Is a white person playing a role "of color"* considered racist?- Page 5

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 5:30pm

I apologize, newintown. I should have realized that you, who always speaks with such insight and sensitivity when this subject comes up, were making a point about how it's more important to point out the hypocrisy of mostly American people who consider racial issues in American theatre without contemplating alleged racism in China and Ghana on a board where we primarily talk about theatre in the western world. And here I thought you were just trying to derail the conversation with nonsense.





Updated On: 12/1/12 at 05:30 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 6:54pm

"I don't know that China has a history of excluding Caucasians from its national theater."

Exactly. Because you don't care enough to consider the possibility. Which was my point.

" I should have realized that you... [bla bla bla]... were making a point about how it's more important to point out the hypocrisy of mostly American people who consider racial issues in American theatre without contemplating alleged racism in China and Ghana on a board where we primarily talk about theatre in the western world."

You're absolutely right; we should never, under any circumstances whatsoever, open up any discussion more broadly than within the confines of the New York theatre district. That would be confusing.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 7:10pm

Nah, your point was just to derail the discussion. Well done!

[newintown]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 7:26pm

Condescending isn't pretty, and you're usually quite pretty, Phyl.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 7:57pm

I'm not condescending, but I am wondering if you think the NAACP should concern itself with how black people are treated in China, because one seems as much to do with the other as your concerns about the minority representation in Chinese theatre does to this thread. You got me, though. I've never once considered what happens when The Great Wall Players decide to Falsettos with no white Jews, just like when I consider most states in this country have amendments banning gay people from getting married I don't think, "Well, at least it's that way in China, too!"

And I never once suggested we were strictly talking about theatre in the New York theatre district solely, hence my use of American and western theatre. Again, if you really think you're making a point perhaps someone can pop in to help you clarify, because I truly can't get the point you claim to be making, except that if you don't have a well thought out line on the Eastern equivalent of what seem to be uniquely western/American issues then you're somehow part of a problem.

But if this really an important issue to you, why not start a thread about it? You can provide the information you have about Chinese people and African Ghanaian playing roles whose races are different from the characters they are playing. You probably already have the information on how the racial demographics in those countries break down, some make sure to provide. Some context of Western theatre in the East would help, too. You'll definitely want to provide some specific information about racism manifests in those countries, as well as some insight into roots of that racism, as they are certain to differ from the the roots in this or other western countries.

I look forward to the discussion.




Updated On: 12/1/12 at 07:57 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 8:09pm

Don't get hysterical, Phyl. You're not yourself when you're hysterical.

If you don't want to discuss anyone else's thoughts, just say so. A lengthy diatribe (is that redundant?) isn't necessary.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 8:13pm

See, that's not hysteria. That's me taking the time to answer you when you're just trolling and trying to derail. Then when I give you an answer, you try to derail it again by calling me hysterical.

Whose thoughts am I not discussing? Yours? If so, phrase them again so I can see exactly what thoughts of yours I'm not discussing.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 8:32pm

And let's be clear: people can make inadvertently racist comments without actually being racists. The difference is whether they can be called out on it and go, oh, I understand, or whether they make excuses for it.

Well said, Taryn. Thank you and I agree.

I do wish we had a separate term for thoughtless stereotyping as opposed to an actual hostility toward people based on immutable characteristics. Assuming that all African-Americans have great musical ability may be ignorant, but it isn't malicious.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 8:42pm

I'm sorry if I too am missing your point, newintown. The issue of theatrical representation in my own culture is sufficiently complex, I wouldn't dream of attempting to speak for China or Ghana.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 8:45pm

You may not intend it, Phyl, but by wildly exaggerating and misrepresenting my post, you don't "discuss" it. You feel that this is, excuse the expression, a black and white issue. You believe that what you value in the specific time and place which you inhabit is a universal moral imperative, ignoring or belittling parts of the issue that don't matter to you, because it doesn't support a black and white point of view.

Asking questions that you don't like isn't trolling. Clearly you don't want to have a discussion. It seems you'd rather pontificate from what you feel is an unassailable moral promontory. I didn't expect that.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 8:46pm

Thank you for the links, Canmark. I look forward to watching them.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 9:12pm

You may not intend it, Phyl, but by wildly exaggerating and misrepresenting my post, you don't "discuss" it.

This from the person who suggested people were saying Olivier was evil when he did blackface 60 years ago and later suggested that we were only talking about New York Theatre district theatre. As you were told, no one said anyone was evil, and since the OP was talking about a college production, I figured it was understood that weren't just talking about theatre in New York.

Clearly you don't want to have a discussion.

And your comment about China and Ghana was meant to add to the discussion? How? You've yet to say a single thing about it.

As pointed out when I was not having a discussion, the roots of racism in China are going to wildly different that the roots and manifestation of racism in the West, so someone's going to have contextualize it to have this discussion, which was ostensibly about doing shows about race in America when you don't have actors of the race you need.

So fine, I snarked my first few comments about you talking about China and Ghana but again, though your point seems to be A) Because we primarily talk about western theatre, your first non sequitur about China and Ghana means no one cares about an issue in Eastern theatre that we've to receive a single shred of actual information about and that B) Because you dared to talk about something other than New York theatre you're being shut down. So to point a, I say that without a single example of this theatrical conundrum in China or Ghana, I'm not sure what to say about it, and with point b, we already established this discussion was never strictly about theatre in New York. You brought China and Ghana up, and have offered zero insight into what you think, expect to imply that there's some onus on the people in this thread to have a concrete opinion about an abstract you've barely touched upon. Is it because you don't care if Caucasian people play minorities in this country?

Asking questions that others don't like is not trolling, you're right. But the statement you made about China and Ghana was, because it very little to do with the thread and you've made no effort since you brought it up to actually discuss it. Also trolling - calling out others for misrepresenting you while you've been misrepresenting others.





Updated On: 12/1/12 at 09:12 PM

[Taryn]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 10:13pm

I do wish we had a separate term for thoughtless stereotyping as opposed to an actual hostility toward people based on immutable characteristics. Assuming that all African-Americans have great musical ability may be ignorant, but it isn't malicious.

I actually think it's really invaluable that we call it the same thing. On the one hand, people tend to react strongly to the word if you call out something they said as being kind of racist. But on the other hand, the sort of racism of ignorance and thoughtlessness we see in our art and pop culture is also damaging. It damages our cultural awareness because of its very casualness, and it's important to recognize just how damaging it truly is. That's why I think it's important that it's the same word; that way it's not minimized as being unimportant to address.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 10:27pm

Taryn, we don't have to pretend ignorance doesn't matter. But using the word "Hispanic" instead of "Latino" or "Chicano" (a sticking point among some Chicanos in the Southwest) is not the same thing as chaining a black man to your bumper and dragging him to death behind your car because of the color of his skin.

I don't see the benefit in pretending these are the same actions or that they arise from the same motivation. What we end up doing is trivializing the idea of "political incorrectness" by grouping it with actual hate crimes.

And we can't even have this conversation if everyone who thinks casting issues are overemphasized is to be lumped in with David Duke.

JMO, obviously.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 10:54pm

No one here, from what I have seen, is being nearly that hyperbolic, Gaveston.

Some may argue that racism is not unlike an invasive tree, with a host of branches that lead to leaves and sour fruit. Some racist acts are little, barely noticeable buds or leaves; some are large, substantial fruit. But it's all part of the tree, and the entirety of it is detrimental and should not go tolerated. Leaves, branches, fruit, and all.

I don't think racism can be shackled by intention. It's all part of the same tree. It's all borne of ignorance. Permitting it allows it to grow.

No, making a stereotypical joke isn't the same as a lynching. Obviously. And no one stable would think so.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 11:29pm

Well said, Kad and Taryn. Sure, there are degrees of racism and there are levels of intent, but I don't think anyone is served by trying to parse the exact level of racism out of each and every individual act, especially since, like Kad said, no one is suggesting that a racist joke or miscasting a role that should be played by someone of color is tantamount to a hate crime.

I really like the tree analogy a lot, Kad.

Updated On: 12/1/12 at 11:29 PM

[CJ N2N]

Posted: 12/1/12 at 11:34pm

I actually feel kind if bad that I started all of this. Sorry guys!

[Taryn]

Posted: 12/2/12 at 12:36am

I think Kad and Phyllis have already eloquently answered on my behalf, but -- yeah, I definitely was not suggesting that these actions are the same. At all. I was saying that it's important to recognize all forms of racism for what they are, from the more "harmless" missteps born of ignorance or thoughtlessness to truly heinous actions, because generally, the latter eventually winds its way from the former. The reason people are eventually able to act out in violent acts of racism is that they were never taught earlier to thoughtfully consider how they speak about other people. Words shape ideas, very much in the vein of the tree metaphor Kad was using. It doesn't mean that everyone who makes an off-color joke is a racist about to commit a hate crime. But it does mean that everything starts somewhere, and that there's real reason to be thoughtful of how we treat subjects even in passing, or else people are trained not to care on a small level, which can in some cases grow to not caring on a big level.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/2/12 at 12:55am

I understand, Gaveston, I think, why you believe there should/could be another term for espousing racist ignorance without malice.But I'd argue that separating it opens the door to accepting it. It'd be "not AS racist". It'd be "passive racism". But racism isn't ever passive, because you are always actively making a decision to act that way.

Taryn is right. Calling it all racism is invaluable. It identifies a behavior pattern with a potent negative- that's why most people act defensively when called out on it is cognitive dissonance; it's the fact they have to deal with "I Are Doing Something Racist" conflicting with "I Am Not a Racist".

[Boredathome]

Posted: 12/2/12 at 4:25am

"When a black tenor with the vocal and dramatic chops to sing the role emerges, then we'll talk"

That is some seriously f-ed up stuff right there, and that's only a sample of the, misguided, arrogrant, ethnocentric, willfully ignorant stuff I've seen in this thread.

To think that there is simply no minority actor/singer/whatever out there to fill the demands of a role rather than to admit that there is a systemic exclusion of minorities which creates this dearth of racially-appropriate performers is to be WILLFULLY ignorant to the issue of racism. One would rather make excuses for it than admit it.

This is, in my humble opinion, disgusting, naive or both.

Grow up. Look around you, stop being so f-ing privileged and try to understand the experience of others.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/2/12 at 9:32am

Phyl, the wealth of typos in your response above (as well as the total misunderstanding of my comments) suggest that you're in a state of clouded zealous rage, and unable/unwilling to engage in a serious discussion. I'm disappointed, I expected better from you.

But I need to be reminded from time to time about the futility of trying to calmly discuss those few things (racism, money, etc.) which can't be calmly discussed. (Noting that a discussion can be an exchange of differing points of view.)

[Kad]

Posted: 12/2/12 at 11:15am

Are you trying out your After Eight impression or something?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/2/12 at 1:55pm

I see no typos in that post (unless we're considering "theatre" a typo), and I haven't edited any of them since yesterday, but feel free to point them out. Often I'm the worst at proofreading my own stuff. I mean, I do make typos all the time, and when I catch them after the fact I fix them, so I don't really know what the point is, except to again attempt to take this conversation as far away from any substance as possible. (Thanks for not trying to hijack the conversation with piddling nonsense, though!)

Noting that a discussion can be an exchange of differing points of view.

When you bring a point of view to the thread, we'll all be ready to read it, but at this point it's obvious that you're going to just keep coming back at me for being hysterical or making typos or whatever else you come up with next and that's swell, but you realize all your contributions to this thread (such as they are) are there for everyone to see and contrast them with your later comments about not being able to have a discussion, right?

For example, you started back before China with that crack about casting Anita in West Side Story. I truly can't believe the person who typed, "So you can't just cast any Latina as Anita; you must find an actress who was born and raised specifically in Puerto Rico and whose name is Anita" is actually complaining about being thwarted when trying to have a serious and honest discussion. Then there's the "evil" comment and then we all now where you went after that. And then, all you've done since is keep saying you're being misinterpreted and how I'm crazy and hysterical.

Since I'm helpfully recapping this thread for you, let me point out that you completely ignored Kad said he thought your China and Ghana comment was snide and a little later you ignored Gaveston when said he had no idea what those remarks had to do with anything. And yet you still haven't said anything of any value and just continue to try and make this about my alleged moral superiority or whatever.

Feel free to keep trying to paint me however you want to, but the only person you're fooling (because I'm beginning to believe you do actually believe what you're saying) is yourself.

Updated On: 12/2/12 at 01:55 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/2/12 at 7:40pm

I too like Kad's tree analogy. It is quite eloquent, as a matter of fact.

But having separate words for leaves, twigs, branches, limbs, trunks and roots doesn't keep us from understanding they are all part of a tree.

Certain urban and academic communities are very sensitive to changes in language and the preferences of minority groups when it comes to nomenclature. I'm sorry, but I don't see what we accomplish by lumping all people outside those communities with hatemongers.

To make the example personal: this board once exploded when I used the direct object with a disability ("the autistic"). I just didn't know any better and was happy to be corrected. That is NOT the same impulse as insisting that ramps are a waste of public funds or that some people should be kept out of public view. It simply is not.

(ETA, Kad, if I'm using hyperbolic examples, it's only for clarity. No, I don't think anyone in this thread has exaggerated claims of racism.)
Updated On: 12/2/12 at 07:40 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/2/12 at 8:41pm

I actually feel kind of bad that I started all of this. Sorry, guys!

I hope you won't feel bad, CJ N2N. Conversations on this topic are good and, really, the only remedy where the cure isn't worse than the disease.


****

Is it possible that newintown was making this point: that the way we Americans and Canadians immediately conceptualize this issue in terms of North American histories of theatrical representation* is more or less the same way most people approach casting?

In other words, aren't we all just using our own experience to conceptualize the discussion?

Okay, I'll step in it: if you ask me to envision a dentist, I will probably imagine a white male EVEN THOUGH I don't choose dentists in real life on the basis of race or sex. But most of the dentists (real or theatrical) I have seen were white men, so that's what I envision, at least at first thought.

By the same token, we in this thread immediately jumped to the legacy of blackface and minstrelsy and Hollywood when the subjects of race and casting were raised.

I don't know if newintown is for it or against it, but I do see the relationship.
______

* Sorry, but Pal Joey won't let me use the word "mimesis".