Current Affairs The Landmarks of Slavery;

Status
Not open for further replies.
mill said:
I didn’t say it was intentional but that’s beside the point anyway.

Whether there was intention or not, the point still stands. The issue is with representation and that, whilst in isolation each individual instance might see trivial, in aggregate I can appreciate how it might be beyond frustrating. I can’t really put into words how it might make me feel.

Am I saying we should completely rewrite the now widely universal depiction of Jesus? No.

But I wouldn’t have a problem with a person of colour playing Jesus. in the same way I have no problem with a person of colour playing Bond (as the colour of his skin is implicit anyway). Just think about the reaction to a black actor playing Jesus for a moment. Imagine the reaction. When in reality it’s no less ridiculous than a white actor playing him.

I realise that that these depictions were created in the Middle Ages but they also thought that the world was flat back then and that the earth was the centre of the universe and we haven’t carried on with those traditions have we?

I think we need to be conscious of the fact that the world that we’ve built isn’t as inclusive as we like to think. And I try to consider how I would feel if my own home made me feel marginalised (even unintentionally).

There are unconscious biases that everyone holds whether they like it or not. These things have been programmed and people need to make a conscious decision to put structures in place to counteract these things.

It’s not hard. We just think we need to question and challenge things more. Like why are people of colour underrepresented in leadership positions but over represented in prison?

I do not believe that it’s because people of colour are biologically designed to be rubbish leaders and biologically more inclined to be criminal.

So I believe it’s societal. And that maybe we need to redress the balance of things.
Click to expand...
The Flat Earth point is a little bit of false equivalence wouldn't you say? Yet, I agree with the point of future representations of Jesus and anyone else to be fair.

My point is that I feel the reason why he was previously depicted in the way he has been is/was less to do with racial bias and more to do with other factors.

The same with the Devil and hence the specifically mentioned image of Michael and St George: people see it as something, but it's ignoring the original context.

That's not to say racial bias hasn't came from it or in fact it didn't play some part, but as @Tubey said it's looking through the lens of the modern eye - our zeitgiest.

People are looking back and assuming the decision was racial and questioning its appropriate because it fits the modern context, which I actually understand.

I agree with future representations and being far more considerate and challenge things in the future, and I also agree that the real issues are social - and class.

Yet, I am wary of people looking back (like with the specific St Michael and St George) and automatically implying racism and inappropriateness without knowledge.

In layman's terms: the depiction of a satanic angel is far less to do with race and more to do with the morphing of religions and images (bats etc.) to an end result.
 
PhilM said:
The Flat Earth point is a little bit of false equivalence wouldn't you say? Yet, I agree with the point of future representations of Jesus and anyone else to be fair.

My point is that I feel the reason why he was previously depicted in the way he has been is/was less to do with racial bias and more to do with other factors.

The same with the Devil and hence the specifically mentioned image of Michael and St George: people see it as something, but it's ignoring the original context.

That's not to say racial bias hasn't came from it or in fact it didn't play some part, but as @Tubey said it's looking through the lens of the modern eye - our zeitgiest.

People are looking back and assuming the decision was racial and questioning its appropriate because it fits the modern context, which I actually understand.

I agree with future representations and being far more considerate and challenge things in the future, and I also agree that the real issues are social - and class.

Yet, I am wary of people looking back (like with the specific St Michael and St George) and automatically implying racism and inappropriateness without knowledge.

In layman's terms: the depiction of a satanic angel is far less to do with race and more to do with the morphing of religions and images (bats etc.) to an end result.
Click to expand...
It is a slight false equivalency yes. But the reason why I chose it is because I was trying to make a point about the nature of racism.

I think a lot of people think of racism as just overt racism. Racism with intent. But it goes beyond that. It’s much more subtle and much more nuanced and probably beyond what a lot of people’s definition of racism actually is.

I don’t believe we have a real problem with overt racism in the way that the US does. Not in all cases as I know it goes on and it’s still a problem but not in comparison to the US. But I also I think the UK’s issues are there and are much more subtle and implicit than overt racism (overt, individual racism being what I think a lot of people’s definition of racism is). It’s why in isolation some of these things can seem silly. It looks like people are just trying to find reasons to kick up a fuss anywhere and everywhere. But the fact is there are reminders everywhere.

Tubey made an interesting point about film and white saviours and about how the majority like to see themselves in a hero.The issue is that this is perpetuating the idea of whiteness being heroic. That people can only appreciate heroism if the hero looks exactly like them. That’s not overt racism but it is an example of structural racism. The idea that it is much rarer to see a person of colour in that role. Imagine being in the minority and having heroism synonymous with whiteness. I don’t believe it’s overt or explicit or beyond pandering to the masses but it doesn’t mean it’s not the reality and it doesn’t mean that it isn’t discriminative.

I hate using the following comparison but it’s meant to be glib to illustrate a point. You know the way people get wound up because of the supposed bias to the top 4 in football. How all pundits seem to be ex liverpool and United. How coverage seems to overrepresent the top 4 relative to other teams? It’s because media are pandering to the fact the top 4 have more fans than other teams, particularly now that the PL is global. It’s a minor (Major to some) annoyance.

Imagine that bias was everywhere, in everything. Politics, education, medicine, business, media, film and tv, the arts. But it’s not based on the team you support but on an innate quality like the colour of your skin.
 
mill said:
It is a slight false equivalency yes. But the reason why I chose it is because I was trying to make a point about the nature of racism.

I think a lot of people think of racism as just overt racism. Racism with intent. But it goes beyond that. It’s much more subtle and much more nuanced and probably beyond what a lot of people’s definition of racism actually is.

I don’t believe we have a real problem with overt racism in the way that the US does. Not in all cases as I know it goes on and it’s still a problem but not in comparison to the US. But I also I think the UK’s issues are there and are much more subtle and implicit than overt racism (overt, individual racism being what I think a lot of people’s definition of racism is). It’s why in isolation some of these things can seem silly. It looks like people are just trying to find reasons to kick up a fuss anywhere and everywhere. But the fact is there are reminders everywhere.

Tubey made an interesting point about film and white saviours and about how the majority like to see themselves in a hero.The issue is that this is perpetuating the idea of whiteness being heroic. That people can only appreciate heroism if the hero looks exactly like them. That’s not overt racism but it is an example of structural racism. The idea that it is much rarer to see a person of colour in that role. Imagine being in the minority and having heroism synonymous with whiteness. I don’t believe it’s overt or explicit or beyond pandering to the masses but it doesn’t mean it’s not the reality and it doesn’t mean that it isn’t discriminative.

I hate using the following comparison but it’s meant to be glib to illustrate a point. You know the way people get wound up because of the supposed bias to the top 4 in football. How all pundits seem to be ex liverpool and United. How coverage seems to overrepresent the top 4 relative to other teams? It’s because media are pandering to the fact the top 4 have more fans than other teams, particularly now that the PL is global. It’s a minor (Major to some) annoyance.

Imagine that bias was everywhere, in everything. Politics, education, medicine, business, media, film and tv, the arts. But it’s not based on the team you support but on an innate quality like the colour of your skin.
Click to expand...
Great post this
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
Oh look - another uppity middle class white person getting offended by anything and everything.

Sooner the pubs open the better - countries gone insane.
Click to expand...

Not sure that the destruction of what proved to be vital evidence in very serious matters can be compared to the neurotic response of Karen from Weybridge on discovering Waitrose had run out of quails eggs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top