SF and People of Color

[StarTrek1701]

[How dare those 'minorities' ask to be represented just as equally as Caucasians...

Maybe separate water fountains....restrooms...

We Caucasians don't shit our pants or cry uncontrollably at being excluded from any exclusive clubs. If anything its the other way round, which just proves how Caucasian stuff is always the best.

Hmmm, as for your idea:

Maybe we Asians can take over the Star Trek franchise and create Kirk, Picard, Sisko, and Janeway in our own image....bringing in a Caucasian or two (or even an African-American) to keep up the status quo.

Please do. It's not like we would care. If anything it would be far less popular and even less successful than their 'Caucasian' counterparts.

 

[Neroon]

If this is what it's come to - such "humor" - then we can cut to the chase and close the thread now. So I suggest that be left outside and we actually talk about race in SCI-FI.

 

[Teelie]

12 pages and still going... need I say it, racism works both ways? I'm sure someone addressed it but forget me reading 12 pages of back and forth. People get this idea that because their race or religion or gender is not the majority it's an intentional, purposeful sleight.

Get over it. People's habits do not change ove night and they don't generally move very fast. Just as I doubt you see many (if any) whites, blacks, hispanics or middle easterners in Asian countries, you'll see the same thing happen in every country. The prominent race of that region is always going to be the most popular on television.

The United States is a lot more diversified than many other countries but that also creates a lot of tension. Racial tension has been around since there were races to be tense with. Thinking that we'll get over hundreds of thousands of years of racial disparity in a few decades is ludicrous.

The mere fact we've as a species, progressed this fast is amazing in itself but it's not like we're saying it's okay, we're not going to progress anymore. This takes time. So stop acting like nothing has changed and nothing is changing. It just makes you look like someone who can't be optimistic or is always the one to point out the negativity.

Why many people can only see one side of the coin is frustrating but almost everyone (regardless of race, ethnicity or any other cataloguing you want) tends to do it. It's always one side (not enough) or the other (too much). Progress is progress. Let it happen and it will make its own way there.

 

[Neroon]

Very nicely put, Teelie.

You'd make a good Ensign some day.

 

[Teelie]

Probably I could've shortened it. TL;DR version: Science Fiction is about progress and we're progressing. Don't find the negative and latch on to it.

 

[3D Master]

The mere fact we've as a species, progressed this fast is amazing in itself but it's not like we're saying it's okay, we're not going to progress anymore. This takes time. So stop acting like nothing has changed and nothing is changing. It just makes you look like someone who can't be optimistic or is always the one to point out the negativity.

Why many people can only see one side of the coin is frustrating but almost everyone (regardless of race, ethnicity or any other cataloguing you want) tends to do it. It's always one side (not enough) or the other (too much). Progress is progress. Let it happen and it will make its own way there.

Which begs the question whether there will be any desired progress if you sit back and do nothing, or whether it is required to at least point out the most egregious wrongs, and remind the people doing the wrongs?

 

[Teelie]

I did not say to never mention it or to not acknowledge we need to do better but to see the appropriate perspective. Look at the long term and not the short term. We're not going to just stop progress because someone's not yelling at the top of their lungs about it. No one has said this is good enough, we're not going to keep trying to improve on ourselves. Every year humanity gets better at acceptance. The steady pressure to accept and acknowledge everyone's rights and representation should be equal is always there.

Human history has been a long, bloody and difficult fight about insert your favorite "ist/ism," race, sex, religion, political, economical, etc. We have gone from progressing at a millenia between gaps to centuries to decades to years in accepting people different from the standard. There are still parts of the world where progress has stalled but the majority of the world has been steadily moving ahead.

Just a decade ago, homosexuals had virtually none of the rights they do now. If you were gay and wanted to be out, or even more daring, married you didn't have that choice. Compare that to how long it took for civil rights to come about (well over 50 years ago), and how long it took for women's voting rights (going on a century there). None of them are where they should be but they have not stopped either and they are still being sought.

That's not to say we don't need a push every now and then but endlessly seeing yourself or others as stuck in a position of minority is not any more progressive than saying nothing at all. I think if people stopped seeing themselves as secondary or a minority, eventually no one else will either. Call it the power of positive thinking if you want.

In another century hopefully we'll have aliens or something else to quibble over and this will be a historical note in the books, or whatever we replace books with. People will always fight over something but the color of skin is increasingly becoming less important to other factors.

 

[Ceridwen]

We Caucasians don't shit our pants or cry uncontrollably at being excluded from any exclusive clubs.

No, we just tend to buy up those clubs and kick out the original members (see the recent spate of live-action anime adaptations).

 

[DarKush]

Things don't change naturally, they change because of some type of stimulus or catalyst. If it wasn't for the 'whiners', which were called agitators and worse names back in the day, some of these issues would never have gotten addressed.

Part of living in a diverse society and world is that you get exposure to more than one point of view. I don't like anyone telling me to get over it. Who are you to tell me to get over it? My parents, grand parents, etc. lived in the segregated South. That's not ancient history to them, and it's not to me. Even if it was, does that make it any less worthy to be remembered so that we don't repeat it?

Why should some things in history be forgotten-generally the bad stuff that Europeans did to non-whites, but the good things that Europeans did be remembered and cherished forever, or seen as the sole representation of European culture and civilization?

In our country we have made progress but don't think for one moment that we wouldn't have arrived at this point without the abolitionists, Civil Rights movement, women's rights, movement, etc. pushing our country to live up to its ideals. A lot of people lost their jobs and their lives just to make it this far. And we still have a way to go.

If you don't agree with me, fine, but don't try to shut down debate by telling people to get over it implying that their history or experiences are not as important as yours. Its that kind of obtuseness that helped get us into this mess in the first place.

For me, it's not about being 'negative'. It's about being realistic. Seeing where you started and using it to mark where you are currently so it can help you figure out how much further you need to go. Race is still an important issue, and its an uncomfortable one because it doesn't fit well with how we see ourselves or would like others to see us, but racial disparities do exist, and many exist because of previous or ongoing discrimination. Even Obama's election didn't wipe away racism or prejudice as much as conservatives and many moderate and liberals would like us to buy into. He's just one man, millions of his father's people were affected by the Atlantic slave trade and the various systems of discrimination developed in the Americas and Africa during and after that trade.

Of course, race is not the only issue, but it is one that I feel many people want to diminish or sweep under the rug and talk about something else. To be honest, if you're white skin color has largely been a boon for you, but if you're not white, issues of skin color can still affect your life outcomes in ways that many white people may not understand, nor do they wish to because IMO they are afraid that it will result in merely blaming white people for everything.

 

[Myasishchev]

I don't see how a black guy realizing that gee blackface isn't that bad, even after a few centuries, really is a step toward racial understanding. There were black minstrels back in the day too, it was some of the only, or the most profitable work, some black entertainers could get, but that didn't make blackface any less vile then, now, or in the future.

Why do black people having to accept or 'get over' such debasement a condition for racial reconciliation?

Yeah, the point of it is that there is not any ethnicity for anyone to irrationally get upset about any longer, and that "such debasements" are so far removed in time and generation (like six hundred years) no one can muster up much of an emotion about it anyway.

 

[Goliath]

To be honest, if you're white skin color has largely been a boon for you, but if you're not white, issues of skin color can still affect your life outcomes in ways that many white people may not understand, nor do they wish to because IMO they are afraid that it will result in merely blaming white people for everything.

That may be part of it. But I think a bigger part of it is that, if you tell people that being white is a "boon," you diminish their accomplishments in life, and their sense of themselves.

When you say something like that, it's very easy to sound like you're saying that, "you've only accomplished what you have in life because you're a member of the in-group and have an unfair advantage," and, "if you had to compete on a level playing field with people of colour, you never would have gotten where you are today."

That may not be what you mean, but given the fact that deprivation is relative, and that most people have to work pretty hard to get anywhere in life, regardless of their race, class, or gender, that's a sure-fire way to make people defensive, hostile, and unreceptive to your message.

I'll be honest--I skipped over much of this thread. But I just wanted to say that, as a fan of crime shows like Homicide, The Wire, and Oz, I really notice the relative absence of good roles for black actors when I watch sci-fi shows. Even The Shield had CCH Pounder as Detective Wims, and Forest Whitaker as a guest star in the fifth season.

So, in that respect, a lot of what the OP said struck me as rather obvious. Anyone who thinks that televised sci-fi has been doing a good job of representing the racial and cultural diversity of North-American society should really try comparing sci-fi to other genres.

I'm just not sure why that's the case, though I doubt that there's anything malicious behind it.

 

[Teelie]

I don't see where anyone has said blackface was acceptable. The closest I can think of is Tropic Thunder where it was done openly and intentionally to actually point out that black actors are under-represented to the point they made a white man look black rather than give it to a genuine black actor.

That also reminds me of the big deal made about Resident Evil 5 taking place in Africa. It was fine when Resident Evil 4 was killing Spanish zombies but the minute we saw black zombies being killed, it's abohrrent racism and should be protested. Whereas the first three games were about white zombies, no one cared. That's the thing about looking at skin color; the second it's a minority skin color, it's suddenly a problem.

Another thing is so-called reverse racism where because someone is white it's assumed they get a free pass, or they get an automatic advantage. How can you know that if you're not white? Being white means you can't make off color jokes (or use certain words other minorities get a free pass on). If a white man says something offensive to a minority, it's racist. If the person is a minority, it's perfectly okay or just accepted they have the right. People have to work both ways on this, not just assume that because someone is white they get to have an unfair advantage. All that does is reinforce tensions.

Being a white male is even worse. Not only are you white but a male so you're assumed to be either a pig, a perv, a pedophile, or privileged. How is that fair? It's stereotyping white males as something they may not be. Modern culture discriminates but it's foolish to think only minorities or females are discriminated against. We all get it in one form or another.

There is, as I've said a need to keep the pressure up, but that doesn't mean to ignore or downplay the progress which I think a lot of overly vocal protesters tend to do. Making everything about skin color, and constantly reminding everyone about skin color does not make it go away, it just keeps it in the limelight and keeps everyone on edge even discussing race relations. In fact there shouldn't be a need for race relations. We're the human race, not the white race or black race or hispanic or asian or arabic, etc.

 

[DarKush]

Legalized segregation ended in the 1960s, that's not 600 years ago. And there are always news articles coming out describing continuing disparities among racial groups, some of it a product of past racism and some I would contend present discrimination.

I'm sorry but overall being white has been a boon. I don't want to make it seem that all people, white folks included don't have to work hard to obtain things, but over the course of history in this country, many white people have not had to work as hard in comparison to blacks to achieve the same things, and most blacks have worked harder and received less. There are still pay disparities, there's still a wealth disparity, and its often harder for blacks to get loans, etc., even when they have the same level of education as whites. US history is replete with examples of affirmative action for white males, its biggest recepient.

White males still dominate this country politically, socially, and economically. White comedians or shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern make racial jokes or digs all the time and then shrug off any criticism as being too sensitive, get over it, or its the PC police run amok. Imus wasn't shunned for long. He got another radio program after he was rightfully outed for a pattern of bigoted comments over the years. Now there is a class component to this as well, where rich white males are the dominant group, but I would put out there that historically being white period was an advantage over being black. Like Chris Rock once joked, no white person would want to trade places with him and he was rich. I think there's a lot of truth in that statement.

Ignoring skin color or issues that might arise because of skin color won't make the issue go away either. If anything it'll make people more distrustful and angry if they feel a need to bury their feelings or if there point of view or experiences are not valued or merit discussion or remembrance. Of course there are ways to go about it. Sometimes shouting or protesting is required, sometimes it isn't.

There's just so much we don't know about each other, so much we tip toe around that we have to come to some type of reckoning, cleansing, venting, or whatever just to get the stuff out there so that all the cards are on the table and we can move forward more united and respectful and knowledgeable about our shared history, because all of these experiences, no matter how diverse, are connected.

 

[cylkoth]

That also reminds me of the big deal made about Resident Evil 5 taking place in Africa. It was fine when Resident Evil 4 was killing Spanish zombies but the minute we saw black zombies being killed, it's abohrrent racism and should be protested. Whereas the first three games were about white zombies, no one cared. That's the thing about looking at skin color; the second it's a minority skin color, it's suddenly a problem.

I'm not a gamer, but I did read about the complaints directed towards RE5. The bigger issue that got ignored during the initial outcry was how many video games fall into the stereotypical straitjacket of presenting the default lead character as white, while casting blacks for the most part as villians only. Is there a single game where the lead human character is black-and yes, many games allow you to change the character's appearance and even gender, but when the only black characters that turn up, over and over, and over, and over again are villians, it smacks of the same crap tv and movie producers always spout. They can't find performers of color when doing doctor or lawyer shows...but suddenly, there's a prison show and bam! Suddenly, there's tons of black and brown faces around, who apparantly were all invisible when the 'normal' shows were being cast.

Here's a line from a recent story about the continued marginalization of Black actors in network primetime.

One broadcast network executive, who declined to speak for attribution, notes, “It’s sad, but it’s all about economics. If these ethnic shows can’t do a successful rating, you can’t cover the cost of production. And unfortunately, unless you have a big crossover star—like Bill Cosby when his show was on the air—the general audience isn’t going to watch these shows in enough numbers to keep them on the air.”

http://www.adweekmedia.com/aw/conte...6074d641b5e57bf4df987c991f41942?ref=mediaweek

Now, how exactly can an African American-or any other ethnic performer, attain the 'crossover status' of a Cosby, if producers and studio/network executives continue to treat them differently than a white actor/performer by not even giving them a chance to attract a wider following, in exactly the same manner that they provide white performers? Ignoring the success of The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son, even the more recent Family Matters, they continue to place barriers in front of performers of color that just aren't there for whites. Family Matters was positioned, not as an 'ethnic show', but a family show, and made a part of the TGIF block for 8 years. Would it make it to the air with the attitude expressed by this network bozo?

 

[Myasishchev]

Legalized segregation ended in the 1960s, that's not 600 years ago. And there are always news articles coming out describing continuing disparities among racial groups, some of it a product of past racism and some I would contend present discrimination.

Yeah, but Imperial Earth takes place in like the 2500s. The black guy's a third-generation clone from Titan.

I agree with a lot of your other points, although I might trade places with Chris Rock (at least Chris Rock ten years ago).

 

[Hermiod]

I'm not a gamer, but I did read about the complaints directed towards RE5. The bigger issue that got ignored during the initial outcry was how many video games fall into the stereotypical straitjacket of presenting the default lead character as white, while casting blacks for the most part as villians only. Is there a single game where the lead human character is black-and yes, many games allow you to change the character's appearance and even gender, but when the only black characters that turn up, over and over, and over, and over again are villians, it smacks of the same crap tv and movie producers always spout.

To answer your question - yes, and not just any game but one of the highest selling of all time: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

 

[Hoshi_Mayweather]

"Blacks in Space"-an interesting article posted on the American Prospect website.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=blacks_in_space

Interesting article....

I'm not a gamer, but I did read about the complaints directed towards RE5. The bigger issue that got ignored during the initial outcry was how many video games fall into the stereotypical straitjacket of presenting the default lead character as white, while casting blacks for the most part as villians only. Is there a single game where the lead human character is black-and yes, many games allow you to change the character's appearance and even gender, but when the only black characters that turn up, over and over, and over, and over again are villians, it smacks of the same crap tv and movie producers always spout.

To answer your question - yes, and not just any game but one of the highest selling of all time: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Well, then you possibly have some blacks (i.e. African-Americans) wondering why a game featuring them as criminals is popular.

 

[Hermiod]

Well, then you possibly have some blacks (i.e. African-Americans) wondering why a game featuring them as criminals is popular.

I'll put up a few arguments here.

First, the Grand Theft Auto series has also had white, Italian-American and Eastern European player characters.

Actually, while the player character CJ is no saint, there is a certain morality to his overall story. Set in the mid-1990's, CJ returns after years to his former home in Los Santos (a fictionalised version of Los Angeles) to find his former neighbourhood overrun by a rival gang who are distributing drugs indiscriminately in partnership with a corrupt cop and destroying his home.

He and his brother, amongst other things, make peace with a Hispanic gang - and I'm not pretending they exactly follow the letter of the law to do this - and wipe the streets clean of the dealers for good in order to make it a safe neighbourhood for everyone again.

Exactly how violent CJ is is up to the player, but the ultimate aim - to make his neighbourhood a safe place for the people living in it again - is a positive one.

I would argue that this is a lot more positive an aim than, for example, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City's Tommy Vercetti's aim to take control of all crime in the city.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

"Blacks in Space"-an interesting article posted on the American Prospect website.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=blacks_in_space

Interesting article....

I'm not a gamer, but I did read about the complaints directed towards RE5. The bigger issue that got ignored during the initial outcry was how many video games fall into the stereotypical straitjacket of presenting the default lead character as white, while casting blacks for the most part as villians only. Is there a single game where the lead human character is black-and yes, many games allow you to change the character's appearance and even gender, but when the only black characters that turn up, over and over, and over, and over again are villians, it smacks of the same crap tv and movie producers always spout.

To answer your question - yes, and not just any game but one of the highest selling of all time: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Well, then you possibly have some blacks (i.e. African-Americans) wondering why a game featuring them as criminals is popular.

Because all those darky types are criminals, don't ya know that?

In all seriousness, because it's the sequel to GTA 3 and Vice City, the two games that really popularised GTA and the "sandbox" genre.

 

[Welshie]

Why should some things in history be forgotten-generally the bad stuff that Europeans did to non-whites, but the good things that Europeans did be remembered and cherished forever, or seen as the sole representation of European culture and civilization?

I don't think the accurate representation of human history is a problem, the problem is that various political and social interest groups generally try to twist the historical narrative one way or the other. Whether it's 'America First' types claiming that various successive waves of immigration ruined our society or various racial and/or cultural interest groups claiming that 'Western Culture' is a blight on humanity, everyone has his own spin to put on what's happened.

The current popular academic interpretation seems to focus on subtle and not so subtle denigration of Western/European culture while ignoring the problems and past actions of various competing cultures. I'm all for an accurate accounting of the goods and ills of humanity in general, but that's unlikely to happen; one set of zealots is replaced by another, and while there are certainly good and bad sides to concentrating on certain specialized parts of our history, demonizing whoever is seen as the enemy at the time seems to be a constant, more's the pity.

Last but not least, I've got a real problem with a concept that seems to underly the way that social sciences are interpreted in modern American society: the concept of group responsibility seems to be making greater and greater inroads into the public psyche: 'blacks' get blamed for this, 'whites' for that, 'latinos' for yet something else. The idea that someone is defined by his or her race, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc is one quite popular in many political circles... on the one hand you see it in leftist groups talking about reparations for slavery, on the other hand, churches run around claiming that they have a God-given right to violate the law of land (or state or local municipality) due to certain religious beliefs they hold (see the controversy on Christian pharmacists. More and more, we're seeing the fragmentation of American society, with everyone trying to fight for a piece of the pie. The concept of the melting pot is fading, replaced with a mishmash of mutually hostile groups competing for recognition. I don't see this boding well for this country in the future.