Tuesday, 21 January 2020

RACISM - BLACK, WHITE, OR GREY...?



Racism.  It's a big and ugly subject, but I have a few thoughts on it (surprise) which some people may find interesting.  Or insulting, or repellent, or unacceptable, de-pending on your point of view.  Hell, some of you may even agree with me.   So let's start with an easy one, shall we?  I see IDRIS ELBA is still being touted as a possible contender for the role of JAMES BOND.  We all know James Bond, don't we?  The white, male, British, 6 foot tall (according to author and creator IAN FLEMING) (not so) secret agent who works for MI6.

Which, I'd say, rules out Bond being played by an actor of either Negro, mixed-race, Pakistani, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, female, handicapped, hunchback, or dwarf status - purely on the grounds that none of the above are how Bond's creator envisioned him.  "You're a racist and a bigot!" you say.  Nonsense!  Were it to be announced that DANIEL CRAIG (or any white actor) was being signed up to play LUKE CAGE (POWER MAN), T'CHALLA (The BLACK PANTHER) or WYATT WINGFOOT (JOHNNY STORM's Red Indian - or Native American if you prefer - pal), I'd be equally perturbed.  You can bet your booties that if it were ever suggested, accusations of racism would be flying around all over the place.

So why is it any different in the case of Bond?  I'll go one further and say that it's racist (and sexist) to suggest that 007 (as we presently know him) should ever be played by anyone who isn't white and male, because such a proposition springs from the belief that there are far too many white male actors who get plum parts in movies. That's surely racism, isn't it?  If I attended a performance of PORGY & BESS and stood up halfway through, saying "Why aren't there more white actors on stage?" I'd probably be booed out of the theatre - and rightly so.  Therefore, why is it deemed acceptable for people to say "Why aren't there more black actors (and actresses) nominated for Oscars?" when the awards ceremony rolls around every year?

In the case of Bond, we're told that we should be 'colour-blind' and not consider the colour or ethnicity (or even gender nowadays) of the actor as important.  (Which, I'd say, doesn't mean it should be ignored in regard to the character.)  Shouldn't that work both ways though?  There seems to be a double-standard at play when we're told we shouldn't see colour when it comes to apportioning roles, but we should see it when it comes to handing out awards.  It cuts both ways.  Black actors should only see fellow actors receiving recognition for their performance, not white people.  Are they so desperate for an Oscar or a Bafta, that they don't mind being in the running solely to meet some politically correct requirement of 'inclusivity'?  Isn't that tokenism?  I think it's fairly safe to say that no black actor would ever say "Why's there no white guys this year?" if all the Oscar nominations were black (or whatever).  In fact, I'd be surprised if any white actors expressed such a sentiment.

I'll go further.  I think it highly likely that at least some actors of colour are only concerned with getting an award in order to improve their career and financial prospects, and try and increase their chances by playing the 'race card'.  Regardless of their colour, actors in the main are self-obsessed and have a sense of entitlement, believing that opportunities are their due which shouldn't be denied them.  For example:  Are you black?  Then why aren't there more roles for black actors?  Are you handicapped?  Then why aren't there more roles for handicapped actors?  Are you gay or transgendered?  Then why aren't there more roles for gay and trans-gendered actors?  Are you female?  Then why aren't there more (good) roles for actresses?  And I'll bet even many white male actors wonder why there aren't more roles for white male actors cast in their mould.

It's a bit like traditional signwriters bemoaning the fact that they don't get so much work in today's world of computer-generated signs, which are quicker and less expensive to produce.  Adapt or die.  Neither the world or your profession owes you a living.  That's something actors should remember as well.  Writers shouldn't be required to cater to the needs or wants of actors, or indulge high-handed demands for 'diversity' in order to meet quotas.  They should be able to tell their story without having to worry about whether there are enough female, gay, black, transgendered characters to appease the politically-correct minority who are on a mission to portray society as they'd prefer it to be, rather than as it is.   

I've noticed that there seems to be an increasing vocal opposition in some quarters these days to gay or transgendered roles being played by anyone who isn't gay or transgendered, but curiously no one seems to object to a gay actor playing a heterosexual character.  Double-standards again.  (And able-bodied actors in handi-capped roles also come in for criticism.  Hey, newsflash - it's called acting!)   Is any-one else as fed up of this nonsense as I am?  Let me tell you something - there probably isn't a race of people anywhere in the world who isn't racist or bigoted to some degree.  A lot of black people still view 'whitey' as the enemy, and regard us as their oppressors - even though slavery was abolished centuries ago, and many white people voted against it, even fighting and dying in the process.

Any country you go to, there's a large percentage of the populace who look down on another (sometimes neighbouring) country and consider them inferior.  Many Jews look down on Arabs and many Arabs look down on Jews.  Pakistanis look down on Indians and Indians look down on Pakistanis.  Any country you care to name harbours a certain antipathy towards another - or even towards minority groups within their own boundaries.  Just about all of them seem to despise the West, but that's something we're expected to ignore in our one-sided quest to appease those who seem to hate us.  It appears that the only group of people who aren't permitted to express any reservations about any other group are White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who are male and of a heterosexual persuasion, which seems kind of bigoted to me - even racist in fact.

Race is important to those who tell you that race isn't important when it comes to casting Bond, so don't be deceived by their duplicity.  If it wasn't important to them, they wouldn't be trying to oust a white actor from playing a white character who's been white since he first appeared in novels back in the '50s.  Why not give Idris Elba the opportunity to play a different secret agent in a big-budget movie if there's a demand for such a thing, and make his own stamp in the cinematic world of espionage?  Have him play a colleague of Bond's in a future film, and then spin him off into his own series of blockbusters.  That way, everyone will be happy.  Bond will still be the Bond he's always been, and Idris can have the exact same kind of role without indulging in a form of racism against white people.

Because that's exactly what it would be if ever Bond's ethnicity was changed from what it is now.

Agree?  Disagree?  Want to punch my face in?  Why not start by discussing where you think I err in my opinion, and we'll see where that gets us.  Besides, I don't care how big and tough you are, you couldn't fight sleep - and I was trained by James Bond and DAVID CALLAN themselves, so you've got no chance!  (When I say 'trained', I mean I've watched how they do it and I'm a quick study.)  Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my reality pill.

******

And talking of Bond, commenter BARRY PEARL sent me a snap of some of his collection, below.

17 comments:

Colin Jones said...

I lean towards the liberal/lefty side of politics but I can't really disagree with anything you said.

Kid said...

Which either means that perhaps I'm getting more persuasive, CJ, or you're becoming easier to convince. (Of course, the third option is that you thought the same as me on the issue to begin with anyway.)

Colin Jones said...

Kid, I hate hypocrisy whichever side of the political divide it comes from and there's a lot of hypocrisy around this issue.

Kid said...

Unfortunately, CJ, hypocrisy is everywhere. There's just no getting away from it, alas.

Barry Pearl said...

I am a big fan of James Bond and you can post the image I sent you. IDRIS ELBA is a fine actor but he is not at all appropriate for James Bond, even with the racial issues aside. Eon Productions are NOT looking for a Bond for one picture, but for four or five. This will take about 12 to 15 years.

In the book Moonraker, Fleming has Bond describe what a secret agent should be. The appropriate age, he writes, is 35-45 years old. Mr. Elba is 47 NOW and is too old to play Bond. Of course he would be near 60 when the cycle is complete. Craig is NOW 51, but started the series when he was 37. (The new movie has him coming out of retirement.) Connery was 32, Dalton was 40, Lazenby was 29 and Roger Moore was 46.

Both Roger Moore and Sean Connery were a bit too old in their last movies (A View to a Kill and Never Say Never Again) and they looked it. Also Bond hangs around young beautiful women and the age difference does show.

Kid said...

Thanks for the image and the comment, BP. What model of Aston Martin is that on the left of the pic? Is that the Danbury Mint one, or the bigger version by another company? (I've got both, but it's hard to gauge the size of it in the photo.)

Roger was only 45 when he accepted the role and started filming, but turned 46 not long after. Thing is, at the start, he looked younger than his years, whereas Connery, who was around 3 years older, looked about 10 years older than he actually was in Diamonds Are Forever. Funnily enough, in Never Say Never Again, he was not much older than Craig is now.

I suppose acting sometimes requires actors acting younger (as well as older) than they actually are. Who's your ideal Bond girl, BP?

Barry Pearl said...

Diana Rigg!

Kid said...

Mine is Martine Beswick. Then Ursula Andress, Shirley Eaton, and Jill St. John. (I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.)

Kid said...

Still waiting for you to identify the Aston Martin on the left of the pic, BP.

Barry Pearl said...

Astin Martin DBS

Kid said...

No, I'm talking about the manufacturer of the DB5 on the left of the pic as the viewer sees it. I asked in my first response to your comment whether it was the Danbury Mint one or the bigger one made by another company (Autoart I think).

Lionel Hancock said...

Nah...Kim will be the new Bond then it will finish up with the lowest ratings in 32 years like Dr Who did with Jodie now in command..

Kid said...

Duh, who's Kim, LH?

Lionel Hancock said...

Khardashian.....is your memory going

Kid said...

Memory... what's that again? Now, if she was the only burd in the world called Kim, that might've narrowed it down for me, LH.

rob diablo said...

I Don't Really Care..I hear lately the new 007 is a Girl, I'm fine with that, as i was when they announced the new doctor who was female, i don't think the casting is a problem, so much as the scripts and direction, the last few bond films have been awful, as i think its such an out dated concept, it was fine in the 60's & 70's but doesn't make much sense now, especially with Kingsman, mission impossible, & the new Marvel Black widow, all pretty much spy movies, doing the old bond thing, while the old bond thing tries to do the new Marvel, or mission impossible thing, superfast action well OTT, very little story, or character development, and a big mush of CGI, Bond was fine back in the day, Shagging about Lots Big Villains hiding in Volcanoes..Ect..but now its just past its sell by date, that's probably why they keep trying to up date it, same with Doctor Who, and I'm a big Who fan so i still watch, I'm not happy about Jodie Whitaker,not because shes female, but because i don't find her very convincing, Joanna Lumley would have been great i think, as would Richard E Grant, anyway that's a bit off the subject!..sorry, if the new bond is a Black man fine, because to me its just another spy movie, roll on the next mission Improbable, And kings Man, and atomic Blond and agents of Shield etc etc..

Kid said...

I wouldn't have a problem with Bond being black (or any race/colour) if that's how he'd been created at the beginning, but it's the pursuit of an agenda to indoctrinate us into thinking that ethnicity or gender don't matter and should be interchangeable that annoys me. However, if ethnicity and gender weren't important to those suggesting such changes, then it would never occur to them to make such suggestions in the first place so there's a double-standard at work.

It all stems from 'racist' attitudes towards whites, and plain and simple misandry against males. Remember that, in the case of Dr. Who, the Time Lords are portrayed as a superior and enlightened civilisation, so when they make pronouncements like gender not being important to them in the same way as it is to humans, it's to suggest that humans are ignorant, inferior, unenlightened savages. The LGBT brigade won't be happy until everyone else all thinks as they do, and it surely can't be right that a minority should be able to dictate to the majority how to think and act, and what to say when it comes to the minority's self-serving take on things.

For example, if there's one kid in school who is gender-confused and doesn't like to use the boys' toilets, then (in some cases) they make toilets gender-free to spare that child any discomfit. However, that doesn't remove boys from the toilets, it just means that boys and girls both use them. So not only does that not provide a solution, it also makes girls feel awkward (at least) about being in the toilets at the same time as boys, and vice versa. So the alleged solution for the gender-confused kid is to make every kid, boy and girl, feel awkward about using the school toilets. Highly illogical, Captain.

It's all PC sh*t in my opinion, with a relatively small group of people trying to tell the majority what to think, say, and do. Cobblers to that!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...