"You can chalk up his origins to white imperialism or privilege or whatever you want. But ultimately he’s been around for nearly forty years; he is what he is. To take modern day sensibilities and layer it onto a character created in the 1970s in order to completely change the character is ridiculous. Especially when those sensibilities are so narrowly curtailed along racial cliches that the thought is, “He knows kung fu; therefore he must be Asian!” Peter David
Peter has been wrong before, and he's wrong here too in accepting the status quo and saying "he is what he is." That is the very definition of white privilege. Again, you don't have to "completely change" Danny to fix the problem, but the problems with his origin need to be addressed. If you really need to keep Danny white (which I actually do think is important in terms of his relationships with Luke Cage and Misty Knight, but only in those terms), change K'un-Lun and its inhabitants and you can pretty much keep the rest. It's not like Danny Rand is that complicated a character.
Also, for what it is worth, looking at David's original post, he seems to only address the push to cast an Asian actor as Danny Rand, which is not what @nweathington was advocating, rather than addressing whether or not the origin story can, or should, be tweaked.
So this is not about whether they need to lessen the way the origin fits into a history of cultural appropriation tropes (or whether or not this character should get a show at all). I feel like what David is saying, more specifically, is that casting an Asian actor is not the solution to that baggage, and would actually end up reinforcing a different, longstanding racial stereotype. (And I agree.)
So I feel like what David is saying is, "Here is why changing him from white to Asian changes the character" rather than his making a pitch for why the character and origin, "as it is" is not going to be problematic to the Netflix audience of 2017, and may need to be (will probably be) modernized.
I have the epic collection of Iron Fist, and I concede that Gil Kane's art is steeped in stereotypical Asian imagery, and Roy Thomas's words were stylized versions of what was presented in the kung-fu craze movies of the time ("dragons", "jade", "fighting stances", and names like "Yu-Ti" and "Lung-Wang"). So, yes, there's a hefty bit of Orientalism there. Then there is K'un-Lun, the pseudo-Asian society in a mystical land of martial artists instead of a modern Asian civilization. It was a place hidden from civilization in the Himalayas, which is a mountain range in Asia. And Kunlun mountains is in China. So I'm not sure how that origin was racist other than those that think Danny Rand shouldn't have been a white kid. As Peter David said, "he is what he is."
I'm nearly certain that the Netflix series will focus more on the Matt Fraction Immortal Iron Fist aspects than on the ret-con of it being an alien race hidden in the Kunlun Mountains or Himalayas, which is probably the angle that most people found racist and actually was not part of the original tales by Thomas and Kane. The alien origins are pretty absurd, but the mystical Asian city near Tibet? Not that far a stretch for there to be Asians living there. Sure, this depiction of Asia may be shopworn and clichéd, but at the time Thomas and Kane were reflecting and amplifying a vision of Asia that was very common in pop culture and though It may have been casually insensitive, it was not implicitly espousing "white privilege." Besides, a white martial arts expert was further outside the mainstream at the time than it is now. In fact, I think many people found it to be compelling. I don't think that should be attributed to racism or "white privilege" either.
And speaking of "white privilege", there ought to be a moratorium on the term as it promotes that individuals should be judged, not by their words, deeds, actions, and character, but by their skin color. In this respect, the campaign against “white privilege” is in and of itself racist. It promotes the idea that “white” people should perpetually feel guilty about their skin color and self-sacrificially work to serve the allegedly non-privileged. Railing against “white privilege” is a mixture of the morality of self-sacrifice and the atrocity of racism, yet the term is a horrible, destructive narrative that I find extremely divisive.
All terms can be misapplied. And of course I wouldn't presume to speak for everyone who has (mis?) used it, and what their intent was.
I will just say, for what it is worth to add another take to the discussion, that my experience is that when the term white privilege is invoked, it is not being set up as a monolith to be taken down, nor a campaign to make anyone feel guilty about who they are. It has not been presented to me as something that simple, or that aggressive.
Rather, that, if one has an interest in understanding life experiences outside of their own, it would help if they are aware of what, unasked for, unsought, privileges can come of being born white.
As a white man, I don't see acknowledging the existence of white privilege as a guilt trip, or even a responsibility or burden. It is not that I am born with some percentage of reparations in my ledger to make good on. Rather, I see it as just having an awareness of the cultural and historical factors that might make your own life experience- both day to day, and in your family's history and experience- different than others. And from that awareness can come better understanding, communication, and empathy around other points of view (that final one is of particular interest to me, as someone who as a theater teaching artist, often works with young people, and devises work with people whose life experience is very different from my own.) And that the awareness of the existence of that privilege- which you yourself did not actually create or ask for, you were just born into it- IS the action item. Not guilt, or debt. Just awareness, and acknowledgement that the privilege you are born into exists.
Again, I am not saying that some don't use the term in the way you are talking about. Terms get misapplied or leveraged in negative ways all the time. But I will just say when I was taught the idea, and in the many conversations I have had around it as a trained educator, I don't see the term being deployed in a way that matches your experience of it. Again, that is not to invalidate your experience. But, instead, to say I don't think your definition of the idea of it, intellectually, includes the way everyone uses that term.
Also, you seem to be interchanging the term “white privilege” with “white savior complex” when they are not the same thing. The Iron Fist origin has nothing to do with white privilege. I brought the term in to describe Peter David’s dismissal of the idea that Iron Fist’s origin shouldn't be changed.
White Savior Complex comes from the justification of colonial expansion as being “for the good” of the indiginous people. It's identical to the Manifest Destiny justification of America’s western expansion. And that is what the Iron Fist origin is guilty of. Looking at that story in a vacuum, you can easily say that there is nothing wrong with it. But there have been decades’ worth of literature, both fiction and non-fiction, which used similar storylines as a means of espousing the white man’s superiority. The Iron Fist origin is a case of guilt by association. As I said earlier, at this point the intent of the story’s creators doesn’t matter, the association is there regardless.
White privilege comes in when we simply shrug our shoulders and say, “Oh well, what's done is done,” and accept the status quo of the results of colonial expansion because there is no short-term way to undo the damage done to the millions of people it affected, especially now that generations have passed. It has nothing to do with guilt when applied correctly. It is the acknowledgement that whites are in an extremely advantageous position in our society based on how whites treated people of other races in our past, and that many things whites take for granted because of those advantages aren't necessarily de rigueur for non-whites. As David said, it is meant to be a tool for better communication and understanding.
Thanks @David_D - setting your experience and my experience with the term aside, it is difficult to keep on-topic when a racially loaded term is being used. It should certainly not be a catch-all phrase to be used lightly when skin color is evoked. I don't expect everyone to be colorblind, but if we're all created equal, then we should act like it. I suspect there are "white" Jews and Irish from that era and earlier that would ask "what white privilege?" if applied to them.
No one should ever judge another person by the color of their skin, black or white. Each individual deserves to be judged, not by their color of their skin, but by the actions and “content of his character.”
Understanding other cultures comes down to education and experience, but assuming that Peter David is epitomizing "white privilege" because he sees no compelling reason to alter Danny Rand's skin color, or assuming Roy Thomas and Gil Kane were racist because of fictitious Oriental aspects of Iron Fist's origin story, is a bit much. I wouldn't exactly equate it to Mickey Rooney's 'Mr. Yunioshi', however I'm also in the camp that thinks the internet kerfuffle over Marvel keeping IF white is absurd.
@David_D hit it right on the head. White Savior Complex comes from the justification of colonial expansion as being “for the good” of the indiginous people. It's identical to the Manifest Destiny justification of America’s western expansion. And that is what the Iron Fist origin is guilty of. Looking at that story in a vacuum, you can easily say that there is nothing wrong with it. But there have been decades’ worth of literature, both fiction and non-fiction, which used similar storylines as a means of espousing the white man’s superiority. The Iron Fist origin is a case of guilt by association. As I said earlier, at this point the intent of the story’s creators doesn’t matter, the association is there regardless.
I would submit that anyone that sees "White Savior Complex" in the story of Danny Rand is actively looking for it. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is FAR more guilty of WSC storytelling than Iron Fist, as is Avatar or Stargate. In fact, the UN, the Peace Corps, the Red Cross, Caritas, CARE, American and European armies, and so on – interact with and attempt to “improve” local communities which sounds a lot more like classic WSC than Roy Thomas and Gil Kane's Iron Fist origin story.
Danny Rand being taught martial arts in a hidden city and growing up to be a street level hero in his hometown doesn't strike me as fitting the model of WSC as these other examples do. I'd be very interested any argument how it fits the model of the WSC trope and furthermore, how it's problematic.
@David_D hit it right on the head. White Savior Complex comes from the justification of colonial expansion as being “for the good” of the indiginous people. It's identical to the Manifest Destiny justification of America’s western expansion. And that is what the Iron Fist origin is guilty of. Looking at that story in a vacuum, you can easily say that there is nothing wrong with it. But there have been decades’ worth of literature, both fiction and non-fiction, which used similar storylines as a means of espousing the white man’s superiority. The Iron Fist origin is a case of guilt by association. As I said earlier, at this point the intent of the story’s creators doesn’t matter, the association is there regardless.
I would submit that anyone that sees "White Savior Complex" in the story of Danny Rand is actively looking for it. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is FAR more guilty of WSC storytelling than Iron Fist, as is Avatar or Stargate. In fact, the UN, the Peace Corps, the Red Cross, Caritas, CARE, American and European armies, and so on – interact with and attempt to “improve” local communities which sounds a lot more like classic WSC than Roy Thomas and Gil Kane's Iron Fist origin story.
Danny Rand being taught martial arts in a hidden city and growing up to be a street level hero in his hometown doesn't strike me as fitting the model of WSC as these other examples do. I'd be very interested any argument how it fits the model of the WSC trope and furthermore, how it's problematic.
Personally, I would agree there are certainly stronger examples in literature of a pro-imperialist white savior trope, as Kipling might have put it, 'The White Man's Burden' (I wouldn't agree with all the ones you cited, and am going to keep the focus on fiction). But I do think, if left untouched, the Danny Rand Iron Fist origin sets itself up to seem like a story of cultural appropriation. Essentially the log line of--
Rich white kid ends up orphaned in the 'Far East', gets taken in and trained by secret martial arts group so that he can take revenge against the killer of his parents. Ends up beating all the natives at their own martial arts tournament, to claim the mantle of their champion, THE IRON FIST!
Is a little fraught. An idea that maybe has not aged too well. Imagine that same set up, but a white kid gets taken in by a fictionalized American Indian nation after they find him lost in the Rockies, but then he grows up with them, and ends up beating all his peers in some made up ritual test of combat and is declared the new Chief, to lead and defend them all!
Now, that sounds like a lot of old boys adventure stories. And there is probably something in literature just like that. But, from a 2017 perspective... feels a little tone deaf to issues of cultural appropriation.
I don't think the intent was racist, and I don't think I have used that word up until now to describe it, nor would I. To me, that suggests a racist intent. And I don't think that was what Thomas and Kane were up to. Rather, they were just being derivative. They were making a character to glom onto a trend of the time. And ended up taking on a trope common to the pulps (and Thomas loved his pulps), inspired by a kung fu movie of the time, as well as the prior character of Amazing Man, and off they went. I think that, maybe, they didn't think about it that much (which is also why I don't believe they were out to consciously enable any racial tropes). That is the way that being derivative can go. And I also think it is telling that the stories that followed, including the ones that bring Rand to New York, and later partner him with Luke Cage, are the ones written by Wein and Claremont. So I don't know that Thomas spent that long on this one. Or, to judge from his own answer as to how he felt about the characters he created for Marvel in an interview from a few years ago:
Q: During your long tenure at Marvel, you created some of the most memorable characters there (The Vision, the Dane Whitman Black Knight, Havok, Iron Fist, Ultron, Ms. Marvel, and the list goes on). Are there any characters you're particularly proud of?
THOMAS: I don’t think I created a lot of major characters, but I’m happy with those that I co-created. In many cases I was trying to work with characters and concepts that were pre-existing so that I wouldn’t create characters that I wouldn’t end up owning a piece of. The thing I’m happiest about was being the co-creator of Wolverine; I never wrote him but I gave him the name and a few physical and character traits to writer Len Wein, who carried the ball from there...
I think the origins of Iron Fist, and Thomas has confirmed these, were very pre-existing. And I think they connect with the tradition of white-adventurer-heads-to-the-Orient-to-appropriate-the-culture stories that the pulps and pop culture of the 70s were full of. I don't blame Thomas and Kane for being derivative of the culture of that time. But it is why I think the origin story has not aged well. (And, is likely to be tweaked to distance itself from those tropes. And, maybe, to also seem a little less like the first act of Batman Begins. We'll see.)
Rich white kid ends up orphaned in the 'Far East', gets taken in and trained by secret martial arts group so that he can take revenge against the killer of his parents. Ends up beating all the natives at their own martial arts tournament, to claim the mantle of their champion, THE IRON FIST!
Is a little fraught. An idea that maybe has not aged too well. Imagine that same set up, but a white kid gets taken in by a fictionalized American Indian nation after they find him lost in the Rockies, but then he grows up with them, and ends up beating all his peers in some made up ritual test of combat and is declared the new Chief, to lead and defend them all!
Now, that sounds like a lot of old boys adventure stories. And there is probably something in literature just like that. But, from a 2017 perspective... feels a little tone deaf to issues of cultural appropriation.
Tone deaf? Perhaps, but these creators can't predict the future. Enabling "racist tropes" is not quite the same as invoking "white privilege." Is the story derivative, yes. It also followed Marvel recent creation of Shang-Chi, which was also derivative, but racist? Adopting 2016 sensibilities, or this "new think" (which presupposes that "old think" was wrong or bad or that we must distance ourselves from it) should not always be the case.
The three films I mentioned (Stargate, IJatToD, and Avatar) all include the "white savior" coming to the rescue of an impoverished culture of another color. This is not the story of Iron Fist. For, while he is white, he was escaping the attacks of a white man, was trained by (ostensibly) Asian benefactors in their secret arts, and became one of the best pupils based on his singular desire for revenge, and then set out to kill the white man that killed his white father. For what it's worth, Iron Fist was defeated by Zhou Cheng, a servant of Ch'l-Lin. He was trained by Lei Kung, whose son, the Steel Serpent, defeated Danny Rand several times. He was not made the chief of K'un-L'un nor was he their "savior" at all or the best they ever had. And the ethnicity of his trainers is both tertiary and integral in that martial arts originated in Asia. Perhaps there have been additional stories since his origin that I'm unaware of that support your perspective, but it hasn't been my experience so far. Then again, I'm only halfway through my Epic Collection.
As for the idea of ‘cultural appropriation’ - you can certainly find it in Iron Fist, again, if you're looking for it. But the very fact that people get upset over this new thought-crime sums up something rotten in today’s intensifying politics of identity. It’s fueled by the nearly-racist idea that mixing cultures is bad. It has even led to a yoga class on a college campus having to be shut down because people said it was "racist". These cultural purists who think black people, and red people, and yellow people, and white people should stick to their own cultural camps are being empowered and enabled by many of the same people that easily see Iron Fist as another tired, outdated, racist trope.
I respect your opinions to the contrary, but I guess I'm just not in that camp.
Heck, one of my favorite b-movies is Berry Gordy's The Last Dragon, do you have any clever classifications for that film that are appropriate to the topic other than it was low-grade, simple-minded, kung-fu fun? That's how I took it, and I don't feel like feeling guilty for enjoying a guilty pleasure like that movie, or any of the others I mentioned or a bronze age comic. And if Marvel wants to keep Danny Rand white and slightly tweak the sillier aspects of his origin story, it's their toys to play with as they wish.
@bralinator to be clear, and because I, personally, am not looking to drift into a lot of other anecdotes and generalities about culture... The lens I am looking at Iron Fist's origin story is that of a 2017 Netflix show.
I reject some of your broad assertions that anyone even discussing the intellectual idea of cultural appropriation in fiction is the stuff of nearly-racist thought police looking to keep people apart and make you feel guilty. Honestly, if that is your starting place, and what you saw in my or others literary criticism of a comic book from 40 years ago... then I think I'm going to just pass on that sidebar. You can put my opinions in that labeled box if you need to, but I think it is a real stretch. The notion that cultural appropriation exists, and is the stuff of a lot of older literature, particularly in stories about American and European men adventuring abroad, is not a fringe position. It is mainstream scholarship.
So my post was about how a 2017 audience might look at that origin if Marvel Studios go ahead with it as it is.
So, no, I am not expecting the 1970s creators to see the future. I wasn't calling *them* tone deaf, as I was pretty clearly talking about how it would look to a modern audience if met as a new thing (which, again, is how most of them will meet it) rather than judging them for their 1970s choices from a 2017 perspective. I don't think a 2017 audience will agree with Peter David that, "He is what he is", because, first, they probably have never heard of him before, and second, they now have seen enough things from Marvel Studios to be aware that there is a big catalog of characters for them to choose from. So to choose him in 2017 is to choose him for 2017, when you have a lot of choices.
My point was not judging Thomas or Kane as having bad intent. But rather suggesting that the people adapting this show have their work cut out for them.
My point was not judging Thomas or Kane as having bad intent. But rather suggesting that the people adapting this show have their work cut out for them.
Agreed. 100%
And as I think I've also stated, I'm nearly certain Marvel will tweak the origin enough to be palatable to today's modern audience, but I don't care if they upset the twitter shaming mobs or the PC police who jump on anyone who doesn't agree with them or their ideology.
Most of those clutching their pearls over it are just indulging in standard-issue one-upsmanship, which happens in dozens of other political-ideological-cultural factions.
I also happen to agree with comic creator Peter David. And my earlier point was that it should perfectly fine for the character of Danny Rand to be white because he is white and it isn't racist for him to be white. And furthermore, I don't agree that the character's origin is a "1930's white savior" trope as I've pointed out that he doesn't fit that model. If you want to rebut that, feel free.
My point was not judging Thomas or Kane as having bad intent. But rather suggesting that the people adapting this show have their work cut out for them.
Agreed. 100%
And as I think I've also stated, I'm nearly certain Marvel will tweak the origin enough to be palatable to today's modern audience, but I don't care if they upset the twitter shaming mobs or the PC police who jump on anyone who doesn't agree with them or their ideology.
Most of those clutching their pearls over it are just indulging in standard-issue one-upsmanship, which happens in dozens of other political-ideological-cultural factions.
I also happen to agree with comic creator Peter David. And my earlier point was that it should perfectly fine for the character of Danny Rand to be white because he is white and it isn't racist for him to be white. And furthermore, I don't agree that the character's origin is a "1930's white savior" trope as I've pointed out that he doesn't fit that model. If you want to rebut that, feel free.
For what it is worth, I have no need to align your position with something I need to insult, dismiss, or condescend to. I have not lumped you in with any crowd that needs to be labeled or mocked. But you seem to need to do that with the side you disagree with.
You have said you respect my differing opinion, but does it show in these labels you are throwing around, or this straw man you are building of what you imagine the opposing view to be?
I would just ask you to reflect on the need to do that. Despite railing against those who are quick to judge, most of the most judgmental language in this discussion is coming from you.
What does it get us in this discussion? Especially one where, I think, you are being listened to?
Did I lump you in with the twitter shame mob? Or a PC policeman? No. That may align with your opinion, but that doesn't mean you are part of that mob. It still exists. You seem to be reading that into my response @David_D - please re-read it again for clarity. I am also wondering why you don't rebut my point and instead keep returning to appearing as though you are offended somehow. Did you miss it?
I also happen to agree with comic creator Peter David. And my earlier point was that it should perfectly fine for the character of Danny Rand to be white because he is white and it isn't racist for him to be white. And furthermore, I don't agree that the character's origin is a "1930's white savior" trope as I've pointed out that he doesn't fit that model. If you want to rebut that, feel free.
Did I lump you in with the twitter shame mob? Or a PC policeman? No. You seem to be reading that into my response @David_D - please re-read it again for clarity. I am also wondering why you don't rebut my point and instead keep returning to appearing as though you are offended somehow. Do you not have a rebuttal that is on point?
I am not offended, though you have described positions like mine several times as clearly looking for offense. For several posts now, that has been the intent you have accused-- that if you see this story as an example of a well-established literary trope, then that is because you are LOOKING to make that accusation, and that is a representative of newspeak, a hunt for thought-crime, etc. etc. You can re-read your own posts if you want. I have not said anything about what you intend with your opinions, or that you were looking for offense (though there seems to be plenty of things that have been mentioned that are out to get you.)
If you are not trying to connect my opinions with the shaming, newspeaking, thought police, if you don't think they are in this conversation, then why spend so much time talking about them? Why always diagnose the way the people that disagree with you think the way they do?
I feel like the inference between the positions you are cartooning and my own is pretty clear. And, even if it is meant to be nothing to do with me, or those participating in the discussion, it still feels like a lot of stones being thrown against those who see it differently than you do (while, at the same time, accusing them of judging you). I just find it interesting that, in this discussion, the people disagreeing with you are being a lot kinder and less judgmental about it, in general.
As for the idea of ‘cultural appropriation’ - you can certainly find it in Iron Fist, again, if you're looking for it.
So you keep returning to these quotes and suggest you take offense at them. Again, not offering a rebuttal to my argument. Yes, 2-3 people here may have verbally disagreed with me. But I have no quarrel with any of them nor did I call anyone a liar or any names. Just waiting for someone to rebut my point. I was told my position was wrong but they didn't back it up.
If my choice of words is too harsh for your sensibilities, then I'll keep quiet about the point and not return to this thread until someone offers a serious rebuttal instead of positioning themselves as offended at my tone.
As for the idea of ‘cultural appropriation’ - you can certainly find it in Iron Fist, again, if you're looking for it.
So you keep returning to these quotes and suggest you take offense at them. Again, not offering a rebuttal to my argument. Yes, 2-3 people here may have verbally disagreed with me. But I have no quarrel with any of them nor did I call anyone a liar or any names. Just waiting for someone to rebut my point. I was told my position was wrong but they didn't back it up.
If my choice of words is too harsh for your sensibilities, then I'll keep quiet about the point and not return to this thread until someone offers a serious rebuttal instead of positioning themselves as offended at my tone.
As usual, I am not suggesting you keep quiet.
If you are saying the many names you've thrown around to describe the opposite view are supposed to not have anything to do with the people you are disagreeing with in this conversation, then I believe you. And sorry to have mistaken your intent.
And I am honestly missing what point it is that you are waiting to have addressed. We've had a lot of paragraphs in your posts devoted to the people that are not in this discussion, and that those of us that disagree with you are not being compared to, so I actually no longer know what point you are waiting to have rebutted.
...it is difficult to keep on-topic when a racially loaded term is being used. It should certainly not be a catch-all phrase to be used lightly when skin color is evoked.
I for one have never used the terms “white savior complex” or “white privilege” as catch-all phrases, but rather to describe very specific concepts, and I think I used both terms correctly, as I understand them, in this thread.
I suspect there are "white" Jews and Irish from that era and earlier that would ask "what white privilege?" if applied to them.
I really dislike this argument because it's not an equivalent comparison. For the most part, Jews (even European Jews) from the colonial and post-colonial era were not considered to be white. I don't think that public perception really started to change until the 1900s. As for the Irish, once slavery was abolished from the Caribbean and Montserrat and wherever else England sent the Irish slaves and indentured servants, they were able to go back to being treated as whites. Not to take anything away from their suffering, but they were able to recover their social status—in fact, there were many Irish landowners in the same areas where many of their countrymen were slaves during that era—while slaves of other colors had no social status to recover within Western culture.
Understanding other cultures comes down to education and experience, but assuming that Peter David is epitomizing "white privilege" because he sees no compelling reason to alter Danny Rand's skin color, or assuming Roy Thomas and Gil Kane were racist because of fictitious Oriental aspects of Iron Fist's origin story, is a bit much.
I thought I made it clear in my first response, but I have not said anything in regards to Danny Rand’s skin color except that it doesn't really matter if he's white or Asian, except for when it comes to his relationships with Luke Cage and Misty Knight, in which case it is important that Danny be white. When I labeled Peter David’s statement as being an example of white privilege, I was talking about his dismissal of the entire origin story as being “is what it is.”
You, me, Peter David, and every other white person have never been negatively affected by the racist tropes of the colonial-era fiction that are the source of the story type that the Iron Fist origin is based on. We are in a position that we cannot fully appreciate how hurtful or insulting those tropes may or may not be to someone of color. Because of that, it is easy for us to completely dismiss—or simply not recognize—any problematic connections in that Iron Fist story. We can read the story without feeling our culture, our background, or our identity has been demeaned—but not everyone necessarily can. That is white privilege.
It's nothing to be ashamed of, but it is something we should be aware of. And if we can avoid causing further hurt by making a simple change (again, I'm only talking about changing K’un-Lun) that won't even affect the basic core of the character, why shouldn't we make that change?
As for Roy and Gil Kane, here's what Roy said about the creation of Iron Fist: “When I saw my first Hong Kong kung fu movie in the early '70s (Five Fingers of Death) and it contained a ritual called "The Iron Fist," I decided that would make a good name for a Marvel hero to take advantage of this coming trend, and asked Gil to work with me on it. Except for the name, I had not fleshed out the idea.
“Gil, a lifelong admirer of Bill Everett's pre-Sub-Mariner hero Amazing-Man from the Centaur Comics Group, reeled off for me the origin of ‘A-Man,’ which contained a Shangri-La clone and a group of enigmatic figures headed by the hooded Great Question. All these elements were incorporated into our joint plot, though we stuck around only for Iron Fist's origin (in Marvel Premiere #17) then turned the feature and a few basic concepts over to Len Wein, who worked with artist Larry Hama on the second story.”
Okay, so Iron Fist was based heavily on Amazing Man. Amazing Man in turn was based heavily on James Hilton’s extremely popular 1933 novel, Lost Horizon, which is where Shangri-La was created. K’un-Lun is basically Shagri-La. They both feature nearly immortal residents who live in a hidden area in the Tibetan mountains, who are not allowed to return to the world outside. In the novel, a British government officer eventually becomes the High Lama of this mystical land hidden in the Tibetan mountains after being there a fairly short time, while the native monks who have lived in Shangri-La all their lives serve under him.
Now, when Lost Horizon first came out, it was wildly popular. In fact it became what is now considered to be the first mass market paperback. And at the time, it wasn't considered to be racist (nor was the 1937 film adaptation, but there was a huge outcry over racism in the 1973 musical film adaptation—times and perceptions change). And, as with the Iron Fist origin, taken in a vacuum, it doesn't appear to be racist—certainly ridiculous, but not necessarily racist. But when taken in the context of the colonial and post-colonial fiction that came before it that featured similar themes and storylines, it is plainly visible that Hilton, whether consciously or (more likely) unconsciously, did the same thing as Roy and perpetuated the white savior tropes created by his predecessors. The placing of an English gentleman in the setting of an exotic, mystic land of tranquility seems innocent enough, but then placing that white gentleman into the highest position of respect and power in a place he hardly knows calls up—whether Hilton meant it to or not—the ingrained racist tropes of decades of stories. Tropes that had been in place so long as to become invisible to the casual reader.
No one here accused Roy or Gil Kane of being racist. Having known Roy for years, I can say that I know he is not racist. He may have been a bit lazy when it came to writing this particular story perhaps, but not racist. If you want to argue that Roy changed enough of the source material that it's become inconsequential (no, Iron Fist does not become the equivalent of High Lama as Conway does in the novel), you are welcome to do so, but to my eyes it is a case of guilt by association at the very least. Again, why not make a slight tweak and remove all lingering connections to the problematic tropes?
I have more to say, but I think this post, and this entire discussion, has probably outlived its welcome. Let's go talk about some comic books.
i had already addressed the Peter David quote, and why I think the origin might be problematic to a modern audience. If you want to play the game of, then 'XYZ is worse', then go for it. It is not for me to address other works and defend the claim that Iron Fist is the worst offender because I clearly don't believe that and didn't make that claim. Not have I called it racist, or said the primary concern is that it is a GWS story. What I have been talking about is why a modern audience might look at it as a piece of cultural appropriation (from a sort of fake, generalized amalgam of cultures). That is a related but different thing than what happens in IJ TOD, and I have never seen Avatar.
(Also, for what it is worth, TOD was problematic to even the audiences of 30 years ago. I think there is a reason why Last Crusade got the franchise back to Indy vs. Nazis stories. If you remember/ look at how TOD was received at the time, it may not have gotten the pass you think it did. And that was before Twitter.)
But more importantly, I was not dealing in superlatives- you can name all the other examples you want. There are many, that is why they are a trope. But unless they have been free lit to be a show for people in 2017, they don't relate to my point about what an audience might make of an Iron Fist show if they stay true to the original origin.
I said what I said. I think I was clear in what the concerns of the origin might be, and why as a piece of pop culture it has not aged well. I don't see the need to defend a line of argument that I wasn't making in the first place.
If you want to argue that Roy changed enough of the source material that it's become inconsequential (no, Iron Fist does not become the equivalent of High Lama as Conway does in the novel), you are welcome to do so, but to my eyes it is a case of guilt by association at the very least. Again, why not make a slight tweak and remove all lingering connections to the problematic tropes?
First, the Iron Fist story doesn't fit the White Savior narrative it's being accused of. Iron Fist does not become the king or high lama or even the savior of the civilization he enters. He is trained and becomes ONE of the best there, but then he leaves the mystical land with his new abilities to exact a revenge of which he is unable to achieve. It doesn't fit the narrative at all (other than him being white).
Is it racist that the people in the Himalayas were portrayed as Asian or that they taught Danny Rand martial arts? Of course not. Those mountains are in Asia and martial arts originated in the Asian culture. The real problem for those that are upset is that Marvel kept Iron Fist white. And all this sturm und drang seems to generally be coming from the same crowd that thought Johnny Storm's skin color should not matter. But suddenly Danny Rand's skin color should matter? Or the color of his benefactors?
By this standard, we should be making melanin tweaks to all kinds of "White Savior-esque" stories, like Tarzan, The Phantom, and even Superman in order to make them more palatable for today's hyper-sensitive audience. Isn't anyone else lamenting that we now live in a society that seems to think everything is racist? From a reality star's haircut to a long-time football emblems. Even movies based on true stories are now called racist. It's time we saved the “that’s racist” accusations for situations that actually warrant it.
The real problem with the current trend towards this “everything is racist” hyper-awareness is that it minimizes the meaning of the word. If everything is "racist", then nothing is racist and actual racism goes unchecked — or is at least is more easily ignored. Being vigilant against real bigotry is indeed a worthwhile posture, but I think it should involve taking racism more seriously instead of looking for it in everything that involves a white person being heralded or helped by people of color. In fact, terms like "White Savior" and "white privilege" are just as racist as "black power" or "white pride" and should stop being used altogether because these terms target people specifically on their skin color.
So, I do not accept the term "White Privilege" or any other racist derogatory term when addressing people or their work. It promotes the politics of racial strife and frames any opposing views as "bad thinking" within a false lens of racism (i.e. "Peter David is wrong"). It doesn't matter how gracious, open-minded or even how non-racist they actually are (Roy Thomas, Gil Kane, Peter David, et al), they're somehow still "guilty by association" to some historical racist trope. C'mon.
If everyone is supposed to be treated the same, then it should apply to all skin colors and we should stop using politically charged, divisive terms like "white privilege". If we keep trying to dig up things from past in order to find more evidence of racism, then we will never get past it.
Speaking of moving past things, I'm happy to move past this discussion and on to more important things, like spandex and super heroes.
Speaking of moving past things, I'm happy to move past this discussion and on to more important things, like spandex and super heroes.
Absolutely. Skin colour aside, I'm way more concerned that the Netflix show might axe Iron Fist's adorable, little yellow slippers. Talk about a core element of the character!
Absolutely. Skin colour aside, I'm way more concerned that the Netflix show might axe Iron Fist's adorable, little yellow slippers. Talk about a core element of the character!
NO WAY!! I will begin a petition immediately! Stand by for a link to change.org :)
Speaking of moving past things, I'm happy to move past this discussion and on to more important things, like spandex and super heroes.
Absolutely. Skin colour aside, I'm way more concerned that the Netflix show might axe Iron Fist's adorable, little yellow slippers. Talk about a core element of the character!
Marvel and DC keep eliminating booties. Who is my toddler daughter and her soon to be here brother going to look up too?
She pretty much only knows the Hulk, but he isn't really the kind of role model I want her to have. As is they both run around barefoot and no one likes them when they are angry.
She pretty much only knows the Hulk, but he isn't really the kind of role model I want her to have. As is they both run around barefoot and no one likes them when they are angry.
Ha HA! I remember when my daughter (a devote Marvel Zombie) was two or three, she was convinced that Hulk was always angry because his hair was so messy. Which makes perfect sense.
@David_D I think you might be onto something. There are times when kids come off is intelligent, insightful little creatures that want to explore and push their mental/physical limits. Then they have an epic meltdown because they chose the purple bib, but wanted the orange one.
I had never thought about that before; I could write a few Hulk vs. Stories based on my daughter. Hulk vs Princesses the army. Hulk vs. Nap Dr. Doom
Comments
So this is not about whether they need to lessen the way the origin fits into a history of cultural appropriation tropes (or whether or not this character should get a show at all). I feel like what David is saying, more specifically, is that casting an Asian actor is not the solution to that baggage, and would actually end up reinforcing a different, longstanding racial stereotype. (And I agree.)
So I feel like what David is saying is, "Here is why changing him from white to Asian changes the character" rather than his making a pitch for why the character and origin, "as it is" is not going to be problematic to the Netflix audience of 2017, and may need to be (will probably be) modernized.
I'm nearly certain that the Netflix series will focus more on the Matt Fraction Immortal Iron Fist aspects than on the ret-con of it being an alien race hidden in the Kunlun Mountains or Himalayas, which is probably the angle that most people found racist and actually was not part of the original tales by Thomas and Kane. The alien origins are pretty absurd, but the mystical Asian city near Tibet? Not that far a stretch for there to be Asians living there. Sure, this depiction of Asia may be shopworn and clichéd, but at the time Thomas and Kane were reflecting and amplifying a vision of Asia that was very common in pop culture and though It may have been casually insensitive, it was not implicitly espousing "white privilege." Besides, a white martial arts expert was further outside the mainstream at the time than it is now. In fact, I think many people found it to be compelling. I don't think that should be attributed to racism or "white privilege" either.
And speaking of "white privilege", there ought to be a moratorium on the term as it promotes that individuals should be judged, not by their words, deeds, actions, and character, but by their skin color. In this respect, the campaign against “white privilege” is in and of itself racist. It promotes the idea that “white” people should perpetually feel guilty about their skin color and self-sacrificially work to serve the allegedly non-privileged. Railing against “white privilege” is a mixture of the morality of self-sacrifice and the atrocity of racism, yet the term is a horrible, destructive narrative that I find extremely divisive.
All terms can be misapplied. And of course I wouldn't presume to speak for everyone who has (mis?) used it, and what their intent was.
I will just say, for what it is worth to add another take to the discussion, that my experience is that when the term white privilege is invoked, it is not being set up as a monolith to be taken down, nor a campaign to make anyone feel guilty about who they are. It has not been presented to me as something that simple, or that aggressive.
Rather, that, if one has an interest in understanding life experiences outside of their own, it would help if they are aware of what, unasked for, unsought, privileges can come of being born white.
As a white man, I don't see acknowledging the existence of white privilege as a guilt trip, or even a responsibility or burden. It is not that I am born with some percentage of reparations in my ledger to make good on. Rather, I see it as just having an awareness of the cultural and historical factors that might make your own life experience- both day to day, and in your family's history and experience- different than others. And from that awareness can come better understanding, communication, and empathy around other points of view (that final one is of particular interest to me, as someone who as a theater teaching artist, often works with young people, and devises work with people whose life experience is very different from my own.) And that the awareness of the existence of that privilege- which you yourself did not actually create or ask for, you were just born into it- IS the action item. Not guilt, or debt. Just awareness, and acknowledgement that the privilege you are born into exists.
Again, I am not saying that some don't use the term in the way you are talking about. Terms get misapplied or leveraged in negative ways all the time. But I will just say when I was taught the idea, and in the many conversations I have had around it as a trained educator, I don't see the term being deployed in a way that matches your experience of it. Again, that is not to invalidate your experience. But, instead, to say I don't think your definition of the idea of it, intellectually, includes the way everyone uses that term.
Also, you seem to be interchanging the term “white privilege” with “white savior complex” when they are not the same thing. The Iron Fist origin has nothing to do with white privilege. I brought the term in to describe Peter David’s dismissal of the idea that Iron Fist’s origin shouldn't be changed.
White Savior Complex comes from the justification of colonial expansion as being “for the good” of the indiginous people. It's identical to the Manifest Destiny justification of America’s western expansion. And that is what the Iron Fist origin is guilty of. Looking at that story in a vacuum, you can easily say that there is nothing wrong with it. But there have been decades’ worth of literature, both fiction and non-fiction, which used similar storylines as a means of espousing the white man’s superiority. The Iron Fist origin is a case of guilt by association. As I said earlier, at this point the intent of the story’s creators doesn’t matter, the association is there regardless.
White privilege comes in when we simply shrug our shoulders and say, “Oh well, what's done is done,” and accept the status quo of the results of colonial expansion because there is no short-term way to undo the damage done to the millions of people it affected, especially now that generations have passed. It has nothing to do with guilt when applied correctly. It is the acknowledgement that whites are in an extremely advantageous position in our society based on how whites treated people of other races in our past, and that many things whites take for granted because of those advantages aren't necessarily de rigueur for non-whites. As David said, it is meant to be a tool for better communication and understanding.
No one should ever judge another person by the color of their skin, black or white. Each individual deserves to be judged, not by their color of their skin, but by the actions and “content of his character.”
Understanding other cultures comes down to education and experience, but assuming that Peter David is epitomizing "white privilege" because he sees no compelling reason to alter Danny Rand's skin color, or assuming Roy Thomas and Gil Kane were racist because of fictitious Oriental aspects of Iron Fist's origin story, is a bit much. I wouldn't exactly equate it to Mickey Rooney's 'Mr. Yunioshi', however I'm also in the camp that thinks the internet kerfuffle over Marvel keeping IF white is absurd.
Danny Rand being taught martial arts in a hidden city and growing up to be a street level hero in his hometown doesn't strike me as fitting the model of WSC as these other examples do. I'd be very interested any argument how it fits the model of the WSC trope and furthermore, how it's problematic.
Now, that sounds like a lot of old boys adventure stories. And there is probably something in literature just like that. But, from a 2017 perspective... feels a little tone deaf to issues of cultural appropriation.
I don't think the intent was racist, and I don't think I have used that word up until now to describe it, nor would I. To me, that suggests a racist intent. And I don't think that was what Thomas and Kane were up to. Rather, they were just being derivative. They were making a character to glom onto a trend of the time. And ended up taking on a trope common to the pulps (and Thomas loved his pulps), inspired by a kung fu movie of the time, as well as the prior character of Amazing Man, and off they went. I think that, maybe, they didn't think about it that much (which is also why I don't believe they were out to consciously enable any racial tropes). That is the way that being derivative can go. And I also think it is telling that the stories that followed, including the ones that bring Rand to New York, and later partner him with Luke Cage, are the ones written by Wein and Claremont. So I don't know that Thomas spent that long on this one. Or, to judge from his own answer as to how he felt about the characters he created for Marvel in an interview from a few years ago: I think the origins of Iron Fist, and Thomas has confirmed these, were very pre-existing. And I think they connect with the tradition of white-adventurer-heads-to-the-Orient-to-appropriate-the-culture stories that the pulps and pop culture of the 70s were full of. I don't blame Thomas and Kane for being derivative of the culture of that time. But it is why I think the origin story has not aged well. (And, is likely to be tweaked to distance itself from those tropes. And, maybe, to also seem a little less like the first act of Batman Begins. We'll see.)
The three films I mentioned (Stargate, IJatToD, and Avatar) all include the "white savior" coming to the rescue of an impoverished culture of another color. This is not the story of Iron Fist. For, while he is white, he was escaping the attacks of a white man, was trained by (ostensibly) Asian benefactors in their secret arts, and became one of the best pupils based on his singular desire for revenge, and then set out to kill the white man that killed his white father. For what it's worth, Iron Fist was defeated by Zhou Cheng, a servant of Ch'l-Lin. He was trained by Lei Kung, whose son, the Steel Serpent, defeated Danny Rand several times. He was not made the chief of K'un-L'un nor was he their "savior" at all or the best they ever had. And the ethnicity of his trainers is both tertiary and integral in that martial arts originated in Asia. Perhaps there have been additional stories since his origin that I'm unaware of that support your perspective, but it hasn't been my experience so far. Then again, I'm only halfway through my Epic Collection.
As for the idea of ‘cultural appropriation’ - you can certainly find it in Iron Fist, again, if you're looking for it. But the very fact that people get upset over this new thought-crime sums up something rotten in today’s intensifying politics of identity. It’s fueled by the nearly-racist idea that mixing cultures is bad. It has even led to a yoga class on a college campus having to be shut down because people said it was "racist". These cultural purists who think black people, and red people, and yellow people, and white people should stick to their own cultural camps are being empowered and enabled by many of the same people that easily see Iron Fist as another tired, outdated, racist trope.
I respect your opinions to the contrary, but I guess I'm just not in that camp.
Heck, one of my favorite b-movies is Berry Gordy's The Last Dragon, do you have any clever classifications for that film that are appropriate to the topic other than it was low-grade, simple-minded, kung-fu fun? That's how I took it, and I don't feel like feeling guilty for enjoying a guilty pleasure like that movie, or any of the others I mentioned or a bronze age comic. And if Marvel wants to keep Danny Rand white and slightly tweak the sillier aspects of his origin story, it's their toys to play with as they wish.
I reject some of your broad assertions that anyone even discussing the intellectual idea of cultural appropriation in fiction is the stuff of nearly-racist thought police looking to keep people apart and make you feel guilty. Honestly, if that is your starting place, and what you saw in my or others literary criticism of a comic book from 40 years ago... then I think I'm going to just pass on that sidebar. You can put my opinions in that labeled box if you need to, but I think it is a real stretch. The notion that cultural appropriation exists, and is the stuff of a lot of older literature, particularly in stories about American and European men adventuring abroad, is not a fringe position. It is mainstream scholarship.
So my post was about how a 2017 audience might look at that origin if Marvel Studios go ahead with it as it is.
So, no, I am not expecting the 1970s creators to see the future. I wasn't calling *them* tone deaf, as I was pretty clearly talking about how it would look to a modern audience if met as a new thing (which, again, is how most of them will meet it) rather than judging them for their 1970s choices from a 2017 perspective. I don't think a 2017 audience will agree with Peter David that, "He is what he is", because, first, they probably have never heard of him before, and second, they now have seen enough things from Marvel Studios to be aware that there is a big catalog of characters for them to choose from. So to choose him in 2017 is to choose him for 2017, when you have a lot of choices.
My point was not judging Thomas or Kane as having bad intent. But rather suggesting that the people adapting this show have their work cut out for them.
And as I think I've also stated, I'm nearly certain Marvel will tweak the origin enough to be palatable to today's modern audience, but I don't care if they upset the twitter shaming mobs or the PC police who jump on anyone who doesn't agree with them or their ideology.
Most of those clutching their pearls over it are just indulging in standard-issue one-upsmanship, which happens in dozens of other political-ideological-cultural factions.
I also happen to agree with comic creator Peter David. And my earlier point was that it should perfectly fine for the character of Danny Rand to be white because he is white and it isn't racist for him to be white. And furthermore, I don't agree that the character's origin is a "1930's white savior" trope as I've pointed out that he doesn't fit that model. If you want to rebut that, feel free.
You have said you respect my differing opinion, but does it show in these labels you are throwing around, or this straw man you are building of what you imagine the opposing view to be?
I would just ask you to reflect on the need to do that. Despite railing against those who are quick to judge, most of the most judgmental language in this discussion is coming from you.
What does it get us in this discussion? Especially one where, I think, you are being listened to?
-->
If you are not trying to connect my opinions with the shaming, newspeaking, thought police, if you don't think they are in this conversation, then why spend so much time talking about them? Why always diagnose the way the people that disagree with you think the way they do?
I feel like the inference between the positions you are cartooning and my own is pretty clear. And, even if it is meant to be nothing to do with me, or those participating in the discussion, it still feels like a lot of stones being thrown against those who see it differently than you do (while, at the same time, accusing them of judging you). I just find it interesting that, in this discussion, the people disagreeing with you are being a lot kinder and less judgmental about it, in general.
If my choice of words is too harsh for your sensibilities, then I'll keep quiet about the point and not return to this thread until someone offers a serious rebuttal instead of positioning themselves as offended at my tone.
If you are saying the many names you've thrown around to describe the opposite view are supposed to not have anything to do with the people you are disagreeing with in this conversation, then I believe you. And sorry to have mistaken your intent.
And I am honestly missing what point it is that you are waiting to have addressed. We've had a lot of paragraphs in your posts devoted to the people that are not in this discussion, and that those of us that disagree with you are not being compared to, so I actually no longer know what point you are waiting to have rebutted.
I keed, I keed.
You, me, Peter David, and every other white person have never been negatively affected by the racist tropes of the colonial-era fiction that are the source of the story type that the Iron Fist origin is based on. We are in a position that we cannot fully appreciate how hurtful or insulting those tropes may or may not be to someone of color. Because of that, it is easy for us to completely dismiss—or simply not recognize—any problematic connections in that Iron Fist story. We can read the story without feeling our culture, our background, or our identity has been demeaned—but not everyone necessarily can. That is white privilege.
It's nothing to be ashamed of, but it is something we should be aware of. And if we can avoid causing further hurt by making a simple change (again, I'm only talking about changing K’un-Lun) that won't even affect the basic core of the character, why shouldn't we make that change?
As for Roy and Gil Kane, here's what Roy said about the creation of Iron Fist: “When I saw my first Hong Kong kung fu movie in the early '70s (Five Fingers of Death) and it contained a ritual called "The Iron Fist," I decided that would make a good name for a Marvel hero to take advantage of this coming trend, and asked Gil to work with me on it. Except for the name, I had not fleshed out the idea.
“Gil, a lifelong admirer of Bill Everett's pre-Sub-Mariner hero Amazing-Man from the Centaur Comics Group, reeled off for me the origin of ‘A-Man,’ which contained a Shangri-La clone and a group of enigmatic figures headed by the hooded Great Question. All these elements were incorporated into our joint plot, though we stuck around only for Iron Fist's origin (in Marvel Premiere #17) then turned the feature and a few basic concepts over to Len Wein, who worked with artist Larry Hama on the second story.”
Okay, so Iron Fist was based heavily on Amazing Man. Amazing Man in turn was based heavily on James Hilton’s extremely popular 1933 novel, Lost Horizon, which is where Shangri-La was created. K’un-Lun is basically Shagri-La. They both feature nearly immortal residents who live in a hidden area in the Tibetan mountains, who are not allowed to return to the world outside. In the novel, a British government officer eventually becomes the High Lama of this mystical land hidden in the Tibetan mountains after being there a fairly short time, while the native monks who have lived in Shangri-La all their lives serve under him.
Now, when Lost Horizon first came out, it was wildly popular. In fact it became what is now considered to be the first mass market paperback. And at the time, it wasn't considered to be racist (nor was the 1937 film adaptation, but there was a huge outcry over racism in the 1973 musical film adaptation—times and perceptions change). And, as with the Iron Fist origin, taken in a vacuum, it doesn't appear to be racist—certainly ridiculous, but not necessarily racist. But when taken in the context of the colonial and post-colonial fiction that came before it that featured similar themes and storylines, it is plainly visible that Hilton, whether consciously or (more likely) unconsciously, did the same thing as Roy and perpetuated the white savior tropes created by his predecessors. The placing of an English gentleman in the setting of an exotic, mystic land of tranquility seems innocent enough, but then placing that white gentleman into the highest position of respect and power in a place he hardly knows calls up—whether Hilton meant it to or not—the ingrained racist tropes of decades of stories. Tropes that had been in place so long as to become invisible to the casual reader.
No one here accused Roy or Gil Kane of being racist. Having known Roy for years, I can say that I know he is not racist. He may have been a bit lazy when it came to writing this particular story perhaps, but not racist. If you want to argue that Roy changed enough of the source material that it's become inconsequential (no, Iron Fist does not become the equivalent of High Lama as Conway does in the novel), you are welcome to do so, but to my eyes it is a case of guilt by association at the very least. Again, why not make a slight tweak and remove all lingering connections to the problematic tropes?
I have more to say, but I think this post, and this entire discussion, has probably outlived its welcome. Let's go talk about some comic books.
(Also, for what it is worth, TOD was problematic to even the audiences of 30 years ago. I think there is a reason why Last Crusade got the franchise back to Indy vs. Nazis stories. If you remember/ look at how TOD was received at the time, it may not have gotten the pass you think it did. And that was before Twitter.)
But more importantly, I was not dealing in superlatives- you can name all the other examples you want. There are many, that is why they are a trope. But unless they have been free lit to be a show for people in 2017, they don't relate to my point about what an audience might make of an Iron Fist show if they stay true to the original origin.
I said what I said. I think I was clear in what the concerns of the origin might be, and why as a piece of pop culture it has not aged well. I don't see the need to defend a line of argument that I wasn't making in the first place.
Its been like 20 essay back and forth.
Is it racist that the people in the Himalayas were portrayed as Asian or that they taught Danny Rand martial arts? Of course not. Those mountains are in Asia and martial arts originated in the Asian culture. The real problem for those that are upset is that Marvel kept Iron Fist white. And all this sturm und drang seems to generally be coming from the same crowd that thought Johnny Storm's skin color should not matter. But suddenly Danny Rand's skin color should matter? Or the color of his benefactors?
By this standard, we should be making melanin tweaks to all kinds of "White Savior-esque" stories, like Tarzan, The Phantom, and even Superman in order to make them more palatable for today's hyper-sensitive audience. Isn't anyone else lamenting that we now live in a society that seems to think everything is racist? From a reality star's haircut to a long-time football emblems. Even movies based on true stories are now called racist. It's time we saved the “that’s racist” accusations for situations that actually warrant it.
The real problem with the current trend towards this “everything is racist” hyper-awareness is that it minimizes the meaning of the word. If everything is "racist", then nothing is racist and actual racism goes unchecked — or is at least is more easily ignored. Being vigilant against real bigotry is indeed a worthwhile posture, but I think it should involve taking racism more seriously instead of looking for it in everything that involves a white person being heralded or helped by people of color. In fact, terms like "White Savior" and "white privilege" are just as racist as "black power" or "white pride" and should stop being used altogether because these terms target people specifically on their skin color.
So, I do not accept the term "White Privilege" or any other racist derogatory term when addressing people or their work. It promotes the politics of racial strife and frames any opposing views as "bad thinking" within a false lens of racism (i.e. "Peter David is wrong"). It doesn't matter how gracious, open-minded or even how non-racist they actually are (Roy Thomas, Gil Kane, Peter David, et al), they're somehow still "guilty by association" to some historical racist trope. C'mon.
If everyone is supposed to be treated the same, then it should apply to all skin colors and we should stop using politically charged, divisive terms like "white privilege". If we keep trying to dig up things from past in order to find more evidence of racism, then we will never get past it.
Speaking of moving past things, I'm happy to move past this discussion and on to more important things, like spandex and super heroes.
/rant off
Skin colour aside, I'm way more concerned that the Netflix show might axe Iron Fist's adorable, little yellow slippers. Talk about a core element of the character!
She pretty much only knows the Hulk, but he isn't really the kind of role model I want her to have. As is they both run around barefoot and no one likes them when they are angry.
Which makes perfect sense.
I had never thought about that before; I could write a few Hulk vs. Stories based on my daughter. Hulk vs
Princessesthe army. Hulk vs.NapDr. Doom