From Comic to Screen – Diversity and Representation

The Internet is in an outrage again over the latest “race-swapped” character, as Biracial Zendaya Coleman is cast as Mary Jane Watson, a character that has been White since the 1960s. From reasonable discussions to personal attacks, this is just the latest upset among geeks over changes to their favorite characters. This isn’t the first time, as there’s been backlash against everything from Michael B. Jordan cast as Johnny Storm to even Samuel L. Jackson’s casting as Nick Fury (a role that was actually based on him in the Ultimate comic series years prior to the movies!).

In all the debates about these changes, its important to avoid fallacious arguments or perceptions. I’ve compiled some of these below, primarily based on statements made by those who oppose these changes. Even then, I’ll start with a single point that those who support diverse casting often glaze over: the logic and humanity of the opposition.

For those upset at the haters, please understand they do have a valid argument… even if you or I don’t agree or have good counterpoints. There is something to be said for consistency and continuity for characters; we all get upset when a preferred actor is replaced, so the same applies to changes between page and screen. When creating a movie or TV representation of a comic character, it makes sense people will be upset when they don’t match the visuals we’ve grown accustomed to.

Also remember that this isn’t a perspective unique to a singular, dominant demographic: White, heterosexual, CIS-males. Discussions with women, minorities, and LGBT individuals have shown no small number who are unhappy with recent changes, both on-screen and in comics. They don’t like the changes because (to them) these aren’t the characters they grew up with… regardless of how lacking in diversity or sensitivity those characters were. They expect Johnny Storm to be a cocky White guy or Thor to be the name of a Nordic man… they don’t expect them to change anymore than Black Panther not being an African prince or the Ancient One not being an elderly Asian man.

The point is, while there are a number of haters that simply can’t stand changes and/or may harbor discriminatory beliefs… there are also people with valid arguments against changes in movies and comics. While we may disagree with them, we can’t just disregard them as “haters”. Don’t try to dehumanize your opposition, talk to them… you’ll sway people’s opinions more with reasonable discourse than simply demonizing them.

Now, that being said, many more fallacious arguments arise from those opposed to the changes from the comics. Some of these are based on personal preference and others on ignorance, but they’re all easily countered. (I’m not going to even go into those who use these arguments to cover up their own inherent discrimination.) The following are simply some of the most common claims against “x-swapping” in comic book adaptations.

“It changes the character!”

Unless race, ethnicity, or gender is key to the character’s personality or plot, it changes nothing. The Ultimate universe (and MCU) changed Nick Fury to African-American with no problem because race wasn’t important to the original character. You couldn’t do that to Black Panther or Luke Cage because their ethnicity is important to their origin, story, etc.

You can see this by looking at many of the replaced characters in comic book adaptations. Wilson Fiske, Heimdall, Johnny Storm, Tulip O’Hare, etc… while the adaptation may have criticisms, the character’s were not “ruined” by a PoC actor. In fact, these same performances were often praised even despite the movie or show. Since there’s no evidence that changing an unimportant physical aspect hurts the adaptation, and in fact evidence it helps, then there’s no support for this assertion.

“It doesn’t make sense!”

It only doesn’t make sense if you won’t let it. It’s amazing how people can accept all manner of fantasy, science-fiction, and horror nonsense, and yet not accept a race- or gender-swapped character. They can even change entire origin stories and characters for the movies, yet make someone Black or gay and people throw a fit.

No one said all Asgardians are White; this is an assumption based on the Norse ethnicity that produced the mythology… which the comic adapted. Yet, the comic isn’t faithful to that mythology in the slightest, so why should the Asgardians be anything like real-world Nordic people? Plus, Heimdall could easily be Asgardian (a culture) but from another realm (a race). After all, Hogun wasn’t Aesir (the movies claim he’s Vanir) and yet he’s considered Asgardian and a decorated warrior of that society.

Similarly, Johnny Storm and Sue Storm don’t have to be the same race. Adoptions, re-marriage, and extended families are nothing new and quite common in the 21st century. If someone easily accepts fantastic elements (aliens, magic, etc.) but can’t grasp elements based on our own reality… then that’s a problem with the viewer, not the material. If you’re willing to suspend disbelief or logic for everything else, you can certainly do it for things easily explained.

“If minorities can swap, then White actors can too!”

Ummm, no. This perception ignores the entire problem in current society regarding representation and opportunity. I’ve already covered the difference between equality and equity numerous times. This isn’t about equality but equity and equal opportunity. A White actor losing a role to a PoC doesn’t affect the larger picture, because there will always be more roles for White people. The same cannot be said when Native American actors are passed over for an American Indian character for a popular White actor.

When a playing field is unfair to start, fairness is not doing the same for both sides. In tabletop gaming, players in a lop-sided scenario are often given bonuses or extra points to compensate. You don’t see the player who starts with the advantage complaining about that, do you? No, because they realize that the fairness in the game is by helping the disadvantaged player through other routes.

The same should occur in society, from Hollywood to social support, with those who have the advantage helping the disadvantaged. Groups who are disenfranchised need extra opportunities to compensate for their lack to begin with. That’s why African-Americans and women need organizations dedicated toward equal opportunities while those with special needs receive additional support like parking spaces or closed captioning.

Yet those with the advantage ignore this, concerned only with themselves. Then they create all sorts of fallacious claims to justify their disregard for other people. In fact, I’ve already discussed this (and many more of those poor arguments) before. The point is, casting Mary Jane with a Biracial actor doesn’t strip White actors of anything; casting the Ancient One as White does do that to Asian actors.

“It feels shoe-horned, unnecessary, inorganic, etc.”

This is one I’ve heard from the original group I was discussing. Unfortunately, I feel this is still based on a lack of larger picture. At times, as a society, we have to force people to change… because otherwise, they won’t. It took major social movements, full of protests and civil disobedience, before laws were altered to allow equal opportunities for women and Blacks. Even then, you had to have the federal government step in, to force local governments and citizens to adhere to the new social norms. That’s not even going into the continuing fights by women and minorities today despite those same laws, plus newer social movements.

The same is true in geek media, where newfound popularity, exposure, and changes in demographics have warranted new standards in comics, games, and fiction. Many involved, from fans to industry, have been slow in adapting and adhering to these new norms of inclusion and representation. That means someone has to force them to change, complying with the new diverse standard. You could consider the gender- and race-swapping as the “National Guard”, sent in to force the “integration” of Hollywood and its audiences despite their resistance to the “Civil Rights Laws” of an increasingly diverse popular culture.

“These aren’t my characters!”

This is another common claim by those I talked to in my original point. The truth is… they’re absolutely right. These aren’t your characters, not anymore. The new adaptations weren’t necessarily made for you, they’re more likely for a new generation and society. One that is more diverse and open-minded than the generations prior, and faces many different social and political issues.

The original Star Trek was made for an era full of racial discrimination and wars. The Matrix targeted the tech-savvy, alt-culture, anti-establishment people sick of the dystopian corporatocracy behind their socioeconomic woes. Now we have new movies and shows intended for audiences that have become far more diverse, inclusive, and sensitive.

Many of the geeks throwing fits refuse to accept a fact: we are old and society has changed. The same way we look at racial insensitivity, exclusion, and female stereotypes from the early- to mid-20th century? That’s how younger generations look at current whitewashing, appropriation, and tropes. Just like how Jar-Jar Binks was targeting the youngest Star Wars fans and the new Ghostbusters was meant to inspire a new generation, these new versions of comic characters are meant for the latest generation of audiences.

Your choice is to adapt and accept them… or become reclusive and exclusive. Do you want to be the cool older person, like Betty White, changing with the times? Or do you want to be the bitter asshole, like Clint Eastwood, clinging blindly to archaic values.

Women in Color in Comics

To summarize this, there is a lot of reason why arguments against “x-swapping” in comic adaptations are unfounded. In fact, the opposite can be said in that changing a character’s race, gender, orientation, etc. is a good and necessary thing, given changing demographics and societal norms. That being said, understand that some who argue against the changes may have a valid argument. The best way to convince them is to not disregard them, but instead to discuss the matter. We may not come to a complete agreement, but we can at least find some mutual ground in our fandom and its effects on society.

Racism and Bad Statistics

I once spoke of my hope for a dystopian utopia, where all races and ethnicities bonded together against “the Man”. Sadly, today we’re possibly even more divided and contentious than before, with each side blaming the other for our societal issues. Even people who would normally be on the fence feel the need to take sides, often without (or even in the face of) critical thought and education.

One of the most frustrating behaviors is the presentation of statistics to prove our point… that “our” beliefs are more valid than “theirs”. Of course, arm chair experts spouting data is about as reliable and valid as someone using WebMD to diagnose their problems. (I know… my hypochondriac behind regularly does the latter). So, here I am to point out a couple of statistical claims and how they’re being used poorly to fit one’s personal perceptions or agenda.

A) More Whites are killed by Police than Blacks

Numerically, yes. According to a year-long study by the Washington Post, 990 people were killed by police officers in 2015. Of those, 494 were White and 258 were Black, confirming the above error… but only superficially. Most people with a knowledge of statistics in social sciences know you usually don’t look at raw population, but per capita numbers.

In America, the population is 63.7% White and 12.2% Black, so it would make sense mathematically for more Whites to be involved in a police-related incident than Blacks. Yet 50% of those killed were White while 26% were Black, which doesn’t match the population demographics. Statistically, more of the Black population were killed than White, showing a disparity between population and police-involved killings.

So yes, by raw numbers, more Whites are killed by police than Blacks. That makes sense considering our population consists of more White citizens than Blacks. It would be like going to Hawai`i and saying, “Man, I see more Asians and Polynesians here than elsewhere.” Yet, from a per capita perspective, Blacks are killed more often than Whites, and there’s no denying that.

B) More Police Officers are killed by Blacks than Whites

The latest now tries to flip the script on that per capita perspective. New arguments show that Blacks per capita kill a larger amount of police officers than their White counterparts. The 2004-2013 FBI statistics confirm this, with 51% of officer fatalities at the hands of Whites compared to 43% by Blacks. That seems to support the above allegations, but once more knowing numbers and applying them are two different things.

Most sociologists or psychologists know not to generalize, but instead to use the numbers as a guide to determine underlying factors. They wouldn’t use the data above to generalize that police are more likely to be killed by Blacks, but instead to ask why there’s a disparity between population and police fatalities involving Black individuals.

Could it be that minority communities are often relegated to poorer, more crime-ridden areas thanks to decades of segregationist practices, meaning interactions there are potentially more dangerous? Could it be that a millennia of oppression has lead to less trust and more miscommunication between minorities and law enforcement, creating the potential for violent interactions? Could it be the unethical and unjust practices of a poor justice system and for-profit, revolving door prisons that put known offenders back on the street and poison neighborhoods? These are answers that would require more complex studies than the simplistic and fallacious black-and-white thinking of most who simply spout numbers to fulfill their personal biases.

The point is, don’t spout numbers unless you know how to properly interpret and apply them.

When a scientist performs a statistical analysis, they often include conclusions that discuss the possible implications as well as other factors that should be explored. They try not to generalize or misinterpret, and often ask more questions upon discovering data than they do making final conclusions. Numbers are used to ask why, not to declare causal or other fallacious relationships.

This is doubly so when exploring race, ethnicity, and other demographics. It’s false use of statistics that has contributed to discrimination throughout history, from the pseudo-science of phrenology to studies that denigrated LGBT parents. When someone spouts those erroneous numbers, especially among like-minded individuals, they’re guilty of confirmation bias and being in an echo chamber. Worse, they often contribute to the same ignorant or racist behaviors that pervade society by perpetuating the underlying beliefs and perceptions.

As with all things involving critical thought, think before you speak. Numbers don’t always tell the whole picture, especially when you don’t fully comprehend them.

The Harsh Truth about American Fans and Other Cultures

Some friends posted something the other day that berated American “otaku” for their ignorant, naïve obsession with Japan and living there. The article went into detail on how different things are from the perception of anime fans. Although harsh, the post spoke truth about the unrealistic perceptions of many enthusiasts… but did little to wonder “Why?” I posit two important reasons why anime nerds live in this dream world.

Americans Love to Romanticize Everything

Actually, most countries do, from England’s obsession with the Wild West and American Indians to the global appropriation of Hip-Hop and African-American Culture. Americans, however, really take the cake for their ridiculous fantasies. We think Japan is a non-stop anime convention, with shows on every channel, vending machines selling dealer goods on every corner, and regularly seeing people in cosplay. Of course, we also think the British Isles and Ireland are one giant Renaissance Festival, where the pagan traditions are alive, mead and turkey legs abound, and it’s perfectly acceptable to speak in Shakespearean English. Hell, even in our own backyards, we think Native American culture is all about holding pow-wows, living as one with about Mother Nature, and wise sayings.

The truth is most Americans don’t have a clue about anything beyond their immediate surroundings. The majority of us live in a white-washed world, where Hollywood and the Internet are their only exposure to foreign cultures. Most are simply ignorant, raised on stereotypes and rumor, as that’s all they’ve ever known. You can almost forgive these uneducated individuals, although their lack of motivation to actually learn is still reprehensible. The worst, though, are the half-educated, who spout opinions based on biased nonsense they found in some book or website. They stand tall on their “expertise”, created from their own preconceptions and reinforced by only surrounding themselves with similar, ignorant social circles.

So, Americans go on with their fantasies, so sure in their subjective truth that they remain oblivious to how wrong they are. They prefer the comfortable, romantic vision because it includes them and allows them ignore one simple fact: they are outsiders. Americans can’t stand being excluded because it triggers their inferiority complex, so their defense mechanism is to develop this ridiculous fiction where everything they want is true. We’re like the spoiled brat having a birthday party, but when people start to play games that we suck at, we make up our own rules… and then whine when no one wants to play by them.

The Socially Inept Exacerbate Everything

Nerds, dorks, etc. take this messed up American viewpoint and blow it up even worse. They not only romanticize other cultures, they externalize their self-identity into that fantasy. Their entire psychology is based on escaping the real world that has so often disappointed them. They develop a schema through the lens of their obsession and are reinforced by like-minded social circles. It’s hard to tell an otaku they’re wrong when they only hang around other fans who assure them they’re right.

Of course, when the fantasy and reality don’t mesh, they react like their very reason for living has been attacked. You could explain that no, people don’t walk around with Naruto headbands or cat ears, and they’ll claim that you don’t know what you’re talking about. These individuals often react with the emotional maturity of a toddler, including tears, raised voices, angry outbursts, and even full-blown temper tantrums. They’ll even rationalize their own poor experiences, claiming a conflictive incident was the exception and maintaining their belief in the fantasy. When an otaku tries to speak their broken Japanese in some street restaurant and treated poorly, they claim that it was just that restaurant and not their own lack of cultural understanding.

American nerds really don’t have a clue, even more-so than others of the same country. They are so entrenched in their fantasy world that they can’t accept reality, even when confronted with it. Thus, they cling to the romanticized fantasy of Japan and other locations like an extreme fundamentalist Christian clings to their belief that gays will burn in Hell. Which makes it all the harder when the reality is encountered….

I’ll fully admit, I do relish when someone gets a healthy dose of the real world. Native American-lovers who find out not everyone has descriptive names and many nations were violent, full of warmongering and slavery. Celtophiles who find out it’s not all about Guinness and faeries, and that few people actually speak Gaelic or practice paganism. Like a child who finally learns they can’t get their way, some people need to be taught a lesson. My hope is that, with enough wake-up calls, they’ll realize the difference between appreciating and participating in a culture… and simply obsessing or appropriating it.