Whitewashing: Hollywood Ain't Tom Sawyer's Fence

Cross-racial casting, or hiring an actor of one racial or ethnic group to play a character of a different racial or ethnic group, is a controversial subject within the film industry. Throughout history, white actors have been cast to play Asian, Arab, and even Black characters. There are also cases of actors belonging to a nonwhite racial or ethnic group being cast as a character of a different racial or ethnic group, such as Latinas playing Asians. There are people who believe this is alright, and even should be encouraged, while others argue that it’s problematic and we should work to end it.

Those who support the practice of cross-racial acting have a variety of reasons for doing so. Within the business of filmmaking, they understand that white people are more likely to go to a movie with white actors casted, even if they’re playing the role of a nonwhite person. Because the film industry is profit-driven, this practice makes sense to ensure a larger audience. In addition, giving an actor the chance to play a character of a different race or ethnicity allows them to express themselves in a way that they usually wouldn’t be able to and lets them improve their acting ability. Finally, supporters argue that it discourages racial discrimination within the film industry. It ensures that the best actor gets the role, regardless of race or ethnicity, referred to as “colorblind casting”.

The people who oppose the practice of “racebending” believe that it causes misrepresentation of nonwhite racial and ethnic groups. By having white actors play characters belonging to other racial or ethnic groups, the majority is controlling how minority groups are represented in films, and it is very rarely accurate. Another argument against this practice is that it limits the opportunities available for actors belonging to minority groups. Hollywood writes very few nonwhite roles, so giving those roles to white actors makes it even harder for minority actors to be successful in the film industry.

I agree with those opposing cross-racial casting in the film industry. The problem of misrepresentation of minority racial and ethnic groups is rampant throughout all forms of mass media. This primarily comes from the use and perpetuation of stereotypes. To play minority characters, white actors often resort to stereotypical behaviors. Most commonly recognized, this leads to society having a skewed perception of minority groups. However, it also causes audience members belonging to a minority group to feel invisible and like they don’t have anyone representing them. As stated in the essay, “People Painted Over: Whitewashing of Minority Actors in Recent Film”, “Whitewashing deprives minority children of the feeling of normalcy that seeing a depiction of a person of their same race in a positive role would engender” (Lowrey, 7). If people belonging to the same minority group as a character can’t relate to that character, there is clearly something wrong with the actor’s representation.

The casting of white actors in minority roles also makes it harder for actors belonging to minority groups to be successful in the film business. Hollywood doesn’t provide many lead roles belonging to minority racial or ethnic groups. While most would assume that minority actors have a natural advantage to receiving those roles, the practice of cross-racial casting ensures that society’s notion of white supremacy is upheld. “There appears to be no hard and fast data on how often white actors are cast as characters of color, but some industry observers say it happens enough to raise the ire of some fans” (France). Like Professor Shah discussed in lecture on November 7, 2013, there are very few minority actors who are household names in comparison to the number of white actors we’re all familiar with. By giving the role that would naturally go to a minority actor to a white actor instead, the film industry establishes a system that doesn’t allow people of color to build their experience enough to succeed in the business, therefore perpetuating the practice of cross-racial casting.

Whether you call it cross-racial casting, whitewashing, racebending, or nontraditional casting, the practice of white actors being hired to play a character belonging to a minority group is perpetuating the institutionalized racism in the film industry. It reinforces stereotypes when the actors have to resort to stereotypical behaviors to feel like they’re accurately representing a racial or ethnic group. It also prevents minority actors from being successful in the business by giving the roles for which they’d have a natural advantage to white actors. For a country that claims to be “post-racism”, a lot of work needs to be done within Hollywood to not only give minority actors a fair shot, but to actually help them succeed.

(Okay, honesty time. I've been super busy this week and didn't have time to write a blog post for today so here's a paper I wrote this week on whitewashing and cross-racial casting in Hollywood. Sorry if some class concepts/references don't make sense, but I feel like the paper can be generalized pretty well. Next week will hopefully be a post on pro-life vs. anti-choice and the importance of words so get excited! Stay rad, pals.)

The Myth of Adoption

We’ve all heard anti-choice activists preach the idea of adoption as a more ethical alternative for abortion. I remember once upon a time, in more naïve days, saying myself that a hard life is better than no life at all. But when have orphanages ever been proven to be anything but detrimental to children?

The truth is that people who encourage a woman to put her unwanted child up for adoption either don’t understand the way orphanages and foster care work or, just as likely, believe that by convincing a woman to continue her pregnancy, she’ll grow attached and decide to keep her baby after all.

Because if anyone is actually endorsing going through pregnancy with the light at the end of the tunnel being throwing a child into an institution of rampant mistreatment and neglect, I’m not sure they should be treated as completely sane. Orphanages are often crowded so the workers aren’t able to give children the attention they need, and those are the better orphanages. These institutions have a history of being impersonal and cause children to struggle with creating and maintaining relationships.

But hey, maybe this child will be lucky enough to be put in a foster home! There are countless horror stories of couples taking in foster children to get money from the government, but then spend the money on drugs or other selfish purchases instead of the child. And if that money isn’t enough, they sometimes take in more foster children than they can care for.

Luckily, we’re moving past that, and these days most hosts in the foster system are in it because they actually want to help. That doesn’t seem to have made a significant difference in the mental and behavioral problems in children within the foster care system.

Orphanage or foster home, these kids are only being taken care of until they turn 18. Once they’re adults, they’re more or less thrown onto the streets with typically very little education.

I should mention that going through an adoption agency or picking out a person or couple who’s willing to adopt the baby is a completely different, and better, situation. However, often women don’t have access to that service or just don’t know it exists. I’m not saying adoption itself is detrimental, just the living arrangements of children waiting to be adopted.

Another adoption-related argument anti-choicers love to make is that abortion is a waste considering the number of single people and couples looking to adopt. But this also shows an ignorance to the realities of the adoption system. After all, it’s not exactly a secret that single women and same-sex couples struggle being approved to adopt. While I’m not saying adopting children should be easy, the current process is excessively time-consuming and stops many people who would make great parents from adopting. It shows a definite bias toward traditional heterosexual married couples.

I happen to believe quality of life is more important than quantity of life, which is why I believe that, especially considering these issues, abortion should be a realistic and respected option for women with unwanted pregnancies. Adoption has long been preached as the moral alternative to abortion, but I encourage you all to question what adoption really means and how moral it really is.

Stay rad, pals.

(properly citing sources is for academic college papers, not blog posts)

McLaughlin, Megan E. “Orphanages are not the solution.” 1995

Rodger, Susan, Cummings, Anne, and Leschied, Alan W. “Who is caring for our most vulnerable children?: The motivation to foster in child welfare.” 2006

In Defense of Political Activism

I think we can safely say that being educated about politics isn’t exactly trendy.  In a political environment that inherently causes conflict, we do an awfully great job trying to avoid it. Our government and country is divided distinctly in two but we like to pretend that we can hover in the middle and not choose a side. But not having an opinion doesn’t make you neutral, it just supports the majority. As it goes, if you’re not a part of the solution, you’re a part of the problem.

As a college student who is above averagely educated about current political events, I have to express how frustrating it is to try to have a spirited discussion about Obamacare or women’s reproductive rights and be met with passive silence as if these issues don’t affect everyone. I get it, you have a busy life and there are a lot of things to stay updated on, but ignoring issues won’t make them go away.

College kids love to complain about how much tuition costs and lament the fact that we’ll be paying for our education for an average of 22 years after we graduate as if it’s out of our control. But you know who sets the budget for education and therefore the tuition price? You know who controls how much money is provided for student loans? The interest rate? The people we elect. We have the power to change these things.

We get caught up on our single vote and how powerless it seems. We get overwhelmed by the number of issues that need to be addressed. We get caught up in our busy lives and lose sight of the big picture.  It’s so easy to think your vote doesn’t matter, but it’s pretty obvious through the GOP’s attempts to make voting harder for college students that it does. We have the power to make this country what we want it to be.

It’s been said many times by many people that when college kids vote, change happens. When we vote for people who put an emphasis on making education available and affordable for everyone, it happens. When we vote for people who believe in comprehensive sex education and the importance of accessible contraception, we get it. And because college kids typically lean left, the Republican Party is oh-so eager to keep us away from the polls. We need to fight back.

Start by finding one issue that you feel pretty passionate about. Research it. Solidify your opinion. Find out what the Republican Party thinks about it. Find out what the Democratic Party thinks about it. Choose a side. You might think both parties make a good argument, but look deeper into yourself and figure out what you believe to be right. It’s okay to have an opinion. It’s okay to not agree with either party on something. The world isn’t blue and red, there’s a spectrum, and as long as you have the facts, your opinion will never be wrong.

After that, you’ll hopefully feel more comfortable reading up on other issues. After a while, you’ll become comfortable taking an educated stance on issues that come up in politics. You’ll feel empowered to go to the polls to vote for your state’s attorney general. You’ll want to talk to your friends about something you read about and get their thoughts on it.

Now you’re politically active

Now you can make a difference.

Stay rad, pals.