Still, it would have have a stronger argument to use Saldana or Washington for that reason. It's also a bit unfair to use Jennifer Lawrence as your point of comparison; is there anyone currently in Hollywood - white, black, male, female, thin, heavy - that's received more high-profile adulation in such a short amount of time?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism Conceiving of a character as being non-white, and then casting an actor appropriate for that character in a Realist/Naturalist casting tradition, is not racism. Further, choosing to conceive of an incarnation of a character that has traditionally been white as non-white, in order to increase public visibility of non-white role models for children and to undermine white privilege, is actively anti-racist. It is an act undertaken not to oppress anyone, nor does it have the practical effect of oppressing anyone, nor does it reflect a belief in any race's supposed inferiority; it is an act undertaken to balance scales that have been unfairly loaded in one side's favor, and nothing else. The idea that the history of racial domination of institutions and the unfair advantages given to the dominant racial group in almost all walks of life should never be considered, or actively opposed, is an idea that would, even if it does not intend or desire to do so, inevitably end up perpetuating white privilege. I do not know enough about the racial politics of those countries to have an educated opinion about their casting practices. ETA: That article was dated from the spring of 2011; at that point, Lawrence had not yet become the movie star juggernaut she is today. She and Sidbe, very young actors of roughly the same age, had emerged at roughly the same time by giving powerful performances in independent movies about suffering members of the American working class, and had both been nominated for Oscars as a result of their performances. I did not write this article, but I contend that at the time, their initial situations were similar enough to warrant the comparison. And, yeah, very few stars have received the sorts of opportunities in such a short time that Lawrence has -- but that was the point of the article: That her race (and, yes, her body size) mean that she has more opportunities than other actresses, whether or not they are equally talented.
Well, two things. One, American TV is far less racially segregated than in the past. And the idea of having minorities on the show in some capacity (usually a show that has far more main characters than a typical British show, to be fair) goes back to the 60s. Sure, many of these roles were more token roles than should be acceptable, but there was an idea that the audience would appreciate diversity (particularly in the sense that it might attract more total viewers, which was always a plus). I tried to take into account British racial dynamics and history into account with my posts, though. It's why I've argued that Doctor Who's bigger shortcoming has been inclusion of individuals from the Indian subcontinent (or Asia in general, who make up 7% of the British population).
Agreed. Although, I do think that in a United Kingdom where an overwhelming percentage of the population is English and where Scotland is considering seceding, Doctor Who deserves some credit for casting a Scottish actor as such an iconic role. (Granted, they did that before with David Tennant, but he used an English accent in the role; I'm hoping Capaldi uses his own Scottish accent.)
^ But not ginger? Fair point about the article's date, yeah. And I get that's the point but in retrospect it's just an unfortunate choice to illustrate something very true since even among her young pretty white peers Lawrence has gotten a spectacular amount of opportunity. I'd like to see the Doctor played by somebody non-white; aside from the names that've been bandied about before I don't know who I'd cast, although fan speculation has tended to black folks rather than South Asian. In the short term the best way to diversify the cast would be supporting cast (companion & family for example). Maybe once Clara leaves or even sooner. I've seen Clyde and Rani from SJA suggested, they'd be a nice link back to the RTD era and a way for Sarah Jane's influence to live on.
The Sarah Jane Adventures had Rani Chandra as one of its main characters and her mother and father as near-regular supporting characters, so there was no lack there. I've seen a number of Anglo-Indian performers in the modern Doctor Who as well, though perhaps fewer in Moffat's tenure than RTD's -- although there have been notable ones like the scientist from the Silurian 2-parter and the woman from "The God Complex." It's been confirmed that Capaldi will be using his Scottish accent. And of course this will be the second time the Doctor has had a Scottish accent, with the Seventh Doctor/Sylvester McCoy as the first.
There was also "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" where the entire Space Agency (Indian Space Agency? International Space Agency?) the Doctor's interacting with seems to be Indian.
Come on now, she's definitely up there, but it's not like she is playing Han Solo or anything. Plus, isn't that just bias towards actresses who look like young Helen Mirren?
Indeed, I thought it was a really interesting decision for them to depict 24th Century Earth as Indian-dominated. So often, Doctor Who has defaulted to depicting British culture as dominating Humanity in the future -- it's a choice I don't begrudge per se, since God knows plenty of American shows default to depicting American culture as dominating Humanity in the future, Star Trek included. But it was refreshing to see a Western science fiction show for once depict a period in Humanity's future where the dominant culture is non-Western, and where that is not depicted as a bad thing.
Cameron Diaz made quite a splash very quickly. A lot of young blonde stars have in Hollywood. Can she survive the first wrinkle? Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep, Judi Dench, it's a very small club for women past the young starlet era of a woman's career. Few get to play a diversity of roles of the kind offered to those in that small club.
No. She's playing Katniss Everdeen, which is a much bigger deal than playing a character from a film that was released when Jimmy Carter was in office. Lawrence's popularity and career opportunities are functions of a number of factors. Among these factors are the fact that she is a talented actor; the fact that she has cultivated an appealing public persona; the fact that she is conventionally sexually attractive by the standards of modern American culture; and the fact that she is white. White privilege is pervasive, and influences things in ways that one might not even consciously realize. It's easy to say that Lawrence's popularity reflects a bias towards sexually attractive women -- but the fact that our culture identifies Lawrence as sexually attractive is itself a function of white privilege, because our culture identifies its beauty/sex ideals as white. Her sex appeal is a function of her whiteness and of the rewards our culture gives to whiteness. That doesn't mean she's racist, or that anyone's a bad person for liking her. Privilege isn't something we ask for, and it's not something we can give back. (Hell, every white person in America benefitted from white privilege just by being born -- infant mortality rates are higher for non-white babies in America -- yet that doesn't mean white babies are born racist.) But it's important to understand the role it has in opening doors -- particularly when we're talking about white privilege in cultures like ours which are only just starting to emerge from white supremacy.
it's interesting that you ask other people to answer questions, yet you didn't bother with Ubik's: have you ever seen a casting call? Oh, and I'll answer about South America, India, and China. It's a misleading question. We're advocating that there be a diverse casting representing the diversity of a country. Now, India isn't particularly diverse in the sense of white, black, East and South Asian. But, it is fairly diverse culturally. And I would argue, having seen a lot of Indian TV and films, yeah, it needs to work on diversity. Especially representation of people with darker skin tones. Do they ALWAYS need to be the thug?
Indian-dominated? What was Indian-dominated? That's just a few high-ranking individuals we happened to see. Can easily happen by chance. If the people of the Earth are represented fairly in our endeavours, you'd stumble into groups that just happen to be of the same ethnicity. If there's a Star Trek starship whose bridge crew is primarily black, or primarily made of women, that doesn't mean that Earth is dominated by women or black people. It's supposed to happen.
But different civilizations do come to the fore at different points in Earth history. For the past few centuries, Europeans have dominated global civilization, which is quite anomalous in the grand scheme of things. At other times, China has been the dominant civilization for a time. Given how populous India is now, it seems quite plausible that at some point in the future, they could become the dominant geopolitical power. I definitely got the sense that that was what "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" meant to imply: that in that century, India led the world politically and militarily, much as America does today or England does in a lot of Doctor Who future eras,
"Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" seemed to be indicating that the Indian Space Agency was the only institution on Earth in 2367 CE capable of tracking and destroying the ship carrying the dinosaurs. That strongly implies that in this period of Earth's history in the Whoniverse, India is the dominant culture -- it seems implausible that no other nation would be capable of tracking a ship or protecting the planet otherwise. Mind you, I'd prefer a vision of a future that's truly egalitarian. But it's easy for an attempt to depict an egalitarian future to end up inadvertently depicting a future where one's own culture dominates, because the role of one's own culture in shaping identity is often invisible. For example, I'd say that Star Trek, in its attempts to depict an egalitarian culture, often ends up actually depicting an American-dominated future without realizing it. So while I'd prefer an egalitarian, diverse future, I give Doctor Who some credit for being more aware of how an attempt at "neutrality" can turn into depicting one's own culture as the default, and therefore countering this by depicting a future in which sometimes non-Western cultures dominate without them being necessarily any better or worse than Western cultures when they dominate. It may be a less idealistic vision of the 24th Century than we see attempted by Star Trek, but it is still an attempt to counteract ethnocentric thinking.
If Doctor Who were really interested in counteracting ethnocentric thinking, and in getting audiences to really think about racial relations in the 21st century, the writers would bring the old "historicals" back to the show. It's a shame, I've always thought, that the show became so monster-obsessed, when early episodes like Marco Polo and The Aztecs were fascinating. In fact, first have the next incarnation of the Doctor be a non-white character. Then, have a larger proportion of the episodes take place in various periods and countries in our world's history. Then, we can see how those places and times would react to a non-white character bossing people around and "walking around like he owns the place" (something the privileged and white David Tennant incarnation suggested has always worked for him.) This could be a fruitful avenue of storytelling, a method of commenting on our present by exploring our past, something the usually light-and-frothy Doctor Who has generally shied away from doing.