Race and Pirates

[oyceter]

I ended up buying Beverly Tatum's "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?", despite already having borrowed it from the library because a) I wanted something to read in line while I waited to get a seat for Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and b) I want to financially support books like these and authors who tackle the subject of race.

I read a few chapters while standing in line, delighted by Tatum's definitions and her clear explanations and her compassion toward people of color and Whites alike.

Then I went in to watch Pirates.

And I watched, and I grew more and more uncomfortable. Jack Sparrow and crew run amok of cannibals. The cannibals, are, of course, Black. They have face paint and random piercings; they have made Jack Sparrow their king. He speaks to them in terms like, "Licka licka, savvy?" There are a few people of color in his pirate crew, but their speaking parts are small, and they all have very strong accents. Or they don't speak at all and lend their faces to the motley look of the crew. The main character of color is a Black woman, a voodoo witch or something, with eyeballs in jars, blackened teeth, and an accent so strong that I couldn't understand her half the time.

While I was noticing this and noticing the fact that there were no non-stereotyped portrayals of people of color, I was growing more and more uncomfortable with this awareness. I'm actually very ashamed to say this, but I kept thinking of things like, "Oh, is it really that bad?" and "It's just a movie" and "Really, it's about pirates, what can you expect?" and "It's all in good fun."

Except... it isn't.

And I can't get over the fact that even though I had been reading about race right before the movie, noticing the stereotypes and being critical of race in the movie made me incredibly uncomfortable and squirmy, so much so that I tried to rationalize it away. I spent the first half of the movie squirming and becoming more and more aware of the fact that my mind kept trying to slip away from the topic of race, kept trying to not confront it and come up with more and more reasons why it really wasn't that bad.

Except... it is that bad.

It is bad that I cannot think about race without this extreme uncomfortableness, that I cannot do it without attempting to rationalize and excuse, that I cannot do it even after reading about it and being fully committed to speaking out. And it is even worse, because I know if I had seen the movie without having read the Tatum beforehand, I would have noticed, but I would have let myself brush it off, let myself not post about it.

I didn't even post about this last night because it made me so uncomfortable.

Well, also, I wanted to make myself a "Not the magical minority fairy" icon.

But anyway. No more excuses from me, no rationalization. The movie is incredibly racist. I still had some fun watching it, but knowing that it was racist and knowing that most of the audience very likely wouldn't think so spoiled the majority of it for me.

I have difficulties just typing "The movie is incredibly racist," and I have to keep thinking about how I routinely notice the portrayal of women in nearly everything I read and watch (the movie is not as deeply sexist as it is racist; thankfully, Elizabeth gets to do stuff. But it is still very male). I have to keep thinking that for me, noticing sexism is ok, that pointing it out in my LJ is standard. And I have to keep thinking that I need to do the same about race, even though posting things like this frighten me because of the reaction to the Great Cultural Appropriation Debate of DOOM.

Part of me doesn't even want to keep talking about this because it's so uncomfortable, because it causes such defensiveness in other people, because I am tired of being told that I am wrong for seeing these things. And that's the very reason I am making myself post this, making myself confront the nidginess and the squirminess, the problems that I have in just acknowledging that something that I am enjoying is racist.

ETA: Freezing some threads in which further discussion seems to be rather pointless.

ETA2: I'm now screening all anonymous comments to this entry, not because I don't welcome them, but because I've been getting stupid spam comments everyday. If you aren't a spambot, you should make it through the screening! This is for spam only, not opinion-filtering.

Comments

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between historically accurate representations, historically accurate storytelling, and today's storytelling. Representing sexism and racism as it happened, historically, is good practice. However, playing it up today to entertain the audience is something else. Why are the three white characters the central point of the story? Which other characters could we write the story around? Couldn't have had a pirate film with Anamaria as the main character, and just depicting Jack Sparrow as a white character coming in her way?

But aside from the fact that the main characters are white, depicting minority characters as unimportant to the white characters, and depicting them as unimportant in the story are two different beasts.

Gah, I'm having trouble wording this properly.

[oyceter]

I think you are wording it quite well!

(frozen) (no subject)

[anarchodandyist.livejournal.com]

Why are the three white characters the central point of the story? Which other characters could we write the story around? Couldn't have had a pirate film with Anamaria as the main character, and just depicting Jack Sparrow as a white character coming in her way?

There are two reasons that I can think of. 1) Because it would be suspending historical here. Yes, the movie is racist. Yes, the movie is sexist. And the stereotypes contained within it are completely valid stereotypes for the time period. Furthermore, they are comical. ALL of them - which, in my view, is what makes them critical. And, in my exceedingly unpopular opinion (I'm sure), it's ridiculous to say that some of the stereotypes in the movie are worse than others because the characters are of different races. The Caribs that were stereotyped in the movie - that is, the natives who spoke Pidgin and practiced religious cannibalism - are long gone. And the pirates that were stereotyped - that is, the ones who wore tricorn hats and carried flintlock pistols and said "Yarrrr" - are also long gone. You're simply making the argument that it's worse to stereotype some than others because their skin is darker, and that's as much racism as anything else.

To try to impress today's ethics and perceptions on a story set in a time period that carries with it completely different ethics and perceptions is pointless ethical fist-flailing. Trying to revise history to suit perception of today's standards is utterly without point, because one should see people in their own light, whether it is culturally or temporally, and assigning blame for today's problems into the past is all well and good, but does nothing to solve the problems of today. Save your ire for something in your neighborhood - at least temporally, if not spacially.

(frozen) (no subject)

[(Anonymous)]

I think your viewpoint would be more valid in a world where people aren't bombarded with "white is default/white is normal" as a standard concept - if there weren't so much Othering going on, then the movie could be viewed as "oh, that was then". The problem is that this sort of worldview is not really safely in the past.

(frozen) (no subject)

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Whoops, posted anonymously without meaning to. Sorry about that.

I think your viewpoint would be more valid in a world where people aren't bombarded with "white is default/white is normal" as a standard concept - if there weren't so much Othering going on, then the movie could be viewed as "oh, that was then". The problem is that this sort of worldview is not really safely in the past.

(frozen) (no subject)

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

The Caribs that were stereotyped in the movie - that is, the natives who spoke Pidgin and practiced religious cannibalism - are long gone.

The Caribs stereotyped in the movie are alive and well and quite outspoken about their neighborhood ire: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410746.

(frozen) (no subject)

[anarchodandyist.livejournal.com]

Sorry, perhaps you didn't catch that. Let me try again:

The Caribs that were stereotyped in the movie -

that is, the natives who spoke Pidgin and

practiced religious cannibalism

- are long gone.

(frozen) (no subject)

[anarchodandyist.livejournal.com]

Read: The modern Caribs DO NOT SPEAK PIDGIN ENGLISH OR PRACTICE RITUAL CANNIBALISM. I was referring to the Caribs PORTRAYED IN THE MOVIE. Namely, CARIBS FROM THE HISTORICAL PERIOD OF THE MOVIE.

(frozen) (no subject)

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

But the Caribs say that they never practiced cannibalism in that time period, or pretty much ever. In fact, they are pretty clear about how it was a fiction perpetuated by the British while they fought them off for decades, according to this statement from the Garifuna of Belize (http://cacreview.blogspot.com/2005/04/national-garifuna-council-of-belize.html).

(frozen) (no subject)

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the explanation! I'm just curious as to how these cannibals, who didnt quite seem to exist according to what the Carib/Kalinago say, could be gone?

(frozen) (no subject)

[anarchodandyist.livejournal.com]

Evidence as to whether the Caribs ever practiced religious cannibalism is, indeed, inconclusive. However, given that nobody actually knows (including the modern Caribs), I see no problem with the portraying a particular historical slant on the islanders (who are *based* on the Caribs, but not actually supposed to *be* the Caribs) in a movie that incorporates stereotypes of *all* cultural/racial/social groups of the era in which it is set.

Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carib_Indians

(frozen) (no subject)

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

Inconclusive? Really? The Caribs keep saying that they didnt, I have this wacky idea that they might actually know what they are talking about.

incorporates stereotypes of *all* cultural/racial/social groups of the era in which it is set.

So because 'everyone" seems to be stereotyped, the movie is fine?

Are you actually serious?

Had you ever *heard* of the Caribs or the Garifuna *before* this movie came out? Had the slightest bit of acquaintance with Maroons in Jamaica, Surinam, or elsewhere? Heard anything about the importance of Blacks in the atlantic maritime industry from the 1500s on?

Its beyond insulting to expect that, given Disney's clear and conscious choices to portray the indigenous people that way, they should just sit quietly and be grateful that 'everyone else is stereotyped'.

(frozen) (no subject)

[anarchodandyist.livejournal.com]

(frozen) (no subject)

[coniraya.livejournal.com]

Yes there is a stereotype of pirates in the film but let us set one thing straight.
pirate = occupation/calling
carib indians = an ethnic group
If you can't see any difference there then right off the bat there's something wrong.
Also this is not about historical accuracy this is about the distortion of history for laughs. Distortion of a history that most people know nothing about. Distortion of a culture that is alive and active and pissed as hell about it today. Yes there are no pirates around but there are still Carib Indians around so what you are basically saying is that it's okay to portray those people's ancestors as cannibals (of which there is no real evidence) because those actually people aren't around today?

So basically it's okay to distort history and talk about it with no real knowledge of it? Is that with all history or just history on People of Color? Cause I think if a movie about WWI or the revolutionary war made stuff up based on supposition then people would be up in arms but in this case we're just being too sensitive?

(frozen) (no subject)

[anarchodandyist.livejournal.com]

There are, in fact, pirates still around. Especially around Madagascar and Vietnam. Speaking of accuracy...

"Pirate attacks tripled between 1993 and 2003. The first half of 2003 was the worst 6-month period on record, with 234 pirate attacks, 16 deaths, and 52 people injured worldwide. There were also 193 crew members held hostage during this period.
182 reported cases of piracy turned up worldwide in the first 6 months of 2004. Of these incidents, 50 occurred in Indonesian waters"

(frozen) (no subject)

[anarchodandyist.livejournal.com]

Additional: The stereotyping of the bumbling and/or ineffectual and/or evil English is stereotyping to an equal extent, but that's okay because they're white? To turn your own argument against you, is it only *not* okay to stereotype minorities?

And YES, distorting history for laughs IS okay. Because IT'S FUNNY. The Norwegians aren't all hairy ravaging Vikings. Not every French woman is Joan Of Arc or a can-can dancer. Not every Italian woman is a great voluptious seductress. Not all British governors are cowardly boobs. Not every Spanish man is a scruffy, hell-bent duellist. But wasn't Inigo Montoya cool?

Unless you yourself are a descendent of the Carib Indians, getting exercised on this racial profiling is another expression of racial/ethnic superiority, just in a different direction. Why do they need your help? Can they not defend themselves? Why is it your place to leap to the defense of the "downtrodden"? Can you say "white man's burden"?

Furthermore - the descendents of the Caribs maintain that they never practiced religious cannibalism. How, exactly, do they know? Were they *there* five hundred years ago? Moreover, were YOU there five hundred years ago? Historical self-aggrandizement and modern day apologists exist for practically every set of ancestors. The French are considered a cultured and civilized people today. A thousand years ago they were considered mass murderers.

I don't purport to know whether the Caribs practiced cannibalism. I've never been there. I've never met them. And I'm willing to bet that you haven't either. All I know is what I read in books. Of course, that's probably all you know too (and is certainly all you know in terms of history, unless you are very old indeed). If you choose to look at your cultural/ethnic/societal origins as a veil of unalloyed evil, isn't that just an expression of your own self-loathing? History teaches us that everybody, everywhere, was a shit (by today's standards) to everybody everywhere else. Today's victim was yesterday's asshat. I'd be willing to bet that the modern Caribs will amit to their warrior culture past. Warrior = murderer. A person that will with brute muscle power end the life of anybody they consider "not us".

All of this aside, we're dealing with a fantasy world in which magic works and supernatural creatures ply the Ocean Sea. Yahr.

(frozen) (no subject)

[coniraya.livejournal.com]

And YES, distorting history for laughs IS okay. Because IT'S FUNNY.
Wow that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If something is funny that automatically absolves it of any social responsibility. Guess what for People of Color everything is political at one point or another. Entertainment is not freaking off-limits cause it makes you chuckle.

Speaking of 'white man's burden' and privilege, how privileged do you think you are where you can come in and say 'You shouldn't be offended cause it's funny' Where the hell do you get off? I never said they were 'downtrodden' I never said they couldn't defend themselves. If you look at my previous response you'll see I've only responded to things you've said. You stated that pirates were long gone and so I followed suit working in a framework of the discussion you set up. Maybe you should check your view on indigenous people. Also your assumption that I'm white is way off, so I would check your whole 'everyone = white' viewpoint as well, cause I don't know what I could have said to make you think I was.

Also I'm more inclined to letting the Carib Indians define their own history instead of white people whose Queen had just said that only cannibals could be taken as slaves. Maybe it's just me that thinks I'll let them tell me their people's history instead of letting the oppressors define them, but I don't think so.

Just because it's fantastical does not mean it can be irresponsible. Racism and sexism is not excusable because it's in a fantasy setting. If you can't see that then I don't know what the point of this is.

(frozen) (no subject)

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

omg you're not white?

why didnt you tell me!!!

YOU LIED!

(frozen) (no subject)

[coniraya.livejournal.com]

I thought it would be hard on our friendship if I told you I wasn't white.

I'm sorry!
I'm so so sorry!

(frozen) (no subject)

[coniraya.livejournal.com]

Also I'm just done with you and this whole fruitless discussion, I would suggest maybe taking an ethnic studies class or reading some bell hooks. Try to realize how a blockbuster movie selling to people in the midwest who only know POC through movies and t.v. might increase or cause stereotypes when it has those things within it.

(frozen) (no subject)

[coniraya.livejournal.com]

Um....I never said pirates weren't around anymore, you said that. Also since you only chose to respond to something I said in your mind I'm taking that to mean you can't respond intelligently to anything else I said.
Since seeing what you posted to delux_vivens above, I'm gonna assume you are nothing but an LJ troll. Thus all I have to say is nice way of derailing a legitimate discussion because it went to far above your head or messed with your preconceived notions in some way.
Well Done.

(frozen) (no subject)

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

oh hush, you white devil.

(frozen) (no subject)

[anarchodandyist.livejournal.com]

Uh, you mean except when you said above "Yes there are no pirates around but there are still Carib Indians around"? Is there some other interpretation of that that I missed?

And yes, this is all just so very far over my head. I cannot handle such warping of my preconceived notions.

(frozen) (no subject)

[coniraya.livejournal.com]

Uh, you mean except when you said above "Yes there are no pirates around but there are still Carib Indians around"? Is there some other interpretation of that that I missed?
I'd look at your first post when you talk about there being no pirates before you start throwing stones.

And yes, this is all just so very far over my head. I cannot handle such warping of my preconceived notions.
I figured.

(frozen) (no subject)

[anarchodandyist.livejournal.com]

Oh, sheesh. Again, you're missing all the stuff in the middle of the sentence. I said:

"And the pirates that were stereotyped - that is, the ones who wore tricorn hats and carried flintlock pistols and said "Yarrrr" - are also long gone"

NOT "Pirates are long gone".