-->
@SkepticalOne
ultimately it is a fish in a fairy tale.
Well that’s a bit deceptive, now. Is a centaur a horse?
Blackwashing vs Whitewashing. The former is GOOD, the latter is BAD. Hypocrisy 101.
Posts
Total:
96
-->
@bmdrocks21
ultimately it is a fish in a fairy tale.Well that’s a bit deceptive, now. Is a centaur a horse?
Deceptive? You're grasping at straws.
A fish has basis in reality while a mermaid doesn't (what is the taxanomic classification of mermaids?!) If anything, I'm being kind in not showing how completely absurd the "blackwashing" charge regarding the Little Mermaid is.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Look! It’s a well established story, as is the Disney cartoon movie. Taking the exact same story/movie script and replacing the white chick for a black chick [is] “black washing.” The fact that the character is a mermaid is utterly irrelevant. Why you cannot grasp that simple fact is beyond those of us who disagree with your illogical nonsense.
-->
@bmdrocks21
--> @ShilaThe Romans would not have crucified Jesus if he did have white skin.Source???
Luke proves Jesus was not crucified for any crimes he committed. He was crucified because he was ugly and for his skin colour.
Luke 23:13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”
But the crowd demanded Jesus be crucified.
Luke 23:21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
Why?
Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
-->
@TWS1405
The story isn't a metaphor about white people, representative of white history, or in any way affected by skin tone. The storyline is neutral regarding skin color. It doesn't care what color the actors are. I think you should be asking yourself why neutrality equates to Caucasian in your world.
Meanwhile, White people are not getting to whitewash other Black people's cultures, such as those found in Kenya, Chad or Mauritania (if you disagree, find me an example).
off the top of my head-
fried chicken, jazz, barbeque, afros, macaroni and cheese, gospel music, collard greens, dreadlocks, mustard greens, Rock and Roll, okra, Elvis, Disco, hush puppies, hominy, dreadlocks, Reggae, grits, Rap, kale, Pentecostal and Baptist preaching, call and response, yams, sweet potatoes, non-standard handshakes, high-fives, fistbumps, cornbread, hip-hop, jambalaya, Mardi Gras, all of modern US athletics, black-eyed peas, Beatles, sorghum, peanut butter, cayenne pepper, sneaker culture, marijuana, voodoo
-->
@TWS1405
--> @SkepticalOneLook! It’s a well established story, as is the Disney cartoon movie. Taking the exact same story/movie script and replacing the white chick for a black chick [is] “black washing.” The fact that the character is a mermaid is utterly irrelevant. Why you cannot grasp that simple fact is beyond those of us who disagree with your illogical nonsense.
If Disney has already captured the white audience, by black washing the heroes it hopes to capture the black audience as well.
The problem only surfaces when the black cast is nominated the Oscar and receives higher ratings.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Deceptive? You're grasping at straws.
No, I'm not. A centaur is part horse, part human. A mermaid is part fish, part human for all intents and purposes.
Saying that a mermaid is a fish is deceptive. You entirely ignore the human-like component. And humans have skin. Skin has some sort of color to it.
Do you disagree with anything that I have said above?
-->
@Shila
Luke proves Jesus was not crucified for any crimes he committed. He was crucified because he was ugly and for his skin colour.Luke 23:13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”But the crowd demanded Jesus be crucified.Luke 23:21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”Why?Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Where do they mention his color? Where do they call him ugly?
-->
@SkepticalOne
-->@TWS1405The story isn't a metaphor about white people, representative of white history, or in any way affected by skin tone. The storyline is neutral regarding skin color. It doesn't care what color the actors are. I think you should be asking yourself why neutrality equates to Caucasian in your world.
What part of what I just wrote to you did you fail to comprehend? What part of what others wrote about the "clear skin" reference did you fail to understand?
When she was written as having "clear" skin, I doubt the author was talking about how acne/blemish free her skin was. A black person does not have "clear" skin. Clear = a spectrum of color, and clear =/= dark (i.e., white =/= black, light =/= dark).
No one said the story was "about" white people. It is character representation. Period. And Ariel was represented as Caucasian, which is closer to = "clear" skin.
-->
@Shila
@TWS1405--> @SkepticalOneLook! It’s a well established story, as is the Disney cartoon movie. Taking the exact same story/movie script and replacing the white chick for a black chick [is] “black washing.” The fact that the character is a mermaid is utterly irrelevant. Why you cannot grasp that simple fact is beyond those of us who disagree with your illogical nonsense.If Disney has already captured the white audience, by black washing the heroes it hopes to capture the black audience as well.The problem only surfaces when the black cast is nominated the Oscar and receives higher ratings.
Write a new story instead of ripping off a well-known and well-established story/movie script.
Shows a huge lack of intelligence and creativity to do otherwise.
-->
@TWS1405
Write a new story instead of ripping off a well-known and well-established story/movie script.Shows a huge lack of intelligence and creativity to do otherwise.
DIsney and Splash were both ripping off Hans Christian Anderson's 1883 Dutch fairytale Den lille havfrue which itself is just ripping off Fouque's 1811 Undine (who was a water spirit but had human legs) which was just ripping off Comte de Gabali a 1670 French novel by Nicolas-Pierre-Henri de Montfaucon de Villars which was ripping off Paracelsus' 1566 Latin work Ex Libro de Nymphis, Sylvanis, Pygmaeis, Salamandris, et Gigantibus etc.
Mermaid myths in sub-saharan Africa, Korea, and Japan pre-date the medieval conception of mermaids based on Roman interpretations of Greek Sirens.
Why is ripping off across language, cultures, continents, time all just fine but when totally irrelevant skin pigmentation enters the picture, you are suddenly weeping about "them" stealing my culture.
100% irrational emotional argument based on skin color
-->
@bmdrocks21
And humans have skin. Skin has some sort of color to it.
...what color is human skin? Suffice to say, it's not limited to white. You're making my point. The character being fish, human, or human-fish doesn't require a particular skin tone.
The general argument from TWS1405 seems sound. There appears to be no purpose for making Ariel Black in this film other than diversity for the sake of diversity. If I am incorrect about this, I am open to any other reason someone can theorize. I don't think anyone actually cares about having characters of other races, just as to why a traditionally white character was cast this way. It would be the same if Ariel was cast as an old man.
-->
@TWS1405
What part of what I just wrote to you did you fail to comprehend? What part of what others wrote about the "clear skin" reference did you fail to understand?
I've already addressed this and find nothing compelling in the counter arguments.
You've also neglected to address my previous criticism: The Disney version is undoubtedly distorted from the original story, yet you're holding it as canon. What standard allows such drastic modifications to the original story and insists on no changes in skin tones?! What is the standard? It sure isn't 'sticking with the author's intent'.
-->
@TWS1405
--> @Shila@TWS1405--> @SkepticalOneLook! It’s a well established story, as is the Disney cartoon movie. Taking the exact same story/movie script and replacing the white chick for a black chick [is] “black washing.” The fact that the character is a mermaid is utterly irrelevant. Why you cannot grasp that simple fact is beyond those of us who disagree with your illogical nonsense.If Disney has already captured the white audience, by black washing the heroes it hopes to capture the black audience as well.The problem only surfaces when the black cast is nominated the Oscar and receives higher ratings.Write a new story instead of ripping off a well-known and well-established story/movie script.Shows a huge lack of intelligence and creativity to do otherwise
The story is not the problem. Black actors are proving to be more talented and winning the Oscar is the ultimate test.
-->
@SkepticalOne
...what color is human skin? Suffice to say, it's not limited to white. You're making my point. The character being fish, human, or human-fish doesn't require a particular skin tone.
Well now we’re getting to the point. Not all mermaids need to be white (even though it comes from white mythologies). But Ariel in particular was white. The original illustrations from the 1800s, and in fact every illustration of the little mermaid on which she is based, is white
-->
@bmdrocks21
Hans Christian Anderson's Little Mermaid's skin is described as clear and delicate as a rose leaf but her hair was raven black. So Disney changed her hair color. Disney gave her the name Ariel. Disney also edited out most of the story. In the story- the mermaid wants to seduce a human in order to win an immortal soul, the Prince decides to marry a princess from anther kingdom which dooms the Mermaid to death. Her sisters sell their hair to buy the Little Mermaid a knife which she much plunge into the heart of the Prince as he sleeps on his wedding night and spread his blood on her feet to turn back into a fish tail (human legs are incredible painful for her). She can't do it and throws herself into the ocean to die but air nymphs save her and give her back her mermaid form plus 300 years plus an immortal soul. The story tells children if they are good, that will help hurry the mermaid to heaven but if they are bad her time on earth grows longer.
So the Disney version took a whole lot of liberties with the HC Anderson version.
So, I guess the question is if nothing about this story is set in canon- not her hair color, not her name, not her romance, not even her being a mermaid! Most earlier versions of this story have her as a river nymph with normal human legs. If nothing else about her story is canon- not language or country or culture or moral of the story or even the species of the main character why is it so fucking important to make sure her skin color is creamy clam chowder white? Why would that be the only single fucking detail to rage on about if you are not just some racist looking for another victimization to pretend to?
-->
@oromagi
I’m not gonna pretend I’m raging over this story. I wasn’t going to watch a live action move for children.
But the fact is, every HCA book illustration for the source material and the movie were white characters. So I don’t see why everyone is wasting their time pretending otherwise.
And while a lot of details were changed from book to movie, this was something that stayed the same. Now it’s something that they’re changing, and it is obviously not due to any merits of the actress.
I figured I’d see good faith arguments like “the business is just too lazy to make a unique story about a different mermaid” or “they’re doing it to appeal to an increasingly diverse America” or some other bland talking point. Wasn’t expecting any denial that the at the very least Ariel is White lol
Mermaids should always be white.
It was the white culture that believed females should always keep their legs tightly locked together to keep strangers out. The mermaid was the perfect example of white female modesty. Legs inseparable and covered.
It should remain a symbol of white culture. Just like three legged men are symbols of black men with over extended not so private parts. And the mermaid is ideally dressed to resist them.
-->
@Shila
Mermaids should always be white.It was the white culture that believed females should always keep their legs tightly locked together to keep strangers out. The mermaid was the perfect example of white female modesty. Legs inseparable and covered.It should remain a symbol of white culture. Just like three legged men are symbols of black men with over extended not so private parts. And the mermaid is ideally dressed to resist them.
“Jesse, what the hell are you talking about?”
-->
@bmdrocks21
But the fact is, every HCA book illustration for the source material and the movie were white characters. So I don’t see why everyone is wasting their time pretending otherwise.And while a lot of details were changed from book to movie, this was something that stayed the same. Now it’s something that they’re changing, and it is obviously not due to any merits of the actress.I figured I’d see good faith arguments like “the business is just too lazy to make a unique story about a different mermaid” or “they’re doing it to appeal to an increasingly diverse America” or some other bland talking point. Wasn’t expecting any denial that the at the very least Ariel is White lol
She's not white. She's not even human.
-->
@oromagi
She's not white. She's not even human.
Half white person, half fish
“In folklore, a mermaid is an aquatic creature with the head and upper body of a female human and the tail of a fish.“
Humans have a race. So it follows that the human head and upper body has a race as well.
-->
@bmdrocks21
-->@oromagiShe's not white. She's not even human.Half white person, half fish“In folklore, a mermaid is an aquatic creature with the head and upper body of a female human and the tail of a fish.“Humans have a race. So it follows that the human head and upper body has a race as well.
Humans don't have a race in any scientific or rational sense. Race is a 16th century socio-economic concept used to justify a lot of conquest and social stratification but ultimately invalidated by 20th century biological and genetic study. That is, Africans and Asians and even Europeans were talking about mermaids for centuries before there was such a thing as a "white person." When Christopher Columbus reported seeing mermaids during his voyages he was quite clear that they were brown and furry from head to toe and not in any way mistakable for a "white person." Human is a species which is the most basic taxonomical division based on the capacity of Individuals to produce offspring. To make the claim that mermaids are half human you would have to show evidence of live births between mermaids and humans.
Oh look, more black washing of a white character…
Louie is white, not black. I’ve read all the IWAV Rice novels, and Louie was NEVER black.
-->
@bmdrocks21
--> @ShilaMermaids should always be white.It was the white culture that believed females should always keep their legs tightly locked together to keep strangers out. The mermaid was the perfect example of white female modesty. Legs inseparable and covered.It should remain a symbol of white culture. Just like three legged men are symbols of black men with over extended not so private parts. And the mermaid is ideally dressed to resist them.“Jesse, what the hell are you talking about?”
Mermaids!!
-->
@oromagi
Humans don't have a race in any scientific or rational sense. Race is a 16th century socio-economic concept used to justify a lot of conquest and social stratification but ultimately invalidated by 20th century biological and genetic study. That is, Africans and Asians and even Europeans were talking about mermaids for centuries before there was such a thing as a "white person." When Christopher Columbus reported seeing mermaids during his voyages he was quite clear that they were brown and furry from head to toe and not in any way mistakable for a "white person." Human is a species which is the most basic taxonomical division based on the capacity of Individuals to produce offspring. To make the claim that mermaids are half human you would have to show evidence of live births between mermaids and humans.
So am I to believe that interracial organ transplants have many more complications than within-race transplants because of a socioeconomic concept?
Do we prescribe BiDil to only black people because of a socioeconomic concept from the 16th century? Don’t kid yourself
Let’s just be honest with each other here: I know that you don’t care that white characters are being purposely replaced. You might even actively support it as many liberals do. But don’t try to spew out these liberal talking points that are entirely based on an egalitarian fever dream.
It’s fine that you don’t care about these characters being replaced, but don’t try to cloak it in these arguments saying a clearly white character isn’t white. Don’t pretend to be naive and say this isn’t happening
-->
@bmdrocks21
So am I to believe that interracial organ transplants have many more complications than within-race transplants because of a socioeconomic concept?
Belief has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it. The more genetically related two individuals are, the less chance of rejection. Barack Obama has black skin but he would be a better organ donor for his white-skinned, English-Scottish mother than almost any other white skinned person in the world. We don't choose or separate organs by race but by many genetic markers, 99.9% of which have nothing to do with skin pigmentation.
Do we just prescribe BiDil to only black people because of a socioeconomic concept from the 16th century?
No. We don't really prescribe BiDil and haven't since 2009, although it is still made by a French pharma (so they could own the patents) and sold for a very high price. It was a fad in 2006 when it first came out but the studies behind it were small and unscientifically based on self-identification. There is more real genetic difference within Africa than anyplace else. Genetically speaking, all white people, Asians, Australian aboriginals, Native Americans are more genetically like Ethiopians then Ethiopians are like Kenyans or West Africans or South Africans. If White European was a race, then we would expect to see more genetic similarity between say, Germans and Spaniards then between Spaniards and East Africans but that's not true. White Spaniards are more closely related to black Ethiopians than white Germans. White Russians are more closely related to Asian populations than white German populations. Africans are the most genetically diverse continent of all- South African blacks are far more different from West Africans genetically then Aztec people are from Irishmen. You say, "but look at Aztecs and Irishmen, they look so much more different from one another than West Africans from South Africans but all those phenotype differences are incredibly superficial compared to the differences in human adaptations we see between African haplotypes. Masai and Pygmy descendents would both identify as "African Americans" but there's absolutely zero reason to believe both groups would respond the same to vasodilators like Bidil. By 2009, better science had pretty much trashed the validity of BiDil and its equally effective subcomponents were far more available at a much cheaper price.
from The Lancet, Jan 2012 (more than a decade ago)
The SHORT LIFE of a RACE DRUG
So what has happened to the first “race drug” approved by the FDA? At the time BiDil was approved, there was an estimated market of 750 000 black Americans out of a total of 5 million people with heart disease who might benefit from a pill. Wall Street analysts predicted annual sales of US$500 million, even $1 billion by 2010. According to the 2009 Securities and Exchange Commission 10K report filed by NitroMed, the company's sales from BiDil were $12·1, $15·3, and $14·9 million in 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively. NitroMed began developing an extended release formulation of its drug, which it called BiDil XR, hoping it would capture a larger market. Between Jan 1, 2006, and March 1, 2009, stock shares in NitroMed fluctuated dramatically between a low of $0·15 to a high of $14·90 a share. Many physicians were sceptical about the “race drug”. A focus group study of 90 primary care physicians' attitudes toward race-based therapies reported that the physicians expressed a wariness of using such therapies. Geneticists also voiced their opposition to approving and marketing a drug based on outmoded racial categories. In the wake of poor revenues and rising deficits, NitroMed offered itself for sale. In April, 2009, the health-care investment company Deerfield Management acquired NitroMed and paid its stockholders $0·80 per share, or about $36 million. NitroMed removed its stock listing on NASDAQ. In its 2009 10K report, NitroMed declared that the company had never been profitable and expected its future revenues from BiDil to fall significantly based on declining prescriptions, unwillingness of third party payers to provide reimbursement, and a reduction in their sales force and promotional efforts. In that same month the French company NicOx S.A. had announced that it agreed to purchase NitroMed's unlicensed patents covering nitric oxide-donating compounds, a field of continuing research activity.
The idea behind BiDil has not been disputed—namely, that for some people with congestive heart failure who do not produce enough nitric oxide, vasodilators can be an effective adjunct therapy in reducing heart attacks. But who can benefit? Neither socially constructed nor self-identified concepts of “race” can serve as a proxy for an unknown or ill-defined biological marker that provides a causal connection to or strong association with a drug's effectiveness. Personalised medicine requires nothing less. If a drug works it is because of the genetics and physiology of the patient. Nothing I have reported about BiDil or concluded about the limitations of “self-identified race” as a clinical marker diminishes the progress and expected value of personalised medicine. At its best, personalised medicine promises to reduce adverse drug reactions through the discovery of genomic-based drug-interaction mechanisms that could reduce the guesswork associated with drug therapies. BiDil has underscored the importance of that approach. Racial blood lines are a thing of the past. Thus far, the short life of BiDil shows us that racial pharmacokinetics has nothing to offer in its place.
-->
@bmdrocks21
--> @oromagiHumans don't have a race in any scientific or rational sense. Race is a 16th century socio-economic concept used to justify a lot of conquest and social stratification but ultimately invalidated by 20th century biological and genetic study. That is, Africans and Asians and even Europeans were talking about mermaids for centuries before there was such a thing as a "white person." When Christopher Columbus reported seeing mermaids during his voyages he was quite clear that they were brown and furry from head to toe and not in any way mistakable for a "white person." Human is a species which is the most basic taxonomical division based on the capacity of Individuals to produce offspring. To make the claim that mermaids are half human you would have to show evidence of live births between mermaids and humans.So am I to believe that interracial organ transplants have many more complications than within-race transplants because of a socioeconomic concept?Do we prescribe BiDil to only black people because of a socioeconomic concept from the 16th century? Don’t kid yourselfLet’s just be honest with each other here: I know that you don’t care that white characters are being purposely replaced. You might even actively support it as many liberals do. But don’t try to spew out these liberal talking points that are entirely based on an egalitarian fever dream.It’s fine that you don’t care about these characters being replaced, but don’t try to cloak it in these arguments saying a clearly white character isn’t white. Don’t pretend to be naive and say this isn’t happening
The poor souls thinks there were mermaids before humans. It is the white race that found mermaids sexy.