Hate influencer Chaya Raichik – who goes by “Libs of TikTok” online – is trying to take her show on the road, and it doesn’t appear to be going well.
Raichik gave a speech yesterday at the Indiana Memorial Union at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, alongside Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN).
During her speech, she ranted about “pornographic” books in schools and moved on to her hatred of everything “woke.”
…
Some students started laughing.
“Um, do you have a question? Is something funny?” she asked, apparently not expecting people to find her over-the-top concerns funny.
“How do you define wokeness?” someone in the back asked.
Raichik tried to respond: “Wokeness is the destruction of normalicy [sic] and… And… Um… Uh…” More students started laughing.
“… of our lives,” she said, apparently thinking she was finishing a sentence.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement, which is a good sign because it means our disagreement is due to us having different values than one party having bad logic.
To me, seeing the same character looking as similar as possible to the original version I watched (so in this case, Disney’s little mermaid cartoon, not what it was based on) has a lot of value, to me and my enjoyment.
I can fully understand if that has no value to you, but that means our values are different. For you to understand my perspective, you have to use logic (which you are) and my values (which your not).
I agree with this statement, but we need to go just a bit further. If we introduce empathy into the equation, we consider more than just our own views. Do the values we each have work to suppress or subtract others that don’t have a voice? At what point does our mild inconvenience or discomfort become a drastic harm to others?
When I first heard about Disney casting a black actor for the live version of the movie it struct me strange and unfamiliar. However, with just a bit more consideration I realized that, while it was different, it didn’t change anything in the story. Further having a black actor meant that Disney was able to open up the role to vastly more actors which means we could be getting a better performance because the limitations of skin color were removed. Further, one of the largest lessons learned in our society from the original Star Trek TV series in the 60s was the representation matters. Men and women of different races and ethnicity were able to connect and aspire to the characters because they saw themselves represented on screen with (mostly) equal footing. I see the same opportunity here with the Little Mermaid reboot.
Why does our minor short term discomfort or unfamiliarity with a children’s movie remake mean we deny others that leg up to work in the movie industry and for viewers to be seen represented?
This doesn’t have anything to do with empathy. I think this is another disconnect. I see these decisions as artistic decisions, and they should only think about what would produce the best work of art. Trying to fix society should be done by reducing financial inequality (it’s why I call myself a leftist), not by ruining art.
Also, side note about representation. As a person or color, I always hated, HATED, when a person of my race was added without adding to the story. I want someone that looks like me to be cool, fit into the story, make the art work better. When it takes away from the story it feels like baggage and if anything makes me feel worse about my race.
So please, note that when it comes to race swaps, it’s not so black and white (pun not intended). What may seem like something that makes a movie better and society better to you can actually make the movie worse and make the person of color who it is suppose to help feel worse.
Does that mean your opinion is that a black actor in the lead role reduces the quality of the art of the Little Mermaid?
Isn’t opening up roles for actors that people of color were automatically excluded from because of the color of their skin irrespective of their acting talent the vehicle for reducing financial inequality in Hollywood?
This seems so strange to me that the view you’re communicating seems to restrict actors of color to only modern story lines or any historical story line through a western lens where their races was discriminated against, subservient, or seen as primitive. It reads like you’re saying anything but those roles are off limits because we must maintain historical accuracy of skin color of characters. Please tell me I’m misunderstanding you.
Are you talking about the inclusion of an actor of color as an addon side character that doesn’t add substance to the story (with the assumption that they were only added to increase representation and not advance the story in a substantive way)?
What if they are in the role of a main character? I raised this example before but I didn’t see you respond to it. Did it upset you when the Broadway actor Leslie Odom Jr. played the part of Aaron Burr in the Broadway musical Hamilton? The historical figure of Burr was a real person and objectively white, but Odom Jr, a black man, played him on stage. Did you find that inappropriate or importantly un-authentic?
Based on this response, I don’t think you understood my previous responses. I’ll explain again but most likely won’t respond beyond this point cause we are going in circles.
A good portion of fans value staying true to the character they watched and fell in love with. So given this fact, doing a race swap that doesn’t add to the story isn’t good. If your goal is social good, the backslash kind of defeats that purpose. If you do a good original story or use one that already has those races, like miles morales. You would achieve your representation goal better (cause no backslash).
Race swaps are essentially rainbow capitalism.
The little original Disney Mermaid came out in 1989, 35 years ago. The huge majority of the audience for the new live action remake is kids under 10 years old. They don’t care that the live action actor is black. The only reason the kids would have a problem with it is if their parents told them they should. I don’t see a reason to keep consistency for a now aging GenX population who isn’t even the target audience.
That’s your choice of course. I’m interested in continuing, but your selective omissions are making it difficult for me to gather a more complete understanding of framing of your position.
You’re right I’m not. I ask questions to trying and clarify your position so I understand, but they go unanswered. It would be VERY helpful for me to understand your position if you answer the question I’ve asked now for the third time:
Did it upset you when the Broadway actor Leslie Odom Jr. played the part of Aaron Burr in the Broadway musical Hamilton?