Talk:Whitewashing in film/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Whitewashing in film. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

'White face' and the 93% figure, and an agenda to attack an entire peoples.

I can't help but notice the claim 93% of studio executives are 'white'. Post 1950's I find this ridiculous prima facie. I have also noticed significant numbers of actors playing white roles on TV and in movies are of Jewish ancestry. Semitic peoples make up the majority of studio executives, and the majority of 'white' actors on both big and small screen. But there's no mention of that being 'white face'. I'm not trying to be controversial, but as a person of Jewish ancestry I find it somewhat dishonest that there's an entire article disparaging the 2-3% of Hollywood that are of indigenous European descent. I suspect that this article is structured specifically to further an agenda outside of the scope of encyclopedic quality - by perpetuating a myth often repeated by mainstream media yet not substantiated by fact. Like the 'oscars so white' thing - going through the nominees I noted that less than 2% of the nominated actors were actually of indigenous European ancestry. We are not white. We are not European. We are of a completely different haplogroup. I suspect the weasel wording of this agenda stems around 'white' and bending what that means to suit an argument but that's just being dishonest.

The 93% 'report' has no citation so I can't even really read into that, but there's numerous citations available on the Jewishness of Hollywood, from actors, to crew, to executives. Attacking an entire peoples for my peoples actions, which as a minority group in the US is by no means 'white supremacy' (for the absolute crazies who think Semitic people can somehow be 'white supremacists') - and it's just utterly dishonest to do so. The problem is there's plenty of uneducated people out there who would read this article and believe this nonsense. It's very, very upsetting and very dishonest writing. Vergilianae (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"I have also noticed significant numbers of actors playing white roles on TV and in movies are of Jewish ancestry. Semitic peoples make up the majority of studio executives, and the majority of 'white' actors on both big and small screen. But there's no mention of that being 'white face'. I'm not trying to be controversial, but as a person of Jewish ancestry I find it somewhat dishonest that there's an entire article disparaging the 2-3% of Hollywood that are of indigenous European descent."

"White" has nothing to do with "indigenous European descent". White Americans as a statistical category of the United States Census Bureau includes people "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." American Jews and Arab Americans are counted as "white" for census purposes since 1944.

"Additionally, people who reported Muslim (or a sect of Islam such as Shi'ite or Sunni), Jewish, Zoroastrian, or Caucasian as their "race" in the "Some other race" section, without noting a country of origin, are automatically tallied as White."

"for the absolute crazies who think Semitic people can somehow be 'white supremacists' " Tell that to Dan Burros. A member in good-standing of the American Nazi Party and the United Klans of America, he committed suicide when "his Jewish heritage was made public". Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The 94% figure comes from the BBC as seen here, in particular this line, "The second annual Hollywood Diversity Report from UCLA published in February found that in 2013 94% of people in the executive ranks of the film studios were white." The statement is reliably sourced and part of the context of whitewashing, and with this being the case, there is not really anything else to discuss. Wikipedia follows sources that write about this topic. Coverage about Jewish people in Hollywood would need to belong in another article that follows reliable sources discussing that topic directly. Please be aware of WP:NOTAFORUM as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ni'ihau

Another case that can be listed if the film Ni'ihau does enter production with the casting as-is:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Update here: ‘Ni’ihau’ Recast & Ready: How The WWII Indie Navigated A Whitewashing Backlash

While I mentioned above to list the film if the casting was "as-is", I think we should still mention it due to noteworthiness of the whitewashing in the development/pre-production stage. Basically, the whole story of the recasting can be told in the listing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Lavender Brown?

Shouldn't very problematic recasting of previously black actresses Kathleen Cauley and Jennifer Smith in (very minor) roles in the first few films to white Jessie Cave in the last three films in the series, starting with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince?

The Sheik

The Sheik is explicitly stated in the film not to be of Arabic descent either. Rather, he is depicted as being the son of a British explorer and his Hispanic wife, who were found dead in the desert by the old Shiek, who saved Achmed's life and raised him as his own son.Glammazon (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The same is true of the main character in Son of the Sheik. Neither the Sheik nor his son are Arabic. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Colombian Characters

It is bigoted to assume that all Colombians are dark skinned...it is the bigoted belief that all Hispanics look like the way the media portrays them, Mexican or Central American...in fact there are many Colombians with blonde or light brown hair with blue or green eyes...they lean to the European Spanish appearance, except in states like Choco, where there are more people of African decent...your average person in Bogota is not very dark...the further south in South America you go the more European the people look...I myself have dark brown hair and green eyes and I do not stick out at all in Colombia...in fact I blend in really well except when I speak Spanish with an American Accent...my wife is Colombian and despises being labeled a "Person of Color" because she is of European Spanish decent...I wonder if whoever put the Colombian characters as being "White Washed" has ever watched a Colombian movie or Novela...quit being singled sighted and bigoted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.17.38 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove

Since Hervé Villechaize is not Filipino the movie should be removed from the list. SCAH (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Paint Your Wagons

The main character of the original Broadway version of this film was named Pedro, a Mexican man who was in love with Ben Rumson's daughter Jennifer. Neither appear in the film version, and the main character is the Pardner, played by Clint Eastwood. Is this whitewashing or what?Glammazon (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Examples

Many of the so-called examples of whitewashing are clearly not following the definition of whitewashing from this article. Many are either racebending, or using one white ethnicity to portray different white ethnicity, or to portray a particular mixed race. tahc ^chat 02:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the movies should be in chronological order by default, it would make more sense as it would show the long history of this practice immediately, without having to reorder the table. Also, we can not judge 1940s movies by modern standards, as whitewashing had different motives in different decades. It's likely that in the definitely more racist 1940s and 1950s directors were more or less forced by their studios to employ white actors, while in the 2010s this practice is widely held to be completely unacceptable. Therefore it would make more sense to have the 2010s movies next to each other in the table.

I also agree with Tahc, while the lede defines whitewashing as "white actors are cast in historically non-white character roles", the list is full of movies in which an actor belonging to one white ethnicity plays a role belonging to another white ethnicity. I think this waters down the seriousness of the topic, I can imagine that a black person reading the list would feel that whites are inserting themselves in an issue that mostly affects non-whites. It is basically a Wikipedia version of the "all lives matter" argument.

I would remove these:

Bully 2001 Murder victim Bobby Kent, who was of Iranian descent, is portrayed by Nick Stahl. Iranians aren't people of color. If we list Americans who play Iranians, we might as well list Americans who play Germans or Russians.
Cleopatra 1963 In the historical epic film, actor Elizabeth Taylor plays Cleopatra, an Egyptian queen of Macedonian Greek descent. Macedonians and Greeks are Europeans. There is some controversy about the possible identity of Cleopatra's mother who may have been ethnic Egyptian, but this is speculation and its details belong in the Cleopatra VII article.
My Dinner with Hervé 2018 In the drama film based on a true story, actor Peter Dinklage plays Hervé Villechaize, who was reported to be of Filipino descent.[86] HBO programming president Casey Bloys said in July 2017 that Villechaize's family was not sure if they were Filipino. Even the family is not sure. Also, the short stature of both Villechaize and Dinklage must have been a more important deciding factor. While we may blame a white actor for taking nonwhite roles and thus contributing to the shortage of nonwhite roles, there are not many roles for a person with achondroplasia, it would be unjust to blame them for taking any role.
Not Without My Daughter 1991 In the drama film, actor Alfred Molina, who is of Italian and Spanish descent, plays Sayyed Bozorg "Moody" Mahmoody, an Iranian physician. Again, the average Iranian is not darker than the average Italian or Spanish person. Mahmoody was a real person, google his pictures, I couldn't tell him from a European guy.
The Ottoman Lieutenant 2017 Dutch actor Michiel Huisman plays a Turkish lieutenant. While I, as a European, can usually tell Turks from Dutch people, or Greeks from Slavs, or Spaniards from Scandinavians, these people are usually considered white. Listing every "oh, whites are playing other whites" is trivializing an issue that mostly affects nonwhites.
The Post 2017 Bob Odenkirk plays Armenian-American journalist Ben Bagdikian. The fact that the Armenians most famous in the US are married to black men doesn't make all of Armenia nonwhite... The very word "Caucasian" refers to an area mostly in Armenia.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time 2010 In the fantasy adventure film, actor Jake Gyllenhaal plays the title character, a Persian. Persians/Iranians are still white. (I'm old enough to remember the original Prince of Persia game in which he was a blonde guy, although that was possibly to make him stand out in the dark background.)
The Promise 2016 French-Canadian actress Charlotte Le Bon plays the Armenian love interest. Armenians again.
The Year of Living Dangerously 1982 In the drama film, actress Linda Hunt plays a male Chinese Australian dwarf. I don't know how many actors of short stature could be found in 1982 but the fact that they gave a male role to a woman shows that they weren't easy to find. Show me a Chinese Australian little person, man or woman, who could have played the role in 1982, even then we can't be certain that he/she would have played the role better than Ms. Hunt of Oscar-worthy greatness).

There could be a list for roles that were given to an actor with the same race but different ethnicity (Japanese actor playing a Chinese person for example), but this is an entirely different problem (more related to the stereotyping of Asians than to the opressor/oppressed relation between whites and nonwhites).

Regards, 2A02:AB88:36BA:7000:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Race is often defined politically. The idea that an Italian American can not play a "Latino" - when more Italians migrated to Latin America than to the United States is one such example (and no one calls out Spaniards for frequently playing Latinos).2605:6000:770D:1B00:8556:3ACD:E4B7:D383 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I would also remove most of the Bible-based films. No one claims that Jews are non-white, yet that is the basis for including most of these films. Like the others, are same race (white) roles that were given to an same race (white) actor but different (non-Jewish) ethnicity. tahc ^chat 16:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah lots of problems with this article. "A Beautiful Mind", John Nash's wife is clearly a white woman from Central America so what is the problem with the casting? Look up pictures of Alicia Nash. "actress Linda Cardellini plays a character named Anna Garcia", I don't understand this? A woman named Anna Garcia can't be white? "The House of the Spirits" lists whites playing "Latin" characters? Again, what is the problem exactly? Millions of European immigrants went to the Southern Cone of South America, especially places like Chile. "The Ottoman Lieutenant" What exactly is the problem of a European playing a Turkish Officer? There are many people in Turkey who would pass unremarkably in a crowd of Europeans or North Americans. "Bob Odenkirk plays Armenian-American journalist Ben Bagdikian" Again, what is the issue? Bob Odenkirk looks fairly similar to the real guy, there is no "racial miscasting".

"In the crime noir, actor Charlton Heston plays Miguel Vargas, a Mexican drug enforcement official." Miguel Vargas is a fictional character and there are adult men in Mexico who look more like Charlton Heston than say, Cantinflas. So once again, what is the issue? A Mexican character in a film must look like a mestizo instead of say, someone who is white or indigenous? They are all equally Mexican.

This article has major issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:C280:1130:9414:4A2D:B0F5:36BB (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What's It Called?

What's it called when they give a part in a movie to a woman, a part that had been created for a man? Specifically, when they gave the role of "M" from the James Bond movie series to a woman when the original character was Sir Miles Meservy? Who was indeed a man. What's that called? And shouldn't there be just as much outrage as in the practice of "whitewashing?" HaarFager (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the female M is an entirely separate character who takes over the position when the male one retires (this is mentioned in Goldeneye). Secondly, what you're referring to is called a gender flip or Rule 63. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.21.209 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Controversies involving latin americans

One of the biggest controversies involving Race relations in the USA is the fact that "latino" is considered a different Race other from white by most americans . Even thought most latin americans doesn't fell represented by the label "latino" and considers themselves either White or Mestizo ,some movies have been accused of whitewashing Just because they feature non-hispanic White actors playing hispanic characters ,even thought some of these characters were from latin american countries were a majority of the population see themselves as White ,like Chile and Argentina . The case of Argo is a interesting one ,because Tony Mendez didn't Saw himself as " latino ",but despite that ,the movie was accused of Whitewashing. There is also cases in Hollywood were White latin americans were portrayed as being Brown skinned ,like Fidel Castro in the Simpsons and Augusto Pinochet in some movies . That's why is very controversial to include Latin americans in the "whitewashing" category. Araukan (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

There so many things in this list that do not really fit "whitewashing" that it discredits the page. tahc ^chat 19:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Mendez does not identify as "white" either. In fact, when discussing his career he's noted that his appearance is one where he can pass as a native of India and other such places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.21.209 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Dutch-Jewish actor Michiel Huisman plays a Turkish lieutenant."

which one is supposed to be the non-white one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:36b7:4900:bb9e:cab3:8fdb:4975 (talk • contribs) 20:31, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

IDK where you're from, or what standards you're judging from, but in countries like Canada, Turks are considered "Asian" and thus, people of colour. If there are reliable sources calling his casting "whitewashing", then I don't see why it can't be added. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Jewish people have their ethnic and genetic roots in the Middle East, while ancestry in the Republic of Turkey is largely from Southern Europe. You can read about this elsewhere on Wikipedia (Jewish roots, Turkish roots). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:900:93C0:F19B:2DE5:538A:FD63 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Jews are not an ethnicity, and there is no scientific data determining them to have specific genetic identifiers. MutedL (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Internal Contradictions / Suggestion for Review

Coming across this rather strange article, it's difficult not to be struck by its broad application of an American racial identity framework that's far out-of-line from mainstream self-identification in many of the countries and cultures concerned, and indeed Wikipedia's own well-researched and authoritatively-sourced articles on the same (see, in particular Demographics of Chile and Demographics of Cuba).

Given those contradictions with other parts of Wikipedia, I took a look at the edit history, and I see that this page is being heavily policed by a single user who appears to have strong personal beliefs about racial identity issues, with definitions that are not conventional outside of the United States. Several items in the list appear to have been found in a John Oliver comedy video and reverse-constructed from obscure sources to add validity. I am sure the editor is acting in good faith, but I think he should question whether he is bringing some American bias to the table here, and perhaps take a step back for other contributors to help shape and improve the article. I think it could be useful for a third-party editor, especially one not from the USA, to review.

I think the topic addressed in the article is definitely encyclopedia-worthy. Wikipedia is better for have an article with information about controversies concerning racial casting in American movies, a significant matter with plenty of published analysis. The problems with the article seem to come from the list. It's hard to see what value this list is really adding to the article, and it's in the list that we're seeing these obscure examples that directly contradict Wikipedia's other material on racial definitions and national demographics. I think the article would be greatly improved by removing the list, and focusing on expanding and fine-tuning the sections that deal more seriously with the topic itself. I look forward to hearing the perspective of other editors and seeing the article reach a higher standard worthy of the encyclopedia. 92.96.146.172 (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is based on reliable sources, not personal beliefs. I don't dispute that the instances of whitewashing and the coverage of these instances is US-centric, and we can revise the lead section to address that. Furthermore, to delete the entire list is entirely unhelpful. If you want to discuss specific examples, we can do that. If you want to discuss revised inclusion criteria (e.g., requiring a source looking into retrospect), we can also do that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the John Oliver bit, that came out in February 2016, and this Wikipedia article already had all of these examples listed here before that bit came out. Can you identify which listings seem problematic to you? I can see about improving the sources, or we can come up with different criteria in general. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The best example would be the one for Scarface. Cuba is a country mostly populated by European settlers who self-identify as white, so it stands out on the list. I tried to check the sources because it would surprise me if this movie was credibly accused of whitewashing; there are two sources provided to support the example. One of the sources yields a 404 error. The other source is from a non-noteworthy website only accessible via the Wayback Machine, called nextmovie.com, which no longer exists. Reviewing the text on that page, the excerpt regarding Scarface does not allege whitewashing. It criticizes producers for hiring a non-native Spanish speaker, and the actor Al Pacino for affecting a caricatured accent, but it makes no mention of race or reference to whiteness. We need to be more precise here. Accents are not the same thing as race. Common sense indicates that this is a case of a white actor playing a white character, however inartfully, and since the sources provided do not allege whitewashing, it does not belong in this article.

A similar instance would be the one for House of Spirits. Chile, like Cuba, is largely a European settler country where the majority of people identify as white. I think where the American POV creeps in here is an instinct to view Latin American countries rather monolithicly, largely based on US perceptions of Mexico and mainland Central America, when there is quite a diversity of historical circumstance and demographic makeup across the region. In South America alone, there is Argentina (majority Italian), Bolivia (majority indigenous), and Suriname (non-Latino, Dutch-speaking, majority Asian). I recognize this example as one listed in the popular John Oliver video I mentioned above, and I imagine it was parallel-constructed from another source for inclusion here. The source listed is a book from 2002, but the text is inaccessible, so I'm not able to assess whether it supports the claim in the list. The book has no reviews or description on Amazon but the title does not suggest it's alleging racism. Considering what we know about Chile, I think it should be removed as well.

The other issue is, very broadly, the many examples concerning biblical-themed movies, and other movies with Semitic characters. The question of whether Jewish people are "white" is incredibly fraught and controversial. It is also highly subjective. The Atlantic ran a famous cover story by Emma Green on this topic three years ago, which in turn inspired a range of responses in many other prestigious publications. My instinct is that it feels quite irresponsible for this article to depict Jewish figures across the list unambiguously as "non-white", based apparently on a single 2014 source from The Week, with no acknowledgement of the substantial dialogue on this topic.

Any discussion of biblical depictions in art also must acknowledge the longstanding tradition of contextualization in nearly all iconographic cultures. Religious iconography is non-anthropological. Ethiopian diptychs portray biblical figures as Ethiopians, and Dutch paintings portray them as Dutch. This heritage is rather glaringly missing from the explanations here, and the article reads as somewhat ignorant for not mentioning it. Mostly, I really just see no value for the encyclopedia in the article's primary author listing as many biblical films as he can think of and labeling them as whitewashed (will we see Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew next?) Aside from the issues mentioned regarding the complex perceptions of Jewish and other Middle Eastern people, and the non-recognition of iconographic history, it's just redundant. The point about an American argument against these depictions is validated by at least one credible source from The Week, even if it's not representative, but that can be addressed in a few appropriate sentences in the main article. The listing approach I think is driving the article in this overzealous direction with an agenda to collect as many items as possible, with some really questionable cases included. It is detracting from what this article could be.92.96.146.172 (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I will review Scarface since I did not add that one.

I can vouch for the House of Spirits addition. Can you access the results in the book here?

Regarding The Week, I think there is a wider discussion possible about casting in Biblical films. The sources here are mainly those that explicitly use the term "whitewashing", and the more-famous Biblical films have been described in these terms. It seems like that term could be applied to a great deal of Biblical films, and The Week highlighted those that have not been highlighted before. We can double-check sources about this since the term is relatively new and was more applied to the recent Biblical films.

As for Jewish identity, from what I recall, there was some editing in the past to mention that even where sources didn't say anything about that. I just reviewed the listings and reverted The Good Earth and A Mighty Heart to their original wording. I remember discussing Noah with another editor. We could revisit that one too since more time has passed and likely more has been published. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Scarface, I've researched the matter, and I concur with your assessment. I've removed that listing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I also removed The Week and the listings related to that as seen here, in case these examples surface in better sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see the book excerpts from the above hyperlinks, and you are correct that they do mention "white", unlike the sources provided for some of these other films. However, I would still question its inclusion, on the balance of information available. Remember, Wikipedia has collected a large amount of data about Chilean demographics, from credible Chilean sources including up-to-date government census records. Are we going to forget everything we know about Chile because an obscure American book from 2002, with no available reviews, makes a passing reference?

Though some Americans demonstrate a tendency to view their southern neighbors rather simplistically, Chile is well-known to those informed as a predominantly settler country. After all, the most famous person in Chilean history was Celtic (as his surname indicates, Augusto Pinochet was of French heritage, his family coming from France's Celtic region, Bretagne). This is quite standard among prominent South Americans. Peru's most famous leader was Japanese (Fujimori), Brazil's current president is Italian (Bolsonaro), directly preceded by a Lebanese (Michel Temer) and a Bulgarian (Dilma Rousseff), and the dominant family in Argentine politics are Swiss-Germans (the Kirchners). Not every Latin American country is Guatemala, with a majority indigenous population, though many in the United States are doubtless confused on this point. I notice that since I raised the issue, further examples concerning Chile in particular have been added to the list. I continue to wonder what the value is to the encyclopedia in advancing this US POV about racial categories, contradicted by better-sourced material in other Wikipedia articles. Though this is a noteworthy topic, it remains an essentially internecine Hollywood issue, and we can get our facts wrong when we lean too heavily on sources primarily interested in that somewhat inside-baseball entertainment discourse than in history and geography itself. It's for this reason that I recommend refocusing the article towards the still-thin main paragraphs, adding substance, context and nuance, as they've clearly come at the expense of a zealous pursuit in compiling an exhaustive list. The narrow, US and Hollywood-focused POV is also evident in the iconography issue I mentioned previously, given the apparent unawareness of international cinema or pre-cinematic art history.

My comment regarding this article's characterization of Jewish identity was not in reference to A Mighty Heart, as Mariane Pearl is black, and there is no question this could be a suitable example. I raised the issue out of concern for how the article categorizes figures from Jewish heritage and literature, in examples such as The Ten Commandments, which remains on the list, and several others that have appropriately been removed. It may be the strong opinion of a Wikipedia editor, and of sources such as AOL that Jewish people should be considered "non-white". Many others would find this suggestion deeply offensive. It is then further confused by well-known Jewish actors such as Jake Gyllenhaal being described in other list entries as "white". The cognitive dissonance here indicates to me that we're seeing a bias in favor of inclusion in all cases; as so, I do not think the editor means to offend, but I would argue that the contradiction and lack of nuance again demonstrates why the listing approach is the wrong strategy to address this article's subject. 31.215.95.217 (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki page - Black Washing

Where has the wiki page black washing gone?

It should be linked to whitewashing as it is very relevant to this page, both are equally the same, and I see no reference within this page, yet racism is linked to reverse racism.

Wiki should fix this error.2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:191C:CF9:838B:FBDC (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)DD

Whitewashing Cleopatra?

According to Wikipedia's own article^[1] most scholars agree Cleopatra had pale olive skin. From what I understand that is pretty white^[2]. So how is this a case of whitewashing? Unless "Examples of associated cases" is meant to purposefully include wrongful cases of alleged whitewashing, that row should be removed. As I am new here I'd rather wait for some feedback before making any edits. The11thOfJuly (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So, since there has been no reply, I decided to be bold per the guidelines and remove the row. Some further points I took into consideration:

All the provided references parrot each other on the topic of Cleopatra, with the exception of huffpost.com that provides a CGI of what the egyptologist Sally Ann Ashton thought Cleopatra should look like.
Dr Ashton's CGI does not match what she says in a dailymail article though.^[3] In the article Dr Ashton says 'She probably wasn't just completely European." But the CGI looks nothing like a European, but instead looks like a typical ancient Egyptian.
Dr Ashton's CGI is said to be reconstructed by ancient artifacts, well look at Cleopatra race controversy and try to guess which artifacts she did or did not use.
Elizabeth Taylor might be a bit too white to pass for a Greek, but whitewashing is about misrepresenting people of color. Greeks are not people of color, and Cleopatra was mostly Greek with some Persian ancestry.

The11thOfJuly (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lupa0529.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Article has anti-white progressive racist bias

This is not a forum for users to express their personal views on who can(not) play in certain roles. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article frames white actors playing non-white roles as a problematic and uniquely troubling special case of color-blind casting

When non-white actors play white characters this is lauded

Should the article have the anti-white bias flagged / removed?

2A01:4B00:8697:7300:292A:4D42:7FB0:795 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing is not a type of "color-blind casting". It is the opposite of color-blind. Your idea of what constitutes "bias" seems to be off. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No, there is no flagging necessary. Simply put, it is a matter of over-representation and under-representation. Nobody is upset when actors play professions (like not expecting an actor to have been a farmer to play a farmer), or if their eye color is different or if they're taller or shorter than the original figure. The nature of these discussions about whitewashing is that white actors are already over-represented in race-neutral roles, and their representation in roles of color is as a result subject to criticism. Actors of color are under-represented, so when traditionally white roles are played by these actors, there is no underlying monopolizing trend to warrant criticism. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with both responses. Saying it's "color blind" to cast a black person for a white character and not "color blind" to do the reverse is an inherently racist position. Either everyone can play any race or no-one can. I disagree too that this is about representation as the instances are so few that they make negligable numerical difference to overall representation numbers. I worry that both responses represent an internalised anti-white bias that we need to find ways to remove from society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.14.250.108 (talk • contribs) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unprofessional and poorly researched

Many examples on this page don't make any sense. This article considers Tony Montana from Scarface (1983 film) to be a white-washed character. How is an actor of Italian descent playing a character of Spanish descent "white-washing"? Shouldn't that be considered color-blind casting? Furthermore, The cuban character Tony Montana was heavily inspired by the real-life Al Capone, who was of Italian descent, just like the actor. So in a way, there was no racewashing done at all. At least a third of the examples in the article follow the same twisted logic. The whole article is unprofessional and poorly researched. 92.35.2.250 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Brownwashing? Blackwashing? Yellowwashing?

If it is "whitewashing" to cast a Caucasian actor in the role of a fictional character not written as Caucasian, or in the role of a historical figure known to not be Caucasian, would it not be "brownwashing" to cast a "brown" actor in the role of a fictional character written as Caucasian, or a historical figure known to have been Caucasian? Is it "blackwashing" to cast African American actor Denzel Washington as the Scottish (Caucasian) King Macbeth? If not, why not? Is this being discussed alongside discussions of "whitewashing?" 11:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC) 2603:800C:3944:BC00:F415:A7D:D4B1:CDD0 (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What are your sources about brownwashing? Dimadick (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Those terms don't exist, but there is color-blind casting. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not include Whitewashing into the color-blind casting list? Color-blind's definition: "is the practice of casting without considering the actor's ethnicity, skin color, body shape, sex and/or gender." The Whitewashing is literally the same just white actors, so why not merge both lists? Or just give a description of the problem with a few famous examples. Keeping a record of all released films is stupid, every year the list will only expand. 46.49.12.210 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are some movies in bold in the examples-list ?

User:Erik, you as one of the main authors of this article, might can answer that. Kind regards, LennBr (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It's because "!" was used instead of "|". In any case, these additions were unsourced, so I removed them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Some very tenuous "examples"

Some of the alleged examples of whitewashing are extremely tenuous, e.g.:

"Nightflyers" is only very loosely based on the original novella and most of the characters differ from the (short) original story.
In "Avengers: Age of Ultron" the characters Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were originally white and only portrayed as Romani in some later media, which is even stated in the reference.
The character Raiden in "Mortal Kombat" is a not even human, let alone Japanese.

There are a plenty of compelling examples of whitewashing in media and including these dubious references undermines the validity of this list.

I also noticed “Stonewall” was included. People argue that the writer is erasing the history of the Stonewall riots by writing a story centered on a gay white man’s experiences. Without even speaking on that, the first sentence of this article says whitewashing is the practice of casting white actors in the roles of characters of color in film. The controversy with “Stonewall” isn’t about casting, it’s about the story and history being altered. However, the situation can also be described as whitewashing. The term is used to describe racism in many aspects of life, beyond film and I suggest we clarify that 11times (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Follow the cited sources and take your grievances up with those writers. 173.220.120.66 (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@11times - If you have an issue, you can take it up with the authors of the reliable sources cited. Scarlett Johansson played a cyborg in Ghost in the Shell, and apparently, the Japanese were indifferent to her casting. But for American/Western audiences, there are reliable sources saying that she, a "white" woman, can't play an "Asian" character and that her casting is "whitewashing". Never mind the fact that Asians of European descent, or what Americans call "white" people exist.

Natalie Portman playing an "Asian" character is cited as an example of "whitewashing", even though she herself is an Asian woman as Israel is a (West) Asian country. The book described her "Asian" character[1] as having features like "high cheekbones" and other typical ethnic East Asian features, which do not represent all Asian peoples (I.E - "yellowface" or "yellow people"/"yellow Asiatics" doesn't mean every Asian person). Some Asians can have blue eyes, others have Afro-textured hair. Some can have pale white skin, others are shades of brown skin or black skin, and again, because of colonialism/cultural contact, millions of Asians have European ancestry. Heck, most of Russia is geographically Asian. Many Israelis have Euro-Jewish ancestry, and other Asian countries like India, Singapore, Vietnam, China (including Hong Kong and Macau), the Philippines, etc have European-descended populations aka "white" people.

So if the casting of Johansson or Portman are included, then why not Raiden and other sourced examples? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I too have noticed this list is artificially padded out with very tenuous "examples". One of the examples is the 2015 film Aloha, which is an original film and not even based on a book, so how can it be whitewashing? The assumption seems to be that because Hawaii is only 30% white, it's whitewashing Hawaii to have a film about white Hawaiians. But that makes no sense, that's like saying that because the US is only 13% black, any film with a black cast is blackwashing the US.

This article also seems to confuse country with race. A Beautiful Mind is listed as an example of whitewashing because Jennifer Connelly plays Alicia Nash, born in El Salvador. Just because you're born in El Salvador doesn't mean you're not white. There is such a thing as white Hispanic. Same goes for Argo, Tony Mendez was born in the US of Mexican, Italian and French heritage. Are we supposed to assume that because he's half-Mexican, he's not white? Look at pictures of him, he looked white to me. RustlingLeaves (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This article also seems to confuse country with race. Then @RustlingLeaves - what constitutes a "race" and "whitewashing"? Many East Asians have "white" skin, and are certainly different from other "browner" people like most South or Southeast Asians. Yet the Disney character Mulan had reliably sourced controversy for a redesign that made her skin "too white" or "light". Ironically, the actress cast to play live-action Mulan, Liu Yifei, has a very "white" skin tone and no one complained about that. Also, Salma Hayek is noted in the article, and she has been open about the lack of roles she received following her initial move to America and the racism she experienced in Hollywood because she's Hispanic/Latina. Are we supposed to deny the racism she experienced because you don't consider Hispanics to be a "race"? Reliable sources have labelled the casting of non-Salvadoran Jennifer Connelly to play a Salvadoran as "whitewashing" whether you like it or not.[2] And regardless of your opinion, reliable sources have talked about "whitewashing" in relation to the casting of Ben Affleck to play Tony Mendez.

Following your logic, every example listing claiming an "Asian" character was "whitewashed" might as well be removed because Asia is a continent filled with peoples of all races and skin colours, not a "race". Yet American society and many reliable sources act like no Asian can be "white", because apparently, European ancestry, light skin, blue eyes and blonde hair are non-existent in a region of 50+ countries and over 4 BILLION people.

One of the examples claims Natalie Portman playing a character who was said to be "Asian"[3] counts as "whitewashing" because Portman is "white" and not "Asian". Yet Israel (where Portman is from) is a West Asian country and West Asia is included in various organizations pertaining Asia, like participating in the Asian Games (though Israel hasn't been able to particle since the 1970s for security/political reasons). Furthermore, the source cited paints a rather racist depiction of Asian people, with the "Asian" character Portman played being described as having "high cheekbones" (and other stereotypically "Mongoloid" or East Asian features) as signs of her "strong Asian heritage". South Asians exist, and they tend to have features that go against every "Asian" stereotype in the United States. Like high-bridged noses, round eyes, dark brown skin, etc. And in America, many South Asians would rather identify as "Brown" or "Brown Asian".[4]

Aside from Brown Asians existing, Afro-Asians exist, and there are native Asian populations who don't have African ancestry but are considered black; Negritos of Southeast Asia exist and "Negrito" literally means "Little Black People". The Sentinelese people of South Asia could pass better as natives of Africa than being a native/typical South Asian.[5] East Asians historically being described as "Yellow" people and White Asians exist, meaning you can be both "White" AND Asian... if being "white" means having European ancestry. Because otherwise, many East Asians have white/light skin. Scarlett Johansson faced a ton of backlash for playing an "Asian" (Japanese) anime character, even though there are naturally blonde Asians who look "white" (does the blonde Uyghur noted in the ethnic page look "white", "Yellow", "Mongoloid", or what to you?[6]) and most of Russia (Johansson is of part-Russian/Ashkenazi Jewish descent) is geographically in Asia.

China recognizes Ethnic Russians as one of their 55 recognized minorities, and they form European ethnic minorities in various East Asian and Central Asian countries. If a Chinese person of Russian descent plays a "Chinese" character, would we have to include them in this article? What about Chinese-born Rene Rivkin? He's Asian, Chinese-born to a Russian-Jewish family and grew up in Shanghai.

Many Israelis are of European Jewish descent, Anglo-Indians exist (like Vivien Leigh, who had Anglo-Saxon or "White" appearance), around 2% of Macau identifies their ethnicity as Portuguese, almost 1% of Hong Kongers identify as being "White", and the Philippines has a Spanish Filipino minority no different than "White" people in Mexico existing. Should Filipino businessman Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, who was born in the Philippines to a wealthy family of Spanish descent for several centuries, not call himself "Asian" or "Filipino"? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Tony Mendez did NOT look white, which was why he was so effective as an operative. He could pass as various ethnicities in places like South Asia and the Middle East. 173.220.120.66 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The character in Aloha is of Chinese and native Hawaiian descent. This is explicitly stated in the film. There is nothing tenuous whatsoever about that case.

Tony Mendez looks like Edward James Olmos or Cheech Marin. A picture of him is shown at the end of the film and looks nothing at all like Ben Affleck. Alicia Nash was also rather ethnic-looking and pictures of her look far more like Salma Hayek than Jennifer Connelly. 173.220.139.50 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is clearly written from a U.S. perspective that’s very ignorant about Latin America and the Middle East. But it used to be much more anti-Semitic, before other users insisted on changes. A large proportion of the examples involved biblical characters, objecting to their depiction by “white” actors. Then, other entries would object to casting of Jewish or Arab actors, labeling them “white.” The entire thing was premised on the erasure of Semitic, especially Jewish, identity. A heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach to portray both the depiction and participation of Semitic people in media as a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.86.87 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the definition of "whiteness" used in the article and sources clearly has an American/Western-centric meaning. And if a reliable source determines that something is "whitewashing", then I see no reason for why it can't be added to the page.

In the entertainment industries of India, I have seen complaints that white-skinned/upper class Indians dominate Indian cinema, including roles in Southern India, where many Southern Indians are darker-skinned, or have black skin (seen Indian comments use that exact wording). Would that count as "whitewashing"? I guess not since Indians by Western standards are considered "non-white" and thus, beyond the scope of the page. Whether they're the darker-skinned Southern Indian Tamils, as well as the dark-skinned Sentinelese tribe, or the lighter-skinned Northern Indians who may have green/blue eyes (Salman Rushdie).

You can find similar discrimination in other non-Western entertainment industries, where "whiteness" simply means having "white/light skin", not like Western definitions of "whiteness" which lean towards European appearance/ancestry. Likewise, roles often have preference for whiter-skinned actors, even if the character may be intended to be darker-skinned. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If your references are mostly from India, you might not appreciate the full context for this specific issue as it relates to the Middle East. Jewish and other Levantine people (Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, etc) are common targets of conspiracy theories that claim they are not authentic or indigenous inhabits of their home region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:900:93C0:F19B:2DE5:538A:FD63 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

[1] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cleopatra_race_controversy

[2] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Olive_skin

[3] ttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html

[1]

[2]

[3]