By Rishitha Svedan
"I don’t want people to protest this, but I would like to be Sarah Rainmaker in 'Gen 13' if they ever made that into a movie," Fox News quoted the actress as saying at the premiere of her new film Jonah Hex.
Using one example of racist casting--the Prince of Persia--to justify another is pathetic. Why not go to the source for your justification? Al Jolson sang jazz in blackface, so maybe you can play Lena Horne or Billie Holiday too.
Who should play Rainmaker?
People began discussing this issue on Facebook, so I offered the following thoughts:
Megan Fox wants to play the role because Rainmaker is a exotic babe and so is Fox. She wants people to slaver over her as an "Indian princess."
I'd go in the opposite direction and hire a young Native actress who is talented but not a pure sex bomb. In other words, take a phony character and make it real.
For more on Sarah Rainmaker, see Top Five Native Heroes and Rainmaker the Environmentalist. For more on casting movies, see Hollywood Doesn't Know Anything and Shyamalan Defends Airbender Casting.
5 comments:
"rip you to shreds"
You can be passionate and critical of whitewashing native roles without resorting to threats of violence, especially against women, whether in literal or figurative sense. It is a poor choice of words - I hope you reconsider framing your criticism of Fox's statements without the use of that phrase.
I suppose I shouldn't threaten to kick someone's ass if she's a woman, either? That'll be the day.
It's clear what I meant, and it's consistent with my criticism of men. I don't play favorites just because of someone's gender or celebrity.
You want me to purge my writing of figurative expressions of violence? Given how coldly rational people think I am, I'm not sure that's a good idea. Figurative threats are a way of showing emotions. They indicate I'm serious about what I'm saying.
@Anonymous --
You are detracting from the issue at hand, which is not Rob's figurative expression. Megan Fox is a celebrity who says stupid things all the time, yet will never lose a single fan because of it and has plenty of people (including the press) who will back her up and applaud her every move. She is extremely privileged, and yet another white person claiming "a little bit of that blood". Like many non-Native white females who claim some sort of pan-Indian, monolithic "Native American" ancestry, she is probably hoping to be seen as 'exotic'...while also getting the chance to titillate men with a 'gay for pay' role. Killing two birds! As a two-sprit Hopi/Navajo woman (read: "Native American lesbian"), I find it repulsive for many reasons. Why? If you consider the fact that both queer AND transgender people of color not only have to live with threats of violence because they are racialized, you'll begin to understand. Look up the statistics re: reported incidents of sexual abuse, domestic violence or rape in Indian country. Look up Fred Martinez Jr. You want to talk about threats of violence against women, again?
Well, I am sick of conversations about the latter subject always centering around white women...especially when there is no real threat, just some words on a blog.
@m.
I understand - maybe more than you may give me credit for - and agree with the criticism of Fox. But that doesn't stop me from finding the statement "rip you to shreds" problematic in the context of being made by a privileged white male. Finding it problematic doesn't mean I give Fox a pass. You deconstructed her actions better than I could.
I'm not sure how my comment detracts from anything, as Rob's post still stands, and it is now bolstered by your own testimony. Nevertheless, if Rob deems it distracting, he can delete it (my comment).
Words do matter. Among other things, they are the stuff of conversations like this one. Are words less meaningful because they happen to exist on some blog somewhere, outside of the reality of native, queer, and transgender lives? I'd like to think there's an intersection of reality and "words on the internet", where a choice of words matters to someone somewhere, compels someone to act, to speak, to think.
@Rob
I'm not attacking you or suggesting that you play favorites. If you consider your statement a-OK, well, there's nothing I can do about that.
And, I would welcome cold rationalism over figurative threats of violence any day. Nobody deserves to be threatened with violence, figuratively or literally (and the two aren't as disparate as they may seem).
@Anonymous:
I understand - maybe more than you may give me credit for - and agree with the criticism of Fox.
I'm not sure how my comment detracts from anything, as Rob's post still stands, and it is now bolstered by your own testimony. Nevertheless, if Rob deems it distracting, he can delete it (my comment).
A lot of my comment was an assumptive, knee-jerk response to yours, and I apologize for that as well as rudely dismissing your thoughts as detraction.
Words do matter. Among other things, they are the stuff of conversations like this one. Are words less meaningful because they happen to exist on some blog somewhere, outside of the reality of native, queer, and transgender lives? I'd like to think there's an intersection of reality and "words on the internet", where a choice of words matters to someone somewhere, compels someone to act, to speak, to think.
You are right. Perhaps I was expressing schadenfreude; Fox's ignorance really hit me hard, and though nobody here wishes harm to come to her, I honestly wouldn't feel bad if a blogger verbally "ripped" Fox's (potential, future) casting in this sort of role "to shreds". As I wouldn't mind Rob criticizing her desire to play Rainmaker, a character that is drawn/sexualized in a way that makes this even more problematic (there as fodder for male fans, not there as queer/Native representation). Still, I understand and agree with your points regarding language and intersectionality.
And, seriously, thanks for replying so much more politely than I did to you.
Post a Comment