Ariel Black: Good Font, Dishonest Debate
Criticizing Disney's casting choice for the live-action Little Mermaid is not about racism at it's core — it's about thoughtful analysis and meaningful discussions that the woke refuse to engage in.
While the issue may seem trivial at first glance, it serves as an example of the broader irrational thinking exhibited by some individuals who are associated with the ideology commonly referred to as "woke." It is important to address this matter because it highlights the inconsistency and flawed logic within their arguments.
The controversy surrounding Disney's casting of a black woman for the role of The Little Mermaid was mistakenly attributed to racist motives, and that narrative seemed to dominate the discussion. Initially, I had hoped that this petty "controversy" would naturally fade due to the multitude of existential threats facing the collective — historic excess deaths in countries that mass-vaccinated with mRNA vaccines, the extreme disruptions around the corner due to the rise of artificial intelligence, the rapid cementation of totalitarianism in the West, the rising threat of nuclear war due to the the U.S. provoking both Russia and China with reckless abandon — but unfortunately this first world problem has resurfaced over Sydney Agudong being selected for the live-action adaptation of Lilo & Stitch.
Certain individuals who adhere to the "woke" ideology are now expressing anger over this, despite the fact that Agudong is of Hawaiian descent. The primary complaint seems to be that she is not sufficiently dark-skinned. This is an absurd cultural distraction, but one we can’t ignore because of it’s stubborn refusal to die.
Firstly, it is crucial to recognize that criticism based on skin tone is, in fact, a manifestation of racism. What's more, it exposes the blatant hypocrisy that often accompanies these arguments.
Disney's decision to deviate from the original portrayal of Ariel as a white character to a black version was widely applauded and celebrated by liberals. But when a Hawaiian actress who happens to have a slightly lighter complexion is cast to play a Hawaiian character, it is suddenly deemed sacrilegious. This double standard undermines the credibility of the "woke" movement and demonstrates why it cannot be taken seriously.
The key point of contention lies in the inconsistent application of principles. True principles should be applied consistently, regardless of individual circumstances. By cherry-picking which instances of casting diversity to champion and which to criticize, the "woke" movement reveals a lack of intellectual integrity and undermines its own purported values.
To engage in meaningful discourse and promote genuine progress, it is imperative that we hold ourselves accountable to consistent and rational standards.
CHECKLIST-STYLE INCLUSIVITY
A growing number of people have come to recognize that the display of virtue-signaling and adherence to political correctness does not necessarily indicate a genuine commitment to fostering diversity.
Instead, it often serves as a mere checkbox exercise, lacking substance or authenticity. Within the realm of Hollywood, the so-called "woke" movement has embraced a casting approach that appears to mandate the inclusion of at least one individual from various identity groups - a gay person, a lesbian, a transgender individual, a black individual, a white individual, an Asian individual, and so on - in every production.
This casting strategy, rather than being founded on the merits of the audition or the actor's suitability for the character in terms of physical attributes reflected in the script, seems to be driven by a form of tokenism disguised as virtuous intent.
It is imperative to acknowledge that true virtue is not achieved through imposed, artificial practices. It is only through genuine merit and a sincere commitment to inclusivity that we can truly foster a diverse and representative entertainment industry.
Beyond the racial aspect, it also becomes apparent that such casting choices lack practical sensibility as well.
Let us consider, for instance, a hypothetical live-action adaptation of Aladdin set in the Middle East, but featuring an entirely Japanese cast. Those of us who possess rational thinking faculties recognize it would not be exclusionary to exclusively hire actors of Middle Eastern descent for such a production. Similarly, it would not be deemed racist to assemble a predominantly Asian cast for the live-action rendition of Mulan.
Strangely, woke activists cling to the bizarre belief that it’s somehow racist to even consider race as a criterion in casting established characters unless, of course, a white actor is the one being replaced. In the MCU, we’ve seen Sam Wilson (black) replace Steve Rogers (white) as Captain America. In that particular circumstance, such a casting choice is deemed acceptable.
But can you imagine if Chadwick Boseman were replaced with a white actor as the new Black Panther? No matter what the backstory leading up to that would be, it would never be tolerated. There would be riots.
Paradoxically, this line of thinking that racism cannot apply to white people is in itself racist, yet the framework of the woke mob conveniently overlooks this fact. It propagates the notion that white people are immune from being discriminated against, as they are always perceived as the “oppressor” by default and are therefore deemed incapable of ever being oppressed. This convoluted logic attempts to absolve itself from scrutiny and perpetuates an unequal understanding of racism.
LAZY DEFLECTIONS
In the realm of discourse, should conservatives and those aligned with the traditional values of Classic Coke liberalism — Leftists who haven’t abandoned reality — happen to hold a dissenting view, the knee-jerk response is to hastily label those voices of reason as nothing short of racist.
It is as if this assertion alone acts as a decisive trump card, effectively bringing any further conversation to an abrupt halt. No opportunity for open debate is provided, and instead, a command to simply shut up is issued. This unilateral declaration of victory, devoid of substantive engagement, seeks to establish and maintain an unwavering narrative.
There is no room permitted for a healthy exchange of ideas. It is as if a definitive proclamation of "shut up, we win" is supposed to settle the matter conclusively.
It is truly remarkable how such an approach stifles any genuine dialogue, reducing complex issues to simplistic, one-sided assertions. However, it is important to note that this particular manner of engagement fails to foster understanding or facilitate constructive discourse. In the realm of ideas, true progress is achieved through open and respectful exchanges, where all perspectives are considered. The woke mob have rejected this.
WHERE’S THE CONSISTENCY?
In Stephen King's original book, "The Shawshank Redemption", the character Red was depicted as a red-headed white individual. However, in the film adaptation, the role of Red was brilliantly portrayed by Morgan Freeman. Despite this deviation from the original character description, there was a noticeable absence of public outcry or controversy surrounding the casting choice. It was widely accepted (as it should be).
One might wonder, why did this particular alteration not elicit a strong reaction from those who are quick to accuse others of racism? The silence on this raises questions regarding the inconsistency in how casting decisions are scrutinized and how certain deviations are selectively interpreted.
This example serves to underscore the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of diversity and representation, one that extends beyond simplistic reactions and enables us to appreciate the power of exceptional performances and storytelling, irrespective of adherence to strict character descriptions.
In the film Tropic Thunder (2008), Robert Downey Jr. portrayed an Australian actor who, in turn, portrayed a highly stereotypical black character. While there were some minor complaints, they were largely insignificant. Audiences, for the most part, found humor in the portrayal rather than taking offense. Hollywood, notably, did not yield to the demands of an hyper-sensitive minority and recognized Downey's performance by nominating him for Best Supporting Actor in a comedy.
As the dissenting voices of the "woke" movement grew more vociferous, their arguments became further lacking in coherence yet their impact became puzzlingly more effective. A notable instance of this occurred when Rooney Mara was cast as Tiger Lilly in the live-action adaptation of Peter Pan (2015). The outrage expressed by these individuals stemmed from the casting of a white actress for the role of an indigenous character.
If Rooney Mara playing Tiger Lily is white-washing an indigenous character, then Halle Bailey playing The Little Mermaid is black-washing a white character. Or both are patently ridiculous, which is exactly my point.
Mara demonstrated commendable efforts to patiently respond to concerns, but she encountered a distressing wave of bullying and defamation. That relentless pressure, however irrational, eventually coerced her into offering an apology and expressing regret for her involvement in accepting the role that she’d auditioned for and earned.
The fact that an actor felt compelled to apologize merely for pursuing her profession highlights a disconcerting dynamic within the industry and broader societal discourse. It raises questions about the extent to which artistic freedom and personal choices are subject to undue scrutiny and censure.
In order to safeguard her career, Mara found herself compelled to comply with their expectations. This unfortunate pattern, characterized by external pressure dictating an actor's choices, also manifested itself in the case of Scarlett Johansson, who faced accusations of "yellowface" due to her involvement in Ghost in the Shell (2017), where an Asian character was perceived to have been whitewashed.
And again when she was cast as a trans-man in Rub and Tug.
The fervor exhibited by the "woke" faction reached such an extreme level of aggression that the film project was ultimately abandoned even before production could commence.
As a result, a Rub and Tug television series is now being developed featuring a trans-writer and trans-actor in the lead role, but notably without the involvement of Scarlett Johansson. This significant shift in direction serves as a clear reflection of the tremendous influence wielded by the zealous advocates of woke ideology and their ability to reshape the creative landscape through bullying tactics.
CARTOONS AREN’T IMMUNE
The woke celebrated when a Scooby-Doo Halloween special aired on HBO Max, explicitly depicting Velma as a lesbian. Proponents of this decision contended that expressing any criticism towards this creative choice was inherently anti-LGBT.
However, a legitimate concern emerged regarding the decision to address sexuality within a children's cartoon. The focus of the discussion ought to revolve around the appropriateness of introducing such themes to young audiences, rather than misconstruing valid queries as opposition to the LGBTQ+ community. But good luck explaining that to those afflicted with the woke mind virus...
HOW IT WAS:
One could argue that Scooby-Doo caters to a broader audience beyond children, which may somewhat justify the inclusion of Velma's lesbian identity. However, the same argument is impossible when examining the case of Disney Junior's portrayal of Gonzo as gender-fluid.
In this instance, Gonzo's presentation of a cross-dressing persona, Gonzo-rella, accompanied by the dismissal of established norms by Miss Piggy, raises legitimate concerns. The fact that this occurred within a show targeting the same demographic as Sesame Street, under the title Muppet Babies, prompts questions regarding the appropriateness of addressing complex issues like sexual identity for such a young audience.
Additionally, it leads one to question Disney's motivations in intentionally targeting an age group that is particularly susceptible to influence, potentially instilling a specific ideology at a formative stage of development. But instead of constructing an actual counter-argument, the woke dismiss anyone who even raises such concerns as somehow being transphobic.
A notable contrast can be observed when comparing the original Muppet Babies. The 1984 cartoons presented harmless, age-appropriate content that fostered creativity, imagination, and universally recognized positive values, emphasizing themes like sharing and forgiveness. It maintained an apolitical and educational approach devoid of controversy.
In stark contrast, the newer iteration has ventured into contentious territory, intertwining ideological messaging that isn’t suitable for the target audience. It has nothing to with being transphobic, but rather a legitimate concern over the subject of sexuality being presented in a cartoon made for young children.
If those who identify as "woke" were truly inclined to engage in thoughtful and open-minded introspection, rather than resorting to superficial and impulsive judgments like emotionally-stunted toddlers, they would display humility by acknowledging their flawed thinking and consequently change course. However, their unwavering arrogance has proven an obstacle to self-reflection.
As someone positioned on the political Left, I assert that the woke movement (which espouses the antithesis of liberal values) not only exhibits hypocrisy and inconsistency but also demonstrates impracticality. From a business standpoint, it doesn’t make logical sense for Hollywood to cater exclusively to a fringe group of cult-like individuals.
The all-female Ghostbusters movie from 2016, which failed to achieve the success, is a good example. It served as a reminder of the potential drawbacks and limited commercial viability when pandering to niche audiences.
SO WHAT’S THE SOLUTION?
A more commendable approach would involve the creation of original films and franchises that center around diverse casts, showcasing the unique experiences and narratives of different minority groups. Merely resorting to uninspired storytelling by remaking "white" films with race-swapping or gender-swapping, such as a black Cinderella or a gay Captain America, can be perceived as pandering to minority communities.
Wouldn’t it be better for marginalized groups to be represented in their own authentic and compelling narratives, rather than being relegated to token roles in recycled, stories? In the case of The Little Mermaid, why not just make an original film about mermaids with a predominantly black cast? Was that even discussed? Of course not. Why? Because that would require actual effort, but Hollywood is more interested in making cheap remakes and virtue-signaling as a marketing gimmick to avoid the wrath of the woke mob.
A successful example of respectful representation can be seen in the Spider-Verse movie, which introduced a black Spider-Man. However, they did not alter the established character of Peter Parker, who has been portrayed as white since his debut in 1962. Instead, they introduced a new character within the Spider-Man universe, highlighting diversity and inclusivity without undermining the original legacy.
This approach allows for the celebration of unique stories and characters that resonate with diverse audiences, promoting genuine representation and avoiding the pitfalls of mere superficial adjustments.
The creation of Miles Morales, who made his debut in Ultimate Comics: Fallout #4, provided a fresh and original narrative within a distinct universe. This introduction of a black Spider-Man brought forth an engaging story that resonated with audiences.
Interestingly, there was a notable absence of complaints or controversy surrounding this portrayal. Instead, the film adaptation of Miles Morales' story became a resounding success, garnering critical acclaim and winning numerous awards, a testament to its quality and the positive reception it received.
This example demonstrates that embracing diverse characters and narratives can lead to both commercial success and widespread acclaim, debunking any misconceptions about resistance or backlash.
YOU CAN’T PUT ART IN A BOX
Hollywood announced new criteria for films to be eligible for the Academy Award for Best Picture, which would take effect from 2024 onwards. These criteria require films to meet at least two out of four benchmarks, including representation of minority groups among the lead actors or having at least 30% of the cast and crew from these groups.
The criteria established for the Academy Award for Best Picture, as currently written, seemingly allows for films with an all-minority cast and crew to be considered without any requirement for including at least 30% representation of white individuals. This one-sided approach raises concerns about potential reverse-racism and the lack of equal imposition of race quotas.
However, the woke ideology asserts that discrimination against white individuals is not possible since they are not considered a minority. Such a claim is flawed and lacks merit. The notion that discrimination can only exist against minorities is fundamentally flawed and fails to acknowledge the importance of equality and fairness for all individuals, regardless of their racial background.
Richard Dreyfus expressed strong opposition to the Academy’s new quota system, stating that he resented being compelled to adhere to the current notion of morality as an artist. He cited Laurence Olivier's portrayal of Othello in the 1965 film, acknowledging the actor's skill despite the controversial use of blackface.
Dreyfus could have certainly communicated his viewpoint more effectively, but his overarching aim to advocate for artistic freedom, acknowledge Olivier's talent, and express concerns about imposed diversity (not genuine diversity) was discernible.
Regrettably, instead of engaging with the nuance of his criticism, the woke community swiftly labeled him as a racist yearning for the revival of blackface performances. Some even went as far as claiming that Dreyfus had never worked alongside black actors which is patently untrue.
This immediate and extreme reaction demonstrated either a genuine failure to comprehend the essence of his argument or a deliberate refusal to acknowledge it, thus showcasing a tendency to embrace outrage without fully grasping the contextual realities at play.
STOP TALKING ABOUT IT
While diversity is widely acknowledged as a positive value that should be embraced, it is equally important to recognize that hiring decisions should not be based on an individual's race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other protected characteristic. The selection process should prioritize the best audition or the most qualified candidates based on relevant criteria, just as college admissions should consider academic merit.
The ultimate outcome may not always reflect the desired level of diversity, but this should not be the primary criteria. Race should not be a determining factor in these decisions. Unless, of course, a script plainly requires it due to practical considerations, like geography. There are mostly-white characters in ‘Fargo’ (Alaska) just as there are mostly-black characters in ‘The Woman King’ (Republic of Benin). Such casts were not racially-motivated, but rather reflections of factual reality.
A notable disconnect arises among individuals who fail to acknowledge that the implementation of diversity quotas, even if well-intentioned, can perpetuate genuine racism. The notion of setting arbitrary targets based on race or gender or sexual orientation inadvertently reinforces discriminatory practices and undermine the principles of meritocracy. And the impact of injecting woke ideology in children’s programming is, on it’s face, blatantly inappropriate.
It is crucial to recognize that true progress towards inclusivity and equality is rooted in creating a level playing field that allows individuals to excel based on their abilities and qualifications, rather than imposing quotas that perpetuate bias, undermine individual achievement, and provoke further division instead of less.
Such quotas are counter-productive most especially to the purported goals of liberalism.