Anyone got a feeling this won't get made?

[TriBel]

I don't want Buffy's race to be a plot point or defining characteristic. It shouldn't matter what colour someone's skin is, unfortunately given the current climate, I doubt that Buffy's race won't be made into a storyline for an episode.

Of course Buffy's race was a defining characteristic. Just because she's not labelled "white" doesn't mean her whiteness doesn't define her. Her race is exnominated simply because she's of the racial majority. It's taken as the norm. Is she ever referred to as the white slayer (in the same way Kendra's referred to as the black slayer - genuine question)? In addition, any element of plot that foregrounds history/historiography (eg. Pangs) must tacitly acknowledge her race because PoC have a different relationship to history (and a different history) than white people. Look at Nikki in Tales of the Slayers who has a poster of Malcolm X on her wall. I do think the show made a bit of a hash of representing minorities but, as @forbuss says, it's self aware. Hence in S7, Buffy stereotypes Wood as "from the Hood" and we have Rona's comment "'Cause the black chick always gets it first?"

I take on board local demographics but (just been reading an article on flip zones) it appears suburbs in the US "have grown more racially diverse, more educated, more economically prosperous and more liberal". If that's the case, then the setting becomes the same but different. To be perfectly honest, I'd appreciate any reboot with a black Buffy that acknowledged racial difference. They can do a BtVS/Roots hybrid for all I care. I'd want to know what would happen if a black slayer had been called during slavery or the Jim Crow years. Race makes a difference. Look, for instance, at Walter Mosley's black private detective Easy Rawlins - he's written in the wise-cracking tradition of Marlowe and Archer but, because of his race, he has access to spaces they didn't (and is similarly barred from others). I'd hope for similar acknowledgement of race in a new BtVS. Lucifer manages it without being clunky (and the Lucifer writers acknowledge their debt to BtVS). Look at Hill Street Blues (10 years before BtVS and which, along with Mad Men, was nominated for more Emmys than any other TV series). It's not blind to race; in fact, from the pilot it makes race central to the narrative. In what way is that deficient or lesser TV (and yes - I'm aware of the different setting/genre so it's not a direct comparison)?

Identity politics needs to stay the hell away from any Buffy show. It's divisive and the moment a show starts going "woke" , the audience is going to start dropping like flies especially if they don't agree with the narrative and agenda being pushed.

"Identity politics" existed before the term was invented!

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Of course Buffy's race was a defining characteristic. Just because she's not labelled "white" doesn't mean her whiteness doesn't define her.

So you're saying Buffy is nothing more than the colour of her skin, the content of her character doesn't count? If victimhood is applied to a skin colour, does that mean someone of that skin colour can be nothing more than a victim since their skin colour defines them?

Skin colour should be immaterial. If you want to normalise something you treat it as normal, not treat it as "special". Nobody would have issue with a black Buffy if she just so happened to be black, but to make her skin colour the sum of her character, to make the driving force of a show a character's skin colour, that's just wrong.

Her race is exnominated simply because she's of the racial majority. It's taken as the norm.

So theoretically if you treated black Buffy's skin colour as the norm by not making it a plot point or a defining characteristic then it will be accepted as a norm.

Look at Nikki in Tales of the Slayers who has a poster of Malcolm X on her wall.

So what? Will had a poster of Malcolm X on his wall in Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Malcolm X was an influential black person alongside Martin Luther King. People like pictures of those they are fans of.

Hence in S7, Buffy stereotypes Wood as "from the Hood" and we have Rona's comment "'Cause the black chick always gets it first?"

Rona was a moaner, and in my view, her "black chick always gets it first" is her playing the race card. She got caught fair and square and is trying to push blame onto Spike rather than accept her own failure. "I got caught because he's racist" is easier for her to accept than "I got caught because I made a mistake".

As for Wood, whether he's from the "Hood" or not, he is clearly a successful black man who went to college, earned a degree and is now the principal of a school.

"Identity politics" existed before the term was invented!

Perhaps, but it wasn't being forced down people's throats to the extent it currently is by the far left.

 

[TriBel]

So you're saying Buffy is nothing more than the colour of her skin, the content of her character doesn't count?

Of course I'm not (how stupid do you think I am? Rhetorical question...don't bother to answer). I'm saying her "character" is influenced/partly formed by the colour of her skin. She acknowledges this in Pangs.

Rona was a moaner,

Agree...weren't they all?

She got caught fair and square and is trying to push blame onto Spike rather than accept her own failure.

What? I think you're missing the meta-textuality here (and the mise-en-scene of the prologue - I think it's the prologue) It was a throw away aside; a telling quip. She doesn't "blame" Spike until the second remark: "I'm dead because he's a vampire. I don't have slayer strength, slayer speed—i-it wasn't a fair fight". And Buffy agrees with her: "You're right. You don't have slayer strength. But that doesn't mean that you're not strong".

As for Wood, whether he's from the "Hood" or not, he is clearly a successful black man who went to college, earned a degree and is now the principal of a school.

And...your point is? She still presumes he's from "the Hood".

People like pictures of those they are fans of

Personally, I think there's a difference between Malcolm X and New Kids on the Block* but...whatever. (NB: I have no idea who NKOTHB are).

Perhaps, but it wasn't being forced down people's throats to the extent it currently is by the far left.

Meh...I prefer "made visible".

PS. I love the fact that one of the meanings of Rona/Rhona is "the fair one or white haired".

 

[DeadlyDuo]

And...your point is? She still presumes he's from "the Hood".

Point is that Robin's skin colour didn't stop him from being successful. The "Hood" is poverty not a place. If he came from "the Hood" then he clearly didn't let it hold him back, he worked hard and became successful, if he wasn't from the Hood (apparently he moved to Beverly Hills with Nikki's watcher) then his upbringing was a more stable environment.

Theoretically Robin could've been born in "the Hood" since Nikki was a single mom who may not have had a job since she put slaying first because "the mission is what matters". We don't know how much financial support she got from her watcher and it was only after her death that the watcher raised Robin as his own and moved with him to Beverly Hills. New York in the 70s probably had more "Hoods" than it does today, especially as it was still a close time period to the civil rights movement.

Meh...I prefer "made visible".

And the left wing media prefers to call violent riots "mostly peaceful protests".

 

[Spanky]

New York in the 70s probably had more "Hoods" than it does today,

New York in the 70s had more of everything than it does today. Certainly character being the biggest thing.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

I don't actually think the Producers had any real plans to make a series, it was just a way to inflate Fox's value prior to the merger. So, claiming a black showrunner and a black lead does make you less of of a target for the Diversity consultant grift, since you really don't want your brand new fake series to acquire either the wrath of woke Twitter, or a useless and expensive diversity consultant who needs to be paid off, but won't do anything for you, except call off woke Twitter.

 

[TriBel]

Point is that Robin's skin colour didn't stop him from being successful.

Nobody said it did - although he does point out that he only got the job because no one else would do it. And...you still haven't explained why Buffy stereotypes him. Why she PRESUMED he came from "the Hood".

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Nobody said it did - although he does point out that he only got the job because no one else would do it. And...you still haven't explained why Buffy stereotypes him. Why she PRESUMED he came from "the Hood".

Because he mentioned how he kept telling everyone that a guy had "better sleep with one eye open" because Wood was "gonna bust his ass" and how talk like that is "taken pretty seriously" where Wood "comes from". And let's be honest, "the Hood" is characterised as a black thing. Can white folks come from "the Hood"?

So Buffy presumed Wood came from "the Hood" because he was talking like someone from the media's portrayal of "the Hood" would talk. The point is there was more than just Wood's skin colour that made her think that.

 

[Spanky]

Wood was "gonna bust his ass" and how talk like that is "taken pretty seriously" where Wood "comes from"

If you hail from Amish country arresting one's donkey is taken pretty serious indeed.

 

[BansheeSerenade]

So you're saying Buffy is nothing more than the colour of her skin, the content of her character doesn't count?

This is the most hypocritical nonsense I have ever seen you post... and that's really saying something. This is literally the way you behave about the notion of Buffy being black, as if that would be the most defining thing about her and the actual content of her character wouldn't matter because "they're just being woke because she's black."

 

[DeadlyDuo]

This is the most hypocritical nonsense I have ever seen you post... and that's really saying something. This is literally the way you behave about the notion of Buffy being black, as if that would be the most defining thing about her and the actual content of her character wouldn't matter because "they're just being woke because she's black."

Did you bother to read the post I was quoting? @TriBel said:

Of course Buffy's race was a defining characteristic. Just because she's not labelled "white" doesn't mean her whiteness doesn't define her.

Skin colour should not define a person. I've said in other posts that black Buffy's race shouldn't be a plot point.

 

[BansheeSerenade]

Yes I did bother to read, thank you. TriBel is correct in saying that Buffy is defined by her whiteness in the same way the reboot Buffy will probably be defined by her blackness. Your race, ethnicity, socio-economic background, the size of your family, everything about you defines who you are so it's ridiculous to expect a black person to never acknowledge the fact that they are black.

The fact is, unfortunately, you can't pretend race doesn't exist. You can't pretend a black person would have the same experience in life as a white person, it just isn't realistic. So to ask for a black Buffy to ignore the fact she is black so that you can feel more comfortable... it just makes you part of the problem. We should be celebrating her blackness, not asking her to pretend it doesn't exist (this is called code switching, in case you didn't know, trying to make yourself as palatable to white people as possible).

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Yes I did bother to read, thank you. TriBel is correct in saying that Buffy is defined by her whiteness in the same way the reboot Buffy will probably be defined by her blackness. Your race, ethnicity, socio-economic background, the size of your family, everything about you defines who you are so it's ridiculous to expect a black person to never acknowledge the fact that they are black.

So you go around acknowledging your skin colour do you? And you acknowledge the skin colour of someone who isn't the same race as you? What traits define "whiteness" and "blackness"?

Victimhood is assigned to black people by white liberals because of their skin colour with the whole "slavery happened and ended centuries ago but we're going to use it as an excuse to loot and riot and then call it "protest". Therefore if victimhood is a part of "blackness" and people are defined by the colour of their skin, then by your logic, black Buffy is going to be defined by her victimhood.

The fact is, unfortunately, you can't pretend race doesn't exist. You can't pretend a black person would have the same experience in life as a white person, it just isn't realistic.

Nobody has the same experience in life as someone else because people are individuals and react to things in different ways. A rich person is going to have different experiences than a poor person, however that is nothing to do with skin colour. Jaden and Willow Smith, children of two millionaire black actors, are going to experience more opportunities in life than a white kid living in poverty.

So to ask for a black Buffy to ignore the fact she is black so that you can feel more comfortable... it just makes you part of the problem. We should be celebrating her blackness, not asking her to pretend it doesn't exist (this is called code switching, in case you didn't know, trying to make yourself as palatable to white people as possible).

How is not assigning colour to people a bad thing? Why do you want black Buffy to be a victim?

 

[BansheeSerenade]

Can you please point out to me where I said black people are victims or where I said I would like to see a black Buffy be a victim?

 

[Btvs fan]

It's based on Santa Barbara - in the 2000s SB was 74% white and only 1.8% African American. I can understand the argument about wanting to show greater diversity than is reality because otherwise minorities will feel very invisible, but I think the modern woke push to not just diversify but to condemn anything that isn't diverse as 'problematic' does ignore the reality of actual statistics and that real demographics aren't 'problematic'... they're just fact.

Plus, diversity means a lot more than including black characters, although 9 times out of 10 that is what someone means when they talk about the lack of diversity on a show like Buffy. The racial make up of Santa Barbara in the 2000s was 35% Hispanic or Latina ... compared to 1.8% African American. If it's a question of showing real, diverse communities - the question shouldn't be where are the black characters? it should be where the hell are the hispanic characters?

There's Ampata, there's a janitor that Cordelia talks to (yells at) in the wishverse and there's Caridad, one of the background potentials. That doesn't really stack up in importance and visibility against: Kendra, Mr. Trick, Principal Wood, Nikki Wood, Rhona and Forrest

I would argue thats more of an issue with Angel with its LA setting where there are huge diverse groups. Yet until Gunn shows up in WarZone there's virtually no one around of colour, while the one Hispanic guy is a gangster who Angel threatens in 5by5.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Can you please point out to me where I said black people are victims or where I said I would like to see a black Buffy be a victim?

I didn't say you said black people are victims. I said that victimhood is assigned to black people by white liberals because of the colour of their skin. Therefore, by your logic of someone's skin colour defining them, then victimhood=black=black Buffy ergo black Buffy being defined by victimhood because of her skin colour.

 

[Spanky]

Buffy being defined by victimhood because of her skin colour.

But wasn't TV Buffy defined by her victimhood initially? She felt trapped because of who she was. The whole thing was that Buffy was, in fact, a victim. That's what made the turn in the finale that much worse, because she in turn victimized all of the other innocent women.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

But wasn't TV Buffy defined by her victimhood initially? She felt trapped because of who she was. The whole thing was that Buffy was, in fact, a victim. That's what made the turn in the finale that much worse, because she in turn victimized all of the other innocent women.

As you said though, Buffy was a victim because of WHO she was, not what colour she was.

 

[Taake]

As you said though, Buffy was a victim because of WHO she was, not what colour she was.

I would argue that it was because she is a woman. So if one wants to get intersectional here (though I am not a fan of it) her color may have mattered less than her gender but both were factors in the formation of WHO Buffy was.

Just like being a very pretty girl is also a factor (compare her to Willow*) or her socioeconomic background (compare her to Faith)

A black Buffy's race could never be the sum of her character either. How would you write that character for more than a long ad or something?

If I am getting you right, the concern is more about how overtly political the ideology of a new Buffy would be, and that it would make use of race to represent that ideology in a hamfisted way.

I can see that in that case, I just read Atlas Shrugged, narratives that preach to you are annoying.

But that race is immaterial is more of a lovely theory than a practical reality. How a black Buffy would be characterized I’ll leave up to the future to tell, but I am sure that both her race and gender will play a part, just like with current Buffy, to hopefully make an interesting human character told in a compelling manner for a wide audience.

*I am not saying Willow is unattractive, but Buffy is clearly more conventionally ”pretty” in the context of the show

 

[Myheadsgonenumb]

I would argue thats more of an issue with Angel with its LA setting where there are huge diverse groups. Yet until Gunn shows up in WarZone there's virtually no one around of colour, while the one Hispanic guy is a gangster who Angel threatens in 5by5.

It is a bit weird to think that, in both shows, the English have better representation than non-white Americans.