True or false, if altering the race of a character, making a white character black, than white washing a character doesn't matter either?

[Anonymous]

Because if you vote false, you're a hypocrite.

True

False

Updates

+1 y

OK so I badly mistyped that one. It's supposed to read

True or false, if altering the race of a character, making a white character black doesn't matter, than white washing a character doesn't matter either?

[abc3643]

What?

Can you restate your question so it is coherent and complete and doesn't use idioms?

[Asker]

Yeah I messed that up pretty bad.

If making a white character black doesn't matter, than making a black character white should not matter either, true or false.

I think both are bullshit. But that's me.

[abc3643]

It does matter or does not matter. That all depends on what the character is.

If the character is historical, then the character should be played by a person (with talent) who looks as much as the historical figure as possible. (*)

However, if the character is entirely fictional, then it doesn't matter exactly. The character should be true to any original author's description, but if the original work doesn't specific down to that detail what the character's appearance is, then it doesn't matter.

(more)

[abc3643]

Let's discuss some examples...

1. (*) In "Hamilton: An American Musical", written by Lin Manuel-Miranda who played the lead of Alexander Hamilton, the founding father who is on the $10 bill. Now, according to Wikipedia, Miranda "is of Puerto Rican, Mexican, and African descent" and was born in New York. Ironically, Alexander Hamilton was born on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean which was then a British colony, but he very much looks rather pasty white from his John Trumball portrait which is on the $10 bill. Some people, including me, were a little uptight about it, but 1) Miranda wrote everything about it; it's his musical. He should be allowed to cast whoever he wishes provided his backers agree. He does sort of look like Hamilton short of getting some pasty English guy to play that role. Anyway, because Alexander Hamilton is a real historical figure, I wouldn't want him played by a non-White man. Being Hispanic, Miranda is "close enough". But, if Kevin Hart was to play Hamilton, unless it was for satire purposes, that's inappropriate. Just as inappropriate as it would be to have Ron De Santis play Martin Luther King in a biopic or Indian Vinay Nulkar to play Mao Tse-Tung (or however we spell it these days).

2. A lot of White people are uptight about having a girl of color play the mermaid in the live-action movie "The Little Mermaid". I am not uptight about it at all. The people who are uptight may be a bit racist and many of them are simply upset because a popular character from their youth has been altered. However, the mermaid is an entirely fiction non-human character. If you want to give some sort of backstory to mermaids, if anything, mermaids SHOULD be "Black-ish" because they would have been an evolutionary off-shoot of hominids before humans left Africa (where the Black folks originate). So, in a sense, it is more appropriate for her to be played by a Black girl (who is actually mixed race).

(more)

[abc3643]

3. Believe it or not, this sort of thing was also an issue in December 1979 when "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" came out and it is important to realize that this was a critical moment in the history of television and cinema. In the very beginning of the movie, we see 3 Klingon ships. We then go inside the bridge of one of the ships. Now, if you were a Star Trek fan who only knew of the TV 1966-1969 show and the animated 1973-1974 TV show, you knew that Klingons more or less looked human. But, in this movie, the Klingons were noticeably different (and forms the basis of how they have appeared since); they are obviously alien. Now, some fans might have gotten uptight by this because that implies the question "So, within the context of the Star Trek Universe canon, how do we explain this difference in Klingon's appearance?" Believe it or not, years later, this was discussed in some Star Trek series. This explains it.
starships.com/why-did-klingons-appearance-change/

Anyway, don't get too bent out of shape about this and say to yourself: "If this is the worst of my problems in life, I am extremely lucky!"

[abc3643]

Oh, I forgot. The fact that Klingons had changed between the original series and the movie gave Hollywood the license to say "Fuck it! We'll do what we want! Canon is irrelevant and we'll let the nerds come up with whatever explanation they want."

Look at what J J Abrams did with Star Trek in 2009. He wanted to escape the shackles of canon so he basically had the new Star Trek movie take place in an alternate universe, thus not having to worry about anything from the traditional universe.

Paramount ran with that and now just does not give a shit about anything. For instance, how the crews behave, how the ships travel differently and are more advanced than the originals, how the stories less complex and more eye/ear candy for the mindless.

When you don't give a creative rat's ass to what came before, you may alienate existing older fans, but God will kill them off and replace them with kids who will have grown up with your stuff and they won't have a problem.

That last paragraph is sort of why Disney doesn't care about older uptight White fans and the backlash regarding "The Little Mermaid".

[barn_stormer]

both are stupid.

[Asker]

No disagreement here. I'm trying to call out the idiots that think changing Cleopatra from white or Greek to black is acceptable while in the same conversation bitch about people white washing people of color as hypocrites.

[gothbxtch]

ah yes, because white people are so discriminated against in society and we have trouble finding representation in media. oh, wait.

[Asker]

Lol you're a child, opinion invalid