prophecygrrl
The girl in question
Simply casting actors of different races and creating characters of color are not the same thing though. 😛
Question What if Buffy wasn't white?
- Thread starter msfantastico87
- Start date
Simply casting actors of different races and creating characters of color are not the same thing though. 😛
Why would anyone think it is? 🙂
There are only three characters on BtVS who are characterized in such a way that they defined their race: Buffy, because she was written to dismiss the helpless blonde girly cheerleader stereotype that had been so prevelant culturally in the years leading up to her creation, and therefore naturally Joyce also had to be white, too, and Willow, because of being Jewish.
With the rest of the characters there isn't anything that dictates any race at all, really. Gradually mannerisms and speech patterns do point that way, but after a couple of episodes writers tend to write with the actor in mind, so once cast it would naturally drift that way.
I have a couple of questions for you. Because of where we stand I also feel the need to say quite plainly that this isn't any kind of bait, or trap. I'm merely intrested to hear your opinon. (I do find your opinions very interesting and stimulating, even if I don't agree with some of them. 😉 )
Let me ask you :
1) Do you think, that if, say Xander was Asian and Cordelia was black the show would have been better or poorer for it? Would the writing have been lessened by the lure to fall into racial stereotypes instead of focusing on character progression?
2) If Buffy herself was, let's say Hispanic, how would the show have been then? For her to be anything other than a token or stereotype she'd have had to be immersed in Hispanic culture, language patterns and trends, and social circles. It's the original question of the thread, but a little more focused. Could this version of the show survived beyond a pilot or at best a first season? If so, why, or if not, why?
prophecygrrl
The girl in question
I'm confused as to why you bring up whether or not the established characters are defined by their race. The main argument from my side of the debate is to introduce characters of color, or have the original characters be of other races to begin with. It is not to change the narratives already established in current canon, but to have new ones.
1) I think if Xander was Asian or Cordelia was black and their narratives were handled in a way that did not stereotype them, the show would have been better for it. I think for the most part the BtVS writers should be capable of writing characters of color without relying on unfounded stereotypes. We fans certainly praise the show for its quality of writing and its inclusiveness of women and LBG folks. If it could flesh out the stories of people of color well, it would have been another mark in the 'positive' column for how BtVS succeeded as a show. Why not?
If the show falls into racial stereotypes, that is not the fault of a call for diversity. If a writer falls into the trap of writing racial tropes, it's a sign of weakness of the writer, isn't it? Similar things can be said about writers who fall into any kind of trope (lazily, I mean. Taking tropes and twisting them is another thing.).
2) I don't know whether or not Buffy would have succeeded if it had a non-white lead. That depends on the quality of writing and production. Yes, shows with good writing and follow-through get cancelled all the time, but it's been made clear that BtVS broke the glass ceiling with gender roles. It made a popular narrative out of an unlikely hero in a culture where women are often confined on the basis of gender and traditional femininity. In the context of a white-dominated society, who's to say BtVS couldn't have succeeded with a Hispanic lead, or an Asian lead, if written, explored, and produced well enough?
Having a non-white lead certainly would have been a very different show. It wouldn't be the same Buffy we know and love, but it wouldn't necessarily have been an impediment to the show's core message of empowerment. It would just be different. More difficult to introduce to a main audience too, I'm sure, but that's still not justifiable in excluding diversity, unintentional or not. Again, countless times the writers have shown they are not afraid of hard work, nor are they incapable of imagination.
BTW, in my original post, I said I thought having Buffy be white made sense in the context of the narrative and the show's original message. I'm mainly arguing in support of more diversity in the supporting cast.
I don't agree that for her to be more than a token or stereotype she'd have to be immersed in her own culture. Why? (I know you probably are not implying that immersion in culture is a bad thing, just that it would not have appealed to a broader audience. Or at least, that's what I'm assuming as I write this post.) Anyway, the narratives of POC avoid tokenism by being fully explored. Tokenism by nature exists for the illusion of diversity. True diversity and writing that allows depth beyond race is not tokenism. I am not saying that race shouldn't matter or that the solution should be to avoid the subject of a character's race, but that it is possible to both celebrate a race and not be confined by it.
---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------
Thank you! I feel cool. 😎 Hehe.
NY State of Mind
i'm gonna hire you to be my translator...i love the way you word things :)
You are confused, yes. I didn't bring that up, nor ask it. If you reread the words it is almost the opposite of what you've inferred here.
I fully understand that, and just to be quite clear, agree with you.
But we are going around and around in circles here. You are correct; any show being written today should give full representation to the people of the area, town or city in which it is set. In that context your argument is infallible. But we are not talking about a show written today, nor of one that is set in a real place, nor of a show that can be proved to be what it was due to racism itself.
If the dreaded stereotyping could have been sidestepped then certainly.
It would have been ideal, granted, but what I've said before is that is it realistic to ask so much? Not is it right to ask, but is it realistic. Is it really fair to expect one show to be able to take on every single social issue out there? Do you really feel that despite the fact the show took on one social monstrosity and defeated it, it should be condemned for not trying to do so with all the other ills of society at that time? Can anything or anyone truly fight every battle at once?
Yes, to a large degree, if they have real world experience of that race and its culture. But just because a black man lives next door to a Hispanic man doesn't immediately qualify him to be able to write about the Hispanic man or his culture on anything other than the most superficial of levels. Superficial levels often lead to stereotypes and more often than not, unintentional ones.
Of course, the way to fix that is that if you want a genuine Asian character, get an Asian writer, but quickly then you are taking things to extreme and unrealistic levels.
That's by-the-by though, and I happen to agree with you that the writing talent on the show was strong enough to "“ hopefully "“ pull it off. I just wanted to know if you thought so, too.
It could be argued that history itself answers that quite clearly. If it could have been possible in those times for such diversity then why wasn't that diversity there? Today such diversity is possible and it is here.
Agreed. A strong woman is a strong woman regardless of race.
Hmm. The combination of justifiable and unintentional in that sentence bothers me. End the sentence at the word sure and you make perfect sense and are correct, but equating something done through ignorance with something done with conscious thought is wrong. People do wrong things unintentionally all the time, but saying they are just as culpable as someone who knows their actions are wrong and still does them is misguided.
I know, yes.
(I can see clearly from the rest of your reply that you understand fully what I am about to say, but I'll say it just for the record anyway.)
By them being a token character I mean if they have an Asian character simply for the sake of having a character that is Asian to avoid this very type of debate, which a lot of shows are guilty of. Basically, if they don't try to write an Asian character, just merely write a provisionally white character and cast an Asian in the role. The character needs to come out of the writing, not the casting, otherwise it becomes a token to appease accusations of racial bias. Credibility of character, I guess.
Maybe that is the true flaw in all these LJ threads: They shouldn't be asking for shows to be recast to include minorities, they should be asking for the shows to be rewritten to include them. It's quite a major difference.
Buffy being white was a parody of horror movies where the dumb blonde gets trapped in an alley with the killer and bites it, but instead she now bites the bad guy.
Though it would have changed that aspect of the show, a Buffy of another color would have been groundbreaking. I can't imagine it, because the blonde cheerleader saving the world is what I think first attracted me to the show - this paradox. How nice was it to see all different shapes and colors with the potentials, though? Kendra, even. The primal Slayer.
There's a lot of politics that goes into such decisions but the show could've afforded more diversity. Had the show been running now I'm sure it would've had more of that.
Though it would have changed that aspect of the show, a Buffy of another color would have been groundbreaking. I can't imagine it, because the blonde cheerleader saving the world is what I think first attracted me to the show - this paradox. How nice was it to see all different shapes and colors with the potentials, though? Kendra, even. The primal Slayer.
There's a lot of politics that goes into such decisions but the show could've afforded more diversity. Had the show been running now I'm sure it would've had more of that.
Nightcrawler
Townie
I like it how it is...wouldn't change it lol...but i mean the comics now take place in Europe right?
prophecygrrl
The girl in question
Can ya clear that up for me then? I've reread it and still have no idea why it's relevant.
Uh, it wasn't that long ago. Clueless had more diversity that BtVS, okay. CLUELESS. 😱 It's set in the same time, in an even more white demographic than Sunnydale would've been, and generally avoiding relying on stereotypes...it's kind of sad, really. :/
The fact that Sunnydale isn't real really doesn't matter. By that logic I could create a town that is close to 100% white (or close to 100% anything), duck in the face of criticism and point to its fictionality to escape real-life criticism. Oh, wait. 😛 LOL, I kid, I kid. 😀
But seriously- why does the fact that Sunnydale isn't actually real matter? It's still set in California, in a mystical universe very much resembling our world. It is still meant to be a story of humanity, mortality, overcoming evil, yadda yadda. It's only common sense that a such a tale of struggle should include people from more than one race or culture. But it doesn't, and that's a problem. BtVS's characters of color (the few that are there) are usually from flashbacks, or they're just visiting evils, or in some way their narratives are almost always sublimated or truncated for our heroes'.
Whoo, back to the topic of racism. I don't mean overt/individual racism; I hardly think Joss & Co. are twiddling their thumbs in the writers room thinking of what race to exclude next. I repeat that whether or not it's intentional doesn't matter a whole lot, because it doesn't. It's a huge oversight nonetheless, and it does need to be checked. When people mention that the show is racist, we mean that it contributes to the marginalization of people of color. It excludes our stories and our voices, and assumes that whiteness is acceptable as a "default" representation of humanity. Intent doesn't matter much on the writers' part, cause it hurts just the same and the results are just the same: exclusion.
I'm quoting your paragraphs out of order, sorry, but I wanted to respond to this separately because yes, it's a separate issue.
No one is asking BtVS to fight "every single social issue out there". That's an unfair exaggeration. The original criticism (and the one I stand by) called to include one or a few more characters of color. My last post was responding to your questions, which specifically asked what could be done if the show was centered around a non-white character (a Hispanic Buffy, you mentioned), and about racial stereotypes.
No one is "condemning" it, as you say. I'm certainly not. BtVS is my favorite TV show, hands down. I'm criticizing it because I feel it needs to be criticized in this department. The function of criticism is to point out problems in the hope that things will change. I've said this.
However, the fact that you've now said this twice (that people are "condemning the show" for not tackling race, see: your original post and the one I'm quoting just now), suggests to me that these issues we bring up about race are not very legitimate to you. That we are taking issue with the show where we don't need to. This is concerning to me, and I hope it isn't true.
Uh, I don't mean to sound rude, but it seems you're the one taking things to "extreme and unrealistic levels". I don't recall demanding Asian writers for Asian characters, or Hispanic writers for Hispanic characters. We're talking about learning about other races/cultures, representing them, understanding the role race plays in society, and showing that. That doesn't erase the potential of white writers, or even black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. writers if writing for characters of races different from their own. Lacking the fundamental experiences of a person of color, or a woman, or a gay person does not mean it guarantees stereotypes or superficiality. For example, do you also believe male writers cannot write female characters? Cause...that pretty much defeats the point of Joss and Buffy. 😛
What shows are you watching? I would loooooove some diversity. 😛 I'm starved for it. Seriously. (ETA: I mean this next paragraph in American television, btw!) Cause...I'm not seeing it. There is only one non-white lead in network television as of now. One. and that's Maggie Q on the remake of Nikita (whose status as the first Asian American lead on network television is often dismissed because she is biracial). Most other shows have characters of color, yes, but most of the time they are given only passive storylines, are part of the background, or functions of tokenism/stereotypes. They've fallen into the very traps we were just discussing. Inclusion is not necessarily the same as diversity, if there's no substance to back it up.
ETA: I've forgot to mention your first part of this quoted text, whoops. Anyway.
Diversity wasn't there not because it wasn't possible. I don't understand this point at all. Change does not arise because things are suddenly possible. You make them possible. BtVS did it by having the first lesbian relationship on primetime television and by breaking out a layered, strong female protagonist into the mainstream, for example. It's quite possible to have diversity, or change. A lackthereof cannot always be simply chalked up to a product of those times/context. Again, I'm not "condemning" BtVS for anything. I see the lack of diversity as an oversight that deserves to be called out.
But that again operates on the notion that whiteness is a standard, a uniform, and all other variations of people are just meant to be accommodated. That's the attitude that's plagued Hollywood and pop culture since...ever, basically. That's the hole BtVS dug itself into with its own story construction and lack of diversity. There is nothing that says the people of Sunnydale cannot realistically be of color. Whether it's an issue of "credibility of character" is a moot point that is only fair if, once again, there is legitimate reason why having non-white characters would not be believable.
Some fans may construct Sunnydale to be a town of 80% white people (as it's been argued on this thread, for example), but then where are those 1 in 5 people of color on that show? They're not there. It would not break the illusion of reality or put the credibility of characters in jeopardy to have some color. We're talking about a town where people inexplicably die of massive blood loss and animal attacks every night and hugely traumatic events are just swept under the rug, have we forgotten? Is it so radical to have one main character of color?
Unfair exaggeration? I said it took on one important social issue and triumphed. You say "yes, but it should also have battled diversity."
Diversity is a cause you are clearly passionate about, and rightly so. But if you want to add one more social cause to its list, what is there to say it should be your cause alone, and not the cause of those with disability, or the poor, or the homeless, and on and on. Of course it is ridiculous to try to change all those things with one fell swoop, so where should it draw a line? That is what I stated at the start with "applaud it for what it did do, not what it didn't." If you are going to "criticize" the show for not doing something then you have to be fair and include the whole list of things it didn't do.
Don't you see? You claim it isn't realistically representative of California. Okay, no denying that. As I just said, where are the disabled Sunnydale characters? Where are those in Sunnydale with learning difficulties? Where are the victims of domestic violence?
Do you understand yet? I've never said what you want is wrong, just that you are not being fair.
Why you are doing what you are doing is not in question. Racism is wrong, as a daily victim of it myself I agree wholeheartedly, and you are passionate about combating that.
It's not your morals, motives or beliefs that are wrong, it is your methods. Do you not realize that holding aloft the show as a clear example of racism is redundant?
Yes, it wasn't diverse. Could it be made like that in the morally better climate of today? Not really.
You are trying to fight a ghost. You need to focus your attention upon racism that is happening now, not then. When Buffy was made there was still no chance of having a black President, but there is one now. The world has moved on and evolved. It is very far from right yet, but what you need to do is find the things of Today that need changing, not the things of back then. (and please don't misread that as me saying that racism isn't alive and active Today)
NY State of Mind
Well a half black president raised by white people with wealth ;) ...but I guess good enough
prophecygrrl
The girl in question
I promise I'm not trying to sound snarky here. If it comes off that way, I apologize in advance. I don't mean it that way. I just happen to be, well, in a snarky mood. 😉
Wait, what? Did I just imagine everyone saying to me that BtVS wasn't racist for the past few pages? That my concerns aren't legitimate? That the unrealistic whiteness of Sunnydale was a-okay? (I'm speaking of racism as it contributes to the systematic marginalization of POC, that is. Cause again, I'm not saying it was overtly hateful/racist.) I am pretty sure a lot of people have been questioning the validity of what I'm doing. That's practically all I've been doing on this thread! I don't mean to sound like some kind of ~social justice martyr~ here, but I've felt the need to defend the very existence of this problem. I think that says a lot about how people see the “why” of what I'm doing.
But racism, classism, and ableism etc. are not interchangeable forms of oppression. The people who are oppressed by these attitudes are not interchangeable either. Moreover, these prejudices are not perpetuated in the same ways. Generally speaking, systematic classism and ableism do not exist in part because of a lack of representation in pop culture. Systematic racism, on the other hand, does.
The line is pretty clear, I think, unless one is prone to slippery slope tendencies. 😉 A character of color is not (read: should not be) a radical thing to see- the homeless and the “on and on” you refer to, on the other hand, is pretty unconventional.
Whoa, whoa. I'm not singling out BtVS for exclusion of POC. Not particularly anyway. Most of my statements weren't made in *direct* reference to BtVS, but of a common phenomenon and attitude of (Western) society and culture. I'm not into fighting ghosts. LOL, do I look like a member of the Scoobies to you? 😛 No, but problematic attitudes about racism are highly prevalent, even today. We're agreed on this. So it's still important to talk about the practices and attitudes that indirectly oppress racial groups, no? Why do you think things are (at least ostensibly) “better” today in the first place? Considering the stereotypes and rampant tokenism we are presented with today, I mean. It's because people talk. Because they criticize and condemn and debate and make noise. Talking about "things of back then" is important to changing "things of Today". The climate of "Back Then" is not erased; we are not presented with a Tabula Rasa, so to speak. These attitudes are still there no matter how many pats on the back we give ourselves for being superficially inclusive or electing Barack Obama. You say you recognize this and you even warn me of misreading your words, but I'm not seeing it, not when you keep telling me I'm wrong to talk about these issues. Even the dichotomy of "Back Then" and "Today" that you set up in the post I quoted tells me otherwise.
As far as where my intentions on fighting racism go...uh, you realize the only contact you've ever had with me is on this thread, right? :/ It's a little presumptuous to tell me where and when to “focus my attention”. You have very little knowledge of the where and when of how my attention is usually distributed anyway. But...thanks for the advice? 😵
Wait, what? Did I just imagine everyone saying to me that BtVS wasn't racist for the past few pages? That my concerns aren't legitimate? That the unrealistic whiteness of Sunnydale was a-okay? (I'm speaking of racism as it contributes to the systematic marginalization of POC, that is. Cause again, I'm not saying it was overtly hateful/racist.) I am pretty sure a lot of people have been questioning the validity of what I'm doing. That's practically all I've been doing on this thread! I don't mean to sound like some kind of ~social justice martyr~ here, but I've felt the need to defend the very existence of this problem. I think that says a lot about how people see the “why” of what I'm doing.
But racism, classism, and ableism etc. are not interchangeable forms of oppression. The people who are oppressed by these attitudes are not interchangeable either. Moreover, these prejudices are not perpetuated in the same ways. Generally speaking, systematic classism and ableism do not exist in part because of a lack of representation in pop culture. Systematic racism, on the other hand, does.
The line is pretty clear, I think, unless one is prone to slippery slope tendencies. 😉 A character of color is not (read: should not be) a radical thing to see- the homeless and the “on and on” you refer to, on the other hand, is pretty unconventional.
Whoa, whoa. I'm not singling out BtVS for exclusion of POC. Not particularly anyway. Most of my statements weren't made in *direct* reference to BtVS, but of a common phenomenon and attitude of (Western) society and culture. I'm not into fighting ghosts. LOL, do I look like a member of the Scoobies to you? 😛 No, but problematic attitudes about racism are highly prevalent, even today. We're agreed on this. So it's still important to talk about the practices and attitudes that indirectly oppress racial groups, no? Why do you think things are (at least ostensibly) “better” today in the first place? Considering the stereotypes and rampant tokenism we are presented with today, I mean. It's because people talk. Because they criticize and condemn and debate and make noise. Talking about "things of back then" is important to changing "things of Today". The climate of "Back Then" is not erased; we are not presented with a Tabula Rasa, so to speak. These attitudes are still there no matter how many pats on the back we give ourselves for being superficially inclusive or electing Barack Obama. You say you recognize this and you even warn me of misreading your words, but I'm not seeing it, not when you keep telling me I'm wrong to talk about these issues. Even the dichotomy of "Back Then" and "Today" that you set up in the post I quoted tells me otherwise.
As far as where my intentions on fighting racism go...uh, you realize the only contact you've ever had with me is on this thread, right? :/ It's a little presumptuous to tell me where and when to “focus my attention”. You have very little knowledge of the where and when of how my attention is usually distributed anyway. But...thanks for the advice? 😵
NY State of Mind
nicely put :)
This Year's Girl
Grateful grapefruit
Of course race matters. It shouldn't, but it does. Claiming that focusing on the lack none white etnicities only singles out people and increases racism is basically encouraging the strategy "let's ignore the problem and hope it goes away by itself". It won't.
We have to be able to talk about things like racism and sexism. It's NOT making a vicitim of people to point out discrimination. If anything it's making a vicitim of someone to not point out the social and cultural structures that works in discriminatory ways, 'cause that would be to claim that minorities are disadvantaged because of their own volition and that the fact that white people generally have more advantages than for example black people is because white people are better.
We have to be able to talk about things like racism and sexism. It's NOT making a vicitim of people to point out discrimination. If anything it's making a vicitim of someone to not point out the social and cultural structures that works in discriminatory ways, 'cause that would be to claim that minorities are disadvantaged because of their own volition and that the fact that white people generally have more advantages than for example black people is because white people are better.
zobothehobo
Scooby
I have stayed out of this for a while because I didn't want to say something I'd regret. And I'm still not going to respond to individual points (though I'd like to). I will say this... I don't think either of you are budging and quite honestly, I'm not sure either of you are really understanding the other's points. Especially since many of the responses from the both of you seem to be "you misunderstood" or "why are you saying that?" or "I don't understand." So maybe it's a good time to shelf this convo. Your responses are getting snarkier and snarkier (and no, I'm not just referring to prophecygrrl's latest response where she apologizes for her snarkiness). Just my opinion.
Also
Also
You're just playing devil's advocate here... right? You're not seriously nit-picking at that, are you? I hate it when people nit pick at Obama being half black. Like seriously. I'm half Greek... does that make my heritage any less meaningful? Does it make it any less mine?
P
prophecygrrl
I'm pretty sure NY is kidding. Hence the winky smiley face...:)
NY State of Mind
i was being a normal new yorker wise ass lol ;) ...but I still wouldn't compare Obama to a ghetto youth coming up no matter color
*sighs* You said you were in a snarky mood, pg, and I think that may be a clue to why you and I are having such difficulties.
Rightly or wrongly, I think this debate has gone way past the point where we can calmly read a post from the other and react genuinely. I think that now either you feel angry, aggressive or just plain picked upon, and it is negatively colouring your interpretation of everything being said. Several times over the last few posts I've written a view and somehow you've managed to see the worst possible interpretation of the words, not what is actually written there.
Did you imagine everyone was saying BtVS wasn't racist? Sorry, but yes, you must have done if that is what you think. All I have been saying is that unless you know with 100% certainty that its lack of diversity has a racial cause, when there are several other possibilities out there, then it is unfair to brand it as racist. You may be totally correct and it is racism that explains the lack of diversity in the cast, but then unless you know something other people don't, you can't be sure. Its lack of diversity could have many causes other than racism, from any number of factors. As said, you could be right, but you could be wrong, too. All I have been asking of you is that you are sure before you crucify.
Did you imagine anyone saying your concerns aren't legitimate. Sorry, again, yes. I have never said your concern about lack of racial diversity isn't legitimate. Racism of any shape or form needs to be fought. To be highlighted. However, what I have been saying is that by saying that the show must have more diverse casting you are wasting time better spent on fighting racism where it exists today, not where it may or may not have done 13 years ago. If the lack of diversity in BtVS was down to racism when it started, by the end of its 7 year run they had begun to change and include different backgrounds. Slowly, true, maybe too little, also true. But it was there. I think you have such an incredible passion and eloquence for your subject that I truly feel it is a shame that it is focused somewhere where it can't be as effective as if you took the causes to the shows and standards of Today.
That the unrealistic whiteness of Sunnydale was a-okay. Ouch. If that is what you truly feel was being said then you really have been reading everything wrong. That's never been said. I've said that it may be understandable given the time period, explainable perhaps from other causes than racism, but never once have I said it was ok.
If you've felt the need to defend anything I am very sorry. It has never been intentional to make you feel that way.
Let me say again, I agree with what you are talking about. I agree with you that marginalization is a horrible thing and should be fought. I agree with your social views. Must confess, I even admire and respect your passion for it, too.
I have never meant to give you the impression you are wrong to have your ideals, or goals, or views. All I have ever tried to do is get you to direct them somewhere more appropriate, because I truly, honestly feel that using something 13 years old, and therefore unchangeable and out of date, is the wrong way to go about what you want to achieve.
If it helps, let me try to define my view as this: I am against your method of highlighting the current state of racial problem, not your doing that, nor reasons for it, nor beliefs, views, validity or passion.
I disagree with you about that. I think any kind of ostracizing, alienation, prejudice or persecution can be boiled down to a fear of "the different". If there were normal, genuine, tasteful and non-stereotypical depictions of all "isms" on TV it would go a long way to breaching the divides.
That's a pretty harsh view point. I'm not going to jump on it because I know you really weren't trying to say that race is any more valid a cause than poverty or disability. I'm still gonna hope for a world where EVERYBODY can live as equal.
I'm in full agreement with you there.
I just genuinely feel that if you want to talk about racism and lack of diversity, then it is better to do it in a modern context, therefore choose a show that is CURRENTLY guilty of it. That way you can highlight current issues and perpetrators and failings, where the spotlight will do more good.
That's a fine point. No, some things haven't changed, you are quite correct. However, some have too. These past things should never stop being talked about, nor forgotten, but there does come a point where you have to pick and choose what is appropriate to use to get what you want and what is not. It's pretty clear that you think it is appropriate to spotlight BtVS and I don't. We obviously aren't going to change each other's view of that, so let's talk about something else.
Wow, you really do feel under attack, don't you? Again, sorry, that's not what is occurring. As I've been trying to say in this post, I have no animosity toward you at all. I think you are quite right on may things. My issue is only with what I think is a redundant crusade against BtVS. And no, I don't mean battling racism is redundant, I mean using a show that has been and gone as a benchmark for the current social convention is pointless. Pointless not in its cause, but in the fact that the show cannot now change itself even if it wanted to.
Regarding "your attention" well, If you feel so aggrieved that I don't know then please enlighten me if you think this an issue. Personally, I don't, because I think your views are correct, just your method in this case is wrong, that's all.
prophecygrrl
The girl in question
Right. Typing away as usual, until I scrolled up and saw this:
A big fat no to both charges. NO 😛
But these charges do say to me that my responses aren't worth all that much. So, some basic points I've been trying to make for the past few days, without the uh, paragraph structure and ubiquitous quotation boxes:
Oi. Whether or not you approve of my "method" hardly matters. It doesn't make these points any less valid.
I'm spotlighting BtVS cause we're in a BtVS forum. It's kind of inevitable to talk about Buffy. I'm hardly concerned with changing the show itself- pretty well aware that the show is over, like I imagine all of us on a BtVS forum are as well. I'm responding to arguments that the lack of diversity on BtVS was not problematic and not (institutionally) racist. These are problematic attitudes that existed then, and problematic attitudes that obviously still exist today. But hey, throw another television show at me. Movies? Music? I'll talk about it. Well, okay. Maybe not, cause it'd be off topic and the mods would kick us off. But you get what I mean. Hopefully. Signing off now, where I'll just go off feeling horribly victimized and thinking everyone who disagrees with me is a racist. My idea of fun, LOL. 😛
A big fat no to both charges. NO 😛
But these charges do say to me that my responses aren't worth all that much. So, some basic points I've been trying to make for the past few days, without the uh, paragraph structure and ubiquitous quotation boxes:
- BtVS needed more diversity.
- Lackthereof was an oversight.
- Cause or intent behind this problem on the writers' part doesn't matter; It's part of a larger culture that institutionally excludes POC.
Oi. Whether or not you approve of my "method" hardly matters. It doesn't make these points any less valid.
I'm spotlighting BtVS cause we're in a BtVS forum. It's kind of inevitable to talk about Buffy. I'm hardly concerned with changing the show itself- pretty well aware that the show is over, like I imagine all of us on a BtVS forum are as well. I'm responding to arguments that the lack of diversity on BtVS was not problematic and not (institutionally) racist. These are problematic attitudes that existed then, and problematic attitudes that obviously still exist today. But hey, throw another television show at me. Movies? Music? I'll talk about it. Well, okay. Maybe not, cause it'd be off topic and the mods would kick us off. But you get what I mean. Hopefully. Signing off now, where I'll just go off feeling horribly victimized and thinking everyone who disagrees with me is a racist. My idea of fun, LOL. 😛
NY State of Mind
[No message]
VisionGirl
[No message]
LadyLavinia
Scooby
I believe that Sunnydale is based upon Santa Barbara, California. And Santa Barbara is not that small . . . or even white.
How do I feel about the idea of Buffy being from another ethnic group other than White American? Hmmm . . . why not? If Whedon could introduce a Jamaican vampire slayer during Season 2, why not have the lead as Jamaican or Jamaican descent? Who says that the cheerleader has to be blond and white?
zobothehobo
Scooby
Quote from Xander "You don't see much in a one starbucks town like Sunnydale" And I think it was said by Buffy in the first episode "It's SUNNYDALE how bad could it be?" No one would say that about Santa Barbara because it's not a town, it's obviously a city and the point was for Sunnydale to be a small white town you would never expect this level of violence from. If the show took place in a city like Santa Barbara, the line "It's SUNNYDALE, how bad could it be?" would have had no effect at all and been stupid and pointless... but that's kind of the whole point of the town.