AllyWork
Helping White people fight White Supremacy
Recent Comments
- Julia on 2007 The Year in Race, Ethnicity, and Racism: The Top 10 List of the Most Fashionable Racial Trends
- jasira on Untangling Two Myths: Tragic Mulatto is a Myth and Race is Not Culture
- Theriomorph on Qualities of an ally
- Rachel S. on 2007 The Year in Race, Ethnicity, and Racism: The Top 10 List of the Most Fashionable Racial Trends
- vegankid on Qualities of an ally
- Theriomorph on Qualities of an ally
- Skye on 2007 The Year in Race, Ethnicity, and Racism: The Top 10 List of the Most Fashionable Racial Trends
Archives
Pirates of the Caribbean II and The Tradition of Racial Oppression
Published by Lake Desire | Filed under Common Myths, Portraying Race, Racism and White Supremacy
I was very excited to see Pirates of the Caribbean II: The Dead Man’s Chest Friday night; I loved the first film and used to work at the Magic Kingdom theme park where I frequented the Florida’s abbreviated version of the ride. Beyond watching the trailers, I’d remained spoiler free and didn’t know what to expect from Pirates. While queueing at a small town American theater, I studied the poster for the film and saw three brown-skilled men with jeering and perplexed looks on their faces in the lower left-hand corner. Uh-oh, I thought. What am I getting into?
Here ye be warned, this post contains some mild spoilers for Pirates of the Caribbean II.
As much as I enjoyed the movie’s plot and action (I haven’t been so scared by a movie in ages), and Elizabeth’s agency in a male dominated world, the race portrayal in the movie left me very unsettled. I decided to mull it over a few days, and see what others were saying on the blogoshere. I found this post by LiveJournal user Sabonasi on the debunkingwhite LJ group. On the character of Tia Dalma, one of the few people of color whose role is more than marginal, Sabonasi writes:
Tia Dalma is definitely in “Magical Negro” territory. She’s overly willing to help the white characters, often for a smaller price than one might expect and even after Jack steals from her. She is exploited by the white characters, and the film offers no criticism for this. Rather, it’s intended to be funny. White people ripping off a black woman who is helping them? Totally hilarious! [/sarcasm]
Furthermore, there was the treatment of Dalma’s sexuality. Hey, I’m all for sexuality. If it was just Dalma lusting after Will and Jack, I’d call her an honorary fan and be done with it. My problem is that her sexuality was also treated as a joke. The film made it perfectly clear that there was no way that Jack nor Will would actually be romantically interested in her. A Black woman thinking she is sexually/romantically desirable? Hahahaha! [/more sarcasm]
Sabonasi goes on to discuss the Kalinago people, the “savage cannibals” who make Jack their god and intend to eat him:
I do not speak Kalhíphona. I do not know if what was being spoken in the film was Kalhíphona or not. But the fact that the Kalinago people were not speaking English? Was also meant to be humorous. A bit of an aside: Jack appears to have mastered the language almost instantaneously, which implicitely states the language isn’t that complex. Or Jack is just that much of a Mighty Whitey. Maybe both.
[...]
The Kalinago people appear in the story and disappear in the story with little consequence. They serve no purpose but to provide a source of racist humor and menance the heroes. The idea that they want to free a god from his human form is never fully explored, and I’m surprised they got even that much motivation.
I realize now that the portrayal of the Kalinago in Pirates of the Caribbean is continuing the images of the “savage cannibals” used to subjugate indigenous peoples since the days of Columbus.
At first, I didn’t realize that the indigenous people in the film were based on a real group, Kalinago. I searched for “Kalinago” and “Pirates of the Caribbean” on Google, and found that Caribbean Indigenous Peoples have been calling for a boycott of the film for a few weeks now:
On behalf of the Taíno People and Nation represented
by the United Confederation of Taíno People (UCTP), we
are urging all our relations around the world to
stand in solidarity with a peaceful protest against
Walt Disney Pictures and their upcoming release of
“The Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” for
its erroneous depiction of Caribbean Indigenous
Peoples as savage cannibals.>From the time Christopher Columbus arrived on our
shores, it is well known that these “cannibal” images
were used as propaganda to enslave and murder Natives
Peoples throughout the hemisphere, and beyond.Therefore, We, the Taino People have united our voices
with our Kalinago, Carib, and Garinagu relatives to
bring attention to this injustice, racist portrayal of
Indigenous Peoples.
The Wikipedia article on Carib peoples (as of 7/9/06) also identifies an imperialist motive for labeling peoples as cannibals:
Instances of cannibalism were noted as a feature of religious war rituals, and in fact, the English word cannibal comes from the Spanish caníbal, itself taken from the Carib karibna (’person’) as recorded by Columbus. Claims of cannibalism, however, must be seen in light of the fact that in 1503, Queen Isabella ruled that only cannibals could be legally taken as slaves, which gave Europeans an incentive to identify various Amerindian groups as cannibals.
But colonization was in the past, right? Why does that hurt people now? From the CAC Review on boycotting Pirates:
Let us keep in mind that such depictions were used to enslave and murder the ancestors of today’s Caribs, there was never anything innocent or “fun” about these portrayals. In addition, generations of Carib descended school children in the Caribbean have been taught that their ancestors were savage cannibals. Shame over ancestry was inculcated as a matter of routine. In my own field research experience, I have encountered individuals in their forties and fifties who told me very directly that the main reason they did not wish to self-identify as Caribs is that people in the wider world see Caribs as cannibals, as inhuman man eaters, and they found the stigma unbearable. Disney is playing its part in centuries of ethnocide.
As a former Disney employee, there are plenty of good reasons to boycott the company in addition to its racism, and I applaud those who can remove themselves entirely from financially supporting the corporation. I don’t know that I will entirely remove myself, Disney is ubiquitous and there are things I enjoy about their creations at the same time I am vocally critical. I did enjoy Pirates despite its racism, and that puts me as unease with myself. Another LiveJournal user, oyceter, articulates well why this causes discomfort in the post Race and Pirates:
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.
I almost stopped talking about it because I met resistance to discussing race in this movie with my fellow white friends and family. It’s easy for us to say “it’s just a movie” or “it’s just being historically accurate” when we’re the peoples represented as the heroes. But we’re not wrong for noticing, and we should talk about it. Maybe our less-than-agreeable peers with look more critically at race portrayal next time they see a film. And now that I’ve read up a little bit of Caribbean history, and heard some from the people of color “represented” in this movie, I’m a little bit more prepared to speak up.
Cross-posted on Shrub.com.
July 9th, 2006 at 2:28 pm [...] on Ally Work. [link] Filed under Popular Culture; Racism; Companies Behaving Badly; Film and televison «On The Feminist Carnival, Privilege, and Objectivity [...]
July 9th, 2006 at 8:47 pm I saw it, and thought it had some scenes that were just like King Kong. The White people definitely made out best, and the black woman conjure lady (was such a stereotype or Carribean women).
Not only was the movie racist, but it was really bad--such as waste of $10.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:56 pm Bummer you didn't find anything enjoyable in that movie... it would be a long one to sit through without even being entertained! (Lucky for me, I found other elements of the movie enthralling, and lied and said I was still in high school to get a discount ticket.)
I haven't had much of an interest in seeing King Kong because of similar things I've heard about it, and I usually love that type of film.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:03 am I haven't seen the new movie as I'm more of a sci-fi & horror fan - but isn't this mischaracterizing of non-European cultures rising? The names slip my mind, but I've seen two recent "sci-fi meets horror" movies that have carried this theme.
One involved the Incans who were slammed as cannibals after a very brief reference to a King with no historical context whatsoever. Of course, it was white people having this 'discussion' with the sole brown person just nodding his head.
Another involved a Native American myth wherein a warrior is sentenced to immortality and must watch over the graves of those he betrayed for eternity, denied forever his place with his god. This was perverted into some "terminator-slash-headless horseman" monster that just goes on a killing spree for unknown reasons against - you guessed it, the white people.
Both just stunned me because it was so obvious.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:00 am I'm going to put a link on my blog to route folks over here to read this. It's very well done. And thanks for saving me a couple of bucks out of a tight budget. I always appreciate that.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:02 am Thank you for the link! I'm glad you enjoyed my post and that I saved you a few dollars. You can always borrow the movie from a friend when it's out on DVD if you do want to see it.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:33 pm This is a very interesting post. Thank you for discussing this situation with the blogosphere.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:45 am [...] Pirates of the Caribbean II and The Tradition of Racial Oppression from Ally Work “I realize now that the portrayal of the Kalinago in Pirates of the Caribbean is continuing the images of the “savage cannibals” used to subjugate indigenous peoples since the days of Columbus… ‘In my own field research experience, I have encountered individuals in their forties and fifties who told me very directly that the main reason they did not wish to self-identify as Caribs is that people in the wider world see Caribs as cannibals, as inhuman man eaters, and they found the stigma unbearable. Disney is playing its part in centuries of ethnocide.’…” [...]
July 13th, 2006 at 5:17 pm I completely agree with your post. What to do when a movie you love isn't anywhere close to your standards of humanist decency?
The thing that really bothers me is that if everyone who saw the movie had some background in critical approaches to popular culture then the portrayals of race wouldn't be such a threat. But children, and adults who brush off anything concerning the word "race" as "political correctness," don't recognize that there even is any sort of problem. It seems like some social awareness would sort of difuse the problem a little bit, so that the people of color in this movie are absurd Disney creations and not taken as accurate representations of a people.
But for me it's hard to strike a balance between thinking "okay I see there's a problem, so I'm not being brainwashed" and knowing that Disney has my money.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:38 pm I must admit, I was also bothered by the new pirates crewing the Black Pearl who ultimately die in the hanging circly cage thingy (what is the word I'm looking for?) on the island. There was definitely this "scheming brown man" element to it that bothered me.
Tia Dalma mostly struck me as a bad charicature of a voodoo priestess in the bayous of Lousiana. At first I thought she was going to be a spin off of Circe (from the Odyssey), but alas. It seemed as though the writers were too intellectually lazy to come up with a character who wasn't based on stereotype.
(Some other writers have raised the point that any reference to slavery is completely absent. There's definitely rum, but, uh, who's making it?)
One final point: did you stay though the end of the credits? Because there is a screen shot at the end of the dog being sitting on the throne as king of the "savages".
July 14th, 2006 at 9:07 am Well I have alway have this feeling that all races disrespect black women maybe that is one reason they come off as hard but caring
Including the black men ,Black women have alway stand up for many causes and races but I have never seen anyone incling their men standing up for them ,they are making a joke about the lady President Bush pick ,I am so glad to see a black woman in office of the white house,but still do we see any black men saying this no and most black women and other races aren't saying a thing.
I feel shame at time to be an black women in a world of no hope for me and other like me
July 14th, 2006 at 12:12 pm [...] Did you know there was a boycott against the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie? Ayup. [...]
July 14th, 2006 at 12:56 pm The cages also made out of the bones of the crew members slaughtered by the natives, which I thought was more disgusting, distubring and cruel than anything the pirates did. Perhaps because the pirates are sympathetic, some of them heroes even when we see them murder or threaten sexual assault (like Pintel and Ragetti, the comic duo), but we're not supposed to see any redeeming qualities in the brown people.
July 16th, 2006 at 8:54 pm I saw the movie the other day. I went in not really knowing anything about it. There were things about it that I enjoyed, certainly, but the dominant thought in my head when it was done: "Wow. Disney sure likes its racism to be unsubtle." Thanks for writing so thoughtfully about it.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:43 pm I saw this movie the first weekend it came out. I didn't really think about the portrayal of the indigenous people on the island. Like was said above, at first I just saw it as a fantasy, just a movie. But now I understand that what I was watching was a misrepresentation of of a community that has already lost so much thoughout its history. I am thankful that I am a listener of 90.7fm KPFK in los angeles where I heard about the racism depicted in this film. I know that if it had been my people in that film, I would not have been happy. Staying conscious of our surrounds in a world that tries to make us unconscious can be difficult but it is not impossible.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:53 pm I have no problem with the portrayle of people in films. If I wanted realism, I'd have watched a documentry. However, novels such as Da'Vinci code and Wide Sargasso Sea are considered to be accapteble. I was even taught Wide Sargasso Sea, which has a similar character as the 'exploited black magician' as Tia Dalma is sometimes reffered as. In this day people have media intelligence. They don't watch Dogma and think that thier ideas are gosple truth. We don't watch Jerry Springer and think that God is gay. Stereo types are used in media to espress a quick message of a group of people. I don't protest that British are portayed as posh evil people who like tea, nor do I complain that blond american girls are all cheerleaders. We know these portrayles are not accurate, and we ignore them, and laugh at the stereo-type, not the real people.
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:20 pm Bexx:
"stereo types are used in media to espress a quick message of a group of people."
The problem is that stereotypes are inherently racist because they are generalisations that are not factual. Prejudice is when you make assumptions or generalisations without facts, by definition of "prejudice". Stereotypes are inherently prejudicial (or at the very least, disrespectful), and racial prejudice is Not Okay.
And for the same reason, it's not ok to say that Brits are evil.
Tangentially, the rest of the examples don't really hold up. Saying that God is gay isn't of itself homophobic, it's just meaningless. It's the homophobia of saying that being gay is a bad thing that is a problem, not saying "God is gay". And similarly, blonde/cheerleader stereotypes are insulting because they are based on the prejudice that blondes and cheerleaders are stupid (or sometimes that women are stupid). It's the assumption of stupidity that's insulting, not saying that blonde women are cheerleaders per se.
"In this day people have media intelligence."
If media intelligence is the ability to distinguish the accuracy of a media portrayal, then people who don't understand that stereotypes are based on prejudice *do not* have media intelligence.
--IP
August 10th, 2006 at 11:27 pm I was just wondering why people look for the bad in movies every time they go and watch one? I think the racism issue is taken a little too far pertaining to this movie. Yes they portray the tribe as cannibalistic, but I think they did this knowing that the common person wouldn't realize this, adding to the excitement of the movie. The same with the language, couldn't it be that they wanted the words simple so that the audience could kind of understand them (Unicky snip snip). I also don't think Tia Dalma was being portrayed in a negative way. I thought she was a very intelligent and mysterious person. She also said that the "payment is fair" when they brought her the monkey. I don't want to take the attention away from some of the minorities in the movie, but can't you also argue that they portray the caucasions in a negative way; murderers, theives, drunks. No one seems to notice that. I don't deny the fact that there are racism issues in movies, but I think that people tend to focus on it too much; why not enjoy the movie. It is after all a fantasy and despite race, all of the actors were treated fair, even if their characters weren't.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:55 am I wasn't looking for the negative, in my original post I said I still liked other things about the film. I went in expecting to enjoy the movie, and in many ways I did, but that does not exempt the film from a critical analysis.
There were white characters that were drunks and killers in Pirates, but they weren't portrayed as drunks because of their race, and many were heroic characters like Gibbs and Norrington (arguably Jack, too, but I suspect the character may be racially ambiguous). Heck, Pintell and Ragetti were sympathetic characters and were sexually threatening to "Poppet" Elizabeth towards the end of the film.
August 26th, 2006 at 11:22 am Firstly, you are seeing only the surface of things and not taking the film within the context of its own mythology. Incorporating cannibals and, by extension, cannibalism into what is first and foremost a pirate movie has little to do with racism and everything to do with the conventions of the pirate genre extending all the way back to 17th century literature. Pirates 2 is a culmination of those influences--pulp, popular, and cinematic, designed as it were to be the ultimate pirate film. To suggest that the writers and producers were resurrecting old prejudices to fire a new film is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Kraken is itself a victim of cultural bias--the writers were merely being faithful, in true Disney fashion, to the spirit of those adventure tales that most people grew up feasting on. Factor in also the realization that Pirates II is not meant to be a treatise on imperialism or colonial conquest; although, it does touch here and there on the negative aims of such minded men, as represented by the East India Company, and other self-serving interests. In fact, Bill Turner's arc as a character is a simple one: Will he be waylaid by the pirate's life like his father, or will he remain noble--in short, we are meant to judge the moral implications of the film through Will's presence, another instance of the writer's being sensitive to issues of representation.
Furthermore, to suggest that Sparrow's ability to speak the language of his captors is a simplification of culture is as ridiculous as arguing that Han Solo's fluency in the tongue of Greedo indicates the same. These are hmmm...pirates remember? "Worldly wise" is the appropriate term I think. Beyond that, it's a narrative device. For someone like me, I prefer to believe that Sparrow has some linguistic training; he has afterall been exposed to many different languages. I have found that picking up foreign, even unfamiliar languages, becomes easier with time, especially when you have a natural gift for it...but here I'm starting to project my own prejudices onto the film, and I would never want to be guilty of doing that.
I think you also misread Tia Dalma's presence in the film. You can, if you prefer, see racism wherever you want, but the way she was photographed and potrayed in the film was more empowering than you let on. In fact, there was a subtext that she and Jack Sparrow had already had some type of tryst long before the first Pirates movie. Once again, she was a generic stereotype more than a racial stereotype, intended to serve the purpose of making a great film instead of perpetuating racism.
In the end, the natural response to my claims would be to argue that these images mean something and are loaded with cultural bias, even going so far as to establish that they were the product of cultural bias to begin with. You might even suggest that reviving these conventions would be tantamount to waiving the Nazi flag and expecting people to divorce its meaning from the annals of history--a near impossible feat if you can imagine it. But these conventions no where have had the same historical significance as the Nazi regime, and have been, for the most part, swept away with time. Most audiences would be able to watch Pirates II, without feeling the historical weight of the images they're watching--hell, most audiences today don't even know when films are referencing other films, let alone when they're referencing history.
The problem with cultural studies that aim to open the mind of the individual and make him/her more culturally aware of the images and influences surrounding us all lies in the tendency to be myopic in scope. The result is Pharisitical intellectualism--completely hypocritical and full of self-mediating censorship. A semiological approach to your take on Pirates II would reveal that you are content with the signifier and not the signified; a linguistics approach would expose your preference for denotation over connotation; a practical line would suggest that you are more concerned with the letter of the law, and not the spirit in which it was wrought. Language was made for man, and man for language. And culture is in the same boat. I would caution most enlightened cultural critics to tread lightly when analzying popular texts; in their efforts to right past wrongs, they are in danger of resurrecting issues that for most people have died long ago. The hand on the banner just might be your own.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:17 am Hi. I haven't seen Dead Man's Chest yet and was really looking forward to seeing it. But I have been very interested to read your posts. Thank you.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:09 am Gil: unfortunately it just wasn't a good movie. My advice is to skip Dead Man's Chest, rent the first one, curl up on your sofa with popcorn/wine/hot chot/whatever you like and enjoy a far better evening than you will get with the second film.
--IP
September 8th, 2006 at 3:27 pm i've stayed out of this discussion for a number of reasons and i don't really care to delve in now (two months after the fact). But i wanted to second Lake's last point that you can enjoy a movie and critique it, too. I don't point out the social significance of every pop culture item, but it is possible to do so. And i do believe that to occassionally pull out some examples of exploitation in pop culture is a healthy thing to do.
To Heather's point, this is the first movie review we've had on Ally Work, i believe. Considering the number of fucked up things i've seen in different movies this summer (and i'm just one of the contributors here), i'd hardly state that writing one post about the racism in one movie constitutes a opening statement like "I was just wondering why people look for the bad in movies every time they go and watch one?"
We can each interpret the same experience in different ways depending upon our past experience. If we are ever to have a society free of oppression, then it is vital that we not assume that as an individual we see everything as it is at all times. We must provide space for others to share their interpretations of an event (or in this case a movie). And this website is dedicated to providing said space.
To Ashmeriel, i won't comment. Rather, i'll point you and others to this ingenious post by coffeeanddink, How to Suppress Discussionsof Racism. Number three is of particular importance to this instance, in my opinion.
September 26th, 2006 at 7:12 am I'm not suprised you won't comment. I don't think you can justify half the comments made about the movie two months later or not. The central question regarding this movie is whether or not it continues to perpetuate racism. The argument here is that it continues ancient racist stereotypes, and that those who watch the movie are so stolid when it comes to recognizing said stereotypes that moviegoers need to be educated as to what they're watching so that they are as offended as those people who feel it's their business to be offended by this movie.
On the other hand, someone like myself believes that Pirates of the Caribbean II is a good indication that the nature of racial politics here in the states is actually starting to change directions. The problem is most people who want to see racism in Pirates II are so entrenched in 60s thinking, that they don't allow for the progressivism that once was hallmark of a liberal education, but now is only a whisper of what it claimed to be.
You really ought to read the semiological works of the 60s French philosphers and you really ought to study linguistics to understand what is happening to racial politics here in America and to understand the new phase we have entered. Linguistics and culture are intimately connected and tied to ways in which humans think.
According to the French semiologist Roland Barthes who made a huge leap with his theory of the double signification (a basic concept that allows for the factoring of "context"), a sign system can retain the signifier (the thing which is representing), but change the signified (that which is being represented)--in other words, signified might be used to represent something else. We see this all the time in the use of our words--for instance, the literal denotation of the word "dude" is a "polyp located on the inside or near a horse's anus"; now however the word has lost much of its original meaning and is used instead idiomatically between companions, especially by members of the surfing or skating community. Also, the word "dork" originally denoted a "whale's cock." But now the word "dork" connotes someone who is not urbane, or hip, or someone who is dumb. When a child calls another child a "dork," nobody bats an eye; but if the same child were to call the other child a "whale's cock"--there would be some type of rebuke. What's the difference? The difference is time. Time has changed the connotation so that the same word means something else entirely.
Just like Pirates of the Caribbean II. Just like most of the racial politics that at one time were important but now are changing. My thesis is that although the signifiers of racial politics are the same (that is the "surface structure") the underlying tectonics of racial politics is changing and has changed (that is the "deep structure")--that is why, someone who is trained in classical racial discourse is less likely to allow for the positive change that someone like myself praises in Pirates II.
That the majority of people can watch Pirates II and not be offended (and trust me, it made enough money from "repeat" viewings to suggest that more people are on my side than yours) suggests to my way of thinking that finally, at long last, many of those old stereotypes are losing their meaning with today's racially savvy audience. Whereas those of your ilk tend towards the belief that the audience isn't savvy enough.
Perhaps the reason you see Tia Dalma's performance as conforming to the stereotype of "mystical negro" because somewhere along the line you were taught what a "mystical negro" is. Ask yourself this: Do you think her performance would have qualified in your mind as negative if you had never learned what a "mystical negro" is?
Anthony Burgess, the bright mind who penned "A Clockwork Orange" and wrote a beautiful anthology on the history of linguistics in his wonderful book "A Mouthful of Air" suggests that the down-side to any language--and by extension ideology--is that sometimes it limits our own thoughts and definitions. In his equisite poem, Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote the following: "Sometimes I hold it half a sin/to put in words the grief I feel/For words like Nature half reveal/And half conceal the Soul within." Even he acknowledged that words and ideas have a double nature--they are both expressive and, just as importantly, repressive.
In other words, our existence, or at least our ability to interpret our existence, is largely predicated or limited by those tools that we have acquired through the years. I submit to you that you see in this movie so much racism because you were taught to intepret those signifiers as racist. But I am open to the idea that those signifiers were never intended to be racist and are still not racist.
On a practical level, I submit to you that the writers are extremely educated individuals; and, having had personal contact with them, I know first hand that they are very liberally minded, and socially conscious individuals. They are as much so as Paul Haggis. I also know that Johnny is no fool when it comes to racial discourse and is very conscious that the projects he chooses are reflective of his values. This is a fellow who hung out with beat poets like Ginsberg--I can assure you no amount of money would have brought Johnny on board if he felt that his movie would become a celluloid pamphlet of racism.
What drew these people to the project was the possibility of making the "ultimate Pirate movie." To pay homage to what has gone before, but to fashion something anew with a updated sensibility.
Words change. Ideas change. Ideologies change. Meaning changes. To impede such change by calling attention to historical hangovers is nearly ridiculous as insisting individuals pronounce contemporary words with the pronunciation and stress of High English--the result is a lot of jabberwocky.
I submit that you re-evaulate much of what you learned or you will be poorly equipped to address intelligently those racial issues that will dominate America in the ages to come. Do you agree or disagree? What are your thoughts? Or will you defer to another article that is once again steeped in antiquated thinking? Or will you test the limits of this wonderful forum we call the "internet" and tell me exactly why I am wrong?
October 1st, 2006 at 2:30 pm You really ought to read the semiological works of the 60s French philosphers and you really ought to study linguistics to understand what is happening to racial politics here in America and to understand the new phase we have entered
I'm guessing you dont think Fanon counts?
There is no "new phase" of racial politics in this country, just the same old same old. Instead of blatant and deliberate menace, it's now covered with a gooey mixture of ignorance and liberal good intentions. And paternalism, of course.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:40 pm Ashmeriel,
You wrote, "Ask yourself this: Do you think her performance would have qualified in your mind as negative if you had never learned what a "mystical negro" is?"
I reply: Yes. The "mystical negro" stereotype isn't harmful because people say it's harmful, it's harmful because it is. It plays a Black character as subservient to a white characer, where the Black character exist soley to help the white character. Frequently, the Black character is mystical because of the racism they have suffered. I am speaking more generally here than just in regards to Tia Dalma, mind you. The suppression of righteous anger, where a Black character experience racism instead leads to a "wisdom" which they use to aide the white lead, that is harmful. Not all aspects may apply strictly to Tia Dalma, but the "mystical negro" stereotype is harmful, and a strong case can be made that Tia fits the stereotype.
October 1st, 2006 at 4:02 pm Wouldn't the loss of significance of the stereotypes be more worrisome rather than less worrisome? The problem with the stereotypes in the first place was that people accepted them at face value without recognizing how it affected the races, genders, and orientations of the people embodying them. We've essentially traveled full circle.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:18 pm Dear Ashmeriel,
Regardless to if I agree with the post or not, I am having issues with what you wrote.
Of all the theortetical approaches that were developed in france during the last century, well beyond the 60s, why the hell did you choose a very small part of Barthes theories that doesn't even really apply to the situation at hand. If you had written about his work on branding and how that works with the signifiant/signfier dichotomy it would have made more since since it is dealing with imageary. Go back and review.
Also, I think that Fouccault and even Derrida would have been more appropriate for this discussion (and it might have helped you dismiss the idea of the majority being right), if we are going to insist on using French philosophers.
And we can move it on forward to Sayad, who would be 100% more appropriate. Or his mentor Bordieu since sociological theory would be more apt for this situation than linguistic theory right now, not that they don't all interlap, it's just. THERE HAS BEEN WORK DONE ON RACIST IMAGERY and Imagery in general (even by the semiologist you are so happily twisting theories with).. but apparently you only know the 60s and linguistics?
November 19th, 2006 at 6:11 pm This looks like much ado about nothing. The cannibals were mixed in race (at least the actors were). Everyone in the movie (with the possible exception of Elizabeth) is portrayed as an idiot- including the main two white male "heroes."
Anyone who thinks Sparrow understood the language of those intending to eat him was too busy seething over imagined racial slights than actually following the movie. Sparrow's character is played as if he barely comprehends the only language he speaks- let alone develop fluency in another.
The majority of the named characters were white, which I'm sure can set off a few folks. When you're writing a piece primarily intended to part the majority of middle-class Americans of their money, that tends to be how you go. Especially when you're setting that movie in a particular time and place defined by European colonization of the New World and European piracy in the Atlantic and Caribbean.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:11 pm Wow, I doing an editoal and thought racism only pertained mostly to the Hispanics bu this really opened my eyes. I have never seen this movie but thanks to this blog I probably never will go see it. I think it is amazing that Americans have switched thier views on immigration so many times. I'm lstudying right now and we went from hating Germans/Irish to hating Chinese to the present day of hating African Americans/Hispanics. If anyone thinks of races I am missing just leave a message on this blog it would be much appreciated.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:58 pm There is fact, there is fantasy. Nobody has ever touted this movie as anything but fantasy, and anyone who takes it as a factual representation of humanity has no grip on reality. I personally see Tia Dalma as a very powerful character. She doesn't have to help, they have to placate her first. Nobody forced her to help them. She has a sense of self and does not appear to have any self-effacing qualities. She is not a supplicant. She holds all the cards. The natives of the film do not appear to be of the same race, either. I think that people are reading way too much into something meant for pure entertainment, not education.
Now, if we all ignore that there is ANY difference between color and culture, then nobody will remember that there was ever a holocaust, slavery, etc. Seeing these "sterotypes" keeps the memory of these kinds of things alive, so that they never happen again. I am Irish and Cherokee. I hold no other race responsible for what happened to "my" race. I keep my traditions, and also adapt to modern day life. The irish in me doesn't mean the English are all my enemies. The Cherokee in me doesn't see all other races as invaders and threats. It is that very kind of thinking that is the problem with most people today. Stop holding everyone to the ideal of reparations, stop trying to keep old hatreds alive by dredging up the race card. If you read too much into anything, it will have a negative connotation. You have to learn to let go some time, folks.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:45 pm I think there are many movies out there that do perpetuate racism and stereotypes. There is no argument. I do agree with the Kalinago people, they had a right to protest against their portrayal. However I had never heard of them either, so I thought it was just flair to add to the story. If the writers were aware of this, they probably would have changed thier name--if they did know, they realize now it was probably a bad move.
I disagree with the overall message of the post, however. I would like to touch a little bit on the history of the Caribbean islands. During the 18th century there was a huge slave trade that had been established in the caribbean, complete with large sugar-cane plantations. Elizabeth's household would have certainly been full of slaves. It might have been a slave who served her and helped dress her. The cooks may have been slaves. Slaves, everywhere. The Disney movie did not portray this historical reality. In fact, the people of color in this movies were treated as equals in there own social standing. The black pirate was treated as a pirate like the rest of them. The pirates were treated like crap, what about the rights of Pirates? (Sarcasm there). Tia Dalma welcomed her visitors as friends, and they treated her with the same respect. The writers probably wanted to incorperate voodoo-ism to add flair to the story, and voodoo is an afro-caribbean invention. So, should she have been a white man? Umm... What about the role of Elizabeth? She is allowed to refuse the corset, and carry a sword. Absolutely uncharacteristic of women in those days. As a politician her father would have been furious with her behavior.
I thought Disney did a good job of making this movie a PC fun story. Somone mentioned that movies might be better to ignore historical accuracy. So should we make movies about slavery and have them hold hands with the whites, dance and sing and pretend nothing bad happened? Should we make a movie about the civil rights movement and pretend Martin Luther King Jr wasn't shot? He's alive like Elvis?
I think that people are just a little too sensitive. When it comes to movies incoporating history, it might be a better idea to get a little more educated about that period before you jump to conclusions about the racism it's portraying. (And in the third movie if you've seen it, Tia Dalma gets her revenge, as the most imporant entity in the sea...)