Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Yonder wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Yonder, this is how far it goes:

Should we not use ovens anymore because someone might decide to put a Jew in one?

Can people really not understand my position that the fact that something can be used negatively doesn't mean it has to be used negatively? That I can look at one application of something and use actual judgement on the situation to say "yes, this is actually different than this other thing".

I will accept your stance once Thai people who had no idea what the F blackface even was can freely use cultural expressions that look like it without it going sideways. If they decline to use it, so should everyone else.

Make no mistake, those Thai ad people absolutely were NOT using it negatively. In fact, most of them didn't know what was going on even after they read the criticism. Took them a while (and probably a few quick history Wikipedia lookups) to see what's what. Despite that, they understood what needed to be done. If they can see this and do what's right, it casts into doubt the motives of anyone else who insists otherwise.

Yonder wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Yonder, this is how far it goes:

Should we not use ovens anymore because someone might decide to put a Jew in one?

Can people really not understand my position that the fact that something can be used negatively doesn't mean it has to be used negatively?

Can you really not understand that intent and interpretation don't always match?

If you get a tattoo of a swastika as a symbol of auspiciousness and shave your head to keep cool, you don't get to be surprised when you get the sh*t kicked out of you for being a neo-Nazi.

Note the difference between that and getting assaulted for dressing "like that". The "she was asking for it" justification ascribes a set of behaviors and morals with no factual basis and then uses those as a reason for the consequences. Blackface and swastikas get assigned associated behaviors and beliefs based on historical evidence.

It's the whole "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" argument, only in one case, they're assuming how ducks walk and quack when pronouncing judgement, and in other, they've been seeing ducks for decades.

Obviously people could be offended by it, people here seem to be offended by the idea of a Caucasian with nice dark skin.

We're not talking about Caucasians with a tan. We're talking about people painting their faces many shades darker to be black.

The time it would take and amount of makeup someone would have to use is why many people don't even bother addressing skin. And unless the makeup job is done by a professional, that person will look weird as hell regardless if it's light to dark or dark to light.

They could truly believe they understand how dark skin works but end up neglecting certain parts if their bodies and appear as a white person with dark makeup. Biggest give aways are avoiding the eyelids (edges are lighter on light people), not darkening certain areas like the lips, putting more work into the face and neglecting the neck/ears/shoulders/arms/legs/hands and using makeup that will be smudged by clothing worn directly on the neck/ears/shoulders/arms/legs/hands (the ultimate fate of many white Dracula necks and green Frankenstein arms).

I highly doubt someone would pull it off on a night like Halloween where even the best makeup is smudged and running off people's faces after a few hours (not even remotely waterproof).

And then there's the high probability of someone looking at the "black" guy and saying "Blackface? What the f***, bro?"

LarryC wrote:
Yonder wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Yonder, this is how far it goes:

Should we not use ovens anymore because someone might decide to put a Jew in one?

Can people really not understand my position that the fact that something can be used negatively doesn't mean it has to be used negatively? That I can look at one application of something and use actual judgement on the situation to say "yes, this is actually different than this other thing".

I will accept your stance once Thai people who had no idea what the F blackface even was can freely use cultural expressions that look like it without it going sideways. If they decline to use it, so should everyone else.

Make no mistake, those Thai ad people absolutely were NOT using it negatively. In fact, most of them didn't know what was going on even after they read the criticism. Took them a while (and probably a few quick history Wikipedia lookups) to see what's what. Despite that, they understood what needed to be done. If they can see this and do what's right, it casts into doubt the motives of anyone else who insists otherwise.

Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes, then "how far it goes" is culturally ignorant people doing something artistically to a visual extreme that bears close resemblance to the visual extremes used as caricatures in the past. That is literally how far it could go. Not unlike if someone somewhere used grotesquely misshapen features to offend people and then ignorant people thought Picasso was a huge racist.

Really the only thing close to my vision here is black Robert Downey Jr., and from the visuals alone, I don't see it as a racist caricature done to offend people, it's just a little uncanny valley. Now I haven't seen the movie, if that character was an idiot caricature of black people than sure, that goes back to being racist. If not than the worst you could say about it would seem to be "oh no, the white actors are stealing the black actors jobs!"

I'm also not saying that some people, sensitive due to a history of actual insults, might not be upset as an initial reaction! I'm just saying that a healthier and more mature sequence of events would be:

"Hey man, see that guy over there, with the cape. Someone just told me he's not really black, he's a white guy!"
"Oh sh*t, this racist guy has on blackface. Hmm, he doesn't... really seem to be doing anything racist. Hey, you! What's your costume!?"
"Oh, I'm Lando Calrissian."
"Yeah, but what? Like, Lando Calrissian Gangsta or some sh*t?"
"No... like, Lando Calrissian, visionary, industrialist, owns an entire floating city, ultimate ladies' man? From Star Wars?"
"Um... alright, that's cool man."

Yonder:

I think you get it except for the last step. Picasso himself voluntarily takes down his art. That's what the Thai ad people did. Despite them not meaning anything of the sort; despite this not being shown to any population with any history of blackface, they took it down voluntarily once they figured out what was going on. If an indifferent people can act this way and show this much respect, then I have to question the motives of people who are NOT indifferent and who have history.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

If you get a tattoo of a swastika as a symbol of auspiciousness and shave your head to keep cool, you don't get to be surprised when you get the sh*t kicked out of you for being a neo-Nazi.

You sure as hell do. They're given a free pass for thinking you were a neo-Nazi and telling you how offensive you're being, but that's it. They are absolutely not given a free pass to beat you up because they thought you were a neo-Nazi.

Edit - I'm just really shocked to hear that argument. It sounds remarkably similar to what was likely going through Zimmerman's head when he was following Martin.

Yeah, seriously people. Violence is wrong even against racists and blaming them for it is still victim blaming. As much as it may feel nice to think racists who are acting publicly racist are to blame for getting beat up, there is still a value judgement there.

No matter how you are acting or what you are wearing, let's be clear that beating someone up is not the answer and the people who do the beating are still to blame.

All other social repercussions: All your friends stop talking to you, you are not invited to future parties, you get kicked out of social and professional organizations due to clauses about public conduct, etc. Those are on your own head.

Geez I don't get it.
Being a racist makes you a jerk
Wearing blackface or a swastika makes you look like a racist and theirfore a jerk.
Because human history actually does exist, and neither is in the realm of ancient Egypt these associations are reasonable and to be expected.

Yeah not everyone gets it. Someone will always be in bad taste and their are lots of other costumes in bad taste. But if you have any understanding at all of the issue don't do it unless you for some reason want to look like a racist jerk.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for one second that it should be banned or anything similar. Only that people should be made more aware of the fact that it is offensive to many many people.

I have no idea how the heck getting beat up came into this. Assault is a very serious crime. Nobody should be hit for dressing up in any way.
OTOH freedom of speech is great because we can look at someone in a tasteless costume and tell them it is tasteless, offensive, racist, etc.

I <3 freedom of expression.

Yonder wrote:

Really the only thing close to my vision here is black Robert Downey Jr., and from the visuals alone, I don't see it as a racist caricature done to offend people, it's just a little uncanny valley. Now I haven't seen the movie, if that character was an idiot caricature of black people than sure, that goes back to being racist. If not than the worst you could say about it would seem to be "oh no, the white actors are stealing the black actors jobs!"

Well, the joke there was largely that Downey Jr.'s character was such a self-absorbed and misguided "method actor" that he thought blackface was okay. As Stiller mentioned, Downey was "...skewering actors and how they take themselves so seriously."

It's kind of similar to Jenna Maroney's and Jon Hamm's appearances in blackface in 30 Rock.

EDIT: I should make clear, I am making no inferences about you here, I am simply explaining the context of the gag in the film.

Yonder wrote:

"Hey man, see that guy over there, with the cape. Someone just told me he's not really black, he's a white guy!"
"Oh sh*t, this racist guy has on blackface. Hmm, he doesn't... really seem to be doing anything racist. Hey, you! What's your costume!?"
"Oh, I'm Lando Calrissian."
"Yeah, but what? Like, Lando Calrissian Gangsta or some sh*t?"
"No... like, Lando Calrissian, visionary, industrialist, owns an entire floating city, ultimate ladies' man? From Star Wars?"
"Um... alright, that's cool man."

Yeah, that final sentence is where we fundamentally differ. For you, it's "that's cool man", for me, it's "so why exactly did he have to use an ugly piece of racial history (that really isn't 'history' yet, frankly) to depict a character with many other interesting and discernible characteristics?" It's Billy Dee! Get a mustache, the cape, and a Colt .45 and it's AWESOME.

Yonder wrote:

Should we not use ovens anymore because someone might decide to put a Jew in one?

Well, large ones specifically designed for the cremation of living people, sure. I don't remember the Nazi's hucking people into Kenmore's, but it's been a while.

I mean, my awesome t-shirt with the flag of Imperial Japan on it may be something I think simply looks nice, but wearing it in Beijing still might not be the best thing to do to create an air of international friendship. A "fanged, slathering, hook-nosed rabbi" costume probably isn't going to go over great either, even if my intent is simply "scary Rabbi".

Also, FWIW, I've never seen a blackface costume that wasn't CLEARLY blackface. But then again, blackface hasn't been a challenge on that makeup show on Sci-Fi, so who knows where the technology is.

Yonder wrote:

I'll l stop after this, because we've all made our opinions clear...

I think it's possible for it to not be racist, but one would need to be incredibly careful, and context will be extremely important. Unless you've got a movie-quality reproduction of the outfit Lando wore, the "extra mile" you put into the make-up would be better spent on improving the rest of the costume. For most situations it's not necessary (people aren't going to not know who you're dressed up as), and the potential to cause offense is almost always going to outweigh whatever accuracy it adds to the costume.
That said, someone being offended by something isn't necessarily a trump card. "Sorry you were offended" is sometimes a reasonable "apology" to give.

Prederick wrote:

Also, FWIW, I've never seen a blackface costume that wasn't CLEARLY blackface. But then again, blackface hasn't been a challenge on that makeup show on Sci-Fi, so who knows where the technology is.

Blackface, no. People using makeup to look Hispanic isn't exactly uncommon. And Cloud Atlas is a very recent example of people using makeup to look Asian.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I'll l stop after this, because we've all made our opinions clear...

Well then people were saying things like "Man you'd totally deserve it if a bunch of guys beat the sh*t out of you!" And for some reason I didn't want to leave it there.

Stengah:

I actually didn't realize they were supposed to look "Asian" for a while. I just thought they looked like aliens. They certainly didn't look Korean, as far as I can tell.

"The White Person’s Guide to Wearing Blackface" - http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-val...

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

I actually didn't realize they were supposed to look "Asian" for a while. I just thought they looked like aliens. They certainly didn't look Korean, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, it was really weird, like they focused on the eyes and ignored the rest of the face. The weirdness was most noticeable on Hugo Weaving.
IMAGE(http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/img/blog/oct12/blog_261012atlas.jpg)
To get it back to the reason I brought it up: they had a valid story reason for doing it, so was it racist for them to try? Would it be less offensive if they had done a better job of it?

Stengah wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

If you get a tattoo of a swastika as a symbol of auspiciousness and shave your head to keep cool, you don't get to be surprised when you get the sh*t kicked out of you for being a neo-Nazi.

You sure as hell do. They're given a free pass for thinking you were a neo-Nazi and telling you how offensive you're being, but that's it. They are absolutely not given a free pass to beat you up because they thought you were a neo-Nazi.

Note that at no point did I say that it was ok, or that anybody got a free pass, or that I was appropriate. I said you don't get to act surprised if it happens, knowing the cultural baggage surrounding those things.

I'm not condoning or excusing violence, but I am acknowledging that some things are more likely to cause incidents. I can't push someone and act surprised that they push back; I can't wear a sandwich board saying "I hate n-word" (interesting - I can't even type it without feeling uncomfortable) in Harlem and act surprised when I get attacked; and I can't be surprised that people assume I'm a neo-Nazi when I'm inked and shaved like one.

Yonder wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I'll l stop after this, because we've all made our opinions clear...

Well then people were saying things like "Man you'd totally deserve it if a bunch of guys beat the sh*t out of you!" And for some reason I didn't want to leave it there.

A) Didn't say that.
B) Leaving out the context does a disservice to the whole conversation.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

If you get a tattoo of a swastika as a symbol of auspiciousness and shave your head to keep cool, you don't get to be surprised when you get the sh*t kicked out of you for being a neo-Nazi.

You sure as hell do. They're given a free pass for thinking you were a neo-Nazi and telling you how offensive you're being, but that's it. They are absolutely not given a free pass to beat you up because they thought you were a neo-Nazi.

Note that at no point did I say that it was ok, or that anybody got a free pass, or that I was appropriate. I said you don't get to act surprised if it happens, knowing the cultural baggage surrounding those things.

I'm not condoning or excusing violence, but I am acknowledging that some things are more likely to cause incidents. I can't push someone and act surprised that they push back; I can't wear a sandwich board saying "I hate n-word" (interesting - I can't even type it without feeling uncomfortable) in Harlem and act surprised when I get attacked; and I can't be surprised that people assume I'm a neo-Nazi when I'm inked and shaved like one.

Right, so a woman walking in a sketchy part of the city wearing short-shorts and a low-cut shirt doesn't get to act surprised when someone tries to rape her? Same logic applies. Based on the history of women who have done this, she should know better, right?
Also: Shaved head ≠ neo-Nazi. The original skinhead culture was biracial and was influenced heavily by Jamaican rude boy culture. The neo-Nazi skinhead groups came later and the media started calling all skinheads part of the white power movement.

There are semantic games going on here that are making people talk past each other.

The crux of the matter is that if you are aware that your costume will cause hurt feelings and make people feel uncomfortable, you are an asshole for wearing it. This doesn't legitimize violence or any other harassment. This doesn't mean you should get arrested.

But when you act like an asshole, there are other ramifications. Your employer or school may decide they don't want you around. People may take a picture of you and post cruel stuff about you on the internet. And people you thought were your friends may not invite you to the next party.

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. So, even if you really, really think that black face should not be offensive, by the time you've read this far, I'm pretty sure you know now that people, white and black, are going to be offended and repulsed by you. Embrace it or don't wear the black face.

Stengah wrote:

Right, so a woman walking in a sketchy part of the city wearing short-shorts and a low-cut shirt doesn't get to act surprised when someone tries to rape her? Same logic applies. Based on the history of women who have done this, she should know better, right?

I did address this in an earlier post his page.

Stengah wrote:

Also: Shaved head ≠ neo-Nazi .

Can we agree that shaved head and swastika tattoos strongly implies neo-nazi, at least? Yeesh.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Right, so a woman walking in a sketchy part of the city wearing short-shorts and a low-cut shirt doesn't get to act surprised when someone tries to rape her? Same logic applies. Based on the history of women who have done this, she should know better, right?

I did address this in an earlier post his page.

Not that I saw. All I saw was:

If you get a tattoo of a swastika as a symbol of auspiciousness and shave your head to keep cool, you don't get to be surprised when you get the sh*t kicked out of you for being a neo-Nazi.
Note the difference between that and getting assaulted for dressing "like that". The "she was asking for it" justification ascribes a set of behaviors and morals with no factual basis and then uses those as a reason for the consequences. Blackface and swastikas get assigned associated behaviors and beliefs based on historical evidence.

The reason given for beating up the person in your example were still ascribing a set of behaviors and morals that didn't have a factual basis. Your mob assumed they were a neo-Nazi just like people assume the girl really wants them. And it completely disregards that even if you're right that they're a neo-Nazi, that does not in any way, shape, or form, mean they should expect to be beaten up. It's still victim blaming even if you don't like the victim.

Stengah wrote:

Also: Shaved head ≠ neo-Nazi .

Can we agree that shaved head and swastika tattoos strongly implies neo-nazi, at least? Yeesh.

The swastika is the part doing the implying, the hairstyle that accompanies it is much less relevant.

Stengah wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Right, so a woman walking in a sketchy part of the city wearing short-shorts and a low-cut shirt doesn't get to act surprised when someone tries to rape her? Same logic applies. Based on the history of women who have done this, she should know better, right?

I did address this in an earlier post his page.

Not that I saw. All I saw was:

If you get a tattoo of a swastika as a symbol of auspiciousness and shave your head to keep cool, you don't get to be surprised when you get the sh*t kicked out of you for being a neo-Nazi.
Note the difference between that and getting assaulted for dressing "like that". The "she was asking for it" justification ascribes a set of behaviors and morals with no factual basis and then uses those as a reason for the consequences. Blackface and swastikas get assigned associated behaviors and beliefs based on historical evidence.

The reason given for beating up the person in your example were still ascribing a set of behaviors and morals that didn't have a factual basis. Your mob assumed they were a neo-Nazi just like people assume the girl really wants them. And it completely disregards that even if you're right that they're a neo-Nazi, that does not in any way, shape, or form, mean they should expect to be beaten up. It's still victim blaming even if you don't like the victim.

I guess for me, the difference is that people in blackface typically have been racists; people with swastika tattoos typically have been neo-Nazi (or white supremacists, or skinheads, or whatever is it you'd like to call racist intolerant folks with swastika tattoos). I don't know that there's any such historical correlation with girls wearing short skirts.

And again, I don't think they should expect to be beaten up, but to be surprised that people take offense (and possibly respond aggressively) seems... naive, maybe? Dismissive of history? I dunno; something.

I guess it is victim blaming to some extent, but I think there are behaviours that can reasonably be expected to cause outcomes; if someone jumps off a rooftop on a dare and they are pulled to the ground by gravity, is it victim blaming to cuff them on the back of the head and call them a dumbass? Do you think that my other example (the sandwich board wearer) can legitimately be surprised at a violent outcome?

Stengah wrote:
chumpy wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Also: Shaved head ≠ neo-Nazi .

Can we agree that shaved head and swastika tattoos strongly implies neo-nazi, at least? Yeesh.

The swastika is the part doing the implying, the hairstyle that accompanies it is much less relevant.

Sure. I figured tats plus hair was a stronger implication than tats alone, but it's not all that important to the point.

Context is important, though. Bald head, swastika, red and gold robes, sandals... I'm not gonna worry. Bald head, swastika, flannel shirt, suspenders, black jeans, Doc Martins, red laces... I'm gonna worry.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Note that at no point did I say that it was ok.

You didn't, and I appreciate that you don't think that I deserve to be beaten to a pulp.

FSeven did though:

FSeven wrote:

If you were to be mobbed and beaten to a pulp as a result, and wonder why, then the only failing in the whole situation would be your ignorance on the history of it and why it's such a sensitive thing.

As in, the only person at fault is me. As in the people "beating me to a pulp" are not at fault, either because I deserve it completely, or because "they are just savage blacks who can't control themselves once they get angered, so they can't be blamed".

I haven't seen any other evidence of FSeven being a crazy racist though, so I assumed it was the first scenario. Or there is a third explanation which I don't see.

Yonder, you still haven't answered "Can you really not understand that intent and interpretation don't always match?", by the way. I'm trying to figure out if you're really defending blackface and swastikas from a practical standpoint or an idealistic one.

Stengah wrote:

"Sorry you were offended" is sometimes a reasonable "apology" to give.

Bleargh. I'd rather they just told me I was wrong and to go f*ck myself. "Sorry you were offended" is possibly the most dickish, passive-aggressive non-apology out there. I may not like John Derbyshire, but at least the man has the conviction to stand behind his beliefs. On a certain level, I can respect that.

Stengah wrote:

To get it back to the reason I brought it up: they had a valid story reason for doing it, so was it racist for them to try? Would it be less offensive if they had done a better job of it?

Well, there's actually an Asian-American advocacy group that can explain their feelings on the matter.

"Cloud Atlas missed a great opportunity. The Korea story’s protagonist is an Asian man--an action hero who defies the odds and holds off armies of attackers," Guy Aoki, MANAA's founding president, said in a statement. "He’s the one who liberates [a clone played by actress] Doona Bae from her repressive life and encourages her to join the resistance against the government. It would have been a great, stereotype-busting role for an Asian American actor to play, as Asian American men aren’t allowed to be dynamic or heroic very often."

Instead, it is Jim Sturgess who plays that role, while Hugo Weaving and James D'Arcy are also cast as Asian actors. Not only is the MANAA upset about the lack of Asian actors involved, but also at how little they believe was done to transform actors of other races into convincing Asian characters.

"It appears that to turn white and black actors into Asian characters (black actor Keith David was also Asian in the 2144 story), the make-up artists believed they only had to change their eyes, not their facial structure and complexion," Aoki said.

The Village Voice's Michael Musto didn't agree, but posted the full text of their protest there.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Yonder, you still haven't answered "Can you really not understand that intent and interpretation don't always match?", by the way. I'm trying to figure out if you're really defending blackface and swastikas from a practical standpoint or an idealistic one.

That's because I've been trying to bow out of this whole mess.

First of all, I never actually defended Swastikas. People basically took my "I don't think darkening your skin color always has to be racist" and ran to "oh ok, so you don't think there is anything wrong shaving your head, wearing a swastika armband, and then putting on a KKK hood, and burning a cross in front of a black family's yard. You're a real piece of work aren't you." So that's how swastika's came into the conversation.

Then people decide I'm talking about some ridiculous caricature of a black person's color, like pulling out that baseball mascot above, when I have said every single time that it could only ever possibly work non-offensively if it looked natural and non-exaggerated. Natural as in, looks like it's actually a person. Robert Downey Jr. is the only picture in this thread that is an actual example of what I'm talking about.

But anyways, since you're asking, no, I don't think there is anything wrong with a Swastika in and of itself. NOT on a red armband, which seems to send a pretty clear signal, or in any other actual Nazi affiliated way, but I think it's sad that Buddhist temples and whatnot redecorated in the decades after WWII because of exactly this sort of ignorance and snap judgement. And, yes, those sorts of organizations using the Swastika as it was originally used would reclaim/clean that symbol faster, so maybe it would be for the best.

I don't really know what you mean by "defending them from a practical standpoint" because as I have readily admitted blackface doesn't serve a practical purpose.

To answer your main question, yes, I understand that intent and interpretation don't always match, that is generally pretty obvious from life experiences quite early on, and if I hadn't learned it yet trying to explain myself to a hostile crowd here would have rammed the point home pretty quickly. When I first mentioned this I was solely saying that the intent didn't have to be racist. I only feel that the interpretation is less likely to be one of racism because I am talking about a case of actual skin color. And also in the context of a holiday where I have seen people who have made their skin incredibly pale to be a vampire, or green to be an orc, or blue to be a smurf, or Blue Man Group Character, or red to be a Devil.

Sorry if I'm coming off a little strong, but at this point I'm quite frustrated because I feel like I'm being willfully misunderstood at every turn. "Hmm, Yonder is specifying that it can't be an exaggerated caricature of a person, lets post the Cleveland Indian as an example of why caricatures with grotesque features are racist" or "Hey, Yonder says that as a necessary but not sufficient requirement of it being in any way acceptable the final result must have the actual skin color of an actual, real person, lets get pictures of people blacker than coal to demonstrate why he's wrong."

Real people have skin color that black, Yonder. I've seen some walking around downtown. It is quite striking.

Prederick wrote:
Stengah wrote:

"Sorry you were offended" is sometimes a reasonable "apology" to give.

Bleargh. I'd rather they just told me I was wrong and to go f*ck myself. "Sorry you were offended" is possibly the most dickish, passive-aggressive non-apology out there..

That's generally what I mean when I say it, and why I put "apology" in quotes. Though usually it's more "I think you're overreacting/missing the point and I'm not going to stop just to soothe your feelings" instead of "go f*ck yourself." I suppose it's the same train of thought, just with less harsh language.

Stengah wrote:

To get it back to the reason I brought it up: they had a valid story reason for doing it, so was it racist for them to try? Would it be less offensive if they had done a better job of it?

Well, there's actually an Asian-American advocacy group that can explain their feelings on the matter.

"Cloud Atlas missed a great opportunity. The Korea story’s protagonist is an Asian man--an action hero who defies the odds and holds off armies of attackers," Guy Aoki, MANAA's founding president, said in a statement. "He’s the one who liberates [a clone played by actress] Doona Bae from her repressive life and encourages her to join the resistance against the government. It would have been a great, stereotype-busting role for an Asian American actor to play, as Asian American men aren’t allowed to be dynamic or heroic very often."

Instead, it is Jim Sturgess who plays that role, while Hugo Weaving and James D'Arcy are also cast as Asian actors. Not only is the MANAA upset about the lack of Asian actors involved, but also at how little they believe was done to transform actors of other races into convincing Asian characters.

"It appears that to turn white and black actors into Asian characters (black actor Keith David was also Asian in the 2144 story), the make-up artists believed they only had to change their eyes, not their facial structure and complexion," Aoki said.

The Village Voice's Michael Musto didn't agree, but posted the full text of their protest there.

Prederick wrote:
Stengah wrote:

"Sorry you were offended" is sometimes a reasonable "apology" to give.

Bleargh. I'd rather they just told me I was wrong and to go f*ck myself. "Sorry you were offended" is possibly the most dickish, passive-aggressive non-apology out there. I may not like John Derbyshire, but at least the man has the conviction to stand behind his beliefs. On a certain level, I can respect that.

Stengah wrote:

To get it back to the reason I brought it up: they had a valid story reason for doing it, so was it racist for them to try? Would it be less offensive if they had done a better job of it?

Well, there's actually an Asian-American advocacy group that can explain their feelings on the matter.

"Cloud Atlas missed a great opportunity. The Korea story’s protagonist is an Asian man--an action hero who defies the odds and holds off armies of attackers," Guy Aoki, MANAA's founding president, said in a statement. "He’s the one who liberates [a clone played by actress] Doona Bae from her repressive life and encourages her to join the resistance against the government. It would have been a great, stereotype-busting role for an Asian American actor to play, as Asian American men aren’t allowed to be dynamic or heroic very often."

Instead, it is Jim Sturgess who plays that role, while Hugo Weaving and James D'Arcy are also cast as Asian actors. Not only is the MANAA upset about the lack of Asian actors involved, but also at how little they believe was done to transform actors of other races into convincing Asian characters.

"It appears that to turn white and black actors into Asian characters (black actor Keith David was also Asian in the 2144 story), the make-up artists believed they only had to change their eyes, not their facial structure and complexion," Aoki said.

The Village Voice's Michael Musto didn't agree, but posted the full text of their protest there.

And the basis of their complaint was that it was so badly done. So going by that, Yonder's suggestion of a really well done makeup job to make a white guy look black as part of a Lando costume should be borderline-okay, shouldn't it?

I really don't get the "I don't intend it to be racist" thing. Did someone hold you down and apply the face paint?

People seem to think that the racist line is drawn at the point you wear blackface with hate in your heart. It's not. It's drawn at the point you decide you know better than the people you're upsetting and you're going to do something you know offends them because you think your right to do what you want trumps everything.

It's patronising, It's selfish, It's entitled, And that's racism.