![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I think I'll quote somebody out of context, because that's always worked really well for me in the past.
Saying "black characters are written too broadly in New Who, making them resemble stereotypes" rather ignores the fact that white characters are treated the same way.
Look. This is the problem with trying to raise white people on Sesame Street in order to cure racism: you get a generation of white people who think it's to their credit that they hold everyone to the same standard, and run around operating like the world is one big, happy block party -- people who think they're complementing themselves when they say they're "colorblind."
BLIND is not a moral positive. BLIND is an inability to perceive what the non-blind people around you can clearly fucking see. My grandfather was red/green colorblind. His family also had a strawberry farm. His father used to beat him for not obeying instructions to pick only the RED strawberries and leave the GREEN ones on the bush.
Now, I'm not recommending regular beatings for the colorblind. That wasn't a nice thing to do (my great-grandfather was not a nice person in general, for oh so many reasons). But the thing is, my grandfather's colorblindness? Was a problem, because there is actually such a thing as color when it comes to strawberries, and it's easier to work on a strawberry farm when you can see it.
And there is actually such a thing as race. If you can't see it, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors. There are cases where you can give the EXACT SAME script/character arc/iconography/etc. to a white performer and to a performer of color, and the overall effect WILL BE DIFFERENT. Race is real. People respond to it, often on levels they aren't entirely aware of. So it actually misses the whole entire point of discussing race and racism if your sole defense is "but we're just treating them the exact same way we treat white characters!" It may be true, or it may not be true, but either way it's singularly useless.
Some fans seem to find gender easier to understand than race, so think of it this way: if there's a character that isn't very bright but always uses sexuality to manipulate other people, does it make a difference if that character is a man or a woman? Isn't it more of a stereotype in one case than in the other? And if some writer or producer said, "Oh, it's not sexist -- this is just what we were going to do, and we thought we might hire a male actor, but we went with a woman instead, so we kept the same stuff!" that doesn't magically make her not a sexist cliche, does it? If they'd cast a man, the character would read one way; when they do cast a woman, it reads differently. Same character. Different, because of the baggage we bring surrounding gender. If you were somehow magically oblivious to any and all gender issues, you might not notice that. But you wouldn't thereby be a better person than the rest of us. You'd just be oblivious.
Unfortunately, in our culture, we are conditioned to see white people as Real People, and black people as sort of thin slices of people, operating in one of a very few available modes and with only a very few emotions and interests. Therefore it's just different to write a white character "broadly" versus a black character. It's not enough to write the black character "just like" all your white characters, because race is not invisible to most of us and it doesn't have no consequences. In order to challenge people's already racist assumptions about black characters, writers have to work that much harder, and they have to work not blind. They have to work with their eyes open and their brains engaged and with the awareness of subtle signals and context and connotation that anyone who writes for a living should damn well be conversant with. To do less than that is to write lazily, to write foolishly, to write contemptuously of one's characters and one's craft, and to do all that because you can't or won't go the extra mile to bring race into the universe of stuff that factors into your writing does, in fact, have racist implications.
"Colorblindness" may be one's reason for making all of those mistakes, but it isn't an excuse, and it doesn't magically make the product impervious from criticism. Be less blind.
Saying "black characters are written too broadly in New Who, making them resemble stereotypes" rather ignores the fact that white characters are treated the same way.
Look. This is the problem with trying to raise white people on Sesame Street in order to cure racism: you get a generation of white people who think it's to their credit that they hold everyone to the same standard, and run around operating like the world is one big, happy block party -- people who think they're complementing themselves when they say they're "colorblind."
BLIND is not a moral positive. BLIND is an inability to perceive what the non-blind people around you can clearly fucking see. My grandfather was red/green colorblind. His family also had a strawberry farm. His father used to beat him for not obeying instructions to pick only the RED strawberries and leave the GREEN ones on the bush.
Now, I'm not recommending regular beatings for the colorblind. That wasn't a nice thing to do (my great-grandfather was not a nice person in general, for oh so many reasons). But the thing is, my grandfather's colorblindness? Was a problem, because there is actually such a thing as color when it comes to strawberries, and it's easier to work on a strawberry farm when you can see it.
And there is actually such a thing as race. If you can't see it, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors. There are cases where you can give the EXACT SAME script/character arc/iconography/etc. to a white performer and to a performer of color, and the overall effect WILL BE DIFFERENT. Race is real. People respond to it, often on levels they aren't entirely aware of. So it actually misses the whole entire point of discussing race and racism if your sole defense is "but we're just treating them the exact same way we treat white characters!" It may be true, or it may not be true, but either way it's singularly useless.
Some fans seem to find gender easier to understand than race, so think of it this way: if there's a character that isn't very bright but always uses sexuality to manipulate other people, does it make a difference if that character is a man or a woman? Isn't it more of a stereotype in one case than in the other? And if some writer or producer said, "Oh, it's not sexist -- this is just what we were going to do, and we thought we might hire a male actor, but we went with a woman instead, so we kept the same stuff!" that doesn't magically make her not a sexist cliche, does it? If they'd cast a man, the character would read one way; when they do cast a woman, it reads differently. Same character. Different, because of the baggage we bring surrounding gender. If you were somehow magically oblivious to any and all gender issues, you might not notice that. But you wouldn't thereby be a better person than the rest of us. You'd just be oblivious.
Unfortunately, in our culture, we are conditioned to see white people as Real People, and black people as sort of thin slices of people, operating in one of a very few available modes and with only a very few emotions and interests. Therefore it's just different to write a white character "broadly" versus a black character. It's not enough to write the black character "just like" all your white characters, because race is not invisible to most of us and it doesn't have no consequences. In order to challenge people's already racist assumptions about black characters, writers have to work that much harder, and they have to work not blind. They have to work with their eyes open and their brains engaged and with the awareness of subtle signals and context and connotation that anyone who writes for a living should damn well be conversant with. To do less than that is to write lazily, to write foolishly, to write contemptuously of one's characters and one's craft, and to do all that because you can't or won't go the extra mile to bring race into the universe of stuff that factors into your writing does, in fact, have racist implications.
"Colorblindness" may be one's reason for making all of those mistakes, but it isn't an excuse, and it doesn't magically make the product impervious from criticism. Be less blind.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-13 05:55 pm (UTC)From:In season two, we were introduced to hunter Gordon Walker, FBI Agent Henricksen, and the young soldier Jake, all played by black actors.
Was the casting insensitive? Racist? I don't think so, because the characters aren't simplistic; they are not "bad guys."
We cannot judge Gordon yet. Gordon could be right about Sam. Yeah, Gordon might be a little too fond of his work, but so is Dean (and probably the hunter majority).
Henricksen being black is a stroke of casting genius. When we learn he believes the Winchesters are backwoods survivalist types, possibly white supremacists, his pursuit of them takes on an extra dimension. His zeal makes total sense. His expression and voice when he finds a young black man he believes Sam and Dean killed says it all.
When Jake is threatened with a bleak economic future, it's far more of a threat because he's black. What chance does a young black man with a dishonorable discharge have of making a living? His choice to protect his family makes sense for his character; it's not "evil."
There is nothing innately villainous about any of the three characters. Their conflict with the Winchesters is brought about by circumstances, not evil intentions. They have depth because they have valid reasons, completely independent of the Winchesters, for what they do. So I think the casting decisions were good ones.
Also: I heartily hope Gordon Walker escapes from prison soon. :D
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-13 10:23 pm (UTC)From:Maybe I'm missing the part where this has much of anything to do with what Hth said, but...
I think it makes more sense to think of characters less in terms of good or evil, and more in terms of whether they're admirable or not admirable. Henricksen is an admirable character (apart from some slight bullying of the lawyer in "Folsom Prison Blues.") I'd love to see him go through a Jean Valjean sort of arc with the Winchesters.
Jake and Gordon, on the other hand, are non-admirable characters; vengeful, cowardly, vicious. I can't imagine a plot where Gordon comes back where he doesn't end up dying at the end. Gordon is clearly psychotic; he kills his own sister, which within the family-centric narrative of SPN clearly marks him as a bad guy. And Jake literally stabs Sam in the back and runs away in the *first* half of the two-part finale-- *before* the demon threatens his family in the second half.
Like I started to say in my first comment to hth's post, this is just the unfortunate side effect of a show where the leads are heterosexual white males; either there's no diversity in the show at all, or else the non-straight, non-white, non-male characters get to play the evil, dead or plot-device characters. And there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that, *if*-- well, put it this way. Of course there's nothing *inherently* wrong with having heterosexual white males as leads of one particular show... as long as heterosexual white males aren't the leads on *every* show.
Unfortunately in terms of sci-fi and fantasy, we have only taken a few teeny, tiny steps away from that place, meaning that more often than not, non-straight-white-male characters are all too often relegated to these stereotyped roles.
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-13 11:57 pm (UTC)From:Gordon represents who Dean could still become, because Gordon has made the decision Dean has yet to make. Gordon killed his sister because she had become a monster, and he paid for it by losing everything. Dean may have to make the same choice; it is definitely a possibility in the story arc. I don't see Gordon as psychotic, not at all. In season three, I expect we will see many more hunters in pursuit of Sammy, and from their point of view it will be the right thing to do. The end of season two left us in serious doubt about what Sam is or what he may become.
What it has to do with Hth post: I'm assuming that, when casting decisions are made, the producers consider how an actor's race may affect the role. In Gordon's case, the part could have been played by an actor of any race, because the tensions were extremely personal: Gordon as a substitute father, Gordon and his parallels to Dean. They needed an actor with charisma [so he could effectively persuade Dean] and Sterling Brown fit the bill admirably, regardless of his race.
For Agent Henricksen, they needed someone who can convince us he can outmaneuver Sam and Dean. The part also could have been played by an actor of any race; I don't think Charles Malik Whitfield's being black was a factor in his getting the role. I believe he thought of using the white supremacist angle to make Henricksen more 3-D; I doubt it was written that way. Interestingly, some do not see him as admirable at all, but as a buffoonish bad guy, and they look forward to his smackdown. I really hope the show doesn't go that way; I dream of writing a BDS/SPN crossover with Smecker and Henricksen in collusion. *g*
Jake is complex. We know he's a soldier, and that he has seen horrible things in combat. When he is transported by the demon to the battleground, he's going from one war to another. When he attacks Sam for the first time, he's already been visited by the demon and been told he must kill or be killed. I don't view his attack on Sam as cowardly; it's what any soldier would do to survive. We know Jake tries to hang onto his goodness/humanity, because, even after Jake attacks Sam, Jake still tries to kill the demon. Is it fair to see Jake as evil because he made a deal with a demon to protect his family, when both John and Dean have done the same?
It's extremely interesting that people perceive the characters in so many ways, particularly Henricksen. It suggests perhaps the roles of Gordon, Henricksen, and Jake aren't broad stereotypes, if we can view them in such different lights. I don't seen them as evil or plot-device characters.
But obviously meaty roles like Henricksen and Gordon don't make up for the fact that the vast majority of TV shows have white male leads. It's one of the reasons I watch so little TV and stick to films instead.
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-14 03:54 am (UTC)From:No, I don't think it did, really.
What it has to do with Hth post: I'm assuming that, when casting decisions are made, the producers consider how an actor's race may affect the role.
Maybe I've just read more interviews with clueless PTB than you have, but I think that in a *lot* of cases, that's a really generous assumption, even when it comes to PTB like Joss who may be really progressive in other areas besides race. Besides, we're not just talking about specific roles, but about patterns, patterns that are bigger than even individual shows.
I don't view his attack on Sam as cowardly; it's what any soldier would do to survive.
He stabs Sam *in the back* and runs away. If the show was trying to portray him as honorable, they could have done better than that. I don't think he's an entirely unsympathetic character, but I also don't think he's meant to be particularly heroic.
Is it fair to see Jake as evil because he made a deal with a demon to protect his family, when both John and Dean have done the same?
First off, I didn't say he was evil, I said he wasn't admirable.
Second, comparing Jake's deal with the demon to John and Dean's is apples and oranges. John and Dean both offered to sacrifice *their own lives* in order to save a loved one. Self-sacrifice is generally regarded as noble.
Jake's deal with a demon involved murdering *Sam* in order to save his own life and gain power. Understandable, given the circumstances he found himself in, but not exactly heroic.
It's extremely interesting that people perceive the characters in so many ways, particularly Henricksen. It suggests perhaps the roles of Gordon, Henricksen, and Jake aren't broad stereotypes, if we can view them in such different lights.
I might agree with this argument if I hadn't seen plenty of people-- not just in fandom-- defending the most stupid arguments imaginable, with the worst logic imaginable, with a clear motive to deny or obscure obvious facts. I mean, remember when everyone was in denial about Willow being a lesbian? Remember when everyone was in denial about Willow being *Jewish*? Sometimes people really, really don't *want* to see what's right in front of their faces.
There are also a lot of people who will argue out of ignorance, because "everybody knows" (insert completely wrong fact here.) An example from DW fandom: there's an episode where they travel back to Depression-era New York and meet a black WWI veteran. I saw people decrying that character as the stupidest tokenism and "political correctness" imaginable, because of course, as *everybody* knows, there *were* no black WWI veterans. Oh wait... (http://noise.typepad.com/photoblog/2007/01/a_history_lesse.html). Similarly, there were complaints about the total historical innacuracy of having one or two black extras in the background at King Louis XV's court, and *why* did the casting people have to be so stupid, and oh wait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevalier_de_Saint-Georges), wrong again.
I'm not saying *you're* ignorant or in denial, but I also really don't think it's accurate *at all* to say "Well, *you* say it's a stereotype, but there are people in fandom who disagree, therefore it must be a nuanced and well-rounded portrayal." You can find people in fandom who'll still argue that Buffy deserved to be raped, or that it's just random coincidence that there are no Hispanics in Joss Whedon's LA and no Asians in his Fireflyverse, or that the portrayal of the cannibals in POTC was historically accurate (hint, it wasn't.) You can find people in fandom who'll argue all sorts of things. Doesn't mean I automatically give their opinions any credence.
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-15 07:51 am (UTC)From:Unfortunately, in our culture, we are conditioned to see white people as Real People, and black people as sort of thin slices of people, operating in one of a very few available modes and with only a very few emotions and interests. Therefore it's just different to write a white character "broadly" versus a black character. It's not enough to write the black character "just like" all your white characters, because race is not invisible to most of us and it doesn't have no consequences. In order to challenge people's already racist assumptions about black characters, writers have to work that much harder, and they have to work not blind.
I applied that to discussion I've heard in the SPN fandom: is SPN casting [too many] black actors in broad stereotypical villain roles? In the case of Gordon, Henricksen, and Jake, I think the answer is no. By discussions in fandom, by the way, I meant personal discussions I’ve had with fannish friends, not with random people at TwoP or elsewhere. Generally, my fan friends do not defend the stupidest arguments imaginable, and I take their opinions seriously, even if I do not agree with them.
I do not see Hth equate "bad guy" with "broad, stereotypical role" in her post. I do not equate them; the villain can be a better-nuanced role than that of the hero, so a black actor playing a bad guy is not automatically undesirable, except when it blatantly reinforces an American racist stereotype, such as casting black actors as petty criminals.
Neither of us know why CW hired Brown, Whitfield, and Hodge; we can be sure, however, they did not do it with eyes wide open. They were squinting through a haze of profit and expediency.
CW makes casting decisions based on many factors. Actors who have appeared on previous WB/CW shows have an edge. So do Canadians, thanks to the Vancouver location. No doubt there are the usual favors owed, budget constraints, and scheduling conflicts. The time CW spends thinking about the race of an actor probably consists of "Will we get angry letters?" and no more. That, however, should not be discounted. TV execs may be ignorant, but they know plenty about what pushes the public’s buttons. Button pushing is their business.
Still, they are going to do what is expedient, and what sells. I expect little from the entertainment industry; it’s one of the reasons I like to make my own entertainment. TV especially relies on broad characterization. A 40-minute weekly drama will use narrative shortcuts, including stereotypes. When the CW cast an overweight actor as Ronald in Nightshifter, I'm sure they did it intentionally, making use of American prejudice.
[continued]
continued
Date: 2007-07-15 07:52 am (UTC)From:When I saw Shaft at a theatre, however, I was not thinking, "This is the birth of black cinema, and will create a pool of talent on both sides of the camera that will reward us for decades to come." I was angry. Five years after Nichelle Nichols broke new ground as Uhura, black exploitation films felt like a step back, no matter how many creepy white guys Pam Grier blew away.
I’m not arguing we cannot criticize popular entertainment, and I’m not excusing the shoddy job Hollywood so frequently does, but I do not believe the entertainment industry can be reformed through normal pressures [letter-writing campaigns, consumer boycotts].
When Hollywood began to put black actors in leading roles, it was because they realized they could make piles of money off of superstars such as Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy.
The discussion here now centers on the nature of American racism, and how confusing it is. American racism is not confusing once you've learned it has always had an economic purpose. African Americans were once held in bondage. Now, they are "last hired, first fired," a race color cast segregated at the bottom of the US economy. One of the best books I've read on this is Toni Morrison's Playing In The Dark. Racism keeps the working class divided and more easily exploited, and the high unemployment rate for black American men keeps wages low. Because racism is part of our economy, part of our society's fabric, ridding ourselves of it can only be done by replacing our capitalist economy with socialism -- a third American revolution, the civil war being the second. This might seem an extreme approach to eliminating racist stereotypes in the media, but it would have other benefits as well. ;)
Fanfiction, however, exists outside of the economy, so Hth's urging writers to open their eyes and not to "write lazily, to write foolishly, to write contemptuously of one's characters and one's craft," is something I embrace.
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-15 05:29 am (UTC)From:Actually, I'm fairly sure that killing someone *on your own side* at the bidding of the *enemy* just to try to save your own life is the kind of behavior that gets soldiers court-martialed, even executed.
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-15 07:04 am (UTC)From:Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-15 02:02 pm (UTC)From:Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-15 04:30 pm (UTC)From:But if you don't care to think of it that way, then Jake deliberately and directly killed a friendly civilian in an attempt to save his own life. That is not something "any soldier" would do, because it would be a crime.
They were in a very difficult situation, but Jake's behavior was not in accordance with the code he was taught.
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-14 11:50 pm (UTC)From:The issue I have with the black characters is not that they're all overealous/against Winchesters, but that outside of 1.13 they all seem to have similar professions and personalities. An FBI Agent, a security guard (2.12), an ex-marine (2.09) and a soldier (Jake). All law-enforcement or military (and even Gordon is arguably somewhere in that spectrum as a hunter). Those that we know much about have firm beliefs and are willing to go to great lengths to do what they think is right. And they're all great characters, but in a show with so few black characters it just seemed odd to me that they all fit into that general mold.
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-15 01:39 am (UTC)From:Gordon and Henricksen represent the non-Supernatural forces arrayed against the Winchesters: other hunters and the law. Will Sam and Dean need their support to defeat the demon army? I don't see how they can triumph otherwise. No matter how "smart, dangerous, and expertly trained" Dean and Sam are, they cannot succeed fighting on three fronts.
Wasn't the ex-Marine in 2.09 Sam and Dean's ally after initial macho posturing on both sides?
I wonder if Jake represents Sam's future. We've heard from Ava and Jake that Sam could be much more powerful if he "embraces his destiny," so I'm assuming it's an important plot point. In season three, will Sam have to chose between exercising his powers, with the consequence of possibly turning evil, vs. losing the war against the demons? That would be a wonderful angsty mess: Sam going "darkside" to defeat the demons. I'm exploring that in fanfiction during the hiatus.
There are discussions going on in comments here about the differences between American and British racism. Both countries were involved in the Atlantic slave trade, but American slavery was extremely different.
First, millions of Africans were brought to the Americas; only a few thousand went to Britain. In consequence, African slaves were never a crucial part of the economy on British soil. Because there were so many African slaves in the Americas, they were brutally suppressed. Rebellions still took place frequently, sometimes successfully [Haiti -- I have a friend who named his son Toussaint :D ].
Also, slavery in the US was "chattel" slavery, meaning the children of slaves were slaves, in perpetuity, while in Britain slavery took a form closer to indentured servitude.
In the US, four million people died in a civil war to end the economic system of slavery; in Britain, it was ended through legal action.
But, most crucially, after US slavery ended, white supremacist groups used violence and murder to intimidate and suppress black Americans. It wasn't until post-World War II that the situation changed. Black Americans who served in that war returned determined to be treated equally under the law. They formed self-defense units to protect themselves from groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
While Britain has its share of racism, it would be difficult to find a country where it took a more violent and brutal form than the United States. And so we get Henricksen's zeal!
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-09-03 04:19 pm (UTC)From:I though Gordon and Jake were problematic. With Gordon, he's the first Black hunter we meet and also the first morally ambiguous hunter we meet. Even when the nailed the moral ambiguity better in "Hunted" than they did in "Bloodlust", it still made me uneasy. Because we don't meet any other Black hunters. Because he's the first morally ambiguous hunter we meet. And why aren't there? Why were white actors cast as Dean and Sam and Bobby and every other good guy hunter we meet?
I think the writers tried with Jake. He does start out as this young guy who's just way in over his head, but there's a clear moment at the gate to hell where Jake "goes ebil" that undermines the initial characterization. In the end, the writers couldn't maintain the balance.