In reply to Tom Coates.

All reasonable points. I do think the whole question of representation of women & minorities in the media is at the core of why this thing got so widespread. If not, it's the most interesting aspect of it, anyway. And it's the main thing that bugs me about it, since it's more complicated than it seems at first, and I still think that HG Tweets tumblr is the worst way to go about it.

I totally agree with you that it’s often the case that we tend to view characters as white, male and heterosexual, and I also agree with you that it’s understandable. I would take a bit more exception with the idea that it’s therefore okay. I’m pretty sure that white women and black men and gay people also assume that a character is a white male unless they hear otherwise.
[...]
Now, I don’t want to make a huge thing of this. I just think it’s reasonable to suggest that people *should* make a bit more of an effort to visualize characters, particularly when the text indicates that they’re non-white.
Fair enough, and I actually hadn't thought of it that way.

I'm divided on the question of media representation. On the one hand, whenever I read anyone complaining about it, my first impulse is always to dismiss it. I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of a "quota system" in art. If race is insignificant in the story, then there's nothing inherently racist about having a predominantly white cast, and nothing inherently noble about having a predominately African American or Asian cast. It's just a creator sharing his own experiences, and if race (or gender or orientation) isn't a factor in the creation, then it shouldn't be a factor in the presentation.

At the same time, though, I know from experience how important it is. I was raised on TV and movies, and I never saw gay male characters that didn't fit into one of two stereotypes — frail, overly-sensitive and -earnest tragic figure; or Paul Lynde. (And lesbians only got the one stereotype, humorless Patton Oswalt). If I'd seen more diverse representations growing up, then I probably would've been more comfortable coming out a lot earlier. That constant reinforcement of "you're different, and you should be ashamed of it and hide it" seems subtle but is a really big deal.

And it's bad enough when you can "fit in" except for one aspect of yourself. If your entire background and upbringing is either completely absent or completely misrepresented in the media, that's worse.

Before I read your comment, I thought this was completely clear-cut: what happens inside my head when I'm reading a book is inviolate. If I were a casting director, and I were to cast a white actress in a black part in a predominantly white movie, then that'd be a big problem. But if I'm reading a book and the version of a character in my head doesn't match what's on the page in some irrelevant aspect, then it couldn't be a problem.

Now I see your point: the author's the casting director in that case. If she's including diversity in the "cast" of the book, then it's in the reader's best interest to pick up on that. Readers, regardless of race, can get the reminder that race doesn't make a difference but diversity does. And in this specific case, that one character's compassion for another doesn't depend on race.

It's a good idea.

I’d also point out that there’s clearly a reason why people were complaining about the girl being black. And that’s not just because they visualized her in their heads as white. It’s because they thought that the film makers had decided to make some kind of point by *not* making her white. In many of these comments, the sense is that people are complaining that she’s black in the film because of ‘political correctness’ or something like that. Whereas if, as you say, the race is genuinely not of importance to the audience, why would her being black be even worthy of comment. There is something prejudicial about the way people responded, even if it’s not racist. There’s some undercurrent of politics underneath that suggests that people change characters to appeal to the black lobby or something – that minorities are pushing their way into places unnecessarily. And I actually do think that kind of reaction is a problem…

I do too, although I think there are degrees to it — not every objection to that is borne from prejudice. Of course, many of them are, especially the most vocal ones, but not every one.

Audiences have been seeing token representations of women & minorities for decades now, and they can see right through them. Especially to younger audiences who are more likely to see race as irrelevant, being shown a perfectly statistically balanced, ethnically-diverse cast just comes across as fake and pandering. "I'm the black one!" "I'm the Latino one! Ai ai ai!" It doesn't do anything to solve "the race problem," and instead it simply comes across as insincere. I think people in the past couple of generations have grown up being a lot more wary of media manipulation than they are of race. (And no, acknowledging that isn't saying that we're living in a "post-racist society." It's all about priorities).

There's an undercurrent there, too: the preponderance of "I guess I must be racist" comments, and the person who felt he had to put the "I saw Thresh as being Pacific Islander" on a secret confessional website because it was too shameful to say out loud (and was apparently right, seeing as how the HG Tweets person mocked it). That if their own experience doesn't reflect the forced-diversity of TV and movies, then that's something they should feel guilty about.

But back to your point: yes, there were a lot of people complaining that the actress shouldn't have been black. And yes, that's a dumb and offensive comment. But not every observation of "I didn't picture her as black" is the same, and thinking it worthy of comment isn't always a complaint. In my case, anyway, my first response back when I saw the cast pictures a while ago was more of a "Huh, go figure. I totally didn't catch that."