Has political correctness actually gone mad?

[MadMike]

In your own words.

Holy crap, groundhog day. Pal, I took your comment as a non-serious, mocking one and I responded in kind. If it wasn't obvious by the response itself that it wasn't meant to be serious, the following ones should have clarified that by now.

If you can't grasp that simple concept let's stop here. This is beyond boring.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

First they came for the mermaids and I did nothing...

 

[hobbers]

I assume people who are fine with this casting of Ariel were also fine with Scarlet Johansson being cast in Ghost in the Shell etc?

* Just seeing if we have any double standards going on.The correct position is to be fine with both.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

The trivialisation of this whole Ariel debacle ignores the fact that Halle Bailey is an internationally renowned singer & actress; she’s not some random ‘coloured’ person picked for the role that has no merits - this isn’t affirmative action.

She is more than qualified for this role as will be multiple white actresses & multiple other ‘coloured’ actresses.

How do we know that she isn’t just the best person for the job?

Anyone not seeing this film, or encouraging members of their family/friends group to see this film due to her melanin is quite simply an idiot. I would say racist but that would give too much credit.

Also, why is this topic raised in the Political Correctness thread? Are we saying that the reaction to a black woman playing a fictional character is valid & that believing it isn’t is ‘being pc’?

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Now I’m thinking of a female Bond, where she treats men similar to how the male Bond treats women. It could be interesting.
Get the right person and with a good script I think it could work.

Jane Blonde

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I assume people who are fine with this casting of Ariel were also fine with Scarlet Johansson being cast in Ghost in the Shell etc?

* Just seeing if we have any double standards going on.The correct position is to be fine with both.

Though I can't say I give much of a damn either way the two scenarios don't seem to be equivalent. There's no dearth of roles in Hollywood for white women the way there is for Asian Americans. In fact the more I think about it the further the two examples seem from each other. On the one hand you have a dominant culture being inclusive in its casting, the other - exclusive.

 

[nimic]

Though I can't say I give much of a damn either way the two scenarios don't seem to be equivalent. There's no dearth of roles in Hollywood for white women the way there is for Asian Americans. In fact the more I think about it the further the two examples seem from each other. On the one hand you have a dominant culture being inclusive in its casting, the other - exclusive.

Yes, exactly this. It's not a binary thing.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Though I can't say I give much of a damn either way the two scenarios don't seem to be equivalent. There's no dearth of roles in Hollywood for white women the way there is for Asian Americans. In fact the more I think about it the further the two examples seem from each other. On the one hand you have a dominant culture being inclusive in its casting, the other - exclusive.

Am I misunderstanding, you say the dominant culture is being inclusive & the non-dominant exclusive?

Halle Bailey being cast as Ariel in itself is indeed ‘inclusive’ but the fact she can’t be cast without this backlash is the issue.

I think we’re on the same page but It’s late here & I may be misreading.

Yes, exactly this. It's not a binary thing.

Yep, people often try to equivocate topics like these without paying any attention to the stark differences in their entirety.

 

[Reddy Rederson]

The trivialisation of this whole Ariel debacle ignores the fact that Halle Bailey is an internationally renowned singer & actress; she’s not some random ‘coloured’ person picked for the role that has no merits - this isn’t affirmative action.

She is more than qualified for this role as will be multiple white actresses & multiple other ‘coloured’ actresses.

How do we know that she isn’t just the best person for the job?

Anyone not seeing this film, or encouraging members of their family/friends group to see this film due to her melanin is quite simply an idiot. I would say racist but that would give too much credit.

Also, why is this topic raised in the Political Correctness thread? Are we saying that the reaction to a black woman playing a fictional character is valid & that believing it isn’t is ‘being pc’?

I dont think it’s affirmative action that’s the issue when some people complain(others just moan because, feck it). I think that what most non racists would say is that it’s the virtue signalling that’s annoying. It’s supposed to be “here’s this great actor we found for the part.” But it ends up coming across as “look, we hired a black person. Aren’t we great?”. Maybe that’s not the case in this instance(I’ve really not been paying attention) but I’d say that it was true in general.

Like the edris Elba for bond thing. The vast majority of pro edris are making it about his skin colour and not the fact he’s fecking awesome and would make a great bond. Not a great black bond, a great bond.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Am I misunderstanding, you say the dominant culture is being inclusive & the non-dominant exclusive?

Yeah, you're misunderstanding me. I meant that in failing to cast an Asian American in a role that would traditionally be Asian they were excluding them from the industry in a way that just isn't the case if you give a traditionally white role to a black person.

 

[ArjenIsM3]

I dont think it’s affirmative action that’s the issue when some people complain(others just moan because, feck it). I think that what most non racists would say is that it’s the virtue signalling that’s annoying. It’s supposed to be “here’s this great actor we found for the part.” But it ends up coming across as “look, we hired a black person. Aren’t we great?”. Maybe that’s not the case in this instance(I’ve really not been paying attention) but I’d say that it was true in general.

Like the edris Elba for bond thing. The vast majority of pro edris are making it about his skin colour and not the fact he’s fecking awesome and would make a great bond. Not a great black bond, a great bond.

Yep, the whole "positive discrimination" thing is stupid.

 

[nimic]

Like the edris Elba for bond thing. The vast majority of pro edris are making it about his skin colour and not the fact he’s fecking awesome and would make a great bond. Not a great black bond, a great bond.

I don't know about that, I tend to think you might be finding what you're looking for. Most of the arguments in favour of Idris Elba have been about his acting abilities. Yes, some of it is framed in the fact that he's black, but that's only natural since that's where most of the arguments against him as Bond are (the other somewhat common argument being his age).

 

[hobbers]

Like the edris Elba for bond thing. The vast majority of pro edris are making it about his skin colour and not the fact he’s fecking awesome and would make a great bond. Not a great black bond, a great bond.

Don't know if it's the majority of arguments but it's definitely a shit way of framing it. I can't think of many actors out there right now who would make a better bond than Elba. Provided nobody minds Bond continuing on from Craig with the series becoming more gritty and with more of an edge to it, because Elba is also perfect for that trend.

Though I can't say I give much of a damn either way the two scenarios don't seem to be equivalent. There's no dearth of roles in Hollywood for white women the way there is for Asian Americans. In fact the more I think about it the further the two examples seem from each other. On the one hand you have a dominant culture being inclusive in its casting, the other - exclusive.

Suppose it depends on whether you think the director should be focusing on getting their ideal actor for the part or whether they have to put box-ticking up as their main priority.

 

[nimic]

Suppose it depends on whether you think the director should be focusing on getting their ideal actor for the part or whether they have to put box-ticking up as their main priority.

This is a rather disingenuous way to describe it. It's possible for directors to have two thoughts in their heads at once. And it's not like "box-ticking" often (if ever) takes precedence; usually there will be many appropriate candidates. That's also why affirmative action works. It's not the old trope of picking a worse candidate for their colour/gender, but giving equally good candidates opportunities to counter the often unconscious prejudice in the system (in this case: the film industry).

 

[Reddy Rederson]

I don't know about that, I tend to think you might be finding what you're looking for. Most of the arguments in favour of Idris Elba have been about his acting abilities. Yes, some of it is framed in the fact that he's black, but that's only natural since that's where most of the arguments against him as Bond are (the other somewhat common argument being his age).

That would be true if I was ever looking for it. I don’t. I avoid social media like the plague, I don’t search for things to be annoyed at.

 

[Grinner]

Just give Bond to this Halle woman and kill two birds with one stone.

 

[nimic]

That would be true if I was ever looking for it. I don’t. I avoid social media like the plague, I don’t search for things to be annoyed at.

I'm not saying you're actively scouring social media for "make James Bond a black man". I think you're seeing "Idris Elba would make a good James Bond, and it doesn't matter that James Bond has always been white", but what you hear is "Idris Elba would make a good James Bond because he's black".

 

[Invictus]

I assume people who are fine with this casting of Ariel were also fine with Scarlet Johansson being cast in Ghost in the Shell etc?

* Just seeing if we have any double standards going on.The correct position is to be fine with both.

Motoko can be considered race-neutral because she's a cyborg and Japanese studios revert to anime default features that blur apparent racial lines, so her race doesn't really matter at the end of the day...however, there is quite simply no comparison between this Ariel casting (because white actors/actresses can get a million other representations in Hollywood) and Scarlet Johansson as Motoko Kusanagi (or making Miguel from Coco and Suzy Song from Smoke Signals and Mowgli from The Jungle Book white for score-keeping purposes).

Asians as a whole (encompassing all subgroups: from the Middle East to Central and South and East and South East Asia), Mexicans (who now make up ~12% of the American population), Native Americans (who were portrayed by white actors with minstrelized red faces not too long ago), etc. have precious little representation in meaty acting roles in blockbuster “Hollywood” — even in the age of unparalleled media diversity — one can make double standard arguments between two somewhat equal things, not stuff that is at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Casting Johansson as Motoko or Emma Stone as Allison Ng in Aloha or Nat Wolff as Light in Netflix's awful Death Note adaptation proved to be controversial in certain parts of the Asian community precisely because East Asians typically get caricatured crumbles and roles with zero relevance or depth (that are further divided along gendered lines to further popularized stereotypes), and could stand to be cast in more roles...

Maybe you should watch this to get a sense of Hollywood's historical biases: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/reel-injun/

 

[Classical Mechanic]

the backlash would be insane..

It is kind of fun watching people melt down over stuff like that. Give it to Gillian I say.

 

[afrocentricity]

virtue signalling

This term needs to die. Why get triggered by people doing... positive things (usually)? I'd rather not personally....

 

[2 man midfield]

Casting Johansson as Motoko or Emma Stone as Allison Ng in Aloha or Nat Wolff as Light in Netflix's awful Death Note adaptation proved to be controversial in certain parts of the Asian community

I’m fairness...they’re western adaptations of eastern films. It’s not really a surprise to me that they’d have American leads or whatever. It’s like complaining that the US remake of the inbetweeners didn’t stay true to the original by casting James Buckley.

 

[Invictus]

I’m fairness...they’re western adaptations of eastern films. It’s not really a surprise to me that they’d have American leads or whatever. It’s like complaining that the US remake of the inbetweeners didn’t stay true to the original by casting James Buckley.

Yes, but this comes with the indirect implication that certain types of people can't be “American leads” in Western adaptations, even though Mexicans and Asians and Native Americans are about 20% of the U.S. population. And those were only a couple of examples — Hollywood has a massive, massive problem with whitewashing characters: Aang from Avatar could be Tibetian and Katara/Soka could be Inuit/Aboriginal...nope, The Ancient One could be Asian but was portrayed by Tilda Swinton, Goku by Justin Chatwin, two prominent Asian characters that were central to the story in Authority/Annihilation were portrayed by Portman and Jennifer Jason Leigh, on and on and on ⁠— this is very much a deliberate systemic issue. It's quite startling that trying to engage people and maybe effecting a bit of positive/inclusive change is considered complaining, and activists have to fight tooth and nail over simple stuff, instead of Hollywood boffins developing a basic barometer and learning from the historic marginalization/misrepresentation of Native Americans in media, for example...

For the past 200 years, Native peoples have been forced to assimilate. Native spiritual practices were outlawed. Those Natives who continued to practice ceremony were jailed, and even killed. Native children were taken away from their families and placed in residential and boarding schools. Their hair was shorn, they were given European names, and they were made to wear western clothes. Native children were beaten for speaking their own Native languages and abuse was rampant. Children were not allowed to see their families, and some did not survive the beatings or harsh living conditions of these horrific places. These tragic events continued to play out well into the 1970s. Many Native communities are still plagued by problems that stem directly from the historical trauma caused by the theft of tribal lands and resources as well as forced assimilation.

Natives have been fighting for centuries to preserve our lands and cultures and we are still working to reclaim our identities. Our identity is our birthright.

There is no need to cast non-Native performers and actresses in Native roles. This is not 1950. The practice of whitewashing is unnecessary, unacceptable and discriminatory. It promotes the erasure of communities of color. Natives are often typecast in stereotypical roles or removed from the narrative entirely.

Sonny Skyhawk (Sicangu Lakota), who formed American Indians in Film and Television, states, “We have a caliber of acting chops that should be utilized.” There are many talented and capable Native performers to fill Native roles and actual Native people are the only ones who should. My colleague, acclaimed director Chris Eyre (Cheyenne and Arapaho) states, “As Native American artists we have come too far to accept cultural backsliding.”

“There are many Native stories that are not being told. We are so much more than stories of poverty, or hapless victims who must be rescued by a white savior,” states Ruth Hopkins (Dakota/Lakota), a tribal attorney, activist and Native writer. Audiences are being robbed by false representation of Native identity and the chance to bear witness to our truth.

https://deadline.com/2017/09/adam-b...sting-native-american-open-letter-1202169836/

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

I dont think it’s affirmative action that’s the issue when some people complain(others just moan because, feck it). I think that what most non racists would say is that it’s the virtue signalling that’s annoying. It’s supposed to be “here’s this great actor we found for the part.” But it ends up coming across as “look, we hired a black person. Aren’t we great?”. Maybe that’s not the case in this instance(I’ve really not been paying attention) but I’d say that it was true in general.

Disney may or may not as you say be going for, “Aren’t we great we hired a black person” but all they did was a press release which incidentally named a black actress. If ‘non-racists’ first reaction isn’t congrats on the role ‘person’ but to question why the actress isn’t white then i’m not sure I’d call it racism but it’s something odd.

With that mindset hiring anybody that isn’t white would appear to be virtue signalling. The woman has released albums internationally & appeared on internationally syndicated shows/films. My thoughts as a black man/parent is, if she isn’t good enough to be accepted without even ‘non-racists’ creating a stir then who is.

By ‘non-racists’, do you mean white people who consider themselves intellectuals but still find a black actress being chosen for a fictional role ‘annoying’?

Like the edris Elba for bond thing. The vast majority of pro edris are making it about his skin colour and not the fact he’s fecking awesome and would make a great bond. Not a great black bond, a great bond.

Even if the pro-Idris brigade wanted to see him as bond because he’s black; he’s still a very popular [& decorated - though imo overrated] actor.

I personally think he’d make a terrible bond; a key part of the role is espionage & black people don’t move in a number of the spaces the character ventures [but that’s another debate.] and I like Bond films regardless.

Are ‘non racists’ telling people they can’t be proud of an actors culture/background as well as said actor being worthy of the opportunity.

 

[Reddy Rederson]

This term needs to die. Why get triggered by people doing... positive things (usually)? I'd rather not personally....

I guess because I dont see it as actual change. Its just playing up to the audience without actual progress in how we treat each other.

 

[afrocentricity]

black people don’t move in a number of the spaces the character ventures

Can you expand? I don't follow...

I guess because I dont see it as actual change. Its just playing up to the audience without actual progress in how we treat each other.

The whole reason this current fork of discussion has happened is in response to a change, an actual change. You can argue on the merits or quibble about whether it is indeed change, while discounting the audience (who is the audience?)... But, imo, using terms like "virtue signalling" do nothing to help wrt "actual progress in how we treat each other".

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Can you expand? I don't follow...

Of course.

The galas, events, underground meetings that the character often has to infiltrate are dominantly ‘white’ in their make up. The character often has to go under the radar for parts of this which he does by ‘blending in’ before being identified then having to fight his way out of some ridiculous situation.

Idris in these spaces would immediately stand out for the obvious reason; ‘who’s the big black lad in this members only event that is 99.9% white to begin with’.

I just think the discourse for that franchise has been set for decades; [rightly or wrongly] he’s a white man of a certain build & characteristic that is [rightly or wrongly] intrinsic to the way the story is told. ‘007’ is one of many ‘bonds’ so perhaps Idris could be ‘008’ or something; of course I’m overthinking a fictional character but I think a black bond would become so gimmicky it would actually hinder ‘the cause’.

 

[2 man midfield]

Of course.

The galas, events, underground meetings that the character often has to infiltrate are dominantly ‘white’ in their make up. The character often has to go under the radar for parts of this which he does by ‘blending in’ before being identified then having to fight his way out of some ridiculous situation.

Idris in these spaces would immediately stand out for the obvious reason; ‘who’s the big black lad in this members only event that is 99.9% white to begin with’.

I just think the discourse for that franchise has been set for decades; [rightly or wrongly] he’s a white man of a certain build & characteristic that is [rightly or wrongly] intrinsic to the way the story is told. ‘007’ is one of many ‘bonds’ so perhaps Idris could be ‘008’ or something; of course I’m overthinking a fictional character but I think a black bond would become so gimmicky it would actually hinder ‘the cause’.

You'd hope the audience could suspend their disbelief and just go along with that. It's a very, very small detail

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

You'd hope the audience could suspend their disbelief and just go along with that. It's a very, very small detail

People are up in roar that Ariel [a mermaid, something that doesn’t exist] is black.

I’d hope for a lot of things but unfortunately we are eons from a post-racial anything in this world.

I also argue the detail isn’t very, very small either.

 

[2 man midfield]

People are up in roar that Ariel [a mermaid, something that doesn’t exist] is black.

I’d hope for a lot of things but unfortunately we are eons from a post-racial anything in this world.

I also argue the detail isn’t very, very small either.

Oh yeah, there will be people that won't be happy with a black James Bond. I just wouldn't have said the reason for that would be because of his slightly unrealistic presence at upper class parties.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Oh yeah, there will be people that won't be happy with a black James Bond. I just wouldn't have said the reason for that would be because of his slightly unrealistic presence at upper class parties.

Think we’ve got our wires crossed here.

Afrocentricity quoted my white spaces remark where i said Idris wouldn’t be believable for me as Bond, I was explaining that part.

I agree most of the people that wouldn’t be happy couldn’t care less about his presence at these parties due to realism.

 

[afrocentricity]

Of course.

The galas, events, underground meetings that the character often has to infiltrate are dominantly ‘white’ in their make up. The character often has to go under the radar for parts of this which he does by ‘blending in’ before being identified then having to fight his way out of some ridiculous situation.

Idris in these spaces would immediately stand out for the obvious reason; ‘who’s the big black lad in this members only event that is 99.9% white to begin with’.

I just think the discourse for that franchise has been set for decades; [rightly or wrongly] he’s a white man of a certain build & characteristic that is [rightly or wrongly] intrinsic to the way the story is told. ‘007’ is one of many ‘bonds’ so perhaps Idris could be ‘008’ or something; of course I’m overthinking a fictional character but I think a black bond would become so gimmicky it would actually hinder ‘the cause’.

I get ya now. This is 007 we are talking though, in the list of unrealistic happenings in each movie that would easily be way down the list....

 

[2 man midfield]

Think we’ve got our wires crossed here.

Afrocentricity quoted my white spaces remark where i said Idris wouldn’t be believable for me as Bond, I was explaining that part.

I agree most of the people that wouldn’t be happy couldn’t care less about his presence at these parties due to realism.

I’m just saying you’d hope that little detail could be overlooked. These things can have a little artistic license, and it certainly shouldn’t stop him getting the role if the producers think he’s the man. It’s no less believable than him driving his car off a cliff and walking out without so much as a crease on his suit.

 

[MadMike]

My complaint about Elba as Bond would be that he's too old, not that his black. 10 years earlier he would have made a great Bond. Though I seriously doubt society is quite ready for that now, never mind back then, judging by the Ariel backlash. The Daily Hate would have a field day.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

My complaint about Elba as Bond would be that he's too old, not that his black. 10 years earlier he would have made a great Bond. Though I seriously doubt society is quite ready for that now, never mind back then, judging by the Ariel backlash. The Daily Hate would have a field day.

To be honest the hate hasn’t been that bad, certainly not compared to when Michael B Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm.

Plus Elba has been talked about as Bond for years now so it won’t come as quite a shock even for Mail readers.

The Elba being too old is a valid concern though, one I share as well.

 

[Carolina Red]

My complaint about Elba as Bond would be that he's too old, not that his black. 10 years earlier he would have made a great Bond. Though I seriously doubt society is quite ready for that now, never mind back then, judging by the Ariel backlash. The Daily Hate would have a field day.

Elba is younger than Craig

 

[Pexbo]

Elba is younger than Craig

Craig took on the role 14 years ago though. In the same time period, Elba will be having his 60th Birthday.

 

[Carolina Red]

Craig took on the role 14 years ago though. In the same time period, Elba will be having his 60th Birthday.

I’m just saying if Elba were in the role now instead of Craig, he’d be the younger actor.

 

[Pexbo]

I’m just saying if Elba were in the role now instead of Craig, he’d be the younger actor.

Aye, just saying though, I think Bond is best when the actor can take on the role and put their mark on the character. I can't imagine Elba would be physically fit for more than 2 movies if they go the action route.

 

[SteveJ]

It's ok, they could always replace Idris with a white mermaid.

 

[Dante]

This is Elba's Twitter profile pic (posted only this March).

He's got good genes. If you put him on a training program, I reckon he could easily be bond for 14 years. Tom Cruise is currently 57, by way of example. All it takes is a good diet, regular excercise and thorough thetan cleansing.