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

[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).

Part 2 reposted with corrected grammar

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

Without knowing what posts you're responding to, it's impossible for me to know whether they in fact involved: (1) people portraying themselves of protectors of the helpless; or (2) casting blame, shame, and self-hatred on people. So it sounds like you are arguing that it is useless--or in fact *harmful*--to (a) notice that some actors and characters in PoTC are white, and some are black and Indian; (b) point out the different ways the narrative treats characters; (c) ascribe some of those differences to race; (d) criticize some of those differences on the basis of this film as an individual story; (d) criticize some of those differences on the basis of this film as part of a long historical discourse on race.

From your post, I am really not sure what you think a non-racist discussion of race in fandom would look like.

Re: Part 2 reposted with corrected grammar

[permetaform]

Outrage of a certain tone I think is unhelpful, blame is cast by syntax.

I have been saying that race discussions necessary. I think (a) (b) (c) are necessary.

I am leery of (d) and (d/e?) not as aspects of themselves, but the way that I see it being presented. I see them as problems because they're complaints without any real solution, just a vague, "Don't Be A Racist Pig!" and "Fight The Establishment!" And I've always came away from one of those posts feeling like, "and...now what?" Just like the way I feel when I come away from reading an article like that in my classes, and the general feeling there is, "and...but there's nothing I can DO." And there's vague discomfort and dismay and the caucasians trying really hard to be nice and coming off as vaguely fake and condescending. Same thing with the muticultural caucuses I've attended; the same human reactions.

The progress/process from (a) to (d/e?) THAT process is #(2), is it not? It is critique without balance, it is con-crit without the constructive. There is no solution in it, no flex, no give. It is seeing the racial structure AS a structure, and maintaining the manichean dichotomy by it's own wording. And the automatic jumping to the defense doesn't let the characters speak for themselves.

By labeling Tia Dalma as a sterotype without recognizing the uniqueness, her value as a powerful Jamaican woman and her power through her sexuality and her culture and her race is diminished. By saying that she's just "present to help The White Man on His Journey" is to ignore the fact that she plays the part of Merlin, of Loki, of Yoda. Almost through the assignation of her as a sterotype, she is being flattened out. She and her culture is being "protected" because "They stereotyped her! That's not really an accurate portrayal!" And the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.

(d) and (d/e?)...see, I kinda view them the way I do the death penalty. I want the assholes to die, but I don't have enough faith in the justice system to be behind the concept 100%, from the way the system has proven itself to work in the past. Similarly, I want racism to be stopped or very diminished, but I don't have enough faith that un-balanced critique would do it, because it's FAR too easy to slip back into manichean opposites when one has a b/w view on an issue. And I mean b/w as in monochromatic, tho the pun is interesting and totally not on purpose! ::wry grin::

The reason why I object to the word "critique" is again a demographics issue, BOTH sides of the debate is present in fandom. So when the "critique" is presented about an issue that EVERYONE is a part of, and on divided lines on, then of course blame is cast. Tho the poster may not have a specific person in mind with their post, there's that vague "Other" that it's directed towards, and whenever that happens people tend to think that it's projected onto themselves; sorta like those "10 anonymous things to people on my flist" meme, I've noticed that at least fen tend to automatically default to the least generous opinion of themselves. I notice it happening to myself. I know this because artists tend to be critical of themselves, because they need to be critical of their own work.

What a non-racist discussion of race in fandom would look like I think, is con-crit. Genuine constructive-criticism, where the 'beta' is genuinely looking out for your best interests and not looking to attack "anyone". Because you are, *together*, attacking a *problem*.

Re: Part 2 reposted with corrected grammar

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

What a non-racist discussion of race in fandom would look like I think, is con-crit. Genuine constructive-criticism, where the 'beta' is genuinely looking out for your best interests and not looking to attack "anyone". Because you are, *together*, attacking a *problem*.

Except, of course, that there is no *together*, because the people who created the work you're discussing aren't part of the discussion.

However, that aside, it sounds like you're saying that it's OK to say that there's a problem as long as you also propose a solution. Is that right?

So does this sort of discussion opener look more like what you're aiming for?

"I felt that the portrayal of Barabbas in The Jew of Malta was anti-Semitic because he is a greedy Jew who poisons the well of a nunnery because he hates Christians. Also, he is the only Jew in the play, which makes his actions seem to represent all Jews. It's true that many of the Christians are portrayed as sniveling hypocrites, but that doesn't make the portrayal of Barabbas any less anti-Semitic.

Given that Barabbas being gleefully evil is what the entire play is about, one could not make him less evil, or less stereotypically an evil Jew, without rewriting the entire play. One could try adding Jews who are not greedy or evil, but the particular traits Barabbas embodies have such a long history as specifically anti-Semitic stereotypes that I don't think that would really help.

I feel that the best solution would have been to make Barabbas an evil Christian who poisons the nuns because he hates hypocrisy and feels that the nuns are hypocrites, and not have there be any Jews in the play at all. This would be in-character, as he does indeed hate hypocrisy and call the nuns hypocrites, and would remove the anti-Semitism.

This is not an artistic criticism of the play. It's a very well-written play, and I enjoyed reading it even though the anti-Semitic content made me feel weird and guilty for liking it."

my response part 1 of 2

[permetaform]

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.

::blink:: BUH?? What th...I mean, the thing is, sexism and sexual CAN be talked about, because the sexual and the female-dominated characteristics of fandom is pretty damn inherent. The demographics of the audience are pretty damn all skewed towards one side, or as many people call it, a 'safe haven'.

You get none of that with race, that despite not being able to see race, there's many from BOTH sides of the issue Right There (provided you see the issue as "Us" versus "Other"). And while I *get* that people are trying to create a 'safe haven' to discuss it, it does not exist in this forum, not *easily*, not without friction, because it's hard to discuss it head-on with both parties in the room.

I...okay, part of me I think is balking at your phrase of "speaking out about racism". The phrase brings up resonances of futile student protests, of elitist sociopolitical jargon, of femi-nazi's trying so hard to fight and fight in a place where the battle is already half-won and now requires a more delicate touch.

I have chosen to speak out *for* integration, rather than for separation. I am refusing to separate the issue into "Us" versus "Them", because we are part of the problem. I am refusing to separate the issue into "Us" versus "Sociopolitical Structure" because it's futile in this forum, I've learned awhile ago that this is NOT a political journal, that my energy for that can be spent elsewhere.


Hmm. You seemed to me to be saying that the only solution to racism is to pretend not to notice race. Is that incorrect?

::sigh:: yes, that is incorrect. I am saying that the solution HERE, for the people that THIS LJ can touch, is not the tearing-apart of yourself through your guilt and shame over your possible "racism", it is not the separation into "us" and "them". I am saying that the CURRENT situation that I'm seeing in my flist, with people who are already half-way there, with the demographics of the people who might possibly happen upon my journal, the MOST HELPFUL thing is to integrate your awareness of your own racism, and be willing to consider that those not of your race are mostly-decent, semi-flawed human beings. That African Americans can make mistakes too, that English folk are sometimes assholes, that we make Assumptions about everyone we meet, because we as humans make Assumptions about everything we encounter. To be made to feel guilt and shame over the fact that one makes hypothesises is like making one feel guilt and shame over being a woman. It's not right. It's not helpful.

I am saying that the solution to racism differs depending on your demographic, depending on your "reach". I am saying there's no one right Solution to this massive, multilayered problem.

My post was structured basically like:
1) everyone is racist
2) here are incidents of prevalent racism
3) here is why this is human
4) it's Okay To Be Human

PS) PCness taken too far would make the movie absurd (ie. candle scene)

...This discussion...okay, it twigged me out to be having *this* discussion with you. Because I felt like I was being attacked by a femi-nazi for shaving my legs and for liking boys. And I shave my legs for myself (consider me a metrosexual), and I like boys because it's not like I can change that.

I felt like you were avocating battle, and that you are missing the ultimate goal of the battle. I linked to fashes's meta on feminism and SGA, and while it's character-based, there's enough there to make sense to the non-SGA-viewer.

Re: my response part 1 of 2

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I realize, reading this, that your reply to me would probably echo a lot of your reply to Mely, so I'm going to explain a bit in advance where I'm coming from.

::blink:: BUH?? What th...I mean, the thing is, sexism and sexual CAN be talked about, because the sexual and the female-dominated characteristics of fandom is pretty damn inherent. The demographics of the audience are pretty damn all skewed towards one side, or as many people call it, a 'safe haven'.

I think I'm probably a bit older than you, and also came into fandom through books/zines/the written word, rather than media. In that corner of fandom then, women were a very small minority, and even now, if you go to a written-word-focused convention other than Wiscon (a specifically feminist convention) the gender balance tends to be either 50-50 or predominantly male. And my first online experience with fandom was rasfw on usenet, which seemed to be about 25-30 percent female, and where I stayed for about five or six years.

When I said that I'd seen fannish conversations about gender/sexism in art going on, I was referring not just to the media/fanfic section of LJ, which is indeed female-dominated, but to my entire fannish experience, which ranges from male-dominated to 50-50 to female-dominated. And yes, there's more agreement when everyone in the room is female. But it is perfectly possible to discuss sexism in art with a mixed-gender group, and still have a non-hostile, non-metaphoric discussion.

You get none of that with race, that despite not being able to see race, there's many from BOTH sides of the issue Right There (provided you see the issue as "Us" versus "Other"). And while I *get* that people are trying to create a 'safe haven' to discuss it, it does not exist in this forum, not *easily*, not without friction, because it's hard to discuss it head-on with both parties in the room.

See above.

I mean, maybe this particular LJ is not a safe haven. But I disagree that having people of different races discussing race together inherently procludes discussion. I had a discussion about racism in casting TV shows in my LJ a couple months back, with actual examples from an actual TV show I'd worked on, and people of a number of different races managed to participate, agree and disagree with each other, and post links to hot actors of different races without any virtual blood being shed, and without anyone saying, "It's just a fun TV show! We shouldn't pay attention to the race of the actors who are in it!"

Re: my response part 1 of 2

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

Sorry, forgot to close italic tag.

Re: my response part 1 of 2

[permetaform]

this...makes me wistful.

I wish that that kind of discussion is possible here, or in general, but I think after a...carrying capacity? Something? of a certain number, I forget what it was in statistics, but that the sample size becomes a microcosm. The cat's out of the bag and I already have over 650 people watching me. que sera.

Re: my response part 1 of 2

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I am now going to prove that it is possible to step away from an aspect of a discussion which hits too many of your buttons for you to be able to discuss it without going ballistic, by not touching your use of the word "femi-nazi."

(I'm not going away from the entire conversation, just that particular aspect of it.)

my response part 2 of 2

[permetaform]

I feel that, while there is a time and a place for outrage and protests, this HERE in LJ fandom, is not necessarily the space-time for it.

It is futile railing; because those who are causing the problems for the most part aren't HERE for the discussion, most people in fandom are at least nominally open-minded and have had some exposure to the issues via media and music and fanwork.

So what would the rants do? Possibly make those (who aren't part of the problem, who are slowly moving towards the solution, which is connectedness) feel guilty and ashamed and then overcompensating, possibly never reach the people it's directed towards, and even IF the message does reach them, would they change their minds based off of someone preaching at them?

Those who *would* change their minds are probably already heading in that direction, and I refuse to shepard their way by making them feel bad. There are better solutions.

addendum Re: Part 1

[permetaform]

btw: A bit that got lost in the grammatical fix-its in the comments above is that...that I'm having this disconnect/disagreement with *you* is sorta breaking my brain. I'm...a ball of "buh?" And it's really really strange.

Re: addendum Re: Part 1

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

Thank you for saying that.

I think I will leave Rachel's response as a stand-in for mine, because we do have fairly similar views (and in some ways experiences, down to history of fandom), and she is a lot calmer than I am about "feminazi."

[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?

[permetaform]

hmm, sorta and no.

What I meant that fandom is *used* to discussing traumatic issues via the shield of characters they identify with. And that to directly be discussed in relation to art is difficult for people, because discussing those issues *in general* is difficult for people and also because people have to start changing their language in the discussion out of courtesy to those being discussed. The safety net of "fiction" allows enough of a shield, I think, for the discussion to occur when the subject of the discussion is present, so that the subject might be in a place that is non-defensive and the non-subjects to be allowed to be frank.

Especially in fandom, we're behind our internet screens, so subjects are allowed even more of a physical shield, "oh they can't see me and don't know my history". ALONG WITH a mental shield, "Oh, I'm talking/reading about character A, and not me."

I'm saying, basically, that art, in general, contains non-immediate trauma *that is controllable by the viewer*, it is not (usually) in-your-face if you don't search for it, and you can more easily close a book or turn away from a painting than you can close a discussion. It is easier to see and digest, when it's "not talking about me".

And because art approaches trauma sideways, approaching the trauma head-on requires a...gah, readjustment? recentering? realignment? of the language and mindset used to discuss the topic. It makes people automatically defensive, because it's talking about themselves.

And I think this is true of both fandom and mainstream art.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I agree that direct discussions about race do tend to set people off and make them react defensively-- and yes, that it is much safer for fans to only discuss race/racism in art when it involves cylons, etc rather than actual non-white characters/actors. (For one thing, no one ever has to test their principles by interacting with actual cylons.)

However, the fact that something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I see fannish discussions going on about gender/sex/sexism in art all the time, in which those touchy subjects are discussed directly, relating to actual women/female characters on screen, without having to remove it one step by discussing, say, the gender of robots.

Sometimes these discussions get heated, and people of couse disagree all the time on whether or not a show is sexist, or whether or not they enjoy it anyway. But I don't see anywhere near the same number of responses saying, "It's just a fun TV show, who cares if all the female characters are shrieking victims who have to be rescued by the male characters?" or "You're reading too much into it-- who notices the gender of who rescues and who gets rescued?" And the few times people do say that, they generally don't get much support, but rather a ton of messages saying that fandom exists to analyze and that gender representations are worth discussing.

So yeah, I get that race seems to be a touchier subject than gender, at least in the little corner of LJ that I follow, but that doesn't mean that's a good thing, or that we are all incapable of getting over it. Again, if people find the discussion too traumatizing to enter into, then they should stay out of it until they do feel capable of discussing such matters.

leading from my previous response...

[permetaform]

OH, and an example:

"Show me where, on this doll, he touched you."

And the child is able to point at the doll, and less so themselves, because it is not them. Because of the internal defense mechanism that goes, "no, this did not happen to me, this is not me."

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

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