Cultural Appropriation and Comics

[GodlyBob]

There's been some outcry and some apologies over the latest movie to change the ethnicity of core cast, Gods of Egypt. We're getting the same response we got from Exodus so many moons ago: some pointing out this was a prime time to display some talent that hails from the less white section of skin pigmentation, some saying that the best actor should get the job and this is blown out of proportion, and some (blatantly wrong) people saying that Egyptians might have been white anyway.

The interesting thing though, is that many people who are blase about casting white actors in a place that was historically occupied by people who didn't need to liberally apply sunscreen, are the same voices who get upset that the human torch was made black or that we have a multi-ethnic spider man. The other side also seems to switch up as well, with those who could care less what color Captain America is upset that we're white washing ancient Egypt.

I'm not here to point out hypocrisy, primarily because that's a really pompous thing to make a thread about, but the irony about the entire situation. What this really comes down to, is cultural appropriation. A lot of posters who are against race-changing are also staunchly against the SJW and PC movement. However, they are firmly on the side of political correctness when it comes down to the cultural appropriation of something that was held dear to them, namely making Aquaman a dark skinned, dark haired man when he has historically been blond and fair. It's a very annoying thing when something that you cared about was changed by somebody who may not have that same intimate connection with the source material simply because it happens to be a popular thing and to make it "more appealing" to a bigger audience. And that, at the end of the day, is what cultural appropriation is; using the heritage of some other cultural for your own use without the understanding of its significance.

Again, the other side does this too, but it's just a little funny to me how many posters I see who are so strongly against political correctness are getting upset over a common SJW "trigger" without ever (as far as I've seen) voicing why they are disgruntled.

Is there anybody else who noticed this trend? Or a much broader question, can we actually have a conversation about cultural appropriation without screams of SJW flying about, muddying the waters?

[Zoaric]

I think at least part of it comes down to what one cares more for.

[Deleted]

For me, I truly do not care what colour an actor is. I went to watch a Shakespeare production in which all of the characters were black-African and it was set in the modern day. Nowhere in my mind was I thinking "these characters are supposed to be European". I don't care if Idris Elba is the next James Bond - I actually like Elba and think he'd be able to give a great performance.

I also don't care if video games or books or tv shows put in more girl or minority characters. As long as those are original characters, or it's clear that they aren't being straight up swapped in without establishing their own personality. Like, if they made a Zelda game where you rescue Link I'd be fine with it, but if they made a Zelda game where you can only play as a girl Link, who for all intents and purposes is just the boy Link with a gender swap then I'd think that's kinda bullshit because they're just doing it for tokenism rather than to create a compelling character or an interesting interpretation of the work.

I actually think a lot of the howling from both sides comes from people who don't consume the media they're complaining about anyway. People who are like "omg so happy Fallout 4 lets you play as a woman! progress!" when you've always been able to play Fallout as a woman.

[GodlyBob]

For me, I truly do not care what colour an actor is. I went to watch a Shakespeare production in which all of the characters were black-African and it was set in the modern day. Nowhere in my mind was I thinking "these characters are supposed to be European". I don't care if Idris Elba is the next James Bond - I actually like Elba and think he'd be able to give a great performance.

I also don't care if video games or books or tv shows put in more girl or minority characters. As long as those are original characters, or it's clear that they aren't being straight up swapped in without establishing their own personality. Like, if they made a Zelda game where you rescue Link I'd be fine with it, but if they made a Zelda game where you can only play as a girl Link, who for all intents and purposes is just the boy Link with a gender swap then I'd think that's kinda bullshit because they're just doing it for tokenism rather than to create a compelling character or an interesting interpretation of the work.

I actually think a lot of the howling from both sides comes from people who don't consume the media they're complaining about anyway. People who are like "omg so happy Fallout 4 lets you play as a woman! progress!" when you've always been able to play Fallout as a woman.

It just feels like most of the conversation is dictated by two different sides shouting from atop towers. Moderation appears so little when it comes to this topic.

[Fencers]

The interesting thing though, is that many people who are blase about casting white actors in a place that was historically occupied by people who didn't need to liberally apply sunscreen, are the same voices who get upset that the human torch was made black or that we have a multi-ethnic spider man.

Whoa, whoa.

This is really, really specious. Are you sure of this, have any evidence of this or even plausible examples that are in context to support this statement?

Because it is more than likely your imagination &/or perception of such- which you are now trying to build an argument on. This is poor.

[Powerogue]

I care more about hiring decent actors. If it's a better actor, but a different race than the original canon, than it's better. These sorts of artistic liberties are part of the process.

Of course you can fail on both levels, like The Last Airbender.

[eschatological]

I only care about the race of the character when 1) they're representing an actual figure/race in history, or 2) when their race informs their character. IE having a KKK member who was black (like the Dave Chappelle skit) would make no sense to me, or a black Hitler or white MLK.

I do also agree it's specious to say that people who are upset about the Human Torch being black are fine with whitewashing Egypt, as well as the other way around, those who didn't care about HT being black suddenly care about the Egypt thing, but mainly because it's pointing out a hypocrisy based on an incorrect axis of division, so to speak. The division isn't "don't care about it at all" vs. "always care," it has four quadrants: care vs. non-care, and historical grounding vs. pure fiction. I don't care what race the Human Torch is, and I largely would like to see people who are Egyptian-ish play Egyptians, since that's a real race.

At the same time, I didn't care that Jim Cazaviel played Jesus, because at least he has dark hair, and they tossed some suntan lotion on the dude. Asking to find a Palestinian actor to rise to the occassion as well as an established actor like Cazaviel is a bit much, and shouldn't be expected - you have to temper what you would like with what's reasonable.

[Mormolyce]

The whole black Egyptian thing is heavily anachronistic. For the record we don't really know their skin colour and it was a different world back then anyway. The black/white distinctions of post colonial America does not apply to ancient Egypt (which by the way was a period of over 3000 years so talking about them in a monolithic sense is wrong to begin with).

As for film, they're actors. On the one hand, you need to use your imagination. Harrison Ford isn't really Corellian. Viggo Mortensen isn't really from Gondor.

On the other hand there are limits - John Wayne playing Ghenghis Khan comes to mind. Also film has gotten extremely visually literal lately - it's no longer like a play where you really have to imagine things. People expect verisimilitude.

So, yes and no.

PS the Torch being black was egregious because he's supposed to be Sue's brother. Though as I understand it that's the least of that movie's problems.

[eschatological]

Corellian and Gondorian are made up races though, and thus can look like anything, as defined by the people interpreting it. The whole LOTR trilogy could be re-made with black people and have the guys riding elephaunts be pale-ass white people, and it wouldn't make a difference to the story. That's what I find annoying about people who make these kind of comparisons. The Wiz being made isn't jarring, because characters like Dorothy and the Scarecrow and the Tin Man are fictional, so having them being portrayed by black actors isn't really a big deal.

Egypt, and Egyptians are and were real people. And while it's hard to distinguish what kind of tone their skin had in pre-recorded history, one can make an educated guess, and most of those guesses tend to fall in "darker than white, probably lighter than sub-Saharan black."

As for your point about the Torch, the story made it that Sue was adopted, and that they were still brother and sister. There are many ways to portray family. The movie stunk for many reasons, one of which was the ridiculous story, and maybe you count the whole adoption angle as part of the ridiculousness, but it wasn't the main culprit in the story flaws by any means.

[Surfd]

For me, I truly do not care what colour an actor is. I went to watch a Shakespeare production in which all of the characters were black-African and it was set in the modern day. Nowhere in my mind was I thinking "these characters are supposed to be European". I don't care if Idris Elba is the next James Bond - I actually like Elba and think he'd be able to give a great performance.

That is literally the dumbest arguement I have ever heard. 90% of shakespearean theatre is about the motivations / drives / situations of the characters, and not the characters themselves. Changing the setting of the play, or the gender or the race of the actor does not impact the overall presentation of the theatre performance at all.

Likewise, James bond could literally be played by almost any man alive, provided that he could A: look good in a suit, B: Act suave and debonaire, C: Believably be a member of the British Secret Service, and D: Play the Ladies man.

Female James bond literally does not work because a large chunk of the essence of the character is the fact that he is male, and all the precievied things that go with being that kind of guy.

Meanwhile, you have a movie called "GODS OF EGYPT", and only one of the "gods" shown in the trailer even remotely looks like he could be Egyptian........ That would be like casting a tiny asian guy as the Norse God Thor in a movie called "GODS OF NORSE MYTHOLOGY" and then wondering why people jump down your throat about the complete lack of any kind of believablilty.

I mean, why not make a movie about the life of George Washington, and cast a Black man as George, and an Asian woman as his wife, and maybe make all the extras hispanic. I mean, that is totally allright, right? As long as they get the character they are playing correct.....

[Deleted]

That is literally the dumbest arguement

I didn't make an argument. Well, I guess I technically did, so I'll clarify then that I was talking about fiction, if that'll make you happy. If the work was historical, and striving for historical accuracy, I would probably assume the characters will be accurate. If it's not factual, I don't care. Happy?

"GODS OF EGYPT" lack of any kind of believablilty.

[Austilias]

Fictional characters are generally fair game. I recall people getting angry about Marvel's 'Thor' films, and it sadly wasn't on account of how bad they were.

Historical characters are another matter. A film about Mandela, absurdly and wrongly glorified as he is, wouldn't make much sense if the actor was anything but black.

[Surfd]

So you are saying what exactly? That a movie about Egyptian Gods, which we have LOADS of existing historical lore on, and an ENTIRE CULTURE with THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HISTORY to pull from as reference material, shouldnt at least make a minimum of effort to have characters who at least look like they belong in the setting?

It literally doesnt matter that it is "fictional", or that it is set in some wierd "high tech / fantasy" alternate history verison of Egypt. It is suposed to be set in egypt. Last time i checked, native born egyptians who lived in the days of the pharos DID NOT LOOK LIKE BURLY SCOTTISH MEN.

I mean, I dont believe that the Roman Gods or the Greek Gods existed either, but you can be sure that if someone made a movie about them, and Zeuss was an Asian guy, and Herculese was african, I would be somewhat concerned about the accuracy of their portrayals.

[Deleted]

So you are saying what exactly?

I'm saying I don't care. Cast a black Hercules in your film about the Greek gods. I don't care.

[Ryme]

As a decent human being, I'm rarely if ever bothered by colour of an actor's skin.

[Biotec]

So you are saying what exactly? That a movie about Egyptian Gods, which we have LOADS of existing historical lore on, and an ENTIRE CULTURE with THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HISTORY to pull from as reference material, shouldnt at least make a minimum of effort to have characters who at least look like they belong in the setting?

It literally doesnt matter that it is "fictional", or that it is set in some wierd "high tech / fantasy" alternate history verison of Egypt. It is suposed to be set in egypt. Last time i checked, native born egyptians who lived in the days of the pharos DID NOT LOOK LIKE BURLY SCOTTISH MEN.

I mean, I dont believe that the Roman Gods or the Greek Gods existed either, but you can be sure that if someone made a movie about them, and Zeuss was an Asian guy, and Herculese was african, I would be somewhat concerned about the accuracy of their portrayals.

It doesn't really look like they are trying to use any of that historical lore or culture in this movie tbh.

The buildings look kind of Egyptian, and there are pyramids. Most of the names are probably right but beyond that this doesn't really seem "Egyptian" at all. I mean I agree with you and all, they really should have tried harder with the casting if they wanted to be real Egyptian, but this seems closer to Marvel's Thor in that everything just vaguely based off the culture. I wouldn't be surprised if they just came out and said the gods are really just super powered aliens.

[Jotaux]

It annoys me when a character that has been a certain race for all of their history is suddenly changed to make everything more diverse. When its done without that specific goal I find it works out much better and becomes more of picking the best person for the job.

I really disliked when Khan was made white instead of indian in the newest Star Trek movie. After watching the movie I felt that it didn't matter as much and thought the actor did a fantastic job. I did speculate whether the change in race was deliberate. These are genetically modified humans afterall so are they saying white skin>brown skin?

I disliked that the human torch was made black because he is a well established character. I haven't seen the movie but I hear its crap so I guess it wouldn't have mattered anyways.

At first I was annoyed that Nick Fury is now black in the movies but he has been for awhile in the ultimate comics and I feel is a way more entertaining character now.

[eschatological]

It annoys me when a character that has been a certain race for all of their history is suddenly changed to make everything more diverse. When its done without that specific goal I find it works out much better and becomes more of picking the best person for the job.
.

The problem is, these characters have been a certain race (namely white) for all of their history not for any reason other than a fear of any other race but white being seen as "bad" or "inferior." Which apparently still exists today. Superman, when he was invented, could have easily been made black. It certainly would have made his growing up in Kansas much more interesting. But when he was invented, that wasn't exactly a thing one could easily do.

[rayvio]

I have no problem with changing race of a character provided it doesn't contradict what's considered cannon within that version of the continuity. for example if they decided that, for example, Captain America would suddenly be played by a black actor then they should not also claim that he's still the same guy who appeared in the previous movies, it should be a different character taking over the superhero identity. if they did a reboot or alternate universe version of Captain America with a black actor then it could be the original Cap all along

as for historical accuracy, that's always a good thing when it's possible, but unless it's specifically intended as educational then accuracy isn't going to be the highest priority, but it should be a high one

[Jotaux]

The problem is, these characters have been a certain race (namely white) for all of their history not for any reason other than a fear of any other race but white being seen as "bad" or "inferior." Which apparently still exists today. Superman, when he was invented, could have easily been made black. It certainly would have made his growing up in Kansas much more interesting. But when he was invented, that wasn't exactly a thing one could easily do.

But the issues he would have faced being black in that time period would change the experiences of the character which would change who he is today.