![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
runefallstar.
Specifically, in her post:
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 outrunefallstar'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]![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fannyfae with more comments on the ceremony:
[edit3]adina_atl from here:
phiremangston points out as a non-Carib viewer that:
rachelmanija)
[edit5]jackiekjono from here:
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.[edit4]
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.
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.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
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.
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.
Tags:
You can't please everyone
Also anything that is in all caps is to get your attention not to yell.
I would like to say that this was not nearly as racist as it was back then when I read about the times of the very emmbarrassing times in American know as the slave trade (yes I know this is not America it is in a little different place but that is the beauty of using a refference)this is the time period that comes to mind, so it would be possible to say that this was not an accurate depiction of the times and is there for not good there. But it is a movie and is ment for fun and enjoyment and not for people to pick apart all the wrong messages that might be perseved.
You have cited that it was the "black" men that wanted to go ahead and get back to the boat before the others and leave them behind. I would say, did you take a bathroom break right after that was said cause if you go back it was an innocent little thing that was said AND BOTH SIDES AT THE SAME TIME got hit with the idea to race back, ... BECASUE THEY WERE PIRATES (at least that is how I saw it every time that I went to see the movie so far) and when they did fall where they did it was not a thing of their on stupid planning (cause that is the stereotype that I think you are implying there) but it was becasue of bad luck and the only reason for them to go is that the story line would not have the cage with the main character fall into nothing (or even the back up characters from the first that are important to the story) but it would have to be the no names that they have not taken the time to give personalities to.
I am going stop here becaseu it is late on this end and I am tired and all this talk of a movie being rasist just put me off my good mood, but I would like to say that I do beleive that the person that pulls things apart looking for the the little references of stereotyping to be the bigger rasist than the person that might have but something that might be concieved as rasist by someone out there possible cause you see if you think that the person making the movie has to go through all these things to pick that apart you get a movie that no one wants to see because it has no story line (you have white peole stealing money from a bank that is rasist see my point, a completely none racist movie would be person A wakes up lives a good life and dies end of movie, where ever you have ANY conflict you run the risk of some one crying racist)
Me I watch a movie say what I like and forget about what I didn't and if I had a prob with the first one I don't see the second ( you said you had the same prob with the Curse of the Black Pearl)
Re: You can't please everyone
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?
Also, I really adore both movies, I've seen the first one 10 times in theaters and the second 5 times.
Re: You can't please everyone
you can not say that because minority person A died in frame 9,990,997,032 that the whole movie is racist if there was even one racist character the movie is still not racist, for that to be acheived it would need to A say racist things B put them into action and C show the person putting them into action in a good light
that is all that I am saying we just need to grow a little more of a protective skin rather than jump up and down and have people yell racist if you knew me at all you would be shocked to hear that I was called a racist at work becasue I was helping out one family find a game for their son's birthday that was coming up and this african-american woman came up inbetween me and these people (who I was talking to) and demanded that I show her where somethign was and I told her wear it was and contiued to help the people that I was with before and that woman went to my boss and told him that I pushed her off and helped a "white" family instead of her and that I was being a racist
now I work at a place that really pushes their "family friendly" look as much as they can (toy 'r' us) and I had to explain this to my boss that I was not pushing her off I was doing what I was suppossed to do.
so people need to just get over it and not yell racist at the drop of a hat they need to just treat people nice like and not just do what ever it takes to get their way (every one does that)
oh and race is not a scientific thing you go to an anthropoigist they will tell you that there are no such thing casue there is a % in the genome that would show a different race and anyone that is human does not vary that much (I think it is liek 2.79% or something)
And I found your post becasue of a friend that found this and was telling me about hwo off the wall this was
no subject
no subject
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?
And I *do* enjoy the movie, really a lot. I've seen the first one 10 times in theaters and the second 5 times so far.
no subject
no subject
OMG, ditto! I SCREAMED when the credits rolled, 'cause BARBOSSA and for a second there I thought it might've been Jack!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Why is her sexuality a problem for people, and yet Elizabeth's is not?
Actually, I sort of go in reverse. I have no problem with Tia Dalma engaging in some hip-waving sexuality while she's telling her stories and negotiating with her visitors - namely because (a) she's not using it in the negotiations themselves; they would happen pretty much the same if she played it straight, and (b) she's experienced enough to know how to use body language properly. Elizabeth rubbing all over Jack to get what she wants annoys me, and to be perfectly honest, I am far less comfortable with that than I am with Tia Dalma's hips and boobs and touching. (And no, it's not because she's black and therefore more animalistic, or anything stupid like that. I'm going purely by woman-to-woman comparison with method and age/experience level.)
no subject
First, thank you for the post. I wasn't in the teeth-gnashing discussions over racism, but I learned a great deal about Santeria and African customs from this post and the comments.
Secondly, and I know this is what got you jumped on by others, it's really very interesting and refreshing to me to see such an objectively sociological approach to the mechanism that creates racism. The subject is so politically and emotionally charged that, I agree, it often seems people just throw the baby out with the after birth, as you said. The human ability to generalize is one of the things that got us to the top of the food chain and to hate ourselves because of that, rather than to be aware of ourselves, is stupid. Also, it seems to me that racism is often ascribed only to white people, which is just ridiculous and defeatist. If the whites are the Big Bad, and non-whites are Victims, how can that structure ever be equal? But if we decide that racism is a natural outgrowth of human thought processes (not, you know, a good one, just a natural one), then all people all over the world can be racist, and we can all deal with the issue equally.
Thirdly . . . what even is white? I mean, seriously, bringing up Johnny Depp and Jack's races makes a good point. I know that a lot of people would say being a quarter Cherokee doesn't make you non-white if you look white and enjoy the privileges of being white. And on the flip side, I have numerous friends (last name examples: Aragon, Montano) who consider themselves white or Hispanic based on whatever mood moves them. Against our home context of New Mexico and its numerous levels of Hispanic-ness, they are white. In the rest of the country, they are Hispanic. 'White' is hard to pin down, largely because it's defined by who isn't white, rather than who is, and who is doing the defining is pretty context dependent.
Which is to say that talking about the racial coding of DMC is very odd and nonsensical to me.