On the other hand, this seems to be you missing what Guin said. She specifically said she DOES understand why color is an issue. She said she didn’t understand why using prosthetics to change facial features is an issue.
I mean, I can guess based on what I already know about the color issue, but I’d rather defer to someone with more personal knowledge.
Nina faced stigma for not meeting the Eurocentric ideal. Which relates not just to skin color, but hair texture and nose shape. She had the hallmark features of person with recent west/central African ancestry and likely grew up hearing really nasty remarks about it from both blacks and whites.
So slapping on a nose prosthetic is just as offensive as slapping on dark make-up. It’s messaging to anyone who is sensitive to the subject that both black noses and black skin are so odd that we need to get an make-up artist to simulate them rather than select an actress who comes by them naturally.
Michaele Coel would have made a great Nina Simone.
Sorry for misunderstanding your point, Guin.
Ah, I see. Although I always thought that the big nose stereotype was a Jewish thing. Shows what I know.
I looked it up and apparently they were originally going to have Mary J. Blige.
Well, there’s “big African nose” and then there’s “big Jewish nose”. They’re both big, but for different reasons/configured differently. Both have some basis in reality but both can easily become offensive caricatures.
I’ve never heard a white person describe a black person by their skin tone. I’m guessing it’s not just due to the pressure you describe, but also because white people don’t get practice with descriptors, which are learned through lots of experience. Like, it’s easy for me to communicate skin tone with another black person because there’s typically an unspoken consensus on where “light-skinned” ends and “red” or “light brown” begins. I could see a white person struggling with this due to lack of exposure.
But what you posted is really interesting and probably explains why Chrono’s comment irked me. To my ear, “I don’t notice shades of brown” is just a step away from “I don’t see color”, which is just a step from “I’m not racist but you must be because you see color and shades of brown”. I know that’s not at all what Chronos said, but I’ve heard enough of that shit that I’m now sensitive to it.
And another thread about transgender people gets hijacked by racial discussions. Sigh.
Just kidding! I guess I watched more black comedians in he 80’s or something because the exact shade issue in the black community is so old hat to me, I’m rather surprised anyone doesn’t know about it. 15 or 20 years ago I had a black classmate who joked about hitting the tanning salon before a family gathering so as not to getvteased about being the lightest skinned one there.
As I implied before, I am not sure how well transgender represantation maps on to racial representation in the movies.
I never heard anyone objecting to Halle Berry being cast as Catwoman, especially given the Ertha Kitt precedent. (Now, her actual performance was another matter.) Also, I never hear anyone complaining about a white woman being substituted for an Asian man in the role of “The Ancient One” in the “Doctor Strange” movie.
Oh, there was a ton of complaining about Doctor Strange.
I wonder if he/she means “No one bitched that a woman was taking a mans role away”
…and I’m glad this was brought up cause Margaret Cho can kiss my ass. Oh no. Boo-hoo. This ‘traditionally asian role was taken by a white woman.’ Yeah, I’m sure The Ancient One is a REALLY well-known role. Right up there with Fin Fang Foom and Postman Willie.
Besides Margaret…in that context YOU’RE the racist for lumping all Asians together. If he was Tibetan, being played by a Chinese actor wouldn’t be cool. You wouldn’t particularly want a Japanese actor playing a Korean one.
As for Nina Simone…Monstro makes some good points…but lemme just say, in other places, the arguments I’ve seen are made by some people who definitely did not see School Daze.
monstro, that’s your prejudice at work there. You need to accept that some people genuinely are not bothered about shades of colour, nor exact ethnicity and don’t “see” them to any meaningful extent and it does not spring from, nor is it indicative of, a racist mindset.
Just like when I see someone with a variety of a lighter skin shade I have absolutely no interest in wondering where exactly they come from. It may come up in conversation with them if it is important to them I suppose but rarely. You can quite easily say that all “white” people are the same to me, because they are. I certainly treat them all the same, i.e. as individuals. As I do with all darker shades and everywhere inbetween. I think it is rude, presumptuous and demeaning to do otherwise.
If you yourself are black and are sensitive to this, I understand that and perhaps if you are USA-based then your racial sensitively is calibrated very differently to mine. But just as I respect your experiences and behaviours, I think you also have a duty to take people at face value when they say they have a genuine and benign non-reaction and non-interest to skin shades and ethnicity.
And as mentioned already, it is a subject about which Simone had some very strong views. She would have been furious at the casting.
To be fair, I’m still not convinced Tilda Swinton is even human.
ok
Yep, “some people” are indeed *privileged *to not see skin colour. Doesn’t make them racist. Does make them privileged. There ought to be a term for that - if only there was some commonality to all those privileged people…
They’re all blind?
I feel like this is a major factor that hasn’t been addressed in depth in this thread. The thing is that people are more likely to see a movie with big name actors in them compared to lesser names, so casting directors and producers are no doubt inclined to prefer to cast a more famous actor over a different actor who may be a more authentic fit, or over giving a minority actor an opportunity. It’s a legitimate concern that if you cast roles to maximise authenticity or opportunity for underprivileged groups, you lower the movie’s chances of success.
Some counterpoints to this would be:
-star power is no guarantee of financial success - tons of movies with A-Listers flop
-how can there ever be a movie star from X underprivileged group, if they never get cast in movies? It’s a feedback loop that keeps them on the periphery. Perhaps unfortunately, it seems more likely for a trans actor to be cast in a big role playing a trans character (as opposed to a cisgender character), so it probably feels disheartening to trans actors to see prominent trans roles cast to cis actors
-casting with authenticity at the forefront can have marketing benefits as well
Of course it’s easy to say these things without putting my money or reputation on the line. Ultimately, in order to have a trans actor starring in a prominent role, someone has to be willing to fund such a movie - either some producers have to be willing to put some dollars on the line in the name of social justice, or the movie going public needs to show that they are just as willing to spend their money on movies without major stars (and if it’s the latter, will there even be the concept of an A-list actor anymore?)
In this case, it’s hard to say what serves the trans community better - the movie coming out starring Scarjo, or the movie not being made at all. I think it could have depended on the actual quality of the production - if it was a well made and sensitive production that was also financially successful, it could have advanced social awareness and acceptance of trans characters in mainstream roles. If poorly made, it could be detrimental. Of course, these could apply even if a trans actor were cast in the role - however a dud might just be forgotten quickly as a bad movie rather than being bad for the trans community.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t think you need a special word for it. What benefit do you gain from labelling them? How about just using “people” and taking the time understand individual motivations and perceptions regardless of skin colour.
But what if one already existed? It would sure be a privilege to get to use the correct term of Art.
Because I find the insight that most of these “colour blind” people all seem to have one thing in common quite fascinating.
I mean, I have *no idea *what it could mean. Just…fascinating.
Logically, with all these individual “motivations and perceptions”, you’d think that would blur any commonality, wouldn’t you? That this “colour blindness” would average out across all groups.
So any sort of clustering surely provides some useful information. One that the rest of us, who suffer so from not being “colour blind”, being “colour seeing”, as it were, would surely benefit from.
I’m sure the secret to this “colour blindness” is some state that we “colour seeing”, we “differently colour abled”, if you will, could achieve for ourselves.
Truly, we have much to learn from the “colour blind”.
The weight of that sarcasm is clearly crippling you. I don’t feel that’s a productive response to a fairly reasonable question but, that’s a choice for you to make.
His point was that only white people seem to be “color blind”.
To be clear, I do know that there’s considerable variation in skin color among non-Europeans, and that a disproportionate number of successful black actors are relatively light-skinned, and I understand why that’s a problem. I just said that I wasn’t sure about Saldana’s color specifically, because in most of what I’ve seen her in, her skin has been artificially changed to something completely unlike any natural human skin color.