Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th May 2016 09:29 UTC
In the News

Ghost in the Shell is the product of and response to decades of physical erasure and technological alienation. It's pop cultural fallout, a delicately layered croissant of appropriation upon appropriation. It's as timely as ever, but it feels wildly inappropriate for an American studio and the British director of Snow White and the Huntsman to pick it up and sell it back to us. At the same time, Japan and the US have been stealing and selling images to each other for decades, and the result hasn't always been awful. I would still argue, though, that the knotty history that leads to Motoko Kusanagi will be lost in translation. This isn't The Matrix or Pacific Rim, this isn't just a look and a vibe being lifted. This is the entire history of Japan's relationship with itself, the US and technology, and without that, you're left with nothing but an empty prosthesis.

Beautifully written analysis of the Ghost in the Shell casting issue, by Emily Yoshida.

Order by: Score:
Cultural appropriation is not a problem
by TheMole on Tue 10th May 2016 10:12 UTC
TheMole
Member since:
2015-10-28

A truly multicultural society can only come about by creating a melting pot of all aspects from all cultures around the world. Being protective of one aspect, claiming it as your own creates an artificial boundary that effectively serves to maintain the separation of cultures, emphasizing the "us-and-them" thinking that lies at the root of all racism.

An American version of Ghost in the Shell will inevitably be different from a Japanese version, but that's a good thing. Infusing an inherently Japanese story with American culture, re-casting the story from an American perspective at least has the chance of adding something new and fresh to the world. Merely telling the same story, from the same perspective in a different medium is an fairly useless exercise in comparison.

Will it be better than the original? Knowing the quality of what comes out of Hollywood these days, I highly doubt it. But that's for the market to decide, there's absolutely no reason why political correctness needs to get in the way of how the British director wants to tell this particular story, even if that results in an inferior product.

Lastly, culture evolves over time. Hanging on to a particular piece of your culture, and demanding that others 'keep their filthy mittens away from it' is not going to stop that from happening, no matter how emotionally significant that one era or aspect of culture might be to you.

Reply Score: 10

judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Are there any advantages of multiculturalism? Documented attempts of such a system undoubtedly shows that monoculture and homogeniation is more advantageous.

Reply Score: 0

teco.sb Member since:
2014-05-08

Are there any advantages of multiculturalism?

I would posit there are advantages and disadvantages, which does nothing more than make it different.

Some folks are bound to compare it to the original from the start, which, in my opinion, is lazy. Why not just judge it on its own merits? Does the interpretation fit well with the plot? Was the cast believable? Etc. Decide how it compares with the original later, after you've had time to take all in.

It's like comparing the Lion King Disney cartoon with the Broadway show. Which is better? Or are both good, just a different interpretation?

Reply Score: 2

judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Very interesting point of view.

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

It's like comparing the Lion King Disney cartoon with the Broadway show. Which is better? Or are both good, just a different interpretation?


The Lion King is a blatant copy of Kimba the White Lion.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Hmmm, nature clearly abhors stagnation and inbreeding...

Edited 2016-05-10 18:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

th3rmite Member since:
2006-01-08

Kusanagi herself said it best "It's simple: overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. "

Reply Score: 1

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Hanging on to a particular piece of your culture, and demanding that others 'keep their filthy mittens away from it' is not going to stop that from happening, no matter how emotionally significant that one era or aspect of culture might be to you.


While we are on the subject of cross cultural appropriation (pollination) and Japan, I have an example.

For a while now I've been watching Babymetal, yes these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZApf9c8Tes
('Kawaii Metal' aka 'Cute Metal') making more and inroads into the metal music community.

The reactions from a very loud minority of that metal music community is, well, very predictable. Especially online which is more anonymous and not face to face.

Edited 2016-05-11 09:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Meh - not nearly as good as Mini Band. At least Mini Band plays all the music themselves. Baby Metal is an adult band with kid singers. Even then, they don't play as well as Mini Band.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

This isn't really my favourite song either, just the first thing I thought off to post. Never heard of Mini Band before, thanks for that. I'll check them out.

'their band' is actually a set regular of session musicians, for lack of a better word:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k1Rv1Rwgd2KEHA9WYsS?start=462

Their stuff is very varied and basically, I like how it just fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IzR_ClTE8Y&index=12&list=PLUarT9lfe...

Anyway, a lot of what they do is very different than what would be usual for a metal band. That was the point of mentioning them.

Edited 2016-05-11 18:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, it makes for a fun concert, I just find it more impressive when the kids play the instruments as well. Even if they're only singing and dancing, that's still impressive for their age. You see some really talented kids these days. They've always existed, but now you're more likely to see them on TV or on tour. They get more exposure... which you need to be careful of since they ARE still kids.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Well, these came from the Japanese 'idol' side, so they were always starting early there.

Just look at this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x387i1k_%E5%8F%AF%...

The smallest girl (10 years) in this video already in front of large crowds, like 20k people, at an Idol festival. Turns out the 2 older girls were nervous, the youngest was not.

6 years later, same arena, Babymetal did their own show with 20k fans, now she's the lead singer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTEYUFgLveY

Yep, I think that's pretty crazy.

Reply Score: 2

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

A truly multicultural society can only come about by creating a melting pot of all aspects from all cultures around the world.

I think you need to read up on "cultural appropriation" and "white-washing", and the troubled history that the US has with its own citizens of Japanese origin.

Reply Score: 2

Missing some Generations, Thom.
by dionicio on Tue 10th May 2016 14:06 UTC
dionicio
Member since:
2006-07-12

Guilty of that. But always expecting the stronger philosophical views on technology coming from Japan.

Reply Score: 2

Fluff
by Athlander on Tue 10th May 2016 17:32 UTC
Athlander
Member since:
2008-03-10

Yes, apart from the last paragraph it's beautifully written.

However, the article seems to be more about a Japanese-American's self-indulgent unease with Japanese culture's relationship with America and her identity crisis than about whitewashing.

Anyway, my fault for reading something on The Verge.

To purge the verge, here's Ursula K. Le Guin's take on whitewashing and the anime "Tales of Earthsea":

My purpose in making most of the people of Earthsea colored, and the whites a marginal and rather backward people, was of course a moral one, aimed at young American and European readers. Fantasy heroes of the European tradition were conventionally white — just about universally so in 1968 — and darkness of skin was often associated with evil. By simply subverting an expectation, a novelist can undermine a prejudice.

The makers of the American TV version, while boasting that they were "color blind," reduced the colored population of Earthsea to one and a half. I have blasted them for whitewashing Earthsea, and do not forgive them for it.

The issue is different in Japan. I cannot address the issue of race in Japan because I know too little about it. But I know that an anime film runs smack into the almost immutable conventions of its genre. Most of the people in anime films look — to the American/European eye — white. I am told that the Japanese audience perceives them differently. I am told that they may perceive this Ged as darker than my eye does. I hope so. Most of the characters look white to me, but there is at least a nice variation of tans and beiges. And Tenar's fair hair and blue eyes are right, since she's a minority type from the Kargish islands.


Source: http://www.ursulakleguin.com/GedoSenkiResponse.html

Edited 2016-05-10 17:34 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Fluff
by grat on Tue 10th May 2016 18:26 UTC in reply to "Fluff"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Wow-- I'll admit, it's been so long since I originally read the Earthsea books that I truly don't remember how my imagination pictured the characters. I certainly didn't have a problem with a racially diverse cast of characters, either then or now.

But to find out it was a deliberate backhand towards whites and that the white people were portrayed as "marginal and rather backwards" in some form of moral / ethnic lesson, is depressing.

If I were to write a book in which any easily identifiable ethnic group (except whites) was portrayed as "marginal and rather backwards", and bragged about it afterwards, my book, and I, by extension, would be considered racist (and with some justification).

Any attempt to justify any form of racism, even against a race you feel is "uppity", or "privileged", is still racism, and you can't simply call it a "moral lesson".

:(

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Fluff
by Drumhellar on Tue 10th May 2016 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Fluff"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Way to completely miss the point. Let me repeat the important part for you:

By simply subverting an expectation, a novelist can undermine a prejudice.

We live in a society where race matters. It shouldn't matter, but it does, and to simply carry on as if it doesn't still matter is naive and ineffectual.

If I were to write a book in which any easily identifiable ethnic group (except whites) was portrayed as "marginal and rather backwards", and bragged about it afterwards, my book, and I, by extension, would be considered racist (and with some justification).


It's a false equivalency, though. People that are the members of a majority ethnic group don't suffer negative consequences by virtue of being that ethnic group (And, just to clarify, I don't mean majority as determined by raw numbers, but by political, economic, and social power).

It's the difference between punching up, and punching down. Good comedians, good literature, good social commentary, never punches down.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Fluff
by grat on Wed 11th May 2016 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fluff"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Way to completely miss the point. Let me repeat the important part for you:

By simply subverting an expectation, a novelist can undermine a prejudice.


That's not subverting an expectation-- it's merely replacing one prejudice with another.

My problem is that modern society says that any stereotype based on race is bad-- and then turns a blind eye to attacks on whites.

If we accept that racial stereotypes are bad, then they're all bad, full stop. Had Ms. Le Guin merely portrayed the caucasian characters as a minority, that would be fine-- deliberately making them "rather backwards" is where it gets problematic.

We live in a society where race matters. It shouldn't matter, but it does, and to simply carry on as if it doesn't still matter is naive and ineffectual.


I partially agree-- however, pretending there's no difference in mental or emotional makeup between people of different race and/or sex is stupidity of a monumental level-- We all have differences that make us unique, and they should be recognized and celebrated, not denigrated.

Pretending there's no difference promotes a lack of understanding, and furthers bigotry, in my opinion.

I come from an area where dinner is a little after noon, supper is early evening, you take your hat off indoors, you hold the door open for women (or your elders), you don't hit ladies, and until told otherwise, all women are called ma'am (not because we're sexist, but because it's considered polite behavior).

Because of that, and my accent, I'm also expected to be a little slow mentally, probably racist, and might be a wife beater, at least according to popular culture-- well, I say my accent, but I spent two years teaching myself to speak with a neutral accent so I could get a job in IT.

Ultimately, either all racial stereotypes are bad, no matter how pure the motivation, or they aren't.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Fluff
by Dave_K on Wed 11th May 2016 12:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fluff"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

It's the difference between punching up, and punching down.


I don't have a problem with Earthsea. I can see why Le Guin wanted to subvert the usual fantasy fiction racial tropes.

But most of the time the whole "punching up vs. punching down" thing is just an excuse for self righteous bullies to be as bigoted as they like towards those deemed acceptable targets.

I usually see this brought up as a self-serving attempt to justify someone's hateful actions after the fact. A way of saying "but it's different when I do it..." after being called out for bad behaviour.

Even if a group of people have some form of societal privilege (on average, as a group), it's still prejudice to treat them differently because of who/what they are.

Good comedians, good literature, good social commentary, never punches down.


Only if you define "good" based on how well something conforms to political correctness, rather than how funny or well written it is...

Like it or not, there's plenty of classic literature and great comedy that punches every which way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Fluff
by galvanash on Wed 11th May 2016 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Fluff"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

But to find out it was a deliberate backhand towards whites and that the white people were portrayed as "marginal and rather backwards" in some form of moral / ethnic lesson, is depressing.


You do understand the book was published in 1968 right? Segregation was abolished by the Supreme Court that year. Martin Luther King Jr. died that year. This was the stone age of racial equality in the United States.

We are talking about a time where the vast majority of whites in the United States did and said hundreds of things every day in the course of their lives that marginalized people of color, and did so without even recognizing it was happening. What we call racism now wasn't a problem in 1968, it was normal.

If I were to write a book in which any easily identifiable ethnic group (except whites) was portrayed as "marginal and rather backwards", and bragged about it afterwards, my book, and I, by extension, would be considered racist (and with some justification).


Sure, Now. The point is in 1968 you would not have been. Odds are no one would have even commented on it. Marginalizing non-whites in American literature was pretty much universal, why would anyone bother to comment on it?

Any attempt to justify any form of racism, even against a race you feel is "uppity", or "privileged", is still racism, and you can't simply call it a "moral lesson".


Look, I agree we should be at the point as a society where we can start getting past stuff like this. It is becoming tiresome in an age where the vast majority of people are already on board. Racism hasn't disappeared completely, but at some point you have to start moving on in order for any healing to take place.

That said, you can't use modern sensibilities to judge something written in 1968. Sorry, but that is just historical revisionism. What you call racism now was barely even recognized as such in 1968. Things like lynchings and segregation were the racism of the 60s. Calling people of color "backwards" and marginalizing them was pretty much just normal.

Give the lady some credit - she was teaching a lesson that desperately needed teaching at the time.

Edited 2016-05-11 00:15 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Fluff
by lucas_maximus on Tue 10th May 2016 21:25 UTC in reply to "Fluff"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/11/03/anime-film-charac...

Asians were significantly more likely to say the characters were Asian, and Caucasians were significantly more likely to say characters were Caucasian. So it seems that we are simply more likely to see our own race in anime characters than the race of others. Still, it’s interesting to me that Asians still underestimated the number of intended Asian characters in the cartoons. Lu notes that many critics have accused anime of “ethnic cleansing,” stripping the characters they depict of any ethnic identity. Early anime artists acknowledged a debt to Disney films, and attempted to mimic the Disney style, so perhaps there’s some truth to these accusations.

Reply Score: 2

Over thinking it
by lucas_maximus on Tue 10th May 2016 21:12 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

The whole point of acting is that you are pretending to be someone else.

The whole whitewashing complaint has started to become ridiculous. It made me laugh when people were complaing about it happening in Gods and Kings. People were complaining that there wasn't any Egyptians cast. The funny thing is that nobody knows what ethnicity the ancient Egyptians were.

Edited 2016-05-10 21:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Over thinking it
by Drumhellar on Tue 10th May 2016 21:44 UTC in reply to "Over thinking it"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

The funny thing is that nobody knows what ethnicity the ancient Egyptians were.


They weren't white, though. They also weren't white people with tans.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Over thinking it
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th May 2016 01:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Over thinking it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No they aren't white, but the point is at what point does it get farcical?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Over thinking it
by Drumhellar on Wed 11th May 2016 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Over thinking it"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

I don't know exactly, but certainly hiring white actors to play ancient Egyptians is past that point.

I mean, it's more or less the same as John Wayne as Gengis Khan

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Over thinking it
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th May 2016 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Over thinking it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I don't know exactly, but certainly hiring white actors to play ancient Egyptians is past that point


Why? Those actors got the part, people are assuming that it is white-washing.

I suspect it was more to do with the fact that After Nolan's Batman Trilogy Christian Bale was known for pulling people into the box office and it was supposed to be another "historical epic".

The race of the characters in story of Moses isn't important. The story isn't about that.

The film was a bit shite anyway.

I mean, it's more or less the same as John Wayne as Gengis Khan


I suspect a good part of that was they wanted John Wayne's name attached to the film. Though that being in the 50s I would imagine there was racial element about it for sure.

Edited 2016-05-11 03:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Over thinking it
by tylerdurden on Thu 12th May 2016 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Over thinking it"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


They weren't white, though. They also weren't white people with tans.


I take many of y'all don't know much, if anything, about upper-Saharan Africa.

I'm still trying to figure out what this whole stint about Egypt has to do with the Ghost in the Shell movie though. Or why is it that not tech related articles get all the traction, whereas OS-specific pieces sometimes get ignored altogether... oh, well.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Tue 10th May 2016 22:07 UTC in reply to "Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

The funny thing is that nobody knows what ethnicity the ancient Egyptians were.


Actually, we know that ancient Egyptians were dark skinned Africans -Nubian. It's common knowledge to pretty much everyone, including people who constantly deny it. It's also common knowledge that Arabs invaded northeast Africa long afterwards. So, your attempt to erase dark skin from that part of African history has failed. And contrary to popular belief, Egypt IS in Africa.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Over thinking it
by judgen on Tue 10th May 2016 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Over thinking it"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

Any sources on the first statement? The nubians invaded ancient egypt and took it over to create the 25th dynasty. and that is the only dynasty with prooven records of dark skinned paharos. I am not saying other pharaos could have been of darker skin complexion, just that the colour of the skin of the 25th dynasty was differeing so much compared to earlier dynasties that the ancient writers saw it as worthy of note.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Over thinking it
by teco.sb on Wed 11th May 2016 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Over thinking it"
teco.sb Member since:
2014-05-08

Additionally, the Ptolemaic dynasty was established by Alexander the Great. There is strong evidence that, at one point in time, Egyptian pharaohs were white with brown curly hair (aka Macedonians).

Trying to generalize the racial background of Egyptian pharaohs is useless, everyone and anyone that was worth a damn tried to invade Egypt, some succeeded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Additionally, the Ptolemaic dynasty was established by Alexander the Great. There is strong evidence that, at one point in time, Egyptian pharaohs were white with brown curly hair (aka Macedonians).

Trying to generalize the racial background of Egyptian pharaohs is useless, everyone and anyone that was worth a damn tried to invade Egypt, some succeeded.


Considering the fact that the bodies of the pharaohs were generally pretty well preserved, there's plenty of evidence as to the pharaoh's racial backgrounds.

Btw, it's interesting that the majority of historians recorded the Arab & European invaders of Egypt, but pretty much completely left out all of the invaders who were African. There were invaders of Egypt who came from the southern regions of Africa.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

How about you to there for yourself & take a look at some of the images on the walls. You'll see things that aren't in American history books.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Over thinking it
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th May 2016 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Over thinking it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

[Actually, we know that ancient Egyptians were dark skinned Africans -Nubian. It's common knowledge to pretty much everyone, including people who constantly deny it.


Err no it wasn't Egypt was at one time invaded by the Nubians, but by many others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy#Posi...

What I take away from that is they would have been a mix of many different ethnicities.

In any case it wasn't the point I was making by that remark.

What I was making out that if you take the whole "actors should be of the correct ethnicity" thing to it natural extreme (like in the example I mentioned) you are in a situation where it actually impossible to satisfy that due to the setting.

I understand why people are complaining because it does seem that Hollywood are afraid of casting non-whites in Leading roles.

However when I see a White actor playing a part of someone that isn't white, I don't automatically assume racism.

It's also common knowledge that Arabs invaded northeast Africa long afterwards.


And according to the the wikipedia link I posted in this reply, Arab populations were in Egypt about 1000BC.

Yes I am aware of pre-islamic middle-eastern history and the history of the Caliphate afterwards.

So, your attempt to erase dark skin from that part of African history has failed. And contrary to popular belief, Egypt IS in Africa.


I have studied an Atlas before and I was already aware.

I am going to assume that this isn't some poor attempt at insinuating I am a racist.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

I am going to assume that this isn't some poor attempt at insinuating I am a racist.


I don't insinuate. If I wanted to call you a racist, I'd just call you a racist -flat out. I don't beat around the bush. A lot of African history has indeed been whitewashed. In fact, a huge bulk of world history has been whitewashed. And it continues to be whitewashed even today. A lot of things that were taught in school aren't actually true. But you don't generally find that out, until you've long graduated. At that point, the damage has already been done.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Over thinking it
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th May 2016 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Over thinking it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

What you said was factually wrong about the Ancient Egyptians being Nubians, so I think I am going to take it with a pitch of salt when it comes to historical accuracy.

TBH you are starting to sound like one of these idiots who think the vikings, Henry VIII and Shakespere are black:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=990_1325854792

Edited 2016-05-11 03:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 03:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

What you said was factually wrong about the Ancient Egyptians being Nubians, so I think I am going to take it with a pitch of salt when it comes to historical accuracy.


Actually, it's NOT factually wrong, so there's that...

TBH you are starting to sound like one of these idiots who think the vikings, Henry VIII and Shakespere are black:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=990_1325854792


Even if those guys were actually black, nothing would be gained by claiming them to be black. In fact, Shakespeare was a fraud who plagiarized the work of others. Yeh, that sounds pretty much like a product of Old Europe, not Africa.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Over thinking it
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th May 2016 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Over thinking it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually, it's NOT factually wrong, so there's that...


What you said was wrong you just won't admit it because then your assertions that history is somehow racist falls apart.

In fact, Shakespeare was a fraud who plagiarized the work of others. Yeh, that sounds pretty much like a product of Old Europe, not Africa.


William Shakespeare wasn't a plagarist, yes he did use plots and some lines from other plays but that is entirely normal. West side story is based on Romeo and Juliet for example and nobody says it was plagarised.

Whether or not Shakespeare was a plagarist is unimportant, the fact of the matter is that you are sounding like a black supremacist.

Edited 2016-05-11 04:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

What you said was wrong you just won't admit it because then your assertions that history is somehow racist falls apart.


What I've said is spot on. You just don't like the fact that the reporters of history were predominately racist. It's been proven time & time again. And this time, it's actually being caught while it's happening. The fact of the matter is that the basic Euro-centric standard is to write everyone else out of their own histories & cultures and replace them with Europeans (& European descendants). The hand has been caught in the cookie jar numerous times. You just don't like the fact that it's being called out.


William Shakespeare wasn't a plagarist, yes he did use plots and some lines from other plays but that is entirely normal. West side story is based on Romeo and Juliet for example and nobody says it was plagarised.


Shakespeare blatantly stole the work of others & attached his name to it. Not just portions, entire works. This isn't new knowledge.


Whether or not Shakespeare was a plagarist is unimportant, the fact of the matter is that you are sounding like a black supremacist.


There's no such thing as a black supremacist. In order for there to be, blacks must first have supremacy. But that's a nice attempt to build a strawman argument in order to divert the attention away from the fact that your assertions are categorically false.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Over thinking it
by tylerdurden on Wed 11th May 2016 04:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Over thinking it"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

[
Actually, we know that ancient Egyptians were dark skinned Africans -Nubian. It's common knowledge to pretty much everyone, including people who constantly deny it. It's also common knowledge that Arabs invaded northeast Africa long afterwards. So, your attempt to erase dark skin from that part of African history has failed. And contrary to popular belief, Egypt IS in Africa.


In the words of Pauli; this post is not even wrong.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Over thinking it
by unclefester on Wed 11th May 2016 09:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Over thinking it"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


Actually, we know that ancient Egyptians were dark skinned Africans -Nubian. It's common knowledge to pretty much everyone, including people who constantly deny it. It's also common knowledge that Arabs invaded northeast Africa long afterwards. So, your attempt to erase dark skin from that part of African history has failed. And contrary to popular belief, Egypt IS in Africa.


Really? I must have missed that particular class of Revisionist Afro-Centric Studies 101.

Middle Eastern people settled North Africa around 5000 years ago. This was 3500 years before the Arab conquest

The Black African hypothesis was rejected by a UNESCO committee way back in 1974,

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Really? I must have missed that particular class of Revisionist Afro-Centric Studies 101.


Let's be honest here, you don't know anything about African history. All you know is what you were told & very much of what you were told were flat out lies. And let's take it even further -you've never taken any actual courses remotely concerning anything African. You're weak attempt at snarkiness is just a mask to cover up the fact that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Middle Eastern people settled North Africa around 5000 years ago. This was 3500 years before the Arab conquest


Settling an area that's already settle is conquest. So, let's not make any mistakes about that. That's pretty much the basis of ALL European history -settling where others are already at. Conquest.

The Black African hypothesis was rejected by a UNESCO committee way back in 1974,


Yeh, because predominately white committees can be trusted by what they reject & what they accept. I do recall white rejecting the fact that Africans were even human. And then, Africans have been found to be the only actual humans; while all others are partly Neanderthal. Committees don't determine what's actually true & what's not. They only control what's accepted as truth & what isn't.

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.htm

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Over thinking it
by tylerdurden on Wed 11th May 2016 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Over thinking it"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


Let's be honest here, you don't know anything about African history.


... but enough about yourself.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

"
Let's be honest here, you don't know anything about African history.


... but enough about yourself.
"

Is that the best that you can do? Another weak deflection? I guess that really IS the best that you can do, since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Over thinking it
by tylerdurden on Wed 11th May 2016 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Over thinking it"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Talking about yourself again. Weird.

BTW. You've made it abundantly clear in your comments that you have little actual understanding of Egyptian history, or how big and diverse, racially and culturally, Africa actually is. So you're either parading your ignorance here or trolling, pick whichever applies to your case.

Cheers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Talking about yourself again. Weird.

BTW. You've made it abundantly clear in your comments that you have little actual understanding of Egyptian history, or how big and diverse, racially and culturally, Africa actually is. So you're either parading your ignorance here or trolling, pick whichever applies to your case.

Cheers.


Yeh, I'm sure that I know more about Egypt (& the rest of Africa) than you do. So, your weak ass argument means nothing. A bunch of Europeans (& European descendants) claiming things about a place, that they know absolutely nothing about & probably have never actually been, are definitely not experts on the matter.

What's more likely is the fact that you simply don't enjoy being called on the social & scientific racism that you've been taught as fact. And in case you don't know what scientific racism is (& because you all love wikipedia so very much)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Over thinking it
by unclefester on Thu 12th May 2016 06:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Over thinking it"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


Let's be honest here, you don't know anything about African history. All you know is what you were told & very much of what you were told were flat out lies. And let's take it even further -you've never taken any actual courses remotely concerning anything African. You're weak attempt at snarkiness is just a mask to cover up the fact that you don't actually know what you're talking about.


All you know is the fact-free propaganda that passes for 'African Culture and History' taught in American universities. It is the same BS that allowed someone raised as a wealthy white man (Barack Obama) to masquerade as an African-American (aka oppressed descendent of slaves).

Just because Egypt is located in Africa doesn't mean that ancient Egyptians had any real cultural or genetic links to the to the rest of Africa. 'Black' Africans are the most genetically diverse people on Earth. A Kikuyu or Bantu or may literally be more closely related to a Korean Swede or Australian Aborigine than a Nigerian.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 12th May 2016 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

All you know is the fact-free propaganda that passes for 'African Culture and History' taught in American universities. It is the same BS that allowed someone raised as a wealthy white man (Barack Obama) to masquerade as an African-American (aka oppressed descendent of slaves).


Actually, it's white Americans who've labeled him as an African-American (aka oppressed descendent of slaves). In case you didn't know, black Americans make up less than 13% of the national population -we're not the ones who put him in office. Additionally, you have absolutely no idea of where my knowledge comes from. You don't even know how much of it comes from formal education & how much of it comes from actual time spent in Africa. And I'm not under any obligation to sort that out for you.

Just because Egypt is located in Africa doesn't mean that ancient Egyptians had any real cultural or genetic links to the to the rest of Africa. 'Black' Africans are the most genetically diverse people on Earth. A Kikuyu or Bantu or may literally be more closely related to a Korean Swede or Australian Aborigine than a Nigerian.


Yeh, tell that to the many Africans within all 54 countries within Africa.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Over thinking it
by unclefester on Fri 13th May 2016 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Over thinking it"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Actually, it's white Americans who've labeled him as an African-American (aka oppressed descendent of slaves).


BS. Obama has been passing himself off as an African-American since his early 20s. That is how he got into Harvard and how he gamed the Chicago political system.


Yeh, tell that to the many Africans within all 54 countries within Africa.



Africa is the most genetically and linguistically diverse continent by far. If you really think that a Bantu and a Kikuyu have any genetic, linguistic or cultural commonality you are a complete fool.

Most people in Africa don't consider themselves to be "Africans". In general they dislike other African ethnicities and often have a pathological hatred of their neighbours.

One tiny African country (Cameroon) has nearly 1800 different language groups and dozens of separate ethnicities.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Fri 13th May 2016 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

BS. Obama has been passing himself off as an African-American since his early 20s. That is how he got into Harvard and how he gamed the Chicago political system.


Actually, he hasn't. In fact, he hasn't said much about his ethnicity, at all. Whites labelled him as African-American.


Africa is the most genetically and linguistically diverse continent by far. If you really think that a Bantu and a Kikuyu have any genetic, linguistic or cultural commonality you are a complete fool.


Yeh, so DNA disagrees with you. Culture & linguistics don't determine what you are, your actual genetics do.

Most people in Africa don't consider themselves to be "Africans". In general they dislike other African ethnicities and often have a pathological hatred of their neighbours.


DNA doesn't give two shits about what people "consider" themselves to be, you are what you are. That's the truth of every single living entity on this planet.

One tiny African country (Cameroon) has nearly 1800 different language groups and dozens of separate ethnicities.


Yeh, because there haven't been any Europeans (or European descendants) who're there as a direct result of European invasions, right? There's only one African ethnic group. Every level of deviation between different groups of actual Africans indicates boundaries between subcultures. All other ethnic groups are groups that consist of Europeans or Africans who're mixed with European. That's already been proven -numerous times by numerous people.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Over thinking it
by jgfenix on Wed 11th May 2016 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Over thinking it"
jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

Really? Many mummies are redhaired and blondes

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Really? Many mummies are redhaired and blondes


Many mummies have black, dreadlocked hair. And we all know that actual Africans were known for wearing dreadlocks during that time. Not Arabs, not Europeans, Africans.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Over thinking it
by JLF65 on Wed 11th May 2016 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Over thinking it"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe, but Ramesses II was a ginger.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Over thinking it
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th May 2016 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Over thinking it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

OMFG I know you are trolling.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

OMFG I know you are trolling.


I know that you don't know what you're talking about.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Over thinking it
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th May 2016 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Over thinking it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Considering everyone has replied saying your account of history is complete bullshit and now you are claiming dreads and braiding is something that only black people have ever done ... I think your idiocy speaks for itself.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 11th May 2016 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Considering everyone has replied saying your account of history is complete bullshit and now you are claiming dreads and braiding is something that only black people have ever done ... I think your idiocy speaks for itself.


Yeh, lets use namecalling when we can't actually prove our argument. Hmmm...I can do it, too, you asshat.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Over thinking it
by unclefester on Thu 12th May 2016 06:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Over thinking it"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

"Really? Many mummies are redhaired and blondes


Many mummies have black, dreadlocked hair. And we all know that actual Africans were known for wearing dreadlocks during that time. Not Arabs, not Europeans, Africans.
"

Did Rev. Al Sharpton tell you this?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Over thinking it
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 12th May 2016 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Over thinking it"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Did Rev. Al Sharpton tell you this?


Al Sharpton works for you Europeans, not for us.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Over thinking it
by jal_ on Wed 11th May 2016 10:57 UTC in reply to "Over thinking it"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

The funny thing is that nobody knows what ethnicity the ancient Egyptians were.

That is not exactly true. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Over thinking it
by lucas_maximus on Wed 11th May 2016 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Over thinking it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Until yesterday I hadn't actually read about the whole issue, I just knew there had been a fair bit of debate about it. In the context I referring to it was accurate enough.

Edited 2016-05-11 12:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Over thinking it
by dionicio on Wed 11th May 2016 14:22 UTC in reply to "Over thinking it"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Gosh with this hypersensitivity to the formula!

Agree, Lucas_maximus.

If the beautiful presence and performance of Johansson allows the viewing target public to connect more easily to the character and the ideas of the play, so be it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Over thinking it
by dionicio on Wed 11th May 2016 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Over thinking it"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"The funny thing is that NOBODY knows what ethnicity the ancient Egyptians were."

Wait, what? Decades of ADN samplings and still unknown?[Uppercase is mine].

Again, OSNews is tech blog, all this 'roll' is undue.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Over thinking it
by Soulbender on Thu 12th May 2016 04:53 UTC in reply to "Over thinking it"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I agree to an extent but this argument would hold better water if non-white actors were more often cast in white roles. It does happen (like Felix Leiter being played by Jeffrey Wright) but not nearly as often as the opposite.

Reply Score: 3

Why didn't just hire an Asian actress?
by chowyunpat on Tue 10th May 2016 22:14 UTC
chowyunpat
Member since:
2006-07-05

What I don't get is why the film maker's had to go though all the trouble making a Western Actress, appear Asian, when it would have been easier to hire a Japanese or Japanese American actress or switch the setting to a Western city and make the main character a Westerner. I guess that's too easy and makes too much sense and plus they had to have a big name attached to it to answer the question, "Who's in it?" because as we all know that is a great indicator of quality.

Edited 2016-05-10 22:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

What I don't get is why the film maker's had to go though all the trouble making a Western Actress, appear Asian, when it would have been easier to hire a Japanese or Japanese American actress or switch the setting to a Western city and make the main character a Westerner.


The contracts have been signed, they couldn't just dump Scarlett Johansson, nor should they.

They shouldn't have to make a point about making her look more asian either. They are simply caving to the pressure of the whiny Internet racists who were losing their shit over the fact that a white person got the lead.

Reply Score: 3

chowyunpat Member since:
2006-07-05

I'm not whining about political correctness, I'm looking at it from a practical point of view, just seems like it would be a lot less trouble and probably cheaper, but that's me I guess. I like what Clint Eastwood did in Gran Torino for instance, to play the Hmong characters he actually hired Hmong actors, it added some authenticity, that supposedly culturally sensitive Hollywood rarely does.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

It always seems pretty simple to me:

some actor or actress has proven to be able to attract a lot of people to a movie, so they use this person again. Casting a different person for such a role is considered risky in Hollywood, so they won't. I don't think they are doing it on purpose, it's just business.

I'm not happy about it and it's unfortunate, but it's just business.

Reply Score: 2

dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Clint Eastwood directed Grand Torino. And Clint Eastwood is a Great Stature Man. That's not a Hollywood Standard.

If well Grand Torino didn't make the big waves on 'white entitled' Countries, it is a Movie that would be treasured by the World as a Whole.

Reply Score: 2

dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Sorry Clint, know You don't like this class of attention...
http://imgur.com/gallery/A6lHAme

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

What I don't get is why the film maker's had to go though all the trouble making a Western Actress, appear Asian,


Are you referring to the alleged computer post-processing meant to make her appear Asian, or just her hairstyle?

Because the claims that they were going to do post-processing to make her Asian seem sort of fishy. Paramount claims that they weren't going to do that for Scarlett Johansson, and the company that was alleged to be doing it for them claims they'v never worked with Paramount, so... the claims are lacking anything that resemble evidence

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The issue of race is a red herring.

In the original series, the race of the main character is irrelevant and made ambiguous on purpose; she has replaced most of her original body with robotic/cyborg replacements.

IMO Scarlett Johanson just is not a good fit for that character, but not because her race; there's more to Motoko that T&A.

Reply Score: 2

JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Most nothing! She had a full-body replacement. The only thing left organic from her original body was a chunk of brain matter - just enough to preserve her ghost.

Reply Score: 2

beautifully written tripe
by unclefester on Wed 11th May 2016 00:10 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

{q] Beautifully written analysis of the Ghost in the Shell casting issue, by Emily Yoshida. [/q]

More like self-indulgent tripe. Anime has it's origins in traditional Japanese art. Anyone who says it was designed for Western tastes post-WW2 is certifiably bonkers. Japanese art has always been based on extreme caricatures. People in traditional Japanese paintings look like cartoon characters - they look nothing like real Japanese people.

Reply Score: 3

beautifully written tripe
by unclefester on Wed 11th May 2016 00:11 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Beautifully written analysis of the Ghost in the Shell casting issue, by Emily Yoshida.


More like self-indulgent tripe. Anime has it's origins in traditional Japanese art. Anyone who says it was designed for Western tastes post-WW2 is certifiably bonkers. Japanese art has always been based on extreme caricatures. People in traditional Japanese paintings look like cartoon characters - they look nothing like real Japanese people.

Edited 2016-05-11 00:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2016 08:00 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

These comments tho. Bunch of white dudes who have never experienced racism talking about how racism is over and no big deal.

Gotta love the internet.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by TheMole on Wed 11th May 2016 09:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
TheMole Member since:
2015-10-28

There is real racism out there, and a lot of it. You just don't leap from cultural appropriation to whitewashing to racism in two short hops like you seem to do here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Athlander on Wed 11th May 2016 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

You just don't leap from cultural appropriation to whitewashing to racism in two short hops like you seem to do here.


It's the Internet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Athlander on Wed 11th May 2016 10:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

These comments tho. Bunch of white dudes who have never experienced racism talking about how racism is over and no big deal.

Gotta love the internet.


I'm not white...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by tylerdurden on Wed 11th May 2016 16:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

These comments tho. Bunch of white dudes who have never experienced racism talking about how racism is over and no big deal.


So, what's your experience with racism?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Lazarus on Wed 11th May 2016 16:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

These comments tho. Bunch of white dudes who have never experienced racism talking about how racism is over and no big deal.

Gotta love the internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDlQ4H0Kdg8

White people don't know shit about racism obviously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ayVKE5vi8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3ofna1Mtl0


Oh, and Black people can't be racist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phA_mGxR4-A


Women can't be sexist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gHJoi2hpWw


"Social Justice"

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2016 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thunderf00t. Really? That's your source for, uh, anything?

Hahahahahah.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Dave_K on Wed 11th May 2016 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Thunderf00t. Really? That's your source for, uh, anything?


Considering that he's a sceptic with a decent track record for checking his facts and providing evidence for his claims, I think Thunderf00t's a pretty reasonable source for someone to use.

No, he's not right about everything, he's used some poor arguments, exaggerated and got some things wrong, but that's true of pretty much everyone who argues on the internet.

Fundamentalist Christians responded with sneers when he spent time debunking their creationist beliefs. Every time he busts fraudulent crowdfunded "inventions" their gullible supporters mock him too. I can't say I'm surprised to see SJWs join them in laughing dismissively rather than dealing with his arguments, not when he does such a good job of challenging their dogma, and shining a spotlight on intolerant, illiberal, and irrational SJW behaviour.

Of course certain SJWs weren't content to simply dismiss and ignore Thunderf00t. A number of Youtube feminists have tried to get him fired by contacting his employer with lies and smears about him being a racist and misogynist. For some reason that didn't generate a whole load of articles in the media condemning "online harassment"...

Oh wait, I forgot, they were just "punching up" while he's "punching down", so that makes it OK...

Sorry if arguments that contradict ideology are triggering for anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwYd5cRlROE

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Lazarus on Wed 11th May 2016 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Yes Thunderf00t. Any day.

Are you screwing with us or do you not realize that what you said was both racist and sexist?

"Bunch of white dudes who have never experienced racism talking about how racism is over and no big deal."

Citation needed. Who made that claim at the end of your comment?

Racism is alive a well and flourishing like no-where else in the regressive left.

We agree that racism is still an issue, you just seem completely oblivious to your own.

Guess I've got a ban coming eh? Or maybe the thread will be locked. Fun times.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by DavidCollins on Wed 11th May 2016 20:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
DavidCollins Member since:
2010-03-22

What you've just said is incredibly racist.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by galvanash on Wed 11th May 2016 21:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

These comments tho. Bunch of white dudes who have never experienced racism talking about how racism is over and no big deal.


Every time a white dude who has never experienced racism says "bunch of white dudes who have never experienced racism" I feel like society on the whole has slipped one step closer to collective stack overflow...

Racism isn't over. It is a big deal. But Scarlett Johansson getting cast to play a character in an American movie intended primarily for American audiences isn't racial injustice, it is capitalism. She puts assess in seats - that's pretty much it. Hollywood studios don't finance movies in order to promote racial diversity, they do it to make money. Go see every fucking movie Michael Bay has ever made, then consider how stupid it is to complain about trivialities like this in light of how much money those atrocities have made.

There were many of the same whitewashing complaints about the casting of Cloud Atlas... A movie (mostly privately funded) made by two transgender siblings and a gay man, who I would wager have collectively experienced more discrimination than the entire collective of idiots who complained about the whitewashing in it. Its starting to get comical really.

You guys really do live in an echo chamber, you just keep attacking each other - ignoring the real problems happening out in the real world. I'm sorry, I just think there are far more important things to concern myself about than who gets cast in a live action Manga movie...

Want to solve a real problem that will actual help someone that matters and create progress? Fight to outlaw predatory lending outfits. That would actually do some good. Getting studios to start casting people because of their race isn't progress, it is the opposite.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Athlander on Thu 12th May 2016 11:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

I generally agree with what you say but on the following, I'd say there are exceptions with an important caveat.

Getting studios to start casting people because of their race isn't progress, it is the opposite.


For live action manga and fantasy films like Gods and Kings, I don't see any problems changing ethnicity, gender and such.

However, for historical films and television with some degree of authenticity (whether fundamental or incidental), there can be cases to be made for not changing ethnicity (or nationality, gender etc.) The caveat is that the root of the problem is in education and shifting the onus onto film-makers to "educate" is an abrogation of responsibility by society as a whole.

Reply Score: 3

Have a closer look
by unclefester on Wed 11th May 2016 09:45 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Japanese people have less pigmented skin than most Europeans. In fact the traditional Japanese ideal of female beauty requires exceptionally white skin.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Have a closer look
by jal_ on Wed 11th May 2016 13:21 UTC in reply to "Have a closer look"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Japanese people have less pigmented skin than most Europeans.

Sure, but "most Europeans" are not "Caucasian".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Have a closer look
by tylerdurden on Wed 11th May 2016 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Have a closer look"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

LOL. Wut?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Have a closer look
by jal_ on Thu 12th May 2016 08:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Have a closer look"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Given that in the US, Mexicans and other people of Spanish descend, are treated as if they're non-white, and given the fact that there's not much difference in appearance between a Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or Greek, all of Southern Europe could be said to be non-Caucasian. "Caucasian" is a term for Western/Northern European-looking people.

(I'm pretty sure I have less pigment than the average Japanese, though I think the average Portuguese person has more pigment.)

Edited 2016-05-12 08:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Have a closer look
by tylerdurden on Thu 12th May 2016 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Have a closer look"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

That's because the American racial classification system is retarded and should be ignored. In fact racial classification systems should be ignored altogether for most intents and purposes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Have a closer look
by jal_ on Fri 13th May 2016 08:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Have a closer look"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

That's because the American racial classification system is retarded and should be ignored. In fact racial classification systems should be ignored altogether for most intents and purposes.

I completely agree!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Have a closer look
by daedalus on Wed 11th May 2016 14:56 UTC in reply to "Have a closer look"
daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14

Indeed, and it's not just Japan. Across most of Asia you can walk into any supermarket or pharmacy and find whitening creams in much the same way you find self-tanning creams in western Europe. One particular brand sticks out in my memory because of its name: "Snail White". Apparently snail slime is used as an ingredient. Nice...

Reply Score: 2

mistersoft
Member since:
2011-01-05

Unless a director is aiming specifically for an "authentic" telling or retelling of a written work or dramatic predecessor - i.e. with high fidelity to the original source content (including character genders, ethnicity where known etc)

Then I've no problem with character genders, ethnicities, or even their psyches or internal motivations being changed around - - it becomes after all it's own new thing.

But much as we've moved away from Shakespearian era of having women played by men, I think unless you're specifically and pointedly investigating the area of gender or race or sexuality blurring - that [known] ethnicities or genders should be played by the same. i.e. blacking-up, facial prosthetics, anything more than light make-up should be shied away from unless there's a bonafide reason. If you need a crazy talented free-climber to fulfill a stunt for the wrong race for the character - then make-up or CGI away!

Vanilla acting, if you can't get the correct performance level for a role from an actor of the originally scripted race, just change the race. So much more human and real way out than make-up and faking it badly.

Think that's the gist isn't it. Faking it superbly -great, well done. Faking it badly, just reflects poorly all round.

A great actor(male/female), who's perhaps slightly sexually ambivalent internally can probably fake their sexual orientation for a role (note - I have two strong caveats in there) ; Very very few people will be able to successfully fake an ethnicity transplant (or a gender one*).

*obvs for a dramatic role, not real-life with hormones, surgery, counselling and all the rest ;-)

Reply Score: 3

Privileged to be ignorant
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 11th May 2016 14:40 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Many many techies of a certain demographic are really just ignorant of recent history. I say that admitting I was once on of them.

To put it in more techy verbiage:

If you don't understand the problems a system has had, the correct solutions seem like madness.

Reply Score: 4

What, no "Lost in Translation" reference?
by gus3 on Wed 11th May 2016 16:27 UTC
gus3
Member since:
2010-09-02

Yes, I know it's a stretch, but the themes aren't entirely disparate. And, Scarlett Johansson.

Reply Score: 2