aatombomb:

We were discussing homosexuality because of an allusion to it in the book we were reading, and several boys made comments such as, “That’s disgusting.” We got into the debate and eventually a boy admitted that he was terrified/disgusted when he was once sharing a taxi and the…

(Source: andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)

orbitingasupernova:

iamabutchsolo:

t3hkat:

wereallsofondofdying:

iamabutchsolo:

thecactusthatfoundthebeat:

iamabutchsolo:

brbbowflexing:

iamabutchsolo:

You know what the world always needs?

A white actor playing a person of color in a big movie. I mean why would you spend precious time and money on authenticity when you can just get a famous white guy to do it?

Oh but it’s okay, he’s pretty sure his grandma was Cherokee or something.

Yeah.

If you do your research he has a lot of native american blood. just because he doesn’t look it doesn’t mean he can’t play the roll.

^ As I put in the original post, I’m aware that he has “Native blood” - he actually told Entertainment Weekly that he believes his “I guess I have some Native American (in me) somewhere down the line. My great grandmother was quite a bit of Native American, she grew up Cherokee or maybe Creek Indian. Makes sense in terms of coming from Kentucky, which is rife with Cherokee and Creek.” That doesn’t sound like “a lot” or even someone who takes pride in that heritage. He says he wants to make Tanto a respectable Native character and although rock on for him, it would make a bigger difference if it was someone who was indeed an American Indian actor, not a white actor with a little Native blood.

There are plenty of American Indian actors who could play the role and look the role. Plus, no one would look at Johnny Depp and know he was part Native unless you did do research, it is still redface. It wouldn’t be okay if a white actor who was just 1/16 black play Shaft, an iconic black fictional character, if they decided to remake that - it would be ridiculous!

… There are so much more important things to be arguing about.
it’s a movie.
not worth bringing race into the debate.
so what if he’s white?

^ This is not about this one movie, this is about a continuing trend that has gone on for hundreds of years, in which white people portray characters of color in a move of completely white washing the race of the character, or by being in colorface. It leads to stereotypes of people of color, and it is especially mind-bloggling when there are actual American Indian actors who could pay the role. It’s disrespectful and has been for, again, hundreds of years.

It is always worth bringing race into the debate because it is relevant. How is race not relevant to a discussion about a white man playing an iconic American Indian character?

If anyone cares, there’s a documentary on Native Americans in the film industry called Reel Injun. I’m pretty sure it’s on netflix.

If we’re going to debate about character portrayal in theatre, I want to point out that traditionally, all actors were male. Slowly it evolved to male and female actors. Maybe in time, more people of color (as you put it) will be given the roles that you feel they deserve.

I do just want to point out though, that the concept of race is only that, a concept. There is no genetic evidence of it. You can take two people on opposite ends of the color spectrum that look nothing alike and they could still be considered the same race.

From the business stand point, I understand why they picked Depp. He is a very talented actor and he is extremely famous. Any movie that he is in is probably going to end up being quite popular and make large sums of money. Though unfortunate, a less known actor who is more native american probably isn’t going to bring in the same amount of profit.

But don’t you think it’s completely fucked up and condescending that people of color have to “wait” white white people to cast them roles that only they should obviously be playing from the beginning? People of color have not just been “waiting,” they’ve been fighting this kind of crap for centuries! It’s not something they need to wait for, it’s something that the white people who think these are just super ideas really need to wise up and STOP.

And that phrase, “that you feel they deserve”? That is an absolutely toxic way to think about racism and the way it’s perpetuated because it’s not about “deserving,” this is about the obvious fact that white people need to stop thinking that people of color are not important enough to portray themselves. Colorface has too much history and context to be boiled down to “deserve.” Defensive white people need to stop being defensive on an issue that they’ve had too much power in and caused too much stupidity because now stuff like Johnny Depp as Tonto happens, and they think it’s perfectly okay when everything about history and the actual opinions of people of color say it’s not okay. Plus, this is not just something I think, this is something that many people of color have been talking about for a long time.

The fact that race is not genetically founded has absolutely no bearing on this conversation because regardless of whether it “exists” or not in the genetic sense, people see it, experience it, they make decisions based upon it and are privileged or subject to ridiculous crap because of it, and colorface is a manifestation of the crap that happens when one race, the white people, believe that truthfulness and reality is not as important as appealing and pleasing other white people and showing the faces of white people.

oh my god

what

why

johnny

what are you doing

Just an interesting note: in the documentary Reel Injun (which is fantastic), made by Neil Diamond, who is Cree, there is a montage of made-for-by-and-about-Aboriginal-peoples film clips, and a clip of Johnny in Dead Man is shown, despite the fact that Gary Farmer also stars. I thought this was an interesting choice by the filmmaker, and somehow it makes me more comfortable with Johnny playing Tonto. I think it’s important to keep in mind that Johnny is a very private guy and I’m sure he wouldn’t divulge how connected or disconnected he feels from that part of his heritage to any great extent when talking with a reporter. He does have a Cherokee chief tattoo, so perhaps he is not as dismissive of it as the quote above might suggest.

To be clear, I agree that colourface is just fucking awful and that representations of Aboriginal peoples in film are frequently without integrity, respect, or consideration. However, I feel like the fact that an actor with a lower Aboriginal “blood quantum”, to put it crudely, is playing Tonto is less troubling than the fact that this franchise is being remade at all. Does this cowboy-saviour injun-sidekick crap still appeal to modern audiences? That’s more frightening to me.

today in my discourses seminar, we were discussing the university classroom as a privileged space, when one of my classmates spoke up and said, with with a note of laughter, a note of exhaustion in her voice, “this isn’t a privilege.”

her comment startled many, if not all of us in the small class, and the prof was momentarily speechless. we were all struggling, i think, since in those first few moments she could have been taking a shot at the prof, at the lesson, at us as her classmates, at the university. this classmate is an aboriginal woman who, from my understanding, is fairly involved in  her community and the politics of her nation. we are only friendly acquaintances so i won’t say too much more about her life as i simply can’t know the full story. from my interactions with her, i’ve come to see her as a no-bullshit sort of woman, a skeptic and a just-gimme-the-facts type. her sense of humour is self-deprecating but has an undercurrent of, if i’m down here, i might as well have you join me. 

in this particular class, the dialogue is quite open and i think we’ve all been very deliberate in creating a safe space for honesty, even if that honesty might upset us. so, while i was (and i’m sure others were) certainly put on my guard by this comment, i waited for the explanation. more often than in any other class i’ve taken, there can frequently be a certain heaviness to the discussion, because we all sense we’re in a dangerous territory, relying on each other not to cross the line from questioning to disrespectful. some of us are aboriginal, some are POC, some are white…i think it is a testament to the amazing maturity, respect, and open-mindedness of these women (yes, we’re all women) that we have never gone beyond levelheaded debate. i have often marveled at the existence of this group of people, of this space that we have created, because it gives me so much positive energy to deal with the spaces where that kind of social awareness simply doesn’t exist.

now that i’ve given some context for it, let me continue with my classmate—let’s call her wendy—and her comment.

“this isn’t a privilege.”

i am a second generation canadian and grew up in a middle class white household. once my strength in the world of academia became apparent, it wasn’t even a question that i was going to university. my parents were very clear that they would happily respect my decision if i chose not to attend post-secondary, but i would be the first person on both sides of the family to ever get a university degree, and i understood that this would be amazing and that university was a dream neither of my parents could afford to achieve, so they were going to get me there come hell or high water. affording tuition was never an uncertainty; my parents would find a way, despite the considerable financial troubles we found ourselves in near my graduating year. at this point, in my third year of university, my scholarships and student loan have paid for about 70% of my tuition, with my parents contributing the rest.

i am delighted with university. i love school, academia, absorbing things i didn’t know. at the same time, part of this education has been learning about how my privilege got me to this place; about how the world of academia is one of power imbalances, discrimination, eurocentrism and heteropatriarchal reinforcement. i have also experienced enough to give me hope that it will not always be this way. despite and because of all of this, i feel that my university education is without doubt a pleasure and a privilege.

what wendy argued, quite eloquently and convincingly, is that it is a culturally specific privilege. how many times have we heard the offhand remark, some kid in africa would kill to do this or that, so don’t complain. how many articles have been written on the disturbing inaccessibility of post-secondary education for aboriginal peoples in canada, demanding standards be reexamined, preconceived notions be deconstructed, essentially to give them access to what we eurocanadians perceive as a great privilege?

wendy told us about the youth in her community being commended in their efforts to learn about their nation’s epistemology, its history and its protocol. she said, while many of these young people lived very close to poverty, and were struggling terribly in public schools, their achievements within the community were remarkable and she saw them as being incredibly privileged for being gifted the knowledge and stories of their nation. i wish i could be anyone of those kids, is what she said, and not here having to go to university because it is what is expected of me. in her eyes, university was not a privilege but something she had to put up with every day because it was the eurocanadian standard for being accomplished, being an expert, being reliable and being legitimate. she argued that seeing university classrooms as privileged spaces was no better than seeing the imposition of colonial logic as a gift of reason to the “uncivilized” peoples of the americas.

i actually privileged my privilege. or is it a privilege? perhaps the mistake is in discussing privilege on national or global terms. i’m not sure. and i mean that in the broadest sense possible.

…

but if i didn’t have access to university, if i didn’t have the privilege of attending university, where else could i access this kind of dialogue? this close examination of colonial logic?

perhaps university is privilege because it is the only space in eurocanadian culture where these kinds of ideas can be safely disseminated; where decolonization is tidily encapsulated in the classroom and trapped there, because i know i am often too tired or too intimidated to try to carry the enormity of the task outside of class, alone, without my like-minded classmates as supports.

again, i’m simply not sure.

i’m seeing quite a few posts where people are like “wtf is the big deal about? this film could be awesome. it could bring more fans. why are you all so pissed?”

i, for one, am not furious but am very, very concerned. these are my reasons, and i think they are concerns shared by most whovians:

• when hollywood tackles something british, or tackles anything, it has a tendency to make things more about the fancy effects, stupid jokes, and stuff blowing up than the clever dialogue and fantastic acting. (e.g., death at a funeral, harry potter) granted, this is not ALWAYS the case, but i think if they’re trying to appeal to a wider audience, let’s be honest, they’re going to see doctor who as a sci-fi flashy thing before they see it as a magical emotional adventure of wonder and happiness (which it is). will the daleks be scary enough for hollywood? will the tardis be flashy enough? will the companions be ditzy enough? WILL THE SONIC SCREWDRIVER BE SONIC ENOUGH? (spoilers! probably not)
• yates has said several things that strongly suggest he is going to stray (in a serious way) from doctor who canon in this film. such as: ”[doctor who] needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena” and “the film will not follow from the popular tv series.”
• why is this bad? one; it blatantly disrespects the large following doctor who ALREADY has, a following that loves everything about the show. that yates seems to also have already written off involving anyone who is actually a part of the show (see his comments on looking for american writers, new actors, etc.) suggests he doesn’t really give a fuck about any of that.
• two; a “bigger arena”? if saving the universe a bajillion times isn’t good enough for a “bigger arena” what the bloody hell are you going to have him do? 
• three; if this film is any kind of success, it could have serious ramifications for the bbc series. matt smith’s reign is probably coming to an end within a few seasons. that is around the time the film is planned be released. it seems like a real possibility that a successful film could prompt studio execs to follow the film rather than the series, just to hold onto the larger american audience. can you see why current whovians would fear this?
• some of you might be saying, “but if the film is that successful, it will probably be pretty good, so why worry?” some examples of horrifyingly successful crap: the twilight franchise, the transformers films, anything with kevin james, the music of rebecca black, fast and furious 17: fancy cars and scantily clad women blow shit up (and for some reason the rock is involved).
• “Announcing my personal moonshot, starting from scratch. No money, no plan, no help from NASA. But I know where the moon is - I’ve seen it.” if steven moffat is mocking something, YOU BEST BELIEVE IT DESERVES BEING MOCKED.

i hope this has helped those of you who are confused by the general rage and alarm. may add to this if yates says other silly things. (“bowties? sorry, not cool enough for hollywood.”)