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

[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?

[oyceter]

Also, out of curiosity, would you say that Depp-- whether his public persona is coded as "white" or not-- was playing *Jack* as white?

For me, yes, but I think that's because of race blinders on my part and my automatic assumption that anyone not coded as a specific race or ethnicity is white. And because I haven't had to notice slurs against non-Asian ethnicities or races (oh, the joys of privilege...), I tend to not see things as coded as a certain ethnicity or race unless it's a) extremely, extremely painful and obvious or b) it's Asian.

So, uh, the answer speaks more to my own ignorance and my own racism than anything else, if that makes sense?

[permetaform]

..."Asian" is more than one race.

Just like "black" is more than one race.

[ex-greythist387.livejournal.com]

I had something (http://greythistle.livejournal.com/217555.html) vaguely like permetaform's reaction after reading some comments to your post, though I didn't know it till now. Anyway, I do think Depp parses visually as "not quite white" for lots of people. Whether they--we--stop to wonder what that might mean is a different question. Whether one identifies with mainstream American culture, and the extent to which that culture is based on those of northern/western Europe--those too are different (if related) questions.

I think it's becoming more difficult to tell, from looking, which specific kinds of European ancestors a +/- white person may have had, and I think that that's contributing to the sense that white = monolith. My bf claims he can't distinguish any white Europeans, visually, which I think is really weird :) but it's exactly like an inability to distinguish Japanese from Vietnamese: he's not looking for (or able to keep in his head) the little details that can create categories. Forget his ethnic background because it's not relevant--what is relevant is that he grew up in Los Angeles, mixing capital of the U.S.

[oyceter]

I'm glad that Depp parses as "not quite white" for most people; my reading him as white is really an indication of the pervasive racist attitude that anyone not coded specifically as a person of color is automatically white, and I'm not happy with that about myself, to say the least.

My bf claims he can't distinguish any white Europeans, visually, which I think is really weird :) but it's exactly like an inability to distinguish Japanese from Vietnamese

I actually read it as different from the inability to distinguish Japanese from Vietnamese, largely because of (drink!) historical and societal inequity. While I do think it's very true that grouping whiteness as a sort of ethnic/racial monolith is problematic, it doesn't have the associated historical baggage that grouping together Asians (for ex.) does.

I.e. Being a target of attack because China-America relations are bad, even though you are Japanese or Korean or Vietnamese or etc.

And this does happen with whites as well (anti-Irish sentiment), but I don't think it's institutionalized to the same degree. Not addressing issues related with passing and etc. because I am spamming poor permetaform's LJ now ;). But would love to discuss it further in mine if you want to!

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

The distinguishing nationalities by sight thing is interesting, because they've done studies with photographs of naked people with their heads shaved, and apparently there are no phenotypic differences between most Asian nationalities (I can't remember which one). Their conclusion was that people were basing their guesses on clothing, hairstyle, and other subtle cultural cues.

I find it a bit hard to believe--I've met people who could look at a mixed-race child and tell which regions of China her ancestors came from with a high degree of accuracy--but on the other hand, I'm not sure it's a good idea to expect people from different countries to be immediately identifiable by their appearances. That can lead to stereotyping as much as lumping together does.

[permetaform]

The distinguishing nationalities by sight thing is interesting, because they've done studies with photographs of naked people with their heads shaved, and apparently there are no phenotypic differences between most Asian nationalities (I can't remember which one). Their conclusion was that people were basing their guesses on clothing, hairstyle, and other subtle cultural cues.

o.0 buh? Okay, WHO were they testing this on, who were the "spotters" asians or non-asians? What I look for when I'm trying to tell asian nationalities apart is bone structure.


I'm not sure it's a good idea to expect people from different countries to be immediately identifiable by their appearances. That can lead to stereotyping as much as lumping together does.

::highfives:: hear hear!

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

Okay, WHO were they testing this on, who were the "spotters" asians or non-asians?

Beats me. I think the study was pretty flawed, from what I read, since obviously cultural clues won't be exactly the same for people of Asian descent living in western countries.

[ex-greythist387.livejournal.com]

I actually read it as different from the inability to distinguish Japanese from Vietnamese, largely because of (drink!) historical and societal inequity.

Fair enough. FWIW, the bf can visually distinguish people of Asian descent, somewhat, whence weirdness-to-me. (And his parents are, respectively, the children of Croatian and Mexican emigrants.)

And this does happen with whites as well (anti-Irish sentiment), but I don't think it's institutionalized to the same degree.

It's certainly had longer to stew, set, and rediversify than has anything that involves residents of the U.S. (the political entity, not the area the entity currently claims). I think the historical contingencies blur a bit and start to resemble each other if one can stand in more than one place-- That is, yes, it is horrible to be a mistaken target due to poor China-America relations. It is no less horrible, however, to be a mistaken-identity target amidst culturally driven conflicts elsewhere in the world or in time. I'd like to learn more of Asian and Asian American history, since that's part of my heritage, technically, but because of my training, the examples that come easiest are from within Europe, over a millennium-worth of them.

I don't think we disagree fundamentally, btw. I just keep trying to drag in more things, which (though they have their own historical contexts) I see as both relevant and related....

Definite tangent, re: institutionalization: an old link (http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/06/04/race_argument/print.html) with two replies here (http://www.salon.com/letters/1999/06/10/hannibal/index1.html). Link #1 is lightly--but only lightly--fictionalized. Its author has since taken his idealistic cynicism to law school.

[permetaform]

because I am spamming poor [info]permetaform's LJ now

Dude, don't fret: I think of this LJ as an easily-updated fan website, but I treat the comment threads like a party I'm hosting. I don't mind OT comments and adore it when you start convo's with each other in the threads.

[jackiekjono.livejournal.com]

My take on the "it's okay to be racist" point was that human beings have a cerebral cortex which functions by pattern recognition. We interpret everything we see based on what we have seen before and we can't help doing that. The best way to deal with the more pernicious aspects of that is to be aware that you do it.

I don't think that it is ridiculous to point out the stereotypes. It's just that those who like the movie in spite of flaws are not necessarily doing anything wrong.

[permetaform]

::GLOMPS YOU::

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

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.

I have to say that I very much agree with this. The question of whether or not the PotC movies are racist/perpetuate racist stereotypes in ways that can be damaging is (a) a valuable question and (b) one on which *reasonable people can disagree*. But what's deeply annoying me about the conversation overall, as it's taking place here and in other venues (i.e. other LJs) is the undertone of "Well, if you even bring up the question, you're being stupid/silly/overreactionary/Too Serious For Your Own Good, etc., because OMG, it's only a movie!"

Dude. DUDE. Fandom as a phenomenon can spend *hours* going on and on and on about the structure of fictionalized wizarding society in Harry Potter or the history of fictionalized demon-fighting in Buffy, Angel or Supernatural. Fandom can go on for *hours* about the imagined tortured backstories of fictional characters in everything from comic books to the Great Works of Literature and all the stuff in between. That's part of what Fandom *is*; it's part of what Fandom *does*. So the idea that to bring up a real world issue that is implicated within these fictional landscapes is somehow people just *acting wacky* drives me straight up a wall. *Especially* if the question is initially presented (as it was by you and a few others) in a respectful, polite and civil manner but the first wave of response is vitriolic and/or basically, "Oh, stop being so goddamned stupid 'cause it's just a movie."

Now, that's not to say there haven't been some thoughtful attempts at disagreement about the racism in the PotC movies, or that there haven't been thoughtful attempts at defense of the movie, because there have been. But without fail, the immediate and knee-jerk reaction, and the reaction/attitude that often most consistently runs though these types of discussions is often that people are being silly for even bringing it up, because, hey, it's "just a movie/TV show/book." And when you see this kind of thing happen over and over again, it's not at all hard to see why plenty of people are of the opinions that (a) Fandom really *can't* talk about race in any meaningful way, and (b) Fandom isn't really all that welcoming to racial discussions in the first place.

[permetaform]

I've answered a lot here that's pertinent to your response.

To sum up:

The power structure in "protector" and "victim" is also damaging to race relations.

and

A race-blind audience is made of at least two parts:
a) those who are blind because they dichotomize everything into "us" and "other"
b) and those who are blind because everything is "us"

but then there's also my personal view that Fandom is one big melting pot of people who are dealing with their own personal issues through the skim of media and fic. It's like therapy for free. It is by nature symbolic; and to approach an issue head-on instead of symbolically is...gah, what's the word...re-traumatizing? People-in-general have major defenses up against head-on confrontation with what is different/awkward/painful, and through therapy is able to deal with it in a way that does not engage knee-jerk responses. In a way, I think fandom gives people a way to explore the different/awkward/painful in a way similar to therapy, at their own pace, at their own time.

Come to that, I think there's been some very interesting discussions on race in fandom; but the best ones are always shielded by the fact that the other "race" are werewolves, Gods, muggles, demons, ferengi, robots, wraith, cylon, or whatever.

It's like the way that people might talk about character A's rape in a meaningful way, but not about their own. ::shrugs::

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

The power structure in "protector" and "victim" is also damaging to race relations.

Inequity of power is always damaging. But I'm not sure why you see people speaking out against what they perceive as racism as "protectors" rather than "companions" or fellow travellers. And I'm not sure why you think it's better not to speak out *about* systematic inequities of power.

A race-blind audience is made of at least two parts:
a) those who are blind because they dichotomize everything into "us" and "other"
b) and those who are blind because everything is "us"

If we pretend racism doesn't exist, it doesn't go away. If someone looks at the pictures of the people left in New Orleans for Katrina, and don't notice that nearly every single one of them was black, they are not being "race-blind"; they are being blind to real inequities of power that exist and are hurting people.

Fandom is one big melting pot of people who are dealing with their own personal issues through the skim of media and fic. It's like therapy for free. It is by nature symbolic; and to approach an issue head-on instead of symbolically is...gah, what's the word...re-traumatizing? People-in-general have major defenses up against head-on confrontation with what is different/awkward/painful, and through therapy is able to deal with it in a way that does not engage knee-jerk responses.

(1) Fandom isn't therapy. In therapy, you don't need to worry about the impact of your words hurting other people. In therapy, you are only trying to communicate with two people: yourself and your therapist. In fandom, you are communicating with a mass of people, some fans and some strangers, and you need to be aware of how your words affect other people.

(2) If fandom *were* therapy, why would it be okay to tell people who talk about race they're causing problems? Don't they have traumas and issues they need to work out?

(3) Come to that, I think there's been some very interesting discussions on race in fandom; but the best ones are always shielded by the fact that the other "race" are werewolves, Gods, muggles, demons, ferengi, robots, wraith, cylon, or whatever.

That is one of the most depressing statements I've seen in this entire round of discussion.

[permetaform]

But I'm not sure why you see people speaking out against what they perceive as racism as "protectors" rather than "companions" or fellow travellers. And I'm not sure why you think it's better not to speak out *about* systematic inequities of power.

If they're genuinely "companions" then okay, and speaking out about racism is good, however I feel that anger against racism could be better applied in other ways than blindly standing up. I feel that making personal connections are more worthy than fighting against people who are probably not even reading this journal, and who (even if they are reading this journal) probably *wouldn't* change their minds based on a post I made.

I don't think systemic inequalities of power should remain unaddressed. But I don't think this journal is the forum for addressing those issues. I am not going to 'rail against institutionalied inequality' in a place where the effort will be futile, in a place mostly dedicated to fandom, I am doing that in RL.

I have seen way too many futile protest marches at my college to be blind to wasted effort.


If we pretend racism doesn't exist, it doesn't go away.

Where in my post have I said that racism doesn't exist?

What I was trying to point out is that racism exists in each of us, and I said that so long that we're willing to question our suppositions, our hypothesis, that it's okay; I say this because troubling responses occur when people are ashamed or guilty or hate themselves.


(1) Fandom isn't therapy. In therapy, you don't need to worry about the impact of your words hurting other people. In therapy, you are only trying to communicate with two people: yourself and your therapist. In fandom, you are communicating with a mass of people, some fans and some strangers, and you need to be aware of how your words affect other people.

Yes and no. In fandom, you are talking about "characters", you are pointing, on this doll, where you were "touched". In therapy you are courteous to your therapist, to your therapy group; in a support group you are courteous to your support group; in fandom you are courteous to fans.


(2) If fandom *were* therapy, why would it be okay to tell people who talk about race they're causing problems? Don't they have traumas and issues they need to work out?

I have said that talking about race is difficult, because of the translation issues. I have said that talking about race is problematic, because of the awkward way that blame lays, because it comes from *us*. I have said that feeling guilty and ashamed causes people to react illogically.

I have said that therapy often comes at an issues/traumas sideways, and so does fandom. I have said that fandom frequently works through it's problems obliquely, and that because it is *used* to tackling it's problems obliquely that it'll have difficulty talking about it in other ways, because there's defensiveness in that direction.

Traumas and issues are not always worked out in a direct manner, an at times working it out by ramming the issue through might cause more damage.

I don't expect you to have read all the threads on this matter, and all the ways that I've tried to clarify. But I'm left with the impression that my post didn't make sense to you at all, which is depressing.

It is...distressing, to me that you don't seem to value symbolic arguments/discussions. And that the art itself can't be a voice in discussion of another topic.

I...don't know if any of that made sense at all because I get the feeling that you got none of what I've said so far...or didn't read it.

Part 1

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

A lot of your post *didn't* make sense to me, which is distressing to me, not least because I like and respect you.

I haven't read every subthread on this post, but I did read the post and *many* of the subthreads. (I think "most," but I'm not sure.) I understand the fatigue of feeling like people are coming in at the tail end of an argument and not understanding the full discussion.

I value symbolic arguments/discussions. Saying I don't think art or fandom are therapy is not the same thing as saying they can't be therapeutic. But I am also sad and angry that racism seems to be such an awkward topic people can *only* think about it sensibly at a distance, when fans seem perfectly able to think about issues like sexism and sexual abuse directly. And I am sad and angry because this inability tells me that racism is much more alive and well than I wanted to think it was, and I am sad and angry because some fans' discomfort in talking about race is leading to efforts to shut down discussions of race.

If they're genuinely "companions" then okay, and speaking out about racism is good, however I feel that anger against racism could be better applied in other ways than blindly standing up. I feel that making personal connections are more worthy than fighting against people who are probably not even reading this journal, and who (even if they are reading this journal) probably *wouldn't* change their minds based on a post I made.

I started off by typing, "I don't think that you personally are obligated to speak out about racism," then had to pause to think about that. The truth is, I do think you personally are obligated to speak out about racism, but only in the way that I think *everyone* is obligated to speak out about racism. I do not think you are obligated to speak out about it in this space. But since you've chosen to speak out about it here, I think it's fair to criticize what you've said, the same way I'd criticize/disagree with, say, some of your interpretations of *Saiyuki* -- only, yes, the subject is considerably more fraught.

And I do object to the characterization of other ways of speaking about racism as "blindly standing up."

Where in my post have I said that racism doesn't exist?

Hmm. You seemed to me to be saying that the only solution to racism is to pretend not to notice race. Is that incorrect? It would have been more accurate for me to say, "You seem to think that race won't exist if we pretend it doesn't, but that only works if race doesn't actually affect people."

What I was trying to point out is that racism exists in each of us, and I said that so long that we're willing to question our suppositions, our hypothesis, that it's okay; I say this because troubling responses occur when people are ashamed or guilty or hate themselves.

Okay. What your post seems to read like is: "Racism exists in each of us. We shoudn't hate ourselves for it. Since it's too difficult to think about clearly, we can stop there, or think about it in conjunction with werewolves, zombies, etc. without having to look at race directly, or consider the impact of racism on the shows we watch, the movies we see, or the books we read."

Your post sounds like this because you (a) say everyone is racist, then (b) criticize people for assuming Johnny Depp is white, then (c) briefly mention some instances of racism in the film, then (d) dispute the characterization of the film as racist, including several of the elements you called racist in (c).

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, this is very long but I forgot one thing which I wanted to mention: This discussion is taking place in fannish places, but it's not just a fandom discussion because the audience for POTC is not just a fannish audience.

[permetaform]

This LJ is fannish, so I'm assuming that the audience to this post is fannish, and this post was written for that segment of PotC viewers who've friended this journal, or who lurk because I never lock fannish stuff, or who've come by this post via a fannish comm or meta-comm.

If this discussion was taking place in another forum, my original post would be structurally and thematically different.

[gulliblesnail.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I'm feeling coherent enough to contribute to this discussion, but I'd like to thank you for this comment. I thought the whole point of fandom was to analyze things to death. That's what makes it so much fun, so it's very upsetting when people are dismissed as silly or over-sensitive for bringing up the issue of racism.

[permetaform]

I thought the whole point of fandom was to analyze things to death.

::nods:: but to analyze things that are one step removed from people's own trauma buttons, because they're discussing it through the shield of characters. I go into this more in my comment to latxcvi.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I think that if a discussion is hitting one's trauma buttons, the appropriate response is to step away from the discussion.

I'm not sure that I understand you correctly. It sounds to me as if you're saying that real-world traumatic issues, such as racism (and presumably sexism, rape, child abuse, battle trauma, etc) should not be discussed directly in relation to art which depicts or exemplifies them. That to do so traumatizes people, because the issues hit too close to home, and so those issues should only be discussed in relation to art at one remove. For instance, don't discuss the depiction of black people, but it's OK to discuss the depiction of werewolves. Or don't discuss the depiction of rape, but it's OK to discuss the depiction of vampirism.

Before I comment on that idea, can you tell me if that's actually what you mean, or if not, what did you mean?

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

As usual, you say things I want to say much more clearly and eloquently than I can say them.

[permetaform]

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

I mean that the shame and guilt surrounding the word and the concept "racist" is as damaging to race-relations as the assertion that one is not racist at all.

It's like some of the reactions to people who are disabled or female. I've had a small experience with the first because of a speech impediment in elementary school that amounted to my being taught with the disabled students and seeing things from their perspective and, well, people see me as female (whereas I see myself as me).

While one reaction is prejudice, another reaction that is to be over-protective of the victims.

"Women are weak and must be protected!"
"Oh the disabled kids can't take care of themselves! Let me do things for them!"

The net effect of this reaction is that one side is "protector" and the other is "victim", taking the power away from the "victims".

In other words it creates a NEW hierarchy, that while not based on race/sex/wholeness-of-body, is still maintaining the status quo.

ie. shame and guilty causes people to react in less than optimal ways.

The ability of the mind to make snap judgements is hardwired into us. It's a survival trait, it works in our animal hindbrain. And in a way we NEED snap judgements, they are our Working Hypothesis, they are our Roadmaps.

Where stereotypes becomes dangerous is when one refuses to believe that the Hypothesis IS the Conclusion, when one refuses to go offroad. To further the metaphor, roads are 'safer' and less 'scary', but ONLY in certain situations are they the best thing to follow.

And I have never said that these types conversations shouldn't happen. But sometimes "actively acting" against something does as much damage as passively letting it sit.


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.

A race-blind audience is made of at least two parts:
a) those who are blind because they dichotomize everything into "us" and "other"
b) and those who are blind because everything is "us"

I don't know you enough to say whether you're one or the other. I think (a) will get you into trouble. I think the audience that is (b) is getting all turned about and confused, if they're being ashamed of something they should have no shame of. THAT is the audience that this post is directed towards.


3) I agree with [info]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.

This...makes me want to point back to the power issues between "protector" and "victim".

However, it also makes me want to mention that the positive and neutral protrayals of people of color did not come into play in your response. They are also present in DMC, I will let you find them on your own. It's still maintaining the manichean dichotomy, if even the supporters of a race cannot get beyond the cut-and-dry portrayals of black=bad, that even when blacks are 'good' it is a 'bad representation'.


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!

It is a...defensive reading of my post, I think. Which I understand even as I'm, well, wording things carefully to you, because I don't think we are speaking the same 'language' so I'm picking my words as best I can.

I will admit that I link hopped and randomly got to several posts, amoung which was yours, that after about the 5th post on this subject I had to speak up. Because again, it's not ABOUT race, in the end, but about power structures. And even if the power structure does not become based on race, it's still the status quo.