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

[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.