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.

Quantifying Identity- "It Only Takes One Generation"

Story Time:

At a gathering for graduate students in a local bar, the inevitable, icky question of funding came up with people I was meeting for the first time from other departments. My roommie and I explained how ours worked, and part of this involved discussing the nature of graduate fellowships. I clarified that most  of our fellowship students are on one of two that last five years each, while I was a unique case with my two-year-master's-diversity one. Another guy said he was on a Ph.D. fellowship for diversity  because he's Hispanic. I said I'm Native American. He squinted his eyes and asked me, skeptically, "How Native American?"

"Wait, what?" I asked.

"How Native American are you?"

I stared, slack-jawed. Some other gals at the table started to say something like, "Now hang on, it's not like I get asked, 'How woman are you?' and I say, 'Uuuuuh, 98%!'"

"Well," he went on, entirely unphased, "I ask because there was this girl at my undergrad that's 1/32 Cherokee and had a full ride for it. I mean, the girl was as white as white can be, but she claimed this random, distant relative, and got free college, it seemed really unfair."

How cute.

I knew exactly what he was doing- implying that since I'm pale with dirty-blonde hair,  I must be a total poser, milking the system unfairly, etc.

So I puffed up and said, "You want to test how Native American I am? My grandpa was beaten by a priest for speaking Lakota at school, that's how Native American I am."

(Granted, it was actually my great uncle, but I was pissed- same generation, at least.)

"What?" he asked, confused. I repeated and he asked, "I'm sorry, speaking what?"

"Luh-coe-tuh, you know, my tribe's language?"

"Oooh, LAKOTA!" he said, as if he just now got it. 

"YES!" I said, "Lakota. Sioux, Oglala Lakota Sioux, like Crazy Horse?"

"Yeah..." he said, but his eyes squinted again. "So your grandpa?"

"Uh-huh?"

"Was beaten?"

"Uh-huh?"

"For speaking Lakota?"

"Yeah, exactly, so don't you dare go implying I have no connections to-"

"Well," he interrupted with, "so you got the diversity fellowship, that's great. Mine was a doctoral one, so it was for academic merit and diversity."

So we went from implying I'm "not Native enough" to having no actual academic credentials because I am "Native enough" in a few seconds. 

Now, this dude would prolly have gone off the rails if I asked "how Hispanic" he was. And would have thrown the table at me if I suggested he didn't deserve his fellowship because the only real reason he had one was because  he's a minority. But I'm not that kind of person. So I refrained.

I kind of wish I hadn't.

The above conversation is one indigenous persons in this country have over and over again, even if they have darker skin than I do. It comes in different forms and in different contexts- it could be from institutions testing their credentials; from non-indigenous persons they meet; or even from other indigenous persons themselves. This comes down to blood quantum.

Remember how that guy said, "...1/32 Cherokee..."? I'm sure you've heard people talk of their heritage that way before- "I'm 1/2 Irish." "I'm half Muggle." You know, as a way to highlight whatever portion of their heritage they wish to highlight.

With indigenous ancestry, there's an entirely different connotation.

Blood quantum is the shorthand way of saying "Amount of Native American blood in a person needed in order to 'count' as Native American." Blood quantum laws were set by the federal government and then adopted and modified by individual Nations as a means of controlling tribal membership and rosters. The federal government doesn't mind it, and there are always fights about it in Indian Country. Because yeah, resources are limited, so there needs to be a way of figuring out whose claims of ancestry are "legit" and whose aren't. But at the same time, there are so many problems with it, it's rather deplorable. But nobody can really come up with anything else. So it doesn't change.*

Why is it problematic? Well, remember how I said that guy would have flipped his shit if I had questioned his authenticity? Yeah, that doesn't really happen to any other ethnic/racial minority. It stemmed from cause to discriminate, oh sure, but the opposite happened with Blacks with the "one drop" rule, and now it stands as a means of affirmative action-esque policies. No other minority group has to provide government documentation in order to proclaim that as their identity. None. Period. Nor do they have to pass a gorram background/blood check. I think this is something  that gets taken for granted by other minorities. And I don't think anyone asking, "How Native are you?" (because again, we get asked this all. the. time.) intends to bring this  baggage up, but by invoking the question, they do. And coming from a white person, it feels like, "Fuck you, it's your ancestor's fault you'd even feel the need to ask that." When it comes from a minority, it feels like, "And I bet you've never had to answer the same question, have you? Must be  nice." Even if they  mean well, as if they  just genuinely are curious, blood quantum is an underlying, unspoken  presence in the conversation. And other people just do not understand this. The authenticity  of claims of indigenous heritage is brought into question daily by the government. And that leads to general questions from everyday people, like  that guy in the bar.

Another reason is you have to prove it through documentation of your lineage. So if there's a missing spot on the family tree, PRESTO! go home, you don't count. Have a nice day. It's really easy to get kicked off the roster because of some bureaucratic error, rather than because you actually are not qualified. 

Another reason it's problematic is the rules themselves keep changing. A few years ago, for example, the Cherokee Nation declared it would no longer allow people descended from slaves to count. A whole huge group of people were taken off of the Cherokee roster as a result. And yes, there are economic issues to consider, and they claimed they were doing so in order to keep resources in the hands of people whose blood ran Cherokee, but the Freedmen are descendants of people immersed and bred within the Cherokee Nation's culture. What the Cherokee did itself isn't my main concern, though, but rather why. The fact is, they were having trouble with their rosters and dealing with blood quantum, and kicking some people  off the dole made that easier to do. And other tribes change their rules all the time as their resources shrink and as their lands are encroached on more. Never mind whether those people getting kicked off identify in their heart of hearts as that tribe- it's the bottom line taking precedent over some people because others are suffering.

And that relates to the next reason it's problematic. Again, the rules began with the federal government. And it's entirely colonialist for a government to tell the people it has conquered the rules for identifying as part of that group. The tribes carried those rules over because they didn't have any other model to go off of- legal documentation to prove status? Entirely foreign to indigenous peoples in North America. I don't know how other tribes work, but I know back when this shit was made into law, my people, the Lakota, would accept you if you wanted and earned it. There was no document to sign, you just had to prove you lived Lakota, loved Lakota, breathed Lakota, and would die Lakota. The document thing may sound easier, but it's not- it's a lot more exclusionary to say a person's blood has to be pure enough than to say their heart does. And again, the government doesn't set these rules for any other group, so the only people whose cultures are being defined all have brown skin and have been sequestered onto Reservations.

The main reason this is problematic, though, is that it's an institutionalized, bureaucratized form of modern genocide. 

Think about it.

If a person has to pass a threshold of "Indianness" in their blood before being allowed to claim it as their identity, it's only a matter of time before Native Americans will die off. Even if we keep "breeding" with each other, the way the blood quantum laws are so finnicky with some tribes, if you're a mix of enough stuff, even if it's more Native stuff than white, if you can't claim enough of one tribe's blood, you're out. I'm not into inbreeding, and we shouldn't have to resort to that sort of thing in order to retain the "purity" of our blood just so that the government will be happy. I see no reason why mixed bloods shouldn't count, so long as they believe it in their hearts.

My mom has a saying, "It only takes one generation." Hers was the first generation to grow up off-res on her dad's side. And she is 100% city girl as a result. In one generation, the language, the skills, the culture- pretty much gone in her family.  I have more "Native heritage" than her because I learned how to do things like start a fire and grow vegetables from my friends and "family" out in Washington- and they're white. Her sister and one of my cousins are sort of going back to their roots, so to speak (I think my cousin is trying to learn Lakota, and she works on the res now), but the only way for my cousin's kids to officially count would be for her to marry someone with HELLA more Native blood than she has- and her fiance isn't at all Native American, so that's not happening. So she can immerse herself and her family on the res all she wants, the government isn't going to give two shits unless she bangs a Real Live Indian.

"Why should you let the government decide? If you want to be Indian, be Indian!" you say. Again, I point you to the uniqueness of blood quantum laws. They do not exist for anyone else. So the government has already said our identities need to be codified and quantified, ours and ours alone. There's no blood test to be American- but there's a test to be Native American. Which is pretty fucking ironic, given all of the ridiculously hypocritical nativism arguments being spouted by white people afraid the Mexicans are going to ruin the country. You want  Homeland  Security to secure your borders, do you?

I think that image is pretty telling- notice how those Apache warriors have guns? That's escalation. It shows how we aren't dying off, we're adapting. 

And I say all this as someone that doesn't "count." I'm 1/16 Lakota; that's not enough. My mom's generation is the first to be raised off-res, but the last to make blood quantum.

"It only takes one generation." 

With the birth of me and my siblings and cousins came pretty much the death of the Lakota line  in my family. Unless by some miracle  I meet a nice guy that happens to be Lakota- because call me selfish, but I'm   having enough trouble with men as it is, so I'm not about to limit my search to Lakota men.

But  as resources shrink, as demands increase, blood quantum laws are going to get stricter and stricter. And there may be some ridiculous reversal where they all of a sudden get really loosey-goosey, but in all honesty, I don't think  a swing like that would work. I think there are too few of us left for it to make a lasting difference. And anyway, individual tribes would  have to disappear. Hell, they kind of already  are.

But.

We are not dead yet.  And  yeah, Indian Schools stopped running  a while back, the last being Stewart Indian School, closed in 1986. So our culture isn't technically illegal  any more.  But legacies  of direct violence such as war, rape, and forced removal, as well as indirect violence, such as discrimination and  blood quantum, are doing their job, and I worry that within a few more generations, there won't be enough of us left to hold onto our lands, to keep our cultures alive. 

I wonder what I'm going to tell my children. And it frightens me, and it saddens me, and I mourn for the identity they won't really be able to have. Because how can I tell them they're Native when they're two generations away  from "counting" and every signal they get from the entire United States culture is telling them that? How can I tell them they're Lakota when I already have asshats like the one in the bar going after me? When they're prolly going to look whiter than I do?

It's prolly a good thing I'm single and am nowhere near having my own kids  yet, otherwise I'd have to more seriously think of this shit, and I'd prolly have a huge meltdown.

I get angry when people ask "how" Native American I am.  And I get hurt. And  I'm not really sure how to end this, except to ask anyone reading to think next time they start to ask somebody claiming Native ancestry "how much" that ancestry is. Because it's bad enough we live with the knowledge we're being measured by the government  every day. It's bad enough we know there are government-sanctioned practices acting as the norm today that are gradually killing us off. 

We don't need you reminding  us. 


*I realized after writing this I was almost uncannily channeling this gentleman here, so I figured I should give credit where subliminal credit is due. 

"Washington's Football Team"- Why 'Slate' is Awesome

I'm just going to lead with the punchline: Words matter, and choosing what and how you say whatever you're trying to say can unwittingly encourage discourses of oppression and marginalization. 

So Slate ran a piece today, announcing they'll no longer refer to the Washington Redskins  as the Redskins, but rather say things like, "Washington's NFL team" and the whatnot. I'm kind of glad their editor suggested they  replace "Redskins" with  "Griffons," too- that's actually something I've thought of in passing a few times, and brought up with people in person (that, you know, didn't see what the big deal is or were more focused on the fact that it probably won't change any time soon, so why think about future names, than even the possibility of a change) (yeah, assholes).

It's prolly no surprise I'd be totally into this idea from Slate, of simply refusing to use "Redskins" (unless quoting something else of necessity). Refraining from using negative language is just as important as calling out and naming forms of subordination. Doing either is the opposite of sitting on your arse. 

And I think that, like the editor says, the meanings we give to things change over time. So while sure, "Redskins" may have been nonoffensive back in the day, the term is offensive now. And  even though the logo hasn't been too caricature-ee, the use of the imagery is still a form of cultural appropriation, something else I've written about before.  I get more upset by seeing this  guy than Washington's logo, even though the name of the team is less offensive in and of itself. 

How, White man! Me Cleveland  Indian,
love baseball heap big  much!

And it has  never been very good for this mascot, either. While "redskin" is indeed more offensive  than "Indian," I still don't really dig this all that much. The Atlanta  Braves have also been kinda  shady before, and I could go on and on and on...

My point, though, is that using a "tribute" to indigenous peoples  as the name  of a sports team isn't a straight-forward thing. There are reasons for changing them and reasons not to. And I won't go into all of them.  

But I will say that allowing a racial slur to continue to be the name of a professional football team for this long is deplorable on the part of the franchise itself. And Slate has the right idea in defying the team's owner. By demonstrating the power of  words, even if not also blocking the imagery of the indigenous guy the  team uses, Slate is making a statement about power and hegemony. And while yeah, I'd be even happier if, somehow, Daniel Snyder came around and decided to change the name, I'm at least glad Slate is being proactive in going against the status quo. In my perfect world, there would be no more Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks, or any other team with indigenous iconography or name.

And let tell you a brief story. I once had a dude defend the Cleveland Indians chieftan dude up there to me by tossing the Minnesota Vikings at me.  In case you don't know, here's the mascot logo:

The guy said that if the Indians logo is offensive, so is this one.

Really?

Yes, really, because it's appropriating the heritage of lots of people and using a caricature of it for media purposes, so said this guy.

Bull fucking shit. 

The most basic refutational argument is that white dudes are in charge of the NFL, so that's their thing. And the white people that get all excited about the team and its mascot and iconography are, very likely, getting  excited of a celebration of their own culture. If white people want to make fun of themselves, that's their business. It's not appropriation if you're caricaturing your own damn culture- and the WASPS in charge of the NFL are descendant (some, at least) of the Anglo-Saxons. But the face in the Indians logo is of a person of color, as well as the name of the team itself, and those, too, were selected by white dudes. And it's mostly white people that are okay  with it- if you look carefully at those Wiki articles, you'll see various polling results, and when it's a poll aimed at Indian Country, the results are against Indigenous iconography for sports teams; and even when it's a general poll, indigenous sports mascots may have approval of a majority, but  it's a very small one. Barely over half. I think that says a lot.  

Which makes me think the two main reasons for the resistance to change are the resistance to change in  itself that institutions get stuck in, as well as the fact that these are all, essentially, businesses, and  short-term economic interests always trump long-term ones when a corporation or business is involved.

"Tradition, blah blah blah." Slavery was a tradition. Stoning was (and still is, in some places) a tradition. Marital rape was (and still is) a tradition. Sure, tradition can sometimes be fun. But it's also a tool for oppression. And even if that's not the goal, oppression can often be  an unintentional  outcome.  As a collective, we're so afraid of change, we freak the fuck out whenever it gets proposed. And if we think about NFL franchises like bureaucracies (which, yeah, they kinda are), you'll notice the only people that really seem to change things are the players themselves- it's why you see the same old campaigning and ads, and the same old defensive and offensive strategies, even when execs and coaches rotate and change out. There's a reason they  say, "That's a real Chargers offense!" or, "That's a perfect example of a Bears defense!" The linking verb is "a," not "the," and that means they're being general, as if the thing being discussed is an example of a plurality, not an individual. As if that thing can has copies out there. 

And "it's too expensive".... Really? I place claims it'd be to expensive to change mascots in the same category I do ones that it'd be too expensive to provide accommodation for disability- one of false claims. Yes, I recognize there may be a large up-front cost, but in the long-run, it wouldn't matter. And a huge, reputable franchise like a sports team would  get investors easily that would help pay for a revamping of the label. The problem with paying for a brand change is it would probably mean lightening the bonuses of the execs in charge, and that's the last thing they'd agree to do. 

And I guess, ultimately, I hate excuses about costs because I hate how capitalism is an exacerbator and enabler of oppressive and selfish desires in people. Like with the whitewashing I've discussed, or the isms, since it makes a profit, it's the status quo, and Heaven forbid we try to change the quo's status.

While Slate prolly won't be able to change  the logo or iconography, I'm glad they're taking the initiative to not use "redskin" whenever possible. And as the article says, they aren't the first to make that choice about D.C.'s team. As an NFL fan, I hope this means something to other NFL fans. It's bad enough the NFL thinks I and other persons of my sex are terrorists; it'd be nice if they stopped objectifying my heritage, too. If more media outlets took a stand like this, perhaps D.C.'s franchise will change, and others in different sports (and their fellow Chiefs) along with it. 

Tonto: A New Hope (?)

I know I just ranted about Johnny Depp's portrayal of Tonto in The Lone Ranger, but some  new info has come to my  attention, and I would like to speculate on what it could potentially mean for Indian Country and the future of indigenous people in the U.S. I'll put some "citations" at the bottom of the piece, but I'm going to mostly rant about this because it's pretty gorram personal for me.

So to backtrack a bit, I need to do my own overview of Depp in order to set the stage, here.

Over a year ago, the Comanche Nation made him an honorary member. Somewhere along the line, he started making vague references to having Native American ancestry in statements such as this: 

"The interesting thing, if you find out you've got Native American blood, which a lot of people do, is you think about where it comes from and go back and read the great books... you have to think, somewhere along the line, I'm the product of some horrific rape. You just have that little sliver in your chemical makeup."

This is kind of more than a little problematic for me- he's basing his assumption off of the fact that his family is from areas where the violence against Native American women occurred in the past. This becomes clearer through statements such as:

"I guess I have some Native American [in me] somewhere down the line. My great grandmother was quite a bit of Native American, she grew up Cherokee or maybe Creek Indian. Makes sense in terms of coming from Kentucky, which is rife with Cherokee and Creek."

So yeah. His white ancestors are from an area with a lot of indigenous people, so obviously he's Native, too, right? If he can't even say what tribe he's affiliated with, it's pretty damn hard to take that seriously. Maybe I'm being indigenously elitist (which in itself sounds slightly ironic, eh?), but it sounds more like the "Cherokee" claim (and, actually, pretty much is, given Cherokee is one of the tribes he thinks he may  be decended  from)- "Oh, yeah, I have Cherokee!" Every other person claims to have Cherokee. Bullshit, it's not like Oprah is going around granting Cherokee heritage to everybody.

I had to; I'm already going to burn in the firey recesses of Hell, so I may
as well have some fun on the way, amirite? But I still have to be
grammatically correct, even when making memes... Sigh.

So okay, vague association with some tribe back in the day because of a rape. Awesome.

Move forward a bit to the character design of Tonto. Without delving into the details too much, he was blatantly honest about how a specific painting inspired him. But the painter is open about how he deliberately avoids historical and contextual accuracy- he literally just paints whatever stereotypes pop into his head at the time out of a fetishized notion of all indigenous people and peoples being "more connected with the earth" and all that hippie bullshit. And of course, dude's white. Not to say white people can't be respectful and portray indigenous culture in ways that aren't offensive, but all he does is paint stereotypes- and he admits it openly, so I'm not stretching this at all, here. 

Anyway, since the inspiration piece was built off of a hodgepodge of stereotypes, it's no surprise the end result of Tonto would be a hodgepodge, too. And it was. Ignoring the hideous paint and the riggoddamndiculous crow on his head, different parts of his outfit are either generic "Native-esque" things (like the random feathers hanging off of him), or they're from specific tribal cultures that have been forced onto the body of one man (the chest plate thing is Sioux, the headband thing southwestern, etc.).

Oh yeah, and there's the Tonto Talk, too.

So then it's no surprise he'd get a lot of poo-poos and fingerpointings. 

Well, I found out this morning that he's expressed interest in buying  the land on which the Wounded Knee massacre in of December 29, 1890, as well as the 1973 protest on and near the site took place. The current owner put it on the market for a few million dollars a while back, and it seems the deadline passed in May. But now Depp has said he wants to buy it and return it back to the Sioux Nation. Here's the main quote I've seen floating around about it:

"It's very sacred ground and many atrocities were committed against the Sioux there. And in the 1970s here was a stand-off between the Feds and the people who should own that land. This historical land is so important to the Sioux culture and all I want to do is buy it and give it back. Why doesn't the government do that?"

It's hard to tell exactly what's going on with Depp himself, since he's kind of vague and says that he's trying his best to make it happen or something, and also because he and his people aren't responding to anyone's inquiries. It's somewhat complicated by the fact that apparently there are some other donors elsewhere that have been talking to the owner about buying the land and doing the same thing with it, as in giving it back to the Sioux. 

There are mixed opinions, of course. The Sioux have been trying to get the land back via the courts, since it does come down to a legal, territorial thing, and they shouldn't have to buy back the lands they were forcibly relocated to in the first place. At the same time, the president of the Oglala Sioux has said he loves the idea. There are some tribal members that don't want the land bought back at all, though, because it's messed up for the white dude that owns it right now to  make a bunch of money off of its sale. There are others that don't really care, as long as the Sioux get the land back and can then erect the right monuments and museums to educate visitors about the history of what happened there and such.

So now, my position.

While I'd prefer that no white dude make a profit off of Wounded Knee going back to the control of my people, I realize that's probably a pipe dream. Since the history of the foundation of this country is the original exploitation of the tribes (and that this exploitation has never ceased), I find it highly unlikely that the Oglala will prevail in the courts. So acquiring it by any means necessary, given the fucked up system we're in, will just have to be the way to go. And since the Sioux Nation is so fucking poor, why not make a dude that sort of made a mockery of all Native American tribes in a summer blockbuster foot the bill?

As for Depp himself, I'm trying to see this as an earnest gesture in the face of what he did with Tonto. I agree entirely with people accusing him of making a PR move- but I like to see it as a public  move stemming from sincere regret and apology for the offensive nature of his version of Tonto. I don't know if he'll ever say, flat-out, "I'm sorry for Tonto," but if this is his way  of doing so, that's totally fine with me. Plus, if my tribe can get something out of his fuckup, then yay.

I also like to view this as the beginning of a genuine search for verification of the Native ancestry he says he has. And as it's highly unlikely he'll actually have all that much Native American blood in his body, if any, perhaps it will also lead to him realizing how fucked up the whole "blood quantum" thing is in the first place. It's entirely messed up that a person like me with relatives  living on the Rez in South Dakota can't legally claim to be Native American. And there's a saying, something like, "The government only  quantifies three things by blood: dogs, horses, and  Indians."

Yeah.

So maybe, and this is my highly optimistic, probably not-gonna-happen optimistic hope... Maybe in realizing he doesn't "count," and that probably multiple generations back, his line stopped "counting," Depp will get angry enough  about the whole concept of "blood quantum" and  become an advocate against it.

Now I realize there are logistical and pragmatic reasons for it in terms of who the tribes can and cannot afford to take care of, but  along with the optimistic hope that Depp will advocate, I also have this naive, self-righteous belief that the government should do a better job  of helping the tribes. Infrastructure, education, health care facilities, rehabilitative centers- tribes need assistance building themselves up. If the tribes had enough resources, they'd be able to embrace more people with legitimate ancestry connecting them. 

I guess my point is, I want things to get better for all indigenous people, and that my hope is this gesture on the part of Johnny Depp, if it actually leads to something real, could help start a trend in the gradual restoration of the dignity and autonomy of the tribes of the U.S. 

Comprehensive "sources"

Native Appropriations. This specific article deconstructs Tonto pretty rigorously, but it also has links to the rest of her coverage of Depp's little journey with the role. Her own sources are legit, it seems, so if you just skim over her stuff, you'll see I'm not pulling my summarizations of what's been going on with respect to Tonto or Depp's heritage out of my ass. 

This article is pretty comprehensive for all the necessary info about Depp buying Wounded Knee, but here, here, and here are some other sources. 

'Star Trek: Into Darkness' (No, NOT 'Star Trek 2')- Natives and Federations Done and Doing Wrong

I'm nitpicky, so good God, man, don't call it Star Trek 2. THIS is Star Trek 2. Kthx...

SPOILERS  FOR 'STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS'

Obligatory image for thumbnail purposes

I figure I may as well follow the trend and  do some analysis of 'Into Darkness,' but  let me preclude it with the fact that I haven't listened to any podcasts or read any reviews or analyses save  the two I'll link to soon. And this isn't a review, it's an analysis. There's a difference. 

A good friend/fellow nerd and I were talking about the movie the night it came out (we're devoted and both saw it as soon as we could, given our constraints with  grad school). Here's a link to her review. (AND READ HER BLOG SHE'S MADE OF AWESOME)

So we discussed most of what she brings up together. Overall, though, the problems I care most about are succinctly thus: 

• An opening sequence relying on stereotypes of primitive indigenous people.
• An iconic character that was formerly intended, portrayed, and described in film/ television as a person of color being portrayed by a white actor, with that backstory conveniently left out.
• Cryogenicly freezing a group of (alleged) criminals. 
• A power structure that revolves around peace and non-violence producing large quantities of war machinery.

I want to focus on the indigenous stereotyping, as well as what I see as some pretty dodgy practices on the part of the Federation in the movie. And I want to lastly go into a brief comparison to Iron Man 3. But first, for a lovely and eloquent discussion of the whitewashing of Kahn, do read this piece from Racebending.com by Marissa Sammy:

Star Trek: Into Whiteness. 

So as Amanda  said, the opening scene is something straight out of Indiana Jones or any other adventure/explorer movie where our hero is, for some  reason, chased by angry  natives; like with Dr. Jones, Kirk  and Bones are holding a sacred object that the locals worshiped for some reason. And their reason for stealing it, like with various explorer movies, is one of imposed preservation- in order for them to "play God" (the words of Admiral Pike) and stop a volcano from erupting all over the people, they need to distract those people. Why? Because they're operating within the confines of the Prime Directive, wherein societies without technology are in no way to interact with peoples or pieces of technology from societies in the post-warp-drive era. Also, like other adventure/explorer movies, the  people  on this planet appear to be barely "civilized,"- we don't even really see any dwellings, they're barely  clothed (and barefoot), use spikes and  rocks, and  their language probably  sounds like  what  the Germanic people sounded like  to the Romans (which is to say, "Bar-bar-bar-bar," hence the word "barbarian"). 

I think this goes further than some other movies, though. At the end, once the people on this planet see the Enterprise, they immediately go from worshiping the thing Kirk stole to worshiping the ship- the last shot of these people is of one drawing in the sand an image of the Enterprise with a staff, while everyone else is genuflecting around him, their gestures aimed at what he's drawing. The problem with their reaction, from a Star Fleet officer's perspective, is exactly why the Prime Directive exists. 

But really, this speaks to broader, white cultural narratives in which persons of color are labeled as less (or entirely not) civilized and less (or again, entirely not) intelligent as whites.

The way the conversation with Pike goes suggests that the Prime Directive was agreed to, in part, to prevent the very  thing that happened- a culture being changed because it encounters something else. The assumption, then, on the part of the Federation, is that every non-technological civilization encountering Federation technology will do what these people did. So they're assuming that the civilization in question would be unable to discern that there is an organism-made object in front of them, not a celestial/immortal/whatever being that needs to be added to a pantheon of deities already being worshiped (or replace one or any). So sure, you could say the Federation  was right, even justified, since here's a case where what they attempted to prevent happened- but it's highly racist/speciest/whatever to assume your own is so awesome that it'll "convert" anybody else that's, essentially, naive/gullible/dumb enough to believe you. And it also suggests an underlying assumption that any society without the technology on its own wouldn't be able to handle it. The reasons for this, of course, could be varied, but there's an unstated assumption of incapability for pre-warp (read: Other) civilizations, and thus implicit suggestions of (moral) superiority on the part of post-warp civilizations (read: Self). 

But then, the fact that the filmmakers chose to show those people as that gullible is problematic, too. Sure, it's kind  of funny to see them bowing to a sand sketch of the Enterprise. And yeah, given the constraints of the film with respect to length and such, it's no surprise we watched an instantaneous, rather than gradual, incorporation of the iconography of a Star Fleet vessel into their culture. But this follows a huge trend in vast numbers movies depicting indigenous peoples as "backwards," dangerous, and easily duped: It only took a few minutes and one sighting of the thing, and their  entire worship system is altered. So often, protagonists are mis-perceived  by other species/ cultures/ entities as gods or muses or something, either through coincidence or deliberate manipulation- they become "living versions" of gods (Pirates of the Caribbean 2, The Road to El Dorado, Doctor Who).* And then, quite often, the hero(es) are supposed to be offered as some sort of sacrifice or eaten by the indigenous people. So lack of technology equates stupidity or savagery, oftentimes  both.

The turn to cannibalism, I assume, is a leftover from the stereotype that any person of color is dangerous, and especially persons of color that are indigenous to a given area in which white people are becoming  acquainted. This  isn't an example of the Noble Savage, but I sort of feel like the latter was a hyper-reactionary to critiques for the former; yet the inherent desire to view anything one can consider Other as scary, dangerous, threatening- it leads to somewhat indirect references to that fear. Rather than have the tribe/people show up with weapons in-hand and yelling incoherantly and making whooping battle sounds, they instead adorn the hero with flowers and feed them lots of yummy food while making gentle cooing noises (and women  usually wink suggestively at him if he's a he). So okay, Into Darkness doesn't resort to cannibalism, but the older stereotype of incoherent babbling and throwing rocks is pretty fucking obvious, here.

And while we're on the subject of sounds, I mentioned above that the "tribe" in the beginning of Into Darkness makes lots of somewhat disjointed-to-the-western-human-ear sounds, suggestive of lack of any actual grammatical structure. I highly doubt J.J. Abrams and his helpers actually took the time to come up with  a true language for those people, but alongside the rest, it's suggestive  of the  idea that language equals thought, which goes hand-in-hand with the gullibility/stupidity thing. If they were smarter, their  language would sound nicer, and we'd be under the impression it would make sense if we learned it, that it would have "rules" and the like. Again, if  they sound  different  enough, they must be unintelligent. So you get shit like  terribly broken English and stuff like the scene with  the "Indians" in Peter Pan ("Squa getum firewood!") (which is called Tonto Talk). These people are so stupid, they can't come up with something we'd constitute a "language structure." And if they were to try to speak our language, they'd do poorly at it.

But back to violence.. I'm not going to go into a huge history lesson, but look at American pop culture over time. Old Westerns thrived on the "cowboys v. Indians" narrative (that  would every so often contain a token individual Native that was able to communicate and would sometimes ally themselves with the cowboy(s)) (Tonto, of course, of The Lone Ranger). These narratives are a result  of American jingoism and the manifest destiny bullshit that led to the conquering of North America by white colonialists in the first place. And when I say "conquering of North America," I mean the conquering of her original people, not the land. So of course the indigenous are, sooner or later, going to start fighting back- but then, of course, they're perceived as the bad ones, the violent ones, because after all, it's our God Given Right to have this land, aye? Oh but wait, we're nice to the ones that learn our ways, so it's not like we're in the wrong!

Ugh.

Anyhoo, so, point, opening scene uses a lot of negative tropes and stereotypes about indigenous populations (while granted, in a scifi setting) in order to give us some comic  relief (and an excuse for Kirk and Spock to be in different areas of the room during the attack on all the captains and first officers). I'll admit, it was rather humorous, but really, now, this is the 21st century, and Abrams is supposed to be advanced. Instead, he's using primitive storytelling tools to do what more sophisticated writers would poo poo.

(See wut ah did thar?)

Small point now. They're mostly naked, covered in colored mud, and their tools are all run-of-the-mill tribal bullshit- rocks and sticks and spears. You can  harp on me about how those are quintessential "primitive" tools, but let's not forget these are supposed to be aliens on a different planet- why the hell must we assume the way human tools developed is the exact same way every single other sentient species would have theirs develop, too? I don't buy that "natural evolution of tools" argument. And taken into context, given all the other stereotypes, it just fits- I find it highly unlikely the producers/writers would have sat down and given the tools so much thought if they didn't think about, like, anything else.

Lastly, I'd like to bring up the reason the Enterprise crew  was there in the first place. Okay, sure, the race would have died without their help, but... well... that's kind of the point. They're helpless without the Good Guys swooping in and saving the day. It's a vague example of Mighty Whitey, but  more closely resembles the all-too-famous, post-colonial White Man's Burden. No, the the tribe isn't being taken away from their homeland, but they're still portrayed as helpless without the Enterprise crew. And the suggestion is that they need to change and  be more like the  Federation, otherwise they'll die (which fits better with the Wiki page  for the poem that inspired the name  of the trope- I was just sticking with TV Tropes because that site is fucking  awesome; the idea that it's up to the white people to save the colored people from themselves is rampant in cultural discourses, popular and academic alike) because they won't have the technology they "need" in order to survive on their own planet- as if the Federation knows best. 

Why is all of this problematic? Because indigenous cultures and peoples are still too often portrayed in fetishistic and devalued ways, that's why. It being sci-fi and these being a different species is entirely beside the point, too, so don't bother trying to throw that out at me. In fact, I'd argue the alien aspect makes it worse, because the people there are entirely fictionalized, yet  their entire portrayal makes them look stupid, savage, and helpless. And the producers didn't even bother to try to give them any distinct physical characteristics differentiating them from humans- they couldn't have given them, I don't know, tails or something? They may as well have been humans- they were shown no differently than humans, down to their physicality.

I imagine if you asked this person if it was racist, they'd say yes and laugh at you for asking.

Now, for the Federation itself. What the fuck?

As I said above, the Federation does a couple things that are pretty gorram shady, either as part of discovered backstory or described as taking place over the course of the film. The two kind of weave together, though, so I'll just talk about them inerchangably, because they  amount to at least one similar conclusion: 

The Federation is a bunch of hypocrites.

At least in JJ Abrams's world.

See, the Prime Directive, and thus the Federation itself,  is  all about non-intervention, peace, and  discovery. Yet they wake up a guy that Admiral Marcus claims  had been frozen for being basically a genocidal conqueror. Marcus's other decisions aside, I actually see no reason not to believe him about that, so then why would the Federation see getting the perspective of Kahn or any of his fellow super-humans as a good  idea?

But wait a second, they were frozen. And get re-frozen.

I think this freezing thing is a really convenient way for the Federation to get around its "no death penalty" policy. But why can't they  just store them in prison cells and try the rehabilitative practices they use instead of the death penalty on anyone else? We aren't told whether or not this was ever even attempted- and if the goal of the Federation is peace, they should try and try again at it, regardless of how many times it failed in the past. They shouldn't give up on rehabilitation. But instead, they  do. But since they can't technically kill them, they mostly do- because honest, how different is being frozen from being actually dead? They retain brain function, ,but that's it. TECHNICALLY, they aren't dead, but what kind of life  do they  have? None of any normative value. 

This may come as a surprise  to anyone  that knows me personally and happens to be reading this, but I honestly don't consider a vegetative state to be meaningful. Sure, it's life, but life and meaning share a space on a venn diagram- they aren't mutually exclusive, but I don't think they entirely overlap, either. Now, if a person is born with a cognitive disability, or experiences something that causes their mind to regress, that's different. Natural or un-intentional circumstances are one thing, and yes, the rights, autonomy, and humanity of those persons should never, ever, ever be disregarded or devalued; at the same time, quality of life must be taken into consideration, so while I'd never choose to pull the plug on someone that didn't say for me to, I've told myriad close friends and family members that if I ever get in an accident and, after being revived, need life support and am entirely unresponsive, etc., to jjust let me go.

But being forced into a state like that, be it by getting frozen, or through some other (likely horrific) circumstance (lobotomies, anyone?) is entirely different. So an institution such  as the Federation, one that professes the preservation of life and sentience, could then deprive a whole group of people (72, to be exact, right? I guess 73 if you count Kahn himself) of their sentience. It's not quite genocide, but only because of what comes down to, basically semantics. They're getting away with mass murder on a technicality, when their very accusation against these people is just that, mass murder.

This is why Kahn is actually pretty easily sympathizable (aw yeah making up words!). We know what  the Federation is doing is fucked up- but the thing is, this actually, I think, is meant to apply more to the militarization aspect than the freezing one.

Which is bollocks.

The militaritarization aspect goes hand-in-hand with this freezing thing, because it represents the Federation's arrogant stance for other peoples to take , which is basically, "Do as we say, not as we do." It's cool for the  Federation to have hugeass nukes, because other, more dangerous people do, too, and they're Bad. It's cool for the Federation to essentially kill a bunch of people,  but not someone else.

Sound familiar?

'Murica, FUCK YEAH.

I don't know if this parallel was intended or not, nor whether if it was made on purpose, if it was also meant to be a critique of this imperialist jingoism that's so prominent in the U.S.

Part of the ambiguity (intentional or not) comes from us conveniently not knowing just how much Marcus was acting on his own. He certainly presents himself as Federation-sanctioned, and that in itself is problematic. Even if the Federation didn't approve his actions, though, I think the assumption that they would have is enough to label the  Federation as a group of imperialist assholes. 

But to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, I know from experience that it's often really hard to fight if you're operating under a different set of rules than your opponent(s). If the Federation refuses to have weaponry, any member societies will be extremely vulnerable to societies with more violent desires. So defensive measures are, you could say, entirely necessary. Of course, the limitation, then, is that they should never strike first. And framing the Klingons for blowing up the Enterprise unprovoked is definitely manufacturing a first strike on the part of someone else. 

I guess my point about the Federation, though, is that for all its self-aggrandizing philosophical dogma it projects and that thus comes out of the mouths of some of its members (ahem, Spock), there's a lot of hypocrisy and selective following of its own rules that forms a very intrinsic part of its operation. And that, my friends, parallels the way current imperialism and militarism are justified in our real world right now.

Finally, I promised some Iron Man 3 comparisons. Both movies obviously get at a lot of hypermilitarisation and state-sanctioned violent themes (although I don't really address those when analyzing Iron Man 3, as a commenter was ever so kind as to point out). But one thing both share in common is this whitewashing thing. The  Mandarin was portrayed by Ben Kingsley at first- which in itself is ish, since he played Ghandi before and does have at least some connection to persons of color; but  then he actually ends up being Guy Pierce, who is, as I put to a friend in person yesterday, "less not-white than Ben Kingsley." 

That's two major blockbusters in a month that did the secret-whitewashing thing that Marissa Sammy talks about in the article I linked up above, and she even brings Iron Man 3 up, too. And that's a serious problem. And while there could be some truth to the argument that Cumberbatch may being in lots of money, that's actually the problem- the bottom line is the main concern. And anybody  that knows me knows I'm a Cumberbitch. But for crying out loud, Abrams produced Lost, a show featuring this hunk of manmeat, goes by the name of Naveen Andrews:

I'm the first to demand Benny have my babies,
but Naveen Andrews... boy does he get my
ladybits a-goin'. 

And okay, I know I'm being silly, but honestly, apart from how fucking gorgeous he is. Andrews is a fantastic actor. The way he played Sayid in Lost was heart-wrenching, believable, insanely badass (one example of about a hundred from the series), and entirely on-par with anything Benedict has done in the past. And as riveting and badass as Cumberbatch was, I genuinely think Naveen Andrews could have done just as well. I'm kind of disgusted with Abrams for not having a person of Indian descent play Kahn, especially when he has access to Naveen. Shame on you, JJ. Shame on you. 

So disclaimer, since I know now I'm gonna get poo-pooed. As I said, this isn't a review, it's a critical analysis. I thought it was a pretty fun action flick. Was it a good Star Trek movie? Eh, not really, and far less so than the last one. But that discussion would be another entry... 

*A movie  I love that totally fucks with all of these tropes and more is Stargate. That movie is a gem. I could rewatch it weekly.