Re: The Racism Thread

[rincon]

I broadly agree with Rincon, but all the same think it's a shame all this Hollywood talent is being wasted to tell the same old stories when they could draw inspiration and awareness into amazing Black stories that have gone unheard so far.

Ex: The Count of Monte Cristo was based on the life of General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, who had an incredibly cinematic life and would make for an amazing Netflix show.

That's a different point with which I also agree. That has more to do with how safe Hollywood plays it with big budget movies. Same stories, same characters, bankable box office.

At the same time you have something like The Last of Us which is original content, talking about the game, that creates great characters that are gay, women, and people of different races. Yet you hear the same complaints when it's adapted to TV about political agendas and all that nonsense. It casts a shadow on the source of the complaints in some cases.

[McLewis]

it's more than that rincon, it's the fact that you know it is being done with some identity politics agenda in mind.

No. It's being done for profit. Identity politics is merely the mask they've chosen to hide that truth behind. Hollywood studios give exactly zero fucks about which actress plays which historic character. All they care about is if that product will turn a great profit, which makes the executives wealthier.

You say its for a specific audience and at the same time supposed to make lots of money. If such movies are  aimed at a niche and specific minority audience then they will not turn a great profit. That logic seems flawed. Do black people really want English inbred queens depicted as beautiful black women? Especially when there are so few films about African royalty which have never been made. I'd definitely want to watch those!

I don't see the flaw personally. Example - Tyler Perry's iconic Diary of a Mad Black Woman started as a stage play. The audience targeted was middle-age Black folks like my mom, aunts and uncles. It was created by Black folks for Black folks, making it niche in the wider (and predominantly white) world of stage plays. The play was so wildly popular and successful (largely through word of mouth and bootlegs) that Perry was able to then adapt it into a movie which grossed $50 million from a $5m budget and spawned numerous related movies and TV shows. It made him a household name all over the country and allowed him to open up his own TV studio (First Black person to do that) and create a multimedia empire that contninues to feature multitude of Black entertainment that has led to larger exposure for Black creatives within the wider industry. All of that came from an IP made popular by a niche portion of Black America. Just because something is niche doesn't necessary mean it can't be profitable.

Do black people really want English inbred queens depicted as beautiful black women? Especially when there are so few films about African royalty which have never been made. I'd definitely want to watch those!

Can't speak for everyone obviously, but there are a multitude of African queens I would've preferred to see profiled on this show instead of Cleopatra. Netflix grossly miscalculated the audience on this one and that's because they were chasing dollar signs. Cleopatra is the most well known "African" queen of all time and they thought her name alone would result in big viewership numbers. They were wrong. Black folks who truly know their history will never claim Cleopatra. Only those who have a rudimentary understanding of her place in history claim her. Unfortunately, those voices are louder in that particular discourse. So I would've preferred she not be profiled at all as she's nominally African, but clearly Greek. That's not in keeping with the show, which was created to highlight African culture. Her actress honestly could've portrayed quite a few other queens on the show. I don't blame her here though. She's gonna get her bag regardless.

You should watch season 1 of the same show that's covering Cleopatra. It covers the story of Njinga, Queen of pre-colonial Angola. I enjoyed it immensely. Netflix also did a movie on Amina, Queen of the Zazzau people. So there's definitely content out there.

[Myesyats]

Just because something is niche doesn't necessary mean it can't be profitable.

Without a doubt. However, I'm just saying that if you only care about profit then casting Jodie Turner as Anne Boleyn for example is not the most obvious choice. It's a big gamble that can backfire easily. I'm not sure you run that risk if you solely care about profit. It's akin to casting a white guy as MLK, who would want to watch that?!

Obviously you cant be 100% accurate in everything. And naturally in some cases, for example in a portrayal of a blind character, the actor doesnt have to be blind because then it wouldnt really even be acting.

But in terms of the visual aspects, I treat casting choices in the same vein you would treat set design or costume design. It's not a fantasy show, so be at least somewhat accurate and not blatantly agenda-driven. It's not the same as having a book description of a character as being pale white with blue eyes and then casting a POC in an adaptation just because you feel like it. Sure, the book is not a real story and such choices can easily be defended due to creative freedom.

[McLewis]

Just because something is niche doesn't necessary mean it can't be profitable.

Without a doubt. However, I'm just saying that if  you only care about profit then casting Jodie Turner as Anne Boleyn for example is not the most obvious choice. It's a big gamble that can backfire easily. I'm not sure you run that risk if you solely care about profit. It's akin to casting a white guy as MLK, who would want to watch that?!

Obviously you cant be 100% accurate in everything. And naturally in some cases, for example in a portrayal of a blind character, the actor doesnt have to be blind because then it wouldnt really even be acting.

But in terms of the visual aspects, I treat casting choices in the same vein you would treat set design  or costume design. It's not a fantasy show, so be at least somewhat accurate and not blatantly agenda-driven. It's not the same as having a book description of a character as being pale white with blue eyes and then casting a POC in an adaptation just because you feel like it. Sure, the book is not a real story and such choices can easily be defended due to creative freedom.

A white person playing MLK can absolutely be made, if there's the audience for it. And given how this discourse has gone, I'm no longer sure there isn't an audience for it. I can see it being done purely for the shock factor.

My overarching point, however, is it won't get made by a major studio though not because of identity politics, but because it will make none of the money back from what it cost to make in the first place. It's really that simple. The best one could hope for in this scenario is a very low budget production that might become a cult classic among whataboutist racist weirdos.

I personally have given up on any real standard of historical accuracy coming out of major film and TV studios. Given I watch their productions to be entertained rather than educated, I consider it a pretty small concession. Every so often, I get a pleasant surprise, but most of the time, I keep my expectations very low. Like I said, if I want historical accuracy, I'll just watch documentaries.

[BarrileteCosmico]

To me the crazy thing about this is the outrage. If you think historical figures should not cross racial lines in media then you're free to think that. And you will then not watch whatever media product is on offer. So it doesn't impact you in the least.

So why is anyone upset about this at all?

[El Gunner]

My overarching point, however, is it won't get made by a major studio though not because of identity politics, but because it will make none of the money back from what it cost to make in the first place.

bullshit, and you know it!

[El Gunner]

@BC, it's the political agenda... that's what people get mad about. The obvious slights at whiteness and making all white people seem like this monolithic bad peoples. Hollywood has been pandering to this dumb woke movement since the #OscarsSoWhite moment. It's obvious, but also stupid, and that's why people get mad.

I don't necessarily care that much that it has me personally fuming because i know it's stupid, but it irks because i know how dumb the average person is and how easily manipulated they can be by the media. That's why i take a stance on it.

Otherwise, personally, i could never even begin to think of watching or supporting a stupid show/movie/concept like that.

[Warrior]

Some people don't like the proliferation of identity politics because it empowers radicals of both sides. Is it that hard to understand ?

Now maybe you think it's not identity politics being pushed, since 5 years or so hollywood and corporations realized that not only straight white men must be respected and represented. I cannot convince you otherwise but i think it's quite a naive stance.

Can't speak for everybody but i mean the words i write, the concern is genuinely not diversity itself. Sometimes i find diverse characters not credible, as if they are just minority tokens, but that's just my cynism towards woke capitalism kicking in, nothing to lose sleep about. As common example, if studios want to cast a black actor as James Bond, well they want the free publicity that comes from far-right outrage as well as the far-left celebration. Otherwise they would make a film John Bond 008 who happens to be black and the film would find its audience among normal people.

[McLewis]

My overarching point, however, is it won't get made by a major studio though not because of identity politics, but because it will make none of the money back from what it cost to make in the first place.

bullshit, and you know it!

Studios obsessing over their bottom lines when considering what productions to fund is bullshit? Ok, man.

[El Gunner]

ask yourself then why is there such a huge interest level in a black female playing a white male coloniser that Hollywood believes it will bring in the big bucks

[McLewis]

ask yourself then why is there such a huge interest level in a black female playing a white male coloniser that Hollywood believes it will bring in the big bucks

This isn't even Hollywood though. It's the New York Public Theater. This is a stage play based on a FICTIONAL work from Shakespeare.

What was the NY Public Theater's original name? The Shakespeare workshop.

Mind you, Danai Gurira is hardly the first woman to portray a male character in Shakespeare's work. Here are some others:

Sarah Bernhardt played Hamlet
Fiona Shaw played Richard II
Glenda Jackson played King Lear
Ruth Negga (another Black woman) played Hamlet

None of this discourse occurred with any of these performances and no it has nothing to do with the eras in which they occurred. Women playing male characters has been a fairly regular occurrence dating all the way back to when Shakespeare himself was alive.

So what are you really outraged about here?

[El Gunner]

oh okay thought it was a show/movie... yea cross-playing is pretty common in theater

[BarrileteCosmico]

@BC, it's the political agenda... that's what people get mad about. The obvious slights at whiteness and making all white people seem like this monolithic bad peoples. Hollywood has been pandering to this dumb woke movement since the #OscarsSoWhite moment. It's obvious, but also stupid, and that's why people get mad.

I don't necessarily care that much that it has me personally fuming because i know it's stupid, but it irks because i know how dumb the average person is and how easily manipulated they can be by the media. That's why i take a stance on it.

Otherwise, personally, i could never even begin to think of watching or supporting a stupid show/movie/concept like that.

Right, ok. But if you feel like these shows are promoting an agenda you don't agree with, then you don't watch them. And if enough people feel like you (which in the Cleopatra instance seems to be the case) then that movie/show/etc will bomb. And that gives studios an incentive not to alienate so many people again.

So what's the issue here? The system seems to be working as intended. Doesn't make any sense to get upset that a show was not made for people that think like you. Just don't watch it and go on with your day.

[McLewis]

Vinicius Jr says racism is "normal" in La Liga after crowd chants during Real Madrid's match in Valencia pic.twitter.com/WrptDZ4Els

— Sky Sports News (@SkySportsNews) May 21, 2023

Mais uma vez, em vez de criticar racistas, o presidente da LaLiga aparece nas redes sociais para me atacar.

Por mais que você fale e finja não ler, a imagem do seu campeonato está abalada. Veja as respostas do seus posts e tenha uma surpresa...

Omitir-se só faz com que você se… https://t.co/RGO9AZ24IA

— Vini Jr. (@vinijr) May 21, 2023

Really unfortunate that this poor guy is so numb to being racially abused, but I'm glad he's calling out La Liga's president here. I hope he's got the best therapist money can buy. Glad he's got a big support system around him.

As with Italy, racism in Spain is seriously out of pocket. Big reason why I absolutely don't watch this league.

Does anyone want to play Devil's advocate and help me understand why Tebas is attacking Vini here?

[BarcaLearning]

Not too sure why to put this since Im not even sure if this is considered racism, but just now happened to see news about Disneys new Mermaid movie flopped in China n S.Korea due to perhaps auidences being 'racist' by not attracted to the movie due to it having a black female lead playing the mermaid who has always traditionally been white skinned? Tbh, I then looked it up n thought the same thing right away, why would they have the classic character a black actress playing her? It just felt weird to me and for some reason does affect my natural feel and urge to watch the movie. Dunno if that makes sense, but imagine if a new Superman or Peter Pan movie is suddenly played by a non-white actor for example

Whats everyones thoughts on this... do u think Hollywood or Disney has taken it bit too far with the diversity n inclusiveness thing or am I just outdated like many are in the East?

[Thimmy]

Not too sure why to put this since Im not even sure if this is considered racism, but just now happened to see news about Disneys new Mermaid movie flopped in China n S.Korea due to perhaps auidences being 'racist' by not attracted to the movie due to it having a black female lead playing the mermaid who has always traditionally been white skinned? Tbh, I then looked it up n thought the same thing right away, why would they have the classic character a black actress playing her? It just felt weird to me and for some reason does affect my natural feel and urge to watch the movie. Dunno if that makes sense, but imagine if a new Superman or Peter Pan movie is suddenly played by a non-white actor for example

Whats everyones thoughts on this... do u think Hollywood or Disney has taken it bit too far with the diversity n inclusiveness thing or am I just outdated like many are in the East?

It's becoming quite normal among up and coming writers and directors, primarily in Hollywood, to switch the race or gender of characters in re-boots of movies and TV shows. I don't think it's racist to have an issue with that, personally.

Obviously, if people choose not to watch something simply due to the race of the characters, that's clearly racist, but I don't think that's what people typically have an issue with when it comes to these political agenda- driven, re-boots. I don't mind it as much when they do it to shows that I never cared much about in the first place, but I do think it's immersion breaking when they do it to shows that I have a greater level of interest in.

I've several times heard the suggestion that movies like, John Wick and the Top Gun re-boot are as popular as they are, because they're old school, overly masculine movies that do the exact opposite of most modern Hollywood re-boots do, and they don't force people to buy into some kind of political narrative.

[McLewis]

The reality is this: The Little Mermaid wasn't created to satisfy white and Asian audiences. If they want to see a white Ariel, the original is still on Disney+ and that's not even mentioned the other adaptations that have been made of the story. There are many. The fixation on this one specifically is bizarre, but not surprising.

This is where I am on this topic: Ariel is my daughter's favorite Disney princess. I should've bought stock in Disney with the money I've spent on Little Mermaid dresses and other stuff over the years when she was little. She grew up largely color blind, but ran into it face-first when she experienced her first bout of racism in middle school as she was called a "mutt" by another kid. That's when she became acutely aware of her skin color and began seeking out heroes and heroines that looked like her. It's what drew her movies like Lilo & Stitch, Home, Moana, The Princess and the Frog, etc. For the first time, she was seeing characters in major movies that looked like her. She feeling represented on the biggest stage possible. And now to have her absolute favorite Disney princess played by someone who looks like her?......well she's a teenager now and she cried in the theater like she was 5 during this movie. The original never had that impact on her. and she's seen it thousands of times, knows all of the songs and generally loves it to pieces. It just never got that super raw reaction from her like this one did. That's why representation is so important. It's not just some "political" or "woke" agenda. It's millions of girls like my daughter wanting their heroes to look more like them because they know this world can be pretty fucking cruel to folks who look like them.

The creators behind these movies all grew up pretty much yearning for this stuff just like my daughter. It's no mistake that many of these movies are coming from creative people of color. That's the beauty of diversifying a traditionally white-dominated space like Hollywood The only way to unring that bell is to basically make Hollywood predominantly white again. And that's not happening. I'd love to tell you it won't because people just aren't that racist, but really it's just not profitable. That's all Hollywood truly cares about.

[BarcaLearning]

Wow... its enlightening to see when its shared experience like that, I understand more now Goes to show the East in general is prolly still wayyy back with these things... I will definitely keep becoming more open minded since its clearly the trend as they make movies based on much more worldwide audience n will continue, which is good for everyone in general compared with b4 where prolly just a portion gets the be the target audience. Im sure there will also be always a mixture of both traditional old school styles n the new ground breaking one, which is great since everyone is given many choices then whereever u r

[Thimmy]

The reality is this: The Little Mermaid wasn't created to satisfy white and Asian audiences. If they want to see a white Ariel, the original is still on Disney+ and that's not even mentioned the other adaptations that have been made of the story. There are many. The fixation on this one specifically is bizarre, but not surprising.

This is where I am on this topic: Ariel is my daughter's favorite Disney princess. I should've bought stock in Disney with the money I've spent on Little Mermaid dresses and other stuff over the years when she was little. She grew up largely color blind, but ran into it face-first when she experienced her first bout of racism in middle school as she was called a "mutt" by another kid. That's when she became acutely aware of her skin color and began seeking out heroes and heroines that looked like her. It's what drew her movies like Lilo & Stitch, Home, Moana, The Princess and the Frog, etc. For the first time, she was seeing characters in major movies that looked like her. She feeling represented on the biggest stage possible. And now to have her absolute favorite Disney princess played by someone who looks like her?......well she's a teenager now and she cried in the theater like she was 5 during this movie. The original never had that impact on her. and she's seen it thousands of times, knows all of the songs and generally loves it to pieces. It just never got that super raw reaction from her like this one did. That's why representation is so important. It's not just some "political" or "woke" agenda. It's millions of girls like my daughter wanting their heroes to look more like them because they know this world can be pretty fucking cruel to folks who look like them.

The creators behind these movies all grew up pretty much yearning for this stuff just like my daughter. It's no mistake that many of these movies are coming from creative people of color. That's the beauty of diversifying a traditionally white-dominated space like Hollywood The only way to unring that bell is to basically make Hollywood predominantly white again. And that's not happening. I'd love to tell you it won't because people just aren't that racist, but really it's just not profitable. That's all Hollywood truly cares about.

I don't care about The Little Mermaid, personally, but the reality you speak of is only one perspective on this approach to making movies, and anecdotes really don't change that. Movies and TV shows ideally shouldn't be made with a goal of satisfying an audience group of any particular race or creed, in my opinion. That's not a recipe for success, especially not when it comes to re-booting existing material. It's great that your daughter loved it, but I'm sure they could've achieved the same result while appealing to many more people by creating an entirely  new IP.

You already mentioned Disney movies, like Milo and Stitch where they succeeded in doing the same thing without having to jump on the more recent, very obvious trend of political re-boots, which I do insist have a political agenda behind them. They only have themselves to blame if the movie tanks in the box office, which these re-boots tend to do. I also don't get the impression that the writers and producers behind movies of this type tend to be non-white, but you might be more informed than I am. Movies like, She-Hulk may seen completely organic and even resonate with certain people, but the fact that they're going out of their way to appeal to a relatively niche audience is going to be reflected in sales.  

- because those millions of girls you refer to are still a minority among the target group, and that matters when you decide to re-work an established title that people already have an impression of. Yes, they can go back and watch the old work of the same material, but why would they? They're just gonna not watch the movie, because changing the gender and/or race of existing characters is weird and immersion-breaking. From what I can tell, it doesn't appeal to "all non- whites", like some people seem to suggest. To me, that just seems like a very progressively American view on things.

As for your daughter's view on race, I'm not gonna claim that I know what's objectively right or wrong, but I think people are better off being largely color blind. The extreme race-centrism of Americans, and to a lesser extent, Brits drives me mad sometimes. There are race issues in varying degrees around the world, and it certainly doesn't get any better by making people become hyper focused on everything related to race. I think we have the same issues with the LGBTQ+ community in the city where I live.

Despite being an ultra progressive city, rainbow flags have been torn down and vandalized around middle schools here lately, and it's all over the local news. It's a city where there's a designated pride street that's painted in rainbow colors and surrounded by rainbow flags, the term "hen" is sometimes used instead of he and she, and pride month seems to last for 2-3 months every year. People here are generally very accepting towards minority groups, but it does get to a point where celebrating those groups becomes invasive and borderline obnoxious towards the people who aren't part of those groups. I suspect that doesn't make any sense to you (McLewis), and I don't make any fuzz about it myself, but you can't help but notice how over-saturated it is here, and kids aren't as inclined to be patient and polite about it as adults are. Personally, I think schools should be as neutral as possible, and I genuinely hope we don't start teaching critical race theory here, like they do in the US. It just amplifies whatever issues already exist.

I'm all for accepting and even supporting minority rights to some extent, but everyone involved needs to show a certain level of humility in order to coexist in an environment where minority groups of any kind is working towards equal representation.

[Thimmy]

"Another Pride flag torn down. We have to put up more flags"

Random article from the local newspaper. Exactly my point about the lack of humility. I imagine the kids are pulling them down for fun. Putting up more of them is just going to give them more stuff to pull down, lol.

[El Gunner]

i've never heard a black person being called a mutt before or is your kid mixed, McLewis?

[BarcaLearning]

Interesting... im guessing every country, society, or even city or the local area can be a bit different with these things obviously, since the whole mixture of factors that results in the reality of a particular place. O think I understand Thimmys opinion as well, but prolly in the US the ppl of color been faced unfairness for so long its a nature reaction, but a balance should be reached in everything... hopefully

[Thimmy]

Interesting... im guessing every country, society, or even city or the local area can be a bit different with these things obviously, since the whole mixture of factors that results in the reality of a particular place. O think I understand Thimmys opinion as well, but prolly in the US the ppl of color been faced unfairness for so long its a nature reaction, but a balance should be reached in everything... hopefully

That's true. I grew up in a relatively conservative village, but most of the cities I've lived in have been very left-leaning politically. Views can change quite drastically from one area to another, and I know it's the same for most places in the world. As for the US, I'm obviously not American, but I do feel like extreme ideological views are much more common there compared to in the Nordic countries, which might explain why American tourists here often point out that they are surprised by how comfortable Scandinavians are with talking about politics and religion compared to Americans. I've talked to both conservatives and progressives from the US, and they definitely have more of a "my way or the highway" stance in general, regardless of which side of things they're on.

[McLewis]

Movies and TV shows ideally shouldn't be made with a goal of satisfying an audience group of any particular race or creed, in my opinion.

Movies and TV shows are created to make money. This whole industry is a business. They make their money by catering their content either to specific audiences or everyone. Every project varies in size based on budget, scope and the vision of the creators. Do you think Nip/Tuck was created for everyone? How about the Phantom Thread? Neither of these products were created to cater to everyone. More often than not, creators and the studios that fund them know the audience they want to engage. So I think it's bizarre to think this won't or shouldn't apply to products featuring different races, ethnicities and cultures.

You already mentioned Disney movies, like Milo and Stitch where they succeeded in doing the same thing without having to jump on the more recent, very obvious trend of political re-boots, which I do insist have a political agenda behind them.

There is nothing inherently political about movie studios, run primarily by white people, wanting to attract larger numbers of customers, outside of their already invested white ones, by creating product that appeals to those larger, non-white audiences. That's not politics. That's marketing. It's just business. These executives have found a way to literally commercialize my daughter's need to be represented. As a far left American progressive, I absolutely abhor that level of exploitative capitalism. As a father that just wants to see his daughter happy and mentally healthy, things get a whole lot simpler. If she's happy, I'm happy.

Movies like, She-Hulk may seen completely organic and even resonate with certain people, but the fact that they're going out of their way to appeal to a relatively niche audience is going to be reflected in sales.

See, She-Hulk wasn't created for any race specifically. It's very much a show created for representation of women in general. I think the better example you're looking for here is Ms. Marvel, which was created to represent Muslim, South Asian cultures. That also wasn't created singularly for me, a Black person nor you, a white person. And that's ok. That I enjoyed it anyway is a bonus for Disney. That you probably didn't is not a net loss for them.

- because those millions of girls you refer to are still a minority among the target group, and that matters when you decide to re-work an established title that people already have an impression of.

Why, in your opinion, does this matter?

Yes, they can go back and watch the old work of the same material, but why would they?

Why would they, you ask? Because that gives them exactly what they're looking for. It gives them the opportunity to see the version of this story that speaks to them in a way this newest version doesn't. And if that's not enough, they are entirely free to watch something else entirely. There is nothing wrong with that.

To me, that just seems like a very progressively American view on things.

Specifically, it's a Black American progressive view. You'll find that there are a number of progressive, white Americans who absolutely agree with you. The progressive ideology, at least here in the States, is not a monolith. It's a very big tent.

The extreme race-centrism of Americans, and to a lesser extent, Brits drives me mad sometimes.

Have you ever truly attempted to explore why we talk about race so much? Why the LGBTQ+ community are so outspoken about the issues impacting them? There are reasons behind all of this and it's not just because we have nothing else to talk about. Honestly, you need to talk to these communities, spend time with them, put your own biases aside, and try to understand where they're coming from. It will give you perspective.

There are race issues in varying degrees around the world, and it certainly doesn't get any better by making people become hyper focused on everything related to race.

I mean this with all due respect, but all of this is an annoyance to you because it doesn't affect you. You have absolutely no investment in any of this because you don't appear to have any personal ties to race and gender issues. Perhaps you do and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my impression based on your comments. That's not intended to insult you. That's just an observation.

I mean, don't you think I'd love to live in a world where my race doesn't matter? Trust me, that's the dream for literally every Black American. There are parts of the US state I live in right now that I can't go to because of my race. If I go to these places, I'm literally not safe. My kids are not safe, my wife is not safe. The people threatening my safety in those places are not color blind so why should I be? We talk about race so much because so much of our lot in life depends on how we navigate spaces controlled by people who do not like us because of something we have zero control over. We would love for it to be different, but this is our reality. We don't have the luxury of just being color blind because that requires everyone else to buy into that. Racists will not do that.

Ultimately, I don't blame you for your naivety on this subject. Your country is extremely homogenous so it's to be expected. Unless you somehow have ended up in a very Black part of America for a sustained amount of time, very few of you have been exposed to racial situations and experiences that would get you thinking the way that I think and I suspect if I grew up completely surrounded only by people who looked like me, I'd probably be as color blind as well.

Despite being an ultra progressive city, rainbow flags have been torn down and vandalized around middle schools here lately, and it's all over the local news. It's a city where there's a designated pride street that's painted in rainbow colors and surrounded by rainbow flags, the term "hen" is sometimes used instead of he and she, and pride month seems to last for 2-3 months every year. People here are generally very accepting towards minority groups, but it does get to a point where celebrating those groups becomes invasive and borderline obnoxious towards the people who aren't part of those groups. I suspect that doesn't make any sense to you (McLewis), and I don't make any fuzz about it myself, but you can't help but notice how over-saturated it is here, and kids aren't as inclined to be patient and polite about it as adults are. Personally, I think schools should be as neutral as possible, and I genuinely hope we don't start teaching critical race theory here, like they do in the US. It just amplifies whatever issues already exist.

I'm all for accepting and even supporting minority rights to some extent, but everyone involved needs to show a certain level of humility in order to coexist in an environment where minority groups of any kind is working towards equal representation.

While this is a thread to discuss racism, all I'm going to say is again you need to try to put yourself in the shoes of the minority communities. If you can't do that, talk to them. Engage with them. Try to understand them beyond just this vague "very accepting toward minority groups" mentality that seems to be rather pervasive even in seemingly progressive spaces. For those of us who are members of minority groups, it's all pretty simple. Many of us just want to go about our lives in peace, have the same experiences as everyone else, go where we want,  
and of course love who we want. Religious dogma coupled with the racist, conservative ideology prevents this and in some places, has put our communities in very real political and/or physical danger. The celebrations you seem to think are so over-the-top are a beacon to parts of these communities who can't celebrate in these ways for fear of oppression and even death. It's a celebration of solidarity. True allies of these communities will never see any of this as "borderline obnoxious". The job of an ally is to support, uphold and defend the right of these communities to exist and thrive. If any of this bothers you, you're not actually "accepting" them. You're merely tolerating their presence and that's not allyship.

[McLewis]

i've never heard a black person being called a mutt before or is your kid mixed, McLewis?

She is indeed biracial.

[Thimmy]

Movies and TV shows ideally shouldn't be made with a goal of satisfying an audience group of any particular race or creed, in my opinion.

Movies and TV shows are created to make money. This whole industry is a business. They make their money by catering their content either to specific audiences or everyone. Every project varies in size based on budget, scope and the vision of the creators. Do you think Nip/Tuck was created for everyone? How about the Phantom Thread? Neither of these products were created to cater to everyone. More often than not, creators and the studios that fund them know the audience they want to engage. So I think it's bizarre to think this won't or shouldn't apply to products featuring different races, ethnicities and cultures.

I love Nip/Tuck. I didn't think I'd have to clarify this part, but catering to a specific audience, like an age range, or fans of a particular genre of movies, is not the same as going out of one's way to cater to a minority with a certain political or religious inclination, especially when several of these films have under-performed in terms of viewership and sales. Yes, it's a business, which is why I'm pointing out that it does not make financial sense to make movies this way, yet it's an ongoing trend in the American film industry in particular. I interpret that as these writers and directors prioritizing their political agenda above all else, but I get the impression that we don't agree on that part, so let's move on  

You already mentioned Disney movies, like Milo and Stitch where they succeeded in doing the same thing without having to jump on the more recent, very obvious trend of political re-boots, which I do insist have a political agenda behind them.

There is nothing inherently political about movie studios, run primarily by white people, wanting to attract larger numbers of customers, outside of their already invested white ones, by creating product that appeals to those larger, non-white audiences. That's not politics. That's marketing. It's just business. These executives have found a way to literally commercialize my daughter's need to be represented. As a far left American progressive, I absolutely abhor that level of exploitative capitalism. As a father that just wants to see his daughter happy and mentally healthy, things get a whole lot simpler. If she's happy, I'm happy.

Again, it's great that your daughter loved the movie, but from what I can tell (and I stand corrected, I haven't seen the balances for all movies of this type), the general box office sales for movies and particularly re-boots with race and gender swaps have either barely brought in more money than what was spent on producing them, or they've lead to bankruptcy. That's clearly not an indication of any level of success, unless success is measured by the enjoyment of the few people who did watch and appreciate the content.

Movies like, She-Hulk may seen completely organic and even resonate with certain people, but the fact that they're going out of their way to appeal to a relatively niche audience is going to be reflected in sales.

See, She-Hulk wasn't created for any race specifically. It's very much a show created for representation of women in general. I think the better example you're looking for here is Ms. Marvel, which was created to represent Muslim, South Asian cultures. That also wasn't created singularly for me, a Black person nor you, a white person. And that's ok. That I enjoyed it anyway is a bonus for Disney. That you probably didn't is not a net loss for them.

I don't think it's very likely that someone makes the decision to change something as fundamental as the race or gender of a main character of an established franchise without doing so for a specific reason. We may disagree on what that reason is, but it seems clear to me that it's more divisive than "appealing to a larger, non-white audience".

I think increased diversity in Hollywood should've happened a long time ago, but this isn't the way to go about doing so, in my opinion. The She-Hulks and Ghostbusters of modern Hollywood did absolutely nothing for gender equality, unless your idea of gender equality is sexual harassment of men and redundant reminders that men are bad and inferior to women. I haven't watched Ms. Marvel and I'm not familiar with the character, so I can't comment on that one. Sounds just fine based on your description of it, unless they drastically changed the characters and the script in order to accommodate those things. Leave the old stuff alone and make something new instead. It can't be that hard, lol.

- because those millions of girls you refer to are still a minority among the target group, and that matters when you decide to re-work an established title that people already have an impression of.

Why, in your opinion, does this matter?

It matters to me because I assume they could've achieved the same result, if not a better one by simply creating something new. I do not care about The Little Mermaid, personally, but I do care about this trend of re-working old material to suit political agendas because while I don't doubt that someone enjoys it, the domino effect is that it pisses of a lot of people who are sympathetically attached to these, older titles and characters and care about the consistency that gives immersive value to the material.

Yes, they can go back and watch the old work of the same material, but why would they?

Why would they, you ask? Because that gives them exactly what they're looking for. It gives them the opportunity to see the version of this story that speaks to them in a way this newest version doesn't. And if that's not enough, they are entirely free to watch something else entirely. There is nothing wrong with that.

....

To me, that just seems like a very progressively American view on things.

Specifically, it's a Black American progressive view. You'll find that there are a number of progressive, white Americans who absolutely agree with you. The progressive ideology, at least here in the States, is not a monolith. It's a very big tent.

The extreme race-centrism of Americans, and to a lesser extent, Brits drives me mad sometimes.

Have you ever truly attempted to explore why we talk about race so much? Why the LGBTQ+ community are so outspoken about the issues impacting them? There are reasons behind all of this and it's not just because we have nothing else to talk about. Honestly, you need to talk to these communities, spend time with them, put your own biases aside, and try to understand where they're coming from. It will give you perspective.

I have talked to a lot of Brits and Americans, I'm a quarter English myself, which is why I'm pointing out this cultural difference. I don't think it has much to do with "where they're coming from", it's just part of the culture that people in English-speaking countries primarily, seem to have become accustomed to, and it's the same for white, black, hispanic and asian people - they're used to bringing race into every context, and occasionally I find that a bit annoying. That said, I realize that it's a cultural difference and I'm not saying that things are better here, it's just different and I prefer it when people are referred to as people rather than "insert race". The term "black" isn't used in Norwegian, and the first time I heard "white" was around 10 years ago (made it's way over through social media), so it's never been normal for me to refer to people by their race unless I speak in English.

There are race issues in varying degrees around the world, and it certainly doesn't get any better by making people become hyper focused on everything related to race.

I mean this with all due respect, but all of this is an annoyance to you because it doesn't affect you. You have absolutely no investment in any of this because you don't appear to have any personal ties to race and gender issues. Perhaps you do and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my impression based on your comments. That's not intended to insult you. That's just an observation.

That's a fair observation. I haven't experienced racism in the traditional sense, but I have witnessed different types of it, mostly while traveling abroad, which I've done a lot of in my life. I've talked to immigrants from various countries in both Norway and Sweden, and I think I've been exposed to more cultures and religions than most people have. That doesn't make me an expert on anything, but it's certainly shaped my view on things.

I mean, don't you think I'd love to live in a world where my race doesn't matter? Trust me, that's the dream for literally every Black American. There are parts of the US state I live in right now that I can't go to because of my race. If I go to these places, I'm literally not safe. My kids are not safe, my wife is not safe. The people threatening my safety in those places are not color blind so why should I be? We talk about race so much because so much of our lot in life depends on how we navigate spaces controlled by people who do not like us because of something we have zero control over. We would love for it to be different, but this is our reality. We don't have the luxury of just being color blind because that requires everyone else to buy into that. Racists will not do that.

Yeah, I understand how that shapes your view on race and life in general. The most blatant, uninhibited racism in the developed world that I've ever witnessed was actually during my trip to Chicago over a decade ago, where a guy in front of me in the line to the ticket booth in the cinema started shouting racist slurs towards the woman in the booth for supposedly being slow/lazy. That incident's been burnt into my memory. He was eventually escorted out by a group of people, but I vividly remember the indifferent expression on the woman's face while he was shouting at her. Either she was tough as nails, or she had become so accustomed to that type of treatment that she's desensitized to it. The line continued as if nothing had happened, it was pretty surreal to me. Most of the racism that I've witnessed while on vacation around Europe has been far more subtle.

Ultimately, I don't blame you for your naivety on this subject. Your country is extremely homogenous so it's to be expected. Unless you somehow have ended up in a very Black part of America for a sustained amount of time, very few of you have been exposed to racial situations and experiences that would get you thinking the way that I think and I suspect if I grew up completely surrounded only by people who looked like me, I'd probably be as color blind as well.

I actually live in one of the more diverse cities in this country. I see more Asians on a daily basis than I see white people. Recently, I've noticed an increase in Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans, but the majority of immigrants in the area where I live are from India, Pakistan, Syria and Somalia.

Despite being an ultra progressive city, rainbow flags have been torn down and vandalized around middle schools here lately, and it's all over the local news. It's a city where there's a designated pride street that's painted in rainbow colors and surrounded by rainbow flags, the term "hen" is sometimes used instead of he and she, and pride month seems to last for 2-3 months every year. People here are generally very accepting towards minority groups, but it does get to a point where celebrating those groups becomes invasive and borderline obnoxious towards the people who aren't part of those groups. I suspect that doesn't make any sense to you (McLewis), and I don't make any fuzz about it myself, but you can't help but notice how over-saturated it is here, and kids aren't as inclined to be patient and polite about it as adults are. Personally, I think schools should be as neutral as possible, and I genuinely hope we don't start teaching critical race theory here, like they do in the US. It just amplifies whatever issues already exist.

I'm all for accepting and even supporting minority rights to some extent, but everyone involved needs to show a certain level of humility in order to coexist in an environment where minority groups of any kind is working towards equal representation.

While this is a thread to discuss racism, all I'm going to say is again you need to try to put yourself in the shoes of the minority communities. If you can't do that, talk to them. Engage with them. Try to understand them beyond just this vague "very accepting toward minority groups" mentality that seems to be rather pervasive even in seemingly progressive spaces. For those of us who are members of minority groups, it's all pretty simple. Many of us just want to go about our lives in peace, have the same experiences as everyone else, go where we want,  
and of course love who we want. Religious dogma coupled with the racist, conservative ideology prevents this and in some places, has put our communities in very real political and/or physical danger. The celebrations you seem to think are so over-the-top are a beacon to parts of these communities who can't celebrate in these ways for fear of oppression and even death. It's a celebration of solidarity. True allies of these communities will never see any of this as "borderline obnoxious". The job of an ally is to support, uphold and defend the right of these communities to exist and thrive. If any of this bothers you, you're not actually "accepting" them. You're merely tolerating their presence and that's not allyship.

I can't agree with you on this last part. I know my city well. I'm all for gay and trans rights, but someone will eventually get sick and tired of these marks of pride and representation when it's over-saturated to the point where it seems to take precedence over things that are objectively more important. I really don't know why pride flags and symbols need to be plastered all around schools. It's already so incredibly over-represented everywhere, that it's no surprise to me that some people will eventually get tired and/or annoyed by it all.

As I'm writing this, I see an article suggesting the need for a removal of pride flags in local schools and kindergartens. This is again, off-topic, but as much as I support gay and trans rights, I think it goes too far when people start to radically influence kids with these things, so I'm all for removing pride representation in schools. We already have a ton of symbolism throughout the city center. It gives me religious vibes when progressives and conservatives insist on influencing people with their ideologies from an early age, and I really think schools and kindergartens should be neutral to these things. Let them come to their own conclusions without having adults tell them what they should or shouldn't be. I'm aware that gay and trans people face certain struggles in life that I don't, but that's certainly not the case where I currently reside. As for the 2-3 month long pride month here, that was just one example of how over-saturated the representation is here, but I am admittedly starting to turn into a grumpy old man, and my gay neighbors are loud as hell when they throw parties. More than 2 months, man

[Sponsored content]