How far would you dismantle 'PC (politically correct) culture'?

[luiz]

5). "Whitewashing" (e.g. Scarlett Johansson in Ghost in the Shell) is usually accompanied with the excuse that "there are no qualified [asian women] actresses in play the role." But there are. Can you imagine "Black Panther" with Nicholas Cage and Bruce Willis? There obviously were plenty of qualified black actors and actresses (thank god).
6). Some works require a particular portrayal of race. "Gone with the Wind," for example, needs a presentation of a very "white" Southern culture (as well as a stereotypical portrayal of a "slave culture.") But most works don't need to present the character as any particular race.

But why is Scarlett Johanson playing Ghost in the Shell a bad thing while a non-white actor playing historical or mythological European roles is a good thing? Can't you see the hypocrisy? It's not about color blindness and anti-racism, is it?

Basically you're saying that if a film has a non-European setting then for the sake of authenticity and even respect it should use a non-European cast, but if it has an European setting then it should use a "diverse" cast because obviously Europe doesn't need authenticity and respect?

 

[luiz]

And I notice that it has now been addressed again separately.

But I did say you're free to rant on your pet topics. I just want to correct your misconception that you're doing anything else but that.

Who determines the "protected classes" in PCness?
And note that Christianity in the US is not just criticized by Christians and people of "Christian origin", everybody from all backgrounds feels entitled to savage it. The hypocrisy is gigantic, as with everything related to PCness.

 

[luiz]

It is worth pointing out that in the ancient world, Athens was a major stop in a trans-continental trading network. Tin from Cornwall, Cedar from Lebanon, spices from India, incense from Ethiopia and Arabia Felix, grain from the Black Sea, and cloth from Egypt and Mesopotamia. A movie portraying ancient Athens with "Brooklyn-like diversity" would not be incorrect in visually expressing its diversity compared to backwater hilltop forts in the Greek interior.

It was a trading city which means they were used to seeing some different people every now and then, that is, at least educated Athenians knew that black people existed and that the world continued after Persia with some exotic stuff and people coming from there. But if you really think Athens looked like modern Brooklyn, and that Athenians were "diverse" in the silly US conception of the word, you've been watching too much Hollywood.

 

[luiz]

What’s irritated me about the migrant crisis is people pretending to be refugees and pretending to be children but that’s a separate issue I suppose unless we’re talking about people being pressured not to discuss it.

Exactly!
PC apologists will pretend that it's all about politeness, and that those that criticize PCness are just ogres who want to call blacks the "N-word" or throw rocks at gay couples on the streets.

That's obviously not the case. While its constant obsession with reinventing the "correct" terms for minorities is certainly annoying and a form of snobism, the real deleterious effect of PCness is the interdiction of some debates, which is always bad for democracy and sometimes have disastrous effects. The fact that PCness interdicted for decades a honest debate on integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe (and the scale of their arrivals) has led to the current mess in France, Belgium and beyond.

 

[Perfection]

Well the US ain't the world. Here in Europe letting bigoted Muslims run amok and undisturbed in their little fiefs has resulted in countless radicalized youths that every now and then slaughter plenty of innocent civilians for absolutely no reason other than bigotry.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with culture war narratives that right wingers constantly push.

Concepts like "white supremacy" and "patriarchy" are so nebulous that I seriously doubt their usefulness outside of very theoretical sociology.

Really? Because they seem like pretty simple concepts to me. White supremacy is where people considered white are put above those who are not, pretty damn simple if you ask me. Similar story with patriarchy.

 

[Peuri]

Really? Because they seem like pretty simple concepts to me. White supremacy is where people considered white are put above those who are not, pretty damn simple if you ask me. Similar story with patriarchy.

Well if you look at how the extremes are employing those terms it is like there is a widespread malevolent conspiracy to keep women or pocs down, and to gun them down on the streets even. Speaking in this way is oversimplifying reality, and I think that is very damaging to social cohesion. Of course there are genuine racists too, and they are damaging to social cohesion too. The over looming "patriarchy" makes it sound as if people are actively sexist, for example, while I think that it's more to do with indifference. It's like with slavery. Europeans didn't enslave Africans because they hated them. They just didn't care about them, other than as cheap labour. If they could have enslaven russians, indians or muslims instead, they would have. They are oversimplified hyperboles where the tendency is not the principle of charity, but the opposite of that.

Edit:
It's also a pretty good example of a social construction. In the literature you discover things that have conspired to oppress a group. Then you name all those things as being a whateverocracy. After that subsuquent researchers that have bought the existance of said whateverocracy go out to discover more of that. Well, if you go out with the intention of finding something in social sciences, you will most likely find it eventually as you twist the evidence enough to fit your agenda. Take for example the well known case for claiming that modern science is inherently misogynist because Francis Bacon used violent metaphores of beating Mother Nature in order to find her secrets. That is of course a blatant anachronism even if Bacon and all of the other great names hated their sisters and mothers. The feminist scholar who originated this theory went in with the intention of finding patriarchy, and sure enough she found it by interpeting Bacon's texts as malevolently as she could.

The same is with police violence. If you assume white supremacy, you will only employ evidence that is in your favour, but dismiss counter evidence. So these concepts basically legitimate confirmation bias.

 

[Traitorfish]

Before political correctness was a thing, people already cared not to offend their interlocutors unnecessarily. Social courtesy and political correctness are different things. What political correctness has been about is deliberate, careful, premeditated lying for political gain. Virtue signaling, and I don't care if it was a right-wing magazine that coined the term - they are right as in true on that one.

Take the propaganda campaign to make it politically correct to welcome "refugees" in Europe, deployed over the past few years. In several countries we had politicians who tell us that the common people of the country must accept and care for economic immigrants. We had journalists and intellectuals who echo and amplify that message. But those countries did not had a good social and economic structure to care for pool people in general, quite the opposite: what such structure existed has been in a process of gradual disassembly. Of course people there were wary of accepting those economic immigrants! There is a tolerant streak in many of those countries that led people, even without pushes from above, to accommodate immigrants. But that is being tested and gradually people will get angry and openly express their contempt for the hypocritical talk of the leaders. Populations welcome immigrants when their lives and their resources available are increasing. When they are worsening, courtesy of political projects imposed from above, they will not.
Who has benefited from this political correctness regarding immigrants? The immigrants? Those who are structurally consigned to the lowest level of society and face an increasingly likely future of popular hostility where they did manage to get in? No, they were not protected, they were set up.

Political correctness is being used as a political tool in an attempt to silence discussion, protest and criticism of the choices made by the powerful. Because they are always the ones who decide what is "correct". But the expression of contrary views is absolutely vital to democracy, it is absolutely vital to keep societies balanced, healthy, adaptable. It is an essential first step to identify and correct problems. Where PC is deployed problems are hidden - until they explode.

Is is funny that people are now discussing whitewashing versus diversity in Hollywood productions as an example of political correctness. You know what irritates me? Seeing young people in my country all go through a phase of fascination with media imports from the USA. What shall I call that, hollywashing?

We are not beeping americans, we do not need Hollywood's racism, memes, political correctness with causes that are foreign to our situation, or imperial propaganda. But we had all that shoved down out throats from birth. Isn't "globalization" nice? Furthermore, Hollywood's concern with diversity is extremely parochial: they cannot even represent the diversity of opinion within their own country, yet they presume to lecture the world on diversity? Seem from abroad, its laughable. Seen from vast swaths of the US itself, I'm sure it is also.
So that does irritate me. But if causes little concern because, you know what? People, after wasting a few years with that fascination, grow out of it. It works as a kind of anti-propaganda-vaccine. PC always ends up failing.

Normal human being: "Hey, you're not supposed to say the 'N-word' anymore."

Innonimatu: "The expression of contrary views is absolutely vital to democracy, it is absolutely vital to keep societies balanced, healthy, adaptable. It is an essential first step to identify and correct problems. Where PC is deployed problems are hidden - until they explode."

it's frustrating because, as usual, Innonimatu makes a lot of individually valid points, but they way they're brought together is like a piece of furniture assembled by somebody who's lost the instructions.

There's nothing circular about that - I'm not claiming that SJW is a "valid category", whatever that's even supposed to mean. I'm saying that people who read what that acronym stands for, can easily be like: "Yeah, that makes sense to me, that's how the person acted.", or even just read the Acronym somewhere, realize how it's used, and start using that acronym without themselves buying into an ideology of their own.

Because while it's entirely correct that the usage of that acronym is heavily (over)used in by people with certain ideological leanings on their own, they're not the only ones using it.

"But I'm right" is not a valid epistemological argument.

I'm not interested in discussing the "race" of ancient Greeks, they didn't even think on those terms, but obviously they were an European people and thus did not look like Africans or East Asians; Alexander the Great was a blonde dude.

"It's not important what race the ancient Greeks were, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE WHITE, but it's really a question of historical accuracy, y'know."

 

[luiz]

"It's not important what race the ancient Greeks were, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE WHITE, but it's really a question of historical accuracy, y'know."

Well they were white in the same way that ancient Ethiopians were black. Indeed it would not be very accurate to portray ancient Ethiopians with irisih actors, and I'm pretty sure it would cause a giant outcry and accusations of whitewashing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well they were white in the same way that ancient Ethiopians were black. Indeed it would not be very accurate to portray ancient Ethiopians with irisih actors, and I'm pretty sure it would cause a giant outcry and accusations of whitewashing.

We regularly portray Greeks as Northern European actors- including casting an Irishman as Alexander, to tie this in a neat little bow- so that would really be an extension of the same logic.

The objection to all this is no that historical authenticity doesn't matter, it's that "authenticity" seems to manifest itself in practice largely as policing the boundaries of whiteness.

 

[luiz]

We regularly portray Greeks as Northern European actors- including casting an Irishman as Alexander, to tie this in a neat little bow- so that would really be an extension of the same logic.

The objection to all this is no that historical authenticity doesn't matter, it's that "authenticity" seems to manifest itself in practice largely as policing the boundaries of whiteness.

If some non-Ethiopian black actor portrayed ancient Ethiopians there would be zero outcry, but if a white dude did it it people would scream "whitewashing". Color blindness seems to only work one way for the PC brigade. So Alexander or Achilles can be black, but even Japanese anime characters better be portrayed by Asian actors or we risk the fury of the melanin police. I did a quick Google search on "whitewashing" and examples abound of such outcries.

And again, promoting "diversity" for Brits and Americans seems to be limited to the dishonest, condescending approach of pretending that Ancient Greece or Anglo-Saxon England were inhabited by blacks and Asians and "Hispanics", instead of, you know, actually telling different stories that are not set in the US or Europe.

 

[Traitorfish]

If some non-Ethiopian black actor portrayed ancient Ethiopians there would be zero outcry, but if a white dude did it it people would scream "whitewashing". Color blindness seems to only work one way for the PC brigade. So Alexander or Achilles can be black, but even Japanese anime characters better be portrayed by Asian actors or we risk the fury of the melanin police. I did a quick Google search on "whitewashing" and examples abound of such outcries.

Well, a non-Ethiopian African playing an Ethiopian would be rather like the already-uncontroversial practice of casting English actors as virtually every figure from Antiquity, so it's hard to paint that as hypocrisy.

But, you're not entirely wrong. However, I don't think that this necessarily reflects sloppy thinking, or at least not sloppy thinking. [edit: That should have been "not just sloppy thinking" the second time.] The drawing of the "diversity" line between "White" and "not-White" was not drawn by those calling for more diverse casting, it was drawn generations ago by those making casting decisions. Studios have historically biased casting towards people of Northern European origin, not out of respect for historical authenticity, but because audiences, specifically American audiences, are assumed to more readily identify with people of that origin.

For example, in stories with Greek protagonists, casting is predominantly Northern Europe. Gerard Butler is Leonidas, Collin Farrell as Alexander, and so on, because apart from the obvious concerns surrounding a billable lead, this is understood by American audiences as a short-hand for "Us". But when we want the Greeks to appear exotic, when we want to clearly signal to the audience that they are not-Us, we are free to cast actual Mediterraneans. For example, in the last season of Vikings, our impeccably Aryan heroes travel to Byzantine Sicily, where they meet a Byzantine governor played by a Portuguese actor, and an Abbess played by an Anglo-Moroccan actress. Greeks are permitted "authentic" complexions only when that complexion is a shorthand for the exotic and the Oriental. (I imagine that @Kyriakos can furnish us with more examples- his contempt for Hollywood mishandling of Greek history has been noted.) So it's clearly not enough to say that studios simply make too many films set in Europe when the same racialised coding appears in period pieces set in Europe.

At any rate, consider that they set Exodus: Gods and Kings and Gods of Egypt in Egypt, and Noah in the Levant, and they still cast a bunch of Brits and Ozzies to play Egyptians and Levantines. There are few exceptions to this "Western Civilisation Is Very White" rule; the only one that leaps to mind is Hercules, which cast an Afro-Samoan as the titular character, but then filled out the rest of the cast with Brits and Norwegians. (And I don't know how much credit it gets when the film was mostly a vehicle for said Afro-Samoan lead.) The enduring problem is that studios assume audiences will only see films set somewhere in the march of "Western Civilisation", and that membership of "Western Civilisation" must be clearly shorthanded by peely-wally Nordic faces.

So, the push-back tends to follow an uncoordinated call for non-Nordic faces because that is the barrier which exists. People don't spend too much time fretting over the historical nuances because so long as this subtle, informal racial barrier exists, historical nuance isn't really on the table. If breaking down that barrier means a few bizarre casting choices, if it means the occasional black Achilles or, I don't know, Puero Rican Charlemagne, that's not a terrible price to pay for a century of Aryan Israelites.

 

[luiz]

Well, a non-Ethiopian African playing an Ethiopian would be rather like the already-uncontroversial practice of casting English actors as virtually every figure from Antiquity, so it's hard to paint that as hypocrisy.

But, you're not entirely wrong. However, I don't think that this necessarily reflects sloppy thinking, or at least not sloppy thinking. The drawing of the "diversity" line between "White" and "not-White" was not drawn by those calling for more diverse casting, it was drawn generations ago by those making casting decisions. Studios have historically biased casting towards people of Northern European origin, not out of respect for historical authenticity, but because audiences, specifically American audiences, are assumed to more readily identify with people of that origin.

For example, in stories with Greek protagonists, casting is predominantly Northern Europe. Gerard Butler is Leonidas, Collin Farrell as Alexander, and so on, because apart from the obvious concerns surrounding a billable lead, this is understood by American audiences as a short-hand for "Us". But when we want the Greeks to appear exotic, when we want to clearly signal to the audience that they are not-Us, we are free to cast actual Mediterraneans. For example, in the last season of Vikings, our impeccably Aryan heroes travel to Byzantine Sicily, where they meet a Byzantine governor played by a Portuguese actor, and an Abbess played by an Anglo-Moroccan actress. Greeks are permitted "authentic" complexions only when that complexion is a shorthand for the exotic and the Oriental. (I imagine that @Kyriakos can furnish us with more examples- his contempt for Hollywood mishandling of Greek history has been noted.) So it's clearly not enough to say that studios simply make too many films set in Europe when the same racialised coding appears in period pieces set in Europe.

At any rate, consider that they set Exodus: Gods and Kings and Gods of Egypt in Egypt, and Noah in the Levant, and they still cast a bunch of Brits and Ozzies to play Egyptians and Levantines. There are few exceptions to this "Western Civilisation Is Very White" rule; the only one that leaps to mind is Hercules, which cast an Afro-Samoan as the titular character, but then filled out the rest of the cast with Brits and Norwegians. (And I don't know how much credit it gets when the film was mostly a vehicle for said Afro-Samoan lead.) The enduring problem is that studios assume audiences will only see films set somewhere in the march of "Western Civilisation", and that membership of "Western Civilisation" must be clearly shorthanded by peely-wally Nordic faces.

So, the push-back tends to follow an uncoordinated call for non-Nordic faces because that is the barrier which exists. People don't spend too much time fretting over the historical nuances because so long as this subtle, informal racial barrier exists, historical nuance isn't really on the table. If breaking down that barrier means a few bizarre casting choices, if it means the occasional black Achilles or, I don't know, Puero Rican Charlemagne, that's not a terrible price to pay for a century of Aryan Israelites.

But instead of calling for a Black Achilles or a Puerto Rican Charlemagne (all the while still freaking out about white people portraying anime characters), why not actually make movies set in Africa or Puerto Rico? It's like Hollywood (and its British equivalent) is telling us that that these places didn't really have a past or stories worth telling, so to be progressive and "diverse" they have to portray ancient Europe as a modern Brooklyn.

I really don't think that the tokenistic approach does minorities any favors.

 

[Hrothbern]

I understand that Hollywood movies that are not typical white-male-hetero based are making in general more money.

 

[red_elk]

Let's say the Chinese want to make a movie by Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace". If they hired all white European actors for that, it would be ok, I guess.
If they didn't bother to do it, just invited good Chinese actors, that would be ok too.
But if they made the cast something like 20% of white Europeans, 20% of blacks, 20% of Asians, 20% of Arabs and 20% of Latinos, just for the sake of racial diversity, that would be utter idiocy.

 

[Lexicus]

But instead of calling for a Black Achilles or a Puerto Rican Charlemagne (all the while still freaking out about white people portraying anime characters), why not actually make movies set in Africa or Puerto Rico? It's like Hollywood (and its British equivalent) is telling us that that these places didn't really have a past or stories worth telling, so to be progressive and "diverse" they have to portray ancient Europe as a modern Brooklyn.

Well, it's certainly a separate albeit related problem that most stories set in Africa or Puerto Rico tend to portray them as violent backdrops for white protagonists to have experiences in.
But generally speaking your question can be answered with: why not both?

What matters is not whether a portrayal was authentic to what "actually happened" in the past, the question is how the audience looking at it today connects with it. That's why Hamilton is considered by many people to be one of the greatest musicals ever while it's largely only racists who complain about "historical accuracy" of having people of color on stage.

Now, I don't like Hamilton myself (I mean, I don't really like musicals in general) but it's because the popular history that the musical is based on is good hagiography and terrible history.

I really don't think that the tokenistic approach does minorities any favors.

I don't think you understand what the word "tokenism" means. It doesn't refer to casting an actor of color in a leading role. It refers to including a character with no real role in the story except to be the "black guy" or whatever to score diversity points.
In South Park this is lampshaded by the fact that the only black kid in school is named Token. But Token, in South Park, is not an actual token as several episodes center on him and his character is more than just "the black guy."

But if they made the cast something like 20% of white Europeans, 20% of blacks, 20% of Asians, 20% of Arabs and 20% of Latinos, just for the sake of racial diversity, that would be utter idiocy.

Why tho? Like what on Earth would make this "utter idiocy"?

 

[luiz]

Well, it's certainly a separate albeit related problem that most stories set in Africa or Puerto Rico tend to portray them as violent backdrops for white protagonists to have experiences in.
But generally speaking your question can be answered with: why not both?

What matters is not whether a portrayal was authentic to what "actually happened" in the past, the question is how the audience looking at it today connects with it. That's why Hamilton is considered by many people to be one of the greatest musicals ever while it's largely only racists who complain about "historical accuracy" of having people of color on stage.

Now, I don't like Hamilton myself (I mean, I don't really like musicals in general) but it's because the popular history that the musical is based on is good hagiography and terrible history.

Not both for the same reason that portraying Shaka Zulu or Montezuma by Danish actors would be sub-optimal. They might be great actors and the audience might even connect with them, but surely the movie would lose in terms of visual authenticity. Same with a black or Chinese Charlemagne.

I do agree that in theater, roles have been cast in a largely color blind way for decades, and it works great. But that's not what's happening in cinema (and theater is quite different from cinema anyway). In cinema it's about showing how "progressive" and "diverse" Hollywood is. If it was about colorblindness and reflecting today's society, you'd also see white guys in Wakanda, and people wouldn't whine when white actors play anime characters.

As for Hamilton, I never saw it. Maybe it's great, but maybe the casting was just a cheap gimmick (and the critics LOVE cheap politically correct gimmicks). Nobody in theater really cares about the skin color of actors (at least non racist people in theater), which makes the whole thing look even more gimmicky. But again, I didn't see it.

I don't think you understand what the word "tokenism" means. It doesn't refer to casting an actor of color in a leading role. It refers to including a character with no real role in the story except to be the "black guy" or whatever to score diversity points.
In South Park this is lampshaded by the fact that the only black kid in school is named Token. But Token, in South Park, is not an actual token as several episodes center on him and his character is more than just "the black guy."

But what Hollywood does is indeed largely tokenism. Among 10 Ancient Greek heroes they will cast a black or Asian or whatever one. It's largely to score diversity points (and the PC brigade is satisfied if you score enough diversity points, regardless of how condescending or tokenistic the approach is). This only "increases diversity" if you take an idiotic approach to diversity (which is indeed the one taken by Hollywood, American marketing campaigns, American universities, etc). It would be more "diverse", in a real sense, to actually tell different stories.

Why tho? Like what on Earth would make this "utter idiocy"?

Doing that for the sake of "diversity" would indeed be very stupid, because "diversity as different skin tones" is a moronic American concept. If they just cast the best actors then it's not stupid, even if the result can be a bit weird (like a black couple having an Asian or white son).

 

[red_elk]

Why tho? Like what on Earth would make this "utter idiocy"?

Because, in my humble opinion, actors should be hired basing on their professional qualities and/or authentic appearance.
Not because they visually represent part of the Earth population.

 

[Sprenk]

I would use the term "SJW" of people who deplatform people because of "problematic" speech in Universities for example, demand segregated safe spaces or harangue non-melanine-rich people using dreadlocks, but I wouldn't say that I am in the alt-right, or what ever. Or if I am in the alt-right because of that, I must have serious cognitive dissonance, because I have always voted for green or left wing parties. (Ok, I voted pirates once in my youth, lol, but that's a sort of digital anarchism, right?) I care for many of the same things "they" care about, but I disagree with their actions trying to reach those goals. What word would you like me to use of such people instead?

Peuri, you say you voted for left-wing parties, but you rail against Women's Studies departments (in a later post) for being inhabited by "radical feminists." Which is exactly the sort of language (and stereotype) used by the right since the '80's. You're coming off to me, from reading all your posts as a whole, as mouthing conservative ideology--including their way of describing things they don't like. So if you're indeed left-leaning, it must be on economic issues, because you're not only not neutral on cultural issues, you're actually hostile to the exact same groups and positions the right is hostile to.

 

[Ajidica]

It was a trading city which means they were used to seeing some different people every now and then, that is, at least educated Athenians knew that black people existed and that the world continued after Persia with some exotic stuff and people coming from there. But if you really think Athens looked like modern Brooklyn, and that Athenians were "diverse" in the silly US conception of the word, you've been watching too much Hollywood.

I really don't think you read what I posted, so let me highlight the important bit:

A movie portraying ancient Athens with "Brooklyn-like diversity" would not be incorrect in visually expressing its diversity compared to backwater hilltop forts in the Greek interior.

Surely you, as someone with such great opinions about how historical figures are depicted in movies would know that movies, as a visual medium, use visuals to communicate things to an audience without needing to do exposition dump.

 

[luiz]

I really don't think you read what I posted, so let me highlight the important bit:

Surely you, as someone with such great opinions about how historical figures are depicted in movies would know that movies, as a visual medium, use visuals to communicate things to an audience without needing to do exposition dump.

So you're saying that portraying Greek figures such as Achilles with black or Asian actors is actually meant to show that there were foreign traders in ancient Athens?