Akira, Shakespeare, Whitewashing, and Racebending

The triannual threat from Hollywood to make a live-action Akira movie has once again reared its ugly head. In years past, it's always been made very clear that they intend to make an "American" version with an entirely white cast. This is, of course, horrible. Akira is a deeply Japanese manga. The culture described is based very firmly in Japanese youth culture of the era in which it was written. The plot is a reflection of cultural memory of the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Translating it into American culture is deeply problematic and difficult, and that's even assuming anyone involved gives even the slightest shit about doing any more than saying "It's set in Manhattan now, and everyone's white." Which is what's going to happen if this abomination ever gets made (it won't.)

But one of the arguments I see people make in favor of that treatment (and, horrifically, they exist) is that cultures all over the world get to do their own version of Shakespeare! That's something that's ours, as white people, dammit, why do they get to do it?

Oh my goodness, what an argument. Let's put aside the issue of cultural appropriation and its intrinsic ties to power differentials and colonialism- that colonialism impresses its own culture on other people's by choice and then steals from them by force and hegemonic pressure. I mean, that's a really big elephant to put aside, but I'm not the best at discussing that and it's not a topic people who would be making the Shakespeare argument would even believe in anyway.

I am, however, pretty good at discussing history, and motherfucker you just put Shakespeare and race in the same discussion so yes, let's discuss that.

There's two Shakespearean plays where a person of color is a prominent, even titular, protagonist: Antony and Cleopatra, and Othello. Of the two, Othello is the more interesting and is widely celebrated as one of his best tragedies. The 1965 film version is the single most critically rewarded film adaptation of a Shakespearean play. It's survived largely unchanged for over 400 years.

In it, Othello is a Moorish captain in Venice, in love with an Italian woman, while forces conspire to keep them apart, succeeding in tragic fashion (spoiler alert). Themes of racial and cultural divides are central to the story. Othello's actual racial identity is much debated, as the Moors were a very cosmopolitan people in Elizabethean times. Some contend he was of Arabic descent, others say he was of sub-Saharan descent- in any case he was certainly a person of color.

It probably goes without saying that Shakespeare did not actually cast a Moor as Othello. His players were 100% white English dudes, including the women (basically, they were Monty Python.) There's some debate as to whether Shakespeare had ever even met a Moor. So, naturally it was played in blackface. In fact, an actor of color did not play Othello until 1826- 261 years after it was written. Richard Burbage took the stage to play the Moor in London and his presence was about as well received as you can imagine:

Unsurprisingly given the times, there was considerable resistance to the presence of the world's first black Othello. Eighteenth century London was the epicentre of Britain's pro-slavery lobby, and the press conducted a campaign of blatant racism against him. In one of his two Othello performances at the Covent Garden theatre in 1833, The Atheneum objected to actress Ellen Tree as Desdemona, being "pawed about on the stage by a black man." The Times newspaper had been just as scathing eight years prior, when it commented that, "Owing to the shape of his lips it is utterly impossible for him to pronounce English."

Of course, this was England, where racial issues were certainly present, but not quite a fraught as in America.  In fact, in America, a racially correct Othello wasn't seen until 100 years later in 1943, when Paul Robeson played the character.

And then, we come to Hollywood. You'd think, okay, the first black film actor to play Othello couldn't have come too long after the first American stage actor. Oh, gosh, you would think huh?

1995. Laurence Fishburne. That wildly celebrated 1965 version I mentioned earlier? Sir Lawrence Olivier in blackface. In Nineteen. Sixty. Goddamn. Five. That's only 50 years ago and he was nominated for an Oscar for his blackface.

So yeah. Let's goddamn bring Shakespeare into the race conversation, because it's not really helping the "WOO WHITE PEOPLE" side over here.

---

In more positive news, Neil Gaiman's American Gods is being adapted for TV by Bryan Fuller (creator of Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies, and Hannibal). Production is starting as soon as they cast the protagonist- Shadow.

Like Othello, Shadow is described as having dark skin- certainly a person of color. He is however, left very racially ambiguous. Many people assume he's black, other people picture a more Hispanic character- I feel like he probably looks racially ambiguous, owing to the themes of America's role in taking the cultures and gods of immigrants and stripping them away into nothingness, forcing them to leave behind their identity.

At any rate, Fuller had this to say about casting him:

I think if we cast a white man to play Shadow we would be the biggest assholes on television...

One of the things I’m most excited about for American Gods is the diversity in the cast because there’s such a wide range of ethnic Gods in the world. Right now, we’re imagining two white roles and everybody else is non-white, so my goal, Michael’s goal, certainly Neil’s goal has been to have a very ethnically diverse cast. That’s important to all of us.

Right. On.

Never Go On Reddit

[content note: this post is about Reddit, so just assume anything terrible is absolutely in this post]

I just feel like making a nice list of arguments I actually had to have on Reddit this week:

• Why "OP is a faggot" is a bad thing to say
• Why being excited to kill some North Koreans isn't okay
• Why the police shouldn't be allowed to stop and harass anyone they want
• Why people tend to not lie about being violently and repeatedly gang raped
• Why it's racist to assume a black woman with a child is a single mom
• Why the idea that gay marriage leads to marrying a horse is insane

I guess I didn't have to have these arguments. I chose to have them. I chose to be on Reddit and interact with these people. And, to Reddit's credit, more often than not I did end up on the positive vote end of the spectrum for making these arguments but...

But.

It never ends. I've finally just blocked Reddit on all my browsers because I can't. I can't argue on the internet that much. It's so futile.

Cars, Colonialism, and Clarkson

Usually, when I sit back and think about a TV show and deconstruct it in my mind and consider its social implications and just apply basic critical studies to it, it's well after the fact of watching it. When I ingest entertainment, I do it for the entertainment. I enjoy it or don't enjoy it based on pure emotional response and how well it creates it. Sometimes, though, the damn criticism keeps in during watching ti and I enjoy things less because of it. How dare thinking critically about something and its implications remove my enjoyment. Jerks.

Anyhow, it happened tonight with Top Gear. Top Gear is, usually, immensely entertaining to me, though I acknowledge its problems.

I mean, first, it's on the BBC. Which means it's partially funded by taxpayer money. Taxpayer money going into having three rich white dudes do stupid things with cars. I don't really have anything against taxpayer money going into stupid things. And a government could be doing way worse with its money than making a TV show- at least it's not killing anyone. Of course, it's not really saving anyone either. It could go into education or healthcare or infrastructure or any number of things. But, entertainment is something nearly every civilization has devoted a sizable about of time and money to. I'm not saying it's right or even okay, but shoot, it's hard to fight and if we stopped I'd have nothing to talk about anymore. So this problem hardly ever bothers me.

Second, the chaps are somewhat racist and xenophobic. This is just known as a matter of course. They got into a huge kerfuffle involving Mexicans a couple of years back and as least once a season they make some dumb comment. They have the kind of racist attitude that seems uniquely British- not any inherent belief in the inferiority of a different race, just a nationalistic belief that not being British is a terrible thing and you have some adorable flaw. Britain seems to exist with a sort of quantum nationalism: inerrant belief that Britain is best, while utterly despising being British. It's cute. Anyhow, they usually get called on it and make apologies and blah blah blah, everyone knows they're a bit daft. It's terrible, but rarely bothersome.

No, my problem rears its head rarely, but goes unacknowledged. See, they often have adventure episodes. And sometimes it's really cool, like when they were the first people to drive a car to the North Pole. Well done, nice show of automotive engineering. Or it's just good fun, like when they each bought a car for under $1000 in Miami and drove them to New Orleans, along the way painting their car with pro-gay, pro-Hillary slogans as they drove through rural Alabama- a decision which literally caused them to be hunted and followed by hicks in big scary trucks. Fun times. But this season's adventure was indicative of a worse problem.

They went to Africa, to find the source of the Nile River. Okay. Neat. Good adventure. Along the way, they praised Dr. Livingston and the great British adventurers who came before them. They drove through the Serengeti, exclaiming how beautiful it was and how could anyone be afraid to go to Africa. They enlisted the help of friendly locals who dug them out of ditches and push their cars through the deep mud to help them reach their glorious ending.

And, yet, there it is. Because those great and noble British adventurers did view these people as inferior. Maybe they didn't necessarily treat them as such, but they saw their land, their societies, and said "Neat! No one's ever explored this!" Then Europeans came in, found these people, on this land, with their societies, and said "Neat! This is ours now. Oh, you said this is yours? Okay. You're ours now too! Neat!" But that ended way back in the 20th century so it's probably not best  to dwell on it. But then, Clarkson, Hammond, and May go out, willfully oblivious to A) the enormous privilege they get from being the descendants of the colonial powers, and B) that they basically do the same thing. Oh, how nice of the throngs of poor Africans to push the noble white men's cars. How quaint that they want biscuits and candy for their efforts, look at them crowd and push. Jolly good show. And then they find their invented source of the River Nile and proudly put up the Union Jack. In the middle of Tanzania. Well done lads. Well done, indeed.

The Metaphor, Star Trek, and Social Justice

On November 22, 1968, Capt. James T. Kirk was forced to kiss Lt. Uhura by a race of sadistic telepaths. This was not the first interracial kiss on TV, but it's easily the one that sticks in the minds of the American public. The episode itself doesn't remark on this fact even once, the kiss is forced because there is no attraction between Uhura and Kirk: they are friends and he is her commanding officer, nothing more. The humiliation is inherent in the loss of agency and free will, not their respective races.

Everyone on set knew it was a big deal, though. NBC intentionally made them film an alternate version where Kirk refuses to kiss her out of fear from reprisal from Southern viewers. Shatner intentionally overacted the hell out of this version of the scene so that they had no choice but to go with the kiss. (Which, just stop and think for a moment, that means there's a level of Shatnerian overacting that's so over the top it's actually unairable. MINDBLOWING.) The show intentionally normalized something that parts of the society didn't want to be normal, and it did it without obscuring the issue, but also without making it a big deal. This is not amazing- it is normal. Deal with it.

On October 30, 1998, Lt. Jadzia Dax kissed the woman she loved in a former life, Lenara Kahn. This was not the first same-sex kiss on American TV, but it was one of the first and one that ended up getting quite a lot of angry calls to Paramount. The episode, however, lets their relationship as a same-sex couple go unnoticed. The fact that they're two women? Unremarkable. Normal. However, it uses metaphor as a 'fuck you' to those would remark upon it. The entire episode revolves around social norms preventing the two from having a relationship. It's an intentionally thin metaphor, they're only not allowed to be together because of Trill taboos against starting relationships with people from past lives, but an effective enough one, because it lets the writers comment on the heartbreak of society keeping you from someone you love, while at the same time not adding any stigma to the real controversy.

However, Deep Space Nine had a problem with metaphor. The comically misogynist Ferengi episodes were...well, comic. The Ferengi come across as an unamusing parody of misogyny and patriarchy. "Look! They hate women so much they won't even let them wear clothes." So the episodes where feminism comes to Ferenginar also come off as equally satirical. There's no real life victory for the American woman when Moogie earns the right to wear clothes. That's already normal. The writers get to get their ya-yas out 'fighting the patriarchy' without attacking anything of substance and, in the process, made the entire subject seem ridiculous.

On February 5, 2003 Sub-Commander T'Pol was revealed to have an infectious disease called Pa'nar Syndrome. Pa'nar Syndrome is caused by mind melding(a practice stigmatized and derided in Vulcan culture at the time) with an infected Vulcan. This plotline came about from insistence up the chain of production command that all UPN shows have a plotline about the AIDS-HIV pandemic. So, instead of try to do anything directly, they framed it entirely as metaphor. And good lord, it was terrible. For one, they framed it as something that only comes from aberrant behavior, i.e. homosexual relations/mind melding. For two, they never even explain why this aberrant behavior might not be unusual at all, they just keep right on with that whole thing being unnatural (anyone remotely familiar with Star Trek will note that Vulcan mind melds are just a matter of course in every other series, but the episode, of course, doesn't acknowledge this because...because). By hiding behind a metaphor, not only is the effect of the intended acknowledgement of the AIDS pandemic weakened, but they manage to add stigma(haha! that's the name of the episode!) to an entirely different cause.

In the pursuit of social justice, metaphors can work. They can make people confront things they'd be defensive about if put bluntly. They can add power to a plot and underscore the issues at hand. But they can also be used as a shield, not just for protecting the writers/producers from controversy, but also protecting the public from acknowledging the reality of an issue.

The Subtle Racism of Actual Racism

I love racist old people trying to exist in modern society and not be racist.

My absolute favorite thing is when they tell a story about some nice young man who helped them at the store or something and was just the nicest thing and then, in an M. Night Shyamalan twist, he was 'colored'. Oh. My. God. You found him! You found the one nice black guy! My world is shattered.

The other thing that is amazing is how someone's race, if it isn't white, is somehow vital. "She ran off with some other man." vs. "She ran off with some black man." How the hell was that adjective important? Try other adjectives! "She ran off with some tall man." "She ran off with some six-fingered man."(Okay, that one might be vital information for some people.) It's silly.

It just betrays your entire worldview of "myself" and "them". That doesn't mean you think they should be paid less, or not allowed to marry your daughter, or not be president. But it does say if one of those things happen, you're looking at them and judging them differently. And so when, a half hour later, you say "Man, this is the first president that I just don't like," well, you kinda wonder why.

Diverted Attention

Writing a post about reality cooking competition TVTVTV, but got distracted by my new favorite Reddit novelty account: Why_Thats_Racist. If only such a thing weren't necessary.