On the matter of Racism and PotC:DMC

[permetaform]

You.

Yes, you.

You realize, right, that you are racist?

You realize, right, that it is perfectly okay that you are racist? So long as there's some awareness/sensitivity to the matter? That one of the worst things you can ever do is protest, "There is not a racist bone in my body?"

Also?

Ya'll do realize that Johnny Depp is not white? (not completely?)

Ya'll do realize that generalizations are not the same as stereotypes, and that pirates were stereotyped in both movies?

Ya'll do realize that, yes, both PotC's are, inherently, racist?

And that that's okay? That you are still allowed to enjoy the movie?

First, lets get something out of the way. Yes, the fact that the "black" people died (or had a small speaking role...and then died) is racist. The thing with the hanging balls of bones with the cackling part of the crew being predominantly black, and then dying, is racist because of "omg the treachery of black people and they cackle and point and race to get ahead of us, but then they die and all is well". Which, y'know, is a comment paralleling the same fears that people have towards immigrants, "omg they're taking our jobs/money/women!" etc. etc.

But, and here's a thing that seems awful and yet kinda cool and amusing as I watch it happen, why is no one seeing Johnny Depp's race?

He is not white, in fact he's part Cherokee.

And?

I look chinese, I act chinese, and parts of me *are* the chinese stereotype. And yet I have germanic blood in me and I've been white-washed by American culture. So does it count?

One of my friends is half-Hawaiian and half-black and she was raised by a white father and a chinese mother. She is labeled as black. Is it true?

And more, from this post by runefallstar.

Specifically, in her post:

I'm the oldest of two daughters. Two girls who look a whole lot more like our Zapotec indian mother than we do like our tall skinny white surfer guy father. We grew up in a neighborhood where we were the only non-white folk on our street.

Bear and I are smart kids. We both did well in school, played sports and took part in the arts, even got into good colleges -- Bear having done much better than I did, getting to turn down Yale of all places -- and yet, even now, people seem surprised by my articulateness. They want to know the college that I graduated from (go Kenyon) and how I came to have the skills I have (sheer good fortune) and can not seem to connect my visible ethnicity with any of either of these things.

Until they discover that my father is white.

Johnny Depp, who's probably playing an indeterminate interracial bastard child of x, y, and z, is "made king" and appetizer for a mixed group of indeterminate interracial cannibals.

...If anything, I think cannibals should be pissed that *they* are being stereotyped.

And here's the thing too, pirates were also stereotyped in the movie. Uptight English folk were also stereotyped in the movie. But guess what, people don't *see* it because either they can't see it or because they're assuming that the traits being displayed are *positive*.

Okay, to display this concept in perhaps a more familiar setting?

Why is Jack's constant flirting acceptable, and Tia Dalma's not? She didn't even perv over that many people, just the pretty blacksmith.

Why is her sexuality a problem for people, and yet Elizabeth's is not?

Why are black generalization and global descriptions (stereotypes) inherently bad, while white generalities and global descriptions (stereotypes) are inherently good?

_{It's like saying that feminine characteristics are inherently bad (being gentle/sensitive/prettyboy) and that masculine characteristics are inherently good (being strong/stoic/muscled). And actually, some of the conversations remind me of parallel conversations about feminism held by second-wave femi-nazi's.}

And I'm speaking this as a person watching these conversations about a "potentially racist" movie worried that they're "potentially racist".

It's okay, yes you are racist. Yes, that's a supposed "flaw" in your character.

But the larger flaw is if you don't realize you are racist, because also? Human beings are hard-wired to make generalizations, because it's how you learn, it's inherent to the logical process. A generalization is a hypothesis that may or may not be true; but it helps you get towards truth, because otherwise you're utterly rudderless in a sea of unsorted information.

Where a generalization becomes a stereotype is when you stop realizing it is a generalization. When the hypothesis automatically becomes the conclusion, you have a problem.

Otherwise, you're okay. Savvy?

One more thing:

That scene at the end? With the people holding the candles above the water?

Attempt to imagine that with white people. Does it not give you the impression of fundie christians or goths?

What I don't think a lot of people who're raised in Western/Westernized cultures realize is how much spirituality isn't part of the mainstream culture. It's looked down upon, it's marginalized.

But once you hit non-Western cultures? runefallstar will get into this more in her post from the Mexican side of things and from various things from her paper. But I know for a fact that spirituality is rampant in mainstream chinese culture. People still go to herbal medicine doctors, people still believe (honestly believe) in ghosts, people still believe in fengshui and paths of energy (chi), and there's still altars to the dead tucked into hidden nooks of most buildings.

And yes, you *can* call this superstition and throw it away. But look at what it *is*, look at it's roots. Look at perhaps even your own almost instinctive reaction that it's "primitive" and "illogical". Superstition is based on this belief in an "other", a "beyond", a forces in heaven and earth that is not based on your (westernized) philosophy. And frankly, while most white mainstream cultures have spirituality in the context of organized religion, it does not often spill over into the daily life.

So yes, I thought that that scene with the people standing in the water was very effective. It felt spiritual to me, and heartbreaking because they're holding a wake for Jack Sparrow without his body. They're doing it half submerged in the water that may somewhere touch Jack, and the element that he's of and most comfortable with.

To have it be multinational? Or to have it be predominately white? Would have been ridiculous.


And now I'm done. I'll be pointing out runefallstar's post on this matter once she get's it up, but I just had to first get that out.

I'm not saying that these conversations shouldn't happen. But I'm just pointing out that some of the thought patterns displayed by these conversations? Are just a wee bit ridiculous. XD Don't worry, I still love ya'll tho.


[edit] fannyfae with more comments on the ceremony:

"In fact, it is a fairly common African (yes, AFRICAN) spiritual practice, that goes all the way back to the to Ancient Egypt and Nubia. The ancestors or akhu don't die or to equate it with the Westernized notions, cease to exist. In traditional African faiths, the akhu go to a different place. The waters represent the Waters of Creation, the Primordial Nun - from where we all sprang."

[edit2] additional feminist-type thought from me in this context: "And I'm all wondering, are they not calling Elizabeth on the flirting because she's all skinny and virginal? Is it a Britney Spears thing where she can be sexy if she's nominally pre-pubescent and relatively POWERLESS? Like, once women have power, their sexuality becomes dangerous?"

[edit3] adina_atl from here:

I recognized even as I was laughing my ass off that the cannibal part was racist, but it never even occurred to me to question Tia Dalma, mostly because I recognized Santeria/Voudoun and respect them as valid religions. It would be like objecting to depictions of Roman Catholicism in a vampire movies because they shows how superstitious and "primitive" the RCs are, with all-powerful magical crucifixes, holy water, and communion wafers.

To object to the portrayal of Santeria/Voudoun (unless the objecter has enough familiarity with them to declare that they've been portrayed inaccurately) is to say that they are inherently disgraceful, not valid religions. Besides, in the context of POTC, Tia Dalma (and by extension her culture and religion) was RIGHT.

[edit4] phiremangston points out as a non-Carib viewer that:

I admit that when I watched the cannibals part, it bothered me a little. I was worried about how they would be represented. That is, until we heard Gibbs' explanation for why Jack was in the position he was. I never viewed them as "primitive", or even as aggressive. I didn't even necessarily view them as cannibals, in the traditional sense of the word. I saw them as a group of religious people. As Christians take bread and wine as representation of the eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of his blood, other religions do not do this metaphorically. The "cannibals" saw Jack as a human form of their god, and, as Gibbs said, they wanted to release him from his human form. By ingesting the human form of their god, they feel as though they have been blessed by the god in thanks. That's just how I saw it. They were used as the comic relief, certainly; however, a lot of others were, too. Jack, Will, and Norrington's swordfight was comic relief. Elizabeth, Pintel, and Ragetti flailing around with the chest was comic relief. Almost everything Jack does is comic relief, frankly.

I didn't think that the representation of the tribe was negatively stereotypical, especially since the writers (through Gibbs) clearly gave the audience a sympathetic reason for why they did what they were doing. They were doing it out of the belief that what they were doing was the right thing.

***In my mind, the tribe was shown as being the only people in the movie who were completely selfless and weren't out to accomplish things for themselves.

Most people would assume that the tribe was looking out for themselves. With a single line, we are told otherwise.

I think that that was a very clever thing for the writers to slip in.

HOWEVER, there has been protests about the portrayal of...and here's where it gets tricky. Did Disney portray Caribs as cannibals? Or cannibals as Caribs? Or cannibals as Cannibals? I, personally, viewed their portrayal of cannibals as stereotyping cannibals, not as a stereotype towards those who've called the Carribeans home. ::shrugs:: But that's just me. (linked to by rachelmanija)

[edit5] jackiekjono from here:

I think it's also important to note that Will and Elizabeth are more or less point of view characters. They will not know where specifically certain customs may come from or what they might mean. I think it is very interesting that they did the research and made the customs accurate but, it would have been difficult to put explain all of that to the audience without slowing down the action of the movie while being boringly pedantic and intrusively PC.

Comments

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

I'm up to my ass here and can't respond to this properly, but that looked like perfectly effectively portrayed Santeria to me.

Could be Voudoun, (it's HARD to tell two African/Catholic syncretic religions apart based on small samples) but the whole dirt-carrying thing is more Santeria-ish.

And I thought it was GORGEOUS.

More later.

(was Tia Dalma flirting? I thought she was poking him to study his flinch patterns, actually. I loved her. She's a tough broad.)

More intelligent remarks later maybe.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

PS which isn't to say she wouldn't do the blacksmith for the fun of it. I'm just not sure a chick who's apparently been sharing a small house with Barbossa would necessarily really go for Will. Even if he has toughened up nicely.

*chews on him*

[fannyfae]

Brava! I just got back from seeing POTC2 DMC about twenty minutes ago.

I, like Johnny Depp, am predominiantly Ana Yun Wiya (That's what the Cherokees call themselves in their own language. Native American does not equal white. People need to get over that.

My son's godmother is a Mambo, in traditional Haitian Vodou and there are several different Caribbean traditions that do things similar to the lights on the water that you saw in the film. In fact, it is a fairly common African (yes, AFRICAN) spiritual practice, that goes all the way back to the to Ancient Egypt and Nubia. The ancestors or akhu don't die or to equate it with the Westernized notions, cease to exist. In traditional African faiths, the akhu go to a different place. The waters represent the Waters of Creation, the Primordial Nun - from where we all sprang. That is a central element to many of the beliefs.

Now, you all can take those things and run with it as far as what it means to the plot as it pertains to Tia Dalma and the relationship to Jack and to Barbossa and Bootstrap and on and on. Go ahead, we'll wait while you try to wrap your heads around that! ;) The fact remains that 95^ of the people in the U.S. raised inAnglo-Saxon, Protestant, read that as **NON-INDIGENOUS** cultures and religions and therefore are going to be challenged to be able to grasp it.

(Meh, sorry if this sounded disjointed. I grew up in an indigenous culture and I remember when it wasn't nearly as cool as it is now, supposedly. at least then people didn't *pretend* to relate the culture to their own experiences.)

[permetaform]

My son's godmother is a Mambo, in traditional Haitian Vodou and there are several different Caribbean traditions that do things similar to the lights on the water that you saw in the film. In fact, it is a fairly common African (yes, AFRICAN) spiritual practice, that goes all the way back to the to Ancient Egypt and Nubia. The ancestors or akhu don't die or to equate it with the Westernized notions, cease to exist. In traditional African faiths, the akhu go to a different place. The waters represent the Waters of Creation, the Primordial Nun - from where we all sprang. That is a central element to many of the beliefs.

That is seriously neat. It's...gah, I don't have the words for it, but it parallel my own beliefs about water and reincarnation and the afterlife.

(oh god, nah, it still existed but just in obscure documentaries where they try and try to document some "disappearing civilization" and end up revealing more of their own flawed basic assumptions, about life, culture, and everything, than anything else 'cause they always related it back to *them*)

[marquesate.livejournal.com]

It's just a fun film. *shrugs* Whassallthatjazzabout?

[permetaform]

heh, indeed

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

God, I really have to work. Why are you being so damn interesting?

Interestingly, I did not know Depp was not white.

I DID think he was deliberately playing Jack Sparrow as non-white.

It's the only role I've 'read' him as non-white in. I shall have to ponder the implications of this.

[permetaform]

heh, white is relative, and I made a boo boo. I'd always thought that his mother was Cherokee, but apparently it was a grand something on both sides.

Race is a twisty matter, to say the least.

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

Wait, how does being a little more than an eighth Cherokee make you predominantly Cherokee?

[permetaform]

oh hey, good catch, I'd always thought his mom was Cherokee, but reading the wiki more thoroughly it's actually his maternal foremother. Will fix.

[kalikahuntress.livejournal.com]

I'm going to hug this post and add it to my memories, I just had a huge rant about this with my friend and yes to all this:)

[permetaform]

=) ::hugs:: argh for silly people?

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

People are wanking over Tia Dalma's sexuality? With all the flirting going on in that movie (between anyone and everyone, sheesh) hers certainly didn't stick out noticeably. The biggest problem I had with her was that I couldn't understand half of what she said.

I didn't find the cannibal stuff amusing, but I will admit to laughing at Jack-as-a-kebab thing. Heh.

[permetaform]

heh, to tell the truth, I didn't either, but it's not as if it doesn't make sense from context.

See, I wonder if the cannibal stuff was them trying to lure in the casual viewer, by making them laugh at a character it endears the character to the passerby easier than if the character is angsting. It's an actual rule of thumb in movies that comedy = feeling of connection, angst = feeling of separation.

[harriet-spy.livejournal.com]

And here's the thing too, pirates were also stereotyped in the movie. Uptight English folk were also stereotyped in the movie. But guess what, people don't *see* it because either they can't see it or because they're assuming that the traits being displayed are *positive*.


Well, no. I'm not a big fan of stereotyping in art as a whole, because it's often lazy. PotC is obviously a giant grab-bag of tropes swiped from older literature, though; it runs on stereotypes. Which is fine, particularly since most of them are fairly good-natured, if limiting. To a point.

The fact is, the stereotype of Englishmen being uptight (and somewhat effeminate) does not have several hundred years of history as a justification for the bloody conquest, oppression, murder, rape, and ongoing claims of inferiority of English people. The stereotype of non-whites in the Caribbean as cannibals (the ultimate taboo), bloodthirsty, untrustworthy, mystical, "primitive," sexually voracious...does. In pulling material from older adventure stories, PotC has lifted deeply racist material from a deeply racist time, and, unlike the first movie, it didn't even manage to add balancing elements (like Ana Maria).

Imagine a movie about modern-day America in which a white lawyer is thrown in with a black gang. The white lawyer is wimpy, unhip, deceitful and conniving. The black men all speak the extremest possible "Ebonics," are high-school dropouts, drink 40s all day long, lust after white women and rape them if they get the chance, shoot people on the slightest provocation, and are out to get bling at any cost; the black women are catfighting sluts with enormous asses who mostly work as hookers and rob their johns blind. They're all the children of lazy welfare mothers who bear child after child for the check.

Both white people (and lawyers) and black people are stereotyped in such a movie, but which stereotypes are more likely to do harm (and are therefore more seriously offensive)? All stereotypes are simply not created equal; the contexts are not the same.

(I am not saying that PotC2 is anywhere near as bad as the extreme example I'm giving, but the argument that since everyone is stereotyped it's all neutral and harmless just doesn't stand up.)

[permetaform]

I'm not saying it's neutral and it's harmless. Just that it exists both ways, that PotC IS a racist movie, and that it's okay to like it despite that.

Sin City is extremely misogynistic, which is also a throwback to Film Noir, but realizing that it's wrong, realizing that it's treatment of women is wrong will minimize the harm that it does.

Will you be violent just because you watch violence?

Will people be pirates based off of watching PotC, if they didn't already have the inclination?

Will people be racist based off of watching PotC, if they weren't already being racist?

What I'm saying is that hating the symptom, the "child" if you will, of bad roots is not the same as hating the roots. The child is not the father, and PotC being lambasted for showing symptoms that people are uncomfortable finding in themselves is displacing moral outrage from a useful target/outlet.

[ficangel.livejournal.com]

There were some depictions of race in the movie that bothered me, but Tia Dalma was not one of them. I originally got annoyed that she didn't seem to have a lot to do except to spew exposition, until a friend pointed out that Anamaria just spewed exposition/backstory with a small side of ass-kicking her own self. Tia Dalma's sexuality wasn't a thing for me because, hell, everybody was flirting with everybody and most of the people I've talked to about the movie were happily perving on Will's back just before he got some of the flesh whipped off of it. What I do continue to maintain was sketchy, however, was the fact that, of the two cages of people dangling over the cliff? Naturally the one full of entirely non-white characters goes over so that they never have to be dealt with again.

Tia Dalma herself, however, kicks ass. As afore-mentioned friend said, she's magic and lives in a swamp. What part doesn't kick ass?

[phiremangston.livejournal.com]

of the two cages of people dangling over the cliff? Naturally the one full of entirely non-white characters goes over so that they never have to be dealt with again.


I'm not trying to be contrary or anything, since this is a genuinely interesting discussion and I agree with a lot of what's been said so far, but just to clarify: the cage was full of mostly non-white characters. There was one who was quite clearly white (older guy with a beard), and I think I saw another one in there.

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

I had a lot of issues with the cannibal scenes, which were probably made worse by the fact that that sequence felt levered in for no good reason, and also I don't like slapstick. On the other hand I thought Tia Dalma was great, as were all the scenes in and around her home.

I would have loved Anamaria to have been in there and/or one other obviously non-white crewmember on the Pearl with a major role. Jack's origins, yeah I see where you're coming from but I don't think it's going to be noticed by the majority of the mainstream viewers. Like my various mixed-race friends over the years who most people have just assumed tanned easily or had 'interesting bone structure'.

Yeah, I've been having issues recently with how to be proud of people tracing my family back to the same area since before the Norman Conquest without coming across as sounding like that's better than anyone else's history.

[tv-elf.livejournal.com]

Snerk. My problem wasn't the cannibals as cannibals. It was the full-fledged copying of Return of the Jedi. They weren't cannibals, they were Ewocks. Depp was 3P0.

Part of it is probably because I have become so used to seeing disabilities in movies and tv as something to pity. So to have a midget AND a mute... Not to mention all of the missing limbs. All of them acting as if it is just life and no big deal. It's just cool.

[tv-elf.livejournal.com]

Um. Huh? Should I be glad I'm not in that fandom? I don't care what race an actor is. He's Johnny Depp.

[permetaform]

It's...people throwing the baby out with the afterbirth. It's like "omg and THEN THEY MADE HIM THEIR KING" and being skivved that the white man ruled over the 'darkies' ::rolls eyes:: and they're missing the point that the movie is poking fun at that trope anyways.

[iapetusneume.livejournal.com]

Yes, everyone is a bit racist, in my opinion. I'm not sure if it's possible to NOT be racist to anyone. I would love it if I could meet someone who has never, not even for a second, felt uncomfortable around someone else based on what they looked like. It would be awesome, and it's one of those times that being proven wrong is such a good thing.

I grew up in a white-washed city and there were less than 10 students in my graduating class of 414 that were "not white." I never had a problem with them and my parents always taught me to judge people based on their actions. But then I moved to one of the most eithnicially-diverse universities in the nation and it was a major culture-shock. I didn't think they were sub-human or anything, but I was still uncomfortable because I was not around "white" people. It took me time to get used to my new home, and in general yes it takes me getting to know someone who's "not white" first before I feel comfortable around them. Does this make me a bad person? I don't think so, because those feelings aren't intentional.

..and wow, that got long for me just wanting to say that I'm not going to deny being a little racist myself. *facepalms* But yes, it's completely natural.

As for POTC, I will admit that I know nothing about the time period or the Caribbean specificially beyond the scraping I got of it in American History in grade school. Now, I could see the stereotypes anyways, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the movie. My sister said before [in reference to the first one] that it wasn't the story that made the movie, and it wasn't the graphics. It was the actors, and how they interacted with each other. I truthfully wasn't thinking about stereotypes when Tia was putting the moves on Will. I was more amused at Jack jumping in to stop, because a part of me saw it as an insult to Will saying "You don't know how to throw a woman like this off without my help." Of course, I could definitely be wrong, and it isn't the strongest feeling I had for an event in the movie. Just a thought.

And maybe sterotypes aren't so bad as long as you realize that they're there? I don't know, it's a loaded issue.

There is also the possibility that I read that whole post and wrote this comment and completely missed the point. If I did, please forgive me for my rambling.

Lastly, in closing, may I be a complete fangirl and just mention that I'd pick Tia over Elizabeth any day? Because damn, Tia is ♥. That and I found her a whole lot more interesting than Elizabeth in this movie.

[permetaform]

I would love it if I could meet someone who has never, not even for a second, felt uncomfortable around someone else based on what they looked like.

Exactly. It's sorta like the same uncomfortableness that rich people get sitting around the poor, or vice versa. Nice thought, never gonna happen.


And maybe sterotypes aren't so bad as long as you realize that they're there? I don't know, it's a loaded issue.

Personally, what prompted this post was people being all defensive and guilty and ashamed that they were racist, and thus overcompensating for it in silly ways that are counter-productive. tv_elf reminded me that it's sorta the same thing that people do to those with disabilities, like be SO over-defensive and jumping SO much to their defense that those who are disabled become "protected" and in effect live on the sufferance of those non-disabled. Which ALSO reminds me of the techniques that people use to keep women out of power, ie. "Oh, they must be protected! They are so WEAK." etc.

Also, the thing with sterotypes, is that while it's a mental Thing for people to make snap judgements (that's how them monkeys-that-were-our-ancestors were able to react fast enough to not get killed), so long as we're able to keep them from being an open-shut case, I think we're good. I think that so long as we recognize that they're stereotypes, and so long as we recognize that SOMETIMES the stereotypes apply and SOMETIMES not, we're good.

You, actually, came closer to getting the gist of this post than many other commentors. ::GLOMPS::

Tia is Hot Shit. ::NODS::

[aliaswestgate.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I answer the racial question with my favorite kappa. Who really doesn't give a damn, even though the rest of society won't let him forget his origins. I really do find it amusing that they find THIS to nitpick about the film.

As to Tia Dalma? And the representations of the rest of the cast? It's a mix of folktale and sea lore. Of COURSE in those you have stereotypes, of course you have basic generalizations. That's part and parcel of old world storytelling technique. I do think the writers know this. Considering the wealth of lore they took from to make the latter half of the movie's plot?

Also, think of the region? Which is why Tia Dalma is what she is. A Voudoun mambo, as someone above mentioned. But it all segues neatly into the storyline. Which is a mix of magic, curses, pacts and high flying heroics. Tia Dalma's power comes from the fact that she's a seer, and actually knows the price for her gift. She also knows about the prices the others will have to pay for what they want. She knew Jack needed a way out of Davy Jones' deal, and she gave him that piece of information. It's the way she works. She knows what is needed, and that is her power. The sexuality was all part of the image, as it goes with whatever aspect of Lowa she would be using as her patron. (My guess is Mamman Bridgett.). She knew what gave her power, and used it to see how those she would be 'working' for would deal with it. That's also part of the Seer archetype. *grins* Seers generally don't work for free, either. A bargaining price is also something that is common in Voudoun. There's usually an offering of some type involved, be it a sweet alcohol or something more aescetic.

As to the feeling of a church for that ceremony for Jack? Voudoun and the Catholic church have historically coexisted in those areas of the setting. *grins* The coexistance is well done in the movie, i thought. Particularly with that beautiful ending pan of the camera among the candles. *sighs happily*

Um? I think i said my piece. *grins* I started mythgeeking again didn't i? ^_^;;

[aliaswestgate.livejournal.com]

As if you can't tell. I LOVE Tia Dalma along with the rest of you. She's gorgeous, powerful and knows it. That's more dangerous than anything else in the film, really. *evil grin*

[adina-atl.livejournal.com]

I recognized even as I was laughing my ass off that the cannibal part was racist, but it never even occurred to me to question Tia Dalma, mostly because I recognized Santeria/Voudoun and respect them as valid religions. It would be like objecting to depictions of Roman Catholicism in a vampire movies because they shows how superstitious and "primitive" the RCs are, with all-powerful magical crucifixes, holy water, and communion wafers.

To object to the portrayal of Santeria/Voudoun (unless the objecter has enough familiarity with them to declare that they've been portrayed inaccurately) is to say that they are inherently disgraceful, not valid religions. Besides, in the context of POTC, Tia Dalma (and by extension her culture and religion) was RIGHT.

With the cannibal part I was more uncomfortable before we learned that their "god" was going to be sacrificed and eaten too. Jack taking advantage of the natives' charming naivete was troubling, Jack trying to BS his way out of mortal danger was less so. I would rather see native cultures as hostile than victims--just look at the Maori vs. Australian aboriginals to see which survives better.

The existence of the cannibals? In prior times anthropologists and explorers were quick to ascribe cannibalism to all "savage" cultures, much too quick. In the more modern era, anthropologists are quick to explain away all evidence of cannibalism, perhaps too quick. Some anthropologists are re-evaluating evidence for and against various reports of cannibalism, and finding some at least to be probable.

Pardon my rambling, writing this was my way of thinking through the issue.

[permetaform]

mostly because I recognized Santeria/Voudoun and respect them as valid religions. It would be like objecting to depictions of Roman Catholicism in a vampire movies because they shows how superstitious and "primitive" the RCs are, with all-powerful magical crucifixes, holy water, and communion wafers.

To object to the portrayal of Santeria/Voudoun (unless the objecter has enough familiarity with them to declare that they've been portrayed inaccurately) is to say that they are inherently disgraceful, not valid religions. Besides, in the context of POTC, Tia Dalma (and by extension her culture and religion) was RIGHT.

ROCK. May I quote you in the body of the post for this? I don't have any personal background in those religions so I'm appreciative of the people chiming in who do.

And re: hostile v. victims, I'm gonna copy-paste something I mentioned to iapetusneume:
Personally, what prompted this post was people being all defensive and guilty and ashamed that they were racist, and thus overcompensating for it in silly ways that are counter-productive. tv_elf reminded me that it's sorta the same thing that people do to those with disabilities, like be SO over-defensive and jumping SO much to their defense that those who are disabled become "protected" and in effect live on the sufferance of those non-disabled. Which ALSO reminds me of the techniques that people use to keep women out of power, ie. "Oh, they must be protected! They are so WEAK." etc.

And I see resonances of this feeling in what you're saying about the cannibals, if I'm reading you right?

Heh, this POST was my writing my way through the issue so it's all good. =)

[trensaddiction.livejournal.com]

Interesting idea here. If I'm reading it correctly you're advising not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, i.e. not to condemn the enjoyment of the movie for the racism apparent within it? I would have to agree, in large part because I am a big believer in art and entertainment for the sake of the artform. No work will be kind, fair and egalitarian towards every segment of its audience. It's true of photographs, it's true of sculptures and I see no reason why it shouldn't be true of the performing arts as well. Because yes, PotCII is racist. And yes, the old Warner Brothers cartoons are too. And yes a lot of my favorite films from the thirties and forties are sexist as hell, BUT (and this is the part I feel matters) that doesn't mean that the dialogue isn't witty, the plots aren't fun, the costumes are not eyecatching etc.

At some point I may be shot for going to the movies just to enjoy the surface entertainment without analysing the deeper social implications of any given work, but I daresay it would be a sad turn of events. I believe it is very important to treat one's fellow man with respect and dignity all race, creed, gender, disability, orientation, etc. notwithstanding - but I don't believe myself honor-bound to extend that same courtesy to fictional characters in a movie.

Is it racism that makes me have no problem with the basket of mostly-dark-skinned pirates falling to their doom or is it that they are not the protagonists and therefore not as essential to an already large cast? Is it lack of awareness of the plight of the female that allows me to watch Tia Dalma poking at Will without question, or is it the fact that he is kinda pretty when he squirms and she is the Director's chosen vehicle to share that bit of pretty with the audience? I don't have nearly enough authority in the fields of sociology, film, or philosophy to persuade anyone else of the validity of my opinion here, but for me I still believe that the important elements of a movie are its plot, dialogue, cinematography, acting and score. As for the rest... well, I pity the person who bases their treatment of humanity on the characters they see on screen.

More to the point, thanks for sharing this rant: it really got me to thinking. XD

[ninepointfivemm.livejournal.com]

I'm a film major (while my focus is more on cinematography/directing where I make the pretty, rather than analyze it) and Major Film Trivia Nerd, and I'd rather people watch films for the sake of films, not because of implications in race or society. Of course, I absolutely despise Oscar-winning films that are purely "problem plays." I don't want to be preached to when I see a film. I want to enjoy it and laugh. Tia Dalma's motivations are just that -- motivations -- and to me, it's cause and effect.

I could get into how a character's character causes her to consider each action and why she would do some such, but I pretty much thought Tia's motivations were, "Ooh, new pretty person into the clan. Poke!" not, "Oooh, I'm going to hit on Mr. Turner and watch Jack Sparrow squirm, because I'm an utter sexpot." She may have been using her feminine wiles, but she used them the same way Elizabeth did later on. They're women, and they know they get what they want by being a woman. It doesn't make them any less of a character, because they know how to manipulate things to get what they want. If anything, I think they're more powerful, because they will manipulate things the way they want it.

But that said, I really didn't like Elizabeth and Jack at the end (though I ship them), because I knew Jack was going to do it, and it cheapened it to see Elizabeth doing the very thing.

[oyceter]

1) I'm sorry, I don't actually know what you mean by "It's ok to be racist."

If it's a means to say, "Yes, we are all racist because the society we live in is racist and we are inundated with racist images and attitudes," yeah, totally agree (I'm defining racism here as an institution and not as individual prejudice).

On the other hand, I'm reading it a bit as "acknowledge and move on," which isn't something that I agree with. And I apologize if I'm misreading you, I honestly am not sure what it means, and if it is just the above, please disregard the following.

Though I realize that I am racist and that pretty much everyone who lives in a society that instutionally perpetuates racial injustice is racist, despite personal assertions as to not be prejudiced, I am not ok with this. I also don't think that having some awareness/sensitivity to the matter is enough to make it ok that one is racist; I think racism is perpetuated passively, and therefore, just being ok with it and not actively acting against it is in fact keeping the entire institution alive. Which is something I am very not ok with.

2) I think I don't notice that Johnny Depp isn't white because he's very much coded as white. Granted, I'm probably saying this because I don't read up much on celebrities at all, so I don't know if he generally talks about his Cherokee heritage. I do suspect that most people watching the movie will read him as white. Whether or not this is good is a whole 'nother thing and moves into passing and problems inherent in that, and I wish I knew enough to talk about that.

3) I agree with harriet_spy above in that while the portrayals of the British military and the East India Trading Co. and pirates may also be stereotyped, I don't think it has the historical harm that the stereotyping of people of color does, nor does it have the same power to harm that stereotypes of people of color have.

4) Again, this may be because I'm totally misreading your post... so please, let me know if I am, and I'm really sorry if I am!

I get a bit uncomfortable with the tone of the comments, that pointing out racist stereotypes is "silly," particularly when it's just a movie. And I don't think that it means people shouldn't enjoy the movie or whatnot, but that I'm disturbed that dialogue about race in the movie can be squashed down as something silly that only very sensitive people care about.

[adrienneherbst.livejournal.com]

Depp does talk about his Cherokee background (and has gotten a tattoo in acknowledgement of it). Also, out of curiosity, would you say that Depp-- whether his public persona is coded as "white" or not-- was playing *Jack* as white?

[elfiepike.livejournal.com]

having just come from the film, this was a fascinating read! i have no real input beyond that, sadly. i'm not very sensitive to anything except passive characters, of which POTC thankfully has few.

[permetaform]

thank you! And it's just...okay copy-pasting from another comment 'cause it applies here too:
a race-blind audience is composed of two parts
- those who are race-blind because they dichotomize everything into "us" and "other"
- and those who are race-blind because everything is "us"

I'm glad that you've taken the time to read this, and that you're keeping yourself open. =) This post is mostly a caution against backing yourself into either the corner of "omg, am not racist" or the corner of "omg, I am ashamed/guilty of being racist", because shame and guilt causes people to be stupid.

[myniamh.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to nut out this, just to make it fit into my head.
They are all stereotypes. All of them. Every single character in the two movies is a big old trope from previous stories, times or history. It's how they are played with that delights me so much, by the actors and writers. It's how they are pulled into new stereotypes when most writers would never change them. Taken out of the text, these characters should all offend someone. The Pirates franchise was thought up by Disney in the, what, 50's?

I loved all the characters in this film, even the pirates in the other cage who to my eyes were, up until the subject of the possibility of betrayal was brought up, ship-mates with the others. They are pirates and pirates are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. They assume the worst of their fellow pirates. Well? That's just sensible really.
I really didn't read them as the treacherous ones.
There was treachery from a large and assorted range of humans there. Most genders, classes and races were equally represented.
=D

[permetaform]

::nods:: yes. and yes.

I really didn't read them as the treacherous ones.

::GLOMPS YOU::

- those who are race-blind because they dichotomize everything into "us" and "them"
- and those who are race-blind because everything is "us"

I'm glad that you've taken the time to read this, and that you're keeping yourself open. =) This post is mostly a caution against backing yourself into either the corner of "omg, am not racist" or the corner of "omg, I am ashamed/guilty of being racist", because shame and guilt causes people to be stupid.

[jackiekjono.livejournal.com]

We just saw it tonight.

I think it's also important to note that Will and Elizabeth are more or less point of view characters. They will not know where specifically certain customs may come from or what they might mean. I think it is very interesting that they did the research and made the customs accurate but, it would have been difficult to put explain all of that to the audience without slowing down the action of the movie while being boringly pedantic and intrusively PC.

The cannibals bugged me a little but, I did like that little Indiana Jones role reversal with the blowpipe. (Will flailing about in the trap, threatening everyone with his sword as the natives look on in bemusement then knock him out with a dart.)

[permetaform]

but, it would have been difficult to put explain all of that to the audience without slowing down the action of the movie while being boringly pedantic and intrusively PC.

Yes. Yes EXACTLY. ::LOVES YOU ALOT::

may I quote that paragraph in the main body of my post?

Hee, my main gripe about the cannibals is that 1) it was badly edited and 2) we really should hear some opinions about the Caribs before people get up in arms about it.

[phiremangston.livejournal.com]

I admit that when I watched the cannibals part, it bothered me a little. I was worried about how they would be represented. That is, until we heard Gibbs' explanation for why Jack was in the position he was. I never viewed them as "primitive", or even as aggressive. I didn't even necessarily view them as cannibals, in the traditional sense of the word. I saw them as a group of religious people. As Christians take bread and wine as representation of the eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of his blood, other religions do not do this metaphorically. The "cannibals" saw Jack as a human form of their god, and, as Gibbs said, they wanted to release him from his human form. By ingesting the human form of their god, they feel as though they have been blessed by the god in thanks. That's just how I saw it. They were used as the comic relief, certainly; however, a lot of others were, too. Jack, Will, and Norrington's swordfight was comic relief. Elizabeth, Pintel, and Ragetti flailing around with the chest was comic relief. Almost everything Jack does is comic relief, frankly.

I didn't think that the representation of the tribe was negatively stereotypical, especially since the writers (through Gibbs) clearly gave the audience a sympathetic reason for why they did what they were doing. They were doing it out of the belief that what they were doing was the right thing.

***In my mind, the tribe was shown as being the only people in the movie who were completely selfless and weren't out to accomplish things for themselves.

Most people would assume that the tribe was looking out for themselves. With a single line, we are told otherwise.

I think that that was a very clever thing for the writers to slip in.

[permetaform]

oh huh! Your comments about the cannibals are neat! May I quote your comment in the body of the post?

And...

...yeah, I have no other response than, "you are so right! ROCK ON". ::grins::

[elessil.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this post. I thought it was really interesting and made me think a lot.

(Me? Utterly blunt as I am, I didn't even notice most of the racist things, such as the part of the killed crew being predominately black. I guess when I go out to watch a fun movie, I'm not at all aware of such things.)

[permetaform]

thank you! And it's just...okay copy-pasting from another comment 'cause it applies here too:
a race-blind audience is composed of two parts
- those who are race-blind because they dichotomize everything into "us" and "them"
- and those who are race-blind because everything is "us"

I'm glad that you've taken the time to read this, and that you're keeping yourself open. =) This post is mostly a caution against backing yourself into either the corner of "omg, am not racist" or the corner of "omg, I am ashamed/guilty of being racist", because shame and guilt causes people to be stupid.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

Must the race debate invade every fandom I enjoy? It makes me tired. (bizarely, it hasn't yet invaded Lost, which seems ripe for it by virtue of possessing a multi-racial cast of characters who are all flawed in some way, but I'm sure the wank is coming. Either that or it happened and I missed it).

I haven't seen PotC 2 yet, though I look forward to it (dude, it has a squidman. What more could one want in a movie?), but one thing that struck me about the original movie was that it's as much about the myth of piracy as it is the reality of life in the colonial-era Caribbean. The costumes range across decades, the Port Royal earthquake of the 1690s appears to never have happened, and, well... there are undead skeleton!pirates. It's not really the 18th century; it's a fantasy of the 18th century, drawing as much on things like Captain Blood and Treasure Island as it does actual history.

As naewinter pointed out, "Every single character in the two movies is a big old trope from previous stories, times or history." And part of that body of narrative tradition is things like tribes of cannibals and cursed treasure. Maybe the cannibals are handled poorly, maybe they don't fit well with the rest of the (squidman-featuring) plot. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know. But I'd argue that the mere existance of santeria or cannibalism doesn't necessarily spell racism. It might spell "look! A send-up of old-school adventure pulp!"

Of course, if I see the movie and it proves to be a mass of cliches done very, very poorly, I may change that assessment.

[permetaform]

but one thing that struck me about the original movie was that it's as much about the myth of piracy as it is the reality of life in the colonial-era Caribbean.

::nods and loves you lots for that whole bit:: YES. and YES.

I look forward to your opinion of the movie. =) I remember you fondly from the fandom that sprang up from the first movie, tho we've drifted. I'm sorta excited about people in my flist being all excited about this fandom again even though I'd expect I'd be sticking mostly towards my own corner because of time issues and my norrington-mother trauma.

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

The cannibal sequence bothered me for a lot of reasons. It made no sense and added nothing to the movie for me; it was styled like the Amazon; and it's historically inaccurate and wildly offensive to modern-day Carib peoples. I don't care if they're an "analogue;" I didn't like it.

Are people really upset about Tia Dalma's sexuality? I thought she was pretty interesting, not least because of her rather troublesome idea of "help," and I also thought the final scene was beautiful. I was really excited that they put in some Voudoun/Santeria, since I'd been hoping for that to happen since the first movie. And they did it without sacrificing chickens!

I haven't thought much about Johnny Depp's race--actors bore me--but I always assumed Jack wasn't 100% Caucasian. I'm not sure what, if anything, that means in the context of the movie. I think perhaps it's just meant to add to his mysterious origins (he's probably not a proper Englishman gone naughty).

I suspect that a lot of the vagueness about non-white cultures and locations in the movies is meant to preserve the mystery around Jack. Will and Elizabeth get to be straightforward and defined not necessarily because they're white, but because they're the heroes. Jack (and Tia Dalma) are Tricksters.

(I thought it was interesting that Jack had acquired such a multicultural crew in a few months since the last movie, and I was disappointed to see them all go like that with hardly a line between them. :/ Unrelatedly, I think the island with the cannibals might have been meant to be Dominica. It had a bit of the look to it, and that was one of the last surviving Carib settlements; by the time of the movie, most Caribs had been exterminated and replaced with black slaves from Africa and their descendents. But it did bother me that it wasn't named, at least not clearly.)

[adrienneherbst.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that thought that the cannibals looked Amazon more than Caribe-- I kept thinking, "wtf, what are the Yanomamo doing here? What, are they replacing disputably cannibalistic indigenous peoples with definitely cannibalistic ones because the Caribs are protesting that *their* ancestors weren't cannibals? ...Are they going to make Jack into banana soup?"

Ugh. *rambling*

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

You'll be happy to know that m_cat mentioned this in her post "reviewing" the movie ... sorta ... XD

[permetaform]

hee!

[swordsmanscoke.livejournal.com]

Funny how they list this movie as "Action/Adventure" and "Fantasy". Funny how they call this sort of movie fiction and not 'reference' or 'biography'.

And even if you don't think it is and still want to go on about this...

A black man was Barbossa's second in command in "Black Pearl". But oh dear, he was undead, like everyone else on the crew, even the caucasians.

Let's not even talk about the cruel portrayal of octopuses and squids in "Dead Man's Chest".

And if you want to get technical on the historical aspect, that's how the situation was back then regarding race, to a degree. Cannibals on various islands weren't civilized in many minds back then (more primitive than civilized), but civilization is one of those ideals that is different in each person's mind. Also, back then they didn't have to worry about offending anyone's race, cause they had other things to worry about, like plagues, disease, etc. Let's face it; when the producers and director started making this movie, they had no intention of making it a documentary. It's called creative writing for a reason.

As for it's performance at the box office, it shows that a lot of people are noticing all of the "racism" in DMC. Especially the people who go see the movie more than once, cause it's just one of those fun summer movies. The $321,733,000 it has made at the box office shows. And I've heard reports that more people are starting to take things out of context and exaggerate about issues that don't exist in the film as well.

Not really.

Now go watch "Crash".

[permetaform]

Heya! I think maybe that you don't know the context of this post, being that it is in *reaction* to people pulling their hair out and wailing over the "racism" in PotC and this post is mostly trying to point out that despite certain things that are "racially questionable" in PotC, to make the movie as PC as they want it to be would be ridiculous.

I'm fairly sure you misread my post? I'm stating in my post that everyone is racist in some way, our culture is racist in very subtle ways, and thus the media that our culture produces is racist, and I'm saying that that's okay.

So I'm not quite sure how to respond to your post, because it really didn't talk about *my* post at all. ::wry grin::

I'm also a little confused as to how you came to my journal? Was I linked somewhere?