My flist is good, my flist is great, so why, oh why, did I wander off my flist?
Disclaimer to post: I had reservations about posting this, but I'm willing to take any grief that's thrown my way about it. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to think or interpret this or the source material I cite, I'm also not going to fly off the handle if you disagree with me, neither are my friends. I'm just posting my thoughts and feelings on a particular matter.
My flist is a small one and as a result it is also sometimes a slow one. Last Friday I was doing the friendsfriends thing and came across someone's post about the television shows they're watching, it was a longish post, uncut and I kinda skimmed it, saw Supernatural was mentioned and paused to read.
Big mistake. Big. Huge.
This person (I'm not naming names because I don't want this to get wanky, but I will be quoting portions of conversations, so anything in bold italics will be verbatim) typed:
In any case, I'm not looking forward to Supernatural tonight because: 1) I've simply been TeeVee'd out; and 2) I'm sick of the ethnic minorities getting it in the neck on that show.
Don't get me wrong, I like Supernatural okay, but for some reason offing the Special Guest Black Character of the Week (How many is this now?) last week really got up my nose. I swear you can tell who's going to die in every episode just by checking the dusky-ness of someone's skin.
Ok. I had two major issues with this statement, but I only addressed one: the use of the phrase 'dusky-ness of someone's skin', I commented:
*floating in from friendsfriends*
Because this is your journal, I'm going to a) not get wanky and b) respect that you believe that your reasoning for not watching Supernatural is correct, but I do find it odd that you're offended by the fact that Supernatural has had black casualties, but then turn around and use the term 'dusky-ness of someone's skin', which I find extremely offensive. I really thought about just glossing over that and moving on, but I'm sorry, I simply couldn't. Feel free to delete this comment if you'd like, no hard feelings if you do.
Understand this: What I didn't add was 1) 'dusky-ness' is not a word, however 'duskiness' is and 2) Neither dusky-ness nor duskiness can always tell you what someone's ethnicity is. My mother is Mexican-American, she looks white. Pale skin, hazel eyes, hair with reddish undertones, European nose. She looks whiter than some white people I know, doesn't change the fact that she is a minority woman. Some full blood Mexicans (I'm talking interior of Mexico Mexicans) are naturally light skinned, blonde haired and blue or green-eyed. So yeah, add to that the fact that I spent summers in Mississippi having (white) people snidely comment on the particular duskiness of my skin, the use of this term offended me. Granted, maybe I should have moved on, but... I didn't.
Let's back up a bit. In order for you to get an idea of where I'm coming from so far and as this goes on, or in case you're just curious, I'll tell you now that I identify as 'multi-racial'.
What am I?
Well, the easy answer is that I'm half Mexican and half Black, because my mother and father identify as Mexican and Black respectively, but in reality these terms are not all encompassing. The truth is, I'm part Mexican and part Black; I also have bloodlines from several Native American tribes, a bit of Jew (yes, on my father's side), some French, a tiny sprinkling of German, some Spanish (the French, German and Spanish are fancy ways of saying I'm part white). Ethnically, I'm a true mutt. If you look at me and don't know this information (And why would you? I'm not wearing a sign.) you're probably gonna try and figure out just what my background is. You'll probably assume that I'm some form of Latina. Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, whatever you think you see in me, trust me I've had 'em all asked.
Ok, moving forward, this person then replied:
Ummm, what?
I'm a little mystified by how "dusky-ness" is considered racist. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of "dusky" is: "somewhat dark in color; specifically : having dark skin." That's the first definition, by the way. Link, in case you're curious: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=dusky
I'm olive-skinned, so that makes me duskier than someone with bone China white skin. No? And someone with a higher melatonin content in their skin layers than myself, thereby making their skin darker than my olive skin would make them duskier than me. Yes?
So, in your mind, using a word correctly to describe a physical characteristic is...ummmm...racist? Am I actually understanding that correctly?
They also said they were not going to delete my comment because they were genuinely interested in my answer.
I replied: I didn't say it was racist, I'm not trying to imply that you're a racist. What I am saying is that, despite Merriam-Webster's definition, most blacks will find that terminology anywhere from absurd to annoying to offensive to infuriating. A definition is one thing, but the way a word is commonly used is some thing else and 'dusky' is not always used benignly. Again, I'm not saying that you were intentionally trying to offend, it's supremely obvious that you weren't and it wouldn't even cross my mind to think you were, it's just something that, to use your phrasing from your post, really got up my nose.
So, no, I'm not saying what you said was racist, because I would never throw that word around so loosely.
Again, what I didn't say was that quoting a definition from a dictionary, a dictionary that states the date of citation of the word 'dusky' as 1558, a dictionary originally written by white men, doesn't change that a word can hurt or offend someone, no matter how neutral the definition my seem. What I didn't say was that I really resented being accused of throwing the 'R' word around.
At this point, I'm heated.
Which of course was the point when someone else came in and asked what phrasing I would suggest the OP use. And since I'm already twitchin' I didn't read this as a serious question, I read it with a condescending tone, and replied to that comment with:
Since I don't actually agree with her point in regards to Supernatural the sarcasm demon in me wants to say, 'I suggest she not use any terminology that refers to the depth of color in someone's skin tone', but honestly, I'm not going to tell anyone how to phrase themselves. I was just stating my own personal opinion and reaction to her choice of words.
I tend to get my back up when people talk about race and Supernatural anyway, but since that as not Liz's overall point to her post, I'm not going to word-vomit my meta in her journal. :)
Mistake on my part.
Why?
Because I brought Supernatural into it, which is exactly what I didn't want to do, because it had no bearing on my reaction or my point. But, as we all know, once we hit 'post comment' what's done is done.
The OP replied to this comment, accused me of 'shit-stirring' because they expressed an opinion about [my] favorite show that [I] disagreed with and that I was just looking for a reason to turn it that back on them. They basically, backhandedly of course, called me a troll. I bowed out, I apologized, saying that it was not my intent, hence my initial offer to them to delete my comment with out replying and told the OP I was going to just walk away from the conversation.
Which isn't to say I didn't keep track of the post.
The OP and the question asker then conversed about the possibility of my reaction being regionally based, since the OP stated that a personal consultation with no less than three African-American work acquaintances indicate that using "dusky" in reference to skin color is in no, way, shape, or form insulting or offensive. Hmmm... I wonder if some of the OP's best friends are black, too? The OP also said that these token African-Americans thought it was crazy that someone would take offense to the term. I didn't butt in, because I said I was going to leave the OP alone, and I am a woman of my word.
Which, again, doesn't mean I didn't continue to read comments to the post. Two comments really stood out to me. One was in respond to the OP stating I like Supernatural okay, but for some reason offing the Special Guest Black Character of the Week (How many is this now?) last week really got up my nose.
The comment was: Two allies, one YED kid.
Not that I'm keeping track or anything.
What bothered me about this comment is the commenter is saying that they are keeping track. They are basically counting the black people. Which means, to me, that when a white person is one screen, they just see a person, when a black person is on screen that's what they see: a black person.
The other comment that got me was this: I have a much bigger issue with SPN over how women are treated. At least the black woman lived, I pegged her as a goner.
First, I'm not going to get into the gender aspect in this post, Kita and I had an awesome brain-fest about gender issues in television not too long ago. I said what I had to say then... except that I left this out: Supernatural is my 8 o'clock Thursday savior. I used to watch another show during this time slot, but the portrayal of woman was really turning me off so much so that I stopped watching mid-season. Yes, Grey's Anatomy I'm looking at you. Feel shame.
*ahem*
Secondly, by saying that that the minute you saw the black woman you pegged her as a goner, right away you have stopped seeing the character as anything other than a black woman. I can't even articulate how taken aback I was with the commenter's implication that the fact that the black chick survived was a shock to them. You expected her to die because she's black and you're surprised that the writers let her live? I don't even have the words for that.
The OP replied to this comment with: the thing that finally pushed my head to tilt was really the first ep of S3 when naturally the black guy gets it. And like you, I thought his wife was a gonner, too. But, no. She's the one who let her emotions get the better of her, screwed up, and let the demons in, instead. Much better. [/sarcasm]
On the one hand, you can say, "Well all the other characters in this scenario are regulars or semi-regulars, so you can't kill them off by having them drink Drano."
But on the other hand, was killing off half of the interesting married hunters even necessary, especially since the script had them making a bad mistake - one that even Dean-I'm-Gonna-Die-In-A-Year-So-I-Don't-Care Winchester would make?
I really, really hate the statement, 'naturally the black guy gets it. And like you, I thought his wife was a gonner, too.' because Issac's death had nothing to do with him being black.
It had to do with a script calling for a married couple, in which the male half of the couple dies. We'll never know whether the couple's ethnicity was part of the episode's inception or was a result of who they liked in auditions, but I'm pretty sure that if it was the latter, Kripke & Co. didn't have a white version of the script where the husband lived. And if it was the former, I don't think they only chose to kill of Issac because of his race. And to say that killing off half the couple was unnecessary? Well, y'know, it's a show about evil, supernatural entities; chances are, someone's gonna croak before the ep's over. Tamara and Issac were brought in to give us an emotional tie. You saw a strong couple, hunters in love, and then you saw the reality of this kind of relationship in these circumstances. Storytelling wise? That's the good stuff.
Lastly, I thought about doing up the numbers, y'know, the number of black actors on SPN and how many have died/lived. Then I remembered part of a discussion between Kita, Winterlive and myself; Winter brought up the idea of doing a tally of female deaths, which I thought would be interesting to see and Kita said it would prove nothing. Now, while I stand by the fact that I'd be interested in seeing the numbers from a strictly statistic viewpoint, she was right, it would prove nothing.
What I am going to say is this: Every time you talk about SPN killin' off all the black folk you do something vital. You negate any black character that has lived. Is Gordon not black enough for you? Tamara? Cassie? Agent Henricksen? Missouri? Are you saying that they don't matter as characters because they lived? Or is it they were not as memorable to you as Jake, Sarge, and Issac?
By counting us, pointing us out, separating us and assuming our fate, you are not, as you may think, part of the solution.
My flist is a small one and as a result it is also sometimes a slow one. Last Friday I was doing the friendsfriends thing and came across someone's post about the television shows they're watching, it was a longish post, uncut and I kinda skimmed it, saw Supernatural was mentioned and paused to read.
Big mistake. Big. Huge.
This person (I'm not naming names because I don't want this to get wanky, but I will be quoting portions of conversations, so anything in bold italics will be verbatim) typed:
In any case, I'm not looking forward to Supernatural tonight because: 1) I've simply been TeeVee'd out; and 2) I'm sick of the ethnic minorities getting it in the neck on that show.
Don't get me wrong, I like Supernatural okay, but for some reason offing the Special Guest Black Character of the Week (How many is this now?) last week really got up my nose. I swear you can tell who's going to die in every episode just by checking the dusky-ness of someone's skin.
Ok. I had two major issues with this statement, but I only addressed one: the use of the phrase 'dusky-ness of someone's skin', I commented:
*floating in from friendsfriends*
Because this is your journal, I'm going to a) not get wanky and b) respect that you believe that your reasoning for not watching Supernatural is correct, but I do find it odd that you're offended by the fact that Supernatural has had black casualties, but then turn around and use the term 'dusky-ness of someone's skin', which I find extremely offensive. I really thought about just glossing over that and moving on, but I'm sorry, I simply couldn't. Feel free to delete this comment if you'd like, no hard feelings if you do.
Understand this: What I didn't add was 1) 'dusky-ness' is not a word, however 'duskiness' is and 2) Neither dusky-ness nor duskiness can always tell you what someone's ethnicity is. My mother is Mexican-American, she looks white. Pale skin, hazel eyes, hair with reddish undertones, European nose. She looks whiter than some white people I know, doesn't change the fact that she is a minority woman. Some full blood Mexicans (I'm talking interior of Mexico Mexicans) are naturally light skinned, blonde haired and blue or green-eyed. So yeah, add to that the fact that I spent summers in Mississippi having (white) people snidely comment on the particular duskiness of my skin, the use of this term offended me. Granted, maybe I should have moved on, but... I didn't.
Let's back up a bit. In order for you to get an idea of where I'm coming from so far and as this goes on, or in case you're just curious, I'll tell you now that I identify as 'multi-racial'.
What am I?
Well, the easy answer is that I'm half Mexican and half Black, because my mother and father identify as Mexican and Black respectively, but in reality these terms are not all encompassing. The truth is, I'm part Mexican and part Black; I also have bloodlines from several Native American tribes, a bit of Jew (yes, on my father's side), some French, a tiny sprinkling of German, some Spanish (the French, German and Spanish are fancy ways of saying I'm part white). Ethnically, I'm a true mutt. If you look at me and don't know this information (And why would you? I'm not wearing a sign.) you're probably gonna try and figure out just what my background is. You'll probably assume that I'm some form of Latina. Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, whatever you think you see in me, trust me I've had 'em all asked.
Ok, moving forward, this person then replied:
Ummm, what?
I'm a little mystified by how "dusky-ness" is considered racist. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of "dusky" is: "somewhat dark in color; specifically : having dark skin." That's the first definition, by the way. Link, in case you're curious: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=dusky
I'm olive-skinned, so that makes me duskier than someone with bone China white skin. No? And someone with a higher melatonin content in their skin layers than myself, thereby making their skin darker than my olive skin would make them duskier than me. Yes?
So, in your mind, using a word correctly to describe a physical characteristic is...ummmm...racist? Am I actually understanding that correctly?
They also said they were not going to delete my comment because they were genuinely interested in my answer.
I replied: I didn't say it was racist, I'm not trying to imply that you're a racist. What I am saying is that, despite Merriam-Webster's definition, most blacks will find that terminology anywhere from absurd to annoying to offensive to infuriating. A definition is one thing, but the way a word is commonly used is some thing else and 'dusky' is not always used benignly. Again, I'm not saying that you were intentionally trying to offend, it's supremely obvious that you weren't and it wouldn't even cross my mind to think you were, it's just something that, to use your phrasing from your post, really got up my nose.
So, no, I'm not saying what you said was racist, because I would never throw that word around so loosely.
Again, what I didn't say was that quoting a definition from a dictionary, a dictionary that states the date of citation of the word 'dusky' as 1558, a dictionary originally written by white men, doesn't change that a word can hurt or offend someone, no matter how neutral the definition my seem. What I didn't say was that I really resented being accused of throwing the 'R' word around.
At this point, I'm heated.
Which of course was the point when someone else came in and asked what phrasing I would suggest the OP use. And since I'm already twitchin' I didn't read this as a serious question, I read it with a condescending tone, and replied to that comment with:
Since I don't actually agree with her point in regards to Supernatural the sarcasm demon in me wants to say, 'I suggest she not use any terminology that refers to the depth of color in someone's skin tone', but honestly, I'm not going to tell anyone how to phrase themselves. I was just stating my own personal opinion and reaction to her choice of words.
I tend to get my back up when people talk about race and Supernatural anyway, but since that as not Liz's overall point to her post, I'm not going to word-vomit my meta in her journal. :)
Mistake on my part.
Why?
Because I brought Supernatural into it, which is exactly what I didn't want to do, because it had no bearing on my reaction or my point. But, as we all know, once we hit 'post comment' what's done is done.
The OP replied to this comment, accused me of 'shit-stirring' because they expressed an opinion about [my] favorite show that [I] disagreed with and that I was just looking for a reason to turn it that back on them. They basically, backhandedly of course, called me a troll. I bowed out, I apologized, saying that it was not my intent, hence my initial offer to them to delete my comment with out replying and told the OP I was going to just walk away from the conversation.
Which isn't to say I didn't keep track of the post.
The OP and the question asker then conversed about the possibility of my reaction being regionally based, since the OP stated that a personal consultation with no less than three African-American work acquaintances indicate that using "dusky" in reference to skin color is in no, way, shape, or form insulting or offensive. Hmmm... I wonder if some of the OP's best friends are black, too? The OP also said that these token African-Americans thought it was crazy that someone would take offense to the term. I didn't butt in, because I said I was going to leave the OP alone, and I am a woman of my word.
Which, again, doesn't mean I didn't continue to read comments to the post. Two comments really stood out to me. One was in respond to the OP stating I like Supernatural okay, but for some reason offing the Special Guest Black Character of the Week (How many is this now?) last week really got up my nose.
The comment was: Two allies, one YED kid.
Not that I'm keeping track or anything.
What bothered me about this comment is the commenter is saying that they are keeping track. They are basically counting the black people. Which means, to me, that when a white person is one screen, they just see a person, when a black person is on screen that's what they see: a black person.
The other comment that got me was this: I have a much bigger issue with SPN over how women are treated. At least the black woman lived, I pegged her as a goner.
First, I'm not going to get into the gender aspect in this post, Kita and I had an awesome brain-fest about gender issues in television not too long ago. I said what I had to say then... except that I left this out: Supernatural is my 8 o'clock Thursday savior. I used to watch another show during this time slot, but the portrayal of woman was really turning me off so much so that I stopped watching mid-season. Yes, Grey's Anatomy I'm looking at you. Feel shame.
*ahem*
Secondly, by saying that that the minute you saw the black woman you pegged her as a goner, right away you have stopped seeing the character as anything other than a black woman. I can't even articulate how taken aback I was with the commenter's implication that the fact that the black chick survived was a shock to them. You expected her to die because she's black and you're surprised that the writers let her live? I don't even have the words for that.
The OP replied to this comment with: the thing that finally pushed my head to tilt was really the first ep of S3 when naturally the black guy gets it. And like you, I thought his wife was a gonner, too. But, no. She's the one who let her emotions get the better of her, screwed up, and let the demons in, instead. Much better. [/sarcasm]
On the one hand, you can say, "Well all the other characters in this scenario are regulars or semi-regulars, so you can't kill them off by having them drink Drano."
But on the other hand, was killing off half of the interesting married hunters even necessary, especially since the script had them making a bad mistake - one that even Dean-I'm-Gonna-Die-In-A-Year-So-I-Don't-Care Winchester would make?
I really, really hate the statement, 'naturally the black guy gets it. And like you, I thought his wife was a gonner, too.' because Issac's death had nothing to do with him being black.
It had to do with a script calling for a married couple, in which the male half of the couple dies. We'll never know whether the couple's ethnicity was part of the episode's inception or was a result of who they liked in auditions, but I'm pretty sure that if it was the latter, Kripke & Co. didn't have a white version of the script where the husband lived. And if it was the former, I don't think they only chose to kill of Issac because of his race. And to say that killing off half the couple was unnecessary? Well, y'know, it's a show about evil, supernatural entities; chances are, someone's gonna croak before the ep's over. Tamara and Issac were brought in to give us an emotional tie. You saw a strong couple, hunters in love, and then you saw the reality of this kind of relationship in these circumstances. Storytelling wise? That's the good stuff.
Lastly, I thought about doing up the numbers, y'know, the number of black actors on SPN and how many have died/lived. Then I remembered part of a discussion between Kita, Winterlive and myself; Winter brought up the idea of doing a tally of female deaths, which I thought would be interesting to see and Kita said it would prove nothing. Now, while I stand by the fact that I'd be interested in seeing the numbers from a strictly statistic viewpoint, she was right, it would prove nothing.
What I am going to say is this: Every time you talk about SPN killin' off all the black folk you do something vital. You negate any black character that has lived. Is Gordon not black enough for you? Tamara? Cassie? Agent Henricksen? Missouri? Are you saying that they don't matter as characters because they lived? Or is it they were not as memorable to you as Jake, Sarge, and Issac?
By counting us, pointing us out, separating us and assuming our fate, you are not, as you may think, part of the solution.