Comments

1. Fatemeh wrote:

   Damn you, Delicious! (shaking fist angrily) I send you so many good links via that stupid thing…I’ll just reroute them to your inbox from now on.

   Posted 08 Oct 2008 at 12:45 pm ¶

2. Genevieve wrote:

   Re: Johnny Depp– What? Really? Really really? I can see it, though; he is part Native American, and he usually only chooses characters that have an interesting story (as in the Burton “expanded” Willy Wonka role for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), so I expect Tonto to have dialogue and MAD SKILLZ. Also, I like Bruckheimer, so this can’t be terrible.

   Also, not surprised about PotC4, although it will be interesting to see where they go with the character; I was totally expecting major major tie-ins in my local area because since J.S. was looking for the Fountain of Youth, it would be a perfect opportunity for “Crazy Spaniards” to be added to the “distinctly ethnic enemies” list AND St. Augustine, FL (where Ponce de Leon landed and “found” the “fountain of youth”) is less than an hour from Orlando. The remake of Alice in Wonderland will only do well under Tim Burton’s direction, because for all its craziness, the original Disney film wasn’t surreal enough.

   /movie talk

   All the crimes tied in to this election would be enough to turn me off of it if I didn’t have an elections job. Luckily, I’m new enough to the call center that I haven’t heard too much craziness, and my hope is only battered and not crushed. Mr. Smellishis Poon would get is Kans-ass handed to him dressing like that in my neighborhood, but I will leave that issue alone solely because he is attention-seeking. Racewire is now in my bookmarks list. Thanks for pointing it out to me!

   Posted 08 Oct 2008 at 4:33 pm ¶

3. Genevieve wrote:

   It occurs to me that you guys, like my aunt, didn’t know about Depp being native? And she said, “I can haz proofs?” So, I’m posting a link and a quote:

   Found at SF Gate (San Francisco Chronicle) via the Wikipedia entry on Johnny Depp:
   “The profile of the Indian chief is a tribute to his grandfather, who died when Depp was 7. “I have some Native American blood in me. I’m not full- blooded Cherokee by any means. I’m mostly just a mutt. But just the fact that I have even a little bit of Native American blood in me is something that I’m very proud of. So I did this tattoo — it was my first tattoo.” He was 17.“

   Posted 08 Oct 2008 at 4:49 pm ¶

4. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   @Genevieve –

   I’m skeptical of the Tonto role, but I heart Johnny Depp – and he loves to take a role and work that sucker to the bone – so I’m just keeping tabs on this one.

   Posted 08 Oct 2008 at 5:44 pm ¶

5. Cedar wrote:

   Wow, that “Smellishis” article had my jaw on the floor. I’m partly so angry because I used to volunteer as a CASA (Court-appointed special advocate–CASAs are volunteer appointed by judges who stand up, in court, for the best interests of a child who doesn’t have another adult in his/her life to play this role–usually kids in foster care). I’m so proud of my work as a CASA, and in the organization as a whole that to hear they rewarded this sort of hateful, moronic behavior really hurts. A number of children in the program are children of color–I can’t help but see that CASA is saying to them “You’re a joke. This is how we see you. This is what we expect from you.”

   The headline to this follow-up article (from foxnews) claims he “apologized” for the incident, but his quote CLEARLY has him laughing and defending what he did
   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432023,00.html
   How is saying, “OMG, it was sooooo funny!” apologizing?

   Also, he claims he was not in “blackface,” yet also says he was playing the role of a black woman. I’m pretty outraged by this, partly as a single incident, and partly because of its connection to CASA.

   Posted 08 Oct 2008 at 10:27 pm ¶

6. Ken Arromdee wrote:

   It was mentioned earlier today, but it probably bears repeating: there are some sad (and probably dangerous) racists who count themselves among John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s supporters.

   Yeah, and there are also terrorists who count themselves among Muslims.

   Mod Note – Ken, you bring up Muslims one more time where there is no reason to do so, you’re banned. – LDP

   Posted 08 Oct 2008 at 10:57 pm ¶

7. Ken Arromdee wrote:

   What I was trying to get across is that “oh, by the way, there are some (disliked group) who do (really nasty thing)” when you’re only referring to a few individuals is blatantly an attempt to smear the group by association. Even if you phrased it so that you’re not literally accusing them of anything.

   The point isn’t to call Muslims terrorists. The point is that associating Muslims with terrorists like that is a smear. And the quote associating McCain supporters with racist death threats is exactly the same kind of smear, and you should recognize it as such and find it just as repugnant.

   Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 12:42 am ¶

8. Rob Schmidt wrote:

   I’m keeping close tabs on the Johnny Depp as Tonto story at Newspaper Rock:

   http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/09/johnny-depp-as-tonto.html

   http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/09/johnny-depp-cherokee.html

   http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/09/fallacy-of-big-name-actor.html

   Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 3:13 am ¶

9. pixilated wrote:

   i have to add to the chorus of people saying how in love with donna brazille i am right now. whoever it was at jezebel who made the comment about cartoon hearts sums it up for me as well.

   Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 7:07 am ¶

10. pixilated wrote:

    *brazile*

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 7:07 am ¶

11. Mary wrote:

    The point isn’t to call Muslims terrorists. The point is that associating Muslims with terrorists like that is a smear. And the quote associating McCain supporters with racist death threats is exactly the same kind of smear, and you should recognize it as such and find it just as repugnant.

    Your analogy fails.

    Sarah Palin was giving a speech, and she could hear her supporters shouting things like “Kill him!” and “Traitor!” about Obama. She said nothing. In fact she tacitly encouraged it by continuing to conflate Obama with Bill Ayers.

    If an imam were giving a speech, and did not discourage his followers from shouting “Death to America!” or “Death to Jews!”, he would be held responsible for that, especially if he tacitly encouraged it by bashing Zionists or whatever. It would NOT be a reflection on all Muslims, just as the particular people in the Palin crowd do not reflect all McCain/Palin supporters. But it would reflect very badly on the imam himself if he tacitly encouraged that stuff and did nothing to control the violent threats that emerged from the crowd.

    Likewise, if Sarah Palin KNOWS her rhetoric is inspiring death threats against Obama and does absolutely NOTHING to tamp it down, that is a horrible reflection on her character and the kind of campaign she and John McCain are running. And frankly, at a certain point I think McCain supporters are going to have to ask themselves just how far down this road they want to follow him.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 7:43 am ¶

12. Eric Daniels wrote:

    I am always amused that Conservatives beating the race war rhetoric drums like in these speeches and Conservative talk radio that there won’t be a price for their behavior. September 11 and the Beltway Sniper case should have taught everyone one thing, no one is safe from harm and if the race-baiting continues people will get hurt . Somebody from the mainstream media or a so-called statesman needs to tell the GOP that their race-baiting has set off consquences that will hurt in …

    1. National Unity
    2. Winning in Iraq
    3. Gaining foriegn support

    Even if Obama wins the election he will have a difficult time governing domestically for about 3 yrs, If Mc Cain/Palin and the GOP wins I don’t think they govern either domestic or foriegn policy and will end the “cold war” on race and class and make 1963-1972 look like Disneyland with only more violence and dissent. You can govern a politically/socially divided country but a Presidency based on race hate will look like Bosina and Serbia.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 7:52 am ¶

13. Lizzie (greeneyedfem wrote:

    Re: Johnny Depp. It’s fine and dandy that Depp is proud of his Native American heritage — but I think him being cast as Tonto is majorly fucked up.

    He doesn’t look Native American. He looks white. He actually played the white man to Gary Farmer’s Indian character, Nobody, in “Dead Man” (1995). And now he’s gonna play the Indian to some dude’s white man?

    Unless they’re writing in the script that Tonto has a mixed race heritage, I find this really really really hard to swallow. It seems like another example of Hollywood thinking that white folks can play folks of color, cutting POC out of the few roles that could be available to them. What about Adam Beach, Eric Schweig, or any of the other really talented First Nations actors out there? As problematic a character as Tonto was/is, I find it hard to believe they were all offered the role and turned it down.

    I’m pissed about this until proven otherwise. (And even though that sentence doesn’t make perfect grammatical sense, I stand by it.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 9:01 am ¶

14. Ken Arromdee wrote:

    It would NOT be a reflection on all Muslims, just as the particular people in the Palin crowd do not reflect all McCain/Palin supporters.

    Saying that there’s a dangerous element among McCain supporters is an attack on McCain supporters in general, not just on McCain or on a particular group of supporters.

    Likewise, if Sarah Palin KNOWS her rhetoric is inspiring death threats against Obama and does absolutely NOTHING to tamp it down,

    The article gives no information about if she did anything to tamp it down. Moreover, if you follow the link to the original source, it says that the Secret Service is now investigating (apparently nobody heard it at the time–it’s hard to tamp down on something you didn’t hear) and that it’s “unclear whether the remark was directed at Obama or Ayers if the words were actually “kill” and “him.” “

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 9:24 am ¶

15. Lyonside wrote:

    >And the quote associating McCain supporters with racist death threats is exactly the same kind of smear,

    Blah blah. As Mary said, it’s the responsibility of any leader of any movement (religious, political, social) to denounce the extremists who might be followers or risk a sin of omission: collaboration and tacit approval.

    It’s possible Palin CAN’T hear the crowd – depends on accoustics, background noise, etc. I’m one of those people that have real problems focusing on one voice in a big crowd, especially if I’m concentrating. I’d think she’s concentrating on her performance and the teleprompter.

    That said, when it gets picked up by news cameras, and talked about on every network, YOU NEED TO ADDRESS IT. NOW. One simple statement and legitimate criticism goes away. Considering the modern GOP’s admitted problems w/ ethnic minorities, a spokesperson/leader of the GOP should be clued into this, right?

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 9:27 am ¶

16. Lyonside wrote:

    And on a shallow note, mmm – Adam Beach. Loved him in Smoke Signals but haven’t caught his other work. Time to start mainlining Canadian TV, methinks.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 9:34 am ¶

17. Mary wrote:

    Saying that there’s a dangerous element among McCain supporters is an attack on McCain supporters in general, not just on McCain or on a particular group of supporters.

    No, it really isn’t.

    By this logic, criticizing the IRA is equivalent to criticizing anybody who ever thought Ireland deserved Home Rule.

    Your equivocation of some McCain/Palin supporters with all McCain/Palin supporters is so bizarre and obviously false on its face, I don’t know how to address it more deeply than that.

    The article gives no information about if she did anything to tamp it down.

    I have read numerous reports on this incident, and not one of them mentions Sarah Palin halting her speech and telling her supporters to stop.

    It strains credibility to think with TV cameras and an entire press section covering the event, not one of them would have picked this up.

    Therefore, I am inclined to believe she didn’t do anything.

    Moreover, if you follow the link to the original source, it says that the Secret Service is now investigating

    Great – that’s not the same thing as McCain/Palin doing anything to address what their supporters are doing.

    (apparently nobody heard it at the time–it’s hard to tamp down on something you didn’t hear) and that it’s “unclear whether the remark was directed at Obama or Ayers if the words were actually “kill” and “him.” “

    “Kill him” is not the only thing being shouted at the Palin rallies, though. “Treason” and “traitor” have also been heard. I can believe Palin didn’t hear one particular instance, but it strains credibility to think she mishears all of it. She is perfectly well aware of the kind of hatred for Obama she is stoking.

    Moreover, I would think that any politician with any SHRED of decency would address possible death threats against their opposition as soon as they found out about it. If Sarah Palin really didn’t hear the guy yelling “Kill him!”, fine. But she should have called a press conference or gone on television to denounce the person who shouted this. That is the honorable thing to do. Silence implies consent.

    Can you imagine Obama or Biden being allowed to get away with their supporters screaming for John McCain’s death? Obama would be branded as a black militant and his presidential aspirations would be finished.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 10:25 am ¶

18. Ken Arromdee wrote:

    Your equivocation of some McCain/Palin supporters with all McCain/Palin supporters is so bizarre and obviously false on its face, I don’t know how to address it more deeply than that.

    It’s not equivocation. It’s pointing out that a statement can have connotations beyond its literal words. “It bears repeating that there are some people who want to kill George Bush and call themselves leftists”, for instance, would be a slur on all leftists, and “we really should remember that there are some terrorists among Muslims” would be a slur on all Muslims. It implies that the entire group shares the attitudes of the subgroup that is directly mentioned. Just because the exact words of the statement are only about a subgroup doesn’t mean that the statement is really just being made about a subgroup.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 10:50 am ¶

19. Janine deManda wrote:

    Lizzie (greeneyedfem wrote:

    “He doesn’t look Native American. He looks white.”

    You know, I started coming to this site back when it was Mixed Media Watch ‘cuz I’m mixed, and I really appreciated having a place online where I felt mixed identity and politics were discussed in an informed and respectful manner. Sadly, the above-quoted post is not the first time since the transition from Mixed Media Watch to Racialicious that any pretense of complex analysis or respectful tone has been abandonded with regard to mixed race identity and politics.

    Now, I’m not saying I’m thrilled with Johnny Depp or with Johnny Depp playing Tonto, but I am saying that if someone openly identifies as mixed race, dismissing them for looking white is absurdly simplistic, offensive, and disrespectful. To my mind, this is especially true when it comes to folks with First Nations ancestry given the long history of bureaucratic genocide embodied in the BIA’s blood quantum requirements and forced assimilation practices. Unfortunately, I have grown used to seeing such cavalier rhetoric on other anti-racist sites {for example, http://www.racewire.org/archives/2008/02/jolies_role_as_a_woman_of_colo.html }, but I just can’t seem to shake my disappointment at seeing it here.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 11:59 am ¶

20. Lyonside wrote:

    Janine: although I think it could have been phrased better, I think the core of the argument is that Native peoples have a long history of 1) stereotypical and historically inaccurate roles in film and TV, or 2) absolute invisibility, both in the script and in who plays the role (i.e. Italians in redface played a lot of the ‘Indians’ in westerns). Heck, it still happens (see: Hidalgo).

    To put an actor (who is a big-name box office star, which is why it was offered, I’m sure) who is not publicly known as that ethnicity (regardless of personal identification) in a role as obviously ethnic as Tonto, when that ethnicity remains subverted and suppressed in mass market media, is problematic at best.

    It’s like placing Thandie Newton or Jennifer Beals in the role of an ethnic character that has never been portrayed as mixed – it reads as an effort to quite literally “whitewash” a character.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 12:28 pm ¶

21. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Janine deManda

    Thanks for raising that point. I was responsible for approving that comment, and I agree with you. I feel really sorry to disappoint your expectation that Racialicious be a mixed-person-friendly space – that friendliness is part of why I like writing here.

    My thought in approving the comment was that, as Lyonside mentioned, Depp isn’t publicly known as being mixed race. I’m not sure if he does identify as mixed race, though I know that he puts it out there that his great-grandmother was Cherokee. So I thought there was truth to the criticism that it’s wrong to cast someone who is publicly identified as white, in a role that could go to a person of colour.

    But you’re right that it’s super problematic to dismiss the ways a mixed person identifies. I’m with you on that one and I’ll definitely be more careful next time.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 1:05 pm ¶

22. Winn wrote:

    “It bears repeating that there are some people who want to kill George Bush and call themselves leftists”, for instance, would be a slur on all leftists, and “we really should remember that there are some terrorists among Muslims” would be a slur on all Muslims.

    Only if you are incapable of nuanced thought. There are fringe or extremist elements in any given group, from animal rights activists to evangelical Christians. When leadership allows fringe voices to predominate or air unchallenged, it is then that those voices impact how the entire group is viewed, as it appears tacit approval is being given to those extremist views. Regardless of whether Palin heard a particular individual during an specific rally, such incidents have happened repeatedly and have certainly been brought to her and McCain’s attention. They have chosen not to even address them let alone condemn them, which is why they are being justly criticized for their lack of response.

    Indeed, while McCain and Palin can’t be held completely responsible for the views or actions of their supporters, it would be disingenous at the least and contemptuous to those who know better to attempt to suggest that McCain and especially Palin haven’t been using racially coded language and repeatedly “othering” Obama, making the ranks of their supporters an inviting place for “sad and (probably dangerous) racists”. If they don’t want that element to be representative of their supporters, they shouldn’t give implicit approval to that element’s rhetoric by not even acknowledging their words and actions, and by not taking responsibility for their own race-baiting.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 1:42 pm ¶

23. Janine deManda wrote:

    Lyonside and Thea Lim,

    Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I understand the raced problematics of hollywood casting, and I think ongoing conversations about it are necessary and useful. The casually dismissive language in the post was what I found troubling, regardless of my degree of certainty about the heritage of the person in question. Also, I would argue that while casting a mixed race person in a role that “has never been portrayed as mixed” could be seen simply as an attempt at “whitewashing”, it could also be seen as an opportunity to have more nuanced conversations about race, identity, myths of purity, and portrayals thereof.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 1:48 pm ¶

24. Janine deManda wrote:

    You know, I didn’t include this above because I thought perhaps I was being either too combative or too tangential or both, but after letting it sit for a bit while I did other things, I’m thinking it’s neither:

    If it would be whitewashing to cast Thandie Newton or Jennifer Beals in a role that “has never been portrayed as mixed”, why isn’t it similarly problematic to cast ostensibly unmixed {for lack of a better word} folks in roles that ARE based on mixed folks? No one raised any kind of fuss about authenticity when Denzel Washington played Malcolm X – perhaps Denzel Washington, like Malcolm X, has a white grandparent I don’t know about and has wrestled with that specific experience? Would a fuss be raised if Denzel Washington played W.E.B. Dubois? What about Walter White? Jean Toomer? Could Johnny Depp play Principal Chief John Ross {7/8 Scots and 1/8 Cherokee by blood}? Who could play Wilma Mankiller? Crazyhorse {whose childhood name was Curly for his curly hair}?

    And where is the discussion happening {other than my living room} about John Tuturro’s non/off-white-of-all-trades roles? Did no one care about authenticity when Johnny Depp played a Traveller in “The Man Who Cried”? Or was that okay because Americans mistakenly believe anti-Romany laws and attitudes aren’t actually racist because the Romany aren’t real POC? Or did that film just get avoided entirely because it directly addressed raced ambiguity from a number of angles?

    Lyonside and Thea Lim, I am not directing this at you. I’m just giving some small vent to my enormous frustration with conversations about race, identity, racism, et al that purport to be complex and informed, but insist on pretending that race, even as a social construct, is impermeable, pure, and clear cut – thereby leaving those of us whose bodies and heritages belie that oversimplification once more on the outside, on the margins, dismissed.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 2:26 pm ¶

25. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Janine deManda

    I was actually reading earlier that Johnny Depp is 1/8 Cherokee (though can’t confirm that).

    You definitely raise some interesting points and I’m glad you shared them.

    I think I have less of a problem with a monoracial person of colour playing a biracial person of colour, if the biracial person of colour identifies as a person of colour. That is a bit of a mouthful, but what i mean is, I identify as a mixed race person of colour, because my experience has led me to ie generally in N. American society I’m viewed as monoracially East Asian. Similarly I think Malcolm X identified as a person of colour, so having a person of colour play him isn’t as disturbing to me as having, for eg, Angelina Jolie having her hair permed and her skin darkened to play Marianne Pearl.

    If a person of colour played a real live biracial person, whose mixed identity was a very large part of their politics, and who was clearly, visibly mixed race and publically identified as so, I think I would be disappointed, but not angry.

    I get angry when white-identified folks play roles that could’ve been played by people of colour because there are so few good roles out there for people of colour. Ie my anger is connected to systemic barriers faced by people of colour, rather than a feeling that history is being distorted or simplified – though obviously that’s part of my irritation.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 2:53 pm ¶

26. Lizzie (greeneyedfem wrote:

    I just checked back in, and I want to say that Janine is right:

    “if someone openly identifies as mixed race, dismissing them for looking white is absurdly simplistic, offensive, and disrespectful.”

    It absolutely is. I apologize for venting without thinking and for making this space feel less safe for anyone. That was not my intention.

    I was not trying to dismiss how Johnny Depp (or any other mixed-race person) might see themselves. I would never challenge him on his own identity as part Native American.

    Lyonside said what I was thinking (and fuming about) much more eloquently: I’m angry that Hollywood seems to do all they can to give roles, even roles that are specifically written as non-white , to actors that most people read as white. It frustrates me to see one of the few available roles for a POC (even a scary-omigod-what-are-they-going-to-do-with-this role like Tonto) given to someone like Depp, who is seen as white and who doesn’t have to struggle to get parts (how many movies does he have lined up right now? how many does Eric Schweig?). And as much as I’d like to hope for it, I don’t really believe that a Disney-produced Lone Ranger movie is going to provide a nuanced conversation about race. I think Depp made them a lot of money in the Pirates movies and they want him back to do it again.

    But again, I apologize for the tone of my post and for making anyone feel dismissed or offended here. It was wrong of me.

    Thanks for taking the time to school me, Janine.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶

27. Joseph wrote:

    @Janine deManda (#19, 23, 24)
    cosign.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 4:15 pm ¶

28. Janine deManda wrote:

    The lack of good roles for people of color and other systemic barriers faced by people of color are substantial issues. To my way of thinking, though, the distortion and oversimplification of histories and identities are not any less substantial. All are aspects of the same system{s} of oppression, and to my mind, all deserve the thorough attention of anti-racists, especially in a context in which mixed identity and politics are ostensibly the focus of an activist approach or analysis.

    To my mind, anti-racist support, whether direct or tacit, of Denzel Washington playing Walter White in a feature film about the NAACP would do a disservice not only to mixed race folks, but also to the larger cause of anti-racism. The facts that Walter White had blond hair, blue eyes, and white skin AND was a black man in America AND dedicated his life to the NAACP are all integral parts of his story, of the story of the NAACP, and of the story of race in America. That said, I don’t have a pat answer for casting the role, but I’d rather have the conversation than not.

    Similarly, I was troubled by the casting of Halle Berry in “Queen” for like reasons. Instead of casting Jennifer Beals or another actress who could {and has} passed and thereby addressing the realities {uncomfortable to many Americans regardless of race} that phenotypically “white” people have been and are part of black America and did {and do} suffer in a variety of ways in racist, white supremacist contexts, a decision was made to cast a more or less phenotypically black actress and pretend it would have been possible for her to pass as white in the deep American South, oh, EVER.

    If we are going to take this morass apart and make something more humane of it, then we have to take the WHOLE thing apart – not just the easy, obvious bits. Acceding to racist realities that erase complexity would mean that I should shut up and pass, right? That any mixed blood who can pass as monoracially anything should just shut up and pass because there are bigger fish to fry, and we can deal with these little details later when everything else has been fixed? I don’t think so. I think if we’re going to feed everyone, then ALL the fish need to be fried, every last one.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 4:30 pm ¶

29. Janine deManda wrote:

    Lizzie (greeneyedfem – thank you, and I totally understand your outrage and concern regarding hollywood, race, and casting. All your points are valid, imho. And can I just say how pissed the whole concept of a 21st century lone ranger movie makes me? Tonto literally translates as “stupid” – from Spanish, no less, not even a First Nations language. Gak.

    Joseph – thank you, as always, for getting it and saying that you do.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 4:36 pm ¶

30. Lizzie (greeneyedfem wrote:

    Janine, thank you for being simultaneously angry, eloquent, and gracious — a skill I’m still trying to master (obviously).

    I didn’t see ‘Queenie,’ but it sounds to me like you’re dead on about the casting. It reminds me of an article I read recently (ooh, brain, thinkthinkthink! can’t remember where right now) about the DNA evidence that proved Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson had children together. The author was talking about how historians denied it for so long because admitting it might have happened would be admitting that race in America is much more complex than black/white, admitting that black and white folks are actually related and share family trees.

    I’ll see if I can remember where it was, I remember being impressed.

    Posted 09 Oct 2008 at 5:03 pm ¶

31. Genevieve wrote:

    @ Janine deManda: …I think you’re my new favorite person. <3 I also touched on the potential for a mixed-race Tonto when I commented on the Blue Corn Comics blog link posted, and I am plugging it again because that site is awesome information-wise.

    And re: Thandie Newton as “ethnic character”, I think she reads as definitively “not white” when playing a character, but that might just be me. It is also very interesting to me that “passing” makes people so uncomfortable in the same way that just not being able to tell a person’s race/ethnicity by looking at them and/or listening to them speak makes them uncomfortable as if it were a deliberate “deception”.

    Also, re: Tonto’s name, I was under the impression that the Lone Ranger and Tonto invented names for each other? And both ended up pretty much calling each other “dumbass” in their respective languages until they learned to get along and work together??

    Posted 10 Oct 2008 at 7:14 am ¶

32. Genevieve wrote:

    And curly-haired Crazy Horse has just made my day, btw.

    Posted 10 Oct 2008 at 8:01 am ¶

33. Lizzie (greeneyedfem wrote:

    Here’s the article:

    “Taking the Wolf by the Ears: Ann Rinaldi and the Cultural Work of Sally Hemings” by Emily Honey in the Journal of Popular Culture. And the issue is a free sample online, so yay! since it’s usually expensive to access.

    Here’s the link:
    Taking the Wolf by the Ears

    Posted 10 Oct 2008 at 8:57 am ¶