What some people thought about the actor is irrelevant to the fact the producer put a mixed race girl in place of a black girl. We don't know what the casting director thought exactly but the fact he properly casted Thresh and didn't properly cast Rue, both of whom were slated to come from the same area and have the same features, implies he knew that Rue was supposed to be like Thresh. In other words, dark skin black.
You are clearly on some bu bu what about black-on-black crime, deflection argument technique. You are using white supremacist tactics, while complaining about white supremacy
The sole reason why you brought up Rue 's casting is to try to deflect, inject confusion and undermine the core argument of those who oppose the non-requirement of an actor to look and be black, in other to play a black character
Hollywood's use of light skin actors to cater to white supremacist ideals is nothing new. In fact, the casting of an ambiguously mix-race actor, to play a black character, is an extension of that very common practice.
Pointing out that common practice does not prove that the outrage of the Jem casting is misdirected, wrong, or unnecessary. It actually helps the case because it clearly demonstrates an agenda behind the casting that is not based in the talent of the actor, but on their looks
You trying to compare how black women reacted differently to both castings, does not add anything in the discussion or prove that the outrage Jem casting is misdirected, wrong, or unnecessary
The same argument works for Amandla and Rue casting.
smh. The argument was about the non-requirement of an actor to look black and be black, on order to play a black character. You already said that Amandla looks black due to her mother's dark skin. So clearly that argument does not apply to Amandla because she looks like a light skinned black woman
The fact the casting director properly cast Thresh as a dark skin black men yet didn't do the same to Rue implies the casting director knew that both were black, yet nevertheless cast Rue as a mixed chick. You can't assume the casting director subjectively misinterpreted the book's black descriptions when Thresh was properly cast as black.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just presenting the fact that the generic description of Rue could've been played by a dark skin indian or black actors
You are trying to play games by being intellectually dishonest...you calling Amandla a "mixed chick," while not specifying the most important part, which is that she looks like a black woman VERSUS the Jem casting of a "mix chick," that doesn't look like a black woman
Both Snipes and Howard have said untoward things about black women so that's not a valid reason to replace Snipes with Howard. The likely reason is Hollywood colorism, especially in light of what Taraji said about Ryan Gosling.
lol. I specified three possible reasons why Wesley may not have gotten the part, you focused on one, while ignoring the others because there's noway to prove the other two were not factors
So it's clear that you don't have any proof that the casting was for dark skin actors. I was expecting you to provide casting call descriptions that were published in magazines and sent to agents of all the actors to shut me down, but instead you provide nothing
I am aware of the reasons Amandla looks the way she does buts he is an exception. Most times the children doesn't look very black. This is why bedwenches are always asked stuff like, "Are you a nanny", because that's what it looks like. This is how Brazil and Argentina whitened their population.
Hmmm, so you gonna use the exception argument so we could only focus on those examples that fit your misleading narrative, while ignoring others examples that don't fit your narrative like
-Derek Jeter,
-The Rock,
-Blake Griffin
-Tony Parker
-Bob Marley
-Lenny Kravitz
Men with either black or white fathers, but yet without knowing their father, you could easily mislabel their racial makeup because their father's traits and genes are not dominant in their physical apperance. So again, that is why "race of your father" argument is very flawed if you are ignoring the physical appearance of the offspring
The above paragraph doesn't even make sense. In countries where the aforementioned interracial relationship is the norm, the children follow the father. It was so in Argentina; it was so in Brazil; it was so in all the Americas. The only places where blackness and black peoplehood predominate, as opposed to white people and white supremacy, in the Americas is where black men are primarily fathers (i.e. the USA and the Carribean). Stop.
Brazil?
completely wrong.
The degree of miscegenation in Brazil has been very high, as Brazil was colonized by male Portuguese adventurers who tended to procreate with Amerindian and African women. This made possible a myth of "racial democracy" that tends to obscure a widespread discrimination connected to certain aspects of physical appearance aspects related to the concept of cor (literally "colour"), used in a way that is roughly equivalent to the English term "race" but based on a combination of skin colour, hair type, and shape of nose and lips. It is possible for siblings to belong to different "colour" categories. So a "White" Brazilian is a person perceived and socially accepted as "White", regardless of ancestry or sometimes even immediate family
Race and ethnicity in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like I said, the "race of your father" argument is very flawed if you are ignoring the physical appearance of the offspring
In other countries, the majority are of the same race, thus the "race of your father" argument does not apply. A country like Brazil, still relies on the physical appearance, but yet US blacks want to blindly and ignorantly apply the "race of your father" argument and the one-drop rule, while ignoring physical appearance.smh
That statement is being implemented in the country that you tried to use as a supporting example of your incorrect stance
