site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   38752 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The thing is, despite all the chat about "representation", they're not doing it for a black audience. Does anyone doubt that if they thought that dropping Arondir and Dísa made it more appealing to China, they'd do it in a heartbeat?

And if they are doing it for representation and a global audience, they better fit in some Indian, Chinese, Filipino, and as many South American actors in new roles as they can get for the next episodes and seasons. I mean, how can people watch a show if they can't see faces like their own in it, and right now if they're not white, they've got a couple of black actors and some ambiguously brown ones? If they're not black, who is representing them? There are trailers etc. in Hindi - do you mean that Indians can watch a show that doesn't have Indian actors in it in main parts to be Representative? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

It's for easy publicity: we are making a Big Deal of Diversity, aren't we wonderful, please buy a subscription to our streaming service to watch our very expensive show.

unless whiteness was a critical part of the story

Ah ha ha ha ha ha. Excuse me a moment while I wipe away tears of laughter, and no, I'm not laughing at you.

Is blackness a critical part of the story for Black Panther? Wouldn't it be just as good if we had our fictional magic science African kingdom with diverse actors, e.g. some Chinese, Hispanic, Pacific Islanders, etc. in supporting parts on-screen so people could have Representation and See Someone Who Looks Like Me?

After all, if we are supposed to accept magical meteors and special metal and mystic herbs and all the rest of it that made Wakanda super-advanced, why are we objecting to seeing Asian faces there? Wakanda isn't real, vibranium isn't real, the heart-shaped herb isn't real. It's all fantasy and made-up, not real history, right? So objecting to Asian and Latinx Wakandans is motivated solely by racism.

When Tolkien invented his universe, first it was for the languages to have a proper setting. Secondly, it was to make "a mythology for England". Everywhere else was having cultural renaissances, from the Celtic Revival to various European countries (see for example composers going back to and being influenced by native folk music of their respective lands). But what did England - not Britain, but England - have? Not the Arthurian legend, see here from a letter of 1951:

Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story-the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country. It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our 'air' (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East), and, while possessing (if I could achieve it) the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine ancient Celtic things), it should be 'high', purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry.

1937:

Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?

1938:

The language of hobbits was remarkably like English, as one would expect: they only lived on the borders of The Wild, and were mostly unaware of it. Their family names remain for the most part as well known and justly respected in this island as they were in Hobbiton and Bywater.

1943:

For I love England (not Great Britain and certainly not the British Commonwealth (grr!)),

1944:

As to Sam Gamgee. I quite agree with what you say, and I wouldn't dream of altering his name without your approval; but the object of the alteration was precisely to bring out the comicness, peasantry, and if you will the Englishry of this jewel among the hobbits. Had I thought it out at the beginning, I should have given all the hobbits very English names to match the shire.

1954:

Middle-earth is just archaic English for ἡοἰκονμένη, the inhabited world of men. It lay then as it does. In fact just as it does, round and inescapable. That is partly the point. The new situation, established at the beginning of the Third Age, leads on eventually and inevitably to ordinary History, and we here see the process culminating. If you or I or any of the mortal men (or hobbits) of Frodo's day had set out over sea, west, we should, as now, eventually have come back (as now) to our starting point. Gone was the 'mythological' time when Valinor (or Valimar), the Land of the Valar (gods if you will) existed physically in the Uttermost West, or the Eldaic (Elvish) immortal Isle of Eressëa; or the Great Isle of Westernesse (Númenor-Atlantis). After the Downfall of Númenor, and its destruction, all this was removed from the 'physical' world, and not reachable by material means. Only the Eldar (or High-Elves) could still sail thither, forsaking time and mortality, but never returning.

1956:

There is no special reference to England in the 'Shire' – except of course that as an Englishman brought up in an 'almost rural' village of Warwickshire on the edge of the prosperous bourgeoisie of Birmingham (about the time of the Diamond Jubilee!) I take my models like anyone else – from such 'life' as I know.

Another letter of 1956, where he was getting stuck into a Dutch translator who took it upon himself to put his own interpretations on everything (very pertinent for our Amazon showrunners):

But, of course, if we drop the 'fiction' of long ago, 'The Shire' is based on rural England and not any other country in the world – least perhaps of any in Europe on Holland, which is topographically wholly dissimilar. (In fact so different is it, that in spite of the affinity of its language, and in many respects of its idiom, which should ease some part of the translator's labour, its toponymy is specially unsuitable for the purpose.) The toponymy of The Shire, to take the first list, is a 'parody' of that of rural England, in much the same sense as are its inhabitants: they go together and are meant to. After all the book is English, and by an Englishman, and presumably even those who wish its narrative and dialogue turned into an idiom that they understand, will not ask of a translator that he should deliberately attempt to destroy the local colour.

1959, for a Polish translator:

As a general principle for her guidance, my preference is for as little translation or alteration of any names as possible. As she perceives, this is an English book and its Englishry should not be eradicated.

Now, if Middle-earth was just Generic Invented Fantasy World, then it wouldn't matter. Cast black, white, red, yellow, brown, purple, green and indigo actors in the parts! But Tolkien was very clear that Middle-earth was not an invented world, it was meant to be our own world as we have it right now, just that the tales were set in a very distant, mythological past. So the English parts are meant to be English, and that does mean white. The peoples of the North-West are, by and large, white. The Elves are white (and, as an aside, the black-haired grey-eyed ideal of beauty for them is based on his wife Edith, there's your romance element).

"Hamilton" pulled it off by making all the cast (except King George and I think one or two of the Schuyler sisters?) non-white. If you're going to change up LOTR or the Rings of Power, then the least mendacious way to do it is cast everyone as non-white, that way you can claim with a straight face that you are casting the best actors not casting on skin tone alone. Not alone one black elf, all the Elves, including Galadriel and Elrond, are black/Hispanic/whatever.

The thing is, despite all the chat about "representation", they're not doing it for a black audience. Does anyone doubt that if they thought that dropping Arondir and Dísa made it more appealing to China, they'd do it in a heartbeat?

Yes, the principle of having more socially-progressive versions of a work for Western audiences compared to versions with those cut out for other parts of the world has made me suspect, uncharitably, that the allocation of focus meant it was not so much about standing up for the oppressed but more about sticking it to the domestic outgroup. At the very least, the domestic focus didn't seem very EA ("Effective Activism?")-

-But fortunately for my sense of charity, I do not get the sense that this is happening as much as I once felt it was, with examples like Lightyear showing that Disney is willing to stick to its guns in the face of sanctions from countries that disapprove. I should not be quick to presume hypocrisy.

Great post.

"Hamilton" pulled it off by making all the cast (except King George and I think one or two of the Schuyler sisters?) non-white. If you're going to change up LOTR or the Rings of Power, then the least mendacious way to do it is cast everyone as non-white, that way you can claim with a straight face that you are casting the best actors not casting on skin tone alone. Not alone one black elf, all the Elves, including Galadriel and Elrond, are black/Hispanic/whatever.

This is what I'd zero in on. I think I would inherently respect it more if they were to say "we decided to make an all-black cast for this adaptation to lend a completely new perspective to the story and give audiences an actually novel experience."

There's such slight of hand going on because oh, turns out they want everyone's money, so they can't take such a massive, ballsy risk in that has an obvious failure mode, so they half-ass it and try to get points for being unique but ultimately keep everything familiar enough to trigger nostalgia.

"we decided to make an all-black cast for this adaptation to lend a completely new perspective to the story and give audiences an actually novel experience."

On that note, I looked up the other actors for the new Little Mermaid. King Triton is played by Spanish actor Javier Bardem, and Prince Eric is played by white Londoner Jonah Hauer-King. Ursula is also white. They cast a black woman to be Ariel's mother (presumably), to have some cover for this, but that shouldn't be necessary.

I am not really the target audience for this, and it's probably reflecting someone's preferences that the father and love interest of the protagonist are white, while her comic animal side kick is played by a black man. Maybe? Disney is usually good at reflecting what people want to see. I don't like it -- it accentuates the pandering in comparison to an entire underwater kingdom of black merpeople.

I'm keeping out of this, since I never saw the original animated movie and I know nothing about this new actress/singer or whatever she is. The only thing that struck me in the trailer was that they kept the red hair. So it doesn't matter that Ariel has switched from white to black, but the hair colour is the absolutely vital thing about her? Not that she's a mermaid? Why not simply let the character/actress have her normal black hair? That's the dumb part of it for me. "Ariel's skin colour doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the character, but she must have red hair because how else are the kids going to recognise her as the mermaid princess?"

Now I am (unironically) waiting for the live-action Javanese remake of Brave. I want to see King Fergus dressed like this while still speaking in a broad Scots accent. Go on you cowards, I dare you!

The only thing that struck me in the trailer was that they kept the red hair. So it doesn't matter that Ariel has switched from white to black, but the hair colour is the absolutely vital thing about her? Not that she's a mermaid? Why not simply let the character/actress have her normal black hair? That's the dumb part of it for me. "Ariel's skin colour doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the character, but she must have red hair because how else are the kids going to recognise her as the mermaid princess?"

Maybe to attempt to "address" a relatively common trope about Black actors/actresses in roles where the character was traditionally white?

And it's not like Disney wasn't capable of such moves, they've put out a slew of culturally appropriate and unique(ish) films with fully ethnically matched casts!

Hell, The Princess and the Frog was made within living memory!

But Tolkien was very clear that Middle-earth was not an invented world, it was meant to be our own world as we have it right now, just that the tales were set in a very distant, mythological past.

Doesn't that mean that, the interpretations today, absolutely should have black dwarves et al? Our world is very different from his, from a skin tone perspective. An American interpretation should cast more black people and so on. That from your explanation seems very much in keeping to his perspective. Todays stories told in the mythological past. Like it or not America's story is intertwined with it's relationship with slavery and the fall out thereof.

  • -15

Hm? No, I don't think that's what's meant. Our world and his world have the same past, after all, and in the premise of Tolkien's Legendarium, that's taken as Middle-Earth. The present diversifying more wouldn't retroactively change the distant past, whether that's pre-Roman Britain or Middle-Earth.

Doesn't that mean that, the interpretations today, absolutely should have black dwarves et al?

An interpretation today set in today's world should have. An interpretation today set in the distant mythological past should not, because those characters were not known then. Dwarves are not Americans, nor slaves, so having black Dwarves because slavery makes no sense. He wasn't telling "today's story", he was telling the story of that time.

If you want to depict modern-day Bree, then yes of course you can have black and brown actors, because of immigration and so forth meaning that black and brown people now live in modern day UK as ordinary citizens. In Frodo's time, due to people fleeing from Orc attacks, there were migrants moving into Bree from the South (probably Dunlendings). At least one of them was a spy, and maybe a Half-Orc. So you can have new influx of strange people moving in, but they are not native to the place as yet.

Well you said he was telling tales of our world now, just SET in the distant past no? If Tolkien was an author today he would be writing stories about the places, peoples and situations of today but mythologized into the past. If he were writing today, I suspect some of the issues around today would have been in his work, just set in his created mythology. That's what an adaption is, it takes a product, re-envisages it as if it were written today (with varying degrees of success). Alternate universe Tolkien writing today where Birmingham has significant Pakistani and Caribbean populations would plausibly have written a very different book.

Alternate universe Tolkien writing today where Birmingham has significant Pakistani and Caribbean populations would plausibly have written a very different book.

Very possibly. But that isn't for an adaptation to do. An adaptation is not supposed to update the work for a modern era, it's supposed to stick to the original. If the writers on this show want to do their own thing, great! But then don't claim you're doing Tolkien. Either respect what the man actually wrote, or don't use his brand to prop up your original work.

Let me paste my reply above, because I didn't do a good job before:

"No that's fair, I didn't really explain myself properly there. What I mean is that, no matter what the adaptor's plan, it will be filtered through their own lense. Even if they set out to make an authentic adaption it will be filtered through their own viewpoint and biases.

It's impossible to adapt something as Tolkien would have done if he were a television writer now. And if Tolkien had been writing LoTR today it would have been a different book, because he would have been a different person with different upbringing and set of experiences.

Does that make more sense?"

My view is that whether you set out to update an adaption or not, by the very nature that the people adapting it will be from a very different society and viewpoint, that it will be filtered through their lense no matter what. Jackson's adaptions bumped up the importance of battles and romance because that is what his viewpoint of a big budget action movie was (mixed with what the financiers thought of course).

That's what an adaption is, it takes a product, re-envisages it as if it were written today

This is such a bold misdefinition that I'm surprised you thought you could get away with it. ONE way of adapting a "product" (yeuch!) is to do that. For example, you can do Shakespeare in modern dress. To say that that's what an adaptation IS is like saying that carbohydrates are just what food IS.

No that's fair, I didn't really explain myself properly there. What I mean is that, no matter what the adaptor's plan, it will be filtered through their own lense. Even if they set out to make an authentic adaption it will be filtered through their own viewpoint and biases.

It's impossible to adapt something as Tolkien would have done if he were a television writer now. And if Tolkien had been writing LoTR today it would have been a different book, because he would have been a different person with different upbringing and set of experiences.

Does that make more sense?

It makes more sense, though I don't agree. For example, The Northman is very close to the movie I'd expect an actual Viking to make. Tolkien is far closer to modern viewpoints.

It's true that every adaptation is made through an adaptor's viewpoint, but they can be more or less faithful. And I'm not presupposing that more faithful is good. Stanley Kubrick adapted material in an unfaithful way in The Shining and it was better than a faithful adaptation, like the TV miniseries.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats