CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:56 pm
For some it is a petty physical difference.
For others it is a major part of their heritage, family, and upbringing.
Sad, isn't it? Their cultural background is all that, sure. And unfortunately attitudes will have included the colour of their skin in it as part of that picture. Unfortunate if they still let that define them rather than the cultural aspect.
Suggestion: If you refer to as "they" and judge the entirety of their race and do so in a condescending way -- you're being extremely racist.
I mean we do have to respect that Riedquat is in a different country. The rise of white nationalism and xenophobia in the UK as a large political force is actually a fairly recent phenomena. While the United States has always dealt with those people throughout our history, Nazism was VERY much hated in the UK post WW2, and the rise of neo-Nazis and far right groups is much newer for them rather than the US (which had a sizeable group of homegrown fascists that tried to prevent us from entering WW2).
The BNP - the UK's fascist party - was pretty much a wingnut group in the 90s. It was an extremely minor sideshow in politics. It wasn't until Nick Griffin took over leadership in 1999 that the party started to get somewhere, rising to having over 50 council seats by 2009. While it collapsed shortly thereafter in 2012 following extreme internal struggles, the BNP's racism hardly exited politics. The fall lead to the rise of the UK Independence Party and Nigel Farage, which culminated in the Brexit disaster that Britain is currently heading through face first.
So he's completely justified in saying that the UK was less racist back in the 90s. It was.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs
CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:06 am
And he was cast in part because he was black because they wanted to make a black captain for all the reasons shown in the "Benny" episodes.
The funniest thing I ever read was people asking, unironically, when Star Trek had gotten so "social justice-y"
They were quite some way in to the run. At first, and for quite a while, Sisko was just the guy in charge of DS9. Maybe it was less the case in the USA, and it was never 100% irrelevant here either, but there was a time where people gave rather less of a crap about what colour someone's skin was
no there wasn't
Wrong.
People have been making a big issue about skin color since we went over to Africa and kidnapped people because we were too lazy to pick our own cotton.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
GreyICE wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:22 amOf course everyone who complains about that is a hypocrite, because there's an egregious case of affirmative action in Star Trek captain casting. A role handed to an actor without any serious consideration of alternatives, simply for who they were. No screen testing, no competition, just pure unvarnished favoritism.
And think about it. If you wrote a character that in your mind was white, it would just be white on rice and there would be no plausible reason to assume racism. Of course though if you want to run a show based on progressivism and you very logically choose a black American to root contemporary issues, then you are obviously just PERPETUATING racism further because you chose someone by the color of their skin.
GreyICE wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:22 amOf course everyone who complains about that is a hypocrite, because there's an egregious case of affirmative action in Star Trek captain casting. A role handed to an actor without any serious consideration of alternatives, simply for who they were. No screen testing, no competition, just pure unvarnished favoritism.
And think about it. If you wrote a character that in your mind was white, it would just be white on rice and there would be no plausible reason to assume racism. Of course though if you want to run a show based on progressivism and you very logically choose a black American to root contemporary issues, then you are obviously just PERPETUATING racism further because you chose someone by the color of their skin.
I used to believe something similar. I then had it explained to someone by a black fellow writing said who said, "Black people do not want their blackness to be invisible. They do not want to be taken as if their blackness is unimportant. It is a part of our past, a thing we deal with, and a thing that has defined us. Excluding one's race is a luxury of white people that others do not get. When a character is black and deliberately so in a narrative then that is someone making a choice deliberately to say, YOU ARE WELCOME HERE."
If you can't understand that, perhaps you should note maybe it is the person who suffers under racism who should define it versus a white person dictating the terms of race to the person who suffers under it.
Or, as a far less serious example another friend gave, "If Mexicans like Speedy Gonzales, maybe they should be the ones who dictate what's racist or not against Mexicans."
GreyICE wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:22 amOf course everyone who complains about that is a hypocrite, because there's an egregious case of affirmative action in Star Trek captain casting. A role handed to an actor without any serious consideration of alternatives, simply for who they were. No screen testing, no competition, just pure unvarnished favoritism.
And think about it. If you wrote a character that in your mind was white, it would just be white on rice and there would be no plausible reason to assume racism. Of course though if you want to run a show based on progressivism and you very logically choose a black American to root contemporary issues, then you are obviously just PERPETUATING racism further because you chose someone by the color of their skin.
I used to believe something similar. I then had it explained to someone by a black fellow writing said who said, "Black people do not want their blackness to be invisible. They do not want to be taken as if their blackness is unimportant. It is a part of our past, a thing we deal with, and a thing that has defined us. Excluding one's race is a luxury of white people that others do not get. When a character is black and deliberately so in a narrative then that is someone making a choice deliberately to say, YOU ARE WELCOME HERE."
If you can't understand that, perhaps you should note maybe it is the person who suffers under racism who should define it versus a white person dictating the terms of race to the person who suffers under it.
Or, as a far less serious example another friend gave, "If Mexicans like Speedy Gonzales, maybe they should be the ones who dictate what's racist or not against Mexicans."
I bought this for you:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs
CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:56 am
I used to believe something similar. I then had it explained to someone by a black fellow writing said who said, "Black people do not want their blackness to be invisible. They do not want to be taken as if their blackness is unimportant. It is a part of our past, a thing we deal with, and a thing that has defined us. Excluding one's race is a luxury of white people that others do not get. When a character is black and deliberately so in a narrative then that is someone making a choice deliberately to say, YOU ARE WELCOME HERE."
Except it's not about making black folks "invisible": it is about making the human.
This is (was before the so woke crap) one of the most basic things about Star Trek: Everyone is Human and Everyone is the Same. A person can stomp there feet and say 'they is be a color' in a fancy rap: but that does not make them anything except a human.
After all, there is noting at all unique about "color". No misguided human of "color x'' can say "only people of MY color like or do Y". That is not how humans work.
And really, Star Trek goes beyond even that...into fiction...saying that all sentient races universe wide are the same.
You act like you're doing black people a favor by ignoring their blackness, as if it was a character flaw. And if you have to ignore blackness to humanize people...
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:42 am
You act like you're doing black people a favor by ignoring their blackness, as if it was a character flaw. And if you have to ignore blackness to humanize people...
Nope, he is saying we treat black people like we treat white people: as universally capable of doing any role. That is what it means to ignore race. The end point of people like you is Zoe Saldana apologising because she was ''too light skinned'' to play a ''dark skinned'' role.
