![[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}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 12:31 am (UTC)From:I think this is something that everyone in this discussion should think more about. I believe that there is more cultural differences then people quite understand.
If your nation dominates culturally with movies and television, there isn't any need to think about how non-Americans think about social issues. Americans don't grow up watching foreign television.
It's just weird from my POV, I've grown up watching American television, being fed American culture, it's makes up more then 50 percent of the television I see every night on free to air. Everyone thinks that my country is little clone copy of the United States, because we happen to be a western nation with a predominant white christian population. But in so many ways, some subtle, some not so much we are a very different culture, different history, different political affiliations, different understanding of the world.
Australian fans, much like, I suspect British or European fans learn to be more bilingual with cultural issues, from watching American television we know American phrases, we know American issues, but then we live in our every day world with values, culture, phrases which are different.
American fans, well, not all of them, not all the time, have the luxury of watching television from their own nation, understanding all the in-jokes (sayings and in-jokes in Buffy which I still don't understand, although I love the show greatly). Rarely get to watch foreign television, and learn that things can be seen differently.
I'm trying not to be patronising, a lot of Americans, especially in fandom are knowlegeable about the world, a lot have travelled, but I do find a bit of a blind spot at times.
To me, from my perspective as an Australian woman, who grew up in the country, cultural difference is bigger then race, class or gender. It's a huge disservice for Americans to impose their racial, political, or historical issues on any other nation. And to assume that I, as a non-American will automatically take on values that some might say is universal, but I see as just American.
(it's like the biggest issue I have with SGA is wondering where the hell the other nationalities are on the show, other then the American and Canadians, it's supposed to be a international expedition peoples! Which part of international do you not understand *glares at writers*, but it doesn't become a huge issue in fandom because most of fandom is American).
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 02:20 am (UTC)From:Hey, as a Canadian, let me tell you that we all REJOICED to finally see a Canadian in the Stargate universe. Considering 2/5ths of SG-1's regular cast was Canadian (Shanks and Tapping) and that 4/5ths of SGA's Season 1 cast was Canadian (everybody but Flanigan), considering the show is filmed in Canada, with guest actors predominantly Canadian, considering Stargate Command is supposedly directly under NORAD, it was about damn time they gave us a Canadian character. Yay McKay!
Totally agree we need more nationalities on SGA though. Maybe some Asian military? A couple of non-white scientists?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 02:31 am (UTC)From:Totally! It's the perfect opportunity to have people from different backgrounds and races. *flails* and yet the writers so lose with this.
And also, it would be so interesting if they make the potential conflict of interest of each nation become of a storyline. There are conflicts issues between the forces in Iraq that fight together, so it's very relevant.
You can't tell me that a British servicemen loyalties would be torn between his country, and that of the command of Atlantis, which is American, civilian and military.
So much potential. *grrr*
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 05:49 am (UTC)From:That's kind of funny in the context of a discussion of Dr. Who.
it's like the biggest issue I have with SGA is wondering where the hell the other nationalities are on the show, other then the American and Canadians, it's supposed to be a international expedition peoples!
Well, not that I wouldn't mind seeing more non-Americans on the show, but of the lead characters up to mid-S3, there are two Americans (Sheppard and Weir), one Canadian (McKay), one Scot (Beckett), and two aliens (Teyla Emmagen and Ronon Dex). The two major recurring characters are an American (Lorne) and a Czech (Zelenka). We see background characters with different flags all the time. More non-American one-shot characters would be super-welcome (though there's of course the restriction that soldiers have to be Americans, which gets in the way of more non-American redshirts), but three out of eight Americans in the major cast is actually pretty respectable. Especially given that in the SG universe, Stargate command is an American institution, albeit under international oversight.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 06:06 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 04:37 pm (UTC)From:I would love for there to be more non-American recurrings, but you can understate the degree to which the characters are American, and honestly I don't think the demographic breakdown is that unlikely for a Stargate program largely controlled and funded by the U.S. Except in the sciences, but McKay monopolizes almost all the science dialogue, and of the other scientists we know well, one is, in fact, non-American (the dark horse newcomer being American Katie Brown. Don't know if we'll see more of her later).
(Gall appears to have been an American, but the scientist with a speaking role who assisted Zelenka in "Duet" was German.)
let's talk about exposure to foreign entertainment
Date: 2007-07-15 07:51 am (UTC)From:One television show, see, I'm sorry but I do find this a little funny. Come to me if you've grown up in a country where more then 60% of all television shows, and more then 80% of all dramas are foreign, where the people you see on the television and movies have different accents to the people you see everyday.
Where you get to see one or two local films produced in a year.
Where you see more teenagers portrayed in the American school system then the one you go to everyday and ask your mother why it is that you have to wear a school uniform and get chastised for pronouncing words with an American accent because it's not correct to way you learnt how to pronounce it on Beverley Hills 90210 or Degrassi Junior High. Where you know more about American Civil War from then you know about your nation's war in the Pacific.
Unless your parents only watched British television every single night I don't think you'd have any concept of where I'm coming from. I don't get to see very many Australians on my television set, even now, not counting our crap soap operas and most of the Australians who go to Hollywood have to put on American accents to play American characters with a few exceptions.
If you just want to talk about exposure to foreign entertainment, ask any non-American about their experience, actually, I think the British are lucky, they actually get to see good British dramas.
that soldiers have to be Americans
Where does it say there only has to be American soldiers?
There are foreign soldiers on Atlantis, who don't have any lines. There is presumably opportunity for them to have lines. In particular watch 'Conversion' both the soldiers standing guard outside Sheppard's quarters have foreign flags on their shoulder and in the first episode there are soldiers with foreign flags.
Re: let's talk about exposure to foreign entertainment
Date: 2007-07-15 03:34 pm (UTC)From:Re: let's talk about exposure to foreign entertainment
Date: 2007-07-15 04:23 pm (UTC)From:Come to me if you've grown up in a country where more then 60% of all television shows, and more then 80% of all dramas are foreign, where the people you see on the television and movies have different accents to the people you see everyday.
Hm. Let me try to put this in a way that doesn't suggest that I endorse American imperialism, because I don't.
I don't believe that the fact that many non-Americans know way more about American culture than Americans know about any given non-American culture has much, if anything, to do with non-Americans being particularly open-minded, interested, or curious; conversely, I don't believe that it has much to do with Americans being closed-minded, insular, or self-absorbed. I think most people are just about as culturally insular as their geopolitical circumstances allow them to be and judge by their own personal/cultural standards as much as they can get away with it.
I lived in England for about a year and a half. I expected to meet pointed remarks about U.S. foreign policy that I couldn't answer, given my own politics. Instead, I found (among some people, obviously, not all) a mindless anti-Americanism grounded in stereotypes and xenophobia. Most of the anti-Americanism I encountered in the U.S. was about as sophisticated as U.S. anti-French jokes and based upon just about as much knowledge of the culture. In England before WWI the British knew damn little about foreign cultures even while administering a vast foreign empire.
So, while I am sympathetic to the plight of peoples overwhelmed by the American sociocultural machine backed up by American economic and military power, I don't feel that non-Americans deserve particular "credit" for being more open-minded on this point. And--perhaps more to the point--a person is going to have to do more to convince me that a judgment is wrong than to tell me that it's based on a value deemed to be American. Especially when that person's remarks seem to be based on a serious misconception of English culture.
There are foreign soldiers on Atlantis, who don't have any lines.
You're absolutely right. I was way too sleepy last night posting this!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 02:55 pm (UTC)From:I'm sorry, but she's right - that was a giant cop-out.
Try this: when I went to do my first aid course, the teacher told us that she has taught classes where every single student thought the national emergency phone number was 911. That's a roomful of people more familiar with the emergency phone number of another country than that of their own.
She told this anecdote to my class after thanking us for all knowing that our emergency number is 000. No one in our group did not understand the point of her anecdote - no one there did not know what the US's emergency number is. It would be inconceivable that they did not.
I also know what the UK's emergency number is, 999.
There are people here in actual emergencies ringing the US number, not the Australian number.
Even the Australian national broadcaster, the ABC, doesn't broadcast exclusively Australian content. It couldn't. (It shows a lot of British stuff.)
National law requires our television stations to show a minimum of 10% of Australian content. Try to imagine American TV if up to 90% of it was *not* USian.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 08:47 am (UTC)From:It kind of seems to me like this conflicts with what other people were saying earlier in the discussion, though.
Some people are saying "It doesn't matter that British tv shows are reproducing racial stereotypes most commonly found in American literature and film, because the issues are different over here."
But, as you point out, American pop culture has infiltrated many other countries, and many people of other nationalities have become familiar with American issues, culture, values, history, etc.
I don't see it as "imposing American values" on other cultures to point out that RTD is using a cliche which has become a really common stereotype in films, books and tv *that RTD would have been exposed to*. I'd feel the same way about an American movie that used a racist cliche with its origins in British history-- like the way a lot of modern war films hearken back to films like "Zulu."
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 02:27 pm (UTC)From:I think there's room for both.
I mean, I agree entirely with you and
But I also, well, sympathise with anyone calling USians on cultural imperialism, even though this isn't the moment I'd have chosen. And "we're talking about Doctor Who!" is *not* a get-out-of-cultural-imperialism-free card (yeah, I know that was Hth, not you, Livia.) Not for the population that has its own translation of Harry Potter published alongside the British English version. (Do not underestimate how much that one example grates for an Australian, New Zealander, or a Canadian - we're expected to know two different sets of spelling *on top of our own*. In primary school (aka elementary school.) In the case of the Kiwis, they're fed Australian entertainment and literature as well as the UK and US stuff, all on top of their own. Resentment is unavoidable.)
I mean, there's something uncomfortable about how so often it's the USians choosing the critical model even when we're talking about racism and imperialism. It's not your fault, it's just... yeah.
I don't know about "most commonly found in America", either - I haven't done a point for point comparison, and I'm not the right person to do one. But I think "that *I've* most often found in American film and literature" would probably be safer.
I'd feel the same way about an American movie that used a racist cliche with its origins in British history-- like the way a lot of modern war films hearken back to films like "Zulu."
Yes, certainly, but with the exception that it's the US, not the UK, that's culturally dominant right now.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 02:41 pm (UTC)From:Wait, that was Sarah T, not Hth. *facepalm*
no subject
Date: 2007-07-15 11:17 pm (UTC)From:I don't know about "most commonly found in America", either - I haven't done a point for point comparison, and I'm not the right person to do one. But I think "that *I've* most often found in American film and literature" would probably be safer.
But that's what *other* people are arguing-- that's the whole point that I'm trying to respond to, that "XYZ isn't insensitive because that's not a *British* cliche, it's an American cliche." Well, okay, but even if I actually do agree with the argument that XYZ *is* a specifically American cliche, that still wouldn't make it completely acceptable and totally not offensive, is what I'm saying. Not unless you're actually arguing that nobody from Europe could possibly be influenced by American popular culture. (And I know *you're* not arguing that, but sometimes that's what the "cultural imperialism!" argument sounds like to me. "What?? You're saying that American films and tv often feature offensive stereotypes of ethnic groups? How could we possibly know that! We're all the way over here on the other side of the ocean! It's unimaginably offensive of you to assume that people in Europe might have been exposed at some point in their life to American films, books or tv!" Etc.)
History delivery for Ms liviapenn :-)
Date: 2007-07-16 12:20 am (UTC)From:"Mary Jane Seacole was an exceptional woman by anyone's standards. She was born in 1805 in Kingston, Jamaica, the daughter of a Scottish soldier and a free mulatto Jamaican woman. Mary - often described as a 'black Florence Nightingale' - made her way to England where she offered her services to the war office but was refused four times. Nevertheless, Mary assembled a stock of medical supplies and went to the Crimea under her own steam - how many of us would do that? She ministered to the sick and dying in terrible conditions, oblivious to the fact that her own life was in danger. She was a formidable woman and, from all accounts, an excellent nurse.
Since that time black nurses have played a big role in ensuring patients receive a high quality service. In the late 1950s and early 1960s the so-called 'Windrush' bought many Caribbean people to England, many of them going on to work in our hospitals as porters and domestics, with many more also working as nursing auxiliaries, supporting qualified nurses in their duties.
The contribution of black nurses to the NHS is enormous and should not be underestimated. Today 14 per cent of the NHS workforce of 1.5 million comes from a BME background - no fewer than 210,000 members of staff. There is recognition at senior levels in the Department of Health that BME staff are under-represented at top management levels."