Fuck you Geoff Johns and all your racist pals at DC who spit out shit like this:
(* Which is NOT accurate and blithely ignores the real world context of years of western imperialist countries illegally fishing Somalian tuna, shrimp and lobster to near extinction while simultaneously DUMPING NUCLEAR AND MEDICAL WASTE into Somalian waters and slowly killing the population in horrible ways. To this day. But nooo, it’s the scary black men who are the bad guys here.)
Stop doing this. Just stop it. Now.
God. I need to write an actual letter to these jokers.
Addendum: DC Comics and the Specter of Race Issues addresses the point in Chris Sims’ recent article The Racial Politics of Regressive Storytelling in which he notes that he is “[not] suggesting that creators like Geoff Johns are racist, or that their stories are consciously motivated by racism in any way”. No, really. Racism is the problem here and it’s not right to dance around that point in order to protect people’s self-identity as “not a racist”. They are being racist and their stories are motivated by racism. That they’re not conscious of this is the problem itself. People do not fall neatly into “racist” and “not racist” categories. Racism, like misogyny, is the default worldview.
ETA: When Fangirls Attack! provides an admirable round-up of related posts
Related posts:
“People do not fall neatly into “racist†and “not racist†categories. Racism, like misogyny, is the default worldview.” I just posted this on my facebook account.
Lol, what? Sorry, but I just had to reply. Misogyny is very real, and if you pick up any of the Supergirl comics, you will notice that her skirts seem to get shorter and shorter, while the guys are fully clothed. And Geoff also did this in Green Lantern – star sapphires, anyone? The girls are all dressed like strippers, the boys get badass Samurai-style armor. How is that not misogyny or equality? I won’t even mention how the cover has a female sapphire in a chained collar with the male guy on a throne holding the chain. Yeah, super cute. But that’s not misogyny, no, no, no of course not! It is not sexist in the least! We women have it all wrong! *Fail* No, just no.
I think you misunderstood Nathaniel: he was quoting the last sentence of my post in agreement with me. He wasn’t disagreeing with my post or dismissing the reality of racism or misogyny.
I think Sims’ article was pretty informative in identifying the reasons and motivations behind why this is happening, which is important in trying to fix/prevent it from happening.
he is “[not] suggesting that creators like Geoff Johns are racist, or that their stories are consciously motivated by racism in any wayâ€
I think that’s true, and I also agree with you that “consciously” is the operating word, and Sims’ article goes on to explain reasons why the unconscious racism is affecting these decisions in the narrative. What’s problematic in the language is that racism and sexism affect everyone’s choices and worldview to some extent. But to be called a “racist” or a “sexist” carries a very different connotation. I have no love for Johns, or the things he gets up to, but I think making the distinction is important– if racism is discussed, we can open a candid discussion about why this happens, how prevalent it is in comics, and what we can do about it. If it’s just about a racist, suddenly the story is no longer about the issue, and it gets mired in accusations of attacks on character, friends coming to the defense of the author, etc. and an opportunity is lost because incendiary language shifted the focus of the issue.
But to be called a “racist†or a “sexist†carries a very different connotation.
Oh, agreed. Analysing what’s problematic about the behavior is far more useful to everyone involved.
On the other hand, trying to find the perfect language to avoid getting people’s back up about criticsm is a pursuit doomed to failure. See: the ‘tone’ argument that comes up no matter how polite someone (usually of the marginalized group) is.
Given how often people will choose to be offended by being called on their racist, sexist, etc. behavior and use that to avoid focusing on the damage done to real people who are the victims of that behavior, my primary concern is not with the feelings of the offenders.
If it’s just about a racist, suddenly the story is no longer about the issue, and it gets mired in accusations of attacks on character, friends coming to the defense of the author, etc. and an opportunity is lost because incendiary language shifted the focus of the issue.
Yes. It’s never about one outlier, it’s part of a system of oppression and the context needs to be remembered.
Also remember Chris wrote this article in his capacity as a Comics Alliance employee. Part of his cautionary language was probably to avoid exposing CA to libel charges.
I understand the U.S. is very lawsuit-happy, but for fear of libel charges…really?
However, I hadn’t considered his position as a C.A. employee – that certainly may have had a chilling effect on what he felt comfortable saying about colleagues in his industry.