I love Free Comic Books Day. It’s a great time of year for publishers to advertise and attract new readers. For example, I didn’t know that The Tick was still in print (or that Chris McCulloch’s published stuff was available in trade paper back. Oh yes it is).
At the same time, there’s something which makes me feel awfully uncomfortable about comic books. Think of any superhero, then think of a superhero from Marvel, and then one from DC. Bets are on you either thought of a white guy or a female known for impractical clothing.
As a bit of a proof, I went to the Marvel Database and hit random until a person of colour appeared. I gave up after 12 attempts. More than twelve in thirteen comic book characters (even including all the minor nobodies) are white. At least until it gets edited again, Wikipedia says that only 75% of people in America are white (7.5 out of every ten, so by the time I got to 10, I should have had at least one POC). So either there is a disproportionate number of whities getting superpowers in the Marvel Universe (making it eerily like the Harry Potter universe), or the Marvel team aren’t proportionately interested in writing about non-whites. [Okay, it's also possible that the Marvel Database is lacking in data about all the hundreds of POC superheroes they've had. I'm happy to be corrected]
I chose Marvel because I like Marvel a lot and rather wish it had performed better. I doubt I’d get a better outcome from DC.
You could argue that Caucasian-dominated comics sell better and that there is little appetite amongst the comic book audience for non-white stories. You would, of course, be arguing that comic book audiences are jerks.
And, frankly, I’m rather willing to agree. News circulated this week about the ‘nerd rage’ regarding Idris Elba (a black actor) playing Heimdall in the new Thor film.
My favourite line of that article:
Some of the Elba’s staunchest – although ostensibly not racially motivated – opponents accuse Marvel of left-wing social engineering, noting that it attacked the Tea Party movement in a recent issue of Captain America, and that Stan Lee is known to support left-wing politicians. Other complainants, who are more directly racist, talk about the “filthy culture of judaism [sic]” and how Elba’s casting is an attack on “White Culture.” While the latter accusation is both disgusting and ridiculous, the former – that the left wing is using the media, and especially Hollywood, as a vehicle for propaganda – is not new. It was also leveled at DC Comics following the news that Superman was going to renounce his US citizenship. [Source: 'Black Thor Actor Talks About Racist Comic Book Fans', The Escapist]
Could there be any more deliciously stupid position? Oh, the real racists complain that it’s an attack on white culture (and that’s disgusting and ridiculous) but the totally ordinary fans think it’s left-wing social engineering?
How is ‘Darkies can’t play my white hero’ not racially motivated? In what universe do the words ‘disgusting and ridiculous’ not apply to both positions (and not just the latter)? This is a baffleplex and I am baffled.
And don’t you go confusing me for one of those socially sensitive, well-meaning lefties either: I’m a conservative and even I think it’s outrageous that people are getting upset that an African American is playing a comic book character.
Damnit. Back in 2004, the very first episode of Boston Legal preached:
Judge Rita Sharpley: No one is denying this little girl an education, sir. She just can’t play Annie.
Reverend Al Sharpton: You may think this is a small matter. But this is no small matter. This child is being denied the right to play an American icon because she doesn’t match the description. Those descriptions were crafted 50 years ago! We’re supposed to be in a different day!
Judge Rita Sharpley: Reverend…
Reverend Al Sharpton: You talk about racial equality, how we’re making progress. The problem with that progress is it’s always a day away. Tomorrow, tomorrow-you love that!-because it’s always a day away. I’m here to stick out my chin today! Today! Give us an African-American Spider Man! Give us a black that can run faster than a speeding bullet and leap over tall buildings in a single bound! Not tomorrow-today! Today! The sun needs to come out today! Not tomorrow, your Honor! God Almighty! Give the American people a black Orphan Annie. It’s just not good enough to say she doesn’t look the part. [Source: 1x1 'Head Cases', Boston Legal]
The preoccupation with protecting ‘white characters’ from the evil machinations of sinister left-wing producers is obscene. It’s a fictional character being reinterpreted for a new media. If ever there’s a time to shift the framework, surely it’s when comic books are trying to reach out to mass audiences. With any luck, we’ll see Heimdall represented in the comics the way he ought to be: as a freaking awesome black guy. Like Spock’s skin tone being doctored post-production from yellow to white, I like to think that Heimdall is actually a Nordic-African but his skin colour keeps getting doctored post-production to white.
But it’s not even like there’s a lack of precedent for this kind of thing. Meet this guy:
Nick Fury was a WWII vet who then became the super-spy head of SHIELD. He was the poster boy for bad ass, punching Nazis and then taking down supervillains. Few characters were as awesome as he was.
Oh, and he was white.
When Marvel started up the Ultimate Universe, they decided that Nick Fury was far too awesome to be modeled on anybody other than Samuel L. Jackson.
Where was all the pathetic whining then? Where were all the fanboys rabidly protecting the treatment of their white identity then?
Despite being about people who surpass human limitations and who live in a futuristic world just around the corner, the comic book world seems intent on living in the distant past when it comes to issues of racial identity.
There’s a fun game I like to play called ‘Are you sure about that?’ I usually play it with racists. You let them shout off their ignorant prejudices for a while before getting them to commit to a short statement which is unequivocally their belief. And then you systematically destroy that statement and watch them squirm.
I sometimes play it with my grandmother. She, like a lot of old people, is incredibly racist. After she went on about how Arabs are intrinsically violent and uncivilised, I got her to commit to the sentence: ‘Arabs have not made a worthwhile cultural contribution to the world.’ Then it’s a simple matter of explaining that algebra exists before going on to the massive cultural output during the Dark Ages and how the Renaissance wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for Arabs (including the current theory that Leonardo da Vinci was the son of an Arab). The misconception provides a springboard to have a productive and wonderful conversation and, in the case of my grandmother, a greater interest in Arabic history.
Bigot: [Something that looks suspiciously like racism]
Me: Ease up on that racism there, good buddy, or we can’t be friends any more.
Bigot: It’s not racism because [group I am slagging off] isn’t really a race. It’s a [culture/sub-culture/religion/ethnicity/group/nationality/&c.].
The above is frequently seen in the comments section to Pat Condell’s YouTube tripe. For the record, I think Condell is both a racist and a terrible human being. I think it’s nothing short of a travesty when people hide behind their State-given right to the freedom of speech to justify marginalising a systemically oppressed group.
SaidSimon used the WEW to claim that the often extremely vitriolic comments made by many atheists toward Muslims was not really racism because Islam isn’t a race.
But what is really a race? The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states:
In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. [Source: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Art.1(i)]
For those of you who enjoy the history of the history of the international treaties and conventions, check out the lengthy, lengthy debates which surrounded this passage. Wow.
The Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (‘CERD’) has not, as far as I’m aware, defined ‘race’ in any useful sense but tend to roll with the bellyfeel interpretation: if it looks like racism, if it smells like racism, if it walks like racism, bets are on that it’s racism.
What was fun was tying SaidSimon to the statement: ‘The Irish are not a race, they are a nationality.’ Unfortunately, he didn’t participate in the conversation much after it was pointed out that, not that long ago, they weren’t considered ‘white’. Similarly, Jews were considered a group unto themselves.
There are two ways through the conversation. The first is to be more rational when it comes to the term ‘racism’. We all seem intuitively to believe that there are racists in the world. At the pointy end, we have people who run about in their haberdashery setting fire to crucifixes. At the soggy, mundane end, we have people who don’t interview people with funny sounding names for job applications. At the same time, our best science has proven conclusively that there’s no such thing as race. What we thought were genetic differences between the tribes who evolved on different ends of the giant land mass turned out to be little more than culturally-fuelled smoke and mirrors. The most rational interpretation of this is to believe that we can have racism without the need for races.
There’s a danger there that we undervalue the importance of the culturally crafted race to an individual’s identity. It’s a short jump from denying race to whitewashing.
The other, probably more productive way, through the landmines is to ask: ‘If I have to justify my behaviour by crafting an snarky argument that I’m not picking on a race but a [culture/sub-culture/religion/ethnicity/group/nationality/&c.], am I really being an awesome person or am I being an arsehat?’
There is a pathological need for a lot of people to avoid being called ‘racist’. In Australia, a bunch of guys did a blackface sketch on national television (which aired shortly after an advert where a white guy appeased a group of blacks with tubs of fried chicken). Even the deputy Prime Minister (now the Prime Minister) had to come crawling out of the woodwork to say: ‘No, it’s not racism; it’s just the Australian sense of humour.’ Our beloved Prime Minister has also said that she understands and sympathises with white Australian’s distrust of the burqa…
Anyway, back to the subject. I can now get people to say, without a trace of doubt, that they feel that being called a racist is actually, factually, 100% worse than being racist.
So if you have to crawl out of an accusation through semantics and witchcraft, you probably shouldn’t be doing whatever it is you’re doing. (In fairness, SaidSimon wasn’t playing with a full deck: he appears to claim that, if you take a true statement and replace a noun arbitrarily, you necessarily get a new true statement).
Which brings me nicely to the question of whether atheists are an oppressed group. There have been a number of posts where I argue that we’re not and that we should stop being such insufferable crybabies. Oh my Higgs boson, you have no idea how difficult it is to be an educated white atheist, dear Internet. I can’t even go down to the supermarket and purchase atheist milk. When I go to the hospital, they don’t give me the special atheist medicine. When I walk down the street, theists don’t even say hello to me. It’s a horrible life. I don’t know how I manage it.
- People might complain about my bus adverts.
- People might try to get my church on my state… or my state on my church… or something.
- I’m an unprotected minority in the armed forces.
I think I’m still unconvinced that I’m a persecuted minority. As if reading my future state of doubt, TKoA cleverly — like a master chess player — used my own citations against me.
Respondents had various interpretations of what atheists are like and what that label means. Those whom we interviewed view atheists in two different ways. Some people view atheists as problematic because they associate them with illegality, such as drug use and prostitution—that is, with immoral people who threaten respectable community from the lower end of the status hierarchy. Others saw atheists as rampant materialists and cultural elitists that threaten common values from above—the ostentatiously wealthy who make a lifestyle out of consumption or the cultural elites who think they know better than everyone else. [Source: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.]
I agree with the respondents. I associate most atheists with those things as well.
More relevantly, is this what atheists are whinging about when they claim that they’re persecuted? In fairness, TKoA explicitly states that comparisons to persecuted groups are wrong (unlike The Australian Book of Atheism…). Should we get another bus advert to let everybody know the real incarceration rates of atheists?
I can’t work out why other atheists whine as much as they do. Over at Rationalists’s (sic) blog, atheists are the most discriminated against group in society.
Apparently, the author of the blog — who is plural and believes that knowledge is based on a priori, non-empirical facts — because people responded to the question: ‘Whom do you hate most?’ with: ‘Those atheist scumbags’, atheists are more persecuted in the United States than African-Americans (who are still more likely to be incarcerated than whites for the same crime) and Muslims (who can’t even build a mosque without most of the country freaking the freak out).
But, no. Atheists are the most persecuted group.
A now former friend on Facebook posted this video:
They then wrote in praise of these police officers for speaking out against people who were leading the charge against the evil ‘liberals’ who were using the word ‘racist’ to dominate conversations through intimidation.
For those of you who can’t get through the slack-jawed ranting in the video, it basically amounts to: ‘Dear person who accused the police of racism: “Shut up! Just shut up!” We are personally insulted by the claim that we’re racists. It’s very offensive to call us racists. We put our lives on the line to help the community and you call us racists. We protect you from terrorism, y’know? Oh, and activists are evil.’
What they should have said was: ‘We have been accused of racism. We don’t believe that we are being racist but we welcome scrutiny to clear our reputations.’
During the conversation, her husband weighed in to say that he had the right not to be called racist, even if he was racist, because being called a racist is offensive… Yeah. This was more than slightly ridiculous, and I said as much.
Another friend of hers contributed the following:
please realize that there is a difference between having a debate and being divisive, if you don’t respect your opponent in a debate, then you will not only fail to convince them, but you will open yourself up to further attack
And that gets us to the thrust of this post: why do racists deserve respect in a debate? It’s not like they’re saying anything of any intellectual worth. Indeed, the world is in a small way worse for the fact that they’re allowed to express their racist and ignorant opinions. They hide behind demands for ‘respect’ while showing absolutely none to other people.
By giving them ‘respect’, we help legitimise their views. If I respect your opinion on Andrew Lloyd Webber, I understand that two intelligent people could — for many reasons — come to vastly different opinions about the merit of ALW’s works. But I can’t understand that two intelligent people could come to vastly different opinions about whether or not being called racist is ‘just as bad’ as being racist. I can’t understand that two intelligent people could come to vastly different opinions about whether minorities should feel included in mainstream society without having to assimilate. I can’t understand that two intelligent people could come to vastly different opinions about whether the correct attitude towards being accused of racism is to yell ‘Shut up!’ at your accuser.
Some opinions are not worthy of respect.
The ‘race debate’ in Australia has been set back several years. It was already in trouble and the ugly side of unleashed its fury during the Hey, Hey ‘controversy’. I use ‘controversy’ liberally there because ‘Blackface is racist’ was only a controversial comment to red necks.
There’s a fundamental problem of conception in Australia and Britain, and it’s a problem with many fathers.
As with most things, the problem seems to have begun in the U.S. where the American PoC set the tone of the debate: American blacks were — entirely reasonably — interested in the problems and situations they faced. Liberating themselves was more important — entirely reasonably — than setting up a conceptual framework which could be exported to other countries. When that model was exported to other countries, instead of adapting itself into an appropriate framework, it charged ahead and became quite rigid. The systemic issues which were pushing indigenous Australians into cultural extinction, which were excluding Muslims from mainstream discussion, and which were privileging British migrants were not only functionally different to those in the U.S.: they were also conceptually different. We required vastly different tools to combat our problems.
Instead, the debate has gone entirely the other way. People who hold racist views feel vilified when others correctly identify those racist views and call on the power structures to protect their self identity. That’s what happened this week in Australia: describing racists as ‘racists’ was declared to be more disrespectful than being a racist.
This isn’t just some fringe crazy business either. In Britain, Simon Woolley (himself Black British) claimed:
This often blunt instrument [the word 'Racist'] becomes even more problematic when we consider that to be labelled a racist is only marginally better than being called a paedophile or murderer. – The Guardian.
And it gets a bit silly from there:
The problem occurs when we conflate the individual with a rude, misguided, or ignorant comment. Ron Atkinson, for example, had one of the best track records of any British football manager for promoting black players, and yet in racially insulting a player as a “lazy, thick n-r“, many people labelled him as something his track record suggests he wasn’t. – Ibid.
It’s a weird comment to make. Timothy McVeigh had a 37-year streak of not blowing up buildings and yet was executed as a terrorist and murderer. Neil Armstrong had a 39-year track record of not being the first man on the moon…
Anyway, it all gets a bit weird. A person who expresses racist comments is a racist. That’s how this works. You could be a former racist by recognising that what you did was racist and treat the underlying causes for the comment but you can’t say that you’re not a racist because you had several years of not making racist comments before that.
The limitations of language are not only unfair to those individuals such as Ron Atkinson, but also for black and Asian people who from time to time would like to challenge a comment, an incident or an institution but feel the term racism is far too provocative. – Ibid.
Because, of course, the important thing to remember in race relations is not to provoke the white people. You have no idea what we might do. We might fly into a rage and refuse to invite you to dinner. This is the tone of the debate now: don’t upset the red necks. People have to adjust to the red necks in order to be heard. If you don’t adjust, you’re being ‘PC’ or you’re a member of the ‘intelligentsia’. I never, ever thought that those terms would ever be pejorative. Melanie Phillips sure showed me.
I’m particularly bitter about that, by the way. This is her comment about the non-racists’ attitude towards history:
They have also served to falsify the history of both Britain and Australia in the minds of countless thousands of young people, who are taught propaganda based on a false or distorted story of national oppression and shame. – The Australian.
Here’s her comment about Palestinians:
To repeat for the nth time: Israel was never the Palestinians’ ‘homeland’. It was never taken from them ‘by force’. On the contrary, they tried to take the Jews’ homeland from them by force – and are still trying. It was the Jews alone for whom historically ‘Palestine’ was ever their national homeland. — Spectator.
The sheer ludicrousness of the statement shocks the senses. Does she need a copy of the Pentateuch? People were there, Hebrews invade. Oh, maybe she’s not talking about ancient history. Maybe she’s ignoring the extremely long history of Arabs owning the land after the Romans caused the recent diaspora? Who knows? Either way, it’s insanely ignorant.
But back to the subject at hand.
The extremely strange part of Woolley’s article is this:
It’s said that the Inuit people have more than 50 words to describe snow. In one of the most contentious debates taking place in modern Britain, though, we have only one crude term to describe a whole range of individual and institutional practices and prejudices: “racism”. – The Guardian.
Do you know why the Inuit people have so many words for snow? Because they’re surrounded by the stuff. Absolutely surrounded. If they didn’t have several dozen words, their conversation would become extremely dull. Okay, it’s not as simple as all of this: apparently, they have several different ways of speaking about snow (rather than different words), but let’s run with the theory.
Does Woolley really believe that we’re so swamped in racism that the only way to get a conversation is to become more nuanced in our ability to describe racism? Is this how we stop ourselves from upsetting the red necks: by gently skirting around the issue of how they’re benefiting from a system which distinguishes people on the basis of their perceived attributes?
I’m reminded of the Emperor’s New Clothes: everybody has to pretend that the Emperor isn’t naked because they’re worried about how they’ll be perceived and how they might upset the guy with power.
I find racists a bit weird.
You know when you’re at the beach and you find a bit of something that sort of looks a lot like jelly but isn’t jelly and you wonder if it might be from a jellyfish but you don’t think it could have come from a jellyfish? That’s how I feel whenever I’m talking to a racist.
Mind! I don’t mean the sort of everyday very common racist who doesn’t mean to be racist but really is when it comes down to it. I mean the über-racist: the sort who proudly assert that people who aren’t white are somehow, through some fault of their own, inferior people. I find it difficult to understand whence it comes. It can’t be fear. I’m more likely to get ripped off by whitey than any other group — which seems to be reflected when I do the implicit association test. Or maybe it is fear and I’m just not accounting for people’s ability to be irrationally afraid of things.
There’s something intrinsically fine about hating on red heads. Even the Bible does it. Genesis 25 tells the story of Esau (a ranga) who sells his birthright for a bowl of lentils. Ho, ho.
It’s funny because he’s got red hair.
IN OTHER NEWS…
Nerd up, my fine friends!
For those of you who are thinking ‘I really haven’t been able to express my nerd pride sufficiently of late’, we’ve had several weeks of the heavens dumping nerdshit upon our doorsteps.
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
This has been a lot of fun and I thoroughly enjoy it. It’s the sort of game you can enjoy casually while dying of heat exhaustion on the couch. Plus, there is a crapload of ice in the game and just looking at all that ice makes me feel better about the world. Sure, Yahtzee is right when he says that it’s the same as all the other 2D Mario games. On the other hand, who cares? Nobody’s expecting gritty Mario. Nobody’s expecting intricate plot Mario. Nobody’s expecting anything other than mindless 2D fun. In other words, you get from this game exactly what you think you’re going to get from this game: a few hours of fun smacking Koopas.
The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks
I much prefer this to The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. Okay, it could be that I have some completely unrelated emotional hangups about PH (the ex really liked the game and there was a trading function, so now my copy of the game is filled with things traded from her copy of the game, so it just induces panic attacks). Not a big fan of the evil trains that can move more quickly than you and can hunt you down so you can’t avoid them. That bit really sucks. I’m also not a huge fan of the complete inability to turn around… But, hey, you are supposed to be on a train.
I could also do without the scumbag NPCs. Zelda is just about the only likable character in the game. Everybody else is a demanding, annoying douche. ‘Oh, I want wood. Bring me wood! Oh, I won’t work with a character with big antlers! Oh, do a roll into this tree filled with mother freaking bees!’
That last one pissed me off the most. I thought, ‘You can’t be serious. Why the crap would I want to roll into a tree full of bees? Oh, well. If you insist!’ Lo and behold, the bees freaking attacked me. Then he laughed about it and demanded a free train ride. I’m still a bit conficted about that, especially considering his mother didn’t seem to have the slightest idea of where he’s going. Also, the turd is a liar. I had to Googlewhack what to do with him because he’s such a rotten liar.
But, other than that, the game is ferociously excellent.
Family Guy: Something Something Something Dark Side
The release date was supposed to be tomorrow, but JB HiFi had them in stock today. In truth, not as good as Blue Harvest but still an amazing amount of fun. BH seemed to find humour in what was already in the Star Wars universe – Solo’s ‘few maneuvers’, for example. SSDS seemed to rely more on recreating The Empire Strikes Back with Family Guy characters and then sprinkling jokes on the top.
Sure, BH did the same thing at times but it didn’t seem to be quite so dependent. Also, I could do with several magnitudes less Herbert. So, overall fun but pretty much just for fans of Star Wars and Family Guy.
I hate every military character on this show. Freak me freaking sideways, I could swear they exist just to say asinine things and to disagree with people who can read without moving their lips. Robert Carlyle is pretty much the only reason worth watching it at the moment (Channel 10, Monday nights. Soon to be Channel 10, 1am Tuesday morning… TiVo!).
I also hate the trope of ‘Super smart outsider’. In the original, James Spader had a theory which was not supported by the evidence. Thus, he was rightly mocked for his unjustified beliefs.
But that’s not good enough for the country that invented Wikipedia. Experts suck! What do they know? They’re just experts!
And so James Spader’s completely unjustified theory miraculously turned out to be correct. Oooooh, he totally showed the establishment, didn’t he?
In this, the outsider is an out of work, university dropout who just happens to be able to work out maths homework in an alien language. And I’m all like… ‘Right. Lame.’
It’s sort of weird when you’ve got a television show which you really enjoy watching but only because you’re hoping that any of the non-Robert Carlyle characters will die horribly. Unfortunately, they’re not dying rapidly enough at the moment. But it is really enjoyable to watch.
Avatar imaginatively revisits the crime scene of white America’s foundational act of genocide, in which entire native tribes and civilizations were wiped out by European immigrants to the American continent. In the film, a group of soldiers and scientists have set up shop on the verdant moon Pandora, whose landscapes look like a cross between Northern California’s redwood cathedrals and Brazil’s tropical rainforest. The moon’s inhabitants, the Na’vi, are blue, catlike versions of native people: They wear feathers in their hair, worship nature gods, paint their faces for war, use bows and arrows, and live in tribes. Watching the movie, there is really no mistake that these are alien versions of stereotypical native peoples that we’ve seen in Hollywood movies for decades.
[A] few of these humans don’t want to crush the natives with tanks and bombs, so they wire their brains into the bodies of Na’vi avatars and try to win the natives’ trust. Jake is one of the team of avatar pilots, and he discovers to his surprise that he loves his life as a Na’vi warrior far more than he ever did his life as a human marine. ['When will white people stop making movies like Avatar?', source]
She then follows up this analysis with a wail that white people keep making movies about white guilt (like Dances with Wolves and District 9). It’s almost as if she’s shocked that Hollywood would keep making profitable films.
And that’s what this is. Left wing whities — who are typically the sort of people who spend vast amounts of cash at the cinematron — love to feel guilty about the past and so they’ll gladly fork out to go see a film which makes them feel better for feeling guilty. Oh, and they’ll also complain that the film is intrinsically racist. Left wing people of all colours feel a sense of unity when they’re randomly calling things racist. It’s a bonding experience.
If white guilt films weren’t so profitable, they wouldn’t get made. As they are profitable, they do get made. It’s your free market at play.
You could instead analyse why people flock to ‘white guilt’ films. I tend to argue that it’s because white kids have a very poor understanding of their own culture and why it’s important. Our cultural history isn’t explored and, as such, it becomes invisible and normalised. The individual is emphasised over the society and, as such, values are emphasised as a personal construct, not a social one. We thus end up with isolated monads separated from other men and the community.
Culture also gets constructed as something elitist. As most literature of our culture was produced by white males, the left is terrified of exposing impressionable young minds to it. It’s considered exclusive and archaic. In Australia, it’s considered too European — which is weird given that Australia is still the big Europe of the south and hasn’t really produced much in the way of its own culture (except in response to the prevailing European culture).
When this ignorance of our own culture gets exposed to communities with a healthy and robust understanding of their culture, there is a complete clash.
On the one hand, you’ll have those people who respond to culture as a threat. As we live in a ‘secular’ and ‘liberal’ and ‘tolerant’ society, social frameworks which emphasise the society over the individual are somehow terrible things and will destroy the ‘secular’ and ‘liberal’ and ‘tolerant’ society in which we live. This is typically the response of our modern right.
On the other hand, you’ll have people who will respond to culture in Marxist terms: as the white folk have control of all of the civics, the new culture is, by definition, an oppressed class. In order to understand this current oppression, they will interpret white history to be a consistent series of acts against those oppressed classes. This is typically the response of our modern left.
As the modern right would be less likely to see a science fiction film, there’s no point making a film which shows the alien race as being unable to integrate. It wouldn’t sell. Thus, we get films pandering to the response of the left: white people go in and oppress everybody in sight.
The cure, I think, is to have a Renaissance of white culture. It’s the sheer ignorance of our cultural history and the way we systematically render ourselves blind to our present culture that cripple cultural cohesion. All cultures have their highs and their lows, and an honest love of our culture would raise our awareness of both those highs and lows.
To quote Raimond Gaita:
The multicultural debate for example intersects with debates about liberalism and communitarianism and the nature of nationhood. I started thinking about it very largely because I was thinking quite a lot about love of country, especially during John Howard’s prime ministership, because the expression ‘Australian’, ‘un-Australian’ and so on, these expressions were used so often. [...] [Y]ou can’t have a morally neutral conception of a national good[...] [You can] distinguish love of country from what I take to be its false semblance, that is jingoism, which at its worst is ‘My country, right or wrong.’ [ABC radio: The Religion Report, 5 March 2008, source]
You can have a celebration of our cultural history without being jingoistic. Indeed, that jingoism is a false semblance of cultural love.
It’s also not exclusive. My cultural history being a generally good thing doesn’t prohibit me from affirming that your cultural history is generally a good thing. At the very least, most of the cultural histories intersect. White culture would have completely stagnated if Muslim culture hadn’t preserved and enriched the arts and sciences of the classical world during our rather embarassing Dark Age.
To answer Newitz’ question, white folk’ll stop making these films when they stop being profitable. This will happen when one of two things happen:
1. Those on the right start watching more movies (prepare ye the way of more ‘Evil Alien Films’); or
2. We come to terms with our cultural history.