Joss Whedon and race by IndigoStarblaster

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Joss Whedon and race

POSTED BY: INDIGOSTARBLASTER
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 19:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1355
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:14 AM

Whedonesque.com posted a link to an interesting article about the portrayal of race in Joss' works, which generated a lot of interesting and generally intelligent discussion over there. Here's where it is: http://whedonesque.com/comments/10799

I wanted to put in my two cents, but registration at Whedonesque.com is closed. If y'all don't mind, I'll put in my two cents here, in a much more welcoming part of the virtual 'verse :)

The bit I wanted to speak to was the author's assertion that, even if the Firefly 'verse, 500 years from now, is colour-blind, there needs to be some explanation of how it got that way. She also asserts that she doesn't see how it's possible that it would be colour-blind (given where we are now, I assume she means).

It seems to me that her asking for an explanation, in the show itself, about how come the future 'verse it portrays doesn't share the prejudices of the current audience is a bit of a tall order. The characters couldn't explain, because they wouldn't even be conscious of the fact that something needed to be understood.

It would be kind of like a Brit audience demanding to know why the absence of Protestant-Catholic conflict isn't explained in an episode of, oh, I don't know, Ken Finkleman's _The Newsroom_ (which is set in Toronto, Ontario, Canada). The fact is, this is something that most Torontonians are oblivious to. Here's an anecdote from someone I know who immigrated from Scotland to Ontario at the age of eight. He asked one of his new classmates: "So are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" (an all-determining factor in deciding who to play with, back in his old neighbourhood) The reply: "What's a Protestant?" Just trying to explain what the question means to this little eight-year-old would have taken at least an hour (and it would have taken much, much longer to explain why it mattered in the first place).

An explanation would have sounded similarly contrived and would have taken up far too much of a Firefly episode. So I, for one, am content to note that the 'verse 500 years in the future is a colour-blind one, and not worry about exactly how we got there.

I would also like to contend with her second assertion, that a colour-blind 'verse is somewhat unrealistic. I'm Asian (Han Chinese, more specifically), my husband is a white redhead (English, Irish, Welsh and Ukrainian, I believe) and our son is... well, he's a beautiful little boy with slightly curly brown hair and pale skin that goes a nice brown colour in the summer sun. He doesn't look Chinese, English, Irish, Welsh or Ukrainian. In our city (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) he looks more "white" than anything else, but "white" covers a broad spectrum that shades pretty indistinguishably into "brown" in any multicultural city.

When he grows up, I don't know if he'll really have a racial identity, and I imagine the same is true of other mixed kids. And in the 'verse 500 years in the future, there's no doubt in my mind that pretty much everyone will be mixed to some degree; only geographic isolation and millenia of inbreeding allowed for the development of distinctive racial looks in the first place. So, yes, a colour-blind society 500 years from now sounds pretty realistic to me.

Thanks all for your patience with this long post,

Indigo S.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:42 AM

NRDPWR

Very interesting. Honestly, it's not something I considered too much. According to the Firefly history I've read, an entire generation was born on the transport ships that took them to the new system. Given a small population in close quarters for long periods of time, I imagine there would have been a lot of multiracial children born. What else is there to do on a transport ship? Now, the population could easily have gone the other way and divided up along racial lines on the transports. However, there's a bit of a selection effect that went on. All of the people that left Earth that was had a common goal (i.e. reaching a new star system). I difficult goal that would need the cooperation of large numbers of people. I would imagine that would unite the population on the transport ships and break down social barriers as well

Just my $.02 worth, though.

*Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor not an anthropologist*

____________________________________________________

"Do you know what the chain of command is here? It's the chain I go get and beat you with to show you who's in ruttin' command."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:49 AM

DEEPGIRL187

I'll admit, I skimmed most of the article (one I have a headache, two, as I haven't seen most of Buffy and none of Angel, I can't say I'm really qualified to post an opinion on it). But from what I did read...well, I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts.

What gets me is the part about Book being the "magical negro". I can see where the person is going, but I also think that they're not giving Book enough credit. Not to mention the fact that the series was cut short, and you really didn't get a chance to see into Book's history.

Another gripe I have is the comparison of Early and The Operative. Yes, there are some similarities, but for the most part, saying that they're virtually the same character is an insult.

Quote:
"But I can only conclude that Joss et al felt that the Blackness was an intrinsic part of the menace in those characters."

Please excuse my language, but bull-fuckin'-shit. The real menace to both of those characters was their presence. For Early, it was his complete disregard for anyone's interests but his own. For The Operative, it was his firm conviction that what he was doing was right.

The part about Zoe...well, I hate to say it, but I have to agree with a some of it. However, to Joss's credit, he did something with Zoe that is still uncommon in television by putting Zoe in an interracial marriage. And having a strong female character is never a bad thing really.

The writer does acknowledge their own failings:

Quote:
"And I am certainly not immune to the Whedon white-fan rationalizations, because he does so many, many things right, and I am such a fan, and I speak from a position of white privilege on these issues — so perhaps I am not a trustworthy accountant."

And while I'm glad they acknowledged such things, speaking as an African-American, I find a lot of this particular argument wanting.

**************************************************

"These words are all I have so I'll write them."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:36 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Indigo

I read the piece you were talking about and I had 2 immediate reactions - 1 I thought it was a load of

and 2 I wondered why white America thinks it can ever make any informed statements regarding race. I am white and I am American and I ABSOLUTELY can make no statement with any degree of authoriy because I do not have to deal with being a non "white" person in our society. So I find that amusing.

I would be interested to hear the view of several "non-white" persons to see if what she is saying has merit with them.

I also do not like the term "colorblind" I don't think it is accurate and it conveys a lack of valuing persons of other colors/ethnicity, ignoring the diversity. I am not a prejudiced person(or I should say that I am not prejudiced on the basis of race, creed, etc. Rather my prejudiced is directly related to the amount of stupid to be found) but I would not say I was colorblind. I see the color of the people around me. I admire the diversity of culture, I just don't allow it to change my view of others. I guess you could say I was Color-don'tcare.

The only thing she said that I agreed with was the "Lesbian Willow" thing seeming forced.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:46 PM

ARCADIA

This article made lots of good points, most of which I could nod too even when I felt that they were a bit of a stretch, but I must say if you're going to write an article on race, get the races of the people you're talking about right.

1. Gina Torres is of Cuban ancestory, but mostly referred to as being black. Now, I understand that the author probably meant that, as a woman of color she fulfilled the role of the Black Warrior Woman (I would argue she doesn't fit the bill as well as the author intends her to, but thats just imo), but, well, if one is trying to be racial concious then one might actually say this.

2. Morena Baccarin is Italo-Brizilian, from Brazil. This is corrected eventually through the comments, though (after she is mistaken as Asian).

3. While I will say yes, Cordelia the character is white, the actress, Charisma Carpenter, is actually 1/2 Mexican and 1/2 Charokee Indian (sourse, imdb).

Those are the four I remember off the top of my head, but I think there were a few other mishaps.

I think the author has good points, especially when she doesn't try to be too specific. These shows, and hollywood in general, does a poor job of considering race when they are world building. ABC Primetime shows tend to be populated by white people with a few others thrown in there for good measure. It is too bad that hollywood seems to turn everyone into a forth generation american athiest, with no sense of heritage or religion or anything (says the white, third generation american with very little sense of heritage, and who rejected religion). These are horrible dynamics to lose in real life and in television. I do wonder if her accusation that Firefly tried but didn't do enough considering race would change if "Dead or Alive" featuring the Asian Alliance officer had aired, or if she would have just gripped that, "oh, look, Joss thinks Asians are evil, too" like she did with her horrible reading of the Operative and Early. I know that the op and Early are bad guys, so in that respect she's right, perhaps too many black man baddies too soon, but she does realize they are the villains we love, right? That they have great characters?

I always love and hate to read articales like this. From an intellectual sense, they make a lot of sense and carry great value, but in terms of how much of this is felt in daily life, I am not sure. That is one of the problems with race and gender studies, there is a huge gap between what is analytical and what is practical. This is analytical and very interesting, but at the end I was still going, and...?

Not to mention the browncoat in me was saying, umm, casting happens very quickly, and extras depends largely on who decided to show up, or what stuntmen are available. In terms of extras, small guest stars, and vampires (usually stuntman), she was just too hard on Joss, no too ways about it. I barely understand the process of putting together a guest cast, and I know it is not as simple as she makes it seem.

Over all, though, very informative. Thanks for shairng.

[center]
Arcadia
aka Greyfable and/or Katie

like the avatar? there are more. grab one here: http://snipurl.com/syt0. Happy Summer of Serenity!
www.stillflying.net -- picking up Firefly were Joss left off. We will hold 'til he gets back.
[/center]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE