Redhair characters that have been blackwashed - The Little Mermaid (2023) Discussion

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17735) 5 years ago

"Since Diversitarians and SJWs are becoming some kind of new religion, could it be that they're starting to reimport the traditional demonizing and persecution of redheads in the western world?"

No.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 5 years ago

B-b-but, muh white genocide! 😢

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Do not confuse genocide with demographic and cultural replacement. They're different things. What you're talking about (which I guess, because it's not clear) it's the demographic and cultural replacement in the West, which is not a genocide.

Please, use terms properly.

reply

[–] telmarine (402) 5 years ago

Ariel might still have red hair. So I think we are worrying too soon. It’s entirely possible we may see a red headed mermaid with tanned skin. No big deal. I’m on board with the actress being an excellent singer, especially after the travesty that was Hermoine in Beauty and the Beast. What disastrous singing there.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

What people are annoyed with is if anyone made a black character white you people would be crying racism nonstop yet when it goes the other way if anyone has a problem with you also cry racism. It’s the double standard people are sick of.

reply

[–] thenewnexus (1911) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Great! :-)

So we don't care about characters being blackwashed... of course, only positive characters. The bad guys are systematically white, mostly or fully white males.

You had Godzilla a couple of months ago. The good guys? very diverse, lots of PC black women there. With the exception of the main character, the few white males there in that group looked like cucks. The bad guys? white males and a few white females. But hey! That's OK! :-) Because as you would say, in the original movies everyone was Japanese, so the original characters don't change.

And you had nazi movies during the Third Reich, where villains and evil characters were portrayed as Jews. But that's OK! :-) Because as you would say, the original characters don't change.

reply

[–] thenewnexus (1911) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Blackwashing isn't a term.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blackwashing

reply

[–] thenewnexus (1911) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Fair enough. So what term do you propose to denominate the concept 'The revisionist portrayal of something as belonging to a black race of people'?

reply

[–] Kowalski (75527) 5 years ago

WHY MUST IS BE NAMED.ITS CALLED CASTING.JESUS.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

WHY MUST IS BE NAME

Not giving it a name makes extremely difficult to talk about it,

- You know, that thing
- You mean, that thing? or the other thing?
- Which other thing?
- The other thing, you know, that thing
- You mean, that thing that can not be named?
- Yeap, that thing
- Fine, that thing that can not be named, which one of them?
- You know, the thing
- That thing?

There's a solution for that. It's called 'language'. It was invented quite a few years ago. You name things, and then you can talk about them. Unless you don't want people to talk about it, one way to prohibit people to talk about something is to prohibit people to name that something.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75527) 5 years ago

WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO TALK ABOUT "IT"?

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO TALK ABOUT "IT"?

Sorry, Your Eminence, Oh Holy Man That Speaks In Capital Letters.

I understand now that I didn't ask permission to the Sacred Church of SJW to speak of what should not be named. May a camel go through the eye of a needle before a man would talk words that have not been approved.

Shall a man say why he uses the names which were forbidden, shall a man say why he needs to speak of words which weren't approved, and if it's true that it doesn't please the High Judges of Men, shall he answer for his sins before the crowd. Amen.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75527) 5 years ago

JESUS MAN.TAKE A PILL OR SOMETHING.

reply

[–] Juschill (808) 5 years ago

I question why you keep coming back to a thread you hate so much.

Never heard the term blackwashing but it seems to be appropriate here.

reply

[–] Wesley93 (164) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The LA Baker (971) 2 years ago

They should remake Black Pather with all white Wakandans and nothing but black men as villains.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

Technically Disney made the Little Mermaid red haired. Hans Christian Andersen didn't provide much of a description other than "They were six beautiful children; but the youngest was the prettiest of them all; her skin was as clear and delicate as a rose-leaf, and her eyes as blue as the deepest sea; but, like all the others, she had no feet, and her body ended in a fish’s tail."

The main point of his story was that the little mermaid wanted an immortal soul and endured slavery, having her tongue cut out, and pain with every step she took. I think Disney is pretty free to make the story, and the character what they want since they didn't stick that close to the source material in the first place.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Hans Christian Andersen didn't provide much of a description other than

So what? Writers (good ones) don't fill their writings with useless info. Andersen wrote folktales from his land, Danmark, where everybody was white. Information that can be easily concluded don't need to be provided.

If the writer doesn't provide information about how many fingers has a character, then you can conclude he has 5 fingers in each hand. Writers don't provide much of a description about how many fingers a character has... unless that character has six fingers in his right hand and there's a guy called Iñigo de Montoya looking for him.

I think Disney is pretty free to make the story, and the character what they want since they didn't stick that close to the source material in the first place

I'm not saying they're not free.

Disney and Hollywood are free to systematically blackwash redhair characters for political/religious reasons, and I'm free to point out to they're systematically blackwashing redhair characters for political/religious reasons.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

All I'm saying is the character wasn't a redhead in the first place.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Yeap, there has been adaptations with the character being blonde, or brunette. So what?

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

So, I don't see how this fits into your systematic black washing of red haired characters if the character herself was not written to have red hair and has other coloured hair in different adaptations.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

???????

Euhhh... the movie is not just a generic adaptation of the folktale. It's specifically a live-action version of the 1989 animated movie, which had a redhair female lead. Do I need to explain it?

You're going nonsense for the sake of arguing.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

there has been adaptations with the character being blonde, or brunette. So what?

I thought I answered the so what.

I don't see where I am arguing, and yes, you do need to explain it. I simply said that I didn't see where your black washing fit in with an already unfaithful adaptation. I explained why I felt that.

I do not feel that my point of view is less valid than yours, and I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, not trying to prove myself right.

Other than pointing out an article that explains a history of prejudice against red hair, you haven't really explained why you think it applies these characters. Is it strictly red haired characters that are getting racially swapped? And, the question I pose to you, if the hair colour is not essential to the character, like Orphan Annie, or Anne of Green Gables, why does it matter?

reply

[–] Stratego (30498) 3 years ago

"Euhhh... the movie is not just a generic adaptation of the folktale. It's specifically a live-action version of the 1989 animated movie, which had a redhair female lead."

Exactly.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It doesn't matter if the character he created was a redhead or not, nor does it matter if she was black or white. The problem is that DISNEY created the character as a white redhead. If you are going to remake the DISNEY version into a live action version then you should stick with the way you originally created the character.... otherwise why did they try to get actresses that looked like the princesses they had animated in the other movies they turned into live action movies... why not stick in Rebel Wilson as Cinderella? That is the problem, and if they wanted to make an Ariel that was black then have the actress keep her own hair don't stick a red wig on the black actress, doing that would be considered cultural misappropriation to use the SJW's words. That is the problem with where Disney is going with this garbage. It is clearly just an attempt to be diverse which is why so many people have a problem with it.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

I guess I'm just wondering why you have no problem with Disney taking someone else's character and changing the appearance, but then you have a problem with Disney changing the character that they've already changed??

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Pretty simple really Disney created a family version of various fairy tales. You expect a Disnification of the characters at that point. But when Disney announces they are now going to remake the animated film into live action films then they have committed to remaking the cartoon as it was, if they start monkeying around with what the character look like then it stops becoming a live action remake and becomes something completely different. To me it is a matter of honesty, if you tell the world you are selling a blue widget then you should set about manufacturing a blue widget not a purple one. Disney didn't have to state that they were "remaking" the animated films that was their choice... once they made it they should stick to what they said. Hell if they wanted to make an all black version of Little Mermaid the way the Wizard of Oz was redone as the Wiz then so be it, no problems with that. But they didn't sell the movie like that now did they... instead they decided to just throw in diversity casting to appease some unknown SJWs in the world and ignore what they started out with. I can't help but think they probably had no intention of doing the diversity BS when they started but some simpleton along the way thought it was a good idea to be social conscious or some such crap... and so now we get a bastardized live action remake of the movie.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

So, it's a bastardized live version because the skin tone and hair colour of the main character are different, even though it makes no difference in this case? You had no problem with them changing her appearance in the first place because they were creating that character? So now because the same studio is changing that characters appearance once again you have a problem? If the story doesn't change, and the songs don't change, and the singing is good, then the whole movie is ruined for you?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Apparently you can't read very well. As I stated, they advertised it as a remake of the original animated film. That would mean making it with actors and actresses that looked close to the way they looked in the animated movie. As I also stated, if they wanted to do an all black version then fine, no problem with them doing that but don't claim it is a live remake of the animated film if they are going to change the races of the characters when that happens it is just bullshit. I wouldn't remake roots and use an all asian cast because the characters were not asians to begin with, and don't give me the bullshit claim they were real people because they weren't Alex Haley made up large parts of the book and plagiarized portion as well, so it is pretty much fiction.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

I read it just fine.

I also understand not remaking Roots with a different race because number one, those characters were written to have a specific race number two, changing that would change the plot. Ariel is a mermaid. The character is still a mermaid. There is no cannon that mermaids have races. If there were something in the story that Disney wrote that said that Ariel had to be Caucasian and to have red hair then I would get where you are coming from. But since there isn't, and Disney already took the liberty of changing both her appearance and her motivation of wanting to be human, I don't care that they are now changing her skin tone.

If this were a live action remake of Brave, and they changed the skin tone of Merida, I'd understand the anger. This, not so much.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Sorry but this is pretty much the same as Brave. Disney committed to having Ariel be caucasian when they drew her as such in the animated film. Just as they committed to having Merida being caucasian with red hair or Tiana from Princess and the Frog being black. And the Princess and the Frog is probably the Disney movie animated film that strayed the furthest from the original story as it was set in Europe and had nothing to do with New Orleans. I am very consistent, they created a white mermaid, to make it black now and claim they are making a live remake of the animation they created is simply bullshit.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

So, don't watch it then.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I never said I would watch it. The entire thread has nothing to do with whether the movie is good or bad only that it is another exercise in diversity BS, I would have thought you knew that from the subject line.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

So, do you know that they were specifically looking for an actress of colour? Or did they audition young women of all types and they decided that this actress had what they were looking for despite of her colour?

And if they give Ariel red hair would you be placated?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

If you have seen the commercials for the live TV version that is about to come out you know that they most likely are going to give her red hair, just as they are doing with Auli'i Cravalho.

But since Halle Bailey is black then they might as well be hiring white actors for black parts and having the actors' skin darkened with makeup... Do you not think that would cause an outrage? Of course it would. But it seems open season on having any race portray a white character in the minds of SJWs.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 5 years ago

Unless the skin colour of the character is actually important to the plot, then I don't care what colour someone is. There has already been an Asian play her on stage.

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 2 years ago

Unless the skin colour of the character is actually important to the plot

That line is always trotted out when someone complains about lazy race swaps from white to black for no other reason than 'reasons' because rarely ever makes sense to do it.

But the moment someone mentions black to white and suddenly like magic skin colour matters and is important.

Double standards

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 2 years ago

I honestly don't care. Unless skin colour is important to the character or it is an actual person, it's not important to me. I didn't watch Anne Boleyn because I don't agree with swapping race in actual historical type shows. However Bridgerton doesn't bother me because it's complete fiction and it doesn't matter.

The Little Mermaid was never given a skin colour by Anderson. Disney made her with red hair, and white. She is a mermaid. A part human, part fish. I really don't think that what colour her skin is is all that important. I mean if we really want to get picky, I want to know what fish her tail comes from. I mean is it actually from a fish, or a mammal?

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 2 years ago

I honestly don't care

I didn't watch Anne Boleyn because I don't agree with swapping race in actual historical type shows

So you do care but you just pick and choose which ones are acceptable.

Again you are using the tired excuses of "its only fiction", "she is a mermaid". News flash, nearly everything is fiction or doesn't exist or itsn't real or any of the other lazy excuses trotted out.

Like already said until the character is black and then by some unknown force it suddenly does become important.

Either race swapping is fine and skin colour isnt important across the board or they are. Currently one is accepted and the other is called racist or cultural approriation.

It is a double standard and it's wrong but the only replies you will ever get is "you are racist" or "you just hate black people". Its a disingenuous arguement. Look to Whoopi Goldberg for a prime example of this.

Write actual charcaters for black actors. Why not use black folklore and fairy tales. There are plenty out there. Race swapping is lazy tokenism and says "we are to lazy or talentless to write something original so we will give you a white mans hand me down" and everyone celebrates that. Pure madness.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 2 years ago

I didn't watch Anne Boleyn because it's an historical person. Unless a character is specifically written to be a specific colour, I don't care if someone else plays that character in a future adaptation. I don't think it's an excuse because real people exist, and that's when I have an issue.

A mermaid is not a human. So I don't consider the colour of their skin to be relevant. I care if she can sing.

I haven't called anyone a racist, and I don't accuse people of cultural appropriation so coming at me with that doesn't mean anything to me. I am simply stating that I don't care.

Write actual charcaters for black actors. Why not use black folklore and fairy tales.

I agree, and I would love to see some of these stories on my screen

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 2 years ago

I haven't called anyone a racist, and I don't accuse people of cultural appropriation so coming at me with that doesn't mean anything to me

Quote me where I aimed that at you? I said "Currently one is accepted and the other is called racist or cultural approriation." That was a statement aimed at no one except pointing out the truth which is the above line.

I agree, and I would love to see some of these stories on my screen

I don't care if someone else plays that character in a future adaptation

Can't have it both ways by saying you don't care is the very reason they are not being made. If more people did care then it would put pressure on them to make original stories instead of teh modern standard that is just do a lazy race swap and when people complain call them racist.

reply

[–] sslssg (34211) 2 years ago

A mermaid is not human, so I don't care.

If I'm not calling you racist, then stop brining it up a reply to me. I can't stop others from calling you racist.

Disney's new animated movies have been about non-white characters, so they are making original stories.

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 2 years ago

A mermaid is not human, so I don't care.

And so nothing new and original will get made. Well Done.

If I'm not calling you racist, then stop brining it up a reply to me

What. You said don't call you racist which I didn't. I made a blanket statement that one type of race swap is accepted as you have shown and the other is called racist and cultural appropriation. At no point did I call you or anyone else racist. So I repeat..... What.

Disney's new animated movies have been about non-white characters, so they are making original stories.

But this isn't one of them and is irrelevant. We are talking about this specific movie and about race swaps. Have no issue with the likes of Moana which I did actually enjoy.

All i am saying is when an obvious race swap happens by saying "i don't care" then they will continue to make them. So instead of making Moana for example a live action or Princess and the frog which this Halle Bailey could easily have played they just lazily race swap a more popular one. Good job.

Guess we can agree to disagree.

reply

[–] Stratego (30498) 3 years ago

Agreed. You don't ever hear these folks say skin colour doesn't matter when it's a case of whitewashing.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75527) 5 years ago

UGH....AND *INIGO MONTOYA.

reply

[–] The LA Baker (971) 2 years ago

The real question is; Why make them black suddenly?

If it serves the story then there is nothing wrong with it and should be done to improve quality(when possible).

If they did it for a political reason, they should not.

reply

[–] RolloLee (50) 5 years ago

Maybe they read the letters in the wrong order when they heard the characters are "ginger" ...

reply

[–] Moonglum9 (11267) 5 years ago

ooooooooooooooooooh, oh no he ditint!

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

LMAO

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 5 years ago

Maybe they read the letters in the wrong order when they heard the characters are "ginger" ...

" Hey fellow SWS scumbags! See how clever I'm being with my bigoted dog whistle "jokes"? 😉 Heil five! "

reply

[–] Stratego (30498) 3 years ago

🤣

Oh dear, it seems your little joke pissed off the resident troll!

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11356) 2 years ago

🤣

reply

[–] jk90us (7143) 2 years ago

They were going to do it to Red Sonja too with short PoC actress Hannah John-Kamen but thankfully they booted her.

But then they cast Italian actress Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz. Italian is actually a closer fit but she’s still too damn short. Sonja is 6ft in the books and comics.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 2 years ago

I don't get this trend about casting little chicks in female warrior roles. You wanna cast Red Sonja, you need an actress like Famke Jamssen (back in the day).

reply

[–] jk90us (7143) 2 years ago

Me either. I’d love to see 5’10”
Sarah Dumont as Sonja.

https://www.pkbaseline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/955full-sarah-dumont.jpg

reply

[–] sONOMArEturns (1253) 2 years ago

white people are under attack! the minorities are risin' up against the christian white folk!

reply