"On White Privilege"

[A2SG]

I asked if the example I gave was an acceptable consideration of race.

It's acceptable in the limited scope of Hollywood casting decisions. It doesn't translate elsewhere.

The point being that you seem to think considering race is only "progress" when it's a black actor.

Since James Bond has never been played by a black actor, it would be. In that case, and in that case alone.

I also mentioned casting Hayley Atwell as the Doctor. That'd also be progress, but it doesn't involve race.

It seems like a rather biased, double standard, to consider a black man's race as "progress" and a white man's as the status quo.

Depends on what the status quo is, doesn't it? In this case, we have 6 actors, all white. (7 if you count David Niven in the 1967 Casino Royale.)

Other times it's completely non-existent.

Now, now....don't get testy!

-- A2SG, we have top men working on it.... Top. Men.

 

[Creech]

In short, white privilege is garbage; an anti-white myth. Whites are actually at a huge disadvantage in society in many Western nations such as the United States.

 

[Ana the Ist]

See, this why I'm seeing this discussion with you as fruitless: I'm not dodging.

I'm doing my best. You're just asking questions I can't answer.

How can I know if some nameless, imaginary actor is better as Bond than Idris Elba would be? I don't know who that nameless imaginary actor is!!!! I can't tell you I'll like the guy if I don't know who he is, can I?

You want to know my tastes? Believe it or not, I'm not a huge Bond fan, but I have seen most of the films, and read a couple of the novels. I like Connery overall, Lazenby was a joke, Moore badly cast, Dalton better than people think he was, Brosnan okay but dull, and Craig very good (though only one of his movies was all that good, but that wasn't his fault).

I'm not sure if that tells you what you want to know about how willing I'd be to accept another white Bond, but there it is.

-- A2SG, while discussing Hollywood casting decisions is fun, it still doesn't translate to any other hiring decisions anywhere else....

You gave an example of how an actor's "blackness" could be considered (as defying tradition, as progress, etc) things that you made clear aren't applicable to a white actor.

So I gave you a scenario where a white actor's whiteness is given consideration (ticket selling potential) and all I'm asking...really, it's all I'm asking...is if this consideration is acceptable to you?

Because I do feel it's relevant to your example. If the producers decide that they're going to make more money with a white Bond....is that an acceptable consideration of race to you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's acceptable in the limited scope of Hollywood casting decisions. It doesn't translate elsewhere.

I disagree.

Since James Bond has never been played by a black actor, it would be. In that case, and in that case alone.

I also mentioned casting Hayley Atwell as the Doctor. That'd also be progress, but it doesn't involve race.

Well I suppose that depends on how you define progress.

Depends on what the status quo is, doesn't it? In this case, we have 6 actors, all white. (7 if you count David Niven in the 1967 Casino Royale.)

Playing a white character? I'm shocked lol...imagine that?

Next thing you know they'll be casting men to play men...women to play women...

Now, now....don't get testy!

-- A2SG, we have top men working on it.... Top. Men.

Who's getting testy? Again, if this is all just your opinion...and your opinion doesn't matter...

Well you see where I'm going.

 

[Rick Otto]

In short, white privilege is garbage; an anti-white myth. Whites are actually at a huge disadvantage in society in many Western nations such as the United States.

LOL!
Exactly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

LOL!
Exactly.

I think he was being serious.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think he was being serious.

LOL!
Exactly!

 

[A2SG]

You gave an example of how an actor's "blackness" could be considered (as defying tradition, as progress, etc) things that you made clear aren't applicable to a white actor.

In the context of an iconic character that has always been played by white actors.

If you want to suggest a similarly iconic character that has always been played by black actors, and how casting a white actor would be defying tradition, feel free. But, as I've said before, given the long history of white actors appropriating black characters and art forms, that'd be hard to do.

But you're welcome to try.

So I gave you a scenario where a white actor's whiteness is given consideration (ticket selling potential) and all I'm asking...really, it's all I'm asking...is if this consideration is acceptable to you?

How could it not be? If the producers hired, say, Tom Hiddleston as Bond, I'd probably see the movie. He might even be great, who knows? (He was good as Loki, I can't deny that.)

Because I do feel it's relevant to your example. If the producers decide that they're going to make more money with a white Bond....is that an acceptable consideration of race to you?

Again, I'd have to accept it, since it's out of my hands.

It'd be a safe decision, which isn't always the best one (witness Star Wars The Force Awakens, and the Star Trek reboots), but one can't fault it. Movies are a business, after all.

I disagree.

That's your right. I'm not sure how the casting of an actor for a role, where race is a factor among many, equates to hiring, say, an accountant, where race has absolutely no relevance whatsoever...but you're free to believe it does. For whatever reason.

Well I suppose that depends on how you define progress.

Fair point. How would casting Tom Hiddleston as Bond move us forward in terms of racial inequality, exactly?

Playing a white character? I'm shocked lol...imagine that?

Nothing about the character requires him to be white. For that matter, Bond's CIA counterpart, Felix, has been played by a black man, and convincingly.

Next thing you know they'll be casting men to play men...women to play women...

I actually went to see a production of Romeo and Juliet once where both Romeo and Juliet were played by women. No change in dialogue at all, but it still gave a different dimension to the play.

For that matter, did you see the rebooted Battlestar Galactica? Did you happen to see who played Starbuck? Have you see the new Sherlock Holmes series on TV, Elementary? Who plays Watson?

Who's getting testy? Again, if this is all just your opinion...and your opinion doesn't matter...

Well you see where I'm going.

Yup.

I'm fine giving my opinion anywhere I can, but there's a limit to what I can opine about. How acceptable a new Bond would be is kind of difficult without knowing who that is. Would Hiddleston be better as Bond than Idris Elba? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I'd have to see.

But I'd probably see the movie either way, so I would accept it.

But I can't help but see Elba being a step forward for black actors, taking over such an iconic, high profile role. I feel sure that it would be successful, and it could very well lead future casting directors to spread their nets wider in other casting decisions. Why not a female Doctor, or a black one? Why not an asian superhero next, or a hispanic one?

I can't see how casting Hiddleston would make any difference in how casting directors see race when casting lead roles.

-- A2SG, no matter how good he is as Bond....

 

[Ana the Ist]

How could it not be?



Again, I'd have to accept it, since it's out of my hands.

For the record, I did suggest an iconic black character being played by a white actor, Heathcliff Huxtable. You just kept (inaccurately) comparing that to minstrel shows...so I went with your example.

It's good to see though, that you're just as in favor of consideration of whiteness for a role as you are blackness.

That's your right. I'm not sure how the casting of an actor for a role, where race is a factor among many, equates to hiring, say, an accountant, where race has absolutely no relevance whatsoever...but you're free to believe it does. For whatever reason.

I never said it does. I really have no idea where you're getting that from.

Fair point. How would casting Tom Hiddleston as Bond move us forward in terms of racial inequality, exactly?

If he's the best actor for the role...and he gets it because he's the best actor...not because he's white.

Similarly, if Elba is best for the role, and he gets it because he's best....not because he's black...that's equality. No one can suggest that he's given the role for being black and taken seriously. That's why the issue of his race shouldn't be even brought up.

Nothing about the character requires him to be white. For that matter, Bond's CIA counterpart, Felix, has been played by a black man, and convincingly.

Which is why race shouldn't be a consideration.

For that matter, did you see the rebooted Battlestar Galactica? Did you happen to see who played Starbuck? Have you see the new Sherlock Holmes series on TV, Elementary? Who plays Watson?

No, and no, and no...and I have no idea.

Yup.

I'm fine giving my opinion anywhere I can, but there's a limit to what I can opine about. How acceptable a new Bond would be is kind of difficult without knowing who that is. Would Hiddleston be better as Bond than Idris Elba? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I'd have to see.

But I'd probably see the movie either way, so I would accept it.

But I can't help but see Elba being a step forward for black actors, taking over such an iconic, high profile role. I feel sure that it would be successful, and it could very well lead future casting directors to spread their nets wider in other casting decisions. Why not a female Doctor, or a black one? Why not an asian superhero next, or a hispanic one?

I can't see how casting Hiddleston would make any difference in how casting directors see race when casting lead roles.

-- A2SG, no matter how good he is as Bond....

It doesn't need to be about "how such and such a person sees race". We can all leave behind these preconceptions and just hire the best actor...or give them an award.

 

[A2SG]

For the record, I did suggest an iconic black character being played by a white actor, Heathcliff Huxtable. You just kept (inaccurately) comparing that to minstrel shows...so I went with your example.

Sigh...

First, while Bill Cosby, himself, is -- or rather, was -- an icon, the character is not. It's just one of several he played on TV, albeit the most successful and most famous.

Second, I did not compare anything to minstrel shows, I said that replacing a black character with white actors is not defying tradition, it follows a long-standing one...of which minstrel shows was an example.

Third, arguably the thing that made the Cosby Show unique is that it was about an affluent black family, so switching the race to an affluent white family takes that uniqueness away, and does not leave us with anything groundbreaking or new.

So no, your example is not defying tradition.

Sorry.

It's good to see though, that you're just as in favor of consideration of whiteness for a role as you are blackness.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

That's your right. I'm not sure how the casting of an actor for a role, where race is a factor among many, equates to hiring, say, an accountant, where race has absolutely no relevance whatsoever...but you're free to believe it does. For whatever reason.

I never said it does. I really have no idea where you're getting that from.

Lets review:

I said:

It's acceptable in the limited scope of Hollywood casting decisions. It doesn't translate elsewhere.​

You replied:

I disagree.​

I said that the criteria used when casting an actor does not translate to other professions (like accounting, for example). That's what you disagreed with. And that's where I got my response from.

Maybe you got confused and thought you were replying to some other comment. That can happen sometimes with lengthy responses.

If he's the best actor for the role...and he gets it because he's the best actor...not because he's white.

Not what I asked. To repeat: "How would casting Tom Hiddleston as Bond move us forward in terms of racial inequality, exactly?"

Similarly, if Elba is best for the role, and he gets it because he's best....not because he's black...that's equality. No one can suggest that he's given the role for being black and taken seriously. That's why the issue of his race shouldn't be even brought up.

Tell you what, go back into the archives. You find any post where I say Elba should get the role of Bond just because he's black. I'll wait.

Which is why race shouldn't be a consideration.

Okay. Thing is, when casting agents are considering actors for a role, a lot of things come into play. Actors bring themselves to a role, so who they are is relevant. No two actors will ever give the same performance, even if they are reading the same, identical lines. Look at all the actors who have played Bond, no two are the same.

Look at it this way: is Hamlet any different when Ryan Gosling plays the role than if Wesley Snipes plays it? What about Johnny Galecki? Dave Chappelle? Patrick Stewart? Wil Wheaton? Hayley Atwell?

When casting actors, everything about the person auditioning is considered, some aspects more than others.

No, and no, and no...and I have no idea.

Both examples feature a woman playing a role that had been male before. Katie Sackoff replacing Dirk Benedict, and Lucy Liu playing the character John Watson.

So women playing parts that had been male before can be done. And has.

(And I won't even get into gender bending roles!)

It doesn't need to be about "how such and such a person sees race". We can all leave behind these preconceptions and just hire the best actor...or give them an award.

Okay then. Point....missed.

-- A2SG, no problem....moving on.....

 

[Paidiske]

If you think that means a black man should be given some kind of extra consideration for a role that a white man shouldn't be given, that's fine...but you're advocating for a double standard. At that point, it's not wrong to think that possibly he got the role because he's black.

I think my point's a bit broader than that. At the moment, most roles are treated as white unless a person is specified as black. I'd like to see the creation of more roles where blacks (and other minorities) are given complex characters with depth where their race and culture can be explored without being exploited. (I think again of Avery Brooks as Captain Sisko and how the show sometimes explored his family and cultural history). I'd like to see diversity without stereotyping as normal.

By the time you're casting for a role which is stereotypically white, in many ways you've missed the boat. Go back to the planning and development phases and give us something richer and more vibrant than we have come to accept as normal!

In short, white privilege is garbage; an anti-white myth. Whites are actually at a huge disadvantage in society in many Western nations such as the United States.

Would you please give me one example of a way in which I experience disadvantage as a white person in Western society? (I'm aware of plenty of disadvantage as a woman, but as a white? I can't say I've ever experienced it).

 

[Creech]

Would you please give me one example of a way in which I experience disadvantage as a white person in Western society? (I'm aware of plenty of disadvantage as a woman, but as a white? I can't say I've ever experienced it).

Whites are greatly disadvantaged in multiple ways. Western European history is constantly trashed and we are made not to feel at home and made not to feel prideful in our own nations. The embracing of "diversity" means that anything with too many white men is bad and a negative, and this is reinforced by government and educational leaders in this country. It is assumed that because there are less whites, it is more positive.

Examples:http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...-many-whites-in-top-government-posts-n2161956

#2: http://www.vogue.com/13392980/president-obama-oscar-diversity-debate/

The popular and political culture constantly tells us that white=bad, and God forbid you are white and male too!

 

[Paidiske]

White European history is often critiqued, but then, white Europeans - especially in the colonial era - did a lot of harm. Perhaps we ought to be able to acknowledge this?

I'm at home in my nation, and if I'm not "prideful" it's because I see nationalism as a great evil. I think that if people want white men to move over and make room for others alongside themselves, that's not disadvantage. Calling it disadvantage sounds like a spoiled brat who's having a tantrum that he's no longer the centre of attention but has to share.

 

[rturner76]

In short, white privilege is garbage; an anti-white myth. Whites are actually at a huge disadvantage in society in many Western nations such as the United States.

An idea shared by many Neo-Nazi and other White Nationalist movement members. Tell us about how white people are becoming the minority and are being oppressed by the multicultural elite who seek only to mix our society into a mongrel race , washing out white heritage and replacing it with multicultural values. Sound about right?

Let me also make sure of a couple things.....It is people of color who control the major financial institutions of this and the western nations right? People of color also control the industries of energy, transportation, construction, military contracting? All minority owned and operated right? The senate, congress house and top tier military commanders are mostly minorities too if I got my facts straight also? I can see why one would think white people are "at a huge disadvantage."

 

[Creech]

White European history is often critiqued, but then, white Europeans - especially in the colonial era - did a lot of harm. Perhaps we ought to be able to acknowledge this?

I'm at home in my nation, and if I'm not "prideful" it's because I see nationalism as a great evil. I think that if people want white men to move over and make room for others alongside themselves, that's not disadvantage. Calling it disadvantage sounds like a spoiled brat who's having a tantrum that he's no longer the centre of attention but has to share.

I'm not stating that white European society is spotless, but building the greatest civilization that ever existed pretty much makes up for it by a landslide, and this isn't reflective on our education and media teaches us.

Wanting white men to move over despite the work they put into their positions, and even to our civilization itself, is drastically anti-white. When something is labeled as "too white" or "too male", it is directly giving whites and men a negative connotation. It's disgusting.

An idea shared by many Neo-Nazi and other White Nationalist movement members.

lol

Let me also make sure of a couple things.....It is people of color who control the major financial institutions of this and the western nations right? People of color also control the industries of energy, transportation, construction, military contracting? All minority owned and operated right? The senate, congress house and top tier military commanders are mostly minorities too if I got my facts straight also? I can see why one would think white people are "at a huge disadvantage."

Your post isn't really relevant to the discussion of advantaged vs. disadvantaged. Whites, especially the older generations, have long been in the huge majority of the population of the United States.

 

[nightflight]

White European history is often critiqued, but then, white Europeans - especially in the colonial era - did a lot of harm. Perhaps we ought to be able to acknowledge this?

As long as we can acknowledge the good as well.

I'm at home in my nation, and if I'm not "prideful" it's because I see nationalism as a great evil. I think that if people want white men to move over and make room for others alongside themselves, that's not disadvantage. Calling it disadvantage sounds like a spoiled brat who's having a tantrum that he's no longer the centre of attention but has to share.

Isn't that what colonialism is, going to another land and setting up shop? Why is it only bad when YT does it?

 

[nightflight]

An idea shared by many Neo-Nazi and other White Nationalist movement members. Tell us about how white people are becoming the minority and are being oppressed by the multicultural elite who seek only to mix our society into a mongrel race , washing out white heritage and replacing it with multicultural values. Sound about right?

Let me also make sure of a couple things.....It is people of color who control the major financial institutions of this and the western nations right? People of color also control the industries of energy, transportation, construction, military contracting? All minority owned and operated right? The senate, congress house and top tier military commanders are mostly minorities too if I got my facts straight also? I can see why one would think white people are "at a huge disadvantage."

You tell 'em, Atticus!

 

[rturner76]

I'm not stating that white European society is spotless, but building the greatest civilization that ever existed pretty much makes up for it by a landslide, and this isn't reflective on our education and media teaches us.

Wanting white men to move over despite the work they put into their positions, and even to our civilization itself, is drastically anti-white. When something is labeled as "too white" or "too male", it is directly giving whites and men a negative connotation. It's disgusting.



lol




Your post isn't really relevant to the discussion of advantaged vs. disadvantaged. Whites, especially the older generations, have long been in the huge majority of the population of the United States.

"The work they put in their positions." Positions as what? Would that be positions of control or "privilege" perhaps? Of course the people that built the system of oppression control it. Now the people who are being controlled are beginning to question why and how this happened and how do we make this system work for us all instead of just the whites who created it? You have just explained white privilege and the recent resistance to it thank you for illustrating the point.

 

[nightflight]

Wanting white men to move over despite the work they put into their positions, and even to our civilization itself, is drastically anti-white.

Why not move over? Going Galt might be a fun experiment!

 

[Creech]

"The work they put in their positions." Positions as what? Would that be positions of control or "privilege" perhaps? Of course the people that built the system of oppression control it. Now the people who are being controlled are beginning to question why and how this happened and how do we make this system work for us all instead of just the whites who created it? You have just explained white privilege and the recent resistance to it thank you for illustrating the point.

Positions earned through merit. Your post assumed that they got those positions because of race and not because of merit. Your post doesn't simply want it to "work for us all" but work only for those who don't deserve the fruits of the system and those who are incapable of possessing it effectively.

System of oppression? Not even close!