Casual racism thinks it’s possible to “act black.”
Casual racism, when called out, says “Well, I don’t think that’s racist. I think people can act white too. I probably should have said gangster or ghetto instead though.”
Casual racism thinks “black” is synonymous with “gangster” or “ghetto.”
it is never just a show
it is never just a book
it is never just a movie
it is never just a comic
The way we treat characters in media reflects the ideas we have about real people, and then our media goes on to enforce how we treat those real people.
I am all for enjoying the media I consume (and contrary to how it must look, I do enjoy a lot of media) but I am critical of everything I enjoy. No media exists in a vacuum. No media does not shadow the social system that constructed it.
Is that the only cultures that people ever want to focus on in worldbending are essentially anything and everything outside of Europe. Cultures which either perished with strong tribal ideals, or continue to prosper today still using tribal ideals. It’s almost as if the majority of artists out there are skimming over Europe altogether because designing something tribal is more interesting than designing a more metropolitan character. Which to me is kind of beyond ridiculous, if the Incas and Mayans can elicit inspiration then anything Anglo-Saxon can certainly illicit the same response.
Imagine firebenders from Spain who mix bending with the finer forms of dance and still retain influence from when Islam controlled Spain during the eighth century. Imagine Danes whose ancestors were the mighty vikings and the waterbending which would make their culture some of the most successful sailors in recorded history (Also imagine vikings hurling around gigantic ice spears, terrifying, I know). Imagine earthbending Celtic tribes rushing into battle in a terrifying display of cracked earth and pillars of stone (Imagine the looks on the romans faces, just think about it). Imagine the slopes of the alps covered in gleeful airbending children learning the finer points of how to glide and create small snow flurries.
The point being: When thinking about worldbending look at the world as a whole and not just the areas you find interest in. Look at every culture from the Romans to the Australian Aboriginal Peoples, from Native Americans to the Italians during the High Renaissance.
You are essentially saying that Europe would make ‘Worldbending’ better because Europe = Civilzation.
You can come up with a better argument that doesn’t offend several hundred of those “interesting” tribal folk, I’m sure.
the awkward moment when THE WHITE PEOPLE ARE SO UNDER-REPRESENTED OH MY GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWD
This is offensive not just due to the problematic wording OP has used because:
World building in
- The Harry Potters Series
- Lord of the Rings
- Game of Thrones
- Chronicles of Narnia
- Chronicles of Phydain
- ETC ETC
Almost any Classic disney movie made before the 80’s
and a bunch of other stories I’m too tired to list now
various other stories in film/literature/animation
Pixar movies etc.
and other classic tales have have heavy European cultural influence have not even been QUESTIONED as to why they are mostly exclusively European cultural influence and MINOR non European influence.
I really hope you’re not wishing or stating that Avatar only needs “Asian/Native/People of Color” influence only as a backdrop or as side kicks.
And most of the time, when any series/story has a central theme of being non-european influenced is adapted of shifted towards popular media (covers on book publishings, etc)
Guess what happens.
Film adaptations of such stories push towards the main characters being caucasian instead/push towards something more ‘relatable’ aka generally European visual.
Do I even need to say the word?:
Gedd in the Earthsea books:
Gedd in ‘popular’ media Sci Fil adaptation:
Sokka and Katara in the series:
Sokka and Katara in the Last Airbender Movie:
Is it entirely possible that you can allow EVEN ONE story where the characters may not look like you, not have your culture and still relate to the characters?
A lot of us Asian/African/Native viewers can still enjoy GoT/Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings, and accept that the stories are finished, world building and universe is based on Celtic/Nordic/Medieval France/England.
It would be interesting for Avatar to have a European culture, yes. But you could also say it would be interesting that they include African culture/Middle eastern culture/benders. Please do not pretend that European cultures do not get media representation, because that is not true and poor wording on your part.
The only time/s I have seen people get upset with said world-building is when they include ONE Poc in a cast of characters who are not
and then you get responses like this:
even when the sources state that the characters were people of color
If this is an uncomfortable perspective for you, please do some research.
Will you consider that at least?
So, this is happening, huh?
An Arab Green Lantern…with a gun. Really? Boy, the Arab Spring was wild!
He has one of the most powerful weapons in the universe, the Green Lantern’s ring, but he’s still packin’ heat? Talk about “When Keeping It Real” goes too far.
Maybe my dude doesn’t want to seem like a punk because his superpower is a super ring. Even Elaine from Seinfeld doesn’t like Green Lantern because of that damn ring
Street cred, yo. ”You talk about the ring, I will bust a cap in your ass”. That explains the mask that makes him look like he’s about to rob a Liquor store. Street cred. Street cred.
I see the green powered tattoo on his arm, there. I thought it was against the Muslim faith to have tattoos, even if it’s a temporary, green energy powered one? Maybe he’s a 5 Percenter? I wonder what happens when Turnip Green Lantern (no swine, my brother, or I will have to shoot you) changes into his uniform, does his ring play Rock Dis’ Funky Joint?
Yeah, that’s it.
He’s not the only new minority superhero who’s packing…
The new Hawkgirl/woman, she gots two gats!
It’s like Oprah is giving away guns to motherfuckers
“You get a gun!”
“You get a gun!”
“You get a gun!”
has im so dead, so gone. husky’s commentary »»
“Television and magazines are often regarded as factors that influence girls to be thinner that leads to young girls to many eating disorders. There are hundreds of studies that draw conclusions between media like television and magazines and poor self-esteem or body image.
Television makes children, especially white boys, believe that they can achieve things easily whereas black kids are often told that they may not achieve much in life.
‘Young black boys are getting the opposite message: that there is not lots of good things that you can aspire to. If we think about those kinds of messages, that’s what’s responsible for the impact,’ Nicole Martins said.”
You don’t say?
WAT! NO WAI!!!
No but really, considering just how big a formative influence television can be, and how media in general serves as such a major agent of socialization, and how PoC and women, and anyone that deviates from the White-male-cisgendered- heterosexual mold, really, is left in the dust, it’s sad that articles like this are still necessary to explain the division and inequality.
Run on sentence ahoy.
It’s nothing new, but it never fails to make me upset.
Good read y’all, check it out.
To raise awareness about the #millionhoodies march and general online campaign [elon james] posted the picture below on [his] social networks. This was the response on one of them.
[REDACTED]: Um no. This guy IS suspicious. I would totally purse clutch and traffic dodge to avoid and I’m not sure of the message here. March for hoodies?
[REDACTED]: I grasp the point racism is rasicm, no dress code needed. But we need to watch our PR and how our message is distributed. The above is not helping or helpful to disseminate the message. It’s an image of a thug in a hoodie. Treyon was not a thug, he was a child and this is the image that should be used. And the main goal is to make the “point” as EASY to grasp as possible. We can march and protest and leverage petitions, but if our attitude is, “read between the lines to get my point”, then we move no one. We also need to utilize the most powerful, personable images we have. This guy is not one of them.
Elon James White: Oh HI [REDACTED] I’m the image of the “Thug in a hoodie.” Do you know who I am? Do you know what I do? You said that THAT’s an image of a thug in a hoodie and TREYVON WASNT A THUG. Ma’am, I’m not a thug. I’m an engaged political commentator with a background in I.T. I throw dinner parties and build studios from scratch. But YOU saw a thug in a hoodie.
Do you understand the problem now?
A friend asked me to re-post this statement/thought of mine:
“Sometimes it feels as if people get caught up in being ashamed of what they like, then defending their right to like it. And completely miss the part where what they like is draped in a lot of society’s ills and unthinking. And they’d probably have a lot less guilt, if they separated how society uses it most often, with what is the actual structure underneath.”
I had originally applied it to kink and sex, realized it could be applied to cultural appropriation and realize now it also applies (to some extent) to patriotism. Many people in the USA, love the USA and refuse to hear a bad word against it, they defend it, unfailingly, despite facts and proof, and lived experiences of others and sometimes their own feelings of doubt and confusion. They refuse to separate the ideal from the actuality; to separate the turn on, from how it is framed.
Example: Someone can love the flavour of vanilla, without loving ice-cream, without having to deny they are lactose intolerant. There are other things with the flavour of vanilla even if how they are introduced to vanilla, is via ice-cream.
Also, please note the USA is not alone in the auto-defense. The French do it, all the time, including thinking that a real Frenchman/Frenchwoman would only say, think, this kind of thing. The Germans do it as well, ‘how, who and why is a real German’.
A person can love a thing, and still admit it has problems, it misses the mark, it needs help, it has exploited and hurt and damaged. They can love a thing’s ideals, its ultimate form, its dream form. They can love how a thing excites them and titillates them, but also subtract that excitement from damaging circumstances. If you can take fat and calories out of a recipe, or take allergens out of a recipe, how can people not take hate, racism, bigotry and sexism out of a thing? How can they not take dehumanization and objectification out of a thing?
Have a fascinator, not a feathered headdress. Explore power exchange and put away written fantasies about characters in concentration camps or prison or slavery - because really no true romance ever blossomed between authority captor and prisoner there.
And finally, admit American Exceptionalism is a lie. It was exceptionally exploitative, violent and domineering, yes. But it was not the perfect storm that formed a perfect country with no marks or blemishes or wounded, bleeding, dying, decimated, whipped, cut, stolen, beaten, segregated, ostracized, interned, imprisoned, manipulated or denied."
Vanity Fair’s Hollywood Issue Pushes Actresses Of Color Aside (Again!)
The 2012 Hollywood Issue cover of Vanity Fair — shot by Mario Testino — features 11 “starlets” shot in satin and feathers for a “‘20s and ’30s boudoir feel.” The ladies on the power panel — the left third, aka the actual newsstand cover — are Rooney Mara, Mia Wasikowska, Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain. Pariah’s Adepero Oduye and Mission Impossible’s Paula Patton are the only two ladies of color, and they are not on the power panel, but on the right two-thirds of the cover, which is folded up and tucked away when on newsstands.
This cover (click to enlarge) is an improvement from the 2010 Young Hollywood cover, which only featured white actresses. But it upholds the unfortunate tradition of shoving the people of color to the right and off if the main panel. Something Vanity Fair has been doing for years. (Usually Annie Leibovitz has been the photographer.)
In 2011, Norman Jean Roy’s photograph had Anthony Mackie and Rashida Jones off to the right.
In 2008, it was Zoë Saldana and America Ferrera. (In 2007, Chris Rock was indeed on the cover and some penguins were on the right. 2006 was Tom Ford and some naked ladies. Black folks also appeared on the Hollywood issue cover in1998 — Djimon Hounsou — and 1999 — Thandie Newton.)
2005: Rosario Dawson, Ziyi Zhang and Kerry Washington, on the right and not the left.
2004: Salma Hayek and Lucy Liu, on the right and not the left power panel.
2003: Samuel L. Jackson and Don Cheadle, off the cover.
2002, Rosario Dawson.
In 2001, no black ladies were pushed aside because no black ladies were photographed!
1997: Jada Pinkett and Jennifer Lopez on the right.
1996: Will Smith on the right.
1995: Angela Basset on the right
2011 was supposedly the whitest Oscars in 10 years. This year, thanks to the decidedly controversial flick The Help, Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer have been nominated (and winning!) some major awards. But it’s pretty obvious that Hollywood has a serious problem with diversity. A headline on ColorLines yesterday read: Why is Hollywood So Afraid of Black Women? Of course, it’s not just women; George Lucas recently accused Hollywood of being so racist even he, a successful filmmaker, had trouble getting Red Tails distributed, since it has an all-black cast.
America has a black president. We also have black actresses being recognized for playing maids in a film based on a book written by a white woman who got sued by her family’s black maid who claims the story is “embarrassing” and “emotionally upsetting.” Hollywood might be one of our biggest exports to the rest of the world, but it’s pretty clear it needs an overhaul. Fast.
Shit White People Say About Racism
I am just going to leave this here.