AHAHAHA NOT QUITE, OP, NOT QUITE
FUCKING NAILED IT
I had seen the original making the rounds. Glad to see it got a proper rebuttal.
house martell is the only noble house featuring people of colour in principle roles.
you want them to be white as well.
think about that for a second. most of the characters on this show are white and you want the few who aren’t, to be white also. don’t they teach you how to share in kindergarten or do we need adult classes to teach people that it’s selfish and offensive to want the whole pie when you’ve already got most of it?
whitewashing, that is, erasing people of colour from narratives when there are so few positive portrayals of people of colour in western media, is a racist practise. it happens a lot and it’s been happening for decades. it’s absolutely frustrating and hurtful to people, who have been fighting the process for a very long time: the battle against whitewashing and racebending.
if you’re whitewashing and you keep insisting that there’s nothing wrong with it, then you’re perpetuating racism. you’re contributing to the erasure of poc and less visibility of poc in media.
colourblind casting (which happens in theatre), that is, casting a role not made for a person of colour with a person of colour in order to diversify your production (
since there are so few roles available for people of colour and hollywood is obsessed with remaking and adapting material where it’s straight white men in main roles), is not the same as whitewashing. these practices are not interchangeable.
whitewashing = taking representation away from a marginalised group. colourblind casting = giving representation and visibility to a marginalised group.
if you don’t care, then fine, you don’t care. but do the rest of us a favour and own up to your racism so we don’t waste time trying to explain to you how you’re being oppressive.
- moniquill (on red face & cultural appropriation)
I’m just going to reblog this again, since some people apparently need reminding.
So on point, I can’t even
The grotesque racial and ethnic stereotyping of former decades has been largely purged from the mainstream, but only to be replaced by less offensive, yet nonetheless stereotyped, signifiers. Non-Europeans living in a European-dominated society absorb these standards themselves, and not only are continuously made to be aware of their “otherness,” but adhere, out of necessity, to the Eurocentric system of signification. If an American of Asian descent wants to create a children’s book intended to build self-esteem among Asian American children and educate other children about Asian American experiences, she must first make sure the readers know that the characters represented are Asian, and so, consciously or not, she resorts to stereotyped signifiers that are easily recognizable, such as “slanted” eyes (an exaggerated representation of the epicanthic fold that is often, but not always, more pronounced in East Asians than in Europeans or Africans) or pitch black, straight hair (regardless of the fact that East Asian hair can range from near-black to reddish brown, and is often wavy or even frizzy). So it is that Americans and others raised in European-dominated societies, regardless of their background, will see a circle with two dots for eyes and a line for a mouth, free of racial signifiers, as “white.”
Japan, however, is not and never has been a European-dominated society. The Japanese are not Other within their own borders, and therefore drawn (or painted or sculpted) representations of, by and for Japanese do not, as a rule, include stereotyped racial markers. A circle with two dots for eyes and a line for a mouth is, by default, Japanese.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Japanese readers should have no trouble accepting the stylized characters in manga, with their small jaws, all but nonexistent noses, and famously enormous eyes as “Japanese.” Unless the characters are clearly identified as foreign, Japanese readers see them as Japanese, and it would never occur to most readers that they might be otherwise, regardless of whether non-Japanese observers think the characters look Japanese or not.
Lets keep in mind criticisms of feminism have long been theorized by WOC since the 18th century with little regard from mainstream feminists …… that there are COUNTLESS woc who have devoted their lives to making feminism a more inclusive space. In fact, here’s a crash course explaining how feminist theory in the past has dealt with these issues:
—-FEMINIST THEORY CRASH COURSE—-
Feminism moves in between these branches (not a mutually exclusive list, just listed most prominently recognized theorists by each)in order to directly oppose mainstream feminist discourses loaded with eurocentrism, phallocentrism, orientalism, imperialism, racialized colonialism, capitalism (which goes hand in hand with feminist movements as commodification of a so called revolutionary struggle!), white supremacy, ethocentrism, transphobia, ableism and much much more:
- post colonial theory - undoes the victimization discourse of western feminists/their metonymic blurring of different forms of oppression through an essentialist explanation
indigenous feminism - Andrea Smith
transnational feminism - Chandra Mohanty
- global feminism/”third world feminism”- disrupts idea that feminism is an inherently “western” ideology
African feminism - Ama Ata Aidoo
Islamic feminism - Huda Shaarawi
- Women of color feminism - emerged to counter cultural hegemony of white western feminism
black feminism - Audre Lorde, Combahee River Collective
Afrocentric feminism - Patricia McFadden
Chicana feminism - Anzuldua
womanism (check out Alice Walker and Layli Phillips to find out more why this isn’t a subcolumn or branch of feminism completely)
- critical race theory - comes from radical POC law professors who acknowledge feminism’s lack of tools in making visible the ways racial supremacy is embedded in the law system. Check Kimberle Crenshaw, Barbara Smith, Patricia Hill Collins, Susan Schechter
- Black nationalist feminism - opposes anti-blackness in feminist movements
Africana womanism (different from African feminism and womanism)
- Feminist hermeneutics - analyzes religious studies as a source of feminist theory
- Feminist Science studies - disrupts biological determinism. Check out Ruth Hubbard’s “Fact Making and Feminism” as an intro to why science needs to be included in discussions of feminist discipline
- Queer theory-holy shit i can’t even start on the ways its disrupted mainstream feminism but HEY:
Flower crown feminism is in no way a reflection of the deeply rooted radical work Women of color, transnational, zapatista, chicana, african-american, “third world” (global south), indigenous and native, queer, dis*abled and post-colonial feminisms have carved out.
When Ida B. Wells called out the racism of progressive feminist leaders in 1894 IE suffragist Frances Williard of Christian temperance union who publically represented black women voters as a threat to modern society, Wells was not about that “abandoning feminism” life
When Paula Gunn Allen pointed out that white American feminism ripped off gynocentric Iroquois nations, who held their own feminist rebellions as early and before the 1600’s, she wasn’t about that “abandoning feminism” life
When Linda La Rue, the Combahee River Collective, Barbara Smith Claudia Jones, Audre Lorde and counless others called out the heterosexist, classist racist shitfield that was the women’s liberation movement, they weren’t abt that “abandoning feminism” life
When Beverly Guy Sheftall, Rudolph Byrd, and Johnetta B. Cole anthologize unpublished works of queer poc thinkers in I Am Your Sister, Still Brave, Traps,and Gender Talk, they aren’t about accepting white feminism as the dead-end truth.
WE CAN’T DISREGARD THESE CENTURIES OF WORK SUBVERTING DOMINANT PARADIGMS AND CREATING SPACES FOR CHANGE BECAUSE A WAVE OF PASTEL COLORED “GRRRLS” REEMERGE AS THE PRIVILEGED SUBURBAN GRANDDAUGHTERS OF THE SAME RACIST FEMINIST WHO STORMED THE POLITICAL SCENE LOUDER AND WHITER THAN ALL THE REST, FIRST IN THE 1870’s, 1920’s, 1970’s, AND THEN 1990’s
Instead let’s make this a fight to continue the legacy of these radical visionaries
in reclaiming our spaces,
reaffirming our rights to tell our own stories freely, to live in the security of our own bodies, and to rewrite histories of social movements that replicate hierarchy within.
— Randall Robinson (via fernandoacoello)
Would that “having the right personality for the character” was the only barrier for actors of color in the movie industry.
This statement is a cop out. Given that black actresses still face systemic disadvantages and discrimination in Hollywood, it’s hard to believe that no actresses of color were able to fit the needed “personality” for this established character of color.
Both of these statements gloss over the fact that Nora was a woman of color in a story landscape that primarily featured white characters. While the film is listed as having some actors of color–Cory Hardict will play “Kevin” (a character not in the book) and Ruth Chiang will play “Corpse Attacking Julie”–the main leads are played by white British actor Nicholas Hoult (Skins) and white Australian actress Teresa Palmer (The Sorcerer’s Apprentice). Conversely, did the production think to check if any actors of color could fit the “character traits” or “personalities” of these lead roles?
This article is several months old, but I needed to share it now that the trailer of “Warm Bodies” is making its rounds on Tumblr. The book is a HUGE guilty pleasure of mine, and I’m not afraid to say that I enjoyed it immensely. That being said, Nora is EXPLICITLY stated to have brown skin in the book, as well as being Ethiopian. In the movie she’s (you guessed it) white.
This makes me really angry, you have no fucking idea.
brown people cant have anything, not even secondary roles
WOW! So I guess in order for a zombie to overcome its undeadness it needs to fall in love with the proverbial blue eyed, blonde haired, white skined girl. I see you Hollywood, I SEE YOU!