Re: The Racism Thread

[McLewis]

Just to be clear i meant precisely the words that i wrote. I don't understand your reply

Anyways the black Aragorn was not a good example i doubt it goes this far. A better example is the asian girl in Star Wars, clearly just a token of appreciation for asian viewers, ruined the credibility of this character for me. Somehow i never had those thoughts for Mace Windu, probably because i was not overwhelmed by wokeism like today. Finn i was able to overcome since he is the second character of a new story... not an empty character

The main target of my post was to discuss the hostile reaction towards diversity it goes beyond whether or not it's objectively good thing to include bipoc characters, since everybody in their right mind agree on that.

My reply was meant to address that the Tolkien estate did not make these decisions to be woke or because they have political agenda. These accusations do not stand up to scrutiny.

As for Kelly Tran's character in Star Wars, I'm confused by your comment. You accuse the production team of tokenizing her character, yet you didn't mention Donnie Yen's turn in Rogue One. How about Jiang Wen from the same movie? Rogue One came out a year before The Last Jedi so I think your charge of tokenism is not accurate. Tran's character was poorly written and I don't think her performance was great, but none of that has anything to do with her being Asian. I think you need to reflect on why you singled her out for that tokenism charge and no one else.

I just want my posts to be read for the words they contain. Instead of replying with socratic questioning, finding incoherences to point out anybody disagreeing with you as subconsiously racist, mysogine, homophobic etc.

When everybody else is white i assume every diverse character is a token of appreciation, a mandatory diversity, that's the level of cynism i'm at towards inclusivity. Maybe it's a terrible thing but then i will never boycott anything because there's diversity in it, the only effect is ruin the credibility of SOME of those characters in MY eyes (side characters most of the time) rarely it's a problem with main characters, if the fellowship of the ring has a bipoc friend and it is explained from the lore who cares. Or whatever example of a good character who happens to be bipoc. I notice a difference and it's cool. But a bad/empty/remake bipoc character nowadays, it's like he has "woke" written on his forehead, which i cannot get over because i suffer overdose of virtue signaling. It's a feeling hard to explain, here i tried my best.

I singled Kelly Tran out because the character was not good enough to see otherwise. I have not seen Rogue One so i cannot tell, it goes case by case.

Tolkien is dead since many years. His estate are different people from different era and could very well be influenced by woke ideology there is no proof if yes or no.

I think you want your words interpreted exactly as you intended them when you spoke them. That's not how this works. Once you say something, especially on the internet, you have very little control over how it will be interpreted. I therefore standby my interpretation of what you said.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Tolkien estate are operating under a "woke" ideology? Could it be possible that they are simply expressing DEI and that makes you uncomfortable?

I recommend you watch Rogue One. It's the best of the newer Star Wars movies. Donnie Yen and Jiang Wen 2 reasons why. Say what you will about Tran's character in the movie, but she didn't deserve the racist vitriol she received simply for accepting a one-in-a-life-time role in one of the greatest franchises of all time. Her dream became a nightmare because people couldn't handle the fact that her character wasn't written expressly for a white actress.

[McLewis]

So if you're not mad, what are you? Bothered? Annoyed? Irritated? Why is there such an obsession and an insistence on purity when it comes these adaptations? Help me understand it because I honestly don't and that's down to the fact that it's frankly impractical to expect any adaptation to be unerringly exact to the source material so I don't.

As for the Velaryon and Targaryon bloodlines, I suggest we go back further in time. The Targaryen's escaped the Doom by fleeing to Dragonstone, just off the coast of Westeros. However, the Velaryons did not follow them immediately. They are a seafaring family known for exploration so that's what they did. This is how they come in contact with people of darker skin and unlike the patently racist Targaryens, who were obsessed with blood purity, the Velaryons did not have such hang ups so they intermixed with the people they met through their explorations. This darkened the skin of later generations to the point that by the time they joined the Targaryens in Westeros, they were decidedly darker than they had been generations before. The only reason they were allowed to intermix with the Targaryens is because of their Valyrian blood, which remained prominent primarily in their hair color.

Further, and to step outside of Westeros for a bit, there are plenty of white people who have ancestors that were darker in skin color. This is rarely ever apparent to them or others. Ancestry tests have found this stuff out with ease. Hard to believe? Sure. Impossible? not at all. So just because the Targaryens we see in this show are all white as marble, doesn't mean they don't have some Black in them due to their intermixing with the darker complected Velaryons. That line of thinking is not in keeping with what we know of genetics. I think it's also important to remember that Targaryens will only intermix with other Houses when they have no choice to do so. This is not been the case on enough occassions for their skin to darken generationally to the level that we've seen with the Velaryons, who did this consistently for over 200 years between the Doom and the Conquest.

This argumentation is far more plausible than anything that came from the creators of the show, really, but the Targaryens were comfortable intermarrying with House Velaryon for a reason. Considering they were obsessed with genetic purity and resorted to incest oftentimes, It's quite hard for me to believe them being comfortable intermixing  beyond their race. Then again House Velaryon is also nobility, what's in it for them to intermarry with just about anyone on their voyages and bastards dont really matter. Point being, cant imagine the mainline marrying non-nobles, frankly. I could see intermixing happen the way you describe but hardly on the mainline.

Reading a World of Ice and Fire ahead of this show has really helped my understanding of how all of this is possible. It's interesting that GRRM chose to center his books around so many of these white characters set in a world that is full of Black and Brown folks. There's even a nation that resembles Imperial China that we never even hear about in neither the books nor the shows. In many ways, his world is among the most inclusive I've run across. It's just a shame he didn't fully tap into that more.

Like I said though, both Houses are of ancient Valyrian stock. I see that as the key lynchpin in the Targaryen marriage strategy, particularly when they've run out of siblings to marry to each other.  Old Valyrian blood is far more preferable and superior to anything Westeros can offer, in the mind of a Targaryen and even with the mixing in of Summer Islanders, who are often darker in skin tone.

[Warrior]

My reply was meant to address that the Tolkien estate did not make these decisions to be woke or because they have political agenda. These accusations do not stand up to scrutiny.

As for Kelly Tran's character in Star Wars, I'm confused by your comment. You accuse the production team of tokenizing her character, yet you didn't mention Donnie Yen's turn in Rogue One. How about Jiang Wen from the same movie? Rogue One came out a year before The Last Jedi so I think your charge of tokenism is not accurate. Tran's character was poorly written and I don't think her performance was great, but none of that has anything to do with her being Asian. I think you need to reflect on why you singled her out for that tokenism charge and no one else.

I just want my posts to be read for the words they contain. Instead of replying with socratic questioning, finding incoherences to point out anybody disagreeing with you as subconsiously racist, mysogine, homophobic etc.

When everybody else is white i assume every diverse character is a token of appreciation, a mandatory diversity, that's the level of cynism i'm at towards inclusivity. Maybe it's a terrible thing but then i will never boycott anything because there's diversity in it, the only effect is ruin the credibility of SOME of those characters in MY eyes (side characters most of the time) rarely it's a problem with main characters, if the fellowship of the ring has a bipoc friend and it is explained from the lore who cares. Or whatever example of a good character who happens to be bipoc. I notice a difference and it's cool. But a bad/empty/remake bipoc character nowadays, it's like he has "woke" written on his forehead, which i cannot get over because i suffer overdose of virtue signaling. It's a feeling hard to explain, here i tried my best.

I singled Kelly Tran out because the character was not good enough to see otherwise. I have not seen Rogue One so i cannot tell, it goes case by case.

Tolkien is dead since many years. His estate are different people from different era and could very well be influenced by woke ideology there is no proof if yes or no.

I think you want your words interpreted exactly as you intended them when you spoke them. That's not how this works. Once you say something, especially on the internet, you have very little control over how it will be interpreted. I therefore standby my interpretation of what you said.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Tolkien estate are operating under a "woke" ideology? Could it be possible that they are simply expressing DEI and that makes you uncomfortable?

I recommend you watch Rogue One. It's the best of the newer Star Wars movies. Donnie Yen and Jiang Wen 2 reasons why. Say what you will about Tran's character in the movie, but she didn't deserve the racist vitriol she received simply for accepting a one-in-a-life-time role in one of the greatest franchises of all time. Her dream became a nightmare because people couldn't handle the fact that her character wasn't written expressly for a white actress.

Yes i wish for my words interpreted exactly as i intended that's why i spend much time editing my posts. The problem is that my reflexion process is not in english and i struggle to summarize some more philosophical subjects than football and video games. But none of that matters and i don't think i'll bother anymore.

To ask if inclusivity bothers me after i wrote a whole paragraph to explain it in the very same post you quoted proves your bad faith.

I do not care about maintaining the will of Tolkien, be it through his estate or whatever producer who pretends to be concerned by inclusivity. If some good LOTR stuff comes out i sign up for it. The root of my discomfort is not there.

I will watch Rogue One eventually, i like Donnie Yen and Ip Man is amongst my favorite films, i don't approve harassing people on social medias and even much less for the color of their skin.

[Myesyats]

Reading a World of Ice and Fire ahead of this show has really helped my understanding of how all of this is possible. It's interesting that GRRM chose to center his books around so many of these white characters set in a world that is full of Black and Brown folks. There's even a nation that resembles Imperial China that we never even hear about in neither the books nor the shows. In many ways, his world is among the most inclusive I've run across. It's just a shame he didn't fully tap into that more.

Like I said though, both Houses are of ancient Valyrian stock. I see that as the key lynchpin in the Targaryen marriage strategy, particularly when they've run out of siblings to marry to each other.  Old Valyrian blood is far more preferable and superior to anything Westeros can offer, in the mind of a Targaryen and even with the mixing in of Summer Islanders, who are often darker in skin tone.

I suppose, I am not here to argue for the sake of arguing. I agree that this is within the realm of possibility.

[McLewis]

So lots of discourse around why many in former and current British colonies (largely people of color) are not mourning the death of Queen Elizabeth.

To be frank, I am one of the people that am not mourning her passing. I'm not celebrating it however. I just don't feel any negative sense of loss over her death. She was a colonizer, like all of her ancestors. She had the chance to truly build bridges and make amends with the people her empire has enslaved, oppressed and brutalized. Instead, she chose to profit from it. There are people far more worthy, in my mind, of mourning.

The oppressed do not have to show compassion for the death of their oppressors. To expect and demand something like that is peak caucasity and it invites ridicule.

Also, shoutout to Irish Twitter. They are absolutely wildin' out right now.

[Adit]

Same here. As a citizen if a country which was the cash cow of the british empire i do not feel anything with the monarchs death.

Neither am I happy knowing a human being died what ever the deeds she did while on her human form.

[El Gunner]

couldn't give two shits about Lizbet and her ties

[Warrior]

In my province nobody gives a shit about the UK monarchy, would go as far as saying they are hated. I think in other canadian provinces there is a recent bump of popularity mostly among wasps

My first reaction was surprised she was just 96, thought she was 110 or something

[McLewis]

I think there's a generational throughline at play here as well. Younger folks tend not to care about any of this as much as their parents and grandparents, who grew up when the monarchy was much more respected than it is now.

For those of us of color though, it's all the same regardless of generation.

[Nishankly]

She has no place in this thread, majority of the commonwealth population does not even know why she is important or how she looks like, lets please move this back to the politics thread.

[McLewis]

The systemic pillaging of India and Africa of their natural resources may be seen as geopolitcal, but the colonization and subjugation of their people was not. That was entirely racist.

[Myesyats]

I would say Colonization was primarily about extracting resources whereas racism and dehumanization was used to justify enslaving and killing people in the process. Because slavery was forbidden in Europe so they had to justify it somehow

[McLewis]

Either way, one begot the other, but one does not erase the other.

Racism was a feature of colonization. Not a bug.

[Nishankly]

The systemic pillaging of India and Africa of their natural resources may be seen as geopolitcal, but the colonization and subjugation of their people was not. That was entirely racist.

But she had no role in India as far as I know and she was appointed 5 years after we got independence, and beyond that I am not even sure how much interest she holds in decision making or power she has to shut down governmental decisions which is why I was questioning her place in this domain.

Sure, she must have turned a blind eye on the countries that gained independence after she came into power but again how much could she control? Would be good to elucidate that if anyone knows.

[McLewis]

The systemic pillaging of India and Africa of their natural resources may be seen as geopolitcal, but the colonization and subjugation of their people was not. That was entirely racist.

But she had no role in India as far as I know and she was appointed 5 years after we got independence, and beyond that I am not even sure how much interest she holds in decision making or power she has to shut down governmental decisions which is why I was questioning her place in this domain.

Sure, she must have turned a blind eye on the countries that gained independence after she came into power but again how much could she control? Would be good to elucidate that if anyone knows.

No, she doesn't get absolution due to ignorance. She is one of the very few people on Earth who will never get that luxury.

Her father had several years to prepare her for what she'd need to know before taking the throne and even after her coronation, he invited prime minister after prime minister to form governments that continued the Empire's plans of colonization and subjugation. There are African nations that had to fight for their independence from governments she allowed to be formed nearly a decade after she was crowned.

She was complicit. She doesn't get to be absolved.

[Myesyats]

Black people — whose depictions in media became a focus of concern amid the worldwide reckoning over civil rights this summer — were actually slightly overrepresented with 18.1 percent of screen time, while comprising 14 percent of the population.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/04/942574850/more-evidence-tv-doesnt-reflect-real-life-diversity

thoughts?

[VivaStPauli]

Black people — whose depictions in media became a focus of concern amid the worldwide reckoning over civil rights this summer — were actually slightly overrepresented with 18.1 percent of screen time, while comprising 14 percent of the population.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/04/942574850/more-evidence-tv-doesnt-reflect-real-life-diversity

thoughts?

Thinking, reading that article, Latinos are getting shafted. Women, also.

[McLewis]

So I noticed some debate in the Messi thread about Black players and how colonial powers like France, Portugal, England, and the Netherlands are able to draw upon so many Black players to represent them.

I suppose I have questions: Is this considered an unfair advantage? Or was this merely an observation?

My take is colonialism has been fucking brutal to the African continent so it's only right and proper that the generational victims of it are allowed to make better lives for themselves in the countries who ruined their birth nations. Would I prefer to see more of these folks return to Africa and represent their home nations? Sure. Do I begrudge them not doing that? Not at all.

Also - I saw a reference to the "pace and power" stereotype that many Black athletes are subjected to. Maybe the person who said doesn't know or understand this, but it's a racist stereotype.

Now the kneejerk response is going to be "but it's true, how is that harmful?". The answer is simple, it minimizes that athlete's other attributes (in football, it's intelligence) in favor of what is perceived to be their most obvious (their athleticism).

The other kneejerk reaction is: "We say this about white players too." Again, the answer is simple. Are there white players that fall into this bucket? Absolutely. Does this happen to the majority of white players? Absolutely not.

My overriding point that calling a Black player a "beast" is derivative and lazy. It leans all the way into that "pace and power" nonsense. Instead, people really need to think more critically about why that Black player is such a good player. I think they'll find it has so much more to do than just their physicality.

[Found]

I stand by my point France uses black footballers to pretend they’re less racist than everyone else.
They have the least integration and even mixed race players like mbappe are mixed with black and other colonised North Africans.

[McLewis]

I stand by my point France uses black footballers to pretend they’re less racist than everyone else.
They have the least integration and even mixed race players like mbappe are mixed with black and other colonised North Africans.

So 2 questions:

1. Can we agree that racism is about the taking of power? If not, why?

2. In what context are you referring to "integration" what are these players not integrating into?

[Myesyats]

My comment was not about skin color, if they were white or blue it would be all the same. France imposed their culture and language on these countries and are now benefiting from it still, and in saying that I was alluding to Sportsczy’s “level playing field” comment on NT vs club football

[Pedram]

So I noticed some debate in the Messi thread about Black players and how colonial powers like France, Portugal, England, and the Netherlands are able to draw upon so many Black players to represent them.

I suppose I have questions: Is this considered an unfair advantage? Or was this merely an observation?

My take is colonialism has been fucking brutal to the African continent so it's only right and proper that the generational victims of it are allowed to make better lives for themselves in the countries who ruined their birth nations. Would I prefer to see more of these folks return to Africa and represent their home nations? Sure. Do I begrudge them not doing that? Not at all.

Also - I saw a reference to the "pace and power" stereotype that many Black athletes are subjected to. Maybe the person who said doesn't know or understand this, but it's a racist stereotype.

Now the kneejerk response is going to be "but it's true, how is that harmful?". The answer is simple, it minimizes that athlete's other attributes (in football, it's intelligence) in favor of what is perceived to be their most obvious (their athleticism).

The other kneejerk reaction is: "We say this about white players too." Again, the answer is simple. Are there white players that fall into this bucket? Absolutely. Does this happen to the majority of white players? Absolutely not.

My overriding point that calling a Black player a "beast" is derivative and lazy. It leans all the way into that "pace and power" nonsense. Instead, people really need to think more critically about why that Black player is such a good player. I think they'll find it has so much more to do than just their physicality.

Fully agreed, you explained it better.  

To be clear i don't think the comment was purposely harmful but you can't help but notice the casual racism behind it, wasn't nice to call them "imported players" as if they haven't been living in France for generations.

[Myesyats]

I would say the same if they were white too. It just so happens that they are black by coincidence in this situation, you really try to be too over-corrective, saying that they import them was more in the sense of emphasizing the unfair advantage that they have as a country, it’s nothing personal toward the people themselves, on second thought I would’ve formulated it differently perhaps but I wasn’t writing an academic paper bro

And it’s irrelevant to the point of discussion anyway, the question is whether France benefits from it or not. To add to that point, you could also say that countries and clubs alike have their own financial/population limitations when it comes to developing young talent and so on. Point being: is NT football a level playing field?

[McLewis]

@Thimmy @elgunner I responded to your posts in the Bayern thread here as I didn't want to derail it.

It's 100% possible for lighter-skinned Black folks to say derogatory stuff about darker-skinned Black folks. It's called colorism and it's a huge issue within the African Diaspora. Has been for centuries.

That's as far as I'll go into it since this isn't the racism thread.

That seems relatively common for every race, from what I can tell. When I was in US, I met a black couple who insisted that some local celebrity was somehow not "real black" because she was lighter skinned. That doesn't make sense to me, but I didn't want to argue about it.

In South Korea, a Korean teacher described a Filipino person as "dirty" which was quite shocking to me. I've witnessed white people refer to other white people in derogatory ways as well, while traveling around Europe. It seems more like a people problem to me, than an insert race problem.

So I think we're talking about different things here.

What you described in the US is definitely colorism. I would even say what you described between the South Koreans and Filipinos is colorism given they are both members of the overall Asian Diaspora. I think others may disagree though.

Now what you described in Europe is not colorism for me. Unless we're talking about mainland Italians talking reckless about Sicilians because of their darker skin, that might fit the definition. I might even go for it if we're talking about the Romani people though their lifestyle is a big part of the discrimination they face more than their slightly ruddier skin tone. Colorism in Europe certainly exists though, just primarily among the African Diaspora. The root of it? European colonialism.

It's 100% possible for lighter-skinned Black folks to say derogatory stuff about darker-skinned Black folks. It's called colorism and it's a huge issue within the African Diaspora. Has been for centuries.

That's as far as I'll go into it since this isn't the racism thread.

it also 100% works the other way around as well... darker skinned blacks HATE on light-skinned blacks so much, it's crazy

You're not going to get much disagreement from me, but do you understand why it happens? Where that "hate" comes from?

[El Gunner]

because humans are stupid and merely wild animals, and they take favouritism towards their own in-group on all fronts (gender, skin colour, nationalism, etc)

[McLewis]

because humans are stupid and merely wild animals, and they take favouritism towards their own in-group on all fronts (gender, skin colour, nationalism, etc)

From a super high-level view that aliens would probably have of us, yes.

From a ground level view, it's more complicated than that though I will say, from the American perspective, it has a lot to do with how our enslaved ancestors were treated, due to the white masters favoring the light-skinned over the dark-skinned, for obvious reasons.

[Sponsored content]