic group is like that. To say that no black or asian or whatever should be a villain is just as insulting as to say that they all should. By all means give us bad guys who are black and asian and whatever... just make them the baddies that operate in a world that also has black and asian and female heroes, and everything in-between.

Either way is racist in some sense. If you purposefully cast a minority as the villain, some folks will be offended because they perceive it as "filmmaker thinks minority = evil." If you purposefully don't cast a minority, then some folks will perceive it as racism because you're keeping the cast too white. The only objective fact is that racism exists in the perception of the beholder as well as in the intent (or lack thereof) of the creative agent, and the only way to avoid it is to have everyone on either side of the screen be completely color-blind... which of course will never happen.

I thought that the ends is that we are not supposed to care about race at all. To which, the ideal would be to not care what race plays whatever role in a movie. To that end, the person that made the quoted comments simply proved themself to be a huge stinkyfaced racist.

"Is there anyone Whiter than Benedict *explitive* Cumberbatch? What?" ... That is the most racist thing I have heard is quite a while. One sentence later the writer says "That is racism. (signing a white guy to play Khan) )Once you let yourself see it, it’s there all the time." Yes, it is, only you do not seem to see it. Spend some time looking in the mirror and pull yourself out of the racist stink pile before you lecture to otehr people about what they say/believe.

That's the problem - the response to perceived racism is... other racism. The only truly non-racist response to Cumberbatch playing Khan is not to notice Cumberbatch's race. The problem with that is that it just doesn't work. If Khan is supposed to be from the Indian sucontinent, then it is a legitimate question (not from an anti-racism POV, but from a filmmaking one) to ask why Khan was not played wither time by an actor from the Indian subcontinent.

IMHO, which is worth apporximately both jack and shit, the only truly arational response is to ask th question, with no value judgement of any particular race incorporated, and invite anyone who wants to get twisted about it to take a long walk off a short pier.

Honestly, I never noticed. I never really considered Khan's race. Ricardo Montalbán was just a really good actor for that kind of character so I never put two and two together I guess. Plus, weren't there a lot of transplanted Brits in India from the colonial days? Why does someone from the Indian subcontinent need to be brown? (Ricardo Montalbán is from Mexico btw)

I was watching parts of Harry Potter Hallows pt1 yesterday and when all of the kids are together near the end, when Harry first gets back into the school, there is a girl of visually asian dissent speaking with what I swear was a rather solid Scottish accent. I hit the 10 second back and thought that that was something that you do not see every day.

Mikey wrote: the only way to avoid it is to have everyone on either side of the screen be completely color-blind... which of course will never happen.

Jim wrote:I thought that the ends is that we are not supposed to care about race at all.

Actually that's a very dated and "white" concept these days. You can read more say at:
http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/numbe ... new-racism
or poke around wiki.


But the upshot is that claiming to be color blind allows someone to avoid acknowledging their white privilege and to freely perpetuate systemic and structural racism. At work we're trained that claiming not to see someone's race indicates that we devalue part of them, and passes up on opportunities for the advantages of diversity. I'm also seeing it a lot in education. Basically a "color blind" approach allows one to just follow the curriculum and leave sub-Saharan Africa out of history until slavers show up, which is considered a very structurally racist thing to do.

I'll admit that I find navigating all this complicated.

Jim wrote:Honestly, I never noticed. I never really considered Khan's race. Ricardo Montalbán was just a really good actor for that kind of character so I never put two and two together I guess. Plus, weren't there a lot of transplanted Brits in India from the colonial days? Why does someone from the Indian subcontinent need to be brown? (Ricardo Montalbán is from Mexico btw)

That's actually a fair point if a Trekkie gets picked on about this. I don't think Khan has a "race" the way we understand it now. The idea behind the character is that he's a test tube creation, and I'm pretty sure that if asked he'd give his "race" as Augment, Superhuman, or something like that. I believe he was named after and/or by the doctors who created him (in world, out of world I think his name was an attempt to get ahold of an old friend). Ricardo Montalbán brought some Latin flavor and a tan, but I believe he was 100% European (Spanish), and nothing from India in any case.

I could go with that if they hadn't spend a fair portion of Space Seed with McGivers talking about his race, what fantastic warriors his people are, painting him in ethnic garb with his approval, etc. It's clear that he at least identified as that race.

sunnyside wrote:

Mikey wrote: the only way to avoid it is to have everyone on either side of the screen be completely color-blind... which of course will never happen.

Jim wrote:I thought that the ends is that we are not supposed to care about race at all.

Actually that's a very dated and "white" concept these days. You can read more say at:
http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/numbe ... new-racism
or poke around wiki.


But the upshot is that claiming to be color blind allows someone to avoid acknowledging their white privilege and to freely perpetuate systemic and structural racism. At work we're trained that claiming not to see someone's race indicates that we devalue part of them, and passes up on opportunities for the advantages of diversity. I'm also seeing it a lot in education. Basically a "color blind" approach allows one to just follow the curriculum and leave sub-Saharan Africa out of history until slavers show up, which is considered a very structurally racist thing to do.

I'll admit that I find navigating all this complicated.

It is not complicated at all. Most of the people "fighting" racism are probably the biggest racist in the room. Everything that they do is based on race, every act, every decision. That makes them racist scum, period.

Even what you describe above, making it impossible to actually not care what race someone is by saying that you are just accepting blah blah blah. Basically race shaming in order to get your own race-agenda pushed threw. Total bull shit and completely racist.

sunnyside wrote: Actually that's a very dated and "white" concept these days. You can read more say at:
http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/numbe ... new-racism
or poke around wiki.


But the upshot is that claiming to be color blind allows someone to avoid acknowledging their white privilege and to freely perpetuate systemic and structural racism. At work we're trained that claiming not to see someone's race indicates that we devalue part of them, and passes up on opportunities for the advantages of diversity. I'm also seeing it a lot in education. Basically a "color blind" approach allows one to just follow the curriculum and leave sub-Saharan Africa out of history until slavers show up, which is considered a very structurally racist thing to do.

I'll admit that I find navigating all this complicated.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

Griffin wrote:That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

Challenge accepted!

Indeed, either end of the spectrum invites attack on the grounds of racism. If you try to be "color-blind," then you get attacked for not being sympathetic to the struggles of non-whites. If you do acknowledge the differences in ethnicities, then you get called a bigot for, well, acknowledging the differences. To say, however, "that claiming to be color blind allows someone to avoid acknowledging their white privilege and to freely perpetuate systemic and structural racism," is so patently ridiculous suck-uppish PC as to be the most puerile take I've heard on the subject. Not constantly wallowing in maudlin and hyperbolic self-pity over the sins of my ancestors =/= being ignorant of them or callous to their effects; on the contrary, doing so would be offensive to those who truly suffered. E.g., if I met a German-American who constantly bemoaned how terrible it is to have had his national forebears commit the Holocaust, I would be grossly offended because his jumped-up little shit excuse for whining pales in comparison to how terrible it was for my family members who made it a part of the way through the Holocaust.

Graham Kennedy wrote:I could go with that if they hadn't spend a fair portion of Space Seed with McGivers talking about his race, what fantastic warriors his people are, painting him in ethnic garb with his approval, etc. It's clear that he at least identified as that race.

Hurm. I suppose it's been a loooong time since I watched that. I think he was supposed to have ruled a sizable portion of the world, any chance he was talking about his people in the possessive sense rather than racial? He also had a dedicated cadre of test tube augments as well that he could have been referring to. But again I don't remember well enough.

Jim wrote: 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.

Mikey wrote: Not constantly wallowing in maudlin and hyperbolic self-pity over the sins of my ancestors =/= being ignorant of them or callous to their effects; on the contrary, doing so would be offensive to those who truly suffered. E.g., if I met a German-American who constantly bemoaned how terrible it is to have had his national forebears commit the Holocaust, I would be grossly offended because his jumped-up little shit excuse for whining pales in comparison to how terrible it was for my family members who made it a part of the way through the Holocaust.

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.

sunnyside wrote:
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.

Well, the author of that article you linked would;
"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"