martasfic: (Default)
If you're on Tumblr or follow comic book fandom you've probably heard about the push to have the next Spider-man be played by an African-American actor. In the same vein, Michelle Rodriguez was asked whether she was going to play a role on Green Lantern and had some controversial comments about minority actors "stealing" white superhero roles. It's not (quite) as bad as it sounds, but I still think she's wrong to dismiss the minorities-as-well-known-superheroes thing.

So I talked a bit about that as well as fem!lock, the Sherlock fandom practice of writing/drawing Sherlock Holmes as a woman. Basically, I looked at the ways having a minority actor play a previously-white character addresses some charges of racism, and the ways it doesn't go far enough.

Read it at my blog or below the cut.
Read more... )
Comments welcome there or here.  :-) 

we all

Jun. 12th, 2014 09:01 am
martasfic: (Default)
Over at Tumblr, someone I've known for well over a decade, at least in passing, happened to mention that her family was tied to Brazil (this was in the context of the World Cup). I'd always assumed she was white, not that I'd given it a lot of thought, and now --with nothing more to go on than that connection-- I now assume she's Hispanic. Which is of course not indicative one way or the other. The pope is Argentinian but I'd be hard-pressed to describe him as anything other than Caucasian. A friend of mine from grad school was from Rio but her facial structure and skin tone was every bit as Caucasian as my own. (My family's from the Alsace region of France/Germany on one side, and a combination of Scotch, English, and Cherokee native American on the other, if anyone's interested.) Getting back to Brazil, of course there are white Brazilians and black Brazilians (of African or Afro-Caribbean descent) and indigenous people as well and all kinds of mix-ups.

But knowing someone was from America, in fandom, I assume they are white. Without any prompting to the contrary, I'd also assume straight, female, and middle-class, college-educated. Without knowing someone's nationality I'd assume American, maybe British, certainly spoke English as a natal language. In this particular case I've known this person for a while (I don't want to specify who this is, both because it's incidental and because I don't have her permission to share the details off Tumblr) and so I actually do know some other indicators.

But I've been thinking about this issue since she made this passing comment, because it strikes me that this is how privilege works, how assumptions work. I know at an intellectual level my assumptions probably aren't accurate in every particular, even for the majority of people. For one, I wrote in the Tolkien fandom and currently write in the Sherlock fandom, where I have every reason to assume people are British (that country produced both canons, and the books are probably even more popular there than here, after all). And so many fans in Sherlock (+ Tolkien for that matter) are German - my only excuse really is I couldn't use a second language with half the fluency they manage, and I actually only spoke German until I was three! But I don't think so clearly as that. The women thing is probably a safe bet in fanfic circles but doesn't hold true across the board.

Interestingly, this is why I've never been a big fan of the idea that a society where you never specify race or gender or whatever is one where you don't have to worry about racism or sexism. Because I think a lot of people make assumptions that if the (for example) race isn't specified, the character is white. (This played out rather interestingly with the Hunger Games movies, where some people were quite upset to discover Rue was played by a black actress - never mind the fact that in the canon she's described as black!) I try my hardest not to be sexist or racist or any of the rest, but no matter how hard I try I will have a "default" that I assume unless told otherwise. Famously, importantly, in the Sherlock fandom (at least the Tumblr contingent) there's a lot of talk about the way people assume Sherlock and Molly are in a romantic relationship but resist the idea of John/Sherlock when there's a lot more suggestive looks, because we will assume a character is heterosexual (and that a man and a woman who are close have to be romantically interested in each other), whereas those same assumptions don't really apply between two men. We will assume a man or woman for that matter is straight until we're told otherwise.

I'm also thinking about this in the context of some comments Moffat made re: Doctor Who, about how he wouldn't cast a female as the Twelfth Doctor just because it's a political decision, he would do it when a particular female actress felt "right" for the role. And at some level that seems right to me. I wouldn't want an affirmative action hire, kind of like how I wouldn't want to be accepted at an academic conference just because they needed a woman on a certain panel. (This is something discussed in academic circles, whether you should agree to present at a conference where the headliners were all white men, and I balked at something about that assumption.) The problem is, if you're used to thinking of the Doctor as a white man, no one but a white man is ever going to feel right as the Doctor. Just as the companion will (past history being what it is) probably always be either a youngish, prospect-less woman or the love interest of the same (in the case of Mickey and Rory). Sarah Jane Smith would never fit in by the time we see her in New Who. So I understand why Moffat feels he couldn't choose a woman Doctor because she's a woman, but at the same time, the unexamined "gut instinct" can just as often lead you wrong.

I think the best I (we) can do here is be aware of this bias. Yeah, I wouldn't have ever treated this friend any differently if I'd assumed she was Asian-American or black or Hispanic or purple-skinned with yellow polka dots, because I'm not actually a racist, but assuming people are white kind of holds them up to a standard or a way of approaching them that doesn't quite fit them as well in subtle ways, that expects them to act by a framework that's more organic, that comes more naturally to people who actually meet the assumption. I mean, take the current situation with the girls kidnapped in Nigeria, for example. As someone without any particular ties to Nigeria, I may be outraged but in an abstract way. For me it's just a news story, it's far away. Compare that to someone who's actually from Nigeria or from the kind of situation where this kind of thing could happen. (My brother-in-law, for instance, is Lebanese, and I know how news stories involving Israel affect him very differently than they do me, because he has very specific memories of attacks made on his neighborhood by Israeli arms in a way I can't have those experiences so whatever I think of Israel's position in a certain conflict, agree or disagree, my reaction will be much less disinterested than his would. Rightfully so.) Now, if I just know your online handle, if I assume you are from mainstream white culture, I will assume you will react to that news story like I do - even if perhaps you shouldn't because you're not from that culture, because the story actually hits closer to home and so of course you're going to react to it differently. I can't get past those assumptions and the other thousands of assumptions I make about characters or people very easily, and it's not always a matter of asking the right questions and getting better information. But I can at least be more humble and skeptical about my inferences, and be realistic about how accurate my suppositions may turn out to be.

Or something like that. This is me pre-coffee, so this may not actually make a lot of sense. But it's on my mind today, and it seemed worth sharing.
martasfic: (Default)
I've been thinking about something I've seen come up a few places in the wake of the Oscars: that much as we see blackface as a rather ugly form of racism, it's deeply immoral to cast, let alone honor, a cis-male actor playing a transgender character. For those not active in LGBT issues or otherwise familiar with the term, the way I understand it, a cis-gendered person is someone who currently identifies as the same gender they were assigned at birth. Usually, it's just someone who's not transgendered.

Basically, Jared Leto won an Oscar for his role playing a transgendered character in Dallas Buyers Club. I haven't seen the movie or read the book myself. I'm not sure I've seen anything with Jared Leto in it, certainly nothing I could place as his work. I really have no stake in whether this particular movie is praised or criticized, and I certainly don't want to defend it against something I suspect, at some level at least, is a valid point. I mean, actors do play characters with roles very different from their RL selves. Irene Bedard, one of my favorite Native American actresses (she's Inuit, if I recall) has played characters from not only a wide variety of Native American peoples but also quite a few Hispanic roles. More personally, I've played a variety of roles in school productions - men, women, tree nymphs, whatever was needed. Being transgendered seems a little different, though. I mean, it's a fairly unique experience I'm not sure people who haven't transitioned can fully relate to.

Still, the blackface connection really bothers me because it seems to skim over why blackface is so objectionable. It's not just that you had a white person playing a black character. Blackface was about a white person playing a farce of a black character, building on some really racist ideas that black people were always happy, always singing and dancing around and generally not having the emotional maturity of white characters.

If you want a parallel, one example that springs to mind is John Travolta's character, Edna Turnblad, in the 2007 remake of Hairspray. You had a cis-male wearing a fat suit and fake breasts, parading around as a woman but as a really bad parody of a transgendered woman. She's not actually described as transgendered (she's just a really masculine woman character), and when I saw the movie I found myself thinking a lot of people might make that connection. Not all of them in a good way. And you may can think of other examples where a certain character is put out there as a walking stereotype of some particular group. The Jack character on "Will & Grace" comes to mind for homosexuality, to give another example. Rocky in Rocky Horror Picture Show is probably an even better example for what we might call trans-face. But you get the point. Blackface wasn't just a problem because it was a white man playing the parrt.

Maybe I'm more bothered by this than a lot of people because I'm Southern. I don't know. I do seem a bit sensitive to these subtle points. And I'm not blind to why people would be bothered by the Jared Leto thing, really. But if the Dallas Buyer's Club is a problem, it's not because it's doing what blackface did back in the day (and, sadly, today). That doesn't make the Jared Leto thing okay; I guess I'm just upset over forgetting there were other things going into why blackface is so wrong.

And yes, I really am a big enough of a geek that that bothered me enough to write out 600 words on this on a Friday night. Don't pretend like that's a surprise. :-)
martasfic: (Default)
Last year, there were several incidents at my school that seemed to have a racist dimension to them. Some graffiti including "nigger" written across an Afro-Caribbean student's door in permanent marker. There's also been other racist graffiti and a student dressed up for Halloween in blackface. You may think these are comparatively mild a far as racism goes (and you're not wrong, sadly), but they're still pretty offensive.

The uni's response didn't really help things. It's hard to nail these things down, of course, but the best description is probably that the university is slow and reactive (rather than proactive). They also seem clumsy; the most widely-discussed incident involved a black girl but not an Afro-American (she's of Afro-Caribbean descent). It just seemed like a low priority. In several emails they talked about it like the aggressor was him/herself a victim. I just don't get a sense that this whole thing has been taken seriously.

For some official reports:
This all came up becasue the uni just posted their new handbook, including an FAQ on hate acts. And once again it's all about services available for the victim, confidentiality and protections - not about what will happen besides the university will look into it. If I was more concerned about this than I was practically (as a white woman it's never been an issue, it wouldn't seem like the university was treating this as anything more than boys will be boys - high-spirited hijinks rather than the disgusting behavior it is.

I don't know how to handle this better, though. Fordham people, what do you think about the new FAQ, and the situation in general? Everyone else, how do you think institutions like universities should handle this kind of thing? I'm trying to be fair to all involved, but this whole situation just makes me feel ill at ease, for some reason that I can't quite explain.

PS - I agree with the Ram article writer: even if Fordham truly did value tolerance, that's not aiming high enough IMO. Christian love requires love of the neighbor, not just a vague acceptance that he has a right to be here too.
martasfic: (Default)
Over the last several months I've been meeting regularly once a week with this woman - as far as I can tell, a very nice person, though I don't know her well - and we often make small talk to pass the time. Lately we've been talking about the Trayvon Martin case, because she happens to be Jewish and with a name like Zimmerman she was afraid (a) that the killer was Jewish, and (b) that there would be an anti-Semitic backlash because of it. What really has fascinated me is this comment she made, that George Zimmerman is hispanic and so he can't be racist toward a black teenager.

I found this interesting on several levels. First there's this idea that "hispanic" necessarily means non-white. Check out this picture of George Zimmerman:

Read more... )

If I saw a man of this skin tone walking down a Florida street, I would naturally assume he was caucasian. I'm German-American on my mum's side, Scotch-American on my dad's, and my face isn't far from that hue especially if I've been out in the sun. But more generally, of course, hispanic as non-European is a fairly recent thing. I remember learning in American history about the caste system that cropped up in Latin history, ranging from Spanish-born peninsulares, to the mestizos (Spanish/Native American) and mulattoes (Spanish/African), and of course the pure Native American, African, and other non-European group. The point being, what an American calls Hispanic would probably have some degree of European, Native American and African blood - not unlike their brethren on the other side of the Rio Grande, where the European stock was more likely to be from northern European, but European nonetheless.

The whole concept of "white" or caucasian is also troubling in and of itself. Once upon a time (and not so long ago!) Irish-Americans were seen as not as "white" as their English brethren. So were Italians, Greeks, and other people from southern rather than north-western Europe. And Jews; as late as the 60s, you couldn't get country club membership if you were Jewish. So this idea that white = European-descended (as if there was even a definite idea of what "European" meant!) doesn't jive with history. No, I think when people talk about someone being white, they have in mind a standard I read in an editorial a few weeks ago, I believe (though I could be wrong) by Leonard Pitts. He basically said that white meant being given the benefit of the doubt. If you're trying to jump-start a Corvette late at night, white means the cops are likely to assume you're the owner and having mechanical problems, rather than trying to steal it. And in a confrontation with a dead + unarmed teenager, white means the cops will be more likely to trust you that you really were under attack. In that sense, George Zimmerman definitely is "white," even if he's also Hispanic.

I also find it fascinating (and a bit disturbing) to see people arguing that ethnic minorities can't be racist. Of course Afro-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and all the rest can be racist. What if it had been Geraldo Rivera rather than Ann Coulter who had said in defense of Herman Cain, "Our blacks are better than their blacks" - would that have made it any less racist? Or if it was an Afro-American beat cop who, after being exposed to so many crimes committed by "urban youths" naturally assumed a young black man hotwiring a car was stealing it rather than trying to repair his own ride.

I was reminded all of this on reading Toure's latest editorial on racism. The piece is well-done and balanced IMO; the comments are frustratingly myopic, and almost amusing in their assumption that a discussion of racism must be a discussion of white racism. He does mention one white woman he met, and then he later gives the example of how Barack Obama's, Oprah Winfrey's, etc. popularity doesn't mean we're not racist - but the basic points apply to all kinds of racism, and there's nothing in the piece that wouldn't condemn black hatred of whites as much as it would white hatred of blacks.

I wish I had something substantive to add to the conversation. I don't. The best I can do is take it all in with awareness, and try to avoid these same thought patterns in myself.
martasfic: (Default)
Saw this picture on The Atlantic website this morning:

Read more... )

As disgustingly racist as it is, I actually find it a bit bizarre. You've got your standard Obama-bashing at the bottom, which isn't that far from what you'd expect given the website URL he mentions. But it's the connection between "university funds for anti-white hate" and the "Trayvon = no saint" juxtaposition that gets to me. Apparently to his mind, insisting that any 17-year-old kid (and yes, seventeen is still a kid) be treated like a human rather than a predator because of his race is tantamount to saying non-whites are better than whites.

Um, no. It's saying they're equal. Just like European-descended Americans are equal. It may not be a message he likes, but it's definitely not anti-white, and it's pretty well exactly the opposite of hate.

Also: his outfit cracked me up a bit. Loafers + socks rolled all the way up the thigh + bermuda shorts? Somehow I doubt he's getting many offers to propagate his race dressed like that. I almost pity him - and just might (since I see racism as kind of a social disease), if not for the web URL. Whatever the cause, using a national tragedy like this for self-promotion is just disgusting.

Profile

martasfic: (Default)
martasfic

February 2022

S M T W T F S
  1234 5
67891011 12
13141516 171819
20212223242526
2728     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 24th, 2025 06:16 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios