Culture Drives Policy, So What Drives Culture?

By Doc Brown


Over the last several years, I’ve been seeing re-makes of various stories done purposely with casts made up of other ethnicities and genders. There was Little Orphan Annie done with a black cast, the latest all-female Ghostbusters movie, there was an all-black cast for a Cinderella rendition in the 90s, the latest Karate Kid was black, the British “Death At a Funeral” was re-done with a black cast, “Steel Magnolias” the same, Lucy Liu as Watson (albeit, a tv series), a female Iron Man, and the latest is a calendar photoshoot with an all-black Alice In Wonderland cast.

None of this bothers me. It’s fine and dandy. You know me, I’m all about the free market. (So just push the accusations of me being a racist out of your mind. If that’s what you’ve been thinking, you suck at psychoanalysis, so don’t quit your day job, buttercups. Anyway…) I do have to question a couple aspects of this sort of thing.

1. A. None of the originals had race or gender in mind, not overtly and not covertly. For example, with Alice in Wonderland, I don’t think Lewis Carroll chose a white rabbit because he was a white supremacist. And queens have always been female…just stating the obvious. And I don’t think Ackroyd, Ramis, Murray, et. al, were male chauvinists with “Ghostbusters”–they came up with an idea and thought it would be fun to play their creations.

B. Purposely choosing a specific cast based on race or gender is racist and sexist. If the decision is to find talented people that fit otherwise arbitrary roles in that regard, then that choice is racist or sexist. If Carroll or Ramis did so for the same reason, then they would be too, but they can’t because they didn’t unless someone can show me otherwise, which I’m open to seeing, and then they’re guilty of the same. A perfect recent example which does indeed rhetorically smell fishy is Scarlett Johansson in “Ghost In the Shell” playing a robot in Japan, based on a Japanese anime story. Everything else is Japanese, hello! Even if it was a tactic to appeal to a more world-wide audience, that decision would still fall under the racism card because the decision was race-based and not culturally apropros to the story, like Mr. Miyagi being Japanese because he’s, duh, from Japan.

2. A. It’s a form of cultural appropriation. I’ve had it drummed into my head since before I can remember, and still do almost daily, that cultural appropriation is a bad thing–the whole melting-pot-is-wrong-mixed-salad-is good thing, the imperialism-is-bad idea, the respect-for-cultures notion. Okay. So why change a Victorian British story to sub-Saharan? Why change the plight of poor Irish immigrants in the northern US in 1900 NYC into a story about African-Americans? Should we change the Native American plight in “Dances With Wolves” to a story about Pacific Islanders on the American Plains of the 19th Century? Of course not, you scoff! Ah, if that’s what you think, then, as always, I’ll question your logical inconsistency. Your reasoning falls apart at the seams and flames out.

B. It belittles those of that purposely chosen group. Instead of coming up with something original, there is the non-existent creativity of piggy-backing on something that is apparently wrong and narrow-minded. Talk about irony of ironies! I’ve read and watched some fantastic, superb stories by and about non-white groups: Octavia Butler’s works, “Roots”, “The Color Purple”, and “The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman”, come immediately to mind. Not being original promotes the notion, however false (and truly false it is), that there isn’t much these other artificially created groups can intrinsically offer. In my opinion, it’s appalling.

Like I said, I’m all for the free market experimentation of ideas–have at it. My encouragement doesn’t mean it comes criticism-free though. For those who don’t know of it, there’s a great literary movement among bibliophiles called We Need Diverse Books. I love that idea in particular, you know why? Because almost all of the authors are producing original work! It’s a wonderful sight to behold! With that said…

3. Marvel has seen a financial backlash in sales because of the SJW-esque agenda it’s pushing. With the recent Leftist chants of finally-a-woman-in-the-lead-role being immediately burning down in flames with basic cinematic history being pointed to–whether it was the original Wonder Woman from decades ago or Ripley in the Alien franchise, for example–the blatant push of a racist and sexist strategy is even more glaringly known. And now “Doctor Who” is apparently getting quite a bit of negative feedback as well and will surely lose some chunk of its audience. If it is so noble an endeavor, then why not make the good doctor a gender-fluid, paralyzed Muslim Chicano octogenarian who self-identifies as a toaster? Whether that’s okay or not is a matter of taste, and the market will decide if it’s an enjoyable experiment or not. And if all of this falls flat, then maybe it’s not the tried and true originals that are to blame but modern identity politics (the sole purpose of which is to organize society through division anyway!).

Then again, Hollywood sits on its haunches while the real brainpower (authors) does its work, then takes the beautiful and applies disfiguring cosmetic surgery to it.


For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day….

Leave a Reply