# Fury over Black Hermione Granger



## Tonguez

News that black actress Noma Dumezweni will be portraying a grown up Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child play has sparked internet controversy as some complain that Hermione is always white -  pointing to cover illustrations and the portrayal by Emma Watson in the film adaptations.

However JK Rowling herself has twittered "Canon: brown eyes, frizzy hair and very clever. White skin was never specified. Rowling loves black Hermione"

so what do you guys think? Do you think Hermione being black would have made the movies different? Should we sneer at those who rage over the race of fictional characters or is the movie canon somehow now a sacred cow up there with White Nick Fury and Yellow Hulk? Is it racism or is it love?

DO you care?

http://time.com/4158516/jk-rowling-black-hermione-cursed-child-play/


----------



## Umbran

Having Hermione be black would have made the movies different, yes.  The movies would then have been depicting a minority character in a position of intelligence and competence, and there are folks who really wouldn't have liked that much - especially as romantic tension between characters builds over time.  This would have meant something else to the current social order, and would have meant something different in the context of societal assumptions and biases.

It is a sadness that this would have been an issue.

We should sneer at those who rage against this casting.  Whiteness is not central to the character as written, and I think presenting her as black opens up interesting vistas of interpretations.  Go to, I say!


----------



## Ryujin

It's magic. She cast a race change spell. That's no harder to believe than anything else in the Potterverse.


----------



## Cristian Andreu

I have no objections to the change, particularly if the author herself states that she never specified the colour of the character. Since I haven't read the books and only watched the movies, I'm used to a white Hermione, but causes me no distress to see a change.

That said, my personal preference in general is, if a character has been established one way (male, female, big, small, green, blue, etc), I'd prefer for it to be portrayed that way unless appearing in a work that's intentionally meant to subvert it somehow. But that's just a personal preference for consistency (I feel characters are more than just their personality and events; how they look and act is also part of them); I won't get offended by a female Quixote or a white Othello.


----------



## Cor Azer

Cristian Andreu said:


> I have no objections to the change, particularly if the author herself states that she never specified the colour of the character. Since I haven't read the books and only watched the movies, I'm used to a white Hermione, but causes me no distress to see a change.
> 
> That said, my personal preference in general is, if a character has been established one way (male, female, big, small, green, blue, etc), I'd prefer for it to be portrayed that way unless appearing in a work that's intentionally meant to subvert it somehow. But that's just a personal preference for consistency (I feel characters are more than just their personality and events; how they look and act is also part of them); I won't get offended by a female Quixote or a white Othello.




I think adaptations should stay true to the source, not necessarily other adaptations.

Long live PoC Hermione!

Full disclosure: I've never read the books or seen more than 20 minutes of the movies.


----------



## Riley

Sounds fine to me.  Would've welcomed a little more explicit diversity in the main characters.

Although the Caucasian illustrations of Hermione predated the movies (see the illustrations in US editions, at least), I'm reminded of this classic disclaimer from Ursula LeGuin regarding the TV version of Wizard of Earthsea:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/12/a_whitewashed_earthsea.html


----------



## Ryujin

Riley said:


> Sounds fine to me.  Would've welcomed a little more explicit diversity in the main characters.
> 
> Although the Caucasian illustrations of Hermione predated the movies (see the illustrations in US editions, at least), I'm reminded of this classic disclaimer from Ursula LeGuin regarding the TV version of Wizard of Earthsea:
> http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/12/a_whitewashed_earthsea.html




That's interesting to read. My take-away from reading the Earthsea books, oh so many years ago, was that Ged was Polynesian. I certainly didn't buy the casting in the miniseries though.


----------



## was

...I couldn't care less about the race of an actor/actress and whether or not it matches up with the way the character was depicted in a book.  Every movie takes a bit of creative license.  What matters to me is the person's performance in the film.


----------



## Dog Moon

Personally, I don't like the change, though it has nothing to do with changing the race from white to black.  I have never read the books, though I did end up watching some of the movies.  If the movies had originally portrayed Hermione as a black girl, then I would be fine with a black actress playing Hermione as an adult.  However, I would equally dislike the change if she had originally been cast with a black actress as a girl and now was being switched to a white actress to play the adult Hermione.

I'm not furious or upset or anything and I think anyone who is is overreacting; I just don't like the change.

I get the idea of expanding a lot of the movies with actors of a variety of races, but I guess I don't like changes to known characters just for the sake of changes or to mix in colors.  Regardless of what anyone says to me it would be weird to have a black Batman [or in this case Hermione], but it would also be weird to have a white Storm.


----------



## Jester David

There was an Indian King Arthur for the performance of Spamalot. Worked just fine.
I'm more irked by the absence of red hair on a Weasley.


----------



## Morrus

Dog Moon said:


> I get the idea of expanding a lot of the movies with actors of a variety of races, but I guess I don't like changes to known characters just for the sake of changes or to mix in colors.  Regardless of what anyone says to me it would be weird to have a black Batman [or in this case Hermione], but it would also be weird to have a white Storm.




The harm to you, though, is zero. The societal benefit is not. So, hey, who cares if you find it weird? Societal change requires a period of transition; we all just have too deal with things feeling weird. Just like the real-live Downton Abbey type people had to deal with their first black Lords, or the UK had to deal with its first female Prime Minister. Fictional characters are harmless, and pointless, and help lead the way. They can, and should, utterly be sacrificed to the societal benefit.

I think we're at the point where it's safe to ridicule people who object to skin-colour based casting. Anyone who considers skin colour in a different way to how they consider eye colour or hair colour needs to just shut up at this point. Is Steve Rogers blond or dark-haired?  Is The Doctor English or Scottish? Is James Bond white or black? Is he blond and English, or dark-haired and Irish? Or equivalent characters from your country? Is Batman really Welsh? Is Superman really English? Is Spiderman English? Is Robin Hood American?  Or Australian?

These things don't matter as long as the actor does a good job.


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> Fictional characters are harmless, and pointless, and help lead the way.




If they help lead the way, they aren't pointless.  That makes them rather pointed.  Pointing the way, in fact 

That, is part of the source of the argument.  There's a large batch of resistance (often unconscious) to racially diverse casting because there's folks who are not comfortable with the way being led in that direction.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

A black Hermione would have been a brilliant move in the movies, assuming the part was well acted.


----------



## Morrus

Umbran said:


> If they help lead the way, they aren't pointless.  That makes them rather pointed.  Pointing the way, in fact
> 
> That, is part of the source of the argument.  There's a large batch of resistance (often unconscious) to racially diverse casting because there's folks who are not comfortable with the way being led in that direction.




Is that really the sentence you chose to excise from the rest of that paragraph? It rather makes me come across as saying the opposite to what the whole post says.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dog Moon said:


> I get the idea of expanding a lot of the movies with actors of a variety of races, but I guess I don't like changes to known characters just for the sake of changes or to mix in colors.



That's an interesting thought. What if the actor cast for the role wasn't cast because she was black? What if she was cast because she was the best actor to audition for the role, and she just happens to be black? Would it still bother you?


----------



## Hand of Evil

no issues for me, if she was the best performer, she should get the role.


----------



## delericho

Tonguez said:


> DO you care?




Vernon Dursley has the right of it - the whole wizarding world is a self-perpetuating elite based on inherited power and privilege. It's a disgusting anachronism that has no place in 21st century Britain and should be torn down and replaced.

Do I care whether our oppressors are white or black? No, not really.

(And in case it's not clear - yes, that was a joke. I know no more about Noma Dumezweni than I did about Emma Watson when she was cast. I'm sure she'll do a fine job.)


----------



## Dioltach

I don't recall a similar outcry when a black actor was cast as Ford Prefect in the HGttG movie some years ago. Or when a black actress became Moneypenny at the end of Skyfall.

But I do remember the fuss when it was announced that Starbuck would be a female character in the new BSG (and to a lesser extent Boomer, who was less essentially a "manly" man in the original).

Not sure what point I'm trying to make, except that all these castings seem to have worked out fine and perhaps people should trust the directors and see the performances before kicking up a fuss.


----------



## Neonchameleon

First things first, it's a better fit than Emma Watson.

Second, Hermione is stated as having pale skin _once_. In the course of seven books - and not in the first trilogy or the first three hundred pages of any book. With that level of not caring it's hardly a core feature, and bigger changes are made in almost any interpretation. (And before anyone says "Rowling only doesn't describe skin colour for white people" I'd point out Blaize Zabini).

Third, a black Hermione improves the narrative through thematic resonances.


----------



## Dog Moon

Morrus said:


> The harm to you, though, is zero. The societal benefit is not. So, hey, who cares if you find it weird? Societal change requires a period of transition; we all just have too deal with things feeling weird. Just like the real-live Downton Abbey type people had to deal with their first black Lords, or the UK had to deal with its first female Prime Minister. Fictional characters are harmless, and pointless, and help lead the way. They can, and should, utterly be sacrificed to the societal benefit.
> 
> I think we're at the point where it's safe to ridicule people who object to skin-colour based casting. Anyone who considers skin colour in a different way to how they consider eye colour or hair colour needs to just shut up at this point. Is Steve Rogers blond or dark-haired?  Is The Doctor English or Scottish? Is James Bond white or black? Is he blond and English, or dark-haired and Irish? Or equivalent characters from your country? Is Batman really Welsh? Is Superman really English? Is Spiderman English? Is Robin Hood American?  Or Australian?
> 
> These things don't matter as long as the actor does a good job.




I don't think we're ever at a safe point where it's safe to ridicule people for whatever reason, for either ridiculing the actors because of their skin color or ridiculing those who ridicule the actors.

And societal changes are fine, I have no problem with that.  I know I sometimes watch TV shows and notice how they tend to be either all white cast with one minority or all black with like one white guy.  I wouldn't mind it being a better mix and to be honest I would prefer that.  That would be a nice point for us to get to.  However, I still think that certain figures she be kept truer to their source [such as a white batman and a black Storm].  Now, does it harm me if people choose not to follow this?  Will I be upset if say Denzel plays Batman?  He's a great actor and I like basically all of his movies.  I would probably still see it even if it would feel weird that Batman isn't played by a white actor.  So no, it doesn't harm me at all.  But then again, my opinion was only that I dislike it.  I don't understand why anyone would be FURIOUS at it like apparently people are furious at a black Hermione.  That's just crazy!

Now, if they had chosen Brad Pitt to star in the movie Malcom X instead of Denzel, yeah now THAT is something I could see people getting mad about because that would change the story entirely.  THAT I would understand.


----------



## Dog Moon

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's an interesting thought. What if the actor cast for the role wasn't cast because she was black? What if she was cast because she was the best actor to audition for the role, and she just happens to be black? Would it still bother you?




Well, I AM assuming she was cast because she was the best actress for the role.  I would like to think the director didn't see her and think "It would be great to start a controversy so I'm going to choose a black Hermione in order to draw attention to my work even if she is a terrible actress and any of these other women would be a better choice".

I would assume the director either thought "This actress is the best that auditioned" either without thinking of her skin color or thinking "I know the original Hermione in the films is not black, but despite that this is the best actress that auditioned".

So to answer, yes, I would still not like it, but I would understand.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fury over black Hermione Granger?




Yes.  Yes he is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

As for the other questions:

1) yes, it would have changed the character, much as Umbran pointed out.

2) as JKR pointed out, her race was never mentioned in the books, so it isn't at odds with the canon

3) as long as they cast her because she was right for the role, and not out of some attempt to throw a PC bone to minorities, etc. I'm cool with that.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dog Moon said:


> Well, I AM assuming she was cast because she was the best actress for the role.  I would like to think the director didn't see her and think "It would be great to start a controversy so I'm going to choose a black Hermione in order to draw attention to my work even if she is a terrible actress and any of these other women would be a better choice".
> 
> I would assume the director either thought "This actress is the best that auditioned" either without thinking of her skin color or thinking "I know the original Hermione in the films is not black, but despite that this is the best actress that auditioned".
> 
> So to answer, yes, I would still not like it, but I would understand.



Assuming the change wasn't made just for the sake of change, or to mix in colors, and it was just the casting director deciding that this was the best actor that auditioned for the part, what is it that you don't like?


----------



## Hand of Evil

Wonder if the fury would be less if she was HOT, she is sort of average.


----------



## Janx

So we have threads in the RPG forum about how a GM decides what happens next being "jarring to immersion"

And y'all don't think swapping skin color on a character might not be a little jarring to immersion?

And maybe decouple somebody's response of "that'd be weird" from full on  racist driven anger?


Cut the guy who is not freaking out or launching a tirade a little slack.  Change is hard and he's not your enemy.  He will go see it and probably like it.  He's merely expressing surprise at the change.  he'll get over it.

Focus on the guy spouting like a Hitler Youth progadandist.  He's the enemy.


----------



## Morrus

Janx said:


> So we have threads in the RPG forum about how a GM decides what happens next being "jarring to immersion"
> 
> And y'all don't think swapping skin color on a character might not be a little jarring to immersion?
> 
> And maybe decouple somebody's response of "that'd be weird" from full on racist driven anger?
> 
> Cut the guy who is not freaking out or launching a tirade a little slack.  Change is hard and he's not your enemy.  He will go see it and probably like it.  He's merely expressing surprise at the change.  he'll get over it.
> 
> Focus on the guy spouting like a Hitler Youth progadandist.  He's the enemy.




Are you referring to me?  The only person who used the word "weird" was Dog Moon, and I'm the person who replied to that comment. For myself, I tried to explain why finding it weird is not something that should be considered a reason not to do a thing, especially when it's a (small part of) good societal change. I think that's a perfectly in-proportion reply. Nobody is claiming anybody's an enemy, or accusing anybody of full-on racist driven anger (well, other than the thread title which refers to "fury" from non-specific anonymous internet people).


----------



## Janx

Morrus said:


> Are you referring to me?  The only person who used the word "weird" was Dog Moon, and I'm the person who replied to that comment. For myself, I tried to explain why finding it weird is not something that should be considered a reason not to do a thing, especially when it's a (small part of) good societal change. I think that's a perfectly in-proportion reply. Nobody is claiming anybody's an enemy, or accusing anybody of full-on racist driven anger (well, other than the thread title which refers to "fury" from non-specific anonymous internet people).




I arguing with him, you de-legitimatize his feelings because by feeling weird, he is resisting a societal movement.

Let him feel weird about it and get over it.

I'm sure he knows racism is wrong.


----------



## Morrus

Janx said:


> I arguing with him, you de-legitimatize his feelings because by feeling weird, he is resisting a societal movement.
> 
> Let him feel weird about it and get over it.
> 
> I'm sure he knows racism is wrong.




It's a discussion board. We discuss things. Rather defeats the point of it if we don't!


----------



## JediSoth

I will admit that my default vision of Hermione is basically Emma Watson, but that's mostly because I saw the first movie BEFORE I read the books and the actors have colors my perceptions of the characters ever since.

My first thought when I heard they cast a woman of color as Hermione was "I hope she can act."

'Cause I just don't care if she's black or white or yellow with purple polka dots.

I will also admit, there was a time, not so long ago (>5 years) that I would have cared a bit. "She's already established as white!). Fortunately, I got better. I've been trying real hard over the last several years to be the change I want to see in the world.


----------



## Cergorach

I couldn't care less. It's a play, it's separate from the movies. The Lion King play doesn't look like the Disney movie...

If it was movie and a sequel to the movie series (instead of a reboot), it would break my immersion. The same would be true if a previously black character is suddenly played by a white guy/gal. As someone mentioned, unless there's a complete reboot of the Marvel movie franchise, casting Fury as a white guy (as in the original comics) would raise pitchforks! Hell, even another black actor would raise pitchforks. A Terminator that isn't Schwarzenegger isn't a Terminator imho... You also don't mess with the cast of the Star Trek reboot. With Doctor Who, there's an explanation on why he has a different face and personality, but just about every change makes me uncomfortable...


----------



## Umbran

First of all, "best," is so subjective that we won't be able to nail down a useful meaning of in this context.  It isn't like there's an objective measuring system, or something.  In casting, one does not make perfect the enemy of really good.  

But, as for her quality - she's beaten out Cumberbatch for an Olivier award.  In 2015, "she starred in Linda at London's Royal Court Theatre, stepping into the role vacated by Kim Cattrall with a few days notice before press night. Awarding the production five stars, the Daily Telegraph's Chief Theatre Critic Dominic Cavendish wrote "If they can bottle and mass-produce whatever it is that Noma Dumezweni has got then, please, I want to order a life-time’s supply.""

So, I think we can stipulate that, whether or not she is "the best", she's really good, yah?

Then, there is something besides, "we cast this role to create controversy," "we cast this person to throw a bone to minorities," and "this is the absolute best actress that auditioned."

There is also, "we have a vision for what we can do here, and this actress is good for that purpose."

Maybe there was a white actress who was, in all other ways, just slightly better than Noma Dumezweni.  But, the director feels that adding the symbol of a smart, proactive, powerful black woman on the stage is really important.  Not as controversy, not as a bone, but as an outright statement that such things as smart, proactive powerful black women exist!  While there were some secondary character diversity in the works, let's face it, the Potterverse is very white, such that minorities taking in the works don't see themselves as strongly in those characters.  I can see it as worthwhile to change that, to open people's heads a bit.  Art's supposed to do that, you know - not just present a faithful presentation of prior work, not just entertain, but occasionally _open your head a bit_.


----------



## Alzrius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2) as JKR pointed out, her race was never mentioned in the books, so it isn't at odds with the canon.




Just to nitpick (this is from _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban_):


----------



## Morrus

Alzrius said:


> Just to nitpick (this is from _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban_):




That's not a reference to skin colour. Nobody ever, ever says "his white face" or "her black face" or any variation on that, referring to skin colour. That would be such a weird, odd thing to say or write. I'm not exactly a fan of Rowling's writing, but even she doesn't write _that_ badly.

It's a common reference to being scared. It's not referring to race.


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> That's not a reference to skin colour. Nobody ever, ever says "his white face" or "her black face" or any variation on that, referring to skin colour. That would be such a weird, odd thing to say or write. I'm not exactly a fan of Rowling's writing, but even she doesn't write _that_ badly.
> 
> It's a common reference to being scared. It's not referring to race.




I suppose you could read it that way. But you could just as easily read it as referring to race.

That's because people do call out particular characteristics (e.g. "his white face" or "her black face") if there's a reason to emphasize said characteristics in a particular instance. In this instance, you could very well say that there's reason for Rowling to do so. The characters are trying to conceal themselves from view, hiding in a forested area at sundown. Given that Hermione (unlike Harry and Buckbeak) is otherwise concealed, having Caucasian features will thus stand out rather starkly, being immediately noticeable.

At the very least, that's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw; certainly, no more unreasonable than "white face = scared."


----------



## Janx

Alzrius said:


> I suppose you could read it that way. But you could just as easily read it as referring to race.
> 
> That's because people do call out particular characteristics (e.g. "his white face" or "her black face") if there's a reason to emphasize said characteristics in a particular instance. In this instance, you could very well say that there's reason for Rowling to do so. The characters are trying to conceal themselves from view, hiding in a forested area at sundown. Given that Hermione (unlike Harry and Buckbeak) is otherwise concealed, having Caucasian features will thus stand out rather starkly, being immediately noticeable.
> 
> At the very least, that's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw; certainly, no more unreasonable than "white face = scared."




yeah, that's a far stretch to assume "Hermione's white face was sticking out from behind a tree" was referring to a black character.

stereotypically speaking, to a white observer, I'd doubt we could tell if a black person was blushing or "had gone pale" with fright.  Their skin tone is too dark and masks such variance that is far more obvious on a pale complexion face.  Black people most likely do not go "white as a sheet". I of course, stand to be corrected by Danny who has way more experience on the subject.  I'm certain there's cues or subtlety white folk might not be used to.  I'd wonder if black people can recognize blushing or going pale on a white person for the same reason (what are we used to).

Therefore, to a reasonable reader of that text from that book, Hermione was just defined as a white girl, and Rowling forgot.  It happens.

Doesn't mean she has to be that way, which is certainly what Rowling likely intended with her point about not explicitly saying Hermione was white.

Rowling's been retroactively canon-izing traits about her more loosely defined characters for years.  One's gay.  One's jewish.  All because she hadn't explicitly said anything about those characters whose names appeared in her books when she wrote them.  IMO, she is doing so to drive her social acceptance agenda (which is fine, and is her right to do so).  However, I assert that it is BS that she specifically thought to do so back when she started writing or she should have explicitly defined the characters that way.  Fact is, it was not pertinent that a 2nd grader at Hogwarts was gay, trans, jewish, alien-human hybrid or not to the telling of Harry Potter's story.  Doing so may in fact have detracted as mommy read to Timmy, and had to stop and explain what a gay/jewish/transexual second grader is.  It's like extra #65 on the movie set stopping production to ask what his motivation is in the crowd scene at the train station.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Janx said:


> yeah, that's a far stretch to assume "Hermione's white face was sticking out from behind a tree" was referring to a black character.



Rowling is a Brit, like Morrus. Maybe it's a common thing to them. We, as Americans, may not have that same reference... or at least not to the extent that some Brits might. 



> stereotypically speaking, to a white observer, I'd doubt we could tell if a black person was blushing or "had gone pale" with fright.  Their skin tone is too dark and masks such variance that is far more obvious on a pale complexion face.  Black people most likely do not go "white as a sheet". I of course, stand to be corrected by Danny who has way more experience on the subject.  I'm certain there's cues or subtlety white folk might not be used to.  I'd wonder if black people can recognize blushing or going pale on a white person for the same reason (what are we used to).



There are various shades of "black" in people. Some are darker than others. Some are very light skinned. Even so, I've seen some very dark black people that you could easily see the change in tone when scared and sick. 



> Rowling's been retroactively canon-izing traits about her more loosely defined characters for years.  One's gay.  One's jewish.  All because she hadn't explicitly said anything about those characters whose names appeared in her books when she wrote them.  IMO, she is doing so to drive her social acceptance agenda (which is fine, and is her right to do so).  However, I assert that it is BS that she specifically thought to do so back when she started writing or she should have explicitly defined the characters that way.  Fact is, it was not pertinent that a 2nd grader at Hogwarts was gay, trans, jewish, alien-human hybrid or not to the telling of Harry Potter's story.  Doing so may in fact have detracted as mommy read to Timmy, and had to stop and explain what a gay/jewish/transexual second grader is.  It's like extra #65 on the movie set stopping production to ask what his motivation is in the crowd scene at the train station.



You know, I agree with that in a way. A few years ago there was this whole thing about Dumbledorf being gay. People were praising Rowling for putting a gay character in such a successful book and movie series. Something about her being brave. The thing is, she did it after the books were all published and the movies were all out. I thought that was a cop-out on her part. She put it out there after she made her billions, and the fans  had no choice but to accept it. That being said, there was no reason to point out him being gay in the stories. It wouldn't really add to the story.


----------



## Cristian Andreu

Morrus said:


> That's not a reference to skin colour. Nobody ever, ever says "his white face" or "her black face" or any variation on that, referring to skin colour. That would be such a weird, odd thing to say or write. I'm not exactly a fan of Rowling's writing, but even she doesn't write _that_ badly.
> 
> It's a common reference to being scared. It's not referring to race.




I read it in the same manner of what Alzrius says: The way the line is written ("Her white face was *sticking out* from behind a tree") sounds more like the author is trying to convey that her white features are particularly noticeable in the otherwise dark surrounding.

While I'm sure we could make the case for certain facial expressions being slightly more noticeable than others (a gleaming smile should be easier to spot in the darkness than a shut mouth, for instance), it would seem odd to me for the author to express it in such a manner, considering how little difference would "calm face" and "scared face" have in such context.


----------



## Dog Moon

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Assuming the change wasn't made just for the sake of change, or to mix in colors, and it was just the casting director deciding that this was the best actor that auditioned for the part, what is it that you don't like?




To me, it would just hard to see the adult Hermione as black when I watched several movies in which she was white child.  I don't know, maybe it isn't the most logical of opinions but if someone were to make a movie of me as a child and then as an adult it wouldn't feel right if one of them was acted out by a black actor and the other by a white actor because it wouldn't seem like the same person.



Janx said:


> I'm sure he knows racism is wrong.




And this has nothing to do with it.  I sincerely hope Janx is not calling me a racist just because I dislike the idea of changing the race of a character.  I would feel the same way if the positions were reversed, if Hermione as a girl had been portrayed as a black girl and then she was being portrayed as a white adult.  Or Asian or Hispanic or whatever race.

I guess what I dislike is the change.  I wouldn't like it if in the next season of Game of Thrones Tyrion Lannister was portrayed by a six foot four person because the previous actor left the show for whatever reason.  [Please don't call me prejudice against tall people because of this!]  To me the change just wouldn't feel right, even if the new actor was amazingly skillful.


----------



## Janx

Dog Moon said:


> And this has nothing to do with it.  I sincerely hope Janx is not calling me a racist just because I dislike the idea of changing the race of a character.  I would feel the same way if the positions were reversed, if Hermione as a girl had been portrayed as a black girl and then she was being portrayed as a white adult.  Or Asian or Hispanic or whatever race.
> 
> I guess what I dislike is the change.  I wouldn't like it if in the next season of Game of Thrones Tyrion Lannister was portrayed by a six foot four person because the previous actor left the show for whatever reason.  [Please don't call me prejudice against tall people because of this!]  To me the change just wouldn't feel right, even if the new actor was amazingly skillful.




Nope.  definitely not intending to calling you a racist.  I was inarticulately defending you, in fact.

I was pretty sure your reasoning was as you said.


----------



## Umbran

Dog Moon said:


> I guess what I dislike is the change.  I wouldn't like it if in the next season of Game of Thrones Tyrion Lannister was portrayed by a six foot four person because the previous actor left the show for whatever reason.  [Please don't call me prejudice against tall people because of this!]  To me the change just wouldn't feel right, even if the new actor was amazingly skillful.




There's a major difference.  Tyrion being small is formative, even central, to his character.  Hermione being white isn't mentioned until the third book?  That means her whiteness is hardly an important character trait, and is something we could change without altering what really makes her what she is.

If that's your position, never watch more than one version of a Shakespeare play, or take in more than one version of an Arthurian legend.  These things change constantly, with each retelling.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dog Moon said:


> To me, it would just hard to see the adult Hermione as black when I watched several movies in which she was white child.  I don't know, maybe it isn't the most logical of opinions but if someone were to make a movie of me as a child and then as an adult it wouldn't feel right if one of them was acted out by a black actor and the other by a white actor because it wouldn't seem like the same person.



The difference is that you're a real person, and Hermione is a fictional character.


----------



## Janx

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Rowling is a Brit, like Morrus. Maybe it's a common thing to them. We, as Americans, may not have that same reference... or at least not to the extent that some Brits might.
> 
> There are various shades of "black" in people. Some are darker than others. Some are very light skinned. Even so, I've seen some very dark black people that you could easily see the change in tone when scared and sick.




As I figured somebody with more experience would ammend my idea 

For the dark skinned person that you've seen when they were sick/scared, would you have described them to me as "gone white with terror" or some such?  Or more as "his usually midnight skin had gone several shades paler from fright"

I suppose its possible for an author to be ambiguous about skin tone when telling a story, if one is going to insist your story has diverse characters, shouldn't they put their words where their mouth is and say so in the book, not after the fact.


I don't think it really matters in the grand scheme of things.  Just not my preference for handling it.  If I write a novel intending to be diverse, half my characters will be women, and there will be a mix of races such that the main protagonists will not be all white or all male.  10% will be gay or transgender (assuming that's a close estimate of the actual distribution).  And the book will indicate such, even if it's only in passing.  A reader will know "hey, that character is like me." and not feel like it is Token the Black Friend.

Anything less is likely just trying to go back and claim the title.  HP probably doesn't even pass the Bechdel test.


----------



## Dog Moon

Janx said:


> Nope.  definitely not intending to calling you a racist.  I was inarticulately defending you, in fact.
> 
> I was pretty sure your reasoning was as you said.




Ah, I thought the first part might have been, but then the last line made me unsure.  So good to know.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Usually, when the black folk among my kin or circle of friends- all Americans- refer to that kind of illness or fear-induced color change, we'd say "pale" instead of "white".

And again, _JKR_ said that Hermione's race was not mentioned in the books.  So if we're going to nitpick with anyone about that linguistic reference to "white" face, it has to be with the author.


----------



## Dog Moon

Umbran said:


> There's a major difference.  Tyrion being small is formative, even central, to his character.  Hermione being white isn't mentioned until the third book?  That means her whiteness is hardly an important character trait, and is something we could change without altering what really makes her what she is.




Well, the thing is for me, I've never read any of the books.  So to me her being white was brought up pretty much in movie 1 within about .2 seconds of seeing her.  And maybe the race isn't central to her character, but the fact that her character through I forget how many movies was the same white actress through the entire series, her image in totalilty, including skin color, is how I identify Hermione as being Hermione.

And being white isn't an important trait of Batman and could easily be changed without altering what makes him who he is, but it IS one of his characteristics and one way we use to identify him just as the white Hermione is how we identify who she is.

I agree that Tyrion being small IS central to his character, but I was trying to use that as a sort of extreme example in order to demonstrate that my opinion is not based on the opinion that I dislike the change because I don't like black people and that I dislike the change for no other reason than it IS a change.


----------



## Janx

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Usually, when the black folk among my kin or circle of friends- all Americans- refer to that kind of illness or fear-induced color change, we'd say "pale" instead of "white".
> 
> And again, _JKR_ said that Hermione's race was not mentioned in the books.  So if we're going to nitpick with anyone about that linguistic reference to "white" face, it has to be with the author.




Thanks for the info.  Sounds like I was close enough to know that generally a black person wouldn't describe a skin tone shift as "white"


With Rowling, the issue is her retro-active comments seem to push social correctness buttons now, rather than when she wrote the books, approved the cover art with white characters and likely had a hand in approving casting considerations.

So Hermione is white because Rowling chose so in subtle ways with the production of the book covers and movies, and only now is she trying to back-pedal to cover her "openness"


In some ways, none of this matters to the play.  If they have this new play using HP characters, and they've re-cast them with different races, so be it it.  That's cool to see how Hermione plays out differently.

That's not related to my minor beef with Rowling's retro social agendizing of her material with little statements about so & so is this or that, to satisfy some diversity quota she failed to address in the original material.

I have no problem with any of those characters being any of those things.  But it feels phony and contrived to be going back now and declaring all these things about the past books, just to score some diversity points.


----------



## Morrus

Janx said:


> Thanks for the info.  Sounds like I was close enough to know that generally a black person wouldn't describe a skin tone shift as "white"




A black person didn't. A white, English woman did. It's a perfectly cromulent phrase.

Maybe they need to edit the sentence for American audiences. Like they changed "philosopher" to "sorcerer". It's clearly confusing them!


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> A black person didn't. A white, English woman did. It's a perfectly cromulent phrase.
> 
> Maybe they need to edit the sentence for American audiences. Like they changed "philosopher" to "sorcerer". It's clearly confusing them!




Well a sorcerer is clearly evil. Like a witch. May we burn her?


----------



## Janx

Morrus said:


> A black person didn't. A white, English woman did. It's a perfectly cromulent phrase.
> 
> Maybe they need to edit the sentence for American audiences. Like they changed "philosopher" to "sorcerer". It's clearly confusing them!




those of us with a reasonable base of education know what a philosopher's stone is.  The topic is even covered in basic chemistry classes as a historical component about alchemy.  heck, Full Metal Alchemist didn't have to dumb it down.  Don't confuse Hollyweirdisms for americanisms.


"Hermione's white face stuck out from behind the tree"  most clearly tells me she was seen because she is pale and the night is dark and her head was sticking out from behind a tree.

It does little to imply fear in that sentence.  Had she been black, it would have been the whites of her eyes and teeth that gave her away, the rest of her face blending in more readily into the darkness, regardless of how pale she was feeling.


Rowling forgot she wrote that little sentence, and made a declaration that Hermione is raceless in the book, when had she really envisioned a non-white girl and envisioned the scene in actuality, would have come to a different description.

It may be perfectly cromulent, but the glove does not fit.  the probability that an author would describe a black character hiding behind a tree with their head sticking out as "white face" would be one of ignorance to the actual visuals of the scene.

Basically, go get a white and black friend, wait until night, and take some pictures of them hiding behind a tree with their head sticking out.  Heck, film it.  Then draw a gun on them, to get the blanched fear look.

Pretty sure you won't be using the word "white face" to describe the black friend (even without the gun, that's just dangerous), except to be contrary.


----------



## Morrus

Janx said:


> "Hermione's white face stuck out from behind the tree"  most clearly tells me she was seen because she is pale and the night is dark and her head was sticking out from behind a tree.




Yes, you've made it very explicitly clear that's what it says to you. Don't worry. I didn't fail to understand you. 



> It does little to imply fear in that sentence.




To you. To me, it very much implies fear.



> Rowling forgot she wrote that little sentence, and made a declaration that Hermione is raceless in the book, when had she really envisioned a non-white girl and envisioned the scene in actuality, would have come to a different description.




If your position has fallen to inventing what an author does or does not remember or envision, in contrast to what she actually says, I don't really see the point of this conversation.



> It may be perfectly cromulent, but the glove does not fit.  the probability that an author would describe a black character hiding behind a tree with their head sticking out as "white face" would be one of ignorance to the actual visuals of the scene.
> 
> Basically, go get a white and black friend, wait until night, and take some pictures of them hiding behind a tree with their head sticking out.  Heck, film it.  Then draw a gun on them, to get the blanched fear look.
> 
> Pretty sure you won't be using the word "white face" to describe the black friend (even without the gun, that's just dangerous), except to be contrary.




You're confused. It's a perfectly common phrase used to describe fear. The fact that it's not familiar *to you personally* is completely irrelevant. 

But this is getting silly now. I've no intention of repeating myself over and over, or responding to the same posts over and over, and clearly you're not going to be convinced, so I'll drop out of the debate having made my position and opinion clear. We very much disagree on that particular quirk of language, and what it means.


----------



## Janx

I thought of some other experiments (no guns!)

bear in mind, none of my opinion matters on my beef with Rowling's revisions of character definitions.  Her actual choices on these characters are just fine either way.  If you never see a tweet/comment from her and just read the books, you'll envision the characters your way anyway.

Which is another experiment.

Take a black kid who hasn't heard of/seen Harry Potter.  Hand them the book, with the cover art on it.  Let them read it.

Then ask them to describe the characters.  See if they mention race.  If they don't, followup and ask them.   Maybe they envision them all as being black.


Another test:
we know in the movie, at least one girl is black, because she announces all the games, etc.  How does Rowling describe her in the book?  if she defines her race, and not the others, then there is a pattern of defaulting going on that everybody is white until the author says otherwise.  That is most likely how a white reader will interpret it.

Otherwise, the author is playing a "shame on you for assuming..." trick on the reader for not naturally imagining a diverse cast unlike the reader.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

My take on "white face" is that a white author used a perfectly common phrase to describe the appearance of someone going pale with fear and used it, without thinking about the race of the character, since she had never mentioned the character's previously.

That a different phrase might be used by persons of a different ethnicity to describe the blanching of the face in fear* may not have even entered her head because:

1) she didn't know there was one
2) she had no concept of the character's race at all

Ascribing a motive of revision- while something JKR has been said to do- is unnecessary.





* yet another common phrase for the phenomenon deriving from the French for- yes- "white"


----------



## Janx

Morrus said:


> Yes, you've made it very explicitly clear that's what it says to you. Don't worry. I didn't fail to understand you.
> 
> 
> 
> To you. To me, it very much implies fear.
> 
> 
> 
> If your position has fallen to inventing what an author does or does not remember or envision, in contrast to what she actually says, I don't really see the point of this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused. It's a perfectly common phrase used to describe fear. The fact that it's not familiar *to you personally* is completely irrelevant.
> 
> But this is getting silly now. I've no intention of repeating myself over and over, or responding to the same posts over and over, and clearly you're not going to be convinced, so I'll drop out of the debate having made my position and opinion clear. We very much disagree on that particular quirk of language, and what it means.





I am quite familiar with the phrase  as used to describe fear.  Your insult to my competence is noted.  Most cases of its usage likely would be more clear than whether her face was white, or white with fear.  I believe an author would word it differently if they intended "white with fear."  otherwise, of course, we are mincing her words as to her intent.  Which if it's not obvious to us on what to agree that she meant, maybe her sentence wasn't that well constructed, thus part of my point.

As to inventing, no, I am speculating on the probability of human behavior based on the existing examples.  For instance, Bob Salvatore has admitted that he does not remember all the details of his books, and thus, some contradictions are possible.  it is more probable that Rowling does not remember this ONE sentence where she associated the word white with Hermione that might contradict her alleged plan to make Hermione raceless.  One could argue that she only made one writing mistake in that goal, and that it is the mistake that should be disregarded.

I believe it is possible that Rowling has contradicted herself or invented a meaning/intent after the fact.  Not a crime.

This is much like the GMing argument of whether the GM should stick to exactly what's written on the paper, or adjust some things after the fact in play, while hoping not to contradict themselves.

In Rowling's case, it rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## Umbran

Dog Moon said:


> Well, the thing is for me, I've never read any of the books.




So, whose statement on the appearance of Aragorn is the most important - Tolkien's, or Peter Jackson's?

The books are the primary source - it is well known that movies change things from the book content, or define things if they were not explicitly set by the author.  It seems to me that the stage play is fine if it cares more about what is said in the books than what is done in the movie.



> And being white isn't an important trait of Batman and could easily be changed without altering what makes him who he is, but it IS one of his characteristics and one way we use to identify him just as the white Hermione is how we identify who she is.




Spider Man:  Miles Morales.  So awesome a character change that they've bent over backwards to make it so this alternate-universe character made it into the standard continuity.


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> So, whose statement on the appearance of Aragorn is the most important - Tolkien's, or Peter Jackson's?
> 
> The books are the primary source - it is well known that movies change things from the book content, or define things if they were not explicitly set by the author.  It seems to me that the stage play is fine if it cares more about what is said in the books than what is done in the movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Spider Man:  Miles Morales.  So awesome a character change that they've bent over backwards to make it so this alternate-universe character made it into the standard continuity.




That's cool that they found a way to explain it.

I imagine PJ might have had a problem if he tried to spread the skin colors around on the Tolkien races, even though it probably makes sense to do so, and odds are good Tolkien might never have thought to make anybody not-white.

Fixing an oversight, like all the original comic super heroes being white is complicated, but we should probably support them doing it.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That a different phrase might be used by persons of a different ethnicity to describe the blanching of the face in fear* ...




Oh, and another movie quote that's perhaps relevant....

"I'm Winston Zeddmore, Your Honor. I've only been with the company for a couple of weeks, but these things are real. Since I joined these men, I've seen **** that'll turn you white."
-Winston Zeddmore, _Ghostbusters_

This said by a black character, to a white mayor of NYC (as if anyone here didn't recognize it)...


----------



## Janx

Umbran said:


> Oh, and another movie quote that's perhaps relevant....
> 
> "I'm Winston Zeddmore, Your Honor. I've only been with the company for a couple of weeks, but these things are real. Since I joined these men, I've seen **** that'll turn you white."
> -Winston Zeddmore, _Ghostbusters_
> 
> This said by a black character, to a white mayor of NYC (as if anyone here didn't recognize it)...




Though arguably, it does not seem confusing in this context that he could have meant, "you homme's, this stuff so bad it'll turn you white" to mean his black friends would be at risk of being Caucasians.

I don't think so.  in this context, it's obvious he's talking about fear.


Whereas, a white person who is unafraid, hiding behind a tree but peaking out will be spotted by somebody holding a lamp and seeing the light reflected on their face at some distance away.  it is logical, to be read that way, as it is to read it that she was so pale with fear that her face stood out.  It's ambiguously written and for a white character, always resolves to being detectable regardless of interpretation, whereas a black character, might not.  I doubt many people struggled over that passage, but I wonder what picture they had in their mind.


----------



## Janx

Alzrius said:


> Just to nitpick (this is from _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban_):




In re-reading that passage, I'm still not even sure they are eliciting terror from the kids.

They are out sneaking, listening in on a meeting a Hagrids.

scared of getting caught maybe, but not blood draining terror as they hide from a monster.

As I have actually hunted and hidden from, white people in the forest in the dark, I can tell you that faces and regular patterns (straight lines, fabric patterns) give away somebody quite easily in the dark.

Thus, a white girl, peeking out from behind a tree, was likely to be spotted because of her white face.  Best thing to do is look away or down, and not at the person looking for you to cast your face in shadow so light doesn't reflect and make it obvious that there's a face in the darkness.

To each their own.  But if you assumed the characters were white (like the movies depicted) and knew something of stealth, you could easily deduce she was visible because of her skin color and head sticking out, regardless of any other parameters.

I am not sure how well a black girl would stand out.  In the few times, I've seen black people in the dark, I've been struck by how brilliant white their teeth and eyes stand out.  Maybe 20 feet away behind a tree I might not see that, but I know I'd have a very difficult time seeing them if their eyes were closed and mouth was shut facing me in the dark, behind a tree.

Either way, Harry could see her.


----------



## Dog Moon

Umbran said:


> So, whose statement on the appearance of Aragorn is the most important - Tolkien's, or Peter Jackson's?
> 
> The books are the primary source - it is well known that movies change things from the book content, or define things if they were not explicitly set by the author.  It seems to me that the stage play is fine if it cares more about what is said in the books than what is done in the movie.




I would say it depends on the audience and what they're basing their experiences on.  I'm sure there are differences in opinion of those only familiar with the books, those only familiar with the movies and those who are not familiar with any of the previous resources.



Umbran said:


> Spider Man:  Miles Morales.  So awesome a character change that they've bent over backwards to make it so this alternate-universe character made it into the standard continuity.




For example this: I have absolutely no idea who Miles Morales is, so I have no judgment on this character at all.  People can only judge based on their own experiences.

In the case of Hermione, I am judging everything based on my own experiences from watching the movies and not reading the books, so I can only compare future endevours to the movies, such as changing her from white to black, regardless of what she might have been from the movie.  It doesn't mean a person's view based on the books are any less important than my views based on the movie, however, just different sources.


----------



## Janx

Dog Moon said:


> I would say it depends on the audience and what they're basing their experiences on.  I'm sure there are differences in opinion of those only familiar with the books, those only familiar with the movies and those who are not familiar with any of the previous resources.
> 
> 
> 
> For example this: I have absolutely no idea who Miles Morales is, so I have no judgment on this character at all.  People can only judge based on their own experiences.
> 
> In the case of Hermione, I am judging everything based on my own experiences from watching the movies and not reading the books, so I can only compare future endevours to the movies, such as changing her from white to black, regardless of what she might have been from the movie.  It doesn't mean a person's view based on the books are any less important than my views based on the movie, however, just different sources.




Would it be a factor of change-concern if this was a movie intended to be "year 8" of the Harry Potter series, and they just swapped in a black actress?

Or if 10 years from now, they do the remakes of the HP series, and recast it to better match the UK's demographic?

Or if this is somewhat separated new HP story, from a different studio, who wants to do their own interpretation (which is kind of what this play is)?

Personally, I think I can roll with it.  obviously, I'll have my silly "hey that's not how I think it should work" moment like we have here, but I'd probably go see it, and if it's decently done, be happy with it.


----------



## Dog Moon

Janx said:


> Personally, I think I can roll with it.  obviously, I'll have my silly "hey that's not how I think it should work" moment like we have here, but I'd probably go see it, and if it's decently done, be happy with it.




Honestly, if it wasn't for this thread, I probably would have forgotten about the whole situation already because this is fairly close to how I feel.  

It is just a play and one I'll probably never see.  If it was a movie... I'd probably Redbox it, like I do with most movies.  Just because I don't like a change doesn't mean I would completely dismiss the movie.  I'm not furious.  I don't hate the change.  I'm not going to ban the movie from my life because of it.  It's just something I don't like, but not enough that it is really affecting my life in any meaningful ways beyond having a nice discussion on EnWorld about it.

I don't really like the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman, but I still plan to see the movie and will enjoy it, or not, based on its own merit.  I have less interest in seeing Harry Potter than Batman, but that's more or less my feelings on this play.


----------



## Janx

Morrus said:


> But this is getting silly now. I've no intention of repeating myself over and over, or responding to the same posts over and over, and clearly you're not going to be convinced, so I'll drop out of the debate having made my position and opinion clear. We very much disagree on that particular quirk of language, and what it means.




I do apologize for coming on too strongly on this topic.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Janx said:


> As I figured somebody with more experience would ammend my idea
> 
> For the dark skinned person that you've seen when they were sick/scared, would you have described them to me as "gone white with terror" or some such?  Or more as "his usually midnight skin had gone several shades paler from fright"



Let me ask you this. Do you think Collin Powell is particularly dark? Compare him to the singer Seal. Pretty stark difference in skin tone, wouldn't you agree? Best part? To answer your question, yes, to both of your examples. I've met some light skinned black people that you would say they went "white with fear." I've also met some dark skinned black people that you would describe as "gone several shades paler." I've also encountered some black people who had very dark skin tones and I probably wouldn't be able to tell any difference caused by fear, sickness, etc. 



> I suppose its possible for an author to be ambiguous about skin tone when telling a story, if one is going to insist your story has diverse characters, shouldn't they put their words where their mouth is and say so in the book, not after the fact.
> 
> 
> I don't think it really matters in the grand scheme of things.  Just not my preference for handling it.  If I write a novel intending to be diverse, half my characters will be women, and there will be a mix of races such that the main protagonists will not be all white or all male.  10% will be gay or transgender (assuming that's a close estimate of the actual distribution).  And the book will indicate such, even if it's only in passing.  A reader will know "hey, that character is like me." and not feel like it is Token the Black Friend.
> 
> Anything less is likely just trying to go back and claim the title.  HP probably doesn't even pass the Bechdel test.



I agree. The author should put it in the books if they are trying to make a point about diversity. Rowling didn't. Maybe she didn't think it was necessary. Maybe she thought it was obvious that there were various skin tones running around her world. In any case, she said Hermiones race wasn't given. I think we can take the creator's word as fact. Sure, we can focus on one tiny line and say "Ha! Gotcha! Hermiones is white!" because of one little line. The question is, who holds more sway in determining the race of a character? I'm going with the author of the book who created the character.


----------



## Tonguez

heh, I've been away doing Xmas stuff and didn't think this would get quite this much passion

but interesting range of views so far. Two comments to make, firstly I'm fair but not european and it is quite common for us to refer to sick or scared people "wow you look like white like a pakeha (european)" which while not quite White face is getting towards that turn of phrase and also this sentence might suggest Hermione is brown



Prisoner of Azkaban said:


> They were there, both of them, sitting outside Florean Fortescue’s Ice Cream Parlor — Ron looking incredibly freckly, _Hermione very brown_, both waving frantically at him.




oh and I've also seen a black man blush red, not quite as obvious as pink skins but it does happen


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hell, if you look at my family, we range from night to day.  One of my cousins is married to a woman so pale that compared to her parents & siblings, she looks like she was adopted.


----------



## delericho

Janx said:


> Would it be a factor of change-concern if this was a movie intended to be "year 8" of the Harry Potter series, and they just swapped in a black actress?




If they were doing another sequel, all three casting choices would be wrong - they'd need to get Daniel, Emma, and Rupert back. (Also, they should get on with it, because they'd also want Maggie Smith back for a cameo...) They were lucky they were able to recast Dumbledore when they had to.



> Or if 10 years from now, they do the remakes of the HP series, and recast it to better match the UK's demographic?




If doing a remake, on the other hand, they should just cast whoever they feel is best for the roles. If that means Harry or Hermione, or both, are black, then so be it. (Ron's a slightly different case, since he and all his family are repeatedly called out for their ginger hair, which narrows the field considerably.)

That said, they probably shouldn't argue from UK demographics when doing so - Hogwarts is a boarding school, and those are _much_ less diverse than the country as a whole. And also, as far as I know, they don't teach magic.


----------



## Tonguez

delericho said:


> If doing a remake, on the other hand, they should just cast whoever they feel is best for the roles. If that means Harry or Hermione, or both, are black, then so be it. (Ron's a slightly different case, since he and all his family are repeatedly called out for their ginger hair, which narrows the field considerably.)






not sure about acting ability


----------



## delericho

Tonguez said:


> View attachment 72610
> not sure about acting ability




Right, that's Ron. Now, who are you going to cast for Ginny, Arthur, Molly, Percy, Fred, and George?

The issue with Ron isn't just _his_ ginger hair, it's that you need a whole bunch of actors who all have ginger hair and a family resemblance. But if you can find them, that's fine.


----------



## Ryujin

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I agree. The author should put it in the books if they are trying to make a point about diversity. Rowling didn't. Maybe she didn't think it was necessary. Maybe she thought it was obvious that there were various skin tones running around her world. In any case, she said Hermiones race wasn't given. I think we can take the creator's word as fact. Sure, we can focus on one tiny line and say "Ha! Gotcha! Hermiones is white!" because of one little line. The question is, who holds more sway in determining the race of a character? I'm going with the author of the book who created the character.




If she left things purposely vague then I would say it was quite a smart decision, as it allows the reader to more easily see him or herself in them. When I was a child that's the sort of thing that lent all the more to being able to immerse myself in the story.


----------



## Maxperson

JK Rowling herself is the one who cast Emma Watson is Hermione, saying she was perfect for the role.  While she may not have written white and while she likes a black Hermione, she had the vision that in the books Hermione was white.

I don't have problems with adaptions, but an adaption is not the thing.  It's a change into something else that is similar, but not what it was that you adapted from.

This is why despite the name, The LotR and Hobbit movies were not really LotR or the Hobbit, but rather just fantasy movies with the LotR and Hobbit names.  I would watch and enjoy a "Harry Potter" play with a black Hermione, but it wouldn't really be Harry Potter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> JK Rowling herself is the one who cast Emma Watson is Hermione, saying she was perfect for the role. While she may not have written white and while she likes a black Hermione, she had the vision that in the books Hermione was white.




Unless, of course, she was prioritizing "best actress for the role" over other considerations when she cast Emma Watson.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> JK Rowling herself is the one who cast Emma Watson is Hermione, saying she was perfect for the role.  While she may not have written white and while she likes a black Hermione, she had the vision that in the books Hermione was white.




That does not follow.  The actresses perfection will be based on the criteria Rowling *cared* about.  If she didn't care what color Hermione was then Watson's casting doesn't speak to the image she had in mind.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

There is also the possibility that no one of color tried for the role.


----------



## cmad1977

This is an issue? What year is it?


----------



## Janx

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There is also the possibility that no one of color tried for the role.




that too is possible.  Or that the casting call had a filter on, independent of what JK rowling was presented with.  So rowling only got to see white girls.

Or nobody thought of all this way back when the books were being written and casting was happening and white was what you cast until you asked for black.  Beats me I don't work in hollywierd.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> JK Rowling herself is the one who cast Emma Watson is Hermione, saying she was perfect for the role.  While she may not have written white and while she likes a black Hermione, she had the vision that in the books Hermione was white.
> 
> I don't have problems with adaptions, but an adaption is not the thing.  It's a change into something else that is similar, but not what it was that you adapted from.
> 
> This is why despite the name, The LotR and Hobbit movies were not really LotR or the Hobbit, but rather just fantasy movies with the LotR and Hobbit names.  I would watch and enjoy a "Harry Potter" play with a black Hermione, but it wouldn't really be Harry Potter.




Unless it is stated in the text itself that she is white, then I don't why we have to assume she had a vision of Hermione as white. I mean JK Rowling could have chosen Emma Watson for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with her skin tone (and it is entirely possible skin tone wasn't even a consideration on Rowling's mind).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Janx said:


> Would it be a factor of change-concern if this was a movie intended to be "year 8" of the Harry Potter series, and they just swapped in a black actress?
> 
> Or if 10 years from now, they do the remakes of the HP series, and recast it to better match the UK's demographic?
> 
> Or if this is somewhat separated new HP story, from a different studio, who wants to do their own interpretation (which is kind of what this play is)?
> 
> Personally, I think I can roll with it.  obviously, I'll have my silly "hey that's not how I think it should work" moment like we have here, but I'd probably go see it, and if it's decently done, be happy with it.




Obviously when you are continuing a series, and going from like part 6 to 7, you want the same actor or actress if possible, or someone who resembles that person. But if its the kind of thing where a reset has been hit (like in the James Bond movies where new actors step in all the time) or a show or film that has been remade a bunch of time, sometimes it can be a lot more interesting to play with expectations. 

Personally I don't care what color the person who plays Hermione is. It isn't like her character suddenly becomes implausible because she is black.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Unless it is stated in the text itself that she is white, then I don't why we have to assume she had a vision of Hermione as white. I mean JK Rowling could have chosen Emma Watson for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with her skin tone (and it is entirely possible skin tone wasn't even a consideration on Rowling's mind).




If someone is perfect for for a role and you change one single thing, then that person is no longer perfect for that role.  Perfection is like that.

In any case, it really doesn't matter to me whether Hermione is black or white in the play, the play will likely change the story enough to not be Harry Potter other than the name and basic story.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> If someone is perfect for for a role and you change one single thing, then that person is no longer perfect for that role.  Perfection is like that.
> 
> In any case, it really doesn't matter to me whether Hermione is black or white in the play, the play will likely change the story enough to not be Harry Potter other than the name and basic story.




That makes very little sense. An overly literal interpretation of perfect. By that logic, unless the next actor is a clone of the first, no one can replace them. Certainly the first actor creates an imprint that people weigh when a person follows in their footsteps. That doesn't mean a black actor can't play the role if a white person played it first (or that they are any less perfect for the role). When we say "perfect for the role" we are talking about the essential not the accidental qualities they bring to the character. Emma Watson's whiteness has no real impact on the character, it isn't an essential ingredient as far as I can tell. If it were important to her character for some reason, then I could see your point. But as far as I can see there isn't anything about her being white that is important.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> If someone is perfect for for a role and you change one single thing, then that person is no longer perfect for that role.




Well that's a logical fallacy if I ever saw one! 

Two people can be perfect for a role. Perfection is not an exclusive condition.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> Well that's a logical fallacy if I ever saw one!
> 
> Two people can be perfect for a role. Perfection is not an exclusive condition.




I depends on what you are comparing.  Two diamonds can be both perfect and different.  The perfect key for the lock is going to have only one way for the teeth to be since changing the teeth will cause it to be unable to open the lock.  Other perfect keys will be identical to the first in in that regard.  A role is like a lock.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> I depends on what you are comparing.  Two diamonds can be both perfect and different.  The perfect key for the lock is going to have only one way for the teeth to be since changing the teeth will cause it to be unable to open the lock.  Other perfect keys will be identical to the first in in that regard.  A role is like a lock.




Of course it's not. What a bizarre thing to say. Watch a few performances of Hamlet.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I depends on what you are comparing.  Two diamonds can be both perfect and different.  The perfect key for the lock is going to have only one way for the teeth to be since changing the teeth will cause it to be unable to open the lock.  Other perfect keys will be identical to the first in in that regard.  A role is like a lock.




I have to agree with Morrus. Again, this would mean only clones are a good fit for a given role once you've found the 'perfect actor'. But we've seen many actors with very different physical appearances play the same role perfectly. Again, they can leave an imprint, and the source text can make it harder to go in certain directions, but for a film role, minor details can certainly change from actor to actor.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> Of course it's not. What a bizarre thing to say. Watch a few performances of Hamlet.




Why?  Many people can play a role.  The overwhelming majority will not be a perfect fit.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I have to agree with Morrus. Again, this would mean only clones are a good fit for a given role once you've found the 'perfect actor'. But we've seen many actors with very different physical appearances play the same role perfectly. Again, they can leave an imprint, and the source text can make it harder to go in certain directions, but for a film role, minor details can certainly change from actor to actor.




No.  There are many good fits.  We aren't talking about a good fit.  We're talking perfection.  I've never seen multiple actors play one role perfectly.  It's the main reason why I dislike remakes.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> Why?  Many people can play a role.  The overwhelming majority will not be a perfect fit.




Nobody is perfect, ever. The very concept of perfection does not exist. Lots of people are very good. Why on earth is this even a conversation

Are we defining perfection as "a thing Maxperson likes"?

I don't think she was very good at all. Neither was Radcliffe. Dangers of casting child actors, I guess.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> Nobody is perfect, ever. The very concept of perfection does not exist. Lots of people are very good. Why on earth is this even a conversation
> 
> Are we defining perfection as "a thing Maxperson likes"?
> 
> I don't think she was very good at all. Neither was Radcliffe. Dangers of casting child actors, I guess.




It's not my definition.  Rowling declared her to be perfect for the role.  Personally, I really liked both of those actors in those roles.  I couldn't say if they were perfect, though, because they weren't my vision.  Only Rowling could say that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It's not my definition.  Rowling declared her to be perfect for the role.  Personally, I really liked both of those actors in those roles.  I couldn't say if they were perfect, though, because they weren't my vision.  Only Rowling could say that.




Then this is just sophistry on your part. You know perfectly well that when JK Rowling said Emma Watson was perfect, she wasn't saying anything more than "she is a really, really good fit for the role". She wasn't establishing some sort of precedent about what hair color or eye color hermione had. And this is obvious because she approved of a black actress playing Hermione and went out of her way to show that Hermione's skin color was never mentioned in the books.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> It's not my definition.  Rowling declared her to be perfect for the role.




Well, given the two relevant concepts for interpreting that: (1) colloquial speech; (2) there is no perfection.

Assuming you don't dispute either of those two things, you can't use the actresses's 'perfection' as a premise of an argument. Well, you can, but if your initial premise  is flawed.

I'm kinda struggling to understand even the motive for doing so. Why is it important to make so much effort to prove a fictional character is white, even against the stated opinion of her creator? To what end is this effort? 

I don't get it. If the author says her intention was to not define a character's race, why is it  so important to prove that the character is white? 
L


----------



## Bedrockgames

Morrus said:


> Well, given the two relevant concepts for interpreting that: (1) colloquial speech; (2) there is no perfection.
> 
> Assuming you don't dispute either of those two things, you can't use the actresses's 'perfection' as a premise of an argument. Well, you can, but if your initial premise  is flawed.
> 
> I'm kinda struggling to understand even the motive for doing so. Why is it important to make so much effort to prove a fictional character is white, even against the stated opinion of her creator? To what end is this effort?
> 
> I don't get it. If the author says her intention was to not define a character's race, why is it  so important to prove that the character is white?
> L




This is what I don't get. I understand when the original story has specific features listed and people have a hard time reconciling an actor who doesn't fit that description (when Daniel Craig was announced as James Bond for instance, it didn't bother me that he had lighter hair than prior bonds, but I got why it mattered to people). But in this case the author has pointed out the text says nothing of Hermione's skin color, has expressed her approval of Hermione being played by a black actress, and I just don't see how one can make it a canon issue if that is the case.


----------



## megamania

So...... did everyone hate "The Wiz" also?


Comon folks.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

megamania said:


> So...... did everyone hate "The Wiz" also?
> 
> 
> Comon folks.




There was plenty of hate for The Wiz.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/12/03/the-wiz-live-racist-all-black-cast-nbc-twitter/


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> Well, given the two relevant concepts for interpreting that: (1) colloquial speech; (2) there is no perfection.
> 
> Assuming you don't dispute either of those two things, you can't use the actresses's 'perfection' as a premise of an argument. Well, you can, but if your initial premise  is flawed.




When she wrote the story, she had in mind who the characters were, even their races.  When she cast the movies, those races were reflected in her choices.  She was trying to cast the characters that she wrote about, even if she didn't directly write a race in.  We didn't get a white or black Cho for instance.  She was Asian.  



> I'm kinda struggling to understand even the motive for doing so. Why is it important to make so much effort to prove a fictional character is white, even against the stated opinion of her creator? To what end is this effort?
> 
> I don't get it. If the author says her intention was to not define a character's race, why is it  so important to prove that the character is white?
> L




She never said, at least not in the articles I read, that she intended not to define Hermione's race.  She said she never wrote the race in the book and that she loves the idea of a black Hermione.  That's different than Rowling saying that Hermione didn't have a race and she didn't have an idea of what that race was.

It's not important to prove that the character is white.  It's just pretty clear that the character is white or she would have been cast as a different race for the movies.  It's not as if Rowling didn't have the various races represented in her books and movies.


----------



## tomBitonti

Eh, I don't see the issue.  If Hermione's hair color were changed to black or blond, what difference would that make?  Why should skin color be any more of an issue?  How is it that skin color rises to a significance to be noteworthy?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Maxperson

tomBitonti said:


> Eh, I don't see the issue.  If Hermione's hair color were changed to black or blond, what difference would that make?  Why should skin color be any more of an issue?  How is it that skin color rises to a significance to be noteworthy?
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




If the next James Bond is Asian, I won't go see it.  If they make a movie about the life of Bruce Lee and cast a white guy, I won't go see it.  If the next spiderman remake has Peter Parker as a black guy, I won't go see it.  Once race has been established for a character, changing it causes the whole movie/play to feel off.  

That said, since this play isn't really Harry Potter, I don't really care what color Hermione is in it.  If however, JK Rowling makes another Harry Potter movie and Hermione is black without some sort of explanation (magic gone wrong), I won't go see it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> If the next *James Bond* is Asian, I won't go see it.  If they make a movie about the life of *Bruce Lee* and cast a white guy, I won't go see it.  If the next spiderman remake has *Peter Parker* as a black guy, I won't go see it.  Once race has been established for a character, changing it causes the whole movie/play to feel off.



I'm curious; can you guess the difference between the three individuals you've named?


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'm curious; can you guess the difference between the three individuals you've named?




There are lots of differences.  Which one are you talking about?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

The most obvious one.


----------



## Janx

Maxperson said:


> I depends on what you are comparing.  Two diamonds can be both perfect and different.  The perfect key for the lock is going to have only one way for the teeth to be since changing the teeth will cause it to be unable to open the lock.  Other perfect keys will be identical to the first in in that regard.  A role is like a lock.




This is a logical fallacy.

If you don't have the perfect key, then the lock cannot open.

However, if you swap out one actor for another, the play can go on (and has for zillions of Shakespeare performances).

Therefore, an Actor is more like a diamond than a key, using your analogy.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> The most obvious one.




Ahh, okay.  Bond uses a gun and dresses in a tuxedo, spideman uses webs and dresses in a costume, and Bruce Lee dresses normally and uses nunchucks.

What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Maxperson

Janx said:


> This is a logical fallacy.
> 
> If you don't have the perfect key, then the lock cannot open.
> 
> However, if you swap out one actor for another, the play can go on (and has for zillions of Shakespeare performances).
> 
> Therefore, an Actor is more like a diamond than a key, using your analogy.




Sure it can.  I have had keys that were not perfect.  Sometimes you had to jiggle them a bit, but the locks opened.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> That said, since this play *isn't really Harry Potter*, I don't really care what color Hermione is in it.  If however, JK Rowling makes another Harry Potter movie and Hermione is black without some sort of explanation (magic gone wrong), I won't go see it.




Emphasis mine.

Having never read Potter, I have no horse in this race, but I've seen this sentiment elsewhere as well (on this topic, but also frequently on stuff related to ASoIaF and Game of Thrones), and I have to say, I don't get it.

I get that not everyone will like a particular adaptation, but that turn of phrase makes it seem like such a described piece of media doesn't count as an adaptation (which is clearly wrong).

Otherwise, it's a superfluous truism - obviously, yes, it's not the next Harry Potter book, because it's not a Harry Potter book.

Or is the issue that Rowling didn't write the adaptation? My understanding is she's involved in the production, so it's not like this a glorified fanfic (compare to some of the recent Trek fan productions which while often quite faithful and occasionally good, have no official backing). She's just not writing, which to be honest, makes sense. Writing a play is a different skillset than writing a novel.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Ahh, okay.  Bond uses a gun and dresses in a tuxedo, spideman uses webs and dresses in a costume, and Bruce Lee dresses normally and uses nunchucks.
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?



Oh you coy little harlot. Acting as if you don't know which difference I'm referring to. Come on, give it one more try.


----------



## cmad1977

Maxperson said:


> I depends on what you are comparing.  Two diamonds can be both perfect and different.  The perfect key for the lock is going to have only one way for the teeth to be since changing the teeth will cause it to be unable to open the lock.  Other perfect keys will be identical to the first in in that regard.  A role is like a lock.




Face palm.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Sure it can.  I have had keys that were not perfect.  Sometimes you had to jiggle them a bit, but the locks opened.




Doesn't matter what color the key is though. As long as the teeth are in the right place, they can be a perfect fit. That is the point people are making about actors. I can understand there being an issue if you worry about continuity (i.e. the actor in part 1 was white and now the actor in part 2 is black, yet this isn't addressed). For certain movies that kind of change would be quite jarring, but if you are talking about a remake where the character is a different race, I think that i s very different, and you are more getting into the territory of the perfect keys. If race is particularly essential to the character, then obviously it could still be an issue. If it is not essential, then it really isn't a problem.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Doesn't matter what color the key is though. As long as the teeth are in the right place, they can be a perfect fit. That is the point people are making about actors. I can understand there being an issue if you worry about continuity (i.e. the actor in part 1 was white and now the actor in part 2 is black, yet this isn't addressed). For certain movies that kind of change would be quite jarring, but if you are talking about a remake where the character is a different race, I think that i s very different, and you are more getting into the territory of the perfect keys. If race is particularly essential to the character, then obviously it could still be an issue. If it is not essential, then it really isn't a problem.




I'd never go see a female or black 007.  I'd never go see an Asian Spiderman.  If they tried to give me a white Martin Luther King or Powerman, I'd be upset.  Once race and sex are established for a character, they should be adhered to.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I'd never go see a female or black 007.  I'd never go see an Asian Spiderman.  If they tried to give me a white Martin Luther King or Powerman, I'd be upset.  Once race and sex are established for a character, they should be adhered to.




Like I said, for historical figures or characters where race is important, I understand. A white Martin Luther king or black FDR wouldn't exactly work in a movie. And for connected films I get it (having someone black in part I then white in part II would make for odd consistency. But a black Annie or Asian Walker Texas ranger would not bother me if they are starting a new one.


----------



## tomBitonti

I'm surprised no-one has raised the reason which would actually make sense to use: Harmione is a _mudblood_, a person with wizardry powers born of mundane parents (parent?).  Her racial similarity to other students is useful then to enhance the audience distaste for the discrimination that she faces.  Placing a black actress next to an otherwise white cast would tie the discrimination to discrimination against people of color.

(The schools _do_ reflect the regions from which their students are drawn.  Compare the Hogwort's students with the students from the other schools.  Students such as Cho are clearly the minority.  And the inclusion of Cho as a person of Asian descent means that Rowlings _was_ thinking of the races of the students.)

Thx!
TomB


----------



## cmad1977

Maxperson said:


> I'd never go see a female or black 007.  I'd never go see an Asian Spiderman.  If they tried to give me a white Martin Luther King or Powerman, I'd be upset.  Once race and sex are established for a character, they should be adhered to.




Because the race of bond or Spider-Man is integral to their character. Makes sense...
If you don't make sense.


----------



## Dog Moon

tomBitonti said:


> I'm surprised no-one has raised the reason which would actually make sense to use: Harmione is a _mudblood_, a person with wizardry powers born of mundane parents (parent?).  Her racial similarity to other students is useful then to enhance the audience distaste for the discrimination that she faces.  Placing a black actress next to an otherwise white cast would tie the discrimination to discrimination against people of color.
> 
> (The schools _do_ reflect the regions from which their students are drawn.  Compare the Hogwort's students with the students from the other schools.  Students such as Cho are clearly the minority.  And the inclusion of Cho as a person of Asian descent means that Rowlings _was_ thinking of the races of the students.)
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




Interesting.  I hadn't even realized that.  Maybe they mentioned it in the movies, but it's been such a long time since I've seen them I honestly can't even remember.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> I'd never go see a female or black *007*.  I'd never go see an Asian *Spiderman*.  If they tried to give me a white *Martin Luther King* or *Powerman*, I'd be upset.  Once race and sex are established for a character, they should be adhered to.



Yeah because Martin Luther King is the same as the others.


----------



## Maxperson

cmad1977 said:


> Because the race of bond or Spider-Man is integral to their character. Makes sense...
> If you don't make sense.




There's nothing anymore integral about Bond's or Spiderman's race than there is with Hermione.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yeah because Martin Luther King is the same as the others.




You saying someone couldn't cast him as a white guy if they wanted?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> You saying someone couldn't cast him as a white guy if they wanted?



You're asking the wrong question. Try again.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You're asking the wrong question. Try again.




No.  I won't play your games.  If you want me to engage with you, you'll need to respond in a way that actually contributes to the conversation and doesn't involve game playing.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> No.  I won't play your games.  If you want me to engage with you, you'll need to respond in a way that actually contributes to the conversation and doesn't involve game playing.



That's rich. You're accusing _me_ of playing games? Ha! That's a good one Maxi. Now go ahead and post another list of fictitious characters with one real person and pretend that they are all real.


----------



## Umbran

Gentlemen,

This has generally been a civil, interesting, and engaging thread.  The two of you are stinking it up with your head-butting.  Please stop. 

If you do not engage in the thread like mature adults, you'll be asked to leave the discussion.


----------



## Dog Moon

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's rich. You're accusing _me_ of playing games? Ha! That's a good one Maxi. Now go ahead and post another list of fictitious characters with one real person and pretend that they are all real.




While you are trying to get Max to look at the differences between them, it is also your responsibility to look at the similarities.

The point was not whether they were real people or fictitious people, the point was that we have all become accustomed to the person because of the way they have been throughout the entirety of history, whether real life history or fictional history.  So while changing the race of a real person in a movie is different than changing the race of a fictional person in a movie for the obvious reason, they are also similar in that in both they go against the established race of the character, whether because the person was born of a particular race [Bruce Lee] or was simply given that race in a comic book or whatever [Batman/Spiderman].

In fact, I would bet some people probably know more about the history of Batman or Spiderman than they actually do Bruce Lee despite him being a real person because they are more familiar with them.


----------



## Maxperson

Dog Moon said:


> While you are trying to get Max to look at the differences between them, it is also your responsibility to look at the similarities.
> 
> The point was not whether they were real people or fictitious people, the point was that we have all become accustomed to the person because of the way they have been throughout the entirety of history, whether real life history or fictional history.  So while changing the race of a real person in a movie is different than changing the race of a fictional person in a movie for the obvious reason, they are also similar in that in both they go against the established race of the character, whether because the person was born of a particular race [Bruce Lee] or was simply given that race in a comic book or whatever [Batman/Spiderman].
> 
> In fact, I would bet some people probably know more about the history of Batman or Spiderman than they actually do Bruce Lee despite him being a real person because they are more familiar with them.




Bingo.  Thanks.


----------



## Umbran

Dog Moon said:


> So while changing the race of a real person in a movie is different than changing the race of a fictional person in a movie for the obvious reason, they are also similar in that in both they go against the established race of the character...




That similarity is trivial - it is a similarity of linguistics, not a similarity of the implications of the action.  

We should not, through linguistic judo, come to the conclusion that real people do not deserve rather more respect for their persons and stories than fictional ones do.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

sometimes changing race/gender changes the story, and sometimes it doesn't. 

Sometimes that change is the point...


example... I write a story where in the early 1900's an irish immigrant faces lots of racial prejudice and NINA signs... I call this character John McCormic.   A few years later someone takes and adapts the story to film (yea me I sold my book THEN sold the movie rights...) and they cast John Mccormic as an Asian woman.  Does that change the story... yes it does.   a few years later someone wants to adapt the movie in a reboot (yea now I have 2 movies... cool) and they cast a black actor and have it take place in 1963, it's a change but is that more or less then the last?


I would totally watch the hell out of a female 007. It's the year 2015...um almost 2016. If you say hire a 30 something actress she was born in the 70's, and was a teen ager in the late 80's early 90's and recruited to MI6 in the late 90's... I think we had very successful female spies by then...

imagine the hard drinking sexually premisquise psychopath with a licence to kill... is there anything that requires that to be male?


In a sexism thread a few months ago I did a whole gender flip thing with movies, and how you really odn't care the sex most of the time...  in that I proposed a slight flip in the two star wars movies "empire strikes back" and "Retuern of the Jedi"
       "Luke, obi wan never told you what happened to your parents..."
       "He told me enough, he told me you killed them..."
       "No luke... I am your mother..."
       under the mechanics and suit it could be anyone. But then at the end of Jedi, luke in his fear and being beaten by the empereor calls out "Mother..."


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> That similarity is trivial - it is a similarity of linguistics.
> 
> We should not, through linguistic judo, come to the conclusion that real people do not deserve rather more respect for their persons and stories than fictional ones do.




It's not a matter of respect, though.  The point is that going against the grain, regardless of how that grain was established is going to seem off to a great many people.  Would I be more upset over a white Martin Luther King than I would be over a black Spiderman?  Yes, probably.  Would it ultimately matter?  No.  I wouldn't go see either show.  Both examples go against the grain.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> sometimes changing race/gender changes the story, and sometimes it doesn't.
> 
> Sometimes that change is the point...
> 
> 
> example... I write a story where in the early 1900's an irish immigrant faces lots of racial prejudice and NINA signs... I call this character John McCormic.   A few years later someone takes and adapts the story to film (yea me I sold my book THEN sold the movie rights...) and they cast John Mccormic as an Asian woman.  Does that change the story... yes it does.   a few years later someone wants to adapt the movie in a reboot (yea now I have 2 movies... cool) and they cast a black actor and have it take place in 1963, it's a change but is that more or less then the last?
> 
> 
> I would totally watch the hell out of a female 007. It's the year 2015...um almost 2016. If you say hire a 30 something actress she was born in the 70's, and was a teen ager in the late 80's early 90's and recruited to MI6 in the late 90's... I think we had very successful female spies by then...
> 
> imagine the hard drinking sexually premisquise psychopath with a licence to kill... *is there anything that requires that to be male?[/q]*



*

Yes.  007 is male.  His name is James Bond, not Jamie Bondage.  Now, if they want to do a movie about 003 and her people, I would be very happy to watch it.*


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> Yes.  007 is male.  His name is James Bond, not Jamie Bondage.  Now, if they want to do a movie about 003 and her people, I would be very happy to watch it.




what changes about the character though... list any 10 traits he has, and they can equally be applied to a she. Heck unless you count peeing while standing I don't know what would change...

flirt to get info... check
drink voka martine made the wrong way... check
be worlds least secrete secret agent... check
sleep with 2 people in the same movie, one being the person you should protect the other a villain... check
break rules and get away with it because plot...check
blow something up... check
get into fight with side kick of villain.... check
spout some kinda funny kinda corny one liners... check
claim to be doing it for queen and country.... check


----------



## Bedrockgames

Dog Moon said:


> While you are trying to get Max to look at the differences between them, it is also your responsibility to look at the similarities.
> 
> The point was not whether they were real people or fictitious people, the point was that we have all become accustomed to the person because of the way they have been throughout the entirety of history, whether real life history or fictional history.  So while changing the race of a real person in a movie is different than changing the race of a fictional person in a movie for the obvious reason, they are also similar in that in both they go against the established race of the character, whether because the person was born of a particular race [Bruce Lee] or was simply given that race in a comic book or whatever [Batman/Spiderman].
> 
> In fact, I would bet some people probably know more about the history of Batman or Spiderman than they actually do Bruce Lee despite him being a real person because they are more familiar with them.




I can understand the reasoning, and I can certainly appreciate if someone has trouble adjusting due to a sense of things not being consistent. But what I think is a bit silly, is instead of people framing this as their personal preference, it is framed as a blanket rule (i.e. movies and shows ought not change the race of a character). When I think that is a judgement call that really needs to be weighed form production to production. Like I said, I wouldn't advise changing race of a character mid trilogy, but if it's a reboot or just a really long series with a tradition of changing actors (like James Bond), I find it being open to different physical types to play the role can be both refreshing to the franchise and truly allow for the best actor for that role to be selected. Case by case obviously. In this instance, there is just nothing about Hermione in particular that suggests to me she needs to be white. If they had altered the character midway through the movie series, that would have been an issue for. But this is a completely new production. Having someone play the role who looks different form the original actor in the movie isn't going to phase me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Umbran said:


> That similarity is trivial - it is a similarity of linguistics, not a similarity of the implications of the action.
> 
> We should not, through linguistic judo, come to the conclusion that real people do not deserve rather more respect for their persons and stories than fictional ones do.




what isn't respectful though?

Will smith is a great actor... er well was a great actor, I admit his recent movies being hit or miss... there is no reason why if you are casting a charismatic and some what doffy but still loveable action character he can't play it. If the story doen't care if you are black or white why should the audience?  Is it disrespect ful to get him to play you? I know that I would be flattered (as a white 35 year old dude) to be told my story was being brought to the screen by him...

My life wouldn't be much different if I were black, or Asian... some people would even say if I were a woman I would be the same person (depending on who with differing levels of being mean when saying it, but still). 

now martin luther king isn't different because he is real... he is different because his race matters. Fighting for Black rights is his story...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bedrockgames said:


> I can understand the reasoning, and I can certainly appreciate if someone has trouble adjusting due to a sense of things not being consistent. But what I think is a bit silly, is instead of people framing this as their personal preference, it is framed as a blanket rule (i.e. movies and shows ought not change the race of a character). When I think that is a judgement call that really needs to be weighed form production to production. Like I said, I wouldn't advise changing race of a character mid trilogy, but if it's a reboot or just a really long series with a tradition of changing actors (like James Bond), I find it being open to different physical types to play the role can be both refreshing to the franchise and truly allow for the best actor for that role to be selected. Case by case obviously. In this instance, there is just nothing about Hermione in particular that suggests to me she needs to be white. If they had altered the character midway through the movie series, that would have been an issue for. But this is a completely new production. Having someone play the role who looks different form the original actor in the movie isn't going to phase me.





from a failed writer's point of view (still fingers crossed my book will sell) I will say when you explore a story making minor changes is fine... especially if you do so with an eye for how this change effect the story in theme or plot or any other element. Especially in long run stories like almost any silver or golden age comic, or any film series with 10+ movies in it. Taking a new approach could revitalize the stories... make 3-5 minor changes to the characters or setting and see how they change...

I really want to see Jamie Bond, 007 of her majesties secret service with a license to kill


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> what changes about the character though... list any 10 traits he has, and they can equally be applied to a she. Heck unless you count peeing while standing I don't know what would change...
> 
> flirt to get info... check
> drink voka martine made the wrong way... check
> be worlds least secrete secret agent... check
> sleep with 2 people in the same movie, one being the person you should protect the other a villain... check
> break rules and get away with it because plot...check
> blow something up... check
> get into fight with side kick of villain.... check
> spout some kinda funny kinda corny one liners... check
> claim to be doing it for queen and country.... check




With Bond I can understand people not wanting much deviation from the established type because that is a character that has been around forever and people have to buy the actor is Bond each time they change. Personally if the actor were good, a black james bond would be fine with me. But I get why there would be resistance to that kind of change. As I said earlier, Daniel Craig was a little jarring for people at first because he has slightly lighter hair than a typical Bond. Any change like that is going to be a risk. Maybe a risk that ought to be taken in the right conditions, but still a risk. I'm okay with such a change for Bond, but I don't think someone wanting Bond to stay kind of the same means they are being sexist or racist or anything like that.

To me that kind of thinking just strikes me as being overly rigid about canon. It is like when you go watch a movie based on a science fiction book and someone is there criticizing every little change from the source material. I don't want to see the same thing on the screen each time they remake something. Sometimes it is nice to have a series that follows source material well (especially for things like getting people into the books) but if I've already read the books, it isn't like I need to supplement that with a step by step reenactment on screen. I'd rather than translate the source material into something that fits the medium of film. That often requires changes. 

But Hermione is very different from Bond. She has only been played by one actress so far, and it isn't like a 'type' has been established. The author herself says skin tone has nothing to do with the character, so it seems like she is much more of an open slate.


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> example... I write a story where in the early 1900's an irish immigrant faces lots of racial prejudice and NINA signs... I call this character John McCormic.   A few years later someone takes and adapts the story to film (yea me I sold my book THEN sold the movie rights...) and they cast John Mccormic as an Asian woman.  Does that change the story... yes it does.   a few years later someone wants to adapt the movie in a reboot (yea now I have 2 movies... cool) and they cast a black actor and have it take place in 1963, it's a change but is that more or less then the last?




This is a very interesting example and it highlights one of the reasons I think you have to be open to changing these sorts of details. If you were to set the first story in 1963 or 2016 it would make almost no sense with the character as an Irish Immigrant. For the story to work in an up to date setting, you have to alter the characters ethnicity. You see this all the time with movies. For example mafia films. Every decade that goes by, it gets harder and harder to do an Italian mafia in the US storyline. If they were to remake the Godfather for example, they'd almost be better off doing another type of syndicate (like Russian or Albanian or something) because there really aren't guys who act like Don Corleone in the US anymore. Most Italians are 3rd, 4th or 5th generation. A character like Michael just doesn't feel as plausible as he would if he was from a background of a more recent immigrant group. I am not saying changing the Corleone's to another ethnicity is absolutely the way to go, but I can definitely see a case for making that kind of change on the grounds that times are just different now.


----------



## Bedrockgames

GMforPowergamers said:


> what isn't respectful though?
> 
> Will smith is a great actor... er well was a great actor, I admit his recent movies being hit or miss... there is no reason why if you are casting a charismatic and some what doffy but still loveable action character he can't play it. If the story doen't care if you are black or white why should the audience?  Is it disrespect ful to get him to play you? I know that I would be flattered (as a white 35 year old dude) to be told my story was being brought to the screen by him...
> 
> My life wouldn't be much different if I were black, or Asian... some people would even say if I were a woman I would be the same person (depending on who with differing levels of being mean when saying it, but still).
> 
> now martin luther king isn't different because he is real... he is different because his race matters. Fighting for Black rights is his story...




I don't know if it is an issue of respect, but it is history. You are talking about something that actually happened and it is not terribly accurate if you change too many details (even if they don't seem like important details). In a history movie, using the wrong period sword or armor can leave a lasting impression that takes ages to undo (sometimes it is very effective though). I am not as picky about this stuff as I used to be, but still it would be nice if film makers tried to stay a little more accurate with this kind of stuff. I get that changes have to be made out of consideration for story. But you are genuinely going to confuse people if you make a major historical figure into a different sex or race when they try to learn about it after. If it is done skillfully for a particular purpose that makes sense, I can understand it. Also it does depend on the kind of film. If Tarantino is making a movie based on Billy the Kid and changes him to Wilma, that might be cool (and no one is expecting it to be an austere representation of the past), if Spielberg is making oscar fodder, I'd hope they wouldn't make that sort of alteration. If people were more well versed in history, I'd probably be less finicky here, but let's face it, most Americans are getting their history from film.


----------



## Ryujin

I would be a little put off if Dominic Flandry was played by someone other than a central Indian or perhaps Polynesian actor., as the books are rather explicit as to his physical appearance. I'm actually surprised, given the recent spate of SciFi action adventure movies, that no one seems to have optioned that series.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dog Moon said:


> While you are trying to get Max to look at the differences between them, it is also your responsibility to look at the similarities.



Similarities like both list comparing fiction characters to real people? Yeah, I noticed that. 



> The point was not whether they were real people or fictitious people, the point was that we have all become accustomed to the person because of the way they have been throughout the entirety of history, whether real life history or fictional history.



Hold on a second, let me get this straight. You "became accustomed" to Bruce Lee's and Martin Luther King's race? 




> So while changing the race of a real person in a movie is different than changing the race of a fictional person in a movie for the obvious reason, they are also similar in that in both they go against the established race of the character, whether because the person was born of a particular race [Bruce Lee] or was simply given that race in a comic book or whatever [Batman/Spiderman].



"Established race?" No, in Bruce Lee's and Martin Luther King's cases, it isn't "the established race of the character." It's the race of a person who was real. You don't "establish" their race. Martin Luther King was black. Bruce Lee was Asian. 

Let me ask you this, why do you think a character like Batman, a comic book character made up in 1939, was White? Do you think he could as easily have been "established" as Black or Asian? 

How about this; what does Batman's being White add to the story? 



> In fact, I would bet some people probably know more about the history of Batman or Spiderman than they actually do Bruce Lee despite him being a real person because they are more familiar with them.



Irrelevant. Your knowledge of a comic character is just your knowledge of a comic character. Various aspects of a comic book character can be changed, including race, to further some story element. In most cases, the character's race isn't an important part of the story, and changing it is trivial. Change Martin Luther King's race, and see if that affects his life. What he experienced in life. What he accomplished. What he became.


----------



## Dog Moon

Bedrockgames said:


> With Bond I can understand people not wanting much deviation from the established type because that is a character that has been around forever and people have to buy the actor is Bond each time they change. Personally if the actor were good, a black james bond would be fine with me. But I get why there would be resistance to that kind of change. As I said earlier, Daniel Craig was a little jarring for people at first because he has slightly lighter hair than a typical Bond. Any change like that is going to be a risk. Maybe a risk that ought to be taken in the right conditions, but still a risk. I'm okay with such a change for Bond, but I don't think someone wanting Bond to stay kind of the same means they are being sexist or racist or anything like that.
> 
> To me that kind of thinking just strikes me as being overly rigid about canon. It is like when you go watch a movie based on a science fiction book and someone is there criticizing every little change from the source material. I don't want to see the same thing on the screen each time they remake something. Sometimes it is nice to have a series that follows source material well (especially for things like getting people into the books) but if I've already read the books, it isn't like I need to supplement that with a step by step reenactment on screen. I'd rather than translate the source material into something that fits the medium of film. That often requires changes.
> 
> But Hermione is very different from Bond. She has only been played by one actress so far, and it isn't like a 'type' has been established. The author herself says skin tone has nothing to do with the character, so it seems like she is much more of an open slate.




The thing is, Hermione has been played by a single actress, who happens to be white, since the first movie... which happened in 2001, FIFTEEN years ago.  I mean, it isn't the same length of time as the seventy years of James Bond, but to me it seems like fifteen years is long enough to set a sort of precedent, to get a character that people are accustomed to seeing.


----------



## Morrus

Dog Moon said:


> The thing is, Hermione has been played by a single actress, who happens to be white, since the first movie... which happened in 2001, FIFTEEN years ago.  I mean, it isn't the same length of time as the seventy years of James Bond, but to me it seems like fifteen years is long enough to set a sort of precedent, to get a character that people are accustomed to seeing.




Well, two now. And maybe in a few years there will be yet another actress playing the character.

Once upon a time only one guy had played Hamlet.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ryujin said:


> I would be a little put off if Dominic Flandry was played by someone other than a central Indian or perhaps Polynesian actor., as the books are rather explicit as to his physical appearance. I'm actually surprised, given the recent spate of SciFi action adventure movies, that no one seems to have optioned that series.




Those kinds of changes don't bother me, particularly in science fiction set in the future (where I could see the point of changing that sort of thing to any number of groups---in order to account for recent history for example). In that particular story, I can't think of a reason why one would make such a change of the top of my head though. To me it isn't all that important that the book material be followed to the letter if the writer and director have a compelling reason for making the change. My feeling is I want the person making the movie or show to follow their vision and give me something worth viewing. If that vision means a change in race, fine. If it means changes to the plot, I am fine with that as well. But a complete adherence to the original book is increasingly the last thing I am interested in.


----------



## Dog Moon

GMforPowergamers said:


> sometimes changing race/gender changes the story, and sometimes it doesn't.
> 
> Sometimes that change is the point...
> 
> 
> example... I write a story where in the early 1900's an irish immigrant faces lots of racial prejudice and NINA signs... I call this character John McCormic.   A few years later someone takes and adapts the story to film (yea me I sold my book THEN sold the movie rights...) and they cast John Mccormic as an Asian woman.  Does that change the story... yes it does.   a few years later someone wants to adapt the movie in a reboot (yea now I have 2 movies... cool) and they cast a black actor and have it take place in 1963, it's a change but is that more or less then the last?
> 
> 
> I would totally watch the hell out of a female 007. It's the year 2015...um almost 2016. If you say hire a 30 something actress she was born in the 70's, and was a teen ager in the late 80's early 90's and recruited to MI6 in the late 90's... I think we had very successful female spies by then...
> 
> imagine the hard drinking sexually premisquise psychopath with a licence to kill... is there anything that requires that to be male?
> 
> 
> In a sexism thread a few months ago I did a whole gender flip thing with movies, and how you really odn't care the sex most of the time...  in that I proposed a slight flip in the two star wars movies "empire strikes back" and "Retuern of the Jedi"
> "Luke, obi wan never told you what happened to your parents..."
> "He told me enough, he told me you killed them..."
> "No luke... I am your mother..."
> under the mechanics and suit it could be anyone. But then at the end of Jedi, luke in his fear and being beaten by the empereor calls out "Mother..."




I don't like this post.  It seems to go away from the point of discussion.  No one here is arguing that we don't like the change because we're racist.  We don't like it only because it is different than how it was before.  And most certainly sexism isn't at play here either.

I would have been just as happy if Darth Vader had been a woman originally instead of a man, but changing it for later episodes would not have been right.  But can you imagine in the newest movie if instead of "Grandfather Vader" they would have said "Grandmother Vader"?  It's that CHANGE, not the fact that it would have been changed to female, is the problem at hand.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Dog Moon said:


> The thing is, Hermione has been played by a single actress, who happens to be white, since the first movie... which happened in 2001, FIFTEEN years ago.  I mean, it isn't the same length of time as the seventy years of James Bond, but to me it seems like fifteen years is long enough to set a sort of precedent, to get a character that people are accustomed to seeing.




I think these are very different things. Yes that was a long series, but it was just one contained piece. I didn't see it as them setting precedence for how each for these characters must be portrayed in perpetuity. James Bond has changed actors multiple times and they always go for a similar look. That establishes a pattern in peoples mind (so when they proposed Craig, I was a little taken aback by his hair color). When I saw this Hermione, I had no trouble believing in the character because it wasn't like we had a bunch of different actresses playing the role over the years establishing a clear type.


----------



## Ryujin

Bedrockgames said:


> Those kinds of changes don't bother me, particularly in science fiction set in the future (where I could see the point of changing that sort of thing to any number of groups---in order to account for recent history for example). In that particular story, I can't think of a reason why one would make such a change of the top of my head though. To me it isn't all that important that the book material be followed to the letter if the writer and director have a compelling reason for making the change. My feeling is I want the person making the movie or show to follow their vision and give me something worth viewing. If that vision means a change in race, fine. If it means changes to the plot, I am fine with that as well. But a complete adherence to the original book is increasingly the last thing I am interested in.




I can't speak for others, but for me Flandry's appearance is one of the central themes of the stories. He is an amalgam of all the dominant traits of the various human 'races.' He is the unity of Earth, made manifest in flesh. To take that away removes something very important.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ryujin said:


> I can't speak for others, but for me Flandry's appearance is one of the central themes of the stories. He is an amalgam of all the dominant traits of the various human 'races.' He is the unity of Earth, made manifest in flesh. To take that away removes something very important.




Which is why I said I can't think of a good reason for making the change off the top of my head. Still I don't want to discount the possibility out of hand. A director may have an interesting take or an unusual point that necessitates changing that very aspect of the story. I see source material as a source of inspiration for film, but I don't think the purpose is to replicate it. Someone may want to use the story to same something new and that is cool by me.


----------



## Dog Moon

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Similarities like both list comparing fiction characters to real people? Yeah, I noticed that.




So you're trying to say that there are no similarities between fictional characters to real people?  Interesting.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Hold on a second, let me get this straight. You "became accustomed" to Bruce Lee's and Martin Luther King's race?
> 
> "Established race?" No, in Bruce Lee's and Martin Luther King's cases, it isn't "the established race of the character." It's the race of a person who was real. You don't "establish" their race. Martin Luther King was black. Bruce Lee was Asian.




Well again, you're looking at the differences.  I was trying to find more general words to help focus on the similarities, which is why those words aren't the best words to describe the situation.  Yes, MLK is black and Bruce Lee was Asian and Batman is White and Storm is Black.  However they were born or created, in the end, that is what we see.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Let me ask you this, why do you think a character like Batman, a comic book character made up in 1939, was White? Do you think he could as easily have been "established" as Black or Asian?
> 
> How about this; what does Batman's being White add to the story?




I believe Batman could just as easily been black as opposed to being white and I think little about the character could have been changed to accomodate that, if anything.  It is quite possible that given the time it was created and the prejudice running rampant in the America at the time that it would not have grown as popular if Batman had been black, but I think that yes, Batman could have been as easily black without needing to change the story.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

It depends on the character to me.  Some race changes wouldn't affect how the character would operate in the world, but for some, it would.


----------



## Dog Moon

Bedrockgames said:


> I think these are very different things. Yes that was a long series, but it was just one contained piece. I didn't see it as them setting precedence for how each for these characters must be portrayed in perpetuity. James Bond has changed actors multiple times and they always go for a similar look. That establishes a pattern in peoples mind (so when they proposed Craig, I was a little taken aback by his hair color). When I saw this Hermione, I had no trouble believing in the character because it wasn't like we had a bunch of different actresses playing the role over the years establishing a clear type.




Exactly.  James Bond has an established pattern of changing actors, but they have always had a similar look.  And you were even taken aback by his hair color.  I wonder what people thought of the first movie in which James Bond was played by a different actor.  I bet there were people unhappy with that change as well.  And if James Bond suddenly radically changes, people will be unhappy with that.  Batman has also gone through similar changes and now we don't think twice about a new Batman actor, but as with James Bond if they do something to drastically change Batman, people will be unhappy.

So far Harry Potty has done like James Bond and established a character.  Now in fifteen more years if they go through 2-3 wildly different actresses, then seeing another different actress will probably not cause problems because there is now an established pattern.  However, until that point, using a black actress for Hermione IS a change of the established [movie] Hermione and because of that I dislike it.


----------



## Morrus

James Bond *will* be played by a black actor in the next ten years. If not the next Bond, the one after for sure. I'd bet a lot on that. I'm very OK with the idea of Idris Elba playing the role, though he may be too old by then.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

With Bond, I've almost come to the conclusion that all the roles in his agency are also "roles".  As in, "James Bond", "Moneypenny" and all the others aren't names, but jobs with built in fake identities.  You get the job, and you assume this new identity.  

Kind of like how there will always be a Phantom, there will always be a "James Bond" in HMSS.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Dog Moon said:


> So you're trying to say that there are no similarities between fictional characters to real people?  Interesting.



Depends on the context of the comparison. But you know that.



> Well again, you're looking at the differences.  I was trying to find more general words to help focus on the similarities, which is why *those words aren't the best words to describe the situation*.



Agreed. Those are definitely not the best words to use, but you used them for a reason. Really think about what it means to become accustomed to a character looking a certain way and a person being a particular race. 



> Yes, MLK is black and Bruce Lee was Asian and Batman is White and Storm is Black.  However they were born or created, in the end, that is what we see.



Are you actually comparing the birth of a person to the creation of a character?



> I believe Batman could just as easily been black as opposed to being white and I think little about the character could have been changed to accomodate that, if anything.  It is quite possible that given the time it was created and the prejudice running rampant in the America at the time that it would not have grown as popular if Batman had been black, but I think that yes,



I'm sure that Batman could have easily been made up as a black character. I don't think it's that Batman wouldn't have become as popular. I highly doubt the comic would even have been published. 



> Batman could have been as easily black without needing to change the story.



Good. We agree. Now change Martin Luther King's race to White. Do you think he would have grown to become the same civil right leader? Do you think he would have had the same experiences in life? Would you even know who Martin Luther King was if he had been White?

Changing a character's race in a fiction story is generally not going to change the character or the story. Sure, there are those characters where there race is an important part of the character or the story. Changing that character's race would change the character and the story. With Hermione that isn't the case. Imagine a Black Hermione. Does her story in the Harry Potter books change? Is it affected in any way? No, not really. Change her Mudblood status, and that changes the story and the character. The color of her skin has no effect on the story. Her magical heritage does.

Can you change the race of a real person in a story about their life? Sure, but rally think about why it is being done. Think about the actual impact it has.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Dog Moon said:


> Exactly.  James Bond has an established pattern of changing actors, but they have always had a similar look.  And you were even taken aback by his hair color.  I wonder what people thought of the first movie in which James Bond was played by a different actor.  I bet there were people unhappy with that change as well.  And if James Bond suddenly radically changes, people will be unhappy with that.  Batman has also gone through similar changes and now we don't think twice about a new Batman actor, but as with James Bond if they do something to drastically change Batman, people will be unhappy.




Importantly my initial impression of Craig was off base though. I was struck by his hair color but I've come to really enjoy him in that role. Had they gone with an actor with darker hair, who knows. Might not have worked because they may have been less well suited to the role at that moment. 



> So far Harry Potty has done like James Bond and established a character.  Now in fifteen more years if they go through 2-3 wildly different actresses, then seeing another different actress will probably not cause problems because there is now an established pattern.  However, until that point, using a black actress for Hermione IS a change of the established [movie] Hermione and because of that I dislike it.




I guess this is where i find it an overly rigid point of view. I understand being taken aback by a sudden change to a character you seen a certain way for years. But "it is change, so therefore I don't like it" to me that is the opposite of how I want writers, musicians, directors and actors to think. I've already seen the Harry Potter movies. If someone is going to remake them, I want a different experience, not a retread. If changing the race of a character fits a new vision (either because a particular actor is just perfect or because the change actually introduces a new and interesting idea), I am all for it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Morrus said:


> James Bond *will* be played by a black actor in the next ten years. If not the next Bond, the one after for sure. I'd bet a lot on that. I'm very OK with the idea of Idris Elba playing the role, though he may be too old by then.




And I think this is an excellent example of how such a change really opens up possibilities. Idris Alba as James Bond would be a good fit but I also feel like he'd add something new to the character. I think as following on the heels of Craig, given where they've gone with him, it would be a really great fit.


----------



## Morrus

It also occurs to be that Nick Fury has had different appearances. Should he be changed back to look like David Hasslehoff, who came first?


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> I didn't see it as them setting precedence for how each for these characters must be portrayed in perpetuity.




I'm not sure anything sets a precedent for how a fictional character must be portrayed in perpetuity.  "Forever," is a very, very long time.  I don't know what piece of fiction is so sacred that it cannot be played around with.


----------



## Morrus

Umbran said:


> I'm not sure anything sets a precedent for how a fictional character must be portrayed in perpetuity.  "Forever," is a very, very long time.  I don't know what piece of fiction is so sacred that it cannot be played around with.




Exactly. Every character is subject to reinterpretation. Hamlet. Bond. King Arthur. Nick Fury. Hermione. Robin Hood. Perry White. Jimmy Olsen. 

Anyone who insists that characters not be reinterpreted is in for a hell of a lot of disappointment. It's what we do, and what we will always do. 

The change from campy Roger Moore to gritty Daniel Craig is far greater than a change from Craig to Idris Elba would be.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> I'm not sure anything sets a precedent for how a fictional character must be portrayed in perpetuity.  "Forever," is a very, very long time.  I don't know what piece of fiction is so sacred that it cannot be played around with.




Well, I may have been engaging in hyperbole. My point was just that I don't think something being established by a pattern of actors means it has to be followed each time. I do understand that the pattern can be difficult to break, and knowing when or how to do it is probably key to making it a successful departure.


----------



## Morrus

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, I may have been engaging in hyperbole. My point was just that I don't think something being established by a pattern of actors means it has to be followed each time. I do understand that the pattern can be difficult to break, and knowing when or how to do it is probably key to making it a successful departure.




I think it's more like evolution. Over time, dozens of different approaches are tried. The best elements of each tend to stick. 

Sure, you get major missteps. Who'd have thought a Welsh guy would be a better Batman than George Clooney? But any bad interpretations are only temporary. Someone will try something else soon enough. 

Hamlet has been white, black, modern, medieval, futuristic, tall, short, fat, thin, British, American, Japanese...


----------



## Ryujin

Morrus said:


> It also occurs to be that Nick Fury has had different appearances. Should he be changed back to look like David Hasslehoff, who came first?




Well he was originally a white former World War II sergeant, but in the case of his character I would say that race is the least important of the character's characteristics.



Morrus said:


> I think it's more like evolution. Over time, dozens of different approaches are tried. The best elements of each tend to stick.
> 
> Sure, you get major missteps. Who'd have thought a Welsh guy would be a better Batman than George Clooney? But any bad interpretations are only temporary. Someone will try something else soon enough.
> 
> Hamlet has been white, black, modern, medieval, futuristic, tall, short, fat, thin, British, American, Japanese...




The problem with the Clooney Batman wasn't Clooney, it was the writers and producers. Clooney would have made an excellent Bruce Wayne, which is the difficult part of the Batman character to get right.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Morrus said:


> I think it's more like evolution. Over time, dozens of different approaches are tried. The best elements of each tend to stick.
> 
> Sure, you get major missteps. Who'd have thought a Welsh guy would be a better Batman than George Clooney? But any bad interpretations are only temporary. Someone will try something else soon enough.
> 
> Hamlet has been white, black, modern, medieval, futuristic, tall, short, fat, thin, British, American, Japanese...




I don't know that the two things are mutually exclusive so I don't think I disagree with this. If a series in long enough, the effective changes will probably stick and the missteps will be discarded. So there is definitely a kind of evolving thing going on. But at the same time, when you are the person making the call on the change, it is clear choice to try something new or not. How well it is executed and how timely it is are certainly going to be factors in determining whether the change stays.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ryujin said:


> The problem with the Clooney Batman wasn't Clooney, it was the writers and producers. Clooney would have made an excellent Bruce Wayne, which is the difficult part of the Batman character to get right.




I saw that batman in the theater, and I don't think we can absolve Clooney of blame. There were other problems for sure, but I don't think Clooney was bringing anything good to the role. He is a great actor for the right part. Batman was not the right part for him.


----------



## Ryujin

Bedrockgames said:


> I saw that batman in the theater, and I don't think we can absolve Clooney of blame. There were other problems for sure, but I don't think Clooney was bringing anything good to the role. He is a great actor for the right part. Batman was not the right part for him.




There was nothing good to be brought to that playing in the shallow pool role, as written.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> what changes about the character though... list any 10 traits he has, and they can equally be applied to a she. Heck unless you count peeing while standing I don't know what would change...
> 
> flirt to get info... check
> drink voka martine made the wrong way... check
> be worlds least secrete secret agent... check
> sleep with 2 people in the same movie, one being the person you should protect the other a villain... check
> break rules and get away with it because plot...check
> blow something up... check
> get into fight with side kick of villain.... check
> spout some kinda funny kinda corny one liners... check
> claim to be doing it for queen and country.... check




Those aren't his traits.  These are.


Male flirts with girls to get info... check
Male drinks voka martine made the wrong way... check
Male is the worlds least secrete secret agent... check
Male sleeps with 2 women in the same movie, one being the woman you should protect the other a villain... check
Male breaks rules and get away with it because plot...check
Male blows something up... check
Male gets into fight with side kick of villain.... check
Male spouts some kinda funny kinda corny one liners... check
Male claims to be doing it for queen and country.... check

Change that to female and it changes the entire feel of the character.  The new Star Wars movie did it right.  If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean.  If you haven't, I don't want to spoil it for you.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> It also occurs to be that Nick Fury has had different appearances. Should he be changed back to look like David Hasslehoff, who came first?




This is a prime example.  Nick Fury played by Sam Jackson irritates me.  I still see the Avengers, though, because his role is small and I like the rest of the movies, but I would not see a Nick Fury movie with Sam Jackson cast as Fury. I think the movie would do well, though.  If Nick Fury had originally been black, I would be similarly irritated if he was played by a white guy.


----------



## billd91

Morrus said:


> The change from campy Roger Moore to gritty Daniel Craig is far greater than a change from Craig to Idris Elba would be.




I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I think a Caucasian Bond fit a certain time and was entirely appropriate for a lot of the Cold War-era, East-West relations stories. A black Bond would have stuck out a bit. That said, I'd hope that a black Bond would come with stories more focused on North-South geopolitics than East-West.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> This is a prime example.  Nick Fury played by Sam Jackson irritates me.  I still see the Avengers, though, because his role is small and I like the rest of the movies, but I would not see a Nick Fury movie with Sam Jackson cast as Fury. I think the movie would do well, though.  If Nick Fury had originally been black, I would be similarly irritated if he was played by a white guy.




The thing is, the Nick Fury of the MCU is not at all the Nick Fury of the original comics (though he clearly is the Nick Fury of the Ultimates).


----------



## Ryujin

billd91 said:


> The thing is, the Nick Fury of the MCU is not at all the Nick Fury of the original comics (though he clearly is the Nick Fury of the Ultimates).




True. If he was the old Nick Fury then he'd have been leading The Howling Commandos in "Captain America: The First Avenger", instead of Captain America. I think that they also missed a bet with Gabe in that movie, likely for fear of comments about racism, since he was supposed to have been a jazz musician turned company bugler. The way that they portrayed him in the old comics was almost like a Scottish Regimental Piper; one of the first over the sandbags, bugle to lips.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> The thing is, the Nick Fury of the MCU is not at all the Nick Fury of the original comics (though he clearly is the Nick Fury of the Ultimates).




Yes.  Many heroes have evolved over the years.  To my knowledge, though, none have changed skin color without being a completely different person who has the same name.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> Yes.  Many heroes have evolved over the years.  To my knowledge, though, none have changed skin color without being a completely different person who has the same name.




You could always point to Jesus on that one.


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> You could always point to Jesus on that one.




Unless I'm missing something, Jesus was born, lived, died, came back, and ascended to heaven all as a middle eastern Jewish man.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> Unless I'm missing something, Jesus was born, lived, died, came back, and ascended to heaven all as a middle eastern Jewish man.




Not if you're looking at paintings of Jesus spread throughout Europe and the US.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> You could always point to Jesus on that one.




Saint Nicholas underwent a similar radical revision over time.

Also, Harvey Dent/Two-Face in the Batman movies.

Ditto Catwoman in the original Batman TV show.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ryujin said:


> There was nothing good to be brought to that playing in the shallow pool role, as written.




There is always something a good actor suited to the role can bring. I have seen ton of bad
y written shows or movies where the actor still managed to impress. The writing is one half of the equation but the acting is the other and a clooney just didn't work as batman (it could have been the first film in the franchise and he would have been just as awful as that character.


----------



## Tonguez

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ditto Catwoman in the original Batman TV show.




excellent example there. Eartha Kitt did an awesome job as Catwoman and the change between her and Julie Newmar wasn't at all jarring 



Ryujin said:


> True. If he was the old Nick Fury then he'd have been leading The Howling Commandos in "Captain America: The First Avenger", instead of Captain America.




the latest retcon actually has the Samuel L Jackson version being the son of the original under the name Nick Fury Jr.



Maxperson said:


> Unless I'm missing something, Jesus was born, lived, died, came back, and ascended to heaven all as a middle eastern Jewish man.




or was he a blue eyed, blondhaired catholic baby?


----------



## Ryujin

Tonguez said:


> the latest retcon actually has the Samuel L Jackson version being the son of the original under the name Nick Fury Jr.




I supposed they'd have to do something, since it would stretch credulity to have a 100-something year old Nick Fury look the way that Jackson does. I'd have gone with Fury receiving a watered-down version of the Super Soldier Serum, which extends his life.


----------



## Maxperson

Tonguez said:


> the latest retcon actually has the Samuel L Jackson version being the son of the original under the name Nick Fury Jr.




I don't recall that in the movies.  Where is that from?



> or was he a blue eyed, blondhaired catholic baby?




Born to two middle eastern Jews, so I doubt it.  Altered depictions don't change things.  They're just........off.


----------



## Tonguez

Ryujin said:


> I supposed they'd have to do something, since it would stretch credulity to have a 100-something year old Nick Fury look the way that Jackson does. I'd have gone with Fury receiving a watered-down version of the Super Soldier Serum, which extends his life.




They actually did. Fury ages extremely slowly due to ingesting the Infinity Formula

and Nick Fury Jr happened in the comics, I don't think they've made the point in the movies (yet)


----------



## Ryujin

Tonguez said:


> They actually did. Fury ages extremely slowly due to ingesting the Infinity Formula
> 
> and Nick Fury Jr happened in the comics, I don't think they've made the point in the movies (yet)




I'm a bit out of the loop on that. Perhaps two or three reboots. I was a reader of "Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos" and an occasional reader of "Nick Fury, Agent of Shield" back in the '70s. My Marvel Comics rarely had a cover price of more than a Quarter and more often said 15¢, or as low as 10¢. At least they did before my brother got into them around 1980, selling them all off without my knowledge.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> excellent example there. Eartha Kitt did an awesome job as Catwoman and the change between her and Julie Newmar wasn't at all jarring




Well, to you, maybe, but to others?

Don't get me wrong, I liked both actresses take on the role.  But I was disappointed with the recasting.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

billd91 said:


> Not if you're looking at paintings of Jesus spread throughout Europe and the US.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> religious picture here




Statements on religion should probably be kept on the forum created for them.


----------



## Staffan

Dannyalcatraz said:


> With Bond, I've almost come to the conclusion that all the roles in his agency are also "roles".  As in, "James Bond", "Moneypenny" and all the others aren't names, but jobs with built in fake identities.  You get the job, and you assume this new identity.
> 
> Kind of like how there will always be a Phantom, there will always be a "James Bond" in HMSS.



I like that idea. The main snag is that we see two Bonds after Lazenby still mourning Teresa Bond - Moore in For Your Eyes Only (in the pre-credit scene where an unnamed-for-legal-reasons Blofeld tries to kill him, ending with Blofeld being dropped into a chimney), and Dalton in License to Kill (though it's more subtle there - Bond mentions having been married, and it is clearly a sore subject).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Like I said, "almost". 

Still, that could be part of the role- maintaining the_ image_ of the killer who loved, even though that love was between 2 other people.


----------



## MechaPilot

delericho said:


> Right, that's Ron. Now, who are you going to cast for Ginny, Arthur, Molly, Percy, Fred, and George?
> 
> The issue with Ron isn't just _his_ ginger hair, it's that you need a whole bunch of actors who all have ginger hair and a family resemblance. But if you can find them, that's fine.




Can't they give anyone ginger hair with the hair and makeup process actors and actresses have to go through?


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> If someone is perfect for for a role and you change one single thing, then that person is no longer perfect for that role.  Perfection is like that.




Not really.  According to her own words, the casting people said Judy Garland was "perfect" for the role of Dorothy, and then they went about changing her nose and several other aspects of her appearance.  Some people just use the word "perfect" imperfectly.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> If someone is perfect for for a role and you change one single thing, then that person is no longer perfect for that role.  Perfection is like that.



Noma Dumezweni, or any other actor that plays Hermione, could be more perfect for the part.


----------



## ccs

Ryujin said:


> I supposed they'd have to do something, since it would stretch credulity to have a 100-something year old Nick Fury look the way that Jackson does. I'd have gone with Fury receiving a watered-down version of the Super Soldier Serum, which extends his life.




1) (white) Nick Fury does have a version of the super soldier serum fueling him.  It's called the Infinity Formula.  It's not quite as potent as what's in Steve Rogers.
I'm not sure if the Sam Jackson version does or not.

2) The Marvel Universe in the comics is (was?) comprised of many parralel universes.  Each has a #.
The one that most of all the stories/issues took place in is #616.
That's the home of white Nick Fury.

3) about 15 years ago or so Marvel launched a line of comics set in a different universe (I can never remember the # they gave it).  They called the line "Ultimates".  
It had an Xmen title, an Avengers title, a Spiderman title, etc.  Familiar characters, just variations on the theme.
This is the home of the Sam L.Jackson Fury.
Fury looks alot like Sam L. Jackson in this universe because the artist was a SLJ fan.....
This turned out to be a really popular version of the Fury character.
So when they started making the Marvel movies, who better to get to play Fury on screen than the guy who's spitting image they were already using there in the Ultimates line of books?

4) Flash forward a few more years:
SLJ as Nick Fury in the movies is a popular choice.  And one that ALOT of people have now seen....
So Marvel decides to put him into the main stream universe (#616) in the books.
(I'm sure there's also a dose of PC/diversity  involved, but it was mostly a $ thing.  SLJ like Fury sells more & ties in closer to what someone coming to the comics from a movie watching background would expect.)
So they all but retire white Fury.
And then they introduce his previously unknown black son (who looks alot like a younger SLJ) who's also a super-spy type.

And here we are today.


----------



## Elf Witch

I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. In the show Merlin Gwen  was played by Angel Coulby a black actress she did a great job in the role. How many different actresses have played Gwen. In Elementary Watson is not only being played by a woman but an Asian woman at that. The remake of BSG changed a lot Tigh went from Black to White, Starbuck became a woman Boomer became a woman and Asian Adama was played by a Latino actor. 

I say unless race is central to the role then just cast the best actor. People keep bringing up real life people and I don't understand the sheer ignorance of that. MLK would have been a different person being raised white in Jim Crow south his race is an important part of who he is and shaped his experiences. 

In Harry Potter the race of any of the characters are not central to who they are. What is important about Hermione is her non magical blood line. 

Batman can work as any race what is important is the back story of rich boy whose suffers the loss of his parents and becomes a vigilante what color he is makes zero difference.


----------



## Staffan

ccs said:


> Fury looks alot like Sam L. Jackson in this universe because the artist was a SLJ fan.....
> This turned out to be a really popular version of the Fury character.
> So when they started making the Marvel movies, who better to get to play Fury on screen than the guy who's spitting image they were already using there in the Ultimates line of books?




There's an early Ultimates issue where the characters are sitting around talking about who should play them if they make a movie, and of course Nick Fury suggests Samuel L Jackson. After that issue, Jackson contacted Marvel and essentially said "Hey, you're using my likeness in a comic book without my permission. But I'll allow it if I get first dibs on actually playing Fury if/when you get movies made."


----------



## Mallus

Quick question: is there actually a furor over this? 

It's seems to me, the objections come from a small group of people online who are: a) racists, b) trolls, c) trolls pretending to be racists which means they sorta are, and d) fans who hold the opinion that you need to pretend fiction operates the same way the real world does in order to be believable & affecting (instead of the reverse).

It's probably best practices to ignore a), b), and c).


----------



## Ryujin

Mallus said:


> Quick question: is there actually a furor over this?
> 
> It's seems to me, the objections come from a small group of people online who are: a) racists, b) trolls, c) trolls pretending to be racists which means they sorta are, and d) fans who hold the opinion that you need to pretend fiction operates the same way the real world does in order to be believable & affecting (instead of the reverse).
> 
> It's probably best practices to ignore a), b), and c).




It's probably more of a manufactured story which, unfortunately, is becoming more and more the norm these days. Need to drive more views to your site so that you can please your advertisers? Find something real but conflate it into a non existent internet rage-fest, in hopes of actually creating said rage-fest.


----------



## Dog Moon

Mallus said:


> Quick question: is there actually a furor over this?
> 
> It's seems to me, the objections come from a small group of people online who are: a) racists, b) trolls, c) trolls pretending to be racists which means they sorta are, and d) fans who hold the opinion that you need to pretend fiction operates the same way the real world does in order to be believable & affecting (instead of the reverse).
> 
> It's probably best practices to ignore a), b), and c).




Are you speaking of the people that objected that caused the article in the OP in the first place or those that have made their comments in this thread?  I can understand those that caused the article, but I think it's another thing entirely to say this applies to the people in this thread.

I know I for one attempted to present my thoughts on the subject even though clearly my views aren't the majority, which is fine.  I wasn't intending to Troll, as you put it, but merely state my opinion in order to start a discussion, even though I've been busy recently and haven't had a chance to continue my part of the discussion as much as in the beginning.  I am also not a racist and I had hoped to make this clear by presenting my case as a dislike for major change regardless of whether it was race, sex, or other distinguishing features and I tried to present it as replacing black with white or white with black or other combination.

And as for being a fan, I'm actually not that big a fan of Harry Potter.  I tried reading the books but couldn't stand them and watched the Harry Potter movies only because a friend had borrowed them all to me and I was bored one week.

Granted I'm not actually in a fury about the whole situation and believe that even though I don't like the change, it is absurd to become ANGRY about the change.  I mean seriously, it's a PLAY that most of us aren't even going to see and doesn't affect us really in any way.  There's absolutely no reason to become FURIOUS over such a thing.

I still don't like the change though.


----------



## Mallus

Dog Moon said:


> Are you speaking of the people that objected that caused the article in the OP in the first place or those that have made their comments in this thread?  I can understand those that caused the article, but I think it's another thing entirely to say this applies to the people in this thread.



Oops... let me clarify: I wasn't speaking about people in this thread. I meant the folks in the article. Also,    [MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION] has it right. The article & the "furor" are just clickbait. Manufactured controversy, or, more accurately, a teeny-tiny bit of real and insignificant controversy blown up to drive page views and fuel the sort of tweets that drive the current culture-war-as-sport online.



> I still don't like the change though.



That's totally fair. I should probably say I like remakes and reinterpretations. Any story or character worth telling once is worth telling again in a different way, while exploring different things. My favorite version of King Lear has samurai in it, my favorite version of The Tempest is set on Altair IV. I'm totally cool with the next Bond being black, or queer, or female. Or in 20 years being a lesbian of color (though she'll probably always have to be from the UK -- I have my limits). 

Don't get me wrong, I _like_ canon well enough. I'm a lifelong Trekkie enamored of the idea Federation universe being a real thing; a real future history. But in the end it's all fiction. Near infinitely malleable, where what's "true" and "factual" are whatever the current author(s) decree. I think certain genre fans place too much emphasis on continuity/canonicity/etc. It robs fiction of it's power, and misunderstands why people fall in love w/fiction in the first place.

For example, the original Star Trek had very little concern for continuity. That came later. After the show had inspired a group of devoted fans, ie continuity had nothing to do with why people loved it. They came to care about the show's "universe" more than the people who created it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Dog Moon said:


> Are you speaking of the people that objected that caused the article in the OP in the first place or those that have made their comments in this thread?  I can understand those that caused the article, but I think it's another thing entirely to say this applies to the people in this thread.
> 
> I know I for one attempted to present my thoughts on the subject even though clearly my views aren't the majority, which is fine.  I wasn't intending to Troll, as you put it, but merely state my opinion in order to start a discussion, even though I've been busy recently and haven't had a chance to continue my part of the discussion as much as in the beginning.  I am also not a racist and I had hoped to make this clear by presenting my case as a dislike for major change regardless of whether it was race, sex, or other distinguishing features and I tried to present it as replacing black with white or white with black or other combination.
> 
> And as for being a fan, I'm actually not that big a fan of Harry Potter.  I tried reading the books but couldn't stand them and watched the Harry Potter movies only because a friend had borrowed them all to me and I was bored one week.
> 
> Granted I'm not actually in a fury about the whole situation and believe that even though I don't like the change, it is absurd to become ANGRY about the change.  I mean seriously, it's a PLAY that most of us aren't even going to see and doesn't affect us really in any way.  There's absolutely no reason to become FURIOUS over such a thing.
> 
> I still don't like the change though.





Yeah. Just want to say even though I am taking the position that the change is totally fine and not something people really ought to get upset about, I don't think it makes someone a racist to prefer consistency on this issue. There are probably people who object for racist reasons, but I don't think it is particularly productive to assume that is always what is behind the objection.


----------



## Ryujin

Bedrockgames said:


> Yeah. Just want to say even though I am taking the position that the change is totally fine and not something people really ought to get upset about, I don't think it makes someone a racist to prefer consistency on this issue. There are probably people who object for racist reasons, but I don't think it is particularly productive to assume that is always what is behind the objection.




Give it a few years, and a remake, and I bet that people will be upset that Finn isn't being played by a black actor, because of the resonance of a 'slave breaking his chains.' There are definitely reasons to object to changes, that are reasonable. Wanting some continuity to the way a character is portrayed is also reasonable.


----------



## Dog Moon

Mallus said:


> Oops... let me clarify: I wasn't speaking about people in this thread. I meant the folks in the article. Also,    [MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION] has it right. The article & the "furor" are just clickbait. Manufactured controversy, or, more accurately, a teeny-tiny bit of real and insignificant controversy blown up to drive page views and fuel the sort of tweets that drive the current culture-war-as-sport online.




Okay, I THOUGHT that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure.  Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Dog Moon said:


> I believe Batman could just as easily been black as opposed to being white and I think little about the character could have been changed to accomodate that, if anything.




A billionaire playboy invented in the time of Jim Crow and who looks like a useless _high society_ fop IMO could not have been black at the time he was written. And it would be an unusual casting choice to make him one even now unless you were translating a lot of the story.

On the other hand Miles Morales written in the 21st Century is IMO much more true to the initial character of Spider-Man than Peter Parker as portrayed by either Tobey McGuire or Andrew Garfield - and a big part of that is that Morales is non-white. Peter Parker was a very definite picked on outsider by virtue of the fact that he is a nerd (even in NYC). Putting on the Spider-Man mask amongst other things means that the wearer can be anyone and although Spider-Man has to deal with a mountain of crap he _doesn't_ have to deal with the crap Peter does when not wearing the mask. When Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man in particular (Tobey McGuire's isn't so bad in a lot of ways) takes the mask off he's a decently respected middle class nerd on the verge of a scholarship (rather than the 2002 class field trip) in the age of the internet. Changing the race of the character and so how he fits into society actively makes him truer to the original themes of Spider-Man than keeping his characteristics the same and allowing society to move on.

There is a claim that the same works with Hermione Granger - that a black Hermione is in one world subject to racism and in the other no one cares that she's black, instead they call her a mudblood. The more things change...

Also Rowling is deliberately vague about character appearances and has gone on record saying that different readings of appearances are fine - she's deliberately vague so that people can identify with their surroundings. It takes, to most of the way through the fourth book (and the fourth book is a brick) before that line about white skin appears (before that all we know is that she's darker than Ron - and Ron is a redhead with freckles, which means extremely pale skin). But then it takes until the Half Blood Prince before Blaize Zabini is identified by either gender or skin colour (which blows up the theory that you can assume the default is white).


----------



## Mallus

Dog Moon said:


> Okay, I THOUGHT that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure.  Thanks for clarifying.



No problem! It was my fault for not being clearer.



Neonchameleon said:


> A billionaire playboy invented in the time of Jim Crow and who looks like a useless _high society_ fop IMO could not have been black at the time he was written. And it would be an unusual casting choice to make him one even now unless you were translating a lot of the story.



I think a Black Batman could be interesting. Aren't there always scheming politicians in Gotham ready & willing to label the Batman as a dangerous vigilante/menace for political gain? This becomes a lot more plausible//relevant/hamfisted-metaphoric-but-in-good-way if it's an example of dog-whistle politics.


----------



## Ryujin

Mallus said:


> No problem! It was my fault for not being clearer.
> 
> I think a Black Batman could be interesting. Aren't there always scheming politicians in Gotham ready & willing to label the Batman as a dangerous vigilante/menace for political gain? This becomes a lot more plausible//relevant/hamfisted-metaphoric-but-in-good-way if it's an example of dog-whistle politics.




Well here you are: Brampton Batman. He's a good Samaritan, in my town, who does appearances and daily patrols.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/brampton-batman-shows-off-his-new-batmobile-1.1940242


----------



## Tonguez

Ryujin said:


> Give it a few years, and a remake, and I bet that people will be upset that Finn isn't being played by a black actor, because of the resonance of a 'slave breaking his chains.' There are definitely reasons to object to changes, that are reasonable. Wanting some continuity to the way a character is portrayed is also reasonable.




I'm kinda upset that Finn isn't a Maori clone of Temuera Morrison


----------



## Valador

In most situations, things like this annoy me. I hate when people play with the identities/race of well established characters. There's a few reasons.

It seems like companies are doing this more and more to fake a public image of being politically correct, or in the same vein, attempt to avoid being labeled "racist" due to a "lack of diversity."

A lot of people argue that minorities need heroes and characters that they can relate to, especially for children, to look up to as role models, etc. I fully support this. HOWEVER, I believe that companies should create new, original characters rather than reskin existing characters. It's lazy and insults peoples intelligence. "Here you go black people, we recycled an old white character for you. Enjoy." instead of "Here you go black people, we created this amazing hero just for you, with your greatest desires in mind."

It feels like affirmative action for fictional characters now. You can't make any kind of product without having at least one of every race present. Even in situations where it would make no sense to have a minority character, people still complain. For example most Disney movies based on stories that originated from Europe or the British Isles, etc. Brave is a good example. It would make very little sense to have a bunch of random minorities in that film, but someone somewhere is offended.

Taking a white character thats been around for decades and turning him into a homosexual or minority, simply because that's the PC thing to do now, is freaking stupid. No one has any respect for these creations and instead turn characters into tools for pandering to certain groups for profit. 

So because someone gets butt-hurt and feels left out, I have to watch a character that I've possibly grown up with, get mutated into something so far from what I grew to love. But hey, it's okay as long as we're taking away from white people and not from someone else, otherwise that would be racist. Any time a white person would play a minority people would cry out "white washing", yet when the tables are flipped it's praised and anyone who thinks differently is called racist. Nice double standard.

This goes for gender as well. "Hey, we should try to steal money from women too, let's make ____ into a woman!"


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Valador said:


> In most situations, things like this annoy me. I hate when people play with the identities/race of well established characters. There's a few reasons.
> 
> It seems like companies are doing this more and more to fake a public image of being politically correct, or in the same vein, attempt to avoid being labeled "racist" due to a "lack of diversity."
> 
> A lot of people argue that minorities need heroes and characters that they can relate to, especially for children, to look up to as role models, etc. I fully support this. HOWEVER, I believe that companies should create new, original characters rather than reskin existing characters. It's lazy and insults peoples intelligence. "Here you go black people, we recycled an old white character for you. Enjoy." instead of "Here you go black people, we created this amazing hero just for you, with your greatest desires in mind."
> 
> It feels like affirmative action for fictional characters now. You can't make any kind of product without having at least one of every race present. Even in situations where it would make no sense to have a minority character, people still complain. For example most Disney movies based on stories that originated from Europe or the British Isles, etc. Brave is a good example. It would make very little sense to have a bunch of random minorities in that film, but someone somewhere is offended.
> 
> Taking a white character thats been around for decades and turning him into a homosexual or minority, simply because that's the PC thing to do now, is freaking stupid. No one has any respect for these creations and instead turn characters into tools for pandering to certain groups for profit.
> 
> So because someone gets butt-hurt and feels left out, I have to watch a character that I've possibly grown up with, get mutated into something so far from what I grew to love. But hey, *it's okay as long as we're taking away from white* people and not from someone else, otherwise that would be racist. Any time a white person would play a minority people would cry out "white washing", yet when the tables are flipped it's praised and anyone who thinks differently is called racist. Nice double standard.
> 
> This goes for gender as well. "Hey, we should try to steal money from women too, let's make ____ into a woman!"



That's interesting. Why do you feel that making Hermione, or any other character not-white is "taking away" from White people?


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's interesting. Why do you feel that making Hermione, or any other character not-white is "taking away" from White people?




Probably because it's the prevailing sentiment of the country.  Can you imagine the outcry if a group of white people called itself The Race? La Raza (The Race) is acceptable, though, because a minority is calling itself that.  Or the outcry that would happen if a bunch of white people went around protesting that White Lives Matter.  The shout of racism would echo so loudly the country would implode.  Minorities get a pass on racism all over the place.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> Minorities get a pass on racism all over the place.



If you ignore that they are protesting their second class status, that statement is totally accurate.


----------



## Valador

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's interesting. Why do you feel that making Hermione, or any other character not-white is "taking away" from White people?




Because if the shoe was on the other foot, that's exactly what people would say. Any time a white person does anything that can be perceived as non-white, they get slammed for "stealing my cultural identity." There was a case not too long ago where a white teenager was slammed because of the way she braided her hair. A lot of African American people were up in arms about how white people are stealing their culture away from them, etc. as if they owned a patent on freaking braids. It doesn't stop at hair. It spans into other areas as well, such as fashion, music, etc. However, if you take something established as white, then it is expected to be given freely to others without saying a word.

The truth of the matter is that reverse racism is a bigger problem than the perceived presence of racism from whites. I'm to be held accountable for the actions of some white people from hundreds of years ago, that I have no connection to. I'm supposed to feel some kind of "white guilt" because people claim they're still "second class" citizens. Tons of minorities immigrated here and have been hugely successful. My wifes family came here from Mexico and have been successful. We have a black president. We have people of color making a hell of a lot more money than I do in multiple industries.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> If you ignore that they are protesting their second class status, that statement is totally accurate.




Protesting through further racism doesn't give them a pass.  Black lives matter should have been named All Lives Matter.  That would have included the black lives.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Valador said:


> Because if the shoe was on the other foot, that's exactly what people would say.



So because someone else would make a similar claim, whether it's true or not, you feel that you have to make the same claim, whether it's true or not? That doesn't make much sense, does it?



> Any time a white person does anything that can be perceived as non-white, they get slammed for "stealing my cultural identity." There was a case not too long ago where a white teenager was slammed because of the way she braided her hair. A lot of African American people were up in arms about how white people are stealing their culture away from them, etc. as if they owned a patent on freaking braids. It doesn't stop at hair. It spans into other areas as well, such as fashion, music, etc.



There was actually a lot more to that braid incident you are referring to than just some White teen braiding her hair. You've either ignored it, or you aren't aware of it. 



> However, if you take something established as white, then it is expected to be given freely to others without saying a word.



"Establishing something as white, and someone being white are two different things. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, and the creator of the Hermione character, has said that her race was never really established. A white actor may have been chosen for the movies, but that does not "establish" Hermione's race. The movies are an adaptation of the books. They could have easily gone with a Black, Asian, or mixed race actor. They decided on Emma Watson, who happens to be White. 

Let me ask you this; does Hermione's race actually make a difference in the Harry Potter stories?



> The truth of the matter is that reverse racism is a bigger problem than the perceived presence of racism from whites.



That's arguable. You've forgotten to take into account the effect that "reverse racism" has compared to "racism from whites."



> I'm to be held accountable for the actions of some white people from hundreds of years ago, that I have no connection to.



Who makes you feel this way?


> I'm supposed to feel some kind of "white guilt" because people claim they're still "second class" citizens.



Just curious, do you believe that there is any racism, or that these people that claim they are second class citizens are telling the truth or lying?



> Tons of minorities immigrated here and have been hugely successful. My wifes family came here from Mexico and have been successful.



So they've never encountered any form of racism? Does being successful and a minority imply that that person hasn't encountered racism in their life? Does it imply that racism doesn't exist?



> We have a black president.



Eh... kind of. His mother was White. More like a a mixed race President. Also, and I'm not sure if you've chosen to ignore it, or just missed it, but Obama has had to deal with a lot of racism. 


> We have people of color making a hell of a lot more money than I do in multiple industries.



And that somehow changes or negates the existence of racism? These people may have a higher education than you. They may be more capable than you at doing the things they get paid to do. They may be in an industry with a higher average pay than the industry you are in. Does any of that negate or change the fact that they may still encounter racism? Does money somehow make it so racism can't affect you?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Probably because it's the prevailing sentiment of the country.  Can you imagine the outcry if a group of white people called itself The Race? La Raza (The Race) is acceptable, though, because a minority is calling itself that.  Or the outcry that would happen if a bunch of white people went around protesting that White Lives Matter.  The shout of racism would echo so loudly the country would implode.  Minorities get a pass on racism all over the place.



Interesting. Could you explain more?


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> "Establishing something as white, and someone being white are two different things. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, and the creator of the Hermione character, has said that her race was never really established. A white actor may have been chosen for the movies, but that does not "establish" Hermione's race. The movies are an adaptation of the books. They could have easily gone with a Black, Asian, or mixed race actor. They decided on Emma Watson, who happens to be White.




Right, and she then ignores that she explicitly calls students who are black or asian out in writing as black or asian.  She is being very disingenuous when she says that because she didn't call out that Hermione was white, that the race wasn't established.  She established the white students as white by calling out the minorities who were different.  

Rowling should have had the guts to say, "Hey, Hermione is white in the books, but I think it's great to see her played by a black actress."  Instead, she took the disingenuous and easy way out.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Max, I've known you long enough to know why you feel that way. No need to explain it to me.




We've been asked not to engage with each other like this, so if you don't have a legitimate response, I'd appreciate you just not responding.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Right, and she then ignores that she explicitly calls students who are black or asian out in writing as black or asian.  She is being very disingenuous when she says that because she didn't call out that Hermione was white, that the race wasn't established.  She established the white students as white by calling out the minorities who were different.
> 
> Rowling should have had the guts to say, "Hey, Hermione is white in the books, but I think it's great to see her played by a black actress."  Instead, she took the disingenuous and easy way out.



What you're doing is interpreting the books, just like the casting director did when she cast Emma Watson. While Rowling may have explicitly described a character as black, that does not mean that not describing Hermione's race establishes her as White. As Rowling said, Hermione's race was never explicitly described. You're free to interpret the books as you'd like, but hat doesn't mean because you believe Hermione is White that she is actually "established" as White.


----------



## The_Silversword

You know whats really racist? The cast of Cats wasnt actually played by cats!!!


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> Protesting through further racism doesn't give them a pass.  Black lives matter should have been named All Lives Matter.  That would have included the black lives.




If you think that it is because you miss the point of the movement and the situation they are denouncing.

I'll make an analogy with Gay Pride. Gay pride parades and homosexuals saying they are proud to be homosexuals aren't saying they are better than heterosexuals. They are saying they are proud of who they are in spite of people who say homosexuals are bad or inferior. 

Black Lives Matter is similar. The movement isn't about putting black lives above all others. It is about denouncing the fact that black lives have less value to some people and institutions. Now that can be a debatable point, but saying the movement is racist because it wants to put black lives above others is attacking a strawman.


----------



## Kramodlog

The_Silversword said:


> You know whats really racist? The cast of Cats wasnt actually played by cats!!!




That was specist, not racist.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

The_Silversword said:


> You know whats really racist? The cast of Cats wasnt actually played by cats!!!



Agreed.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Protesting through further racism doesn't give them a pass.  Black lives matter should have been named All Lives Matter.  That would have included the black lives.




To summon an analogy from late night TV, saying 'All Lives Matter' should replace 'Black Lives Matter' is akin to saying 'All legs should be mended' instead of 'My leg should be mended' when I have a broken leg. Yes, all legs should be mended, but at this moment in time, mine is the one that is broken. 

Yes, all lives are important, but at this moment in time, black lives are the ones in more peril.


----------



## tomBitonti

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> What you're doing is interpreting the books, just like the casting director did when she cast Emma Watson. While Rowling may have explicitly described a character as black, that does not mean that not describing Hermione's race establishes her as White. As Rowling said, Hermione's race was never explicitly described. You're free to interpret the books as you'd like, but hat doesn't mean because you believe Hermione is White that she is actually "established" as White.




I think I'm with Max on this: by calling attention to race in other places, Hermione is left at a default, which for England would be white.

Although, being a Londoner, that default is thin.  Do we get any expectation from her name or language usage?  Her parents were dentists, which doesn't tell us anything.

Personally, I am fine either way.  I'm much more concerned about the talent of the actress which was cast.

And, I think that casting preferences reflect mostly on the audience.  Here, segregation and reinforcement caused by casting to stereotype fall out as harmful.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Valador

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So because someone else would make a similar claim, whether it's true or not, you feel that you have to make the same claim, whether it's true or not? That doesn't make much sense, does it?




Whether it's true or not is not the point. The point is that when one group does it it's seen as acceptable, however when white people do it it's seen as racist.
.



> There was actually a lot more to that braid incident you are referring to than just some White teen braiding her hair. You've either ignored it, or you aren't aware of it. That's a problem
> 
> "Establishing something as white, and someone being white are two different things. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, and the creator of the Hermione character, has said that her race was never really established. A white actor may have been chosen for the movies, but that does not "establish" Hermione's race. The movies are an adaptation of the books. They could have easily gone with a Black, Asian, or mixed race actor. They decided on Emma Watson, who happens to be White.




As soon as the movies casted a white actress as Hermione, they pretty much established her as a white character as far as the public is concerned because that exposure reaches more people than the books probably will. There are tons of people who never read the books that have seen the movies. This is an unfortunate truth. 

As far as establishing "something" as white, this is a big no no. You cannot have White Entertainment TV. You cannot have White Lives Matter. You cannot have White history month. You cannot have White only colleges. Because society has deemed that racist, due to reverse racism and double standards. The moment someone claims "White Pride" they are instantly slammed and labeled a racist, yet on the other hand an African American can claim "Black Pride" and it's seen as being a positive and good thing. "I am proud to be (anything but white, insert here)" is praised whereas it's deemed racist if applied to being white.



> Let me ask you this; does Hermione's race actually make a difference in the Harry Potter stories?




My post wasn't really just about Hermione, but the sudden influx of these situations that are being caused by politic correctness and people trying to walk on eggshells to not offend anyone. Is her race important to the story? This is obviously up to the reader/viewer to determine. People relate on different levels to different characters. 

Regardless, if the general mindset is that "her race shouldn't matter", then why change it once it's been established? This isn't just about Hermione when I say this. This applies to any other popular, established characters, etc. If race doesn't matter then why do people feel the need to constantly try to change it? The reason is because it does matter, because it's a strong platform for people to relate to. People gravitate towards those that are similar to them. Companies constantly keep trying to pander to minorities in order to tap into that market.



> That's arguable. You've forgotten to take into account the effect that "reverse racism" has compared to "racism from whites."
> 
> Who makes you feel this way?
> Just curious, do you believe that there is any racism, or that these people that claim they are second class citizens are telling the truth or lying?




Racism does exist. Most people in some shape or form, no matter how small it is, could be considered racist to some small degree. It's unavoidable. People have preferences. If I was to say "I'm only attracted to Hispanic women." someone under todays mindset could say that's racist. "I don't like Chinese food." omg he must be racist!! If all my friends happen to be the same race as me, someone might think I'm racist.

Racism on a grand scale I don't believe exists. There is no huge conspiracy that the world has agreed upon in order to hold down a certain skin color. I don't have a monthly meeting with the great white council to determine how we're going to mess with ____ people this month. Some people though truly believe that whitey is out to get them. 



> So they've never encountered any form of racism? Does being successful and a minority imply that that person hasn't encountered racism in their life? Does it imply that racism doesn't exist?




It implies that racism isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. If racism was truly an issue then minorities would not be allowed to do ANYTHING that would allow them to maintain a better position or way of life over say a white person. Any time I see some idiot who makes millions of dollars and then try to say white people have some magic privilege or that white people try to hold them down, it makes me lose all faith in humanity. I'm looking at you, Kanye West...

Growing up where I did, I encountered racism towards me for simply being white. Despite the fact that I lived in the EXACT SAME conditions as those people and went to the same exact schools and stores and had the same hardships, they still thought I was somehow magically privileged because I was white. Fortunately for me, it didn't bother me. I chalked it up to ignorance and did my own thing. I worked for what I wanted and didn't make excuses.



> Eh... kind of. His mother was White. More like a a mixed race President. Also, and I'm not sure if you've chosen to ignore it, or just missed it, but Obama has had to deal with a lot of racism.




Every time I hear him refer to his race all I ever hear is him referring to himself as a black man or person of color. He seldom if ever references his white side, unless he's trying to pander to some white people. It's socially more acceptable if he finds pride in only being black, rather than bi-racial. He pretty much disowns any notion of being white unless it suits him in a specific situation.



> And that somehow changes or negates the existence of racism? These people may have a higher education than you. They may be more capable than you at doing the things they get paid to do. They may be in an industry with a higher average pay than the industry you are in. Does any of that negate or change the fact that they may still encounter racism? Does money somehow make it so racism can't affect you?




All of those are great examples of how little racism is impacting peoples ability to have a good and productive life. If REAL racism was running rampant then those people wouldn't even have the CHANCE to do any of those things.

If you ask an African American who makes millions of dollars making movies or playing sports and then ask a poor black man living in the ghetto about racism, their responses will probably be different. The poor man will probably blame other people for his misfortune, play the race card, and tell us how much whitey wants to hold him down. The rich person will likely talk about how they made the decision to better their life and not let anyone "hold them down" and actively sought to improve themselves.


----------



## Mallus

Ryujin said:


> Well here you are: Brampton Batman. He's a good Samaritan, in my town, who does appearances and daily patrols.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/brampton-batman-shows-off-his-new-batmobile-1.1940242



That's awesome!


----------



## Ryujin

Mallus said:


> That's awesome!




He used to do foot patrols around downtown Brampton and was virtually unknown. More recently several Toronto TV stations picked up on it and did interviews. Here's an interview that was done by the Canadian SciFi channel "SPACE", on their news show "INNERSpace." They were the first to interview him, before he built his Batmobile.

*EDIT* Whoops! That was the one from just after he built the Batmobile.

https://vimeo.com/91742534


----------



## The_Silversword

goldomark said:


> That was specist, not racist.




Whatever, that doesnt make it ok!


----------



## Kramodlog

There is something wrong with Batman's voice. Too soft.


----------



## Janx

Cor Azer said:


> To summon an analogy from late night TV, saying 'All Lives Matter' should replace 'Black Lives Matter' is akin to saying 'All legs should be mended' instead of 'My leg should be mended' when I have a broken leg. Yes, all legs should be mended, but at this moment in time, mine is the one that is broken.
> 
> Yes, all lives are important, but at this moment in time, black lives are the ones in more peril.




This is kind of like arguing about the term "feminism".  I would prefer things about equality not name one party, even though I am in favor of all things being treated equal.  But I don't get to name it.  

As the dominant gender/race (aka the white guy on top), we just have to take it.  Because other people aren't getting treated equally.

Maybe one day, when white males are rounded up and shipped to gas chambers, we can call everybody else sexist racists.  Until then, we just have to suck it up.

Probably, what we need to do is carefully help everybody else get to be equal in a way that shows we've learned to try to do better.

That might entice the others to not round us all up and ship us off to the aforementioned gas chambers, but if they do, they will have earned being called sexist racists because white male lives matter, too.


Until then, we should ponder how come the police are able to arrest white guys shooting up places successfully, while they can't seem to avoid killing a 12 year old black kid with a pellet gun in a park.  Sure seems like a lot less care was put into trying to capture the threat in the park, than the active shooter.


----------



## Kramodlog

The_Silversword said:


> Whatever, that doesnt make it ok!




I agree. We should all feel human guilt and adopt a cat at the animal shelter. CAT LIVES MATTER!


----------



## Ryujin

goldomark said:


> There is something wrong with Batman's voice. Too soft.




He's a non-violent Batman 

It's better than the virtually incomprehensible growl that Bale affected.


----------



## Kramodlog

Ryujin said:


> He's a non-violent Batman
> 
> It's better than the virtually incomprehensible growl that Bale affected.



*bat-gasp*


----------



## Morrus

Cor Azer said:


> To summon an analogy from late night TV, saying 'All Lives Matter' should replace 'Black Lives Matter' is akin to saying 'All legs should be mended' instead of 'My leg should be mended' when I have a broken leg. Yes, all legs should be mended, but at this moment in time, mine is the one that is broken.
> 
> Yes, all lives are important, but at this moment in time, black lives are the ones in more peril.




Yeah. "Black Lives Matter" is a slogan which is short for "black lives matter just as much as white lives, so please stop shooting black people". It is _not_ short for "Only black lives matter". A good way to explain it is to say that the phrase means "Black lives matter _too_".


----------



## Mallus

I'm going to try to keep politics out of this, as much as possible, so forgive/bear with me... 



Valador said:


> No one has any respect for these creations and instead turn characters into tools for pandering to certain groups for profit.



Why do you assume it's pandering, and not just artistic reinterpretation? Re-interpretations occur all the time, across many different media (not just media in the nerd-o-sphere). As does alternate & interesting casting.

For example, in the world of opera, no-one gives a rat's ass about the race of the singers. I saw an Opera Deleware performance of Turandot (a Chinese _character_ originally performed by Italian _singers_) with a Black American soprano in the lead role. Now opera fans can be as obsessive & persnickety as any comic-book nerd, and they _love_ their favorite characters. But race is a total non-issue in this fandom (at this point in history). 



> So because someone gets butt-hurt and feels left out, I have to watch a character that I've possibly grown up with, get mutated into something so far from what I grew to love.



Let's switch to nerd-dom. Like a lot of people, I grew up with the character of The Batman. My first exposure was Adam West as Batman in the 1960s Pop-Art children's show. Followed by Miller's comics in high school/college, including his own revisionist "The Dark Knight Returns", then Keaton's Batman in Burton's pop-Gothic films, then later gravel-voiced Bale in Nolan's trilogy (which starts fairly realistic and ends up being a weird political/psychological opera by the last film), and Grant Morrison's take on the Bat-universe in comics. 

Tell me all those different versions of the Batman don't qualify as "mutation". How is making Batman, say, black, more of a change than the difference between West's Batman and Bale's? I'd really like to know. 

edit: forget Dini's excellent Batman cartoon, which was also technically a children's show, but was completely different in terms of tone & subject matter than the live-action 1960s show. 



> But hey, it's okay as long as we're taking away from white people and not from someone else, otherwise that would be racist.



How is anything, at all, being taken away from you? Can you explain that? 

A new version of an existing character doesn't erase all the previous versions & your experience/memories of them. A black James Bond wouldn't change the 24 prior Bond films where he's white. The PC Police won't raid your home and confiscate your DVD/Blu-ray collection. The One World Government won't fire pink space lasers into your brain and zap out your cherished recollections of Sean Connery, George Lazenby, David Niven (and sort-of Woody Allen), Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Piece Brosnan, and Daniel Craig.  Hmmm.. that's a lot of different takes on Bond, even when's he all-white.

Not to mention side characters like Felix Leiter, who went from white to black to white again (but always CIA), and M. who was an old British man before she was an old British lady.

Notice also that NBC's recent, and super-successful live version of the all-black Wizard of Oz musical didn't cause the original film version to disintegrate, or all the print versions of Frank L. Baum's books to spontaneously burst into flame. 

So... "taking away"... can you go into more detail?

You sound like you're claiming ownership of things you do not and cannot own. While ignoring the frequent, on-going re-interpretation of existing characters that happens outside of race/gender/orientation.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Valador said:


> Whether it's true or not is not the point. The point is that when one group does it it's seen as acceptable, however when white people do it it's seen as racist.



The way you're presenting it, you're only doing it because some other group "gets away with it," not because there is any truth in what you're saying. Seems disingenuous. 




> As soon as the movies casted a white actress as Hermione, they pretty much established her as a white character as far as the public is concerned because that exposure reaches more people than the books probably will. There are tons of people who never read the books that have seen the movies. This is an unfortunate truth.



No, they've just cast a White actress. That doesn't change anything in the books. The books being the source material, matter a bit more in establishing character traits. Look at Wolverine in the movies. He is played by Hugh Jackman, a guy that stands 6'2". Wolverine in the comics is a short little guy, standing at 5'3". You might like the Jackman Wolverine, and you might feel that it establishes Wolverine as being 6'2", but it doesn't. In the same way, the casting director chose Emma Watson to be Hermione. She happens to be White. Rowling has said that in te books she doesn't indicate a race for Hermione. Who are you going to go with? The guys that interpreted the books to make a movie, or the author of the books and the creator of the character?



> As far as establishing "something" as white, this is a big no no. You cannot have White Entertainment TV.



I'm surious, wha would "White entertainment" have as content?


> You cannot have White Lives Matter.



Sure you can. The issue isn't if you can have it, but why you're having it. Is there a sudden increase in police shooting of white people? If you think there is, start p the movement.


> You cannot have White history month.



Why would you need a month when you have all of U.S. history dedicated to showing White history? That's just short-changing yourself. But let's pretend that you were going to have a White history month. What would you present as "White history?"


> You cannot have White only colleges.



All colleges used to be "White only." And contrary to what you may believe, Black colleges allow White students, or non-Black students to attend as well. Why would you want to have a "Whites only" college, anyway?



> Because society has deemed that racist, due to reverse racism and double standards.



No, it's deemed racist because of what people pushing for those things have done in the past. When I say the past, I don't just mean a couple hundred years ago. I mean the recent past.  


> The moment someone claims "White Pride" they are instantly slammed and labeled a racist,



Have you seen the groups that claim "White pride?" 


> yet on the other hand an African American can claim "Black Pride" and it's seen as being a positive and good thing.  "I am proud to be (anything but white, insert here)" is praised whereas it's deemed racist if applied to being white.



It may have to do with what these groups are proud of as compared to the groups that claim "White pride." You're either missing it or ignoring it, but the reasons that these groups claim pride are different. Their purposes are different. Their beliefs are different. 
I'll assume that you're white. I'll also assume that you are proud of being White. I'll make a third assumption and say you don't belong to a KKK group or share their beliefs. Do you often proclaim your "White pride?" Let's assume that you do. Would you do it for the same reasons as members of the KKK? Would you have the same beliefs as members of he KKK?




> My post wasn't really just about Hermione, but the sudden influx of these situations that are being caused by politic correctness and people trying to walk on eggshells to not offend anyone.



That's an interesting assumption you're making. What makes you believe that the change was made for political correctness? Couldn't there be other reasons, such as the black actor being the best actor to audition for the part? I'd like to think that's also why Emma Watson was cast as Hermione in the first place. She wasn't the only child auditioning that had a similar look. She just happened to be a good actor and got the part. 


> Is her race important to the story? This is obviously up to the reader/viewer to determine. People relate on different levels to different characters.



You're a reader... or at least a viewer of the movies. Is her race important to the story? 



> Regardless, if the general mindset is that "her race shouldn't matter", then why change it once it's been established?



Again, you're assuming it was established when Rowling has said it wasn't. You may want her to be White, but hat doesn't make her White. You may be accustomed to her being White because of the first actress to play her, but hat doesn't establish her as being White, either.



> This isn't just about Hermione when I say this. This applies to any other popular, established characters, etc. If race doesn't matter then *why do people feel the need to constantly try to change it*? The reason is because it does matter, because it's a strong platform for people to relate to. People gravitate towards those that are similar to them.



I'm not sure people "feel the need" to change it, mush less "constantly" change it. Some characters have their race, gender, etc. changed so the writers can tell a different story. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with changing a characteristic of a made up character to tell a different story? What is it about made up characters that somehow, changing some aspect of theirs, is an assault on you on a cultural level? Is Hermione really that culturally significant to White people? Is Thor really that culturally significant to men? It comes off as a ridiculous reaction when people take it as such. 



> Companies constantly keep trying to pander to minorities in order to tap into that market.



Companies pander to all groups to try and make money. It sounds as if you have a problem with capitalism. 





> Racism does exist. Most people in some shape or form, no matter how small it is, could be considered racist to some small degree. It's unavoidable. People have preferences. If I was to say *"I'm only attracted to Hispanic women."* someone under todays mindset could say that's racist. "I don't like Chinese food." omg he must be racist!! If all my friends happen to be the same race as me, someone might think I'm racist.



You know "Hispanic" isn't a race, right? 



> Racism on a grand scale I don't believe exists. There is no huge conspiracy that the world has agreed upon in order to hold down a certain skin color. I don't have a monthly meeting with the great white council to determine how we're going to mess with ____ people this month. Some people though truly believe that whitey is out to get them.



So you don't believe that there is, or ever was, institutionalized racism?



> It implies that racism isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.



Really? Well, that's certainly an interesting take on it.


> If racism was truly an issue then minorities would not be allowed to do ANYTHING that would allow them to maintain a better position or way of life over say a white person. Any time I see some idiot who makes millions of dollars and then try to say white people have some magic privilege or that white people try to hold them down, it makes me lose all faith in humanity. I'm looking at you, Kanye West...



So you think that Kanye hasn't had to deal with any racism? Or is it that you believe that even though he did have to deal with racism, it wasn't "as bad" because it didn't stop him from getting to where he is at? Do you think he may encounter racism in his life at all?



> Growing up where I did, I encountered racism towards me for simply being white. Despite the fact that I lived in the EXACT SAME conditions as those people and went to the same exact schools and stores and had the same hardships, they still thought I was somehow magically privileged because I was white. Fortunately for me, it didn't bother me. I chalked it up to ignorance and did my own thing. I worked for what I wanted and didn't make excuses.



You may not realize it, but you did have certain advantages or at least less disadvantages by not being black. That you don't recognize it does not mean it isn't happening, though.



> Every time I hear him refer to his race all I ever hear is him referring to himself as a black man or person of color. He seldom if ever references his white side, unless he's trying to pander to some white people. *It's socially more acceptable if he finds pride in only being black, rather than bi-racial. He pretty much disowns any notion of being white unless it suits him in a specific situation*.



Could you go further into this?




> All of those are great examples of how little racism is impacting peoples ability to have a good and productive life. If REAL racism was running rampant then those people wouldn't even have the CHANCE to do any of those things.



"real" racism? How does that differ from fake racism? What is "real" racism?



> If you ask an African American who makes millions of dollars making movies or playing sports and then ask a poor black man living in the ghetto about racism, their responses will probably be different. The poor man will probably blame other people for his misfortune, play the race card, and tell us how much whitey wants to hold him down. The rich person will likely talk about how they made the decision to better their life and not let anyone "hold them down" and actively sought to improve themselves.



You really believe that?


----------



## Kramodlog

Valador said:


> Racism does exist. Most people in some shape or form, no matter how small it is, could be considered racist to some small degree. It's unavoidable. People have preferences. If I was to say "I'm only attracted to Hispanic women." someone under todays mindset could say that's racist. "I don't like Chinese food." omg he must be racist!! If all my friends happen to be the same race as me, someone might think I'm racist.
> 
> *Racism on a grand scale I don't believe exists.* There is no huge conspiracy that the world has agreed upon in order to hold down a certain skin color. I don't have a monthly meeting with the great white council to determine how we're going to mess with ____ people this month. Some people though truly believe that whitey is out to get them.



There is no need for a conspiracy or organisation for racism on a large scale to happen. As you say in the first paragraphe individuals have prejudices. Those prejudices can have some impacts on how some institutions are run, like the legal system. There is no need for a klan meeting for the police, procecutors, judges and juries to be harder on black people. They just need to think black people are predisposed to violence and criminality and need the tough discipline of an authority figure to straighten them out. 

Of course, with that being said, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought the justice system needs to be harder on black people because you think they are predisposed to violence and crime and need tough discipline, so for you there isn't any institutional racism in the justice system.


----------



## Mallus

And another thing...

Fans of nerdy media are always clamoring for respect. "The things we love are art. They (and we) deserve respect". 

Now that's happening. One of the ways it's happening is nerdy media are being treated just like things like Shakespeare and opera: new versions of old works are being wildly reinterpreted and recast and remixed, etc. So you got you wish. Quit yer complaining. 

Or are Batman & Bond & Hermione Granger somehow more sacrosanct than Hamlet?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Valador said:


> The truth of the matter is that reverse racism is a bigger problem than the perceived presence of racism from whites. I'm to be held accountable for the actions of some white people from hundreds of years ago, that I have no connection to. I'm supposed to feel some kind of "white guilt" because people claim they're still "second class" citizens. Tons of minorities immigrated here and have been hugely successful. My wifes family came here from Mexico and have been successful. We have a black president. We have people of color making a hell of a lot more money than I do in multiple industries.




If you want to see racism in action, look at the killing of Tamir Rice. A boy playing with a toy gun in a state that allows open carry. Shot down by police on camera in probably less time than it took you to read this sentence. The policeman who gunned down an unarmed boy without checking ... anything will not face criminal charges. And then there's Eric Garner. Killed by the police possibly while selling loose cigarettes and although the coroner found homicide, the Grand Jury decided not to indict (despite the fact a prosecuter can reputedly get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich).

On the other hand when you look at a white mass murderer then normally either as in the case of Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook they killed themselves or as in the case of Robert Lewis Dear Jr. at Planned Parenthood Colorado they survived and were taken in.

And yet despite this sort of thing being caught on camera some people are claiming that reverse racism is more of a problem than racism. Because their hurt feelings are more of a problem than people getting killed. Right.



Maxperson said:


> Protesting through further racism doesn't give them a pass. Black lives matter should have been named All Lives Matter. That would have included the black lives.




Nope. Black Lives Matter was called Black Lives Matter because it was and is black people being gunned down by police. Almost no one disuputes that White Lives Matter in America. But when the police gun down a twelve year old with a toy gun it is in doubt whether Black Lives Matter in America.



Maxperson said:


> Right, and she then ignores that she explicitly calls students who are black or asian out in writing as black or asian. She is being very disingenuous when she says that because she didn't call out that Hermione was white, that the race wasn't established.




Two sentences and two mistakes.

First mistake. Counterexample: Blaize Zabini. Blaize was mentioned in the sorting hat scene in Philosopher's Stone. It was only in the Half Blood Prince that it was mentioned whether he was male, and his skin colour (black). For more than five books his skin colour and his gender wasn't called out.

Second mistake - you're putting words into her mouth. All she said was that she liked black Hermione.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

FWIW, the shooting of John Crawford in an Ohio Wal-Mart would be a better example of an unjustified shooting.

For other examples of racism in America, see also redlining, the continued existence of sundown towns, employment practice cases, etc.

Things are better for me than for my parents or grandparents, but despite improvements, there is still work to be done.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> FWIW, the shooting of John Crawford in an Ohio Wal-Mart would be a better example of an unjustified shooting.




The one where someone picked up a toy gun in a Wall-Mart and was gunned down by the police while he was on his phone? In an Open Carry state? Yeah, that was pretty blatant as well.

The Grand Jury did not, of course, indict. Why would they? It's only as if 11/162,300 Federal Grand Juries in 2011 didn't indict. Grand Juries almost always indict when the proseductor wants them to. But the prosecutor normally doesn't want to indict cops. Talking local Grand Juries, 288 non-indictions in a row in Huston for police officers.



> For other examples of racism in America, see also redlining, the continued existence of sundown towns, employment practice cases, etc.
> 
> Things are better for me than for my parents or grandparents, but despite improvements, there is still work to be done.




All too true. I was just showing the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Valador

My lunch break isn't long enough to properly respond to everything above, but I'll try my best to give a proper response tonight when I'm home. In the mean time, I have a question.

If the white man suddenly vanished from the world, would all of the current minorities problems be solved? I only ask because apparently whitey is the devil in everyones eyes.


----------



## Morrus

Valador said:


> I only ask because apparently whitey is the devil in everyones eyes.




You have adequately illustrated one of the common barriers to equality. You equated people asking for equal treatment with accusations of devilry. Asking for equal treatment is not an attack.


----------



## Morrus

I've changed the thread tag to politics so that folks know to avoid it if they want to keep clear of such subjects.


----------



## MechaPilot

Valador said:


> If the white man suddenly vanished from the world, would all of the current minorities problems be solved? I only ask because apparently whitey is the devil in everyones eyes.




No, but all of the racism that whites levy against minorities would be gone.  Each race has its own prejudices: look at the Japanese and the Ainu.  Those prejudices would still be present.  White racism is just a big deal in the US because whites are the majority, and because whites are often in charge of things like hiring, academic admissions, and make up the bulk of representation in national politics.


----------



## Valador

Morrus said:


> You have adequately illustrated one of the common barriers to equality. You equated people asking for equal treatment with accusations of devilry. Asking for equal treatment is not an attack. That some folks think it is is a major problem on the road to an equitable world.




I am 110% all for EVERYONE having perfect equality regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. What I am not for are people blaming me, even if it's indirectly, because of the color of my skin, for offenses I took no part in. If you want me to treat you fairly and with respect, DO NOT insult me by blaming me for things I had no part in. 

All I'm saying is that society has made it acceptable to be racist against white people yet condemns it if it's the other way around. All racism, from both sides, should be handled the same. How about that as a first step towards equality.

Also the media only promotes more racism. If a black cop shoots a white kid it's never labeled the same as if a white cop shoots a black kid. The media always makes it a point to emphasize the fact that the white person killed the black person and that their skin color is important some how. However if a black guy kills a white guy it's simply "a guy killed a guy."


----------



## Mallus

Valador said:


> I only ask because apparently whitey is the devil in everyones eyes.



Do you honestly believe that? 

Or are you just trying to rile folks up because this is the Internet?


----------



## Valador

Mallus said:


> Do you honestly believe that?
> 
> Or are you just trying to rile folks up because this is the Internet?




I ask because I've met and know a lot of people of color who have been raised to, and firmly believe that white people are the root of all their problems as a whole. It's literally instilled into them from childhood. So I know some people think it's true.


----------



## Morrus

Valador said:


> What I am not for are people blaming me,




Nobody has blamed you. That was easy. Problem solved!


----------



## MechaPilot

Valador said:


> I am 110% all for EVERYONE having perfect equality regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. What I am not for are people blaming me, even if it's indirectly, because of the color of my skin, for offenses I took no part in. If you want me to treat you fairly and with respect, DO NOT insult me by blaming me for things I had no part in.




I am all for equality as well.  However, I feel its important to point out that I have never felt blamed for slavery.  The United States as a country is to blame for the history of slavery in the U.S.  The country probably should make some manner of reparations for that, even if it comes in the form of things like interest free housing or education loans.




Valador said:


> All racism, from both sides, should be handled the same. How about that as a first step towards equality.




Sure, but let's start with the stuff that is resulting in actual death and the ruining of lives first.  Let's start by repealing mandatory minimums, by creating a single punishment for using all illegal drugs instead of harsher punishment for crack and lighter punishment for coke because of the urban/white-businessman divide (I would prefer simple legalization or decriminalization, but that's probably not going to happen any time soon).




Valador said:


> Also the media only promotes more racism. If a black cop shoots a white kid it's never labeled the same as if a white cop shoots a black kid. The media always makes it a point to emphasize the fact that the white person killed the black person and that their skin color is important some how. However if a black guy kills a white guy it's simply "a guy killed a guy."




I agree with you that the media promotes more racism, but I have only ever see it work in the reverse of what you described:

1) A white guy shoots up a school or a planned parenthood and he's a disturbed individual and not a terrorist.
2) A kid brings a homemade clock to school for his engineering club and he's immediately a terrorist because of his skin color and his name.
3) An unarmed black kid is shot by a vigilante-wanna-be who was told by the police not to follow the kid and gets off scott free when he shoots the unarmed kid.
4) A cop shoots a black guy and the black guy died "while resisting arrest."
5) A black guy shoots anyone and it's automatically "gang activity is suspected" while it's an "accidental discharge" when a white guy shoots someone.

Now that's not to say there aren't people who exacerbate these issues: for example, maybe there was a time when he was helpful, but Jessie Jackson only seems to make things worse when he shows up.  But, real activists often get conflated with those people so they can be dismissed by the media.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Valador said:


> I am 110% all for EVERYONE having perfect equality regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. What I am not for are people blaming me, even if it's indirectly, because of the color of my skin, for offenses I took no part in. If you want me to treat you fairly and with respect, DO NOT insult me by blaming me for things I had no part in.



I'm curious, who has blamed you? Do you have any examples of this happening to you?



> All I'm saying is that society has made it acceptable to be racist against white people yet condemns it if it's the other way around. All racism, from both sides, should be handled the same. How about that as a first step towards equality.



So the first step to equality is to treat the group that suffers the least? 



> Also the media only promotes more racism. If a black cop shoots a white kid it's never labeled the same as if a white cop shoots a black kid. The media always makes it a point to emphasize the fact that the white person killed the black person and that their skin color is important some how. However if a black guy kills a white guy it's simply "a guy killed a guy."



Sometimes there are significant differences in the circumstances which lead to a cop shooting a person. There seems to be a pattern when it comes to police shootings of black individuals. There are times where prejudice and discrimination against certain groups is part of the culture in certain police departments. You can deny it all you'd like, but it's the truth. Now, I'm not saying all police departments are full of rampant racism, nor am I saying that all White police officers are racist... but some are. Pointing it out is not an attack on White people, or on you for being White. If you were really interested in everyone being treated equally, you'd probably want Black individuals to be treated the same as White individuals. As some others have pointed out, that isn't what happens. When in an open carry state a black male in a Walmart gets shot holding a toy gun, you should wonder why he was seen as a threat. Or maybe you would want to know why minorities are more likely to get longer jail sentences than their White counterparts for the same exact crimes. 
But lets talk about how the media promotes racism, as you say. 
Shooters of color are called terrorists and thugs. White shooters are called mentally ill

The media smears Black victims of shootings

The media treats White shooters better than Black victims

I think you have a point, just not the one you thought you were making. The media does promote racism, just not the way you believe it's happening.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> No, but all of the racism that whites levy against minorities would be gone.  Each race has its own prejudices: look at the Japanese and the Ainu.  Those prejudices would still be present.  White racism is just a big deal in the US because whites are the majority, and because whites are often in charge of things like hiring, academic admissions, and make up the bulk of representation in national politics.




Too true, unfortunately.  Hell's bells- some racism is infraracial: a lot of my family is fairly light skinned, and some of my cousins caught hell for dating significantly darker-skinned guys.

Or, to put it differently: "This just in- people suck!"


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Valador said:


> I ask because I've met and know a lot of people of color who have been raised to, and firmly believe that white people are the root of all their problems as a whole. It's literally instilled into them from childhood. So I know some people think it's true.



I've met White people that are exactly the same and believe it's the Blacks and the Jews and the Mexicans that are the cause of their problems rather than themselves. So what if some people believe it? Does it make it true for everyone? You can't deny that there are racist White people1. Does some White people being racist mean that all White people are racist? Hardly. It is insulting to think so, don't you agree? Well, it's also insulting to generalize the way you are doing. Bad form. 

[sblock=1]Well, you can... or someone else can, but that would just be ridiculous and a lie.[/sblock]


----------



## Neonchameleon

Valador said:


> If the white man suddenly vanished from the world, would all of the current minorities problems be solved? I only ask because apparently whitey is the devil in everyones eyes.




Well there's a strawman and a half! No, not all the problems of the world are the responsibility of white men. Just a lot of them - in large part because white men have been on top for a long time. And in this thread no one is saying what you are accusing them of.



Valador said:


> I am 110% all for EVERYONE having perfect equality regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.




I read that on one hand. I read on the other you claim "The truth of the matter is reverse racism is a bigger problem than the perceived presence of racism from whites." If you actually meant that reverse racism was worse than the existing racism in the United States then at best you are extremely blinkered - and even if you didn't the two statements are in extreme tension.



> What I am not for are people blaming me, even if it's indirectly, because of the color of my skin, for offenses I took no part in. If you want me to treat you fairly and with respect, DO NOT insult me by blaming me for things I had no part in.




As far as I know you are only personally being blamed for spreading the nonsense that reverse racism is a bigger problem than the real and actual racism that gets people killed and imprisoned. Your own words are something that you, Valador, have a part in. They are also spreading memes that are (a) untrue, (b) an attempt to deny actual racism. Which means that your words, Valador, are providing a cover for racism and can only come from someone who is extremely blinkered, only looking at the minor hurts they are receiving.



> All I'm saying is that society has made it acceptable to be racist against white people yet condemns it if it's the other way around. All racism, from both sides, should be handled the same. How about that as a first step towards equality.




Personally, as a first step towards equality, I'd suggest actual practical measures. Like normalising the way e.g. drug offences are handled to change the fact that although actual rates of drug taking and possession are slightly higher among white guys, the incarceration rate is massively higher amongst black guys. (In pre-riot Ferguson, 92% of stop-and-search searches were on black people (67% of the population is black) - but the rate of finding contraband was 50% higher on white people)

As a first step I'd deal with things you can measure. And the impact of the law. Getting your feelings hurt by a few harsh comments is something that's happened to me a few times. But I don't go out there and claim that it's worse than real racism that ruins lives.



> Also the media only promotes more racism. If a black cop shoots a white kid it's never labeled the same as if a white cop shoots a black kid.




OK. Most police shooting incidents in any direction aren't dealt with at all. They have to be pretty egregious in the US.

The reason Ferguson erupted was only tangentally to do with Michael Brown getting shot. It was simply the inciting incident.

The reason Ferguson erupted was due to the systematic oppression of the population by a police force I can only describe as paramilitary. A police force that carried more firepower and behaved with its weapons more aggressively than soldiers in Iraq. A police force that paid not just for itself but for 20% of the entire municipal budget from fines (and before you say "They must have done something to be fined" you might want to get your head round Civil Asset Forfeiture).

Michael Brown being shot down was just the straw that broke the camel's back. There is a lot going on and most of it is terrible.

Now I'm white. I'm glad I don't have to deal with most of that crap - and glad that I live in a country where the police don't normally carry guns. And the US militarised police terrify me. (It's not that our police are notably less racist - but not carrying guns and not having for profit prisons means the impact is lower).



> The media always makes it a point to emphasize the fact that the white person killed the black person and that their skin color is important some how. However if a black guy kills a white guy it's simply "a guy killed a guy."




You mean when a white guy shoots up a school, a church, or a Planned Parenthood, the media makes a point to emphasise the fact that the white guy was a lone wolf and you shouldn't look at anyone else? That sort of difference?


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> What you're doing is interpreting the books, just like the casting director did when she cast Emma Watson. While Rowling may have explicitly described a character as black, that does not mean that not describing Hermione's race establishes her as White. As Rowling said, Hermione's race was never explicitly described. You're free to interpret the books as you'd like, but hat doesn't mean because you believe Hermione is White that she is actually "established" as White.




Rowling was right there with the casting director and had tremendous influence on who got the roles.  It was not the casting director alone who cast Emma Watson.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> To summon an analogy from late night TV, saying 'All Lives Matter' should replace 'Black Lives Matter' is akin to saying 'All legs should be mended' instead of 'My leg should be mended' when I have a broken leg. Yes, all legs should be mended, but at this moment in time, mine is the one that is broken.
> 
> Yes, all lives are important, but at this moment in time, black lives are the ones in more peril.




It's not even close.  I suppose all of the white kids killed by police aren't broken?  All the hispanic ones killed by police can go to hell? Singling out black lives is racist as it puts black lost lives ahead of all other lost lives on the basis of color.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> I'll make an analogy with Gay Pride. Gay pride parades and homosexuals saying they are proud to be homosexuals aren't saying they are better than heterosexuals. They are saying they are proud of who they are in spite of people who say homosexuals are bad or inferior.




A White Pride parade would be denounced as racist if they marched just for being proud to be white.  The hypocrisy the country has when dealing with racism is phenomenal.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> Yeah. "Black Lives Matter" is a slogan which is short for "black lives matter just as much as white lives, so please stop shooting black people". It is _not_ short for "Only black lives matter". A good way to explain it is to say that the phrase means "Black lives matter _too_".




A quick google search didn't show that full slogan at all.  Just "Black Lives Matter."  If they really wanted it to mean that, All Lives Matter would have been a much better way to say it.  Can you provide a link to that full slogan?  I've only ever seen them talking about black lives mattering and not a word from any of them on other lives.


----------



## Maxperson

Neonchameleon said:


> Nope. Black Lives Matter was called Black Lives Matter because it was and is black people being gunned down by police. Almost no one disuputes that White Lives Matter in America. But when the police gun down a twelve year old with a toy gun it is in doubt whether Black Lives Matter in America.




You do realize that white, hispanic, asian, indian,  and insert other race than black here are also being gunned down by police, right?  You also realize that a toy gun can't always be ascertained to be a toy before you shoot the one reaching for the gun, right?  Officers aren't required to allow themselves to be killed on the off chance that this time the gun is a toy.  Most of the time the gun is real.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> It's not even close.  I suppose all of the white kids killed by police aren't broken?  All the hispanic ones killed by police can go to hell? Singling out black lives is racist as it puts black lost lives ahead of all other lost lives on the basis of color.




Uh... no.

Nobody is singling out black lives as being the only ones that matter. As Morrus says, the slogan means "Black lives are as important as everyone else's".

People are being killed solely for being black.

People are being killed solely for being trans.

Can you show me how trumpeting #AllLivesMatter is helping prevent those two types of murders? Because if it's not helping, then it's at best a hypocritical slogan because it's adherents are not actually caring about all lives, and at worse it's blatantly harmful and pulls resources (time, money, attention) away from people who are trying to prevent black and trans people from being killed simply for being black and trans.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Uh... no.
> 
> Nobody is singling out black lives as being the only ones that matter. As Morrus says, the slogan means "Black lives are as important as everyone else's".
> 
> People are being killed solely for being black.
> 
> People are being killed solely for being trans.
> 
> Can you show me how trumpeting #AllLivesMatter is helping prevent those two types of murders? Because if it's not helping, then it's at best a hypocritical slogan because it's adherents are not actually caring about all lives, and at worse it's blatantly harmful and pulls resources (time, money, attention) away from people who are trying to prevent black and trans people from being killed simply for being black and trans.




Those two types are not any more important than any other type of murder.  

Also, most of the killings are justified.  Not all, but most.  These kids, black, white and otherwise are acting in stupid ways that could cause cops to be killed if they didn't react quickly and decisively.  20/20 hindsight doesn't change a valid act into a racist one.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> A White Pride parade would be denounced as racist if they marched just for being proud to be white.  The hypocrisy the country has when dealing with racism is phenomenal.




For white people to face racism, there needs to be a threat of actual oppression. No other racial group in the US can assert the collective power to oppress the lives of white people in general.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Rowling was right there with the casting director and had tremendous influence on who got the roles.  It was not the casting director alone who cast Emma Watson.



Doesn't matter. You're still interpreting the books. The author and creator of the books and characters has made a statement about it. Deal with it. Get over it. Move on.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> Those two types are not any more important than any other type of murder.




Nobody said they're *more* important. But they are important.

You're defending a mighty fine strawman there.



Maxperson said:


> Also, most of the killings are justified.  Not all, but most.  These kids, black, white and otherwise are acting in stupid ways that could cause cops to be killed if they didn't react quickly and decisively.  20/20 hindsight doesn't change a valid act into a racist one.




Ok... umm... wow...

Aren't you the one in another thread who said killing people without due process is never justified? (Admittedly, that was about drone strikes on Americans deemed enemy combatants).

You first need to establish such acts as being valid. Given the frequency that even armed white alleged criminals are able to be brought in without deaths compared to black alleged criminals, there's reason to find such validity questionable.

Addendum: And given that my understanding is that one of the founding principles of American justice is that it is better to let 1000 guilty men go free rather than condemn an innocent man, we should still very *very* concerned even if only a small fraction of those deaths are not justified.

And I'll be honest, I don't delve deep into the specifics of all the deaths #BlackLivesMatter protests. I do, however, follow #TransLivesMatter (and #BlackTransLivesMatter, given that it's about 95% of #TransLivesMatter), and I think you'd have to do some pretty fancy arse-pulling to suggest any of the 21 known transwomen murders were justified.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> A White Pride parade would be denounced as racist if they marched just for being proud to be white.  The hypocrisy the country has when dealing with racism is phenomenal.




Maybe, and I'm just spit-balling here, that's because one of the most racist organizations in the U.S., the KKK, billed themselves as a "white pride" organization for a long time.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> For white people to face racism, there needs to be a threat of actual oppression. No other racial group in the US can assert the collective power to oppress the lives of white people in general.




LOL  No.  All that needs to happen for us to be the victim is for us to be on the other side of the racist comment or act.  No full oppression needs to happen for the act to be based on race.  If I run around calling every black person the N word, I'm not oppressing anyone.  I would be acting racist, though.  I'd also get my ass kicked right good and deserve it.  Oppression is not a requirement for racism.  It's just a tool in the racist bucket.


----------



## Ryujin

MechaPilot said:


> Maybe, and I'm just spit-balling here, that's because one of the most racist organizations in the U.S., the KKK, billed themselves as a "white pride" organization for a long time.




Yup, that expression has definitely become a euphemism for "white supremacist." The KKK, Neo Nazis, skinheads, etc. have adopted it whole heartedly. In the beginning it was used in an effort by more "sophisticated" racists to cover their thought processes, but has since become no more clean than the old epithets.


----------



## Maxperson

Cor Azer said:


> Nobody said they're *more* important. But they are important.




By putting the forward by race only, they are saying that they are more important than all of the other similar deaths of other races.



> Ok... umm... wow...
> 
> Aren't you the one in another thread who said killing people without due process is never justified? (Admittedly, that was about drone strikes on Americans deemed enemy combatants).




No.  I never said that.  I said that MURDER without due process is never justified.  What the cops do in self-defense is not murder.  Some few killings are murder and those cops are being tried finally, but most are not.



> You first need to establish such acts as being valid. Given the frequency that even armed white alleged criminals are able to be brought in without deaths compared to black alleged criminals, there's reason to find such validity questionable.




Only if you ignore the societal differences that lead to the increase.  Black society tends to keep itself poor, yes with some help, but also with how it acts towards its own.  Fathers leaving families behind, placing schooling as a lower priority, teaching kids to fear/avoid/hate the police which leads to criminals being protected and an increase in blacks getting into crime, etc.  Black people do have it harder, but a good part of it is their own doing.

What you just said is only true if all other things are equal, and they aren't.  Primarily, it's just a matter of numbers.



> Addendum: And given that my understanding is that one of the founding principles of American justice is that it is better to let 1000 guilty men go free rather than condemn an innocent man, we should still very *very* concerned even if only a small fraction of those deaths are not justified.




Agreed.  Those cops who do engage in murder should be tried and treated like a murderer.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> Maybe, and I'm just spit-balling here, that's because one of the most racist organizations in the U.S., the KKK, billed themselves as a "white pride" organization for a long time.




Well, then I guess since the Germans were Nazis and who are well known for it, all Germans should be treated like Nazis, right?  Sorry, but if you are going to associate me with something I am not associating myself with, that's on you and you're a racist for doing it if skin color is involved.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Look at it this way: the swastika was a symbol with peaceful connotations in multiple cultures around the world.  It was even flown by the 45 Infantry division of the US Army.

...until Nazis.  They ruined it for everyone else, and it will take time to rehabilitate the symbol, if that can even be done.

Likewise, "white pride" has been ruined by groups such as the KKK.  Whatever its prior meaning, whatever your current intent, if today you use that phrase, you are going to dredge up all that hateful context whether or not that is your intent.  If you wish to fight the battle to rehabilitate it, that is your prerogative, but don't be surprised if your metaphorical nose gets bloodied every time you make the attempt.

Some in the black community tried to rehabilitate the word "n****r", and for a while, it almost worked.  But if you ask the culture warriors of that period TODAY how they feel about how well they did, most see it as a failure.  Many are embarrassed that they made the attempt.  The stain is too deep to clean.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> LOL  No.  All that needs to happen for us to be the victim is for us to be on the other side of the racist comment or act.  No full oppression needs to happen for the act to be based on race.  If I run around calling every black person the N word, I'm not oppressing anyone.  I would be acting racist, though.  I'd also get my ass kicked right good and deserve it.  Oppression is not a requirement for racism.  It's just a tool in the racist bucket.




Oppression isn't done by an individual on another; it's generally an implicit, and possibly unintentional, leverage behind a person's action due to institutionalized bigotry.  Given the experiences black people have gone through in America, and how they were treated by white people who called them such terms, there are legitimate fears that white people who use such terms now have similar intentions to white people back then, particularly because, from my admittedly white privileged vantage, there's been a fairly successful societal education going on to let people know that such a term is, to put it mildly, a very stupid thing to say, so anyone who goes against that education is either being willfully ignorant or actually *does* espouse those outdated views - both of which are very dangerous perspectives in highly charged situations.

Having an action being based on race isn't in and of itself racist, if there are legitimate reasons behind it. Discrimination isn't bad on its face - everyone discriminates every time they make a choice. It's only bad when it's being used against a category of people that is generally unable to protect itself because it's in a minority.

Without trying to overshadow other minority groups, black people - for example - have a generally hard time removing institutionalized racism without help from non-PoC. I'm not an expert on American politics, but my understanding is that most states disallow convicts from ever voting in the future. Black people are inordinately convicted and face stiffer penalties than white people for the same actions, and are thus disproportionally removed from the voting pools of many states. The vast majority of people, I would wager, are not able to investigate every issue at hand for every election, and so tend to focus on the handful that are most relevant to their own daily lives. I don't blame them for this, and in-and-of-itself, voting in self-interest is not inherently racist. That said, given that many white people don't have all the same concerns as black people, many issues that are of concern to black people don't get the attention they need because the pool of eligible voters has been winnowed to remove those who may be affected, and thus the institutionalized racism remains intact. One aspect of white privilege is that even if a given white person doesn't vote, generally speaking, enough other white people who share the non-voter's concerns will vote and thus the non-voter's concerns are covered. Black people don't get that sort of back-up plan, particularly when stacked with other aspects of institutionalized racism that disproportionally make it harder for PoC to vote than white people.

In the US, white people are not a minority, particularly when it comes to positions of power and influence. No white people are losing things in their lives because they are white (note that "not getting something in limited supply because a minority got it instead" is not the same as losing something, because nobody was entitled to it in the first place), although they may lose things for other reasons (being white is not enough to be successful on its own, even if it does avoid some obstacles).

So, please, tell me. How do white people suffer from racism on a yearly, monthly, daily, hourly basis?


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> By putting the forward by race only, they are saying that they are more important than all of the other similar deaths of other races.




No, only your strawman is saying that.



Maxperson said:


> No.  I never said that.  I said that MURDER without due process is never justified.  What the cops do in self-defense is not murder.  Some few killings are murder and those cops are being tried finally, but most are not.




I'll grant that I misremembered your views from the other thread, if only so this thread doesn't devolve into the same arguments on it.

Although to be fair, my understanding is that self-defense is an affirmative defense - which means you need to prove you were *actually* in danger, not just *think* you're in danger.



Maxperson said:


> Only if you ignore the societal differences that lead to the increase.  Black society tends to keep itself poor, yes with some help, but also with how it acts towards its own.  Fathers leaving families behind, placing schooling as a lower priority, teaching kids to fear/avoid/hate the police which leads to criminals being protected and an increase in blacks getting into crime, etc.  Black people do have it harder, but a good part of it is their own doing.
> 
> What you just said is only true if all other things are equal, and they aren't.  Primarily, it's just a matter of numbers.




Those are some *extremely* bold assertions for the troubles faced by black and other PoC that I note you leave completely unsubstantiated.



Maxperson said:


> Agreed.  Those cops who do engage in murder should be tried and treated like a murderer.




I was going to try to be coy and witty in response to this, but I'll be explicit:

Police officers have a very hard job, one that I would never in a million years feel capable of doing. That said, they get extraordinary privileges the average citizen does not, and given that they're usually called in when things are already a mess, they are dealing with people in very stressful situations. Those two givens need to be weighed very heavily, and everything - *EVERYTHING* - police officers do while on duty needs to be kept squarely above board, because generally speaking, the public does not have the power to police the police, and it doesn't take much stool to soil a whole pool.


----------



## Ryujin

Cor Azer said:


> Although to be fair, my understanding is that self-defense is an affirmative defense - which means you need to prove you were *actually* in danger, not just *think* you're in danger.




In their legal system, as in ours, you have to show that you had a good faith belief that your life was in danger. It doesn't require the actuality. The idea of this doesn't really bother me until you get into situations in which people manufacture the 'danger' to themselves as with the officer who shot Tamir Rice, and the Trayvon Martin incident.


----------



## Maxperson

Ryujin said:


> In their legal system, as in ours, you have to show that you had a good faith belief that your life was in danger. It doesn't require the actuality. The idea of this doesn't really bother me until you get into situations in which people manufacture the 'danger' to themselves as with the officer who shot Tamir Rice, and the Trayvon Martin incident.




Tamir Rice was very different from Trayvon Martin.  The officers involved with Rice made a bad decision and got too close.  Once there, though, the perceived danger was real and not something intended to happen in order to shoot someone.  With Trayvon Martin, Zimmeran went looking for someone to get involved with and shoot because he was in "danger".


----------



## Cor Azer

Ryujin said:


> In their legal system, as in ours, you have to show that you had a good faith belief that your life was in danger. It doesn't require the actuality. The idea of this doesn't really bother me until you get into situations in which people manufacture the 'danger' to themselves as with the officer who shot Tamir Rice, and the Trayvon Martin incident.




That's why I'm a programmer and not a law-talking-guy!


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> Tamir Rice was very different from Trayvon Martin.  The officers involved with Rice made a bad decision and got too close.  Once there, though, the perceived danger was real and not something intended to happen in order to shoot someone.  With Trayvon Martin, Zimmeran went looking for someone to get involved with and shoot because he was in "danger".



The perceived danger was real? Hardly. The perceived danger was not real. That the cop did not recognize the danger was not real, as the gun was fake, or thought it was real, can be argued. The perceived danger actually being "real?" Nah. It wasn't.


----------



## tomBitonti

Ryujin said:


> In their legal system, as in ours, you have to show that you had a good faith belief that your life was in danger. It doesn't require the actuality. The idea of this doesn't really bother me until you get into situations in which people manufacture the 'danger' to themselves as with the officer who shot Tamir Rice, and the Trayvon Martin incident.




I thought the standard was somewhat more complicated: Not just danger, but danger of severe bodily harm.  And simple belief is not sufficient: A standard of reasonableness applies.

That's what I've gathered as a non-lawyer doing some reading, so I could be off, a little, or a lot.  I'm presenting my best understanding.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Depends on the jurisdiction, but essentially correct.


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> The perceived danger was real? Hardly. The perceived danger was not real. That the cop did not recognize the danger was not real, as the gun was fake, or thought it was real, can be argued. The perceived danger actually being "real?" Nah. It wasn't.




You're right.  That was a misspeak in typing haste.  I had meant to say that the perceived danger was real as far as the cops knew.


----------



## Maxperson

tomBitonti said:


> I thought the standard was somewhat more complicated: Not just danger, but danger of severe bodily harm.  And simple belief is not sufficient: A standard of reasonableness applies.
> 
> That's what I've gathered as a non-lawyer doing some reading, so I could be off, a little, or a lot.  I'm presenting my best understanding.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




Yeah.  It can be tough to determine whether that belief was reasonable, though.  With Tamir Rice, he was reaching for his waste band for the gun that the cops did not know was fake.  That's more than reasonable to generate a fear for your life.  If I remember correctly, one of the people who called in the gun report said that the gun might be fake, but that part was not told to the officers on the way.  Rice was a very unfortunate series of mistakes, unlike like Trayvon Martin, where I firmly believe that Zimmerman was putting himself in position to be able to "claim" fear for his life in order to shoot someone.


----------



## Ryujin

Cor Azer said:


> That's why I'm a programmer and not a law-talking-guy!




And I'm a desktop support guy


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> A White Pride parade would be denounced as racist if they marched just for being proud to be white.  The hypocrisy the country has when dealing with racism is phenomenal.



You're playing a game of false equivalencies. White people in the US are not only the ones in power, but they are also the majority. The majority in power in the US isn't saying white people are bad or inferior*, and they do not face institutional racism, like black people do. Saying your proud to be black or homosexual is pushing up. It is to fight injustice. Saying you're proud to be white is rubbing it in. Pushing down. 

You aren't standing up to anything or anyone when you say you are proud to be white. There are reasons why for the last two hundred years, those have proclaimed themselves to be proud whites are klan members, white supremacist and other fascists. It ain't because white folks are oppressed.


*Sure, you'll be able to find anecdotes to say I'm wrong, but anecdotes do not invalidate my statement.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> You're playing a game of false equivalencies. White people in the US are not only the ones in power, but they are also the majority. The majority in power in the US isn't saying white people are bad or inferior*, and they do not face institutional racism, like black people do. Saying your proud to be black or homosexual is pushing up. It is to fight injustice. Saying you're proud to be white is rubbing it in. Pushing down.




This is irrelevant.  Racism is still leveled by minorities against white people constantly and they are given a pass on it, which is the height of hypocrisy.  Majority and minority don't matter when it comes to who is being racist to who.  Racism is racism is racism and it's ALL bad.



> You aren't standing up to anything or anyone when you say you are proud to be white.




Pride doesn't require that.  I can be proud to be X without standing up to someone.



> There are reasons why for the last two hundred years, those have proclaimed themselves to be proud whites are klan members, white supremacist and other fascists. It ain't because white folks are oppressed.



It's you who is playing at a False Equivalence.  I'm not a Klan member or supremacist.  If I declare that I am proud to be white, it has nothing to do with those things and is not even remotely equivalent.  Any attempt to connect my being proud to be white to those things is racist on its face and shame on the person doing it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> If I declare that I am proud to be white



So, out of curiosity, what is it about being White that you are proud of?


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> This is irrelevant.



It is relevant. Saying you're proud to be black when a lot of people say that being black is bad or are inferior is not racist. It means you're just as good as other people. Like homosexuals who say they are proud to be gay doesn't mean they think they are better than heterosexuals. Black Lives Matter means that black lives matter as much as other lives, not that they are better.



> Racism is still leveled by minorities against white people constantly and they are given a pass on it, which is the height of hypocrisy.  Majority and minority don't matter when it comes to who is being racist to who.  Racism is racism is racism and it's ALL bad.



Yes, racism is all bad, but minorities aren't in power and are... the minority. So white people do not face the same quantity and quality of racism. The justice system in the US is slanted against black people, not white people. This is why the focus is on black people when people are talking about institutionalized racism. Racism against whites isn't part of many discussions not because it isn't bad or doesn't exist, but because it is a marginal phenomenon that doesn't gimp a white person's chances in the US.

If your black it is harder to find a job, to find housing, to not be arrested randomly by the police, etc. It is hard for a you to find a job? I have no dought about it. But it is easier than if you were black. 



> Pride doesn't require that.



But the pride you denounce and say that white people should be able to immitate is a that sort of pride. A pride that resist oppression.

White supremacist have been saying for two hundred years that white people are being oppressed. That is a lie. I'm sure you're thinking that it wasn't the case two hundred years ago, but for the last 50 years, white people are being oppressed and white pride is totally justified because of that. It isn't the case. White people, men, have indeed lost power in the last 50 years, but it was ill gotten power that they never should of had in the first place. Losing that power isn't oppression. It is justice.



> It's you who is playing at a False Equivalence.  I'm not a Klan member or supremacist.



Hello, strawman. Tell me other things I didn't say about you!  



> If I declare that I am proud to be white, it has nothing to do with those things and is not even remotely equivalent.



Whether you like it or not, by talking about white pride you are associated with white supremacists. Do not blame me for that. It is that way and frankly, I find nothing wrong with that association. You could blame immigrants and minorites for white pride to be associated with racism, you're good at that. Or be proud to be white!... and associated with racists. I do not care.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> A White Pride parade would be denounced as racist if they marched just for being proud to be white.  The hypocrisy the country has when dealing with racism is phenomenal.




You can thank the racists who have tainted that concept though. You know this wouldn't be the case if the only White Pride rallies ever weren't always done by skinheads and neo-nazi groups. There is a valid reason why this is strongly associated with racism. On the other hand, if you were to hold an Irish Pride, English Pride, Italian Pride or French Pride rally no one would care. People don't care if you are proud of your ethnic heritage (whatever it is) but they would naturally be a little suspicious if you go around talking about white pride. Every single time I've ever seen White Pride anything in my 39 years, it has always been from a group who believes in White Supremacy. Always. I've never once seen someone bring up white pride who didn't then go on to eventually say terribly racist things. 

Personally I don't really know what white pride could mean otherwise (I don't really feel like I am part of a broader tribe of white people, and don't feel like I share a culture with people on the basis of their whiteness....I do feel some connections to Italians and Jews, because of ethnicity and culture, but not to some abstract notion of being white). 

I am not a big fan of online social justice stuff, and I think people are way to fast to dog pile or shame folks for raising discordant points of view. But this seems like an area where if you grew up in the US, you should understand why its a taboo. Maybe in thirty years it won't be. But if you told me tomorrow you were holding a white pride parade, I'd pretty much assume it is because you are a racist (and that wouldn't be a crazy conclusion to draw at all based on what a white pride parade usually entails).


----------



## fba827

( I have not read any of this thread aside from the OP, so I am answering to that OP specifically )

In my opinion, the setting in which potter takes place does not have any racial relevance... That is to say, there aren't racial slurs or comments of a race being oppressed.  For this reason, in the potter universe, I don't find the race of that character ( or any character) to be relevant.

If it had been set somewhere else where race did show relevance then I might have an issue with it depending on the specifics.

Just my opinion anyway


----------



## tomBitonti

Well, race, as black, white, or whatever, doesn't seem to matter, but other races do.  Half-giant, house elf, mudblood, whatever are the bank creatures, matters.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Saying you're proud to be black when a lot of people say that being black is bad or are inferior is not racist. It means you're just as good as other people.




Saying you're proud to be white when nobody is saying you're inferior is not racist, either.  People are allowed to take pride in themselves.  You don't need to be some sort of underdog to do so.



> Yes, racism is all bad, but minorities aren't in power and are... the minority. So white people do not face the same quantity and quality of racism. The justice system in the US is slanted against black people, not white people. This is why the focus is on black people when people are talking about institutionalized racism.




The justice system is not slanted against anyone.  Everyone is supposed to be treated the exact same way.  It's some of the people involved in running the justice system that are the problem.  A failure to implement a system properly is a people problem, not a system problem.



> Racism against whites isn't part of many discussions not because it isn't bad or doesn't exist, but because it is a marginal phenomenon that doesn't gimp a white person's chances in the US.




It absolutely exists.  I've experience it from both hispanics and black people I've interacted with.  I can't tell you how often a stranger of one of those minorities has acted and treated me like a racist based on nothing more than my skin color.  That's blatant racism on their part.



> But the pride you denounce and say that white people should be able to immitate is a that sort of pride. A pride that resist oppression.




I don't mind resisting oppression.  Oppression should very much be resisted.  However, many take it well beyond resistance and tread deep into racism based on prior experiences.  I'm not a part of any racism they experienced, so they have no business taking out that frustration on me.

[quote[White supremacist have been saying for two hundred years that white people are being oppressed. That is a lie. I'm sure you're thinking that it wasn't the case two hundred years ago, but for the last 50 years, white people are being oppressed and white pride is totally justified because of that. It isn't the case. White people, men, have indeed lost power in the last 50 years, but it was ill gotten power that they never should of had in the first place. Losing that power isn't oppression. It is justice.[/quote]

I don't care what they have been saying.  They are not me and are not connected to me.



> Whether you like it or not, by talking about white pride you are associated with white supremacists.




No I'm not.  I can only be associated with things I associate myself with.  If someone with my name commits a mass murder, I'm not associated with that, either.



> Do not blame me for that. It is that way and frankly, I find nothing wrong with that association.




If you associate me with it, it's your fault and I have every right to blame you for it.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> You can thank the racists who have tainted that concept though. You know this wouldn't be the case if the only White Pride rallies ever weren't always done by skinheads and neo-nazi groups. There is a valid reason why this is strongly associated with racism. On the other hand, if you were to hold an Irish Pride, English Pride, Italian Pride or French Pride rally no one would care. People don't care if you are proud of your ethnic heritage (whatever it is) but they would naturally be a little suspicious if you go around talking about white pride. Every single time I've ever seen White Pride anything in my 39 years, it has always been from a group who believes in White Supremacy. Always. I've never once seen someone bring up white pride who didn't then go on to eventually say terribly racist things.




The reason for that is that nobody would believe anyone else he tried to have a white pride rally that wasn't racist.  They'd be instantly villainized as racists and so nobody does it other than the racists.  



> Personally I don't really know what white pride could mean otherwise (I don't really feel like I am part of a broader tribe of white people, and don't feel like I share a culture with people on the basis of their whiteness....I do feel some connections to Italians and Jews, because of ethnicity and culture, but not to some abstract notion of being white).




A sense of pride in who you are that includes skin color.  Many people don't even know their ethnicity anymore.  Bloodlines are very, very mixed these days.


----------



## Maxperson

tomBitonti said:


> Well, race, as black, white, or whatever, doesn't seem to matter, but other races do.  Half-giant, house elf, mudblood, whatever are the bank creatures, matters.
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




The bank was run by goblins.  Those filthy creatures.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> The reason for that is that nobody would believe anyone else he tried to have a white pride rally that wasn't racist.  They'd be instantly villainized as racists and so nobody does it other than the racists.



So what is it about being White that you're proud of?



> Many people don't even know their ethnicity anymore.  Bloodlines are very, very mixed these days.



Is that a problem?


----------



## MechaPilot

Cor Azer said:


> That's why I'm a programmer and not a law-talking-guy!




I'm not a lawyer, but I play one in front of the IRS. 

Without access to the Westlaw database or a full legal library (which is so much more tedious than using the databases) it's quite difficult to fully research the relevant regulations and case law for self defense (not to mention variances from state to state).

However, searching for the statute for the state in which I live is easy enough, and the statute regarding the use of force for defense of self or another can be paraphrased as follows (link to the actual statute text):

Unless certain conditions exist, there is a legally rebuttable presumption that the use of force to protect oneself or another is justified if there is an "honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur" if the person you use deadly force against is breaking and entering, committing home invasion, or forcibly removing a person from a home or business premises and the person using force is not himself in the commission of a crime.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> Well, then I guess since the Germans were Nazis and who are well known for it, all Germans should be treated like Nazis, right?  Sorry, but if you are going to associate me with something I am not associating myself with, that's on you and you're a racist for doing it if skin color is involved.




Not all Germans were Nazis.  Just ask some German Jews, if you can find any.  Even among Non-Jewish Germans there were those who didn't believe in the goals of the Nazi party/government.  Heck, there was even a conspiracy of German military officers that didn't support the Nazi agenda and tried to kill Hitler.

Also, you're making a false comparison.  A person who is just of German heritage is comparable to a person who is simply white, not comparable to a person who is white and organizing a "white pride" event.

However, if I heard that a local group of German-Americans were going to hold an "Aryan Pride Rally" I'd steer clear of it like the plague and assume that everyone involved was racist, and that assumption would be both reasonable and non-racist because of the Nazis' and the skinhead movement's espousal of an Aryan master race.

Furthermore, I currently work in fast food.  I see a lot of people come through the drive through, and there are some white customers with shaved heads who come through bearing German cross and/or SS bolt tattoos.  I have to smile and give them the same service that I give to other customers because that's my job; but if it were up to me I'd tell them that the franchise I work work for doesn't believe in associating with hate groups and I'd politely ask them not to come back.


----------



## Eltab

Is Hogwarts limited to recruiting students from London / England / isle of Britain?  
If not, there's this historical thing called the British Empire, which included plenty of territory where black-skinned people live.  Hogwarts could have a special relationship with magic-using societies based in the former empire, and take in promising students from overseas.
She uses 'Hermione' because it's easier to pronounce in English than her given birth-name.


----------



## Morrus

Eltab said:


> Is Hogwarts limited to recruiting students from London / England / isle of Britain?
> If not, there's this historical thing called the British Empire, which included plenty of territory where black-skinned people live.




Wait, what? Are you under the impression that the UK does not have black people in it? It's a very diverse and ethnically multicultural country. Especially in major cities like London.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> The reason for that is that nobody would believe anyone else he tried to have a white pride rally that wasn't racist.  They'd be instantly villainized as racists and so nobody does it other than the racists.
> 
> .




I think you are overestimating the number of white people itching to hold pride rallies for reasons other than racism.


----------



## Elf Witch

I have been reading some of these comments and I can't believe that we still need to explain why black lives matter or why there were black colleges and black history month or even at one time black beauty pageants. 

It is because all history in the US is white history, white lives have always mattered, at one time only black colleges were the only ones accepting black students. Racism is still very much alive in the US just look at what Obama has had to deal with. I don't see anyone screaming for Ted Cruz's birth certificate I have never seen other first ladies described as apes. Civil rights have improved since the days of Jim Crow but there are still issues.

Look how eagerly certain news organizations painted Treyon Martin as a thug. In Texas a rich white boy gets drunks and kills four people and gets probation a black boy gets drunk kills one person and goes to jail. And this is still common. For that rich white boy he not only had the privilege of being white but economic privilege as well.

I have a friend he is a doctor and works at Jackson Memorial in Miami which is a very bad neighborhood. In 2015 he was pulled over 36 times because his car matched a reported stolen car, his colleague drives the same make and model and even color and he has never been puled over once the difference is my friend is black and his colleague is white. It is common enough to have a name driving while black. 

This whole thing about white pride is stupid we have always had pride every president until Obama looked liked us, all the Mercury and Apollo astronauts looked like us. our history is filled with white people doing extraordinary things while ignoring what other races often did. Minorities talk about having pride because that was denied them for so long.

I don't have white guilt because I personally have never done anything bad to anyone else but I do acknowledge that my race has done some pretty bad things. 

Allowing minorities to have pride in where they came from, changing a few characters from white to a minority does not diminish me or hurt me in anyway.

One last thing yes individual minority folks can be bigoted and no it is not right but it is not truly racism because it is not institutionalized.  Just because a few black people hate your guts they don't have the power the white people had to take away your rights or deny you equal rights.


----------



## MechaPilot

Elf Witch said:


> One last thing yes individual minority folks can be bigoted and no it is not right but it is not truly racism because it is not institutionalized.  Just because a few black people hate your guts they don't have the power the white people had to take away your rights or deny you equal rights.




The lack of institutionality doesn't make it not racism: it just makes that racism less effective.  Just as an example of the difference, consider racism and interracial marriage.  If the racism isn't institutionalized, you could be excommunicated from your family for marrying outside your race.  If it were institutionalized, you could go to jail for marrying outside your race.  One of those punishments is a far more effective deterrent than the other, but they are both deterrents.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> The lack of institutionality doesn't make it not racism: it just makes that racism less effective.




I am a black man, and I approve this message.


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> Saying you're proud to be white when nobody is saying you're inferior is not racist, either.



It is in our current context. Those who say they are proud white people are klan members and the likes. If you want to say you are a proud white person, well it is you who decides to be associated with them.  



> People are allowed to take pride in themselves.  You don't need to be some sort of underdog to do so.



So be proud of being USian or Irish or whatever. 



> The justice system is not slanted against anyone.  Everyone is supposed to be treated the exact same way.  It's some of the people involved in running the justice system that are the problem.  A failure to implement a system properly is a people problem, not a system problem.



That is some impressive mental gymnastics to avoid using "institutional racism". Institutions are created and runned by people so institutions can be racist. Or sexist. Or homophobic...



> It absolutely exists.



Guess what, marginal, the word that I used, doesn't mean racism towards white people doesn't exist. You are attacking a strawman once more.



> I don't mind resisting oppression.  Oppression should very much be resisted.  However, many take it well beyond resistance and tread deep into racism based on prior experiences.



So attack those people and what they are saying when they cross that line. The idea behind Black Lives Matter isn't about racism against white people, so there is no need for you to opposite or attack it. 



> I'm not a part of any racism they experienced, so they have no business taking out that frustration on me.



Black Lives Matter has oppressed you personally?



> I don't care what they have been saying.  They are not me and are not connected to me.



So stop using words like "white pride" or suck up the criticism and stop complaining about something that is your responsability (using klan concepts).



> No I'm not.  I can only be associated with things I associate myself with.



Not really. Other people can associate you with stuff even if you do not want the association with it. If I see you driving a Gremlin I can associate you with other Gremlin drivers even if you do not want that association. People are free to make the associations they want like. You are free to deny it. But it is hard to deny you aren't a Gremlin driver when you drive one. 



> If you associate me with it, it's your fault and I have every right to blame you for it.



So if you have a right to blame people for doing stuff you do not like, black people have every right to blame police officers for the shooting of black people? They have every right to blame white people for instutitonalized racism? Seems like you have double standards.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> Wait, what? Are you under the impression that the UK does not have black people in it? It's a very diverse and ethnically multicultural country. Especially in major cities like London.




I didn't gather that from what he said.  Read it again.  It seems like he's saying that due to the huge area controlled by the British empire, there would be people of other cultures present and that the name Hermione could have been used for the sake of ease, instead of a name that sounds black.


----------



## Kramodlog

Some grimsly stats compiled by the Guardian: 







> Despite making up only 2% of the total US population, African American males between the ages of 15 and 34 comprised more than 15% of all deaths logged this year by an ongoing investigation into the use of deadly force by police. Their rate of police-involved deaths was five times higher than for white men of the same age



http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men

The Washigton Post had a similar compilation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-year-end/


----------



## Maxperson

Elf Witch said:


> It is because all history in the US is white history, white lives have always mattered, at one time only black colleges were the only ones accepting black students. Racism is still very much alive in the US just look at what Obama has had to deal with. I don't see anyone screaming for Ted Cruz's birth certificate I have never seen other first ladies described as apes. Civil rights have improved since the days of Jim Crow but there are still issues.




Tell that to the Irish and other white minorities who were oppressed by the U.S. when they came over.  White lives have not always mattered.  Nor is Obama's birth certificate of any particular meaning.  Democrats screamed just as loudly over George Bush, but about different things.  The certificate was just one way to scream at the sitting President, not something that was about race.  Unreasonable screams happen from the other party in this country.



> Look how eagerly certain news organizations painted Treyon Martin as a thug. In Texas a rich white boy gets drunks and kills four people and gets probation a black boy gets drunk kills one person and goes to jail. And this is still common. For that rich white boy he not only had the privilege of being white but economic privilege as well.




You're conflating race with wealth there.  Over here in California a rich black man murdered two people and got off scott free.  Rich is the key, not wealth.  Plenty of white people who aren't rich get drunk, kill one person, and then go to jail.



> I have a friend he is a doctor and works at Jackson Memorial in Miami which is a very bad neighborhood. In 2015 he was pulled over 36 times because his car matched a reported stolen car, his colleague drives the same make and model and even color and he has never been puled over once the difference is my friend is black and his colleague is white. It is common enough to have a name driving while black.




People tend to look at things in a vacuum when that vacuum never exists.  I don't know the area, but it's very possible that some of that is racist, but that much if it has to do with most crime in that area being done either by black people, or the amount of black crime vastly outweighing the white when it comes to auto theft.  

I've noticed a pattern over the years.  When black activists and others want to cry racism for the media, they rarely look at any possible reason other than skin color to base their claims on.  They are unwilling to hear that there could be other legitimate reasons for what happened.  In doing so, the remove any semblance of legitimacy from their claims.  If they held an open mind and were willing to admit that some of the cases were not racism, but these ones over here are because of X, Y and Z, then I would be more willing give credence to their racism claims.  As it stands, whenever they yell racism over a shooting, my initial response is "Here we go again.  Another knee jerk racism reaction."  It's only when non-black media gets involved and reveals things independent of black claims that show racism that I get on board, like the recent Chicago case.



> I don't have white guilt because I personally have never done anything bad to anyone else but I do acknowledge that my race has done some pretty bad things.
> 
> Allowing minorities to have pride in where they came from, changing a few characters from white to a minority does not diminish me or hurt me in anyway.




Right.  Pride is okay.  Racism is not and those minorities involved with pride very often cross that line.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> It is in our current context. *Those who say they are proud white people are klan members and the likes*. If you want to say you are a proud white person, well it is you who decides to be associated with them.




I'll prove that to be a lie right now.  I am proud to be white.  Huge numbers of people who are white live exemplary lives and do great things.  Since I am not a klansman, racist, or anything remotely like one, your statement is wrong.



> "institutional racism". Institutions are created and runned by people so institutions can be racist. Or sexist. Or homophobic...



Sure, but the justice system is not one of them.  The laws created apply equally to everyone.  The justice institution is not racist.  People misusing it can be.



> So attack those people and what they are saying when they cross that line. The idea behind Black Lives Matter isn't about racism against white people, so there is no need for you to opposite or attack it.




All lives matter, and people who are white and hispanic are also being gunned down by police.



> Black Lives Matter has oppressed you personally?




And you like to accuse ME of Strawmen.  I didn't call out black lives matter there.  



> So stop using words like "white pride" or suck up the criticism and stop complaining about something that is your responsability (using klan concepts).



The klan doesn't own the statement.  If you want to be racist and accuse me of racism over something I am not associating myself with, that's on you.  It's your fault and your racism.



> Not really. Other people can associate you with stuff even if you do not want the association with it. If I see you driving a Gremlin I can associate you with other Gremlin drivers even if you do not want that association. People are free to make the associations they want like. You are free to deny it. But it is hard to deny you aren't a Gremlin driver when you drive one.




Actually, they can't.  They can falsely claim association, but that's as far as it goes.  If I have chosen to drive a Gremlin, then *I have chosen* to associate with other Gremlin drivers ONLY to the extent that we all drive that car.  Any further association is incorrect and on you, unless of course I choose to associate further.

That means that the if I say I'm proud to be white, you can say, "Well, so have Nazis and aryan groups."  That's the full extent that you can associate me, and you cannot associate me further and attribute their policies or beliefs to me.  I have not chose to associate with those policies or beliefs.  If you do so, you are racist.


----------



## Maxperson

goldomark said:


> Some grimsly stats compiled by the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men
> 
> The Washigton Post had a similar compilation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-year-end/




Thanks for yet another quote with no context!


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> The certificate was just one way to scream at the sitting President, not something that was about race.  Unreasonable screams happen from the other party in this country.




Really? Really? You think the birthers would scream at Ted Cruz (who wasn't even born in the US)? Did birthers plague Hoover? I don't think so. And when someone tried to gin up controversy about Arthur possibly being born in Ireland or Canada, it went nowhere. Somehow, Obama is the only one...


----------



## Maxperson

billd91 said:


> Really? Really? You think the birthers would scream at Ted Cruz (who wasn't even born in the US)?




Uh, no.  I think liberals would scream at Ted Cruz for not being born in the U.S.  Both sides are very good at using the same tactics against each other.  As I said, the liberals would also find many other reasons to scream at Ted Cruz as well.  The screaming at Obama is happening over politics, not color.

Edit: In general.  There are of course some racists who do scream at Obama about color.  The birther movement isn't, though.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Maxperson said:


> I'll prove that to be a lie right now.  I am proud to be white.



What is it about being white that you are proud of? I think this is the third time I've asked you, so I'm sure you'll ignore it again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> Uh, no.  I think liberals would scream at Ted Cruz for not being born in the U.S.



They've had the opportunity- all they have asked is why the GOP pursued Obama and they haven't asked the same of Cruz.  IOW, they have asked why the opposition has not been as dogged in asking of their own what they asked of the Democrats as an illustration of hypocrisy.

Not only that, the GOP raised nary a peep about his 2008 opponent John McCain, who was born in Panama.  Not was the issue raised when Mitt Romney's Mexican-born dad George ran against Nixon.  

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona...but before it was granted statehood.  The fuss about this rose only to a murmur.


> Edit: In general.  There are of course some racists who do scream at Obama about color.  The birther movement isn't, though.




Really?

Instead of taking Hawaiian officials statements about Obama's birth certificate, some allegedly sent investigators, and claimed they had found bombshells....that never materialized in the press.

Instead of taking Hawaiian officials statements about Obama's birth certificate, they claimed the officials were lying about the date of Obama's birth, insisting that he was born before Hawaii achieved statehood.

Read the text of 8 USC § 1401- the law that defines who is a national or citizen under US law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

You'll see that Obama clearly qualifies- regardless of birth location- since his mother (born in Kansas) was a natural born citizen of the USA who had lived most of her life within its boundaries, at least 5 years of which were consecutive. 

Both the law in question and the fact of his mother's natural born citizenship are easily verifiable, and both were completely ignored by the Right. 

How many GOP legislators are lawyers?  Ted Cruz is DEFINITELY one- Harvard educated and a SCOTUS clerk to boot.  How many lawyers and law students are on the staffs of GOP legislators?  Yet they all either remained willfully silent on 8 USC § 1401 or fueled the birther fire.

And all- again- ignoring the fact that their own candidate at the time was born in Panama.

All those past opportunities to DQ past presidential candidates due to birth status, and the first to have the issue raised is the black candidate born in Hawaii to a Kansas-born mother?

The assertion that the birther movement was not started or sustained by racial animus doesn't even pass the laugh test.


----------



## billd91

Maxperson said:


> The screaming at Obama is happening over politics, not color.




If it were just poitics, they'd be screaming about policy, about activities, and sometimes about social class and privilege. This is about his status as an American. How many white candidates have put up with that?


----------



## Kramodlog

Maxperson said:


> I'll prove that to be a lie right now.  I am proud to be white.  Huge numbers of people who are white live exemplary lives and do great things.  *Since I am not a* klansman, *racist*, or anything remotely like one, your statement is wrong.



I've talked to you for years and I've read your many take on undocumented immigrants, minorities and white pride. I have to say that I have doubts about that statement. 



> The laws created apply equally to everyone.



They aren't applied equaly and with the same severity. That is why the justice and penale systems in the US are called racist. The number of police officers who are freed after murdering black people is disgusting, while the number of black people who end up in jail for non-violent offenses is appalling. They are symptoms of everyday racism. That hard to get rid of racism. The one that makes you cross the street when you see black teens. The one makes you think black people who stay poor just do not work enough to improve their lot. The one that tells you that when protest in the streets they are just being racist against whites and ungrateful to be in the US instead of Africa. 



> All lives matter, and people who are white and hispanic are also being gunned down by police.



Your statement does not contradict what Black Lives Matter is denoucing. 



> I didn't call out black lives matter there.



You called it out many times. So, what has Black Lives Matter done to you specifically? 



> The klan doesn't own the statement.



It is very much tied to it. Neo-nazis, fascists and other white nationalists are too. Don't blame me for ruining it for you. Blame them. 

Again, I'll ask. Why not just be proud of being USian or Irish or whatever?



> Actually, they can't.



As long as there is free speech and independent thoughts, they can. It is because of those that you can protray Black Lives Matter in an innaccurate way and have no repercussions. Well, aside from people waving their virtual index in a disapproving fashion at you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> If it were just poitics, they'd be screaming about policy, about activities, and sometimes about social class and privilege. This is about his status as an American. How many white candidates have put up with that?




To be fair, SOME of the opposition to Obama is political, albeit largely of the toxic contrarian variety.  Exhibit one is the ACA.   Despite the fact that the ACA was conceived by a Republican think tank and has had a successful showing in the real world after it was enacted under a Republican governor, repeal of the ACA has been Job 1 (or at least, in the top 5) for the GOP since its inception.

My personal belief is that this example of contrarianism is more because it was proposed by a Democrat than that it was proposed by a black man.


----------



## Lord Twig

This conversation has devolved a bit, but I wanted to throw out my own opinion in on the original subject.

The Hermione Granger in the books was white. Now if they want to change the character and say that she is now black, that's fine. Just admit it is a change.

Nick Fury was changed in the Marvel movies, but everyone recognizes it was a change from the source material. Likewise with Ford Prefect in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Really the race of either character doesn't matter, so changing it is no big deal. It is also not a big deal changing Hermione, as it really doesn't matter to the story.

But as far as casting goes it still matters because Hermione's parents are going to have to be black as well. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Also one will need to be male and one female. Unless they also want to change it so that she has two mothers or fathers and she was adopted or was conceived invitro or... Well, it starts to get ridiculous. Just cast a black mom and dad and move on.

So no, you can't just "pick the best actor". I mean, Richard Harris is a good actor, but you aren't going to cast him as the red-headed 9-year-old girl Ginny Weasley. He made an excellent Dumbledore though. 

One final note, Hermione was discriminated against because of her parentage. She was born from Muggle parents. In Muggle society she was a fairly well off (parents were both dentists) middle-class white girl. So she went from a society where she was part of the privileged race, to one where she was the oppressed minority. Whereas a black Hermione would go from one form of discrimination to another (racial and then magical). Still an interesting idea to explore, but different than the book.

Oh, and I have read all the books and watched all the movies.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lord Twig said:


> The Hermione Granger in the books was white.




The author seems to disagree.



> But as far as casting goes it still matters because Hermione's parents are going to have to be black as well.




Well, not BOTH of them.



> So no, you can't just "pick the best actor".




"...for the role" is strongly implied by context.


----------



## Lord Twig

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The author seems to disagree.




She can say whatever she wants. And she doesn't say that Hermione is black. Plus she was personally involved with the casting of the actors for the movies. This gets back to the point I was making. Don't lie and say she was always black. Just admit you are making a change. I'm willing to bet a lot of the opposition is simply because of the attempt to re-write history.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, not BOTH of them.




True. As long as there is some attempt to make them believable. For example, the casting of the Weasleys in the movies was brilliant. It was totally believable that they were a family.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> "...for the role" is strongly implied by context.




Just wanted to make it clear.

I really have no problem with the casting, and I consider myself a fan. I'm not upset about it. She might make a great Hermione. I don't know her work, so I can't really say. Just be upfront about it.


----------



## MechaPilot

Lord Twig said:


> She can say whatever she wants. And she doesn't say that Hermione is black. Plus she was personally involved with the casting of the actors for the movies. This gets back to the point I was making. Don't lie and say she was always black. Just admit you are making a change. I'm willing to bet a lot of the opposition is simply because of the attempt to re-write history.




She didn't say Hermione was always black.  She said that her race had never been defined.  Also, casting for a movie doesn't change or establish a character's race for all future adaptations.  The king of Siam in The King and I is not automatically whatever race Yule Brenner was just because that's who played him in film.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Lord Twig said:


> She can say whatever she wants. And she doesn't say that Hermione is black. Plus she was personally involved with the casting of the actors for the movies. This gets back to the point I was making. Don't lie and say she was always black. Just admit you are making a change. I'm willing to bet a lot of the opposition is simply because of *the attempt to re-write history*.




Maybe if they took it as fiction, as i was meant to be taken, rather than as "history1," they'd be able to enjoy it more and be less angry and not feel as if they've been personally assaulted?

[sblock=1]Or White history[/sblock]


----------



## Cor Azer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> What is it about being white that you are proud of? I think this is the third time I've asked you, so I'm sure you'll ignore it again.




Of course, he won't. There has been at least one sentence since you asked the question, and well...


----------



## Cor Azer

MechaPilot said:


> She didn't say Hermione was always black.  She said that her race had never been defined.  Also, casting for a movie doesn't change or establish a character's race for all future adaptations.  The king of Siam in The King and I is not automatically whatever race Yule Brenner was just because that's who played him in film.




Exactly. Hermione's race not being established in the books simple means that any adaptation shouldn't feel constrained to only look at white actresses. This is not saying that they *can't* use white actresses, simply that the only physical criteria for the actor/actress are:

- age-appropriate
- female-presenting
- and something weird/frizzy with her hair*

* I've never read the books. I seem to recall someone mentioning her hair being called out for something.


----------



## Cor Azer

Maxperson said:


> The klan doesn't own the statement.  If you want to be racist and accuse me of racism over something I am not associating myself with, that's on you.  It's your fault and your racism.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they can't.  They can falsely claim association, but that's as far as it goes.  If I have chosen to drive a Gremlin, then *I have chosen* to associate with other Gremlin drivers ONLY to the extent that we all drive that car.  Any further association is incorrect and on you, unless of course I choose to associate further.
> 
> That means that the if I say I'm proud to be white, you can say, "Well, so have Nazis and aryan groups."  That's the full extent that you can associate me, and you cannot associate me further and attribute their policies or beliefs to me.  I have not chose to associate with those policies or beliefs.  If you do so, you are racist.




You can rail against this all you wish, but English-speaking society has settled into a general consensus that "white pride" means "white supremacy".

You can try to claim you're "taking it back", but I wouldn't suspect you'd get much support (except perhaps from racists trying to make their racism seem "ok"). I'm willing to be shown wrong, but I can't recall a single symbol/slogan that glorified oppressors ever being redeemed for general usage. There have been a few oppressive slurs that have been (or at last, were attempted to be) "taken back", such as the n-word for blacks and queer for LGBTAI+ communities.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Cor Azer said:


> Exactly. Hermione's race not being established in the books simple means that any adaptation shouldn't feel constrained to only look at white actresses. This is not saying that they *can't* use white actresses, simply that the only physical criteria for the actor/actress are:
> 
> - age-appropriate
> - female-presenting
> - *and something weird/frizzy with her hair**
> 
> * I've never read the books. I seem to recall someone mentioning her hair being called out for something.




That's not even really a requirement. The hair and makeup people should be able to give any actor chosen for the role weird and frizzy hair of any color.


----------



## MechaPilot

Cor Azer said:


> Exactly. Hermione's race not being established in the books simple means that any adaptation shouldn't feel constrained to only look at white actresses. This is not saying that they *can't* use white actresses, simply that the only physical criteria for the actor/actress are:
> 
> - age-appropriate
> - female-presenting
> - and something weird/frizzy with her hair*
> 
> * I've never read the books. I seem to recall someone mentioning her hair being called out for something.




Actually, they don't even NEED to go female.

My general opinion is this: unless a character's race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation is definitive of that character, it can be changed in an adaptation.

For example, making the comic book character Black Panther a white American would be problematic.  Making Captain America a Canadian super soldier or a Japanese-American would be problematic (making Cap female would be equally problematic if you kept the origin story due to the nature of the U.S. military during WWII).  Making Wonder Woman a man would be problematic.

However, if you wanted to make Batman black, asian, or latino, there's nothing about Batman or Bruce Wayne that says he has to be any specific race.  The same thing with Captain America, though the asian option most likely drops off in that case.


----------



## Cor Azer

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's not even really a requirement. The hair and makeup people should be able to give any actor chosen for the role weird and frizzy hair of any color.




Rule of Three for Comedic Lists


----------



## Cor Azer

MechaPilot said:


> Actually, they don't even NEED to go female.
> 
> My general opinion is this: unless a character's race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation is definitive of that character, it can be changed in an adaptation.
> 
> For example, making the comic book character Black Panther a white American would be problematic.  Making Captain America a Canadian super soldier or a Japanese-American would be problematic (making Cap female would be equally problematic if you kept the origin story due to the nature of the U.S. military during WWII).  Making Wonder Woman a man would be problematic.
> 
> However, if you wanted to make Batman black, asian, or latino, there's nothing about Batman or Bruce Wayne that says he has to be any specific race.  The same thing with Captain America, though the asian option most likely drops off in that case.




Well, I did say "female-presenting" 

While yes, adaptations can certainly change established facts of a character, I was specifically saying that in order to remain true to what was established on Hermione's physical attributes, such was needed.


----------



## MechaPilot

Cor Azer said:


> Well, I did say "female-presenting"
> 
> While yes, adaptations can certainly change established facts of a character, I was specifically saying that in order to remain true to what was established on Hermione's physical attributes, such was needed.




Fair enough.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They've had the opportunity- all they have asked is why the GOP pursued Obama and they haven't asked the same of Cruz.  IOW, they have asked why the opposition has not been as dogged in asking of their own what they asked of the Democrats as an illustration of hypocrisy.
> 
> Not only that, the GOP raised nary a peep about his 2008 opponent John McCain, who was born in Panama.  Not was the issue raised when Mitt Romney's Mexican-born dad George ran against Nixon.
> 
> Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona...but before it was granted statehood.  The fuss about this rose only to a murmur.




There is nothing anywhere that says you can't run for President if you are born somewhere else.  You just cannot BE President.  If Cruz is elected, I guarantee you that the liberals will be up in arm screaming about how he wasn't born in the U.S.  Until then, it's a big so what.



> Really?
> 
> Instead of taking Hawaiian officials statements about Obama's birth certificate, some allegedly sent investigators, and claimed they had found bombshells....that never materialized in the press.
> 
> Instead of taking Hawaiian officials statements about Obama's birth certificate, they claimed the officials were lying about the date of Obama's birth, insisting that he was born before Hawaii achieved statehood.




Yeah, really.  I'll bet there are some who are doing it over race.  The the movement itself, though, is just doing it for political reasons.  It's dumb, but people are often dumb when it comes to politics.



> Read the text of 8 USC § 1401- the law that defines who is a national or citizen under US law:
> 
> You'll see that Obama clearly qualifies- regardless of birth location- since his mother (born in Kansas) was a natural born citizen of the USA who had lived most of her life within its boundaries, at least 5 years of which were consecutive.
> 
> Both the law in question and the fact of his mother's natural born citizenship are easily verifiable, and both were completely ignored by the Right.
> 
> How many GOP legislators are lawyers?  Ted Cruz is DEFINITELY one- Harvard educated and a SCOTUS clerk to boot.  How many lawyers and law students are on the staffs of GOP legislators?  Yet they all either remained willfully silent on 8 USC § 1401 or fueled the birther fire.




Yes.  Aint politics grand?  People will remain silent on issues and speak up on non-issues to obfuscate.  That doesn't make it racism.



> All those past opportunities to DQ past presidential candidates due to birth status, and the first to have the issue raised is the black candidate born in Hawaii to a Kansas-born mother?




Yes.  Why on earth would they do it to one of their own first?  It's nonsense to think that a political party would attack one of their own on the subject.


----------



## Eltab

Morrus said:


> Wait, what? Are you under the impression that the UK does not have black people in it? It's a very diverse and ethnically multicultural country. Especially in major cities like London.



Oh, come on.  
You are seeing today (rightly), but I'm overviewing a process that has spanned 200 or so years.  Before the Empire, the population of England was overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon.  By definition.


----------



## Morrus

Eltab said:


> Oh, come on.
> You are seeing today (rightly), but I'm overviewing a process that has spanned 200 or so years.  Before the Empire, the population of England was overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon.  By definition.




But Harry Potter is set in present day.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lord Twig said:


> She can say whatever she wants. And she doesn't say that Hermione is black. Plus she was personally involved with the casting of the actors for the movies. This gets back to the point I was making. Don't lie and say she was always black. Just admit you are making a change. I'm willing to bet a lot of the opposition is simply because of the attempt to re-write history.




"Lie" is an awful strong word to sling at the creator of the intellectual property in question.  And, as pointed out, it's use is entirely unjustified- the author stated the character's race was not established.  That is a long way from saying the character was black.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Lie" is an awful strong word to sling at the creator of the intellectual property in question.  And, as pointed out, it's use is entirely unjustified- the author stated the character's race was not established.  That is a long way from saying the character was black.




It was disingenuous, though.  It's pretty obvious from the books and the casting that Hermione was intended to be white.  I could have respected Rowling if she had just owned up to it and then said that she thought the idea of a black Hermione was great, too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Maxperson said:


> There is nothing anywhere that says you can't run for President if you are born somewhere else.  You just cannot BE President.  If Cruz is elected, I guarantee you that the liberals will be up in arm screaming about how he wasn't born in the U.S.  Until then, it's a big so what.



1) you most certainly CAN be president if born outside of the the boundaries of the USA if you meet one of the several classifications of being labeled a "natural born citizen".

2) your prediction is already on shaky grounds Re:Cruz since the Democrats had exactly that chance in 2008 regarding McCain.  Instead of drying to gin up a controversy regarding the Panamanian-born Arizona Senator's ancestry, Obama and Clinton co sponsored a bill proclaiming him to meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as POTUS.  (It passed unanimously.)

3) what does it say about the collective brainpower of the GOP if they keep flirting with- and even sometimes choosing- candidates who might run afoul of the citizenship clause of POTUS eligibility?  (Nearly all of the presidential candidates in US history for whom there was an issue of being a "natural born citizen" were right-wingers of some kind, except Obama.)



> Yes. Why on earth would they do it to one of their own first? It's nonsense to think that a political party would attack one of their own on the subject.




It is called integrity, and regardless of what you think, politicians have managed to show it on occasion.  Even when pushed by members of his own party, W maintained his position that Islam is not inherently violent.  When on Fox, McCain corrected his interviewers by noting that "Allahu Akbar!" as souted in a video from some battle in the Middle East is merely Arabic for "God is great!", and as such, no different than something an English-speaking Christian soldier might exclaim after a successful military strike.

And, because you missed it, the Barry Goldwater citizenship issue WAS raised by members of the GOP, and they decided it was a non-issue.

Until Obama.


----------



## Elf Witch

Maxperson said:


> Tell that to the Irish and other white minorities who were oppressed by the U.S. when they came over.  White lives have not always mattered.  Nor is Obama's birth certificate of any particular meaning.  Democrats screamed just as loudly over George Bush, but about different things.  The certificate was just one way to scream at the sitting President, not something that was about race.  Unreasonable screams happen from the other party in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating race with wealth there.  Over here in California a rich black man murdered two people and got off scott free.  Rich is the key, not wealth.  Plenty of white people who aren't rich get drunk, kill one person, and then go to jail.
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to look at things in a vacuum when that vacuum never exists.  I don't know the area, but it's very possible that some of that is racist, but that much if it has to do with most crime in that area being done either by black people, or the amount of black crime vastly outweighing the white when it comes to auto theft.
> 
> I've noticed a pattern over the years.  When black activists and others want to cry racism for the media, they rarely look at any possible reason other than skin color to base their claims on.  They are unwilling to hear that there could be other legitimate reasons for what happened.  In doing so, the remove any semblance of legitimacy from their claims.  If they held an open mind and were willing to admit that some of the cases were not racism, but these ones over here are because of X, Y and Z, then I would be more willing give credence to their racism claims.  As it stands, whenever they yell racism over a shooting, my initial response is "Here we go again.  Another knee jerk racism reaction."  It's only when non-black media gets involved and reveals things independent of black claims that show racism that I get on board, like the recent Chicago case.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Pride is okay.  Racism is not and those minorities involved with pride very often cross that line.






Maxperson said:


> Uh, no.  I think liberals would scream at Ted Cruz for not being born in the U.S.  Both sides are very good at using the same tactics against each other.  As I said, the liberals would also find many other reasons to scream at Ted Cruz as well.  The screaming at Obama is happening over politics, not color.
> 
> Edit: In general.  There are of course some racists who do scream at Obama about color.  The birther movement isn't, though.




You don't know your history. The discrimination you are talking about happened to immigrants coming into America from Europe in the late 1800s. But the ones who came before did not for example Andrew Jackson who became president was born two years after his parents immigrated from Ireland. And though they faced discrimination they could change their names lose their accents and no one could tell them from other white Americans. Black Americans never could do that. Nor where they lynched by crowds well into the next century. It is not the same thing. They were not targeted because they were white. 

His birth certificate certainly does matter no other president or candidate ever had to go through this not after showing the same birth certificates that every other citizen born in Hawaii uses to prove citizenship. And no it is not a democrat/republican thing. In 2008 democrats were not screaming to see McCain certificate and he was born in the Panama. I have not read one blog, article written by a liberal demanding Ted Cruz prove his right to run for president what I have read is the hypocrisy involved in this. 

If you are denying race had anything to do with this then you are either naive or deliberately ignorant. 

 I did say he had both white privilege and economic privilege. But there is enough documented evidence on the injustice in sentencing that minorities face.  Black defendants tend to get harsher sentences and the death penalty more than white defendants. White defendants brought up on drug charges are offered rehab and probation for first time offences where minorities are more often sentenced to jail time for first time offenses. 

I seriously doubt that in 2015 silver 2011 Lexus were stolen 36 times in that area and white and Hispanics steal cars too as a matter of fact there was a Hispanic gang of car thieves operating in South Miami at the time. But his example is far from being unique. I know another doctor who drives a sports car he lives in Parkland a rich neighborhood and practices in an upscale hospital he was pulled over several times last year for the same excuse. The only problem is his very expensive car is a custom build with a custom paint job. Go ahead and make excuses for why he was pulled over but it had to do with a black man driving a sports car. He was also hassled by the police when he first moved into his neighborhood when he was out walking his dog one evening. It seemed someone reported suspicious behavior. He was detained by the police placed in the cruiser because he had no ID on him. It took over 50 minutes to straighten it out . I walk my dogs every night too and I don't usually have ID on me either.  

Like I said go ahead and twist yourself in knots trying to explain how this is not racism and how it does not happen often.


----------



## Umbran

This thread was about works of fiction, a play.  And you're butting heads over whether the "birthers" are racist?  

Not that this is forbidden in a politics thread, but, really, does anyone think this portion of it is constructive, in any fashion whatsoever?


----------



## Elf Witch

Maxperson said:


> Tell that to the Irish and other white minorities who were oppressed by the U.S. when they came over.  White lives have not always mattered.  Nor is Obama's birth certificate of any particular meaning.  Democrats screamed just as loudly over George Bush, but about different things.  The certificate was just one way to scream at the sitting President, not something that was about race.  Unreasonable screams happen from the other party in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating race with wealth there.  Over here in California a rich black man murdered two people and got off scott free.  Rich is the key, not wealth.  Plenty of white people who aren't rich get drunk, kill one person, and then go to jail.
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to look at things in a vacuum when that vacuum never exists.  I don't know the area, but it's very possible that some of that is racist, but that much if it has to do with most crime in that area being done either by black people, or the amount of black crime vastly outweighing the white when it comes to auto theft.
> 
> I've noticed a pattern over the years.  When black activists and others want to cry racism for the media, they rarely look at any possible reason other than skin color to base their claims on.  They are unwilling to hear that there could be other legitimate reasons for what happened.  In doing so, the remove any semblance of legitimacy from their claims.  If they held an open mind and were willing to admit that some of the cases were not racism, but these ones over here are because of X, Y and Z, then I would be more willing give credence to their racism claims.  As it stands, whenever they yell racism over a shooting, my initial response is "Here we go again.  Another knee jerk racism reaction."  It's only when non-black media gets involved and reveals things independent of black claims that show racism that I get on board, like the recent Chicago case.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Pride is okay.  Racism is not and those minorities involved with pride very often cross that line.






Maxperson said:


> Uh, no.  I think liberals would scream at Ted Cruz for not being born in the U.S.  Both sides are very good at using the same tactics against each other.  As I said, the liberals would also find many other reasons to scream at Ted Cruz as well.  The screaming at Obama is happening over politics, not color.
> 
> Edit: In general.  There are of course some racists who do scream at Obama about color.  The birther movement isn't, though.






Maxperson said:


> It was disingenuous, though.  It's pretty obvious from the books and the casting that Hermione was intended to be white.  I could have respected Rowling if she had just owned up to it and then said that she thought the idea of a black Hermione was great, too.




I assumed that she was white but I have over the years read many people of color especially if they are British posts theories that she was not white. People keep missing what Rowling has said she has not claimed that she was written as a black girl what she said was her race was never mentioned and was not part of who she was and she is fine with the casting of the new play.


----------



## Maxperson

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) you most certainly CAN be president if born outside of the the boundaries of the USA if you meet one of the several classifications of being labeled a "natural born citizen".




Yep.  I didn't remember the passage in the Constitution correctly.  



> 2) your prediction is already on shaky grounds Re:Cruz since the Democrats had exactly that chance in 2008 regarding McCain.  Instead of drying to gin up a controversy regarding the Panamanian-born Arizona Senator's ancestry, Obama and Clinton co sponsored a bill proclaiming him to meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as POTUS.  (It passed unanimously.)




That was then.  Both parties have a bur up their rears about what has been done to them and do it back to the other side when possible.



> 3) what does it say about the collective brainpower of the GOP if they keep flirting with- and even sometimes choosing- candidates who might run afoul of the citizenship clause of POTUS eligibility?  (Nearly all of the presidential candidates in US history for whom there was an issue of being a "natural born citizen" were right-wingers of some kind, except Obama.)




The collective brain power of both parties is about the same.  It's only the particulars about what stupid stuff they do that varies, and even that stuff is mostly the same.



> It is called integrity, and regardless of what you think, politicians have managed to show it on occasion.  Even when pushed by members of his own party, W maintained his position that Islam is not inherently violent.  When on Fox, McCain corrected his interviewers by noting that "Allahu Akbar!" as souted in a video from some battle in the Middle East is merely Arabic for "God is great!", and as such, no different than something an English-speaking Christian soldier might exclaim after a successful military strike.




It does happen on occasion.  The vast majority of the time integrity is nowhere to be seen in a politician, including McCain.



> And, because you missed it, the Barry Goldwater citizenship issue WAS raised by members of the GOP, and they decided it was a non-issue.
> 
> Until Obama.




It really isn't the GOP that did it to Obama.  It was the Tea Party seizing on something that may or may not have started out as racially motivated and making it a political thing.  The birther movement sprung from that political motivation.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> This thread was about works of fiction, a play.  And you're butting heads over whether the "birthers" are racist?
> 
> Not that this is forbidden in a politics thread, but, really, does anyone think this portion of it is constructive, in any fashion whatsoever?




Okay.  I posted that last response before I saw this.  I'll back off this tangent.


----------



## doctorhook

I've got no problems with this casting decision. It irks my continuity-sense whenever recastings happen, but I can think of several times where it was for the best. Plus, I'm not likely to see any stage plays in England anytime soon, so I doubt this will affect me at all.


----------



## Cody C. Lewis

Just want to chip in here... 

I do not care for Hermoine suddenly going through an ethnicity change. It's truly idiotic. 

Here's my problem: STOP CHANGING EXISTING characters to give yourself (brand) ethnic or gender diversity. It's exhausting. I'm looking at you Marvel.

Instead... make NEW AWESOME CHARACTERS with ethnic and gender diversity that consumers want to read/watch/discover. I'm looking at you DC Comics. Cyborg replacing Martian Manhunter in the Justice League completely, Simon Baz, etc.


----------



## MechaPilot

Cody C. Lewis said:


> Just want to chip in here...
> 
> I do not care for Hermoine suddenly going through an ethnicity change.




That's not what's actually happening though.  Rowling herself has said that the race of the Hermione character has never been specified.  The fact that Hermione was white in a film adaptation of that source material doesn't change the source material any more than Yul Brenner playing the King in The King and I changes the race of the character of the King of Siam.


----------



## Cody C. Lewis

MechaPilot said:


> That's not what's actually happening though.  Rowling herself has said that the race of the Hermione character has never been specified.  The fact that Hermione was white in a film adaptation of that source material doesn't change the source material any more than Yul Brenner playing the King in The King and I changes the race of the character of the King of Siam.




I completely disagree with you. If it was that simple, this thread wouldn't exist. I would wager before you heard this news, it never crossed your mind that she could be black. So sorry, as far as I am concerned, yes, this is a _change_.


----------



## MechaPilot

Cody C. Lewis said:


> I completely disagree with you. If it was that simple, this thread wouldn't exist.




It IS that simple.  Some people are just so attached to what was portrayed in the films that they think that's the way it was in the source material and that that's the way it has to be going forward.


----------



## Kramodlog

So what? Does it matter that a white character is now black? What if Harry Potter was made a woman? And homosexual? The Harry Potter series is plot driven. It only gets "racial" when it talks about the lot of elves. And even than white people are messianic figures that come to same elves. 

When thing are character driven and race and gender is part of the story, say Martin Luther King's story, who plays it might be more important. Then again, playing with race and gender can also be used to say something, even with Martin Luther King. Intention is important. Or it could be done just for artisitic reasons. Cate Blanchette played Bob Dylon in the bio pic _I'm not There_ and she nailed it. 

Anyway, I just can't find anything to protest with the gender or race swap of characters, fictional or not.


----------



## Yaarel

Ryujin said:


> It's magic. She cast a race change spell. That's no harder to believe than anything else in the Potterverse.




On a serious level, yes. A Wizard can change bodies, almost as easily as a Muggle can change lipstick color.

But I resent movies that replace white characters with minority characters for no other reason than groupthink political correctness.

The hate against males, against whites (Pan Europeans), and so on, is immoral and needs to stop.

Hating against whites is just as evil as hating against blacks. And so on.

I would rather see appealing black characters emerge in their own right, than swap in a black actor for a known white character. Making white characters arbitrarily black, makes it seem as if black cultures have nothing to contribute.

Create a new Wizard who is black. Leave Hermione, an already beloved character, white.


----------



## Cody C. Lewis

MechaPilot said:


> It IS that simple.  Some people are just so attached to what was portrayed in the films that they think that's the way it was in the source material and that that's the way it has to be going forward.




Look man, if you want to discuss whether or not the _change_ is a good one, cool, do that.

But seriously, we had 8 films, multiple books covers and 7 books to bring up racial tension a single time (a subject absolutely broached by Rowling with the mud-blood comments and the Malfoys' ironic obsession with pure bloods). If JK Rowling wrote her as a black character she would have said something, ANYTHING at least once before now, that Emma Watson was not a true representation of the character over the last 15 - 20 years.

This is a change of the character.


----------



## MechaPilot

And then there's also the fact that maybe the black actress in question was simply the best actress who auditioned for the role.  In a situation where the source material doesn't specify a given race, and where race is not an integral part of the character, choosing the best actress from those who auditioned should be done without giving race a second thought.


----------



## MechaPilot

Cody C. Lewis said:


> Look man, if you want to discuss whether or not the _change_ is a good one, cool, do that.
> 
> But seriously, we had 8 films, multiple books covers and 7 books to bring up racial tension a single time (a subject absolutely broached by Rowling with the mud-blood comments and the Malfoys' ironic obsession with pure bloods). If JK Rowling wrote her as a black character she would have said something, ANYTHING at least once before now, that Emma Watson was not a true representation of the character over the last 15 - 20 years.
> 
> This is a change of the character.




I am not saying that Rowling wrote her as black.  I am referring to Rowling herself stating that the race of the character was never specified.  If you have a problem with that, take it up with Rowling since she said it.

Also, the eight films mean precisely jack squat.  The films are NOT the source material, the books ARE; the films are merely adaptations that provably differ from the books, cutting scenes here and there, and outright changing things as well.


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> I am not saying that Rowling wrote her as black.  I am referring to Rowling herself stating that the race of the character was never specified.  If you have a problem with that, take it up with Rowling since she said it.
> 
> Also, the eight films mean precisely jack squat.  The films are NOT the source material, the books ARE; the films are merely adaptations that provably differ from the books, cutting scenes here and there, and outright changing things as well.




Heh. For me, the Harry Potter films ARE the source material, because I saw (and will see) every Harry Potter movie. But I havent read any of the books (at least not yet).

If I remember correctly, Rowling was consulted extensively for the movies, and said the movies represent her books excellently. So this is a rare case where the movies share the same authorship as the novels.

The movies are pop culture icons.

Respect the continuity of the story.

Changing the ethnicity of a central character drastically changes the story.

It is a conspicuous retcon at best. But really, it is a reinvention of the original story to create a different story.

It is ok to have a white character who is smart. There is no good reason to erase her.


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> It is ok to have a white character who is smart. There is no good reason to erase her.




You appear to be ascribing motives beyond those of simply casting the best actress who auditioned for the job.  That is to say, I don't think anyone is saying that it's not okay to have a smart character who is white.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> You appear to be ascribing motives beyond those of simply casting the best actress who auditioned for the job.  That is to say, I don't think anyone is saying that it's not okay to have a smart character who is white.




Maybe I'm being cynical, but waaaaaaaay too often in the entertainment field, major characters get re-cast as minorities for PC reasons, not because the actors are the best for the part.


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> You appear to be ascribing motives beyond those of simply casting the best actress who auditioned for the job.  That is to say, I don't think anyone is saying that it's not okay to have a smart character who is white.



If the best actor is a Japanese man who speaks no English, then let him get the role Hermione. A movie about a Wizard trio set in modern Japan sounds appealing. If a movie like this comes to a nearby cinema - or to the internet - I want to see it.

But these Japanese characters have little to do with the story about Harry Potter.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> Maybe I'm being cynical, but waaaaaaaay too often in the entertainment field, major characters get re-cast as minorities for PC reasons, not because the actors are the best for the part.




I can't say one way or the other on that.  I usually never get to hear what the casting people have to say on the matter.  All I usually end up hearing is "You can't make _____ black" (or female, or whatever their complaining about this week).

Although this isn't terribly relevant to the play at hand, because the author of the source material has issued WoG stating that the character's race was never specified, for me (as I've said before) unless a character's race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation is an integral part of the character (which is not a situation that's terribly frequent) I have no issue with a new interpretation of a character that changes those things.

Now, if the play were intended to be the adult versions of the characters from the films, then I could see how there could be some confusion by changing a race because the races of the film adaptation have been established in the film adaptation.  However, if the play is the adult versions of the characters from the books then that potential issue goes away.


----------



## Morlock

Trying to think of the last time a black character got made into a non-black character for the movie. Or the last time the usual suspects whined about the lack of hispanic or asian characters in movies, for that matter. America's around 20% hispanic now and movies are pretty much devoid of hispanic characters. Blacks get like double the representation their share of the population would justify, so basically the jobs that "should" be going to hispanics go to blacks instead. Then there's the predominance of black male roles over black female roles, like the media thinks black women should be in the kitchen, or something.


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> If the best actor is a Japanese man who speaks no English, then let him get the role Hermione. A movie about a Wizard trio set in modern Japan sounds appealing. If a movie like this comes to a nearby cinema - or to the internet - I want to see it.
> 
> But these Japanese characters have little to do with the story about Harry Potter.




Acting is an exercise in communication: communicating the thoughts, feelings, and personalities of the characters to the audience.  A language barrier interferes with that communication, and that would make the actor you described clearly not the "best" actor to appear in a play that will run in the predominantly English-speaking U.K.

That said, I have no problem with a Japanese, male, or Japanese male Hermione.  It's a different interpretation of the character since Hermione is clearly said to be female in the source material, but nothing about her character requires her to be female or non-Japanese.  It does beg the question of whether you would then make Ron homosexual or bisexual by retaining his attraction to that version of Hermione, but then nothing about Ron inherently requires him to be heterosexual.

Also, Mahou Sensi Negima is basically a Japanese version of Harry Potter.  I'd recommend the manga, though one of the two animes actually holds fairly true to the story right up until the manga steers toward the school festival arc.


----------



## Morlock

Me, I reserve my whining for the almost total lack of diversity in Japan and China, and the concomitant lack of white/black/anything but yellow roles in Japanese and Chinese cinema. The lack of Arab representation in Israel's gov't, media, etc., to say nothing of Israel's immigration policies. Then there's the dearth of jobs for whites in sub-Saharan Africa, the problems Protestants have getting gigs in Latin America, etc.

America's pretty much the last country on Earth I'd criticize on this front, with Britain not far behind.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> Acting is an exercise in communication: communicating the thoughts, feelings, and personalities of the characters to the audience.  A language barrier interferes with that communication, and that would make the actor you described clearly not the "best" actor to appear in a play that will run in the predominantly English-speaking U.K.
> 
> That said, I have no problem with a Japanese, male, or Japanese male Hermione.  It's a different interpretation of the character since Hermione is clearly said to be female in the source material, but nothing about her character requires her to be female or non-Japanese.  It does beg the question of whether you would then make Ron homosexual or bisexual by retaining his attraction to that version of Hermione, but then nothing about Ron inherently requires him to be heterosexual.
> 
> Also, Mahou Sensi Negima is basically a Japanese version of Harry Potter.  I'd recommend the manga, though one of the two animes actually holds fairly true to the story right up until the manga steers toward the school festival arc.




Making these sorts of changes alters the story considerably.  The story is about X students doing Y, where X includes everything about them including race and gender.  Story is more than just the plot line.  Having read the stories, I can say that the *story* had no male japanese Hermione, no gay Ron and no straight Dumbledore.  If you change anything about those characters, the story itself has changed.


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> Acting is an exercise in communication: communicating the thoughts, feelings, and personalities of the characters to the audience.  A language barrier interferes with that communication, and that would make the actor you described clearly not the "best" actor to appear in a play that will run in the predominantly English-speaking U.K.
> 
> That said, I have no problem with a Japanese, male, or Japanese male Hermione.  It's a different interpretation of the character since Hermione is clearly said to be female in the source material, but nothing about her character requires her to be female or non-Japanese.  It does beg the question of whether you would then make Ron homosexual or bisexual by retaining his attraction to that version of Hermione, but then nothing about Ron inherently requires him to be heterosexual.
> 
> Also, Mahou Sensi Negima is basically a Japanese version of Harry Potter.  I'd recommend the manga, though one of the two animes actually holds fairly true to the story right up until the manga steers toward the school festival arc.




But that is my point, switching the ethnicity of a character is, as you say, ‘a different interpretation of the character’. It is no longer the original character.

You can have a Shakespeare play, called ‘Romeo and Julio’, set in Miami, about two young men in love. It will probably be a great play. But it will have little to do with the original characters.

If Hermione gets reinterpreted as a black character, then this character is no longer part of the Harry Potter story.


----------



## MechaPilot

Morlock said:


> Trying to think of the last time a black character got made into a non-black character for the movie. Or the last time the usual suspects whined about the lack of hispanic or asian characters in movies, for that matter. America's around 20% hispanic now and movies are pretty much devoid of hispanic characters. Blacks get like double the representation their share of the population would justify, so basically the jobs that "should" be going to hispanics go to blacks instead. Then there's the predominance of black male roles over black female roles, like the media thinks black women should be in the kitchen, or something.




While I agree with you about a lack of hispanic roles, it is an interesting cultural note to realize that many hispanics identify themselves as white according to the U.S. census.


----------



## billd91

MechaPilot said:


> Also, the eight films mean precisely jack squat.  The films are NOT the source material, the books ARE; the films are merely adaptations that provably differ from the books, cutting scenes here and there, and outright changing things as well.




Outright change - including Hermione's looks. Emma Watson doesn't have buck teeth, nor does she actually have a big, unruly mane of hair. As far as I'm concerned, casting a black woman as Hermione is just as insignificant to the role as casting a non-bucktoothed girl with manageable hair.

Edit: Come to think of it, since both of those factors (her teeth and hair) came up *repeatedly* in the books, I'd say that her skin color is an *even less* significant change.


----------



## Ryujin

Morlock said:


> The lack of Arab representation in Israel's gov't, media, etc.,...




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> But that is my point, switching the ethnicity of a character is, as you say, ‘a different interpretation of the character’.




It can only be a "switching" of ethnicity if the ethnicity is described in the source material.  Word of God on the issue is that Hermione's race is not defined in the source material, therefore there is no switching out, only a filling in of the blanks.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> Making these sorts of changes alters the story considerably.  The story is about X students doing Y, where X includes everything about them including race and gender.  Story is more than just the plot line.  Having read the stories, I can say that the *story* had no male japanese Hermione, no gay Ron and no straight Dumbledore.  If you change anything about those characters, the story itself has changed.




I've read the stories too.  By your own definition, the films are not a faithful to the story and should not be held up as such.


----------



## MechaPilot

billd91 said:


> Outright change - including Hermione's looks. Emma Watson doesn't have buck teeth, nor does she actually have a big, unruly mane of hair. As far as I'm concerned, casting a black woman as Hermione is just as insignificant to the role as casting a non-bucktoothed girl with manageable hair.
> 
> Edit: Come to think of it, since both of those factors (her teeth and hair) came up *repeatedly* in the books, I'd say that her skin color is an *even less* significant change.




Having read the books after seeing the films, I would agree.  I was quite surprised by the difference in how she was described versus how she was cast.  I just chalked it up to Hollywood, who is notorious for doing thinks like casting a good-looking actress for a role where people refer to her as being very plain-looking.


----------



## Yaarel

This discussion reminds me of two friends who are a female couple. I recently attended their wedding.

One of the women wants to erase all gendered language, leaving no references to male or female.

But my feeling is, gender identity matters. If there were no genders, there would be no gay people either.

Most gay men care that their partner is a man. Gender matters.

Diversity is good. Respecting differences is healthy. Noticing cultural differences is wise.

Allowing whites to be white, is a necessary part of human diversity.


----------



## Cor Azer

Morlock said:


> Trying to think of the last time a black character got made into a non-black character for the movie. Or the last time the usual suspects whined about the lack of hispanic or asian characters in movies, for that matter. America's around 20% hispanic now and movies are pretty much devoid of hispanic characters. Blacks get like double the representation their share of the population would justify, so basically the jobs that "should" be going to hispanics go to blacks instead. Then there's the predominance of black male roles over black female roles, like the media thinks black women should be in the kitchen, or something.




Look at almost any historical movie... Uh... Ever.  The whitewashing is atrocious.

Two noteworthy/recent examples - Exodus (w/ Christian Bale etal as Egyptians; granted removing other ethnicities for white actors, rather than removing black people) and Stonewall (which almost completely removed the black transwomen involved in the riots for a gay white cismale).


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> Allowing whites to be white, is a necessary part of human diversity.




Allowing artists to make their art in the way they choose is a necessary part of the artistic expression (and that assumes that there existed a specific vision for a black hermione and not that the black actress was simply the best actress who auditioned).


Honestly, this is really all I'm saying:

1) The author of the source material says the race of the character has not been defined.  Therefore the race of the character is a fill-in-the-blank type of situation for any adaptation.

2) The films are an adaptation that while culturally prominent does not make them more valid than the source material they were drawn from.

3) While the books specifically describe her as being female, being any specific race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is not an integral part of the character.  Hermione is defined by her brilliance, her studiousness, her courage, her being muggle-born, and her loathing of prejudice.

4) changing something that is not an integral part of the character is fine, whereas making Black Panther white or Wonder Woman male is problematic.


----------



## Maxperson

MechaPilot said:


> 3) While the books specifically describe her as being female, being any specific race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is not an integral part of the character.  Hermione is defined by her brilliance, her studiousness, her courage, her being muggle-born, and her loathing of prejudice.
> 
> 4) changing something that is not an integral part of the character is fine, whereas making Black Panther white or Wonder Woman male is problematic.




That's pure opinion, though.  Race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. are integral parts of the character for lots of people.


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> Allowing artists to make their art in the way they choose is a necessary part of the artistic expression (and that assumes that there existed a specific vision for a black hermione and not that the black actress was simply the best actress who auditioned).
> 
> 
> Honestly, this is really all I'm saying:
> 
> 1) The author of the source material says the race of the character has not been defined.  Therefore the race of the character is a fill-in-the-blank type of situation for any adaptation.
> 
> 2) The films are an adaptation that while culturally prominent does not make them more valid than the source material they were drawn from.
> 
> 3) While the books specifically describe her as being female, being any specific race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is not an integral part of the character.  Hermione is defined by her brilliance, her studiousness, her courage, her being muggle-born, and her loathing of prejudice.
> 
> 4) changing something that is not an integral part of the character is fine, whereas making Black Panther white or Wonder Woman male is problematic.




Hermione is female and is in love with Ron. (Eventually they marry.) Her gender and orientation are part of the character. Also, she is distinctively British - ethnically - in a British boarding school. There are British citizens who belong to other ethnicities, but she isnt one of them.

Other schools are Russian, French, etcetera.

You might as well make Robin Hood, a Nigerian. Different character, different story.


----------



## MechaPilot

Maxperson said:


> Race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. are integral parts of the character for lots of people.




That is also pure opinion.  My opinion is no less valid than theirs.


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> Hermione is female and is in love with Ron. (Eventually they marry.) Her gender and orientation are part of the character.




I'm going to stop you there.

Hermione being female is a part of the character but it's not an "integral" part of the character.  If hermione were male, the features of her character that describe who she is (her brilliance, her studiousness, etc.) don't change.

Again, this is a bit of a tangent because hermione's gender is specifically mentioned in the source material while her race is not defined according to the Word of God on the subject.


----------



## Yaarel

I find it inauthentic when movies portray Alexander the Great, as if he was heterosexual.

Orientation matters.


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> I'm going to stop you there.
> 
> Hermione being female is a part of the character but it's not an "integral" part of the character.  If hermione were male, the features of her character that describe who she is (her brilliance, her studiousness, etc.) don't change.




Gender identity is one of the deepest identities of most humans. Integrity requires most characters to be true to their gender identity.

Transgendered humans exist because they cant deny or escape their gender identity.

Gender is absolutely integral to a character.


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> Gender identity is one of the deepest identities of most humans. Integrity requires most characters to be true to their gender identity.
> 
> Transgendered humans exist because they cant deny or escape their gender identity.
> 
> Gender is absolutely integral to a character.




I am aware of gender vs gender identity, the importance of gender identity to a person, and the difficulties when they don't match up, but don't throw up gender identity as a smokescreen: in most literature and films gender and gender identity match up.


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> I am aware of gender vs gender identity, the importance of gender identity to a person, and the difficulties when they don't match up, but don't throw up gender identity as a smokescreen: in most literature and films gender and gender identity match up.




My point is, gender, orientation, and ethnicity are integral to a character. You cant change them without changing the character.

If a Harry Potter story had Hermione undergo a (magical) sex-reassignment, to become a man, it would be a significant departure from the Harry Potter story.

At best, it would require extensive retcon. But really, most audiences would probably find it implausible.

Likewise, if Hermione became a different ethnicity, it would be implausible.


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> My point is, gender, orientation, and ethnicity are integral to a character. You cant change them without changing the character.




If the ONLY thing you change is a character's race, gender, or orientation, meaning all of that character's definitive life experiences remain the same, then there is no substantial change in the character.  If I were black but still had all of the same life experiences that made me the woman I am today, I would not be a different person: I would just have a different skin tone.




Yaarel said:


> Likewise, if Hermione became a different ethnicity, it would be implausible.




Different from what?  According to the author, the source material does not define her race.


----------



## Cor Azer

Yaarel said:


> Gender identity is one of the deepest identities of most humans. Integrity requires most characters to be true to their gender identity.
> 
> Transgendered humans exist because they cant deny or escape their gender identity.
> 
> Gender is absolutely integral to a character.




Transgender.

Not transgendered.

You wouldn't say a "whited" human or a an "Americaned" human, so you don't say "transgendered" human.


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> If the ONLY thing you change is a character's race, gender, or orientation, meaning all of that character's definitive life experiences remain the same, then there is no substantial change in the character.  If I were black but still had all of the same life experiences that made me the woman I am today, I would not be a different person: I would just have a different skin tone.




‘Ethnicity’ is a better term. While it can include biological descent, it moreso refers to the heritage of cultural identity. The term ‘race’ is inaccurate and problematic.

Whether explicit or implied, the ethnicity of Hermione, according to the canon, is British. Arguably, she is specifically English - in contradistinction to Scot, Irish, or Welsh.


----------



## Cor Azer

Yaarel said:


> My point is, gender, orientation, and ethnicity are integral to a character. You cant change them without changing the character.
> 
> If a Harry Potter story had Hermione undergo a (magical) sex-reassignment, to become a man, it would be a significant departure from the Harry Potter story.
> 
> At best, it would require extensive retcon. But really, most audiences would probably find it implausible.
> 
> Likewise, if Hermione became a different ethnicity, it would be implausible.




If changed in the middle of an adaptation (or entries in a series of adaptations)? Yes, it's potentially implausible (although, you know... magic).

If changed between completely separate adaptations? Not implausible at all.

The play is an adaptation/continuation of the books, requiring no consideration of continuity established or discarded by the films.

So, not a retcon at all, since there was no continuity established in that regard for the books.


----------



## Yaarel

Being Human is a favorite tv show. I watched both the British version of it and the American reinvention of it. Even switching UK and US cultural identities, makes them completely different characters. They are different stories, that happen in different universes.

Ethnicity is integral to a character identity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Cor Azer said:


> Look at almost any historical movie... Uh... Ever.  The whitewashing is atrocious.
> 
> Two noteworthy/recent examples - Exodus (w/ Christian Bale etal as Egyptians; granted removing other ethnicities for white actors, rather than removing black people) and Stonewall (which almost completely removed the black transwomen involved in the riots for a gay white cismale).



It only gets worse the farther back you look.  Charlie Chan and Asian villains in film noir movies routinely played by whites.  John Wayne as Genghis Kahn.  Liz Taylor as Cleopatra.  Bruce Lee was supposed to play the lead in Kung Fu, but the character was rewritten for Carradine.

I had hoped that era was over, but then came Troy & Exodus.

See also Johnny Depp as Tonto, Benedict Cummerbatch as Kahn Noonien Singh and others.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/28/entertainment/gods-of-egypt-cast-apology-feat/

http://www.projectcasting.com/news/alohas-director-apologizes-for-white-washing-the-cast/


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> ‘Ethnicity’ is a better term. While it can include biological descent, it moreso refers to the heritage of cultural identity. The term ‘race’ is inaccurate and problematic.
> 
> Whether explicit or implied, the ethnicity of Hermione, according to the canon, is British. Arguably, she is specifically English - in contradistinction to Scot, Irish, or Welsh.




Okay, but there are black brits for whom the U.K. has been their homeland for generations now and who are culturally British.  I've seen them before; they've come through my drive through.  It's always notable because here in the states you don't expect someone who looks african-american to speak with a British accent.


----------



## Yaarel

Cor Azer said:


> Transgender.
> 
> Not transgendered.
> 
> You wouldn't say a "whited" human or a an "Americaned" human, so you don't say "transgendered" human.




Heh, but I do say ‘gendered’ language. And sexually ‘oriented’.


----------



## Cor Azer

Yaarel said:


> Heh, but I do say ‘gendered’ language. And sexually ‘oriented’.




Yes, because "gender" is a noun and "to gender" a verb. To change them into adjectives (like transgender), you use the past participle of the verb (gendered).


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> Okay, but there are black brits for whom the U.K. has been their homeland for generations now and who are culturally British.  I've seen them before; they've come through my drive through.  It's always notable because here in the states you don't expect someone who looks african-american to speak with a British accent.




‘Native’ British blacks are rare.

Also, to pretend blacks are simply whites with darker makeup, is to ignore and erase various Pan African cultures - and to deny the contributions that these cultures have made.

It is morally wrong.

It seems to me, in the last decade or two, the Leftists have started to lose their humanity. Erasing ethnic diversity, and imposing cultural homogeneity, is conformist, totalitarian, and tyrannical.

It is wrong to destroy white cultures, by delegitimization and disintegration. it is wrong to destroy black cultures, by pretending they are no different from white cultures.

Humans are different from each other. I like diversity.


----------



## Morrus

Yaarel said:


> ‘Native’ British blacks are rare.




Black residents comprise about 3% of the population, so I guess "rare" is reasonable. It's much higher in major cosmopolitan cities of course (I think it's about 13% in London).

I'm not sure the word "native" really means much in the UK though.  Black folks have been here since at least the 12th century (very likely before).  In the 17th century the number increased dramatically (partly, sadly, due to the slave trade).  The 17th century, incidentally, is earlier than the formation of the United States. Unless you're using the word "native" in the same sense that you do when using the term "Native American", then those people and their descendants are as native to Britain as anybody but a Native American is to the USA.

If you were using the term in that "Native American" context, I don't think even I meet your definition of native British. It's a heck of a mongrel nation with waves of immigration over thousands of years.

The correct term for these folks, incidentally, is "Black British". Sometimes folks in the US refer too them as "African Americans" which, of course, they're not.


----------



## Yaarel

Morrus said:


> Black residents comprise about 3% of the population, so I guess "rare" is reasonable. It's much higher in major cosmopolitan cities of course (I think it's about 13% in London).
> 
> I'm not sure the word "native" really means much in the UK though.  Black folks have been here since at least the 12th century (very likely before).  In the 17th century the number increased dramatically (partly, sadly, due to the slave trade).  The 17th century, incidentally, is earlier than the formation of the United States. Unless you're using the word "native" in the same sense that you do when using the term "Native American", then those people and their descendants are as native to Britain as anybody but a Native American is to the USA.
> 
> If you were using the term in that "Native American" context, I don't think even I meet your definition of native British. It's a heck of a mongrel nation with waves of immigration over thousands of years.
> 
> The correct term for these folks, incidentally, is "Black British". Sometimes folks in the US refer too them as "African Americans" which, of course, they're not.




Blacks have been living in England, since at least the time of Shakespeare. But, if their descendants completely identify with ethnic English, then they probably intermarried and their descendants ceased to be black.

Oppositely, if they are still black today, then they are almost certainly intentionally preserving an ethnic identity that is distinct from English ethnicity.

Either way, a person who is both black and ethnically English (or Scot, Irish, or Welsh) is extremely rare.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Morrus said:


> The correct term for these folks, incidentally, is "Black British". Sometimes folks in the US refer too them as "African Americans" which, of course, they're not.




I saw an interview of a Black British athlete- I forget if he was a track guy or soccer- by an American reporter who asked, "How many African Americans are there in England?"

His grinning response, "None."

At least the reporter had the wit to realize the error and become flustered and recovered, "What I meant was..."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Yaarel said:


> Blacks have been living in England, since at least the time of Shakespeare. But, if their descendants completely identify with ethnic English, then they probably intermarried and their descendants ceased to be black.
> 
> Oppositely, if they are still black today, then they are almost certainly intentionally preserving an ethnic identity that is distinct from English ethnicity.
> 
> Either way, a person who is both black and ethnically English (or Scot, Irish, or Welsh) is extremely rare.




Phil Lynott is spinning in his grave.

Mel B might want to kick you in the twig & berries.

If she succeeds, Lenny Henry will immortalize the event with a joke.


----------



## Cor Azer

Yaarel said:


> Blacks have been living in England, since at least the time of Shakespeare. But, if their descendants completely identify with ethnic English, then they probably intermarried and their descendants ceased to be black.
> 
> Oppositely, if they are still black today, then they are almost certainly intentionally preserving an ethnic identity that is distinct from English ethnicity.
> 
> Either way, a person who is both black and ethnically English (or Scot, Irish, or Welsh) is extremely rare.




Why the focus on 'ethnic English (or Scot, or Welsh, or Irish)', except as a means to move the goalposts?

Hermione's ethnicity was never stated in the books. Her nationality is apparently British (I surmise - I've not read the books, but it sounds like her parents were relatively affluent British dentists), but one could certainly be born and grown up in Britain with black skin as much as any other.


----------



## Morrus

Yaarel said:


> Blacks have been living in England, since at least the time of Shakespeare. But, if their descendants completely identify with ethnic English, then they probably intermarried and their descendants ceased to be black.
> 
> Oppositely, if they are still black today, then they are almost certainly intentionally preserving an ethnic identity that is distinct from English ethnicity.
> 
> Either way, a person who is both black and ethnically English (or Scot, Irish, or Welsh) is extremely rare.




This is a meaningless distinction. Nobody is ethnically English. My own lineage certainly departs these Isles long before I get as far back as any collection of people who could reasonably claim that. We're all French or Roman or Scandinavian or Irish or ... well, the list goes on. 

What are you defining as ethnically English?

It's just not a term that means anything.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Why the focus on 'ethnic English (or Scot, or Welsh, or Irish)', except as a means to move the goalposts?




In the USA, African and Carribean émigrés do resent being lumped in with American blacks...and vice versa.  There ARE cultural differences, though white supremacists don't make those fine distinctions.

I suspect that the experiences of those subgroups in the UK are roughly analogous- most differences are infra, and the dominant culture at large is largely clueless as to what matters and why.

That said, I strongly suspect that the actual demographic distribution of Black British vs Africans and Black Carribeans in the UK is not skewed in the way Yaarel suggests.


----------



## Yaarel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Phil Lynott is spinning in his grave.




I am unfamiliar with Phil Lynott, the musician. But if a understand a quick jaunt thru the internet correctly, then his example confirms my point.

Phil is the son of a white woman of English ethnicity, and a black immigrant from Guyana (Caribbean coast of South America). Phil is ethnically both white and black. However, he grew up with his maternal grandmother in Ireland, and identifies himself as fully Irish ethnicity. Indeed, his wife is white. Likely, his descendants will cease to be black.

Individuals can and do choose their own ethnicity. Even if not born in, they can be ‘adopted’ and welcomed in by the ethnic group.

But to *compel* persons to erase their own ethnicity is a specific kind of genocide.

To try erase the various white cultures is genocide.


----------



## Morrus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If she succeeds, Lenny Henry will immortalize the event with a joke.




That's _Sir_ Lenny Henry. He's a knight, y'know.

Which is as much a definition of 'ethnically British' as anything else I can think of!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Phil is the son of a white woman of English ethnicity, and a black immigrant from Guyana (Caribbean coast of South America). Phil is ethnically *both white and black*. However, he grew up with his maternal grandmother in Ireland, and identifies himself as fully Irish ethnicity. Indeed, his wife is white. Likely, *his descendants will cease to be black.*




I can't speak for the mentality of blacks in the UK, but in the USA, those bolded phrases would largely be considered laughable among blacks, Africans and Carribeans.


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> But to *compel* persons to erase their own ethnicity. . .




Where in the context of this discussion is that supposedly happening?


----------



## Cor Azer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In the USA, African and Carribean émigrés do resent being lumped in with American blacks...and vice versa.  There ARE cultural differences, though white supremacists don't make those fine distinctions.
> 
> I suspect that the experiences of those subgroups in the UK are roughly analogous- most differences are infra, and the dominant culture at large is largely clueless as to what matters and why.
> 
> That said, I strongly suspect that the actual demographic distribution of Black British vs Africans and Black Carribeans in the UK is not skewed in the way Yaarel suggests.




Oh, for sure, ethnicity in some contexts is relevant.

I specifically meant why is it relevant in this case (ie, given that no ethnicity has been stated for Hermione, let alone skin colour).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Morrus said:


> That's _Sir_ Lenny Henry. He's a knight, y'know.
> 
> Which is as much a definition of 'ethnically British' as anything else I can think of!



Forgot about his knighthood!

Then again, I don't usually place the honorifics in front of most people's names in informal circumstances.


----------



## Mallus

Yaarel said:


> It seems to me, in the last decade or two, the Leftists have started to lose their humanity. Erasing ethnic diversity, and imposing cultural homogeneity, is conformist, totalitarian, and tyrannical.



So the existence of a Black Hermione and British Idris Elba add up to White erasure and Leftist tyranny. 

I suppose the Black woman cast as Hamlet amounts to a full-fledged declaration of war, eh?  



> It is wrong to destroy white cultures, by delegitimization and disintegration.



Where, precisely, is this happening? Outside of paranoid white guy fantasies. 



> Humans are different from each other. I like diversity.



It kinda sounds like you like some sort of ethnonationalism.


----------



## Mallus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Charlie Chan and Asian villains in film noir movies routinely played by whites.



The Charlie Chan films neatly illustrates the contrast between the ideal and the reality of race in America.

In the America of the films Chan is a famous, universally-respected police detective.

In the real America he has to be played by a succession of 3 white guys.

(though his #1 son is played by Keye Luke).


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> Where in the context of this discussion is that supposedly happening?




The peer pressure of anti-male anti-white political correctness, and the extremes of the groupthink of the leftwing is drifting toward a genocide of white cultures.

Not least, in the European Union, leftwing politicians intentionally import unsustainably massive Noneuropean populations into Europe, even populations that are hostile against Europe, precisely to genocide native European ethnicities.

The Leftwing is swinging way too far. I hope the pendulum starts swinging in the other direction.

Optimal health is somewhere between the extremes of ethnic distinctiveness and human universalism.

It is wrong to try erase white ethnicities.


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> The peer pressure of anti-male anti-white political correctness, and the extremes of the groupthink of the leftwing is drifting toward a genocide of white cultures.
> 
> Not least, in the European Union, leftwing politicians intentionally import unsustainably massive Noneuropean populations into Europe, even populations that are hostile against Europe, precisely to genocide native European ethnicities.
> 
> The Leftwing is swinging way too far. I hope the pendulum starts swinging in the other direction.
> 
> Optimal health is somewhere between the extremes of ethnic distinctiveness and human universalism.
> 
> It is wrong to try erase white ethnicities.




Not be a broken record, but again you are ascribing motives not in evidence.  The white author is fine with it.  The white actress who played the character in the popular films is also okay with it.  The white actors who will be in the play with her are okay with it.  No one is erasing white people.


----------



## Yaarel

MechaPilot said:


> Not be a broken record, but again you are ascribing motives not in evidence.  The white author is fine with it.  The white actress who played the character in the popular films is also okay with it.  The white actors who will be in the play with her are okay with it.  No one is erasing white people.




Hermione is a pop icon, a famous and beloved white character.

There is pervasive social pressure to erase - to genocide - white ethnic identities.

To kill Hermione as a white character, and replace her with a different black character, raises red flags about our cultures.

Succumbing to this immoral peer pressure is problematic.

It might well be Rowling supports the destruction of the white identity of Hermione. As far as I understand, Hermione is a Mary Sue of Rowling herself, albeit Rowlings self-depreciation makes this an appealing use of a Mary Sue. It might be, that making Hermione a black character, helps Rowlings distance herself from her.

Nevertheless, there are societal trends that are antihuman and concerning, especially among the Left.

The erasure of white characters is part of a larger trend.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Yaarel said:


> Hermione is a pop icon, a famous and beloved white character.



Not according to the person who created her, and who- along with her successors in interest- will own the IP rights for some decades to come.

Consider: at some future point, if JKR decides to return to writing in the Potterverse and explicitly writes Hermione as a black character, how will you react?



> There is pervasive social pressure to erase - to genocide - white ethnic identities.




You're sliding into paranoia here.



> To kill Hermione as a white character, and replace her with a different black character, raises red flags about our cultures.



Nobody is metaphorically killing anyone.  An actress of a different ethnicity to the one who has played the role for years has been cast to play a role that the character's creator expressly said _has no defined race in her canon._



> It might well be Rowling supports the destruction of the white identity of Hermione.




According to Rowling herself, Hermione has no defined ethnicity.  Are you saying she's lying?



> Nevertheless, there are societal trends that are antihuman and concerning, especially among the Left.



*Really.*


> The erasure of white characters is part of a larger trend.



*Really.*


----------



## Morrus

Yaarel said:


> The peer pressure of anti-male anti-white political correctness, and the extremes of the groupthink of the leftwing is drifting toward a genocide of white cultures.




Oh, right. There we go. I was wondering if the code phrases were going to emerge. Now I know what the conversation is really about I won't be participating further.


----------



## Yaarel

Morrus said:


> Oh, right. There we go. I was wondering if the code phrases were going to emerge. Now I know what the conversation is really about I won't be participating further.




There is a grain of truth in most things that people say.

In any case, what my conversation is really about is to ensure human diversity for the future.

Despite a shrinking planet, and an impulse to conform.

Homogeneity is an evil.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Well... the discussion has certainly turned trippy. I'm going to need to listen to some Alex Jones before I can properly participate in this discussion.


----------



## Yaarel

The erasure of white (European) ethnic identity is part of a wider societal trend.

Merlin (ethnic Welsh)



Guinevere (ethnic Welsh)
View attachment Queen.jpg

Captain America (ethnic white American)


Human Torch (ethnic white American)


And so on ...

Each individual is fine. I like these actors, and I like these shows. But the trend of anti-white hate, is alarming.

When Jews were being pressured to become Christians, it was a symptom of a societal dysfunction.

Today, when whites are being pressured to become blacks, it is a symptom of a societal dysfunction.

When each European ethnicity is made unable to preserve its own unique cultural heritage and borders, it is a symptom of a societal dysfunction.

More urgently, when European ethnicities are forbidden to defend against - or even criticize - Islamist jihadi ideologies, it is a symptom of a societal dysfunction.

Irish Gaelic speakers have a human right to preserve Irish heritage. Scots a proud (unconquered) heritage. Italians an ancient and venerable heritage. Native American tribal nations. Australian Aborigines. Tibetans. And so on.

It is good for the future of humanity to continue to enjoy and benefit from this cultural diversity.

Part of tolerating differences is celebrating and standing up for ones own differences.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

Yaarel said:


> Today, when whites are being pressured to become blacks, it is a symptom of a societal dysfunction.



How are whites being pressured to become black? Are whites being forced to do blackface because that's pretty damn racist. We must stop whites being forced to do blackface! Who are these villains that forced bad makeup on poor-unsuspecting people?


----------



## Maxperson

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> How are whites being pressured to become black?




Robert Downey Jr.   Nuff said!


----------



## MechaPilot

Yaarel said:


> The erasure of white (European) ethnic identity is part of a wider societal trend.




Casting choices for actors in works of fiction have NO power to erase "white ethnic identity."  If they cast a black actor to play George Washington, it would not and could not erase the historical facts about George Washington.  Your use of terms like "erasure" and "genocide" is highly hyperbolic and makes it difficult to converse with you in a reasonable manner because it creates the expectation that you will not accept or respond to reason.

There is likely some prejudice against white people from certain races, some of which is (let's face it) a justifiable response to how white people have historically treated their people, and some of it is not.




Yaarel said:


> Each individual is fine. I like these actors, and I like these shows. But the trend of anti-white hate, is alarming.




Casting minority actors in roles that have been previously portrayed as white is neither anti-white, nor hate.  In most instances, it's likely to be one of the following:

1) a commercial decision to try to appeal to a broader audience.  Broadcasting outlets and film studios care about money and that's it.  That's why the horrible Tansformers films keeps getting sequels: because people keep paying to see them.

2) a specific vision on the part of the artist who created it.

3) the minority actor was simply the best actor who auditioned.




Yaarel said:


> Today, when whites are being pressured to become blacks, it is a symptom of a societal dysfunction.




Whites are not being pressured to "become blacks."  Most of the African-Americans who I've known have preferred it when whites don't try to adopt their culture.




Yaarel said:


> When each European ethnicity is made unable to preserve its own unique cultural heritage and borders, it is a symptom of a societal dysfunction.




Are you actually saying that your cultural heritage hinges on the race of actors and actresses in works of fiction created by the entertainment industry?

Also, yank Cap, Johnny, and any other product of the "melting pot" off your list when you're talking about preserving "unique European ethnicities."  Most Americans truly don't care about preserving their ethnic heritage.  Most Americans who find out they are Irish might switch to Guiness or plan to take a vacation in Ireland, but only the rarest handful are actually going to attempt to learn Gaelic (much less follow through on it) or keep abreast of Irish politics or learn how the Irish government works.




Yaarel said:


> More urgently, when European ethnicities are forbidden to defend against - or even criticize - Islamist jihadi ideologies, it is a symptom of a societal dysfunction.




Last I knew, criticizing terrorist ideologies is not frowned upon in the west, unless one is conflating Islam with terrorism.  Terrorists have used and abused various ideologies over the years.  Christian terrorists have blown up or shot up abortion clinics.  Racial supremacist terrorists have blown up and burned down churches and synagogues.  Mormon terrorists raided people in the frontier.  Irish political terrorists have blown up, well, just about everything at one time or another.  And so on.


----------



## MechaPilot

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> How are whites being pressured to become black?




I know, right.  Last I knew there was even a slur used by both whites and blacks for whites who try to "become black."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Yaarel said:


> The erasure of white (European) ethnic identity is part of a wider societal trend.
> 
> Merlin (ethnic Welsh)
> View attachment 72794
> 
> Guinevere (ethnic Welsh)
> View attachment 72795
> 
> Captain America (ethnic white American)
> View attachment 72796
> 
> Human Torch (ethnic white American)
> View attachment 72797
> 
> And so on ...
> 
> Each individual is fine. I like these actors, and I like these shows. But the trend of anti-white hate, is alarming.




Your optics are a bit off.  Even if I throw in the black Captain Marvel, the new Hawkwoman, Lancelot (from OUaT like Merlin), the occasional Hamlet, the Asian Dr. Light, and the utterly laughable Will Smith portrayal of James West, fictional and even historical characters are FAR more likely to be whitewashed or portrayed by Caucasians in blackface/yellowface/redface makeup in western media than the other way around.

In this thread alone, we've already mentioned:
Jesus
St. Nicholas
Cleopatra
Tonto
Genghis Khan
All of the major characters in Exodus & Troy
Charlie Chan
Khan Noonien Singh
Kwai Chang Kane


We can add:
Lieutenant Boomer (not technically whitewashed, but definitely targeted by a race change and nardectomy- and he wasn't the only one who got THAT)
Several main characters in the Earthsea miniseries (which, for the record, the author DID dislike)

And many more besides.

The point is not that I'm trying to assert that 2 wrongs make a right, because I'm not.  The point is that these changes occur in many directions, and is NOT an intentional tactic in eradicating white culture from the world.

I actually hated the concept of a black Johnny Storm, FWIW, since it changed so much of the dynamic for the FF...but so did the casting of a much younger Reed Richards.  Ditto younger officers in the Star Trek reboot.

Personally, as a person of color, I would rather NOT see characters rewritten for minorities when it matters- I would much rather see new stories with minority protagonists written from genesis as minorities.

But characters like Hermione?  The author is clear- no ethnicity was written into the character in the canon.  So get over it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel

MechaPilot said:


> I know, right.  Last I knew there was even a slur used by both whites and blacks for whites who try to "become black."



Maybe some whites feel they are being forced to become black because it's a tasty slur? They figure it goes well with milk, and since milk is white, and cows are black an white (sometimes brown and white), so it must mean that they are forced to become black by having that tasty-tasty slur dunked into milk and forcing its way into the whit milk like blackness being forced onto white people. Admit it, I'm right, and you know it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MechaPilot said:


> I know, right.  Last I knew there was even a slur used by both whites and blacks for whites who try to "become black."



Yep.

Some of us are working hard to outlaw tanning booths and spray tans to make it harder for Caucasians to blend in with us, too.


----------



## billd91

Yaarel said:


> In any case, what my conversation is really about is to ensure human diversity for the future.




And the method to ensure that is to complain about an increase in diversity in the casting of a show? I'm guessing you're missing that the best way to protect and increase diversity... is to *increase* diversity. And I'm not simply being flip about that. Many segments of the entertainment industry need more diversity than they have and the best way to build for that is to actually have it and increase it now in the hopes of spreading the seeds of more minority involvement in those segments of the arts. The Academy Awards have received fairly sharp criticism recently over the Oscar nominees being too white, not diverse enough. The best way to combat that is to increase the number of minority actors - Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian - being cast in major roles. Sometimes that may require adjusting the conception of a character from the screenwriter's brain. Without it, chances are you will see diversity squeezed out of the industry since aspiring artists will lack role models and inspiration or will find the roles, if based too closely on history or literature already out there, too limited (a frequently heard complaint leveled at Hollywood and immortalized in "Burn, Hollywood, Burn" by Public Enemy).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Also, revisiting this:



> Captain America (ethnic white American)
> View attachment 72796




Actually, "ethnic white American" isn't essential to Cap's core identity.  Remember, _from inception_ and for most of the character's history, "Captain America" was a _position_: it is an identity created by the Army and wholly under government supervision.  It is a job- Steve Rodgers even got back pay for his duties when he reappeared.  And because it is a job, it has been occupied by several different people, including blacks.  The "white" element is only because the longest occupant of the position- both in terms of publication history and within the Marvel Universe continuity- was Steve Rodgers.  

The first black Captain America (according to Marvel) was created in 1942 the same way as Steve Rodgers was- via experimentation.

Revisionist?  Sure, in some ways.  But given real-world events like the experiments on the Tuskegee Airmen, it fits nicely within what the Army would have done in those days, so it's a quality revision, IMHO.


----------



## Yaarel

I live in Miami. Here, whites are the endangered minority. Approximately 15%. I am seeing with my own eyes, how a vibrant English-speaking white ethnicity becomes extinct.

I like Latinos. That isnt the point. Latinos here come from various nations, and tend to be tolerant and hard working. There is some hate against whites, but most of the damage done to whites is accidental: mainly massive population transfers and language barriers. Most English-speakers fail to find jobs, and must emigrate to elsewhere. Sadly, the white population here failed to learn any cultural strategies to survive, and are unable to transmit their ethnic heritage to future generations.

The loss of an ethnicity is wrong. The loss of diversity is bad for everyone.

American Jews are similarly becoming ‘too American’ and freefalling into extinction. American Jews are finally facing facts, exploring survival strategies, and there is some optimism about the ability of Jews to survive in the near future.

Survival requires effort. Identity requires memory.

Believe whites can go extinct, because it is happening. 

Europe is in a demographic timebomb. Between aboriginal European populations imploding, and foreign immigrant populations exploding, it seems impossible for aboriginal European ‘white’ ethnicities to survive in the near future.

Yet Leftist political parties and thinktanks seem more irrational, hateful, and aggressive than ever - pushing for massive population transfers to purposefully destroy local populations. Across all of Western Europe. Even a European city like Oslo, is estimated to be about 20% Muslim immigrants from various nations, including undocumented immigrants. Population implosion versus explosion, means, even places as remote as Scandinavia are in danger of ceasing to have aboriginal whites. Whites simply fail to have enough children to sustain themselves.

At the same time, hatespeech against US whites and against Europeans is flagrant, rampant, vicious, murderous, and intensifying. From Islamist extremists to casual slang, hatespeech against whites is intolerable.

There is a holocaust against Christians across Muslim nations. This hate is a proxy against Europeans. No one says anything.

We are witnessing genocide. Is no one aloud to complain?

So, if someone rattles off ethnic generalizations - ‘Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian’ - make sure White remains on that list.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

First of all, Latinos can be of any race, and- in the US at least- most self-identify as "white".  

Second, the way Christians are treated in Muslim nations is well documented.

Third, Muslim is a religion, not a race, and many- especially those in Eastern Europe- are white.  (I even know some Latino Muslims.)



> At the same time, hatespeech against US whites and against Europeans is flagrant, rampant, vicious, murderous, and intensifying. From Islamist extremists to casual slang, *hatespeech* against whites *is intolerable.*




The bolded part is really the only non-controversial and accurate part there.  IOW, welcome to the human race.


----------



## Yaarel

I never use the word race. I said ethnicity.


----------



## Cor Azer

Yaarel said:


> I live in Miami. Here, whites are the endangered minority. Approximately 15%. I am seeing with my own eyes, how a vibrant English-speaking white ethnicity becomes extinct.




http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108554.html

72% white (in 2010) is a far cry from endangered minority.


----------



## Kramodlog

Cor Azer said:


> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108554.html
> 
> 72% white (in 2010) is a far cry from endangered minority.




He won't belive your government manipulated numbers. He saw it with his own eyes!


----------



## Morrus

I'm closing this one.  It has become a soap box for one person's rather extreme views and has little to do with the original topic any more. I'd also note that "white genocide" is a political slogan associated with various white nationalist groups, and not appropriate for this forum.


----------

