Khan and racism

In the real world
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh
Contact:

Re: Khan and racism

Post by Jim »

sunnyside wrote:
Jim wrote: Everything that they do is based on race, every act, every decision. That makes them racist scum, period.

Well, I think MLK would have characterized himself that way (well, maybe after serving Jesus), but you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone he was racist scum.
I admit that my response was a little harsh due to my annoyance over the subject.
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Khan and racism

Post by Mikey »

sunnyside wrote:I don't believe ancestor guilt is the emotion the whole white privilege thing is going for. I think the idea is that racism is still continuing today in more covert and subtle but still significant forms and therefore one has benifits or doesn't suffer various detriments by being white.
Doesn't matter. I know to what the term "white privelege" refers; the point isn't what that is, but that the only way to express a declamation of that idea - barring the color-blindness which you decry - is to express that "ancestor guilt" as you term it. The problem is, as I've illustrated, that such an expression is of itself offensive to the subject in question. I also still fail to see how an attempt to not be racist is offensive as you have mentioned.

Wait a tick. I think I've got it. You are defining "color-blindness" as one being completely insensate to any sort of non-value descriptor, while I see it more as the effort (or tendency, really) to be able to acknowledge such descriptors ("Joe is African-American, he has darker skin than I") without attaching any sort of biased value judgement ("Joe is African-American, he probably is more prone to theft than I.") That is an extreme example, of course, but you get the idea.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Jim
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh
Contact:

Re: Khan and racism

Post by Jim »

Mikey wrote:
sunnyside wrote:I don't believe ancestor guilt is the emotion the whole white privilege thing is going for. I think the idea is that racism is still continuing today in more covert and subtle but still significant forms and therefore one has benifits or doesn't suffer various detriments by being white.
Doesn't matter. I know to what the term "white privelege" refers; the point isn't what that is, but that the only way to express a declamation of that idea - barring the color-blindness which you decry - is to express that "ancestor guilt" as you term it. The problem is, as I've illustrated, that such an expression is of itself offensive to the subject in question. I also still fail to see how an attempt to not be racist is offensive as you have mentioned.

Wait a tick. I think I've got it. You are defining "color-blindness" as one being completely insensate to any sort of non-value descriptor, while I see it more as the effort (or tendency, really) to be able to acknowledge such descriptors ("Joe is African-American, he has darker skin than I") without attaching any sort of biased value judgement ("Joe is African-American, he probably is more prone to theft than I.") That is an extreme example, of course, but you get the idea.
I would go with, Joe is African-American, he is probably more physically fit than I and has a bigger sausage...
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Re: Khan and racism

Post by sunnyside »

Mikey wrote: Doesn't matter. I know to what the term "white privelege" refers; the point isn't what that is, but that the only way to express a declamation of that idea - barring the color-blindness which you decry - is to express that "ancestor guilt" as you term it.
I think the declamation they're looking for is more along the lines of "I've had it easier than you have and can't fully understand race issues from your perspective due to not having had to think about them".
Wait a tick. I think I've got it. You are defining "color-blindness" as one being completely insensate to any sort of non-value descriptor, while I see it more as the effort (or tendency, really) to be able to acknowledge such descriptors ("Joe is African-American, he has darker skin than I") without attaching any sort of biased value judgement ("Joe is African-American, he probably is more prone to theft than I.") That is an extreme example, of course, but you get the idea.
More like that. Nobody in those articles were criticizing Cumberbatch for being a bad actor, they just have an issue with the casting. They're pushing for more race consciousness but less bigotry.

Though again in this particular matter it's more like the producers got stuck between the Scylla and the Charybdis.
Griffin wrote: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
[/quote]

Well, yes, but there's also a flavor that diversity and impressions are part of a total package.

For the record I still hold onto hope that someday races more broadly can just be a silly fun difference that doesn't mean a lot, sort of how the differences between where your ancestors came from in Europe have become in much of the US. You just maybe have some slightly different holiday traditions or something. We just aren't there yet.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Khan and racism

Post by Mikey »

sunnyside wrote:I think the declamation they're looking for is more along the lines of "I've had it easier than you have and can't fully understand race issues from your perspective due to not having had to think about them".
My point being that not continually announcing that fact doesn't mean that one isn't cognizant of it.
sunnyside wrote:stuck between the Scylla and the Charybdis.
This. If you ignore race completely, then you're a bigot for not casting an ethnic Indian as an Indian character. If you are conscious of race in your casting, then you're a bigot for not looking past race.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Post Reply