"Not Like That"- A Compendium of Thoughts on That Thing That Happened

I'm going to keep updating this as new info comes out, so if you're someone that gives a damn, maybe check back in a couple days. But I'm going to just sort of spat thoughts on the thing with the Catholic kids and the Native American elder. So there's no thesis or main point, here, just venting. I've been festering over this, and reached the point where the zit needs to be popped.

This article by Indian Country Today is a good compilation of videos encompassing the whole thing. The super long one, the one by those guys who identify themselves as Hebrew Israelites, hasn't really been given enough attention, and I want to start there- makes sense, chronologically, but also because what these guys were doing was pretty awful, too, and the reason all this shit went down to begin with.

So these assholes showed up to the Indigenous People's March, to protest it, apparently. And they were shouting all sorts of racist, disparaging things at the people marching. If you listen to the beginning of their (again, long) video, you hear them yelling at the Native Americans about how they knew Native history better than the Native Americans do- there's some garbage about how "before Natives worshipped totem poles," they had worshipped "the true God," or something like that. And that because of this "idol worship," their "land was taken from them."

I have to say, it's pretty vile to protest against indigenous people marching peacefully. Like, what are you really protesting to begin with? I guess, based on the shit they were saying, it was to "save" them? But, as people try to talk to them, they're entirely uninterested in dialogue and just talk over them, being super rude every time. If they were there from a place of genuine love and compassion, they would want to talk. No, they were there to pontificate, not to really help anyone or save any souls.

Something that confuses me: at 38:18ish, the guy with the phone starts mocking one of the students for wearing a MAGA hat to a Native American protest- and like, what? You've been standing here, telling Native Americans it's their own fault they're the victims of genocide, and now you're going to "call out" a white kid for being disrespectful? I mean, the thing is, within the first two minutes minute, they completely dismiss/talk over one of the Native Americans that is... wait for it... trying to point out that they're being disrespectful. I mean, seriously, I don't think the dude is able to finish a full phrase because the guy in the Hebrew Israelite group wouldn't shut the fuck up. So like, who the actual fuck are you to care about respect for the Indigenous march? "I'm just here to tell you what you have to do," he says to the Indigenous man. I guess the boarding schools didn't try hard enough.

Point there is, these guys are hypocrites. And they incited the whole thing, and their part in it hasn't been explored enough, as far as I can se.

(At about five minutes, a Black woman who has been visible for pretty much the whole video starts trying to talk to them and they say shit like, "Where's your husband?" as if to say he shouldn't have to listen to her because she's a woman- so like, dude, obviously these guys prescribe to some pretty regressive shit.)

Because after they mock that first kid, they go all-in at mocking the whole crowd of teenage boys. Sure, it's true the Catholic church has done some deplorable shit, but they're fucking teenage boys for crying out loud- if these Hebrew Israelites are half as smart as they think they are, they should have known that asking if they have "one nigga" in the group and calling them stuff like "dusty crackers" was going to create a huge kerfuffle- honestly, if Phillips hadn't stepped in, there would have probably been a riot (and I strongly suspect they were hoping the rich white kids would get physical with them, based on how they kept going). 

Which is exactly why he did what he did. He says he saw something about to happen and wanted to pray, to calm things down. No, he didn't realize how bad it was until he was in the thick of it, but dude, that's the point. It was that bad.

So then you have those shorter videos in the ICT article, and you see the progression of the behavior of the boys. For starters, it's clear there's space between Phillips and the boys, a space that gradually gets tighter and tighter, with fewer and fewer of the boys on the stairs- indicating the whole crowd was swarming Phillips and his fellow indigenous singers. Some of the boys do mock-Indigenous dances (apparently, some were attempts at the haka, according to Al Jazeera), the whole crowd engages in a mock-chant (more on that later), and there's this Nick Sandmann asswipe.

I first found out his name reading this NYT article, and it led me to his statement. And that. Oh, that. This kid is full of shit. In the first of the shorter videos from ICT, he isn't even visible- which means he deliberately positioned himself in front of Philips. In other words, in order to appear so close, had to push past his classmates. So duh, he was the one "invading personal space." And there's no reason to get that close to someone except in an attempt at intimidation.  As for that ridiculous smirk he had pretty much the whole time, it was obviously one of mockery, the same smirk guys in fake warpaint and war bonnets wear when confronted by indigenous people outside the stadiums where the Braves and Redsk*ns play. His statement is nothing but lies, passive-aggression, narcissism, and backpedaling. I suppose Trump would be proud.

I don't believe the diocese when they say they'll do anything. I just don't. The Catholic church was an active participant in the cultural genocide practiced against indigenous people on this continent up until the 1980s. I've mentioned before that my great uncle was beaten so badly by a priest for speaking Lakota at boarding school that he went to the hospital- what I didn't mention then, was it was a Catholic priest. Stewart Indian School, the last boarding school in the U.S. to stop operating as such (in 1980), was a Catholic school. If they continually sweep molestation under the rug, why would they care if some rowdy teenagers were rude to a Native American elder? I'll believe it when I see it, but for now, I don't.

Also, about that mock-chant in the videos ICT included in that article. It's the same one you hear at, like, Braves and Redsk*n games, or in the scene where they do "the chop" in Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Some even do the hand motion. (I feel like it's in Major League or one of the sequels, too, but this was easier to find, so here's the one from Men in Tights.)

So I don't see how anybody can still get away with saying they weren't mocking- then again, look at what our president gets away with every gorram day?

(As an aside, I'm pretty disappointed with that NYT piece- it's basically pulling an "on all sides" in its reporting, and it's pretty offensive they'd give credence to the claims that the indigenous people were somehow the aggressors, here.)

And yeah, the guy that calls Phillips "Grandpa" shouldn't have engaged with that teenager, but I get why he did it- he was angry, and hurting, and the kid was obviously painfully ignorant (or one of "those" debators, the kind that studies Schopenhauer's ways to win an argument)- whether or not indigenous people crossed a land bridge from Asia is entirely irrelevant to the fact that our lands were stolen from us and his ancestors committed genocide to do it. Aside from that, though, it's pretty clear that, despite the picture Sandmann and supporters are trying to paint, the indigenous people were the only ones that weren't being assholes. 

It's just heartbreaking to watch Phillips at the end, shouting, "RELATIVES! RELATIVES!" and watch as nobody gives a shit. It reminds me of another great uncle, one that taught me about humility and forgiveness. He was a lobbyist for Indian Country, and I remember a conversation we had when I was around thirteen. It went something like this:

"Uncle Gerald, how can you be so kind to these guys that are making laws that hurt our people?"

"Because without grace, we're no better than them."

"But why forgive them? It's not like they've really done anything to make things right."

"Forgiveness isn't for them, it's for us. If we don't forgive, we carry hate in our hearts, and again, that would make us no better than them. We have to forgive and move on, and hope that eventually they'll listen and help us. With, of course, some forceful convincing on our part." [wink]

[He then taught me the Serenity Prayer.]

After all the mockery and meanness, Phillips says, "Yeah, let's make America great! Let's do that!" In earnest. Not sarcastically, not to be funny. In earnest.

One of the kids shouts, "How?"

And the guy that had called Phillips "Grandpa" says, "Not like that!"

And that's kind of perfect.

Nothing is going to get better if all this hate continues. And the kind of bullshit these kids (and those assholes that antagonized them to begin with) were acting out is just making it worse. And I wish I could talk to my Uncle Gerald about how to deal with these zealots- these MAGA-wearing, Trump-loving bigots. Because I strain and twist myself, trying to be compassionate and open like he taught me. But it gets harder all the time. And in the face of stuff like this? I just can't. And I wish I could ask him what to do.  He's gone, so I can't, and that hurts about as much as everything else right now.

And another thing that makes this so painful is the shit Phillips and his companions were dealing with? It's more like an everyday occurrence. I'm glad this one is getting attention, but what I need you to understand, reader, is that this kind of shit happens every day to indigenous people. And to people of color now that Trump is in office. And it's not just elders. It happens to kids at school. Trump gets quoted by fucking teachers being racist to their students. 

And yet, snotty little brats like Sandmann go unchecked when they play the victim. Major news outlets like the New York Times don't call him and his ilk on their bullshit.

And what that does, is it silences us. Those of us whose identities are being attacked. Whose very personhood is being called into question. How can we stand up for ourselves if lies about us, about what these people are doing to us, go unquestioned? If when we call for peace, we're depicted as the villain? If when we try to reach out, we're mocked and ridiculed, then turned into the scapegoat and have angry fingers pointed in our direction? So we remain silent. Because you can't reason with irrationality and delusion.

It reminds me of a quote from retired Senator Barney Frank: "On what planet do you spend most of your time? Having a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

It's impossible. So I don't have any answers. I don't know what to do. 

I guess I'll just pray to my totem poles that things will get better somehow. 

Wonder Woes, Part Deaux: FOR THE LOVE OF HERA, SEE WONDER WOMAN

In "Wonder Woes," I discussed some stress/anxiety/anger/etc. I was experiencing in light of a potential change in Diana's backstory. It turned out to be a rumor, but I'm calling this post a sequel because my source of frustration here is still what's going on with Warner Brothers and one of the myriad things they've chosen to do (or not do) that just will not help me relax about Wonder Woman. Seriously, pretty much the whole time I've been watching this whole thing unfold, I've felt frustrated and helpless.

Yup

My latest stress is that with the premier date less than a month away, I'm kind of out of sorts over the dearth of (good/smart) marketing promoting it. And I'm not the only one noticing it. All sorts of other fancy, more-read people have noticed it, too. Not only that, but one of the few advertisement partnerships WB has made is with gorram diet bars. (Yes, there have been a few other partnerships, but the main one available now is food "for women" and associated with weight loss/dieting/etc. Just totally not cool.) And while a lot of the other articles are pitched as a "fans are wondering  why" piece, I know why- or at least, I have a theory. It has to do with what I was talking about here, and more.  They may be making the movie, but they don't expect it to do well. So they're cutting their losses and saving every penny they can, since they don't think the movie will make much more than its $100M budget (an historical thing in and of itself, if you didn't know). 

And of course that  upsets me. I've blogged before about how it seems the Dudes in Suits are so paranoid about having a comic movie star a woman, they gender/character-swapped the Days of Future Past storyline for the movie.* I have zero faith in movie executives at this point. And it's not up to directors what kind of promotional materials get made/distributed/etc. for their movies- so Patty Jenkins, our director here, is entirely powerless, now that her movie is (presumably) finished. There's nothing she can do as WB's PR department completely drops the ball. I can only  imagine how upset she was when she saw the "Thinkthin" shit. 

What makes this troublesome for me is this "we don't think it's going to do well so we're not going to waste money promoting it" has the potential to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. And if the movie does, in fact, do poorly it's first weekend or two, low turnout will be used as the excuse to put a cease and desist order on any and all female-starring superhero movies ad infinitum. Not a damn thing about the lack of effort from the PR department will be said, just the poor box office numbers. Alongside Catwoman and Elektra, Wonder Woman will be touted as an example of how "women just can't star in superhero movies." It's being set up to fail, and that failure will in turn lead to zero faith on the part of the Dudes in Suits. 

And yes, I do think this means Captain Marvel will very likely be affected, too. I don't care if it's a different studio- these Dudes in Suits take notice of what each other are doing, how they're doing it, how it does or does not pay off, etc. Marvel Studios would totally reconsider a Captain Marvel movie if a gorram Wonder Woman movie tanks. 

(I was going  to have this point be a side or footnote, but I think it's important and relevant enough it needs to stick in the main body.) When having this conversation in person, and when I bring up the Captain Marvel/Marvel Studios point, the only time anyone resists/challenges me there is when I'm talking to a man. Any women I've discussed it with has agreed emphatically, while any man I've spoken with about it has always argued, or at least tried to make it sound like I'm jumping to conclusions or something about it. The fact that Marvel Studios is separate from WB, or that they already have people cast and a director and stuff for Captain Marvel are among the main things I hear these dudes say (and I should note, I've reached over half a dozen at this point, who have all done this to me). 

What I want to know is why they think any of that matters, here? Movies complete with directors, actors, scripts, etc. get cancelled all the gorram time. So what's so special about Marvel Studios?  To say a thing I've said a million times, Marvel isn't actually all that great with female representation onscreen. Women end up being sidekicks, mysteries, tools, obstacles, and damsels in distress for the men in the stories to interact with somehow. And now that the Avengers team is even bigger, more than doubled, after Civil War, I want you to look more closely at the cast of Infinity War Part I. There are six women listed as for sure (one as rumored). Six. And that list doesn't include extras or anything yet. Six, out of 30 (or 29, if you count the two rumored listings). That's only 1/5 of the entire named cast. Or watch this "first look" featurette:

Notice how it's all white dudes talking, and any character-driven plot they talk about has to do with men specifically or general groups (the Avengers themselves, the Guardians of the Galaxy), groups in which women are a minority. I think that just sort of sets the tone for what to expect from the movies- as with all other Marvel movies,  these women will be side characters, and the main players will be Iron Man, Captain America, Star Lord, and Thanos. Also, as I've said before, if Marvel Studios is still unwilling to make a movie for a guaranteed-money-maker like Black Widow, one they know all of the nerdboys drool and jerk off to, now that she's been onscreen in five of their movies (soon to be six/seven, with Infinity War), why the fuck would they hesitate to ditch an idea for a character that's mostly unknown to the uninitiated? (Seriously, I don't know a single person that doesn't read comics but knows who she is (compared to Wonder Woman, which is like "duh"), and when I inform them she's a she, they're usually super surprised. Which says a lot, I think.) I don't think they'd cut her from Infinity War, no, but would they give her her own movie? Probably not.

And to state the obvious point, this would have absolutely nothing to do with the character of Captain Marvel herself, or any projections based on her- it would be simply because the Dudes in Suits would see that a- THE- Wonder Woman movie bombed, ticket-wise (which is all they care about- even if it gets a 100% on Rotton Tomatoes or like a 95% on Metacritic, the decision-makers wouldn't care), and would change their minds. 

And then the Batgirl movie with JOSS WHDON at the helm that hasn't been openly denied by anybody will get canceled, too, which would make it the second Whedon-helmed, female-led DC movie that didn't get made.  

And I just... While the dudebros and neckbeards may think, well...

I don't really care. I need Wonder Woman to succeed. All women and girls do, as far as I'm concerned. William Moulton Marston, the man who created her character, knew how important it is for girls to see characters "like them" in the media- that was a huge reason he created Wonder Woman in the first place. Back then. In the 1940s. A man knew representation is important for the self esteem and well-being of little girls.

So why is that so gorram hard for Dudes in Suits nowadays?

I need this movie to be good on a deeply personal level, don't get me wrong. It would invariably send me down a bad spell if I leave the theater disappointed. But that's a somewhat different discussion. Like I said before, the execs won't really care if it's "good" or not, they're only going to notice how much money it makes. Shit, I'll buy tickets on Fandango that I won't use, if I have to.

And there's a valid comparison between the standards this movie's performance has to surpass vs. those of male-led movies and what women have to deal with in professional settings, too. While neither Thor solo flick barely beat $60m opening weekend, and the first Captain America did about the same (compared to both Avengers, which nearly doubled that, and the later Iron Man movies, which all did much better, too), the Norse God is still getting a third movie, and Cap already had one. Even Ant Man, which at $57M made less than every other Marvel Studios movie (except the second attempt at a Hulk flick) has a sequel in the works.** Wonder Woman is projected at making a bit over $80m opening weekend, and yet a number that high is actually being treated as if it's low. 

Which makes me  sick. But, y'know,

It's the same double-standard women in the workplace deal with- they have to do twice as well, be twice as nice, and still may get passed up for promotions, or the credit will go to the dude that did half as much, etc. Films led by men can have comparably sub-par performance and still have subsequent movies in their franchises, yet there's speculation the franchise starring a woman that may perform better may thus be doomed? Come ON, now.

So we all need this movie to make lots of cash. Thus, I implore you, please,

GO SEE WONDER WOMAN OPENING WEEKEND AND THE NEXT WEEKEND IF YOU CAN, TOO

I say the second weekend because the drop between opening and second weekend matters, too. 

But, anyway.

Tell your parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, friends, frenemies, enemies, customers, coworkers, bosses, students, teachers... Tell every person you interact with every day. Tell them to see it. Even if you don't think it's going to be good (which is a whole different rant, but suffice to say I get really fucking tired of men saying they think it's going to suck and are apprehensive about seeing it, but they are more than willing to see any and every Thor movie in theaters, even admitting to seeing previous ones more than once despite knowing they were awful), give them a (breifer) explanation like mine as to why: If this does badly, we can expect to have to wait  another ten-plus years for another superhero film to headline a woman. 

There is one more fear, related to this double-standard: That if the movie does well but is kinda crappy, they won't make it its own franchise. We're past the point where that matters, though- all we can do is vote with our wallets and show the Dudes in Suits we want more by getting our butts  in the seats. I truly think that, at the end of the day, these Dudes in Suits aren't being consciously, maliciously sexist. I think the film industry is just so bloody entrenched with misogyny that they can't help but follow those tracks and keep things as is. But, this is capitalism. And at the end of the day, money is the most important thing.

So I also am desperate to believe the opposite of these fears: That if Wonder Woman does well, it will pave the way for other female-starring superhero flicks. So that Batgirl movie will really end up being a Thing. Black Widow will indeed get her own movie. Other franchises will come out of the woodwork, ones we've already thought of, and ones we haven't. Hell, just run a Google search for "female superheroes that need movies" and you'll get a never-ending list of articles, some with lots of overlap, some that are completely original. But the point is, people care. They want to see women onscreen. WE want to see women onscreen. And if Wonder Woman does well, I think it's possible. The patriarchal trends in the film industry could be at least a little changed, and someday, entirely smashed.

This really is an issue about the fate of feminism in this country. Wonder Woman  has, since her inception, served as a symbol for feminist ideals. That's literally what she was created for in the first place. This character is been around for a lot of shit, and has made it through a lot of shit that the dudes in charge of her stories have decided for her. I don't just think  it's superhero movies at stake. Even though The Hunger Games was successful, it, and the handful of other movies starring women that also did well, aren't treated as the norm. If Wonder Woman does well, maybe it will help that radical notion that women are people, and that the movies starring them can be money-makers, will be more accepted. And then 

BAM! Feminism FTW!!!

So please, get out there. Spread the news, make sure everyone you know goes to see Wonder Woman. And keep fighting the good fight.



*In that post, I said I was sick of Wolverine. While he did have a small part in Apocalypse, his swan song, Logan, was a masterpiece, and I am very pleased with how they said goodbye to the character. Of course, as the new series moves forth, they'll probably find a new Wolverine, but, hey, maybe the break will be longer than the breaks we've had between Spider-Man iterations. 

**Source

Here We Go Again: More White Washing and Savioring

Admittedly, I had no intention of really blogging about this, but two things happened, close enough to each other that the resonance in my head (and heart) was pretty loud. (Also, a friend asked about it on FB, and my initial response became over two pages in Word...) First, I iked the trailer I saw for Kubo and the Two Strings when my partner and I went to see Finding Dory a few weekends ago. I'll embed one here for you, in case you aren't familiar:

But something about it unsettled me, and I couldn't place it at the time. After seeing a different one on TV, I realized that the Big Dude sounded alarmingly like Matthew McConaughey. So a quick IMDB search (link above already) fixed it and proved me right. And I say "alarmingly like" him because he's white. And so is the vast majority of the gorram cast, and all of the major hitters for the crew (writers, director, producers). Sure, George Takei is in there, I would guess for a bit  role... Buuuuut... it looks like it's set in Japan, right? Yes, since synopses on various sites (just Google it) mention in some way how Kubo's father was a samurai. So... that bothered me, and still does. 

Then I saw a poster for The Great Wall and didn't think much of it, because I only looked at the picture, not the words... But I realized just how white-wash-ee it is when I saw the trailer:

So... Yeah. That's two in less than a month for me, and it makes my fingers twitch with Internet Indignation.* 

I want to start with some links to various responses to both by people of Asian ethnicity, commenting on the whiteness. I'm not Asian American, so I'm not trying to speak for them, and it's important to include the voices of people being affected when advocating. So here's one about Kubo, and a good tweet and then a VERY well-written piece about The Great Wall. 

So, now be prepared for my long ramble. Let's start with the stories themselves. Both are historical fantasy/fiction. One may even call them... fanfic?

Okay, but seriously. While nothing exists in a vacuum (except, you know, black holes and the like, ‘natch), the two stories, taken at face value and ignoring any other context or baggage, are set in the pasts of real people involving fantastical elements of magic and wonder (I mean, blatantly so with Kubo, and apparently Willem Defoe voices a dragon in Great Wall, so... yeah). While the story behind Kubo itself seems fine (as in not racist), the idea that a white dude was there when the Great Wall was being built and led the resistance against a siege of dragons that saved China is pretty bad. THAT story reinforces narratives that at least somewhat implicitly, if not very blatantly, present the idea that only white people (usually men) can solve the world’s problems. TV Tropes calls it “MightyWhitey," while most call it the “White Savior” narrative. It can be told in various ways, and sure, there may be people of color that play important roles in the narratives, and  they may  have great stories of their own within the overall narrative; shoot, they may  even have better development than the white character(s). But in the end, the “true” hero of the story is white. The one that solves the problem while surrounded by people  of color is the white person/team/etc.

I think in some ways, this trope is related to the White Man's Burden and White Guilt, but the reason it ends up problematic is, even if those intentions are good, the motivations come from a selfish place. In the end, the white people look like dufuses. 

This narrative, then, is problematic because, well,  obviously, white people aren’t the only problem solvers in the world. They don’t have the monopoly on intelligence, capability, resource management, or whatever else that ends up making things better in the end. There have been plenty of people of color that actually DID make history; and there are countless more that affected it and were ignored because of their ethnicity; and there are countless right now that are making a difference that go unnoticed, too. This trope is entirely fantasy, and a narcissistic one, at that. Putting white people at the center of a tale about people of color is kind of like the “All Lives Matter” of storytelling: we just can't tell a story about people of color without including white people, because that would be exclusionary!, or so says the white Zeitgeist. And while we’re at it, this is really about white people, anyway, right? It’s almost comical, really. Almost.

To be cynical, mainstream HISTORY is a White Savior narrative: You get sidestories about famous people of color, but they’re few and far between, and only recently did we get more information about people of color that helped organize against oppression and what have you. It’s why something that one would THINK is absurd such as Black History  Month is necessary. But in textbooks, people of color (and women) usually just get a special section every chapter (at best); the rest of the book is about the White Dudes moving and shaking. I mean, okay, I'm a feminist, and while I do think "herstory" is... a bit  much, I also do recognize there are serious problems in how mainstream history education rolls. It presents the main drivers of history pretty much always as white men; those little asides and extra sections for non-men and non-whites are snippets, like supplemental links you can hover over when reading something online to get an extra info bubble. 

So fictional stories that perpetuate the same exclusion of people of color reinforce the “truth” we “learn” in schools. So now, in The Great Wall, this fictionalized version of history immersed in a culture that isn't white, is being drawn up with a white man at center stage. He's not a token white guy, he's the central figure. That's whitewashing, even if it's fiction, because they're contextualizing the whole ruddy thing as the "true story behind the construction of the Great Wall of China." (Of course, that's not a direct quote, but the text on the poster and during the trailer indicate they're fictionalizing true events.) Now I wouldn’t say that it’s amoral to make any movie starring a white dude, but it is problematic, at best, to drop a handful of white people into a story about a large group of people of color, make the story about how those white people saved the day, and  then tout it as a triumph of diversity (as some try to do; not necessarily  this film in particular, but it happens  a lot with this trope, like with The Last Samurai for example), while also selling it as the "untold story" or whatever of a real Thing. 

In other words, they're ret-conning actual history to pretend that a white dude is responsible for the actual Great Wall.

This is also a problem from a representational standpoint. Here we have a movie with a premise that BEGS for a cast of entirely non-white people. Ideally, of Japanese actors (actually from there, or of Japanese ethnicity, at least). It is a perfect chance to give people of color big roles in a big blockbuster movie. And yet, we literally have a white dude as the poster child. And that, in itself, is ridiculous. And disappointing. 

And this is where the casting of Kubo comes back into play.  While the characters are all Japanese (or... animals... or... ghosts... or whatever...), the actors portraying their voices are not. And sure, as the piece I linked already states, they're animated, and we aren't seeing any actors' actual faces. But. It isn't like there are no Asian actors out there. And taking away these roles from them, is egregious. I mean, these characters in Kubo aren't just generic characters that were, as per usual, cast with white actors. They are Japanese people that are being voiced by white people. I mean, I love Matthew McConaughey** and Charlize Theron. They're wonderful actors. But they're both pretty damn white. I mean, c'mon:

***

I've referenced this blog post before, but I just don't think I can better describe why whitewashing is problematic, and don't think I ever will, because it is so simplistic and perfect. I encourage you to read it, and think of it in the grand context of representation in film, or in comics or books, or on TV, in video games... whatever. And while the version of whitewashing she's talking about is when a character's reboot or remake or whatever is changed from being a person of color to being white, the principal  is the same: The characters in Kubo are animated as Japanese, but portrayed by whites, so think of the bowls as the roles different actors could take; the left bowl, then, is roles that go to white people, and the one on the right is those going to people of color. See how it's a bad thing now? Yeah.

What's worse is that actors of color already have it harder, so casting a character that is written as Japanese with a white actor is exceptionally egregious. The best way I can describe it is imagine you were applying for a job, with the father of a friend of yours. Now, this friend, you may love the pants off of them (not literally), they may be a great person, but you know they don't need the job- they  already have one, and their dad's connections could get them another in less than a day, if something ever happened. But, more importatly, they aren't half as qualified as you. Like the job requires a degree in math, which you have, and theirs is in creative writing. But you get a rejection letter, and then come to find out their dad gave them the job, instead. It's basically racial nepotism, preventing people of color from getting acting gigs for which they're perfect. And it's bad enough when it's a generic casting call; when the role is for someone of color, it's not borderline offensive, it IS offensive.

And this has a lot to do with the financial aspect/ what Hollywood “will allow,” so to speak, etc. I find it very unfortunate that Matt Damon, who apparently has even promised his production company will strive to increase diversity in film, would agree to star in yet another White Savior film. Elysium is a wonderful example of how “Hollywood wouldn’t allow” a person of color star in a movie about… people of color. The writer and director of that film (Niell Blomkamp, same person that did District 9) wrote it with a cast mostly of people of color  in mind (at least, on the good side- anyone on  actual Earth was intended to be of color, and we’re supposed to root for people on Earth, not on the space colony), and, importantly, with a central character of Hispanic ethnicity. But the Sony mucky-mucks told Blomkamp he had to cast mainstream actors (read: a white man as the lead), or they’d pull funding and support. So this put him in a tricky spot: Decline on moral principal because he wanted to tell an intersectional story about race, class, and human  rights, or keep going to tell as much of the story he still could, sacrificing most of the racial element. In the end, obviously, he went with the former, and Matt Damon ended up taking that central role, previously intended for a Hispanic man.

Now, if Matt Damon is as smart as he seems (don't let the South Park goons fool you), then why didn't he decline? I would guess because he sometimes passes himself off as an activist, and a movie with such strong political messages was something he couldn't pass up, despite how white-wash-ee it was. He and Blomkamp may have denied it, but whatever. 

So the main thing to think  about is WHY a white executive would insist on a white lead. There’s no solid and real answer, but I personally  think it has to do with institutionally racist assumptions about what “people want” in movies. These white executives, perhaps subconsciously, project their own worldview onto what everyone that may watch a movie they fund would want to see. These guys may or may not be overtly racist in their everyday lives, but if subconscious, it's more about projecting the kind of people they personally would relate to on who they assume everyone else would. In the case of Elysium, and I think in the two films under larger scrutiny here, I think it's more that the companies want big actors to attract big dollars.

But this, of course, leads to the chicken-egg conundrum. If actors of color aren't given the chance to be in big movies, they won't ever draw in the big bucks. And having a handful like Sam Jackson, Halle Berry, and Morgan Freeman isn't nearly as proportional as for white actors- again, remember the raisin bit. And even if the Chinese companies involved in The Great Wall wanted a bunch of white actors, that doesn't preclude those decisions and actions from being racist. It's institutional racism, some of the worst kind. They may be Chinese companies, but they want to make money in a capitalist system, and capitalism is inherently racist, misogynist, ableist, etc.  The actors that have already drawn in the biggest money are white, so, naturally, the executives want  mostly white actors leading the cast. It's a self-sustaining, system, a self-fulfilling prophecy, IT'S AN ADORABLE DOG CHASING ITS OWN TAIL!

But Kubo also suffers from having an entirely white production crew and executives. Kubo, in my opinion, is a bad case of backdoor cultural appropriation. It  would be one thing if they bothered to give some of the main characters Japanese actors for their voices, but they didn't. It's a bunch of white people getting together to tell a Japanese story because it's cool. I'm sure the movie has great messages and is probably  really fucking amazing, but damnit, it's frustrating as Hell that the big wigs just decided they wanted to make a movie that is "a samurai movie at heart" and talk about making their characters "feel real" and not even match the characters' ethnicities to those of the actors portraying them. It's sloppy, lazy, and depressingly exemplary of white privilege.  I'm sure they picked  the white actors for similar reasons as the people behind  The Great Wall, but at least with Great Wall, some people of color will benefit, even if it's Chinese executives; and in that case, Chinese people were involved in telling their own story. In this case,  it's a bunch of white people.

Also, while we're on cultural appropriation, there is a larger discussion about white pressure on people  of color that are involved, not necessarily the filmmakers themselves, when it comes to film making, and how white people like to use token involvement to excuse their racist garble (the involvement of Comanche in The Lone Ranger is a lovely example of that); even though I don't see any evidence any Japanese people  were involved, it's important to remember this  happens a lot, that the white people Doing a Thing will get a blessing from a token person or small group of persons of color and say all's good in da hood, and despite a large amount of people of that minority group disagreeing. 

So sayeth errbody else

But we don't have to worry about that here too much... since they didn't involve any Japanese people. 

So, the short version is that The Great Wall is offensive because it perpetuates ideas that people of color can't solve problems or be heroes; and Kubo is problematic because it's an example of cultural appropriation; while both are kind of bad because they're casting perpetuates racist norms that prevent people of color from getting jobs in the acting business. I do think the decisions in the case of The Great Wall were driven more by capitalism, while those in Kubo's case had more to do with cultural appropriation. Neither is really okay with me, and neither should still be going on in this far into the 21st Century. 

*Oh, dude, that totally should be in Urban Dictionary; I already got one thing in, but I had at least heard that before... "Internet Indignation," I just made that up.

**CHRIST is that dude's name hard to spell. I had to have the IMD page open in a second window next door the first time; the second time, I copy-pasted it. Yeesh.

**This commercial could, itself, get analyzed, but the short version is Charlize is presented as the newest "bombshell," if you will, in a long line of iconic white actresses. There is one person of color I can spot after watching it a few times in a row: A black woman that gets shoved out of the way by Theron as the actress power walks to the runway. Sigh.

Diversity in Geek Culture, Part 1: A Black Man (!?!?!)

I'm going to do a series of an as-of-now undetermined  number about diversity in Geek Culture. 

I hate how during debates over having a woman or a POC as the lead in the next comic movie franchise, dudebros end up saying they "don't want diversity for diversity's sake." It's such an oversimplification of a highly complex matter, but they're categorically dismissing a very simple solution when doing so. A knee-jerk reaction like that, without considering the merits of the proposed character, is about upholding the status quo. And as I've said before, oppression thrives on its facade of normalcy and neutrality, as its position as the "status quo." And objectively and in a vacuum, I can agree with that statement- I want quality diversity, otherwise failures will be used as examples of why it doesn't work. (I know I'm always talking about Catwoman and Elektra, but they're the pinnacle examples of that crap.)

The thing is, when I or anyone else is asking for a female lead, or a Black person, or an Hispanic person, to be the star, we aren't just asking for that. We're asking for something of quality, something that's as close to objectively "good" as any mainstream, straight white male cis thing. 

So my first big stab aimed directly at diversity is about making a Black man lead a franchise. Why? Well, I think the fanboys will take to a Black man before a white woman, and it's pragmatic to go for the easy sell first. When you consider the hierarchies in society when it comes to actual, active power, white men rule the day, but they're followed by men of color. Then it's white women, and  last, women of color. Within this hierarchy, non-straight is devalued over straightness in any category, and for reasons I don't have time to get into, trans women of color are at the VERY bottom of the totem pole. So picking a Black man is the easiest argument to make, and I've actually been sitting on this piece for a good month and I think it's time to let it out.

This isn't to say that there isn't normative value in a Black man being the star of a superhero movie/franchise. I think it's really important to include any and all people doing the saving, beating the odds, overcoming personal hardship. Importantly, though, we need stories about minorities that are about them as people, and not centered around their minority status. Tragic stories of the inner city or slavery, movies all about the queerness of the lead character, or where the entire story revolves around a disabilty... they do more to fetishize the plight and not enough to relish the humanity outside that plight. I get tired of the "look at how bad they have it" stories about marginalized people. True equal representation is when they're just part of the group, or the central character because they're the central character (not the central character because of their status). In other words, the movie shouldn't be about a "poor Black kid, struggling with racism and poverty," but "a young boy growing up in our messed up world." And I don't see why "Black" movies can't just be, y'know, movies. And this goes for any group- and it's not to say that minorities shouldn't have their own art, but rather they shouldn't NEED a "specialized" market in order to MAKE that art. Their art shouldn't be regulated to an offshoot. It's like the "go be diverse over there" problem that can arise with centers made by those in the majority, meant to serve particular cultural or ethnic needs. It's good they have a place to feel safe, but it becomes a form of de facto segregation once that becomes the only place those people can feel safe.

I guess what I'm saying is, part of the big reason to have a superhero movie star a Black man is because we need more mainstream movies starring minorities, and a Black man would do just fine for me.

So that being said, I'm going to go about this a little differently. Before I've focused mostly on characters or franchises first. This time, I'm going to start with an actor I kind of dare the fanboys to sneer and turn up their noses at.

Taye Fucking Diggs. 

That's right. I went there. And allow me to give you a list as to why I think he'd be a great lead in a comic franchise, or at least a solo film.

1) He's a solid actor. Check out his IMDB page. You prolly forgot he was in a lot of those things, but I'm going to argue that that's okay- most likely, the movies you forgot he was in were all really good and had phenomenal ensemble casts that it was easy to get lost in. Like Chicago- he did a great job there, proving he can do everything, really. Because, like another constant lead in comic movies, dude's been on Broadway. But now think about some of the more mediocre movies he's been in. Like Dylan  Dog: Dead of Night. Or Equilibrium. He steals every scene, even though the scripts he's working with are kind of terrible. It's hard to do that- I mean, I love me some Christian Bale, but in Equilibrium, I was kind of "meh" about him most of the time. But Diggs's character, my gosh, Diggs did so well, I was on the edge of my seat whenever he was onscreen, anxious to see what he'd do next. He can be funny, scary, romantic, intimidating... He's on a new show, Murder in the First on TNT that just started. In the pilot alone, he demonstrates his ability to be convincingly funny  and  sarcastic, as well as demonstrating some  pretty high-volume vulnerability. Go watch it now. (It also has Tom Felton playing, once again, a rich asshole.) I got sniffly, and it was just ONE EPISODE. He's WAY better than his  opposite, a kind of annoying (fake) blonde (go figure- that's a terrible trope to be addressed some other time).

2) He's badass. Again, that IMDB page has a few action movies on it. And he's good at that- I mean, replace this gun  with whatever power the superhero has,  and voilla!

3) Given some of the weird-ass movies he has been in, and the fact that he was able to shine in them, he'd be able to adapt to whatever wonky backstory he's presented with just fine. Again, he sells it in Equilibrium and Dylan Dog, and I'm giving  this its own category because it's a distinct thing. To do well in a story that is just plain bizzare or unrealistic, that's a different kind of acting chop, separate from being a sultry romantic lead or a funny, sensitive dude (I'm thinking of The Best Man). Sean Connery is a great actor, but you could tell he wasn't buying into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen at all- and while I'd like to think that had more to do with him being dissatisfied with how they changed Alan Moore's original comics, let's be real and admit he probably just thought the script was too ridiculous. Taye lets it go in his "weird" roles, so he'd be able to sell whatever origin story or powers the character he plays has. 

4) He's easy on the eyes. I'll just let the evidence speak for itself on this one:

Drool.

Broooooding.

Dapper.

Look at the first one in this set. Dat body, right? But think about this in terms of superhero movies. Dude's already built for it. If they'll give a hulky lead role to this guy, why not one that's already donning  the physique? One less thing to deal with in production, right?

5) Another one that may seem like repetition, but look at his smile, in those, and here's a link  to a search for it. See, I think this is actually really important- HOW can you resist that smile? And I think that would be GREAT for a dude figuring out his powers. Imagine a grin like that on the face of a dude flying or shooting energy for the first time- it'd be pure elation and infect the audience with the same joy the character, as played by Diggs, is feeling. 

6) He's done a little comic stuff already. Again, back to Dylan Dog, but he was also a voice for Black Panther once. And there have been a few times where people have kind of double-dipped- Chris Evans was in The Fantastic Four and is currently Captain America, and Sam Jackson and Scarlett Johansson were a duo in The Spirit (bet you forgot about that one- I don't blame you, it's terrible) before joining together in Iron Man 2. There's obviously no rule saying a person can't be in more than one comic movie, and I think experience in one can help with another. 

So now the question is, Who could Taye Diggs play? I can think of a few roles because they're Black men, but I don't want to make it seem like that's all I care about. Because switching a role from white to Black isn't just about diversity for diversity's sake- but it can send a positive message and be a source for more progressive attitudes about race in the media. But I think I coincidentaly have them in order from easiest-to-most-difficult to convince people about. But keep in mind, I'm listing characters I think Taye Diggs could be- not just characters I want to see in movies. 

1) Victor Stone, AKA Cyborg. 

He became most famous through Teen Titans, but the DC studios, actually listening to the fans for once (unlike in other cases), picked up on that and decided to make him a founding member of the Justice League of America when they rebooted it in the New 52. This is huge, people. Before, Martian Manhunter had been a founding member (we'll get to him in a few, don't worry). But this time around, Cyborg's origin story is a key part of JLA's founding. Cyborg is newer and more modern, and his character would be a great outlet for a lot of conflicts we have in the real world today. He's basically Robocop, right? In this upcoming Batman v. Superman movie, Dawn of Justice*, DC really missed an opportunity to set up another side-franchise by not including him (as far as we know- movie is still two gorram years away). But it's not like it'd be impossible to come up with a way for Victor to become Cyborg. But I think this character is particularly an easy sell right now because of his recent popularity. He made the cover of Injustice: Gods Among Us, over staples like Green Arrow and Aquaman, and his role in that plot is pretty important- he gets one of a handful of little semi-cut-scenes where you have to do a Thing (I rag on those in my review**, but that he has one says a lot about how DC views him as a character and his importance to the family). I think fans right now would say, "Oh yeah, that guy, he's pretty cool." 

2) John Stewart, AKA Green Lantern.

Stewart is arguably as famous as Hal Jordan's Green Lantern, at least among comic fans- I actually think I know more people that say he's their favorite, come to think of it, than Hal. And he was one of DC's first Black heroes, so why not give him his due? His origins, as Hal's backup, are a little tricky to deal with, but there are good stories about kids filling their parents' shoes all the time, setting his up like that could work- kill Hal off in the beginning ala The Comedian in Watchmen and give us some tension with John trying to become his own Lantern. There's potential for lots of drama, there. And while I really don't like the idea of his wife getting killed, there's some potential for some good romance between him and Katma as she's training him to use his Ring. Or, alternatively, work him in via the JLA- have Hal bring  him along as a helper in one movie, have Hal die somewhere in there, then give him  his  own movie. Again, another missed chance for DC/Warner Brothers, but it's not insurmountable. 

3) Martian Manhunter.

Another original  member of the JLA, people forget about this guy a lot. But he's pretty awesome- he's basically Superman Plus- he's superfast, superstrong, has laser eyes, can move himself through solid surfaces and move stuff, and can read/fuck with minds like Professor X from that other comic studio. And his alter ego, John Jones, is Black, so keep it in your pants, fanboys, no race-bending, here, aight? But seriously, he's been around since 1955 for bloody sake. MMH actually is a great response to Professor X- he's basically the JLA's in-house therapist because of his ability to understand people so well. Which of course makes him wondrously compelling, since he's, you know, a Martian. Once past the social norms, he's like a sensei or wisened uncle when it comes to the interpersonal relationships in the JLA. I love the idea of him being in his own movie where he uses those skills as a profiler for the FBI or CIA on the side- one where it's not really made entirely obvious that he isn't even human until at least 1/3 through the movie, even, so that people unaware of him will be surprised by it- blow them out of their seats because the guy who was able to talk down a suicidal person or totally read the body language of a killer was actually a friggin' Martian! A MMH movie could combine good old fashioned detective drama with the superhero spin. And while  yeah, another possible missed chance, this dude I think works the easiest by himself- let someone in his unit figure him out, sure, but I don't think he really needs other superheroes with him. 

4) Oliver Queen, AKA Green Arrow.

Yes, usually a white dude. But what does race matter? Anyone saying it's "unrealistic" for a Black man to be in charge of a company like Queen Industries is being racist- if they argue about how "it's fiction, it's in the backstory!" about bikinis and high heels for women, they can suck it up and accept a Rich Black Man; and saying it's not in his backstory for him to be Black is racist, too. Because again, the status quo itself is racist, and arguing against race-bending to improve minority representation, especially when the color of their skin is the only trait being changed, you're arguing for the status quo, one that keeps POC vastly underrepresented. I've linked this blog before, but here it is again. Shit matters.  This is what I was getting at at the beginning. Sure, it's diversity for diversity's sake, but these assholes that claim they "don't see race" then need to put their money where their mouths are and not care if a Black Man plays a white one- so suck it up and let Taye  Diggs play motherfucking Oliver Queen. He'd do the snark SO GORRAM WELL. And he'd definitely be able to pull off the Rich Partyboy By Day persona- a guy that looks like  Taye Diggs would need to do no convincing the audience that he could very easily take home three ladies at once. As for GA himself, well, Oliver Queen is one of my favorite DC characters. The arc where he loses his fortune and he becomes a legit Robin Hood is so awesome- THAT would make a great movie, where the playboy loses his money and starts helping poor people in his city. I wouldn't even really need to see a supervillain to enjoy it (but,  then again, I'm way into social justice, hence most of this blog).

5)Arthur Curry, AKA Aquaman.

Stop laughing. I mean it, stop laughing.

I've thought for ages that Aquaman deserves more respect, and legit for most of the same reasons this guy lists. If he's so pathetic, why has he lasted so long and always been involved in JLA stuff, huh!?!?!? And yes, he can talk to and control sharks- his mega-attack in Injustice is SICK (in the best of ways). And lightning with his trident- A TRIDENT, by the way. Dude's a badass even in hand-to-hand combat. And there's some precedent, since Aqualad from Young  Justice is Black. And again, sure, dude usually looks pretty gorram Aryan, but again, so what? He's from Atlantis, they could have BLUE skin for crying out loud. My idea for an Aquaman movie, one that would be easily worked in, could be something like this: Just take an example from Justice League: War and have a teaser scene at the end of Dawn of Justice in which Aquaman show up angry at the destruction the Big Battle caused on the  creatures of the ocean. And have the next movie be more about him adjusting to land-life after (in the  first ten-twenty minutes, of course) he forgives Bats, Supes, and WW for the damage. And I think as long as the writers weren't too heavy-handed with the green politics (which I think any Aquaman movie is going to have to include, at least in minor doses), it could avoid being cheesy and just be good. Fact: The CW did, in fact, try a pilot, and even though it screen-tested well, they didn't actually make the show because Reasons. Aquaman is a cooler character than he gets credit for, and a movie with Taye Diggs playing him would draw in plenty of viewers, if only out of sheer curiosity, if nothing else. 

Ok, so I know my list is all DC characters. That's because the few other Marvel characters I'm familiar with either have movies already, or are ones I plan on ranting about on their own. I already gave Black Widow a shot, after all. But if you, dear reader, know of anyone else Taye  Diggs would be great as, let me know!

*Collective groan for that title. I'm telling you, things do not bode well for this movie at all. Uuugh.

**And I actually think I need to re-visit that game, because I've come to appreciate it more recently.