|
Post by lesleymoon on Jul 11, 2014 11:45:48 GMT -5
My only issue with the article is the part about thinking Alicia Fox is the most original, non-racist black character in the WWE, when it's obvious she's this crazed, drama-happy character now. I don't think this new gimmick with Alicia is racist or has anything to do with her being black though. Sure, it might have been 'inspired' by Solange Knowles' elevator beatdown on Jay-Z but its not been promoted as anything other than 'She's gone crazy!'. You could sub any of the white divas into that gimmick and it'd be same. Maybe the divas division is better when it comes to race? Or maybe they just don't care enough about the divas to bother with characterizations, racial or not. AJ Lee is...Puerto Rican? (Right? I could totally be wrong there) and her character/gimmick has never had anything to do with her background. One could even make the argument she has been whitewashed. The Funkadactyls you might accuse of being nothing better than 'happy, dancing' babyfaces, but, there have been white divas with dancer/cheerleader type gimmicks so to me that sort of deflates that argument. Maybe its a bit unfortunate those two ladies were put into that gimmick, absolutely, but I don't think its inherently racist. From my recollection, no divas have really been booked based on their background. Please feel free to correct me!
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 11, 2014 13:23:11 GMT -5
My only issue with the article is the part about thinking Alicia Fox is the most original, non-racist black character in the WWE, when it's obvious she's this crazed, drama-happy character now. I don't think this new gimmick with Alicia is racist or has anything to do with her being black though. Sure, it might have been 'inspired' by Solange Knowles' elevator beatdown on Jay-Z but its not been promoted as anything other than 'She's gone crazy!'. You could sub any of the white divas into that gimmick and it'd be same. Maybe the divas division is better when it comes to race? Or maybe they just don't care enough about the divas to bother with characterizations, racial or not. AJ Lee is...Puerto Rican? (Right? I could totally be wrong there) and her character/gimmick has never had anything to do with her background. One could even make the argument she has been whitewashed. The Funkadactyls you might accuse of being nothing better than 'happy, dancing' babyfaces, but, there have been white divas with dancer/cheerleader type gimmicks so to me that sort of deflates that argument. Maybe its a bit unfortunate those two ladies were put into that gimmick, absolutely, but I don't think its inherently racist. From my recollection, no divas have really been booked based on their background. Please feel free to correct me! Hmmmmm. Rosa Mendez once got told "Can I press one for English?" but aside from that unfortunate little moment, you may be right that the divas might actually be treated better in this regard overall. The Funkdactyls... well, I mean, they're called "The Funkdactyls," but the cheerleading elements do make it less of a blatant racial thing, and they they each do have their own distinct character. The divas have actually been pretty decently racially diverse, too. An exception MIGHT be made for Asian divas, but there's been so few, it's kinda hard to say. Lena Yada had kind of an uncomfortable exoticized sexy Japanese schoolgirl thing going on, but Gail Kim's character never really had much to do with her race, as I can recall. Of course, going way back, we have people like Bull Nakano, who had the same problem male, Asian wrestlers do. And of course Aja Kong, but I don't think the WWE can really be blamed for her gimmick. The whitewashing thing IS a problem, though, particularly where it comes to hair. In all, though... wow, you might be right, this may actually be an instance where wrestling does pretty good with its female talent. Never thought I'd see the day.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2014 13:24:33 GMT -5
Oh. Well, that settles that, then. Actually it does. The entire article is seeing racism where the facts simply don't support it, with the exception of the HHH/Booker angle.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 11, 2014 13:25:15 GMT -5
Oh. Well, that settles that, then. Actually it does. The entire article is seeing racism where the facts simply don't support it, with the exception of the HHH/Booker angle. Jennifer-Lawrence-thumbs-up-gif
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2014 13:29:19 GMT -5
Actually it does. The entire article is seeing racism where the facts simply don't support it, with the exception of the HHH/Booker angle. Jennifer-Lawrence-thumbs-up-gif I'll take that as a surrender.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 11, 2014 13:40:04 GMT -5
Jennifer-Lawrence-thumbs-up-gif I'll take that as a surrender. Yep, can't fight your astounding logical argument of "Yes huh!" (fine see, the thing is, you seem to just be defining "racism" in a really limited way that is different from how the author of the article defines it, so your reaction isn't even relevant to the point he's making; also it's a little silly to act like the issue has obviously been settled in your favor after twelve pages of good-faith people debating it, more than half of whom disagree with you.)
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2014 13:42:07 GMT -5
I'll take that as a surrender. Yep, can't fight your astounding logical argument of "Yes huh!"(fine see, the thing is, you seem to just be defining "racism" in a really limited way that is different from how the author of the article defines it, so your reaction isn't even relevant to the point he's making; also it's a little silly to act like the issue has obviously been settled in your favor after twelve pages of good-faith people debating it, more than half of whom disagree with you.) That wasn't my argument. I posted an extensive rebuttal to the article which covers practically every fallacy it made point by point. As for the definition of racism, the definition favoured by the article seems to be cases of selective examples which are easily debunked using factual evidence.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 11, 2014 14:00:39 GMT -5
Yep, can't fight your astounding logical argument of "Yes huh!"(fine see, the thing is, you seem to just be defining "racism" in a really limited way that is different from how the author of the article defines it, so your reaction isn't even relevant to the point he's making; also it's a little silly to act like the issue has obviously been settled in your favor after twelve pages of good-faith people debating it, more than half of whom disagree with you.) That wasn't my argument. I posted an extensive rebuttal to the article which covers practically every fallacy it made point by point. As for the definition of racism, the definition favoured by the article seems to be cases of selective examples which are easily debunked using factual evidence. But you didn't use all "factual" information, a lot of what you provided is, in fact, subjective and fluid in definition. For example, you cited Rusev as not being white, but you have to take into context who the audience viewing him is, and how the definition of white vs. non-white will shift depending on that. In the bulk of the United States? Rusev is white. Hell, to the bulk of the United States viewing audience, Batista, a Filipino, was basically white. If we were discussing wrestling and this was the 1914 version of the Internet, we'd have people arguing that Sheamus wasn't white, due to being Irish. Thus, the "facts" shift depending on the context of the place and time in which they are stated.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2014 14:05:49 GMT -5
That wasn't my argument. I posted an extensive rebuttal to the article which covers practically every fallacy it made point by point. As for the definition of racism, the definition favoured by the article seems to be cases of selective examples which are easily debunked using factual evidence. But you didn't use all "factual" information, a lot of what you provided is, in fact, subjective and fluid in definition. For example, you cited Rusev as not being white, but you have to take into context who the audience viewing him is, and how the definition of white vs. non-white will shift depending on that. In the bulk of the United States? Rusev is white. Hell, to the bulk of the United States viewing audience, Batista, a Filipino, was basically white. If we were discussing wrestling and this was the 1914 version of the Internet, we'd have people arguing that Sheamus wasn't white, due to being Irish. Thus, the "facts" shift depending on the context of the place and time in which they are stated. The point about Rusev could be open to interpretation, but it fits into the wider scope of the article, which emphasises supposed racism against non-white wrestlers. As for Batista and Sheamus, if the article was about perceptions of what races wrestlers were, it would be another issue entirely. But that's not what it argues.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jul 11, 2014 14:07:34 GMT -5
Oh. Well, that settles that, then. Actually it does. The entire article is seeing racism where the facts simply don't support it, with the exception of the HHH/Booker angle. Perhaps you're conflating conscious, intentional, prejudicial individual racism (as in, were Vince McMahon to say, "I dislike black people, and as such they will not be booked or represented on my television program in a positive light") with that of unconscious, unintentional, prejudicial structural racism (as in, Vince McMahon, for all intents and purposes a white man, who may believe that the majority of his fanbase is white, and with a large labour force, currently and historically, that is also largely white, eschews his television program towards whiteness as an ideal and normative category of representational identification, of the actual wrestlers themselves, to the detriment of wrestlers of colour, who subsequently have had and continue to receive gimmicks or booking patterns that reinforce both whiteness as the ideal and norm and non-whiteness as that which is to be subordinated, also recognizing that this processes of normalization and idealization of whiteness often depend on strategies of subordination, in addition to their naturalization). In this sense, is WWE 'racist'? According to the former, I would say probably not, according to the latter, absolutely. EDIT: HMARK Center's comments about demarcations within whiteness, especially how these demarcations are perceived, while not present per se in the actual article in question, do factor into what we mean when we say 'whiteness', as in one form of whiteness isn't someone else's version of whiteness. Whiteness in this sense, and the complexities of ethnicity, self-identification, and associations of values and meanings attached to race and visibilities, cannot be 'whitewashed' from the conversation. As such, the point that people who make up WWE's audience might perceive Rusev as 'being white' whereas to you, you do not perceive such whiteness, is entirely valid. The facts themselves are not objective facts, but subjective ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 14:09:04 GMT -5
I'll take that as a surrender. Yep, can't fight your astounding logical argument of "Yes huh!" (fine see, the thing is, you seem to just be defining "racism" in a really limited way that is different from how the author of the article defines it, so your reaction isn't even relevant to the point he's making; also it's a little silly to act like the issue has obviously been settled in your favor after twelve pages of good-faith people debating it, more than half of whom disagree with you.) Man, to tell the truth... That's why I haven't really said anything else on this topic, though I've got so much else to say. The discussion is going to hit a brick wall the moment you have people who don't want to even accept the original premise: WWE has got some ****ed up issues when it comes to race, focusing on how they book black people. But it's like....if we want to get more in-depth about it as opposed to being stuck on arguing the same details we always do, there's got to be a basic level of agreement going on...or even if you don't agree, just take all the people who are saying that they do on faith that they know what they're talking about. I mean, just to get the discussion off the ground, man. I don't see it here, so it's like we be doomed arguing the same shit. Ain't nobody got time for that, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2014 14:09:44 GMT -5
Actually it does. The entire article is seeing racism where the facts simply don't support it, with the exception of the HHH/Booker angle. Perhaps you're conflating conscious, intentional, prejudicial individual racism (as in, were Vince McMahon to say, "I dislike black people, and as such they will not be booked or represented on my television program in a positive light") with that of unconscious, unintentional, prejudicial structural racism (as in, Vince McMahon, for all intents and purposes a white man, who may believe that the majority of his fanbase is white, and with a large labour force, currently and historically, that is also largely white, eschews his television program towards whiteness as an ideal and normative category of representational identification, of the actual wrestlers themselves, to the detriment of wrestlers of colour, who subsequently have had and continue to receive gimmicks or booking patterns that reinforce both whiteness as the ideal and norm and non-whiteness as that which is to be subordinated, also recognizing that this processes of normalization and idealization of whiteness often depend on strategies of subordination, in addition to their naturalization). In this sense, is WWE 'racist'? According to the former, I would say probably not, according to the latter, absolutely. WWE could very well be racist. But that assertion has not been proven by the arguments in the article, which range from nebulous to verifiably false.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jul 11, 2014 14:17:32 GMT -5
Perhaps you're conflating conscious, intentional, prejudicial individual racism (as in, were Vince McMahon to say, "I dislike black people, and as such they will not be booked or represented on my television program in a positive light") with that of unconscious, unintentional, prejudicial structural racism (as in, Vince McMahon, for all intents and purposes a white man, who may believe that the majority of his fanbase is white, and with a large labour force, currently and historically, that is also largely white, eschews his television program towards whiteness as an ideal and normative category of representational identification, of the actual wrestlers themselves, to the detriment of wrestlers of colour, who subsequently have had and continue to receive gimmicks or booking patterns that reinforce both whiteness as the ideal and norm and non-whiteness as that which is to be subordinated, also recognizing that this processes of normalization and idealization of whiteness often depend on strategies of subordination, in addition to their naturalization). In this sense, is WWE 'racist'? According to the former, I would say probably not, according to the latter, absolutely. WWE could very well be racist. But that assertion has not been proven by the arguments in the article, which range from nebulous to verifiably false. Debatable, sure. Verifiably false, I remain unconvinced (let alone whatever the parameters are to verify such a phenomenon, I would certainly be all ears to hear how that is to be explained).
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2014 14:19:52 GMT -5
WWE could very well be racist. But that assertion has not been proven by the arguments in the article, which range from nebulous to verifiably false. Debatable, sure. Verifiably false, I remain unconvinced (let alone whatever the parameters are to verify such a phenomenon, I would certainly be all ears to hear how that is to be explained). Well it would be explained by studying the arguments offered to prove it, and then applying scrutiny to see if they hold up. With the exception of the HHH/Booker T example, the arguments in the article do not.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 11, 2014 14:25:55 GMT -5
Debatable, sure. Verifiably false, I remain unconvinced (let alone whatever the parameters are to verify such a phenomenon, I would certainly be all ears to hear how that is to be explained). Well it would be explained by studying the arguments offered to prove it, and then applying scrutiny to see if they hold up. With the exception of the HHH/Booker T example, the arguments in the article do not. It kinda seems like you put a lot of work into writing this big thing, and nobody really responded to it, and you're taking that as proof that your arguments were unassailable, but that is not necessarily the only reason why that would happen. Yeah, it's the thing people keep saying that you haven't responded to at all (which makes sense, if you never think about issues of race this way): You're defining racism differently; you're looking for this one particular thing that you think counts. So the angle you're coming at the article from is way different from what the point actually was and the way people mostly seem to have been thinking about it, and so in the past few comments, people have been like speaking a different language from you. I may be wrong, but your main purpose seems to be finding false allegations of racism and disproving them: the goal is making sure no one is thought of as RACIST if they're not. But that doesn't even really apply to what's being talked about, and as a goal, I am not really confident how socially beneficial it is.
|
|
|
Post by Chairman of the Board on Jul 11, 2014 14:28:47 GMT -5
Why does the WWE think Samoans have hard heads, uneffected by headbutts? RACIST!!
Why was Steve Austin cast as a sterotypical Texas hillbilly? RACIST!!
WWE is the problem with the world.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2014 14:29:41 GMT -5
Well it would be explained by studying the arguments offered to prove it, and then applying scrutiny to see if they hold up. With the exception of the HHH/Booker T example, the arguments in the article do not. It kinda seems like you put a lot of work into writing this big thing, and nobody really responded to it, and you're taking that as proof that your arguments were unassailable, but that is not necessarily the only reason why that would happen. Yeah, it's the thing people keep saying that you haven't responded to at all (which makes sense, if you never think about issues of race this way): You're defining racism differently; you're looking for this one particular thing that you think counts. So the angle you're coming at the article from is way different from what the point actually was and the way people mostly seem to have been thinking about it, and so in the past few comments, people have been like speaking a different language from you. Well now you're verging into a tangent and trying to psychoanalyse someone via message board, which is rather strange. As for the actual subject matter, if anyone wants to debate anything in my original rebuttal, I'd be happy to engage in it.
|
|
ookkie
Unicron
Rated R.
Posts: 2,571
|
Post by ookkie on Jul 11, 2014 14:46:09 GMT -5
"Is there a problem?" * throws Xavier Woods through window * "I don't THINK so." You know, I actually thought that that was going to be the 'punch line' in the original poster's first message. I half-expected a photoshop. As for the article itself... I think it's hard to dispute that there is a reliance on race-based caricatures in the WWE.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 11, 2014 15:09:12 GMT -5
It kinda seems like you put a lot of work into writing this big thing, and nobody really responded to it, and you're taking that as proof that your arguments were unassailable, but that is not necessarily the only reason why that would happen. Yeah, it's the thing people keep saying that you haven't responded to at all (which makes sense, if you never think about issues of race this way): You're defining racism differently; you're looking for this one particular thing that you think counts. So the angle you're coming at the article from is way different from what the point actually was and the way people mostly seem to have been thinking about it, and so in the past few comments, people have been like speaking a different language from you. Well now you're verging into a tangent and trying to psychoanalyse someone via message board, which is rather strange. As for the actual subject matter, if anyone wants to debate anything in my original rebuttal, I'd be happy to engage in it. No, I don't think anyone is, because it's off-topic and makes assumptions that you take for granted and many don't agree with and... <sigh> Y'know, all the stuff people have said a million times already; just read those. here's a way to put it: You stubbornly seem to think you've decided how this article and these issues are going to be framed, but it doesn't even actually seem to be very popular way of defining things, much less overwhelmingly accepted. So your grand take-down of the article is probably not going to be a thing people are even going to be interested in addressing, because for a lot of people, it's like it was written by someone speaking another language.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 11, 2014 15:12:35 GMT -5
Well now you're verging into a tangent and trying to psychoanalyse someone via message board, which is rather strange. As for the actual subject matter, if anyone wants to debate anything in my original rebuttal, I'd be happy to engage in it. No, I don't think anyone is, because it's off-topic and makes assumptions that you take for granted and many don't agree with and... <sigh> Y'know, all the stuff people have said a million times already; just read those. A direct rebuttal to the article in the original post using quotes verbatim isn't off topic. It couldn't be more on-topic.
|
|