Does Race Really Matter?

[metaphysician]

So Jor-El could've sent him to a black family in a small town in Georgia. However it was more about the late 20s, since a black superhero would not have been accepted during that period and that's why he was of white complexion (not necessarily our def of white) in a white home.

When you've changed that much, you have changed Superman to the point where he's not Superman anymore. He might be a worthwhile character, but he's also a fundamentally different one.

 

[Human Torch]

When you've changed that much, you have changed Superman to the point where he's not Superman anymore. He might be a worthwhile character, but he's also a fundamentally different one.

I agree,I mean at that point why call him Superman?Create a new character.

 

[Holiday]

When you've changed that much, you have changed Superman to the point where he's not Superman anymore. He might be a worthwhile character, but he's also a fundamentally different one.

He actually hasn't changed much at all. It could be the same story, regardless of it being in Georgia. It's just that no one would recognize someone other than a white man with black hair as being Clark Kent Superman.

 

[az824]

When you've changed that much, you have changed Superman to the point where he's not Superman anymore. He might be a worthwhile character, but he's also a fundamentally different one.

I think you misunderstood me, I simply meant that at his original creation that could've been the situation and he could've been black not that in a new movie or something make him black. That would be ridiculous. My point was that he's white because the creators made him white not because he grew up in Kansas or because he's American since he's not.

 

[metaphysician]

He actually hasn't changed much at all. It could be the same story, regardless of it being in Georgia. It's just that no one would recognize someone other than a white man with black hair as being Clark Kent Superman.

Um, yes, that changes *everything*. Even if the Kents have the exact same personality, you've changed their social situation in almost every imaginable aspect. Having Clark Kent raised as an oppressed victim of prejudice is a *huge* shift from having him raised as an everyman, which would inform his character for the rest of his existence.

Is this a potentially interesting premise? Sure. But what you have is Icon from Milestone. Not Superman.

 

[DarKush]

Um, yes, that changes *everything*. Even if the Kents have the exact same personality, you've changed their social situation in almost every imaginable aspect. Having Clark Kent raised as an oppressed victim of prejudice is a *huge* shift from having him raised as an everyman, which would inform his character for the rest of his existence.

Is this a potentially interesting premise? Sure. But what you have is Icon from Milestone. Not Superman.

So, an 'everyman' can't be black?

I just thought your rationale for keeping Superman white was in interesting one. I'm fine with the idea of keeping the character white, though I do think some assumptions have been made that there aren't black farmers, perhaps even in Kansas.

Granted, if Superman were black, in the 1930s/1940s, it would drastically change the story due to the prejudice at the time, if that was addressed. However I reject the idea that a black Superman, or a black character can't be an 'everyman', someone that audiences can identify with. When you look at Isaiah Bradley, 'black Captain America', his story rightfully address racism, but why would that make him less of an everyman than Steve Rogers?

I think many could empathize with Isaiah's love for his significant other, his love of country, his pride in his ethnic/racial group, his compassion for others, etc. Does having black skin make him so alien that it becomes hard to see his universal-for lack of a better term-qualities?

I'm black, but I can empathize with Peter Parker and many white superheroes. Going on what Terry brought up, I question whether that is the case for many white fans.

Also, MP, you're Zulu comment wasn't funny.

 

[Arach Knight]

This thread is rife with comments that convey the prevalence of White Privilege here on Hype and in the Anglo-sphere. There are countless films where Whites have robbed minorities of roles for characters that were originally a different race. Worse, some of these characters are based on real life figures and heroes. Yet, the same outcry for keeping White characters White is never heard of from these same vocal people that believe in "preserving the integrity of the original character." Minority characters can be Whitewashed and it gets brushed aside. Just a few examples...

21
Extraordinary Measures
The Last Airbender
A Mighty Heart
Spawn
Akira
OldBoy
Iron Man 3
Prince of Persia
Argo
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight Rises


And when a person of color takes on even a minor role (Idris Elba as Heimdall) for a purely fictional fantasy character, it becomes a storm of hateful words and cries about "faithfulness" to the source material. Look at something as disgusting to the Yellowface role Hugo Weaving took on in Cloud Atlas. It's disgusting that the White community is rarely bothered by such events, but oh what a crime if a Black, Mexican or Asian played your beloved Superman or Batman.

Minorities can't even catch a break for playing their own characters. The royal fit people threw over the character of Rue in Hunger Games (actually a Black character in the novel and film) exemplifies the same disturbing rhetoric tossed around here. I'm not saying this applies to every poster in this thread or to every White person. I recognize and respect that Whites are not monolithic. However, the frequency of such rhetoric on these forums and in this topic is simply disgusting.

I can understand wanting real life figures to be played by actors sharing a similar ethnic background, but are people so defensive of Whiteness that even fictional characters can't be reinterpreted? And to answer a previous posters question, I wouldn't of cared if Blade were made White. His Blackness has nothing to do with his character to any significant capacity, anymore than Superman being "White" has to do with his character. HE ISN'T EVEN HUMAN! What would be wrong with being found by Black residents in Kansas and sharing the same mid-west values? But it is never that simple when it comes to these matters. Unless your name is Denzel or Will, Whites refuse to believe that a person is a person capable of portraying an array of qualities, traits and characteristics that are neutral and not race oriented. This just makes me sick every time this comes up. And with how people are reacting to Obama' re-election, this thread could not have come at a more inopportune time...

 

[kane9321]

It matters to me

 

[Majik1387]

Again, it's not a matter of what the actor's actual ethnicity is, it's a matter of if they look like the character.

 

[terry78]

This thread is rife with comments that convey the prevalence of White Privilege here on Hype and in the Anglo-sphere. There are countless films where Whites have robbed minorities of roles for characters that were originally a different race. Worse, some of these characters are based on real life figures and heroes. Yet, the same outcry for keeping White characters White is never heard of from these same vocal people that believe in "preserving the integrity of the original character." Minority characters can be Whitewashed and it gets brushed aside. Just a few examples...

21
Extraordinary Measures
The Last Airbender
A Mighty Heart
Spawn
Akira
OldBoy
Iron Man 3
Prince of Persia
Argo
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight Rises


And when a person of color takes on even a minor role (Idris Elba as Heimdall) for a purely fictional fantasy character, it becomes a storm of hateful words and cries about "faithfulness" to the source material. Look at something as disgusting to the Yellowface role Hugo Weaving took on in Cloud Atlas. It's disgusting that the White community is rarely bothered by such events, but oh what a crime if a Black, Mexican or Asian played your beloved Superman or Batman.

Minorities can't even catch a break for playing their own characters. The royal fit people threw over the character of Rue in Hunger Games (actually a Black character in the novel and film) exemplifies the same disturbing rhetoric tossed around here. I'm not saying this applies to every poster in this thread or to every White person. I recognize and respect that Whites are not monolithic. However, the frequency of such rhetoric on these forums and in this topic is simply disgusting.

I can understand wanting real life figures to be played by actors sharing a similar ethnic background, but are people so defensive of Whiteness that even fictional characters can't be reinterpreted? And to answer a previous posters question, I wouldn't of cared if Blade were made White. His Blackness has nothing to do with his character to any significant capacity, anymore than Superman being "White" has to do with his character. HE ISN'T EVEN HUMAN! What would be wrong with being found by Black residents in Kansas and sharing the same mid-west values? But it is never that simple when it comes to these matters. Unless your name is Denzel or Will, Whites refuse to believe that a person is a person capable of portraying an array of qualities, traits and characteristics that are neutral and not race oriented. This just makes me sick every time this comes up. And with how people are reacting to Obama' re-election, this thread could not have come at a more inopportune time...

I hear you.

 

[Bruce Malone]

This thread is rife with comments that convey the prevalence of White Privilege here on Hype and in the Anglo-sphere. There are countless films where Whites have robbed minorities of roles for characters that were originally a different race. Worse, some of these characters are based on real life figures and heroes. Yet, the same outcry for keeping White characters White is never heard of from these same vocal people that believe in "preserving the integrity of the original character." Minority characters can be Whitewashed and it gets brushed aside. Just a few examples...

21
Extraordinary Measures
The Last Airbender
A Mighty Heart
Spawn
Akira
OldBoy
Iron Man 3
Prince of Persia
Argo
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight Rises


And when a person of color takes on even a minor role (Idris Elba as Heimdall) for a purely fictional fantasy character, it becomes a storm of hateful words and cries about "faithfulness" to the source material. Look at something as disgusting to the Yellowface role Hugo Weaving took on in Cloud Atlas. It's disgusting that the White community is rarely bothered by such events, but oh what a crime if a Black, Mexican or Asian played your beloved Superman or Batman.

Minorities can't even catch a break for playing their own characters. The royal fit people threw over the character of Rue in Hunger Games (actually a Black character in the novel and film) exemplifies the same disturbing rhetoric tossed around here. I'm not saying this applies to every poster in this thread or to every White person. I recognize and respect that Whites are not monolithic. However, the frequency of such rhetoric on these forums and in this topic is simply disgusting.

I can understand wanting real life figures to be played by actors sharing a similar ethnic background, but are people so defensive of Whiteness that even fictional characters can't be reinterpreted? And to answer a previous posters question, I wouldn't of cared if Blade were made White. His Blackness has nothing to do with his character to any significant capacity, anymore than Superman being "White" has to do with his character. HE ISN'T EVEN HUMAN! What would be wrong with being found by Black residents in Kansas and sharing the same mid-west values? But it is never that simple when it comes to these matters. Unless your name is Denzel or Will, Whites refuse to believe that a person is a person capable of portraying an array of qualities, traits and characteristics that are neutral and not race oriented. This just makes me sick every time this comes up. And with how people are reacting to Obama' re-election, this thread could not have come at a more inopportune time...

 

[az824]

Again, it's not a matter of what the actor's actual ethnicity is, it's a matter of if they look like the character.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say. I agree 100%

 

[Franny]

Arach Knight & others. I feel you're over-reacting slightly. It has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. Just these characters are so iconic and ingrained that it would probably be too jarring to change their ethnicity. Admittingly Blade could be portrayed by a white caucasian, though it would just feel wrong as he has always been portrayed as afro-american. In the instance of "Shaft" wouldn't it be silly to have him portrayed white! Too far down the road for major characters to be reinterpreted, people are entrenched in the character's appearance. It is obviously less of an issue with minor characters, as a lot of people are unaware of any source material will not realize. If Superman was a new concept today and introduced as black' then black he is. The comment "whites" refuse to believe that a person is a person capable of portraying an array of qualities, traits and characteristics that are neutral and not race oriented." actually is generalizing and frankly' very insulting. The producers of the Marvel franchise didn't hold that view and got Jackson to play Nick Fury. Why? Because he's a great actor and was right for the role. Fury isn't too high in the pantheon of heroes for the effect to be jarring. Only comic fans would had raised eyebrows, though I don't remember any backlash. Ethnicity has nothing to do with a lot of Morgan Freeman's latest roles, same goes for a lot of other actors.
We should accept some characters are white and some other ethnicity. Shaft, Blade, Cyborg, Luke Cage, and others are black. It would just feel wrong if they were portrayed as white. Love those characters and wouldn't want them reinterpreted.
I agree that racism and bigotry is still an issue in this world and always will be. Yet' Arach it does come across as you having one massive chip on your shoulder. This forum really shouldn't become the place for these political/social issues. I'm afraid you'll only encourage those of a certain mindset to bait you.

 

[Arach Knight]

I am not even sure you are aware of the irony of some of your comments. This thread is already sociopolitical in nature and was posted long before I came to respond.Honestly, your reaction is a common rebuttal given by those who refuse to admit that bias, prejudice and racism are more prevalent than society makes it seem.

It's not me over-reacting or having a chip on my shoulder when the Council of Concerned Citizens boycotted Thor because Idris Elba was given the role of Heimdall. Did the NAACP protest A Mighty Heart because of a blackface performance from Angelina Jolie? No, they didn't. As a matter of fact, the NAACP nominated Angelina for an Image award for best leading actress. In other words, Blacks made a lesser fuss over Jolie's blackface performance of a real woman of color than Whites did over the casting of an ethnic minority in the role of a fictional god. And if that statement sounds broad, let me narrow it down by informing you that the Thor forum here on Hype was filled with threads ranting about the casting of Idris Elba as Heimdall (though a few people saw no issue).

I am tired of the hypocrisy of those that cry if a fantasy character is cast without regard to race, but real life heroes of color are recast as White and these same complainers are no where near as concerned about who is iconic, the integrity of the character, or faithfulness to the source material. But again, when White people willingly operate in White Privilege while pretending that there is no such thing, it is likely that they will disregard the facts, accuse someone of overreacting or being too sensitive, then proceed to make excuses to justify their (often unintended) prejudices.

This is why people here are so defensive of maintaining the status quo for White characters while having no complaint about characters of color being whitewashed. No one seems upset over the whitewashing of Bane, a major character in Batman lore and in The Dark Knight Rises, who went from being a tan complected Spanish speaking citizen of Santa Prisca, to being a pale White British male. Sure, Bane is bi-racial, but any ties to his non-White aspects were wiped away with the casting of Hardy. The luchador influence of his mask and costume that conveyed his culture? Wiped away. The accent from having Spanish as a native language? Gone. Is there any understanding that this character is from an island located in the Caribbean with descendants of the African diaspora? Zilch. Is anyone complaining? Not that I've noticed. The biggest and arguably only complaint about Hardy's casting is not that his performance whitewashes one of the few prominent hispanic culture characters in comics, but that his voice seemed ill-fit for the physique of the character.

R'as Al Ghul, arguably Batman's greatest nemesis, second only to the Joker. An olive complected Arabian man. Who plays him in the movie? Another White British male. Anyone complaining about the erasure of R'as' culture and ethnic identity? Sure...sites like racialicious and racebending. But any outcry from the White community? Not really. No one even wonders why a White man bears a name that is obviously not European in nature, nor fictional (R'as Al Ghul comes from actual Arabic words). So while Hollywood and the mainstream culture have no problem seeing White men play characters of non-White origins, it some how seems strange for a minority face to play an everyman even if race is not a significant aspect of a character's story.

If I have chips, they're chocoloate and in my cookies, not on my shoulder. Sorry for the wake up call, but the world is filled with prejudice, bigotry and racism. And comic books are not so sanctified and ideal that the fans and creators are free of those prejudices. This thread is evidence of that and I refuse to be labeled as sensitive or over-reacting because people in a more privileged position are unwilling to deal with reality as it is. I know that no one chooses to be born into a certain race or class or creed. From our end, our births are a matter of chance. No one should feel guilty about what they are. However, at the same time, the world is a place of imbalance and favor currently rests with White culture, often at the expense of everyone else. I may love comic books, but I don't live in the land of make believe. Neither should you.

 

[terry78]

It's just one of those issues that, if someone already has their mindset in stone, it ain't changing. I already know.

 

[Arach Knight]

It's just one of those issues that, if someone already has their mindset in stone, it ain't changing. I already know.

Unfortunately. I may be wasting my metaphorical breath...but it is infuriating at times. Truthfully speaking, I don't even disagree with the idea that if a character's race is integral to their story, they should be cast with that in mind. Storm's life in Kenya, her cultural outlook and even the perception of her as an African goddess are all linked to her ethnic identity. Wonder Woman is not only a member of a tribe of Greek women, but her lore and powerset are steeped in Greek mythology. You need Wonder Woman to look Greek. But then there are characters where race doesn't matter at all (Superman, Blade, Green Lantern etc) and people still want to find some way to justify a White status quo.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

arach knight wins this thread.

 

[cronosred]

I'm curious with all this talk about changing a hero's race, how would you feel with making characters like Batman, Superman, and or Spider-Man gay?

 

[Baramos]

I'm curious with all this talk about changing a hero's race, how would you feel with making characters like Batman, Superman, and or Spider-Man gay?

Hasn't the internet done this for us already? Numerous times?

@Arach Knight: Well on another forum I post at we talked about how they had altered Bane from Latino to White, but most people had problems with the anti-99% part of the movie so the race changing got lost in the shuffle...

I'm pretty sure back when I've had at least one conversation about how they had Liam Neeson play the "real" Ra's Al'Ghul (they did give Ken Watanabe the decoy role--still the wrong race but more of an honest mistake), but yeah, by and large people don't care very much about changing minority characters to white unless they are black.

Wait, I can think of one non-comics related thing--pretty much everybody (on the internet, anyway) hated the whitewashing of the Avatar characters in The Last Airbender.

 

[Brother Jack]

For me it is dependent on the character. Making Nick Fury black isn't a problem because that's character's identity is not inextricably linked to his race. A character like Black Panther, on the other hand, is and it would be wrong to change his race.

 

[Arach Knight]

Hasn't the internet done this for us already? Numerous times?

@Arach Knight: Well on another forum I post at we talked about how they had altered Bane from Latino to White, but most people had problems with the anti-99% part of the movie so the race changing got lost in the shuffle...

I'm pretty sure back when I've had at least one conversation about how they had Liam Neeson play the "real" Ra's Al'Ghul (they did give Ken Watanabe the decoy role--still the wrong race but more of an honest mistake), but yeah, by and large people don't care very much about changing minority characters to white unless they are black.

It truly is a deep rooted issue. I pray for the day to come where people are less insular and more willing to be open minded and truly share the culture that defines the American landscape.

 

[Zeerola]

There actually was outcry about The Last Airbender puttin the caucasian in asian. The same with Akira, also bashed for being shifted to America.
Spawn was played by black actor as far as I remember.
And Batman had Gillian Loeb played by black actor and no-one

 

[TheHeatKitchen]

It does matter, for certain characters.... As some one hinted above, if Clark Kent was black, it would change a lot. In that time period, if he was black, his character would have been subject to further discrimination and ridicule in school and the community of Kansas. His personality would have developed completely differently. After years of being treated a certain way in the community, no matter how nurturing and politically correct your parents may raise you, it would affect kids differently. Does that make sense? Nature vs nurture argument paired with a sociological understanding of the area in that time period.

on the other hand, look at Black Panther and Falcon. What if Black Panther was white? Or Asian? Could you justify that? And Falcon was so important to the black community as being one of the first main stream black superheroes. I know I wouldn't want to see either of them change.

what about Red Skull? Remember the 90s Captain America film? He wasn't German. How much did people complain about that? He's a Nazi (sort of, depending on how you see the split of Nazi Germany and HYDRA, its an opinion thing). Some characters just have characteristics and backgrounds you just can't change.

bottom line, some characters are off limits to change in my opinion. Other, smaller character, i.e. Electro, Heimdall, Ares, Radioactive Man, Titanium Man, Enchantress, Crossbones, Maria Hill, etc. are fair game.

 

[The Guard]

Here’s the thing…

Of course a black Superman could work. We’ve essentially seen it work as a concept, with John Irons as Steel for years. Superman could work if he were almost any ethnicity, but doing it just for the sake of doing it seems counterproductive.

I go to adaptions of superhero movies and fantasy stories not because I want to see every basic that I love about my favorite characters and stories changed for the sake of change or to appeal to a particular race, but because I want to see familiar faces and characters and stories fantastically realized in a different medium.

This kind of thing has to be assessed on a case by case basis. There’s no hard and fast rule for when it’s “okay” to change races, genders, and other character aspects, because its going to be different for a lot of people.

In the case of a character like Electro…I just don’t care about his visuals or his race that much. Electro is, at best, a supporting player in Spider-Man’s mythology. I know that there are people who do care, though. And then there are situations like Michael Clarke Duncan as The Kingpin, where a director chose the best actor to reasonably fill a given role, despite the fact that he was a different race than in the source material.

No one seems upset over the whitewashing of Bane, a major character in Batman lore and in The Dark Knight Rises, who Th went from being a tan complected Spanish speaking citizen of Santa Prisca, to being a pale White British male. Sure, Bane is bi-racial, but any ties to his non-White aspects were wiped away with the casting of Hardy.

That's not true. Until they saw the first clips of Hardy’s performance, a lot of fans whined about these facts. But it turns out the filmmakers didn’t just cast a random white guy so Bane could be white…they cast a fantastic actor in a role that he was very dedicated to, and it worked quite well.

The luchador influence of his mask and costume that conveyed his culture? Wiped away.

One, is that really the “culture” that Hispanics want spotlighted?

And two, Bane’s luchador elements actually remain largely intact, almost as much as they ever were. The frightening mask, the wrestling aspects are still very much there.

R'as Al Ghul, arguably Batman's greatest nemesis, second only to the Joker. An olive complected Arabian man. Who plays him in the movie? Another White British male.

Who happened to be one of the better actors of modern cinema.

Anyone complaining about the erasure of R'as' culture and ethnic identity? Sure...sites like racialicious and racebending. But any outcry from the White community? Not really. No one even wonders why a White man bears a name that is obviously not European in nature, nor fictional (R'as Al Ghul comes from actual Arabic words). So while Hollywood and the mainstream culture have no problem seeing White men play characters of non-White origins, it some how seems strange for a minority face to play an everyman even if race is not a significant aspect of a character's story.

Again, this isn't true. There were plenty of fans who complained about the “change” to Ra’s Al Ghul’s ethnicity. And most of them missed the point, just like those sites are missing the point.

Ra’s Al Ghul is not supposed to be any one ethnicity. While his origins (where he’s described as an immortal) may be Arabic in nature, his features are portrayed as vaguely Asian in certain incarnations, and he has transcended this, and no longer identifies with any one nation or culture as a character. And have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the filmmakers didn’t make him into an Arabic character because they didn’t want to present yet another Arab character who is a terrorist?

 

[Arach Knight]

@TheHeatKitchen

If you read my posts completely, you would have seen that I already recognized that there are characters where ethnicity is actually a defining aspect of their character. Storm, Wonder Woman, Red Skull, Dust etc. None of them could be inherently the same if not for their ethnic background. There are plenty of characters whose ethnic background is a part of their superhero/villain persona or simply relevant to their characterization. However, there are even more characters where ethnicity is irrelevant, Superman included.

There is no rational argument capable of moving beyond the facile that justifies why Superman has to be White, even though he is not White because he is not even human. Superman could have appeared East Asian, South-East Asian, Aztec, Arabian, African or any other earthly pheneotype and still have grown up with a heart and mind to love people despite the hateful ways of others. Does Martin Luther King Jr. ring any bells? If he could endure that hate and still love, then why couldn't a 'Black' Clark do the same?

Ultimately you are proposing only one possibility and not a demand of the story.
There is no rule that states that "if Superman were 'Black' and created in the 1930s, everyone in the story has to hate him." Furthermore, the caveat to your argument is that it applies just as much to a "White" Clark Kent. If a "Black" Clark Kent would be subject to being the victim of racism, then a "White" Clark Kent would be subject to the indoctrination of racist ideology. Clearly, the Kents are better than that based on the values and sense of justice that Clark possesses. However, if racism were such an issue for the character based on the epoch in which he was created, then by your logic, Clark Kent should be remarkably racist as an ostensibly "White" male from the mid-west.

@The Guard

I am not stating that Hardy gave a poor performance in the role. I am saying that Hardy's casting allows for the erasure of ethnic identity. To add insult to injury, not only were Bane's Hispanic roots wiped away, but the film portrays Bane as being some sort of Arabian, just as R'as Al Ghul was. Despite the clear portrayal of Bane as being from the Middle East, he is still played by a White British male. That's like a Wonder Woman movie where Wonder Woman is rewritten as a Chinese woman, but a White actress is still cast in the role.

And for the record, nothing about Hardy's mask invokes images of the luchador. He looks more like Darth Vader than a professional wrestler. He wears military pants and boots with a rather bizzare armored vest. He is effectively Bane-In-Name-Only. His origin, ethnicity and characterization bear little to no semblance to the character upon which he is based. Also, asking if the Luchador element is an aspect of culture that "...Hispanics want spotlighted" is a question aimed at derailment. It is fair to assume that ethnic erasure is not preferable to "highlighting" a cultural identifier that you are implying is some how negative despite being prominent and respected in various Hispanic cultures.

As for R'as Al Ghul, what does Liam Neeson's acting skill have to do with the fact that the film casts a White male to portray an olive complected Arabian man? Deflection does not change the nature of the complaint, as if acting skill justifies the fact that White people have no problem with taking ethnic roles from minorities, but will say anything to explain why doing the reverse to White characters is so detrimental.

If a White character is made an ethnic minority, then White people feel it is for political correctness or "for the sake of change" as you so "eloquently" stated. However, when ethnic minority characters are made White, then White people argue that the best actor was chosen or that the producers wanted to avoid portraying a negative stereotype associated with the character (an argument you make for Bane and R'as and an argument recently made by the producers of Iron Man 3, justifying the Whitewashing of the Mandarin).

Furthermore, if Nolan and co were "concerned" about perpetuating the Arab terrorist stigma, then R'as Al Ghul would have been given a non-Arabic name and an origin that does not show the character and his family to be natives of the Middle East. Keeping everything Arabic about the character EXCEPT his casting does not downplay the fact that the character is a terrorist that happens to be Arab. Making him appear White does not make it more acceptable that R'as is a terrorist. Your argument is remarkably flawed and once again highlights the White privilege mindset.