The Oppressor as hero

[sqbr]

When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like "Avatar"? does a good job of going through why the "White person helps lead Oppressed Native People to freedom" plot is at it's heart all about white supremacy. (But don't read the comments)

But I've been thinking about how a lot of ostensibly anti-oppression narratives take this form.

• You have the aristocrat who leads the working classes to freedom, as in the stories described in the beginning of "Historical AUs and race" (which inspired this one a bit)
  
• The able-bodied person who saves the poor disabled people eg "Children of a Lesser God".
  
• The man who saves the poor victimised women eg a lot of Dollhouse.
  
• I'm having trouble thinking of any to do with sexuality but I'm sure they exist. EDIT: "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry"?
  

And not all of these stories are bad individually. After all, history does have a lot of people who did good works helping those they had privilege over, and their stories are as worth telling as anyone else's.

But what's a problem is
a) that this is seen as the only sort of story worth telling
b) The way this story is generally told

If your intention is to fight an oppression, surely you should act contrary to that oppression, not to reinforce it's biases. The Kyriarchy says that white straight able-bodied upper/middle class men are natural leaders and better than everyone at everything. So having a story where such a character joins a group of non-white/GLBT/disabled/lower class etc characters and immediately proves himself better than them all at everything and their natural leader, not to mention having their POV the only one worth seeing the story through..is not so anti-oppressive a message in my book.

See also why Glee only seems anti-racist if you only identify with the white charcaters.

EDIT: Please note that comments to this post are screened, though so far at worst I've delayed unscreening a comment until I can come up with a good explanation of why I think it's problematic.

Comments

here via metafandom

[munchkin]

hmmm. so, as allies of PoC, we should stand back and let them fight their own battles, rather than actively helping them?

I'm at the same stage as you, well meaning and trying to become well informed.

Something I've realised from these discussions is that it isn't either fight the battles of PoC or stand back and let them fight their own battles alone, but that we - as white allies - shouldn't be telling PoC how to fight those battles.

Sometimes it's best to just listen, then ask what I can do to help.

[rydra_wong]

IMHO, "actively helping" is very different from "taking over, trying to lead, and telling them how they should be fighting their own battles".

Really, being an ally is about -- well, being an ally. Not putting yourself in charge. Not making yourself the star of someone else's story.

[ten]

There is a difference between 'helping someone' and 'being their saviour omg'. If White Man encounters Coloured People and Coloured People have been Totally Helpless so far and only White Man can save them from their helplessness, that's quite likely to be a very icky message. It implies that White Man is so superiour, without him Coloured People would be Lost Forever

If Coloured People have been fighting pretty well so far on their own and White Man just happens to be able to be add to their fight, it promotes an equality of power and importance.

This is of course a very abstract description. The context of the specific story has a big influence on the message. Is White Man shown as superior by himself or does he too need help from someone else to be able to Save The Coloured People? Do the Coloured People ask White Man for help, or does he just impose himself on them? What reasons does White Man have to help the Coloured People?e etc.

[solitary-summer.livejournal.com]

[here via metafandom]

I'm having trouble thinking of any to do with sexuality but I'm sure they exist.

On a (sort of) meta level this happens every time a straight actor is applauded for playing a gay character in a mainstream movie...

[elspethdixon]

Also known as the Glory syndrome ("We are making a movie about a black regiment during the Civil War. Let us tell the story of the white officer who was in charge!").

I think the sexuality-based version might be something like "straight main character has gay friend who is tragically dying of aids," or "gay character is picked on by other students. Straight protagonist disapproves of this/defends him."

For the sexuality-based version, the straight person doesn't really have to do any fighting against oppression per se. Merely tolerating their non-straight friend is proof of how progressive and enlightened they are (sadly, this is actually true IRL for many people - just a lack of someone directly condemning you can feel gratitude-worthy).

[sundayscat]

Oh, yes, i was just thinking of this, it's really very noticeable (i think it might apply to cis-actors playing transgendered characters too).

[sqbr]

I have no idea. But it's an unpleasant thought: misogyny overcome by ableism, huzzah! :/

Re: here from metafandom

[sqbr]

Yes! Exactly! And not only are they a better person, they'll be rewarded with fame and leadership and the Chief's Daughter etc.

And so of course people who buy into that narrative and then are not rewarded with fame and leadership and cookies get all entitled and angry and "Don't you WANT allies? I used be anti racist/sexist/ableist etc but you guys are so ungrateful I'm taking my toys and going home!"

[sqbr]

Sorry you got so many replies at once, I was out so they were all screened and it looked to others like noone had replied to you.

Anyway, this has mostly been addressed but: Fiction is not reality! The fact that anti-racist narratives should not be All About The White People doesn't mean white people shouldn't be anti-racist. It just means we shouldn't expect the anti-racist movement to see us as the Most Important People.

And yes, as other people have said: we should actively help, but not actively lead. We help fight the battles, but we don't choose them.

[sqbr]

I agree with your underlying argument, but I'm pretty sure "Coloured People" is a seriously offensive term to a large number (all?) of non-white people/people of colour.

I remember hearing that "people of colour" and "coloured people" are considered synonyms in many languages other than English and I'm assuming that's where you're coming from. They are not synonyms in English (especially not American English), even though the literal meaning is the same! The historical usage and connotations are very different, though I don't know this history well enough to explain it.

I understand the confusion: "People of colour" feels offensive to my Australian ears and it took me quite a while to get used to it's use online. Ah, language, getting in the way of communication for a hundred thousand years...

Re: Here from Metafandom

[sqbr]

Well, that's not quite the trope I'm looking at , but it's definitely part of the same overall problem.

[sqbr]

Yes. And able-bodied characters playing disabled ones.

It never really struck me how wrong this sort of thing was until recently, but now any time I see a trans or disabled character I think "Why DID they have to cast them with a cisgendered/ablebodied actor??" (as much as the straight-actor-gets-accolades-for-playing-gay-character thing is a problem, I'd say there's less of an issue of those types of characters never being played by the right sort of actor)

[sqbr]

True :/ (See also my comment to sundayscat)

[sqbr]

Yes, I heard about that, and my "I should watch Glory some day" plans died (I love Denzel Washington. Why would you focus on anyone but him?)

I think the sexuality-based version might be something like "straight main character has gay friend who is tragically dying of aids," or "gay character is picked on by other students. Straight protagonist disapproves of this/defends him."

Yes, that sounds about right.

Merely tolerating their non-straight friend is proof of how progressive and enlightened they are (sadly, this is actually true IRL for many people - just a lack of someone directly condemning you can feel gratitude-worthy).

*nods* And thinking about it, on a meta level a show/movie will applaud itself (and be applauded) for simply having a GLBT character on screen, regardless of how badly they may be portrayed.

[sqbr]

Well, for a start I think there's a problem with thinking that all that matters about a would-be anti-racist film is it's effect on white audiences. What about being an inspiration to non-white/POC audience members? Or at the very least, entertaining without making them want to hit their head against a wall at the racism (cutting down the emotional energy wasted on being upset by racism would have a HUGE anti-racist effect, since it would give POC/non-white people more energy to do other things)

I agree that a white protagonist can help audiences identify, and as I said in my post there's nothing inherently wrong with telling stories about white anti-racists. But there are more and less racist ways of telling such stories, and I think they should be in the minority of anti-racist stories we tell (I mean: should feminist stories be mostly about men?). Something that struck me replying to someone above is that I've encountered white "anti-racists" who buy into the white-hero story, and their commitment to anti-racism ends the moment a POC/non-white person contradicts them, or they don't get cookies and gratitude every time they do the least anti-racist thing. Maybe if these people encountered the idea of POC/non-white people controlling their own destiny and taking charge of the anti-racist movement in fiction they wouldn't freak out so badly when they encountered it in person.

I admit my argument about Dollhouse is a little shaky (I don't take it back, but am not certain enough to defend it with much vigour) It was just the best example that came to mind.

[(Anonymous)]

hi, yes, i too was confused when i first saw the term "person of color." i know the historical definition in US english, but i know we're using it differently here.

unfortunately, i'm not totally certain about the exact definition we're using here. who is a person of color?

[(Anonymous)]

I think then you get into the difference between accuracy and wanting to cast a big name, because there's not any big name trans actors. Only one I can think of is Maddie Blaustein and she's a-dead (still very sad) and b-a voice actress.

So even if you get a director who'd WANT to, movies don't usually take risks on no-names.

[sqbr]

I really don't feel confident giving an exact definition, and googling hasn't given me any really reliable looking sources, but roughly speaking I use it to mean people who are not white/ experience racism. Of course then the question is:how do you define white? Or race? And then I flail because definitions are not my strong point.

[ten]

I'm using 'Coloured People' specifically as the trope used by Hollywood here (thus the capitals, same goes for White Man). Call me cynic, but I expect that's exactly what the people who create movies or series with that kind of story call them in their head.

(Personally, I use neither terms. I'm not fond of grouping people into a phrase, just my personal preference.)

Sorry that I didn't make that clear! Maybe I should've used "" instead.

[sqbr]

*nods*

I think there's a lot of very similar tropes that all blur together.

[sqbr]

*nods*

Someone on my reading list (trouble? I can't find the post again) was talking about how this is often true of non-fiction books about disability: the author makes a point of saying how they never really thought about it until they or their family member etc got disabled. I must admit it's true of myself to some extent :/

[lady_ganesh]

Oh, yeah. I think it's a legitimate story, honestly; it's just not the only story, and yet it's the story that ends up dominating a lot of the time.

[sqbr]

Huh, fair enough.

Yeah, in this sort of situation I think it's really important to be careful with language. I've inadvertently hurt people before when they took my sarcastic satire of prejudiced attitudes as sincere, it prompted me to make this icon.

[sqbr]

First off: I know very little about trans actors so this is all theoretical, I could be spouting crap.

The fact that they have rational capitalist rather than deliberately prejudiced reasons for doing it doesn't stop them from being consciously complicit in a prejudiced system. Sometimes the only way to not be part of the problem is to actively be part of the solution, even if it's inconvenient (of course if it's a choice between using a cis actor and not making the movie at all it goes beyond "inconvenient").

Also not all trans characters are played by big name actors, and you might even get some positive publicity from casting a real trans actor.

[lauredhel]

I think it's this one: We don't live on Avenue Q