Playwright Katori Hall, who wrote a play about MLK, is indignant about the casting of a Kent State production of her play, and talks about it with the left-wing propaganda outlet known as The Guardian.
"Hall told the Guardian that director Michael Oatman’s decision to double-cast the six-show production with a black actor and a white actor as King went “deeper than just casting a white man in the role of MLK”.
'I just really feel as though it echoes this pervasive erasure of the black body and the silencing of a black community [...]
Oatman, who like Hall is black, said in a statement in August promoting the play that he chose a white actor for the production “to explore the issue of racial ownership and authenticity”.
Perhaps now she has a chance to know how it feels when black actors are gratuitously and absurdly inserted into stories when the character is clearly White, and when the context and the setting don't support the unlikely presence of a black actor.
Is this not 'erasure' of the White body? It's increasingly common.
Case in point: the British series Merlin ago which inexplicably had a "black British" Guinevere, and a Nigerian playing Sir Elyan. Right; King Arthur's circle was diverse and inclusive, and ''Britain has always been multicultural'', so we're told.
Even more absurd was a black actor playing the Norse god Thor. Do the morons who create these productions and cast them know what "Norse" means?
We've seen everything since then including a black Sherlock Holmes and a black Dr. Doolittle. We're asked to suspend disbelief so as to accept the idea of blacks in Arthurian-era Britain and Moslems roaming Sherwood Forest in Robin Hood's time.
What about White racial ownership and authenticity in cases like that? Authenticity demands that European actors be cast in stories from European history and legend. "Racial ownership" should mean that European people should 'own' the right to depict their own history, authentically, sans political correctness and out-of-place ''diversity".
Iconic figures from our folklore and cultural heritage as well as from our actual history are fair game for 'race replacement' ; we are required to accept our heroes and legends as blacks, but if the shoe is on the other foot -- it's an outrage.
But this is the logical (!) outcome of a belief system preaching that ''race doesn't exist'' yet for blacks and just about everyone else, race is everything; it's of primary importance, and we mustn't forget the White race transgressions against the black race.
One of the oddest race-themed movies ever was a piece of pretentious nonsense called 'Suture.' The IMDB reviews display the ''Emperor's New Clothes'' mentality: most readers praise the movie, calling it a real work of art, etc. No one wants to be the oddball who says ''I don't get it'' or ''this is nonsense" because to say so might be to point out the taboo fact that race exists. The plot of the movie is basically this: a rich old White man, who inexplicably has a black brother, trades identities with him, thinking to stage his own death via an accident. One of the rare negative comments:
"The black guy survives, but has amnesia. But somehow everyone mistakes the black guy for the white guy... Apparently, being in an explosion gives you black skin, African facial features, a full head of hair, and a different voice and personality."
The movie's characters insist that an old White man and a young-ish black man are mirror images of each other, and everyone behaves as if it's true. This is what the world we are in is becoming. For example during the 2008 presidential campaign, so many Whites online commented that a certain presidential candidate looked just like his White mother and grandfather -- though he was black. This is how many people have come to look at the world in the 21st century. We've been taught to deny the evidence of our eyes.
Was the message of 'Suture' that race is nonexistent, that Whites and blacks are each other's mirror image? If so, this is strains credulity, even in fiction. Though Whites are conditioned to be ''colorblind'' one of the most obvious things about people is race. Whether we pretend, deceiving ourselves that it doesn't exist, the fact is, our brains register it, just as they register instantly whether someone is male or female, young or old. We categorize instinctively.
Remember the 'Time' magazine propaganda piece, with the cover of a baby (White, of course) captioned, ''Is your baby racist?" Yes, babies do notice race and color. It is apparently innate, being present in pre-verbal babies.
Race is real. But White people are expected to take part in a charade, this big lie, that it isn't real, that seeing it is itself proof of 'racism'. But blacks see race and 'racism' everywhere, and their perceptions are validated by society. Our noticing race is condemned and denied.
The concept of 'racism' implies the existence of race. If race does not exist, if it's a social construct, then so is 'racism.' I'll say it again: racism is a social construct. So much so that a word had to be invented for it back in the 1930s or so. It's hard to believe we lived so long without having the word 'racism.' It's proven a handy weapon against Whites.
If the goal is to remove racial inequities, then fair is fair. Stop putting nonwhites into roles and contexts where their presence is absurd and far-fetched. Stop misrepresenting our history by putting non-Europeans into the parts of European characters. If that kind of foolishness must go on, then why not have Whites in black roles? After all, what was MLK's phrase -- judge ''by the content of character, not the color of the skin'?
Labels: cultural Marxism, diversity, divisiveness, egalitarianism, Media, propaganda