Oh, and using the term "virtue signaling" is absolutely a value judgement. It carries negative connotations. It implies insincerity and artificiality. It's a way of diminishing someone's choice. Have you ever seen it used in discourse in a non-negative way? I sure haven't.
I think we're arguing over trifles. Intent doesn't really matter much. Red hair was an intentional choice for Little Orphan Annie but not for the (1989) Little Mermaid. Black skin was an intentional choice for the (2023) Little Mermaid. What matters is how audiences *receive* those physical signifiers. And the overreaction from racists is a pretty good sign that the reception is doing something!
I think intent matters a great deal in any choice we make. We can try to anticipate how the actions we take will be received by others, but we're all human, and conflict will invariably arise. What matters most is how that conflict is handled by both sides. Humility is needed, today more than ever.
I have to admit that I don’t have a huge background of thought process about this. I grew up in a west coast environment where the racial profiling and stereotypes so common on the east coast at that time really didn’t communicate. We didn’t think twice about black friends and Asian friends and such (if there were prejudicial overtones in that area, which completely missed me as a youngster but to which my older siblings attest, it was towards Hispanics). I never saw The Little Mermaid until well into the 21st century (ah, those fundy quasi-cult days) and I never even thought of a red-haired connection, either in it or in Annie. I just never thought that way.
However, I’ve given much thought to the attitudes that have prevailed in the last 40 years as inclusion of other races, particularly blacks, has become a conversation topic in the arts. I watched as worthy black artists worked into opera performances, watched the reaction of typical white audiences, then watched the furor die down. (My husband has watched the same thing in professional sports.) The same thing happened in theatre and cinema over the years. But I will maintain, especially now, that if people just let it happen and don’t make such a big deal about it, there would be more common and more immediate acceptance. I don’t care what color a person’s skin or hair is, so long as they bring focused talent into a worthy role. If people are fetishing about the color of Ariel’s hair they are probably missing the larger themes of the story. I think Hamilton put to rest, with its smashing success, the question of the ability of established artists of any background being able to tell a story well, regardless of the story. What I would like to see would be a complete reversal of Hamilton — perhaps a black history story told, and told well, with the inclusion of white and Asian artists in key roles. It would be talked to death, and perhaps panned. What that demonstrates is that we as a people are not yet colorblind.
I personally think the best Ariel for the role would be Polynesian. Those are the peoples whose world is surrounded by the sea. But that’s just me….and I really don’t care. So long as the role is well done, I’m good.
While your background material on red hair's significance in American society in the early 20th century is pretty interesting (it especially interested me to learn the background behind the phrase "red-headed stepchild"), I don't think you made a clear case that this type of thought process was in any way involved in the choice to make OG Ariel red-haired. In fact, you seem to acknowledge that the true reasoning for her hair color was merely to not be blonde and therefore avoid association with a less tasteful mermaid character.
Given that, I think your attempt to create a parallel fails for the modern mermaid incarnation. I suspect Disney's choice to recast the race of a popular character was little more than virtue signaling. I mean it's their character and they can do what they like; we don't need to justify it (as if it needs justifying) or grasp for a deeper philosophical meaning behind it.
Yeah, I don't think it played a role in the red hair in the 1989 film, but it was a fortuitous accident with artistic/historical merit. And since recasting Ariel as Halle Bailey was intentional, it's a fortuitous choice with artistic/historical merit.
Who cares if it's "virtue signaling" or not? It's a good idea that worked out well.
Labeling an action as virtue signalling is not a value judgement. If you ascribe virtue to something and want to signal it, whoopty-doo. My comment was only questioning the premise for this article. From this reader's perspective, the flow of reasoning for this article seemed to be...
1. the racial re-casting of the Ariel character has been criticized by racists
2. red-haired people were marginalized in the 20th century similarly to black-skinned people today
3. therefore, racially re-casting Ariel in the 21st century was done for a similar reason as hair-color re-casting of Ariel in the 20th.
Your comment above now positions the 20th century example of red-haired Ariel as a "fortuitous accident." However, the last paragraph of your article says "realize that doing so is a reasonable artistic decision with strong historic precedent", which suggests a conscious decision rather than an accident.
I think the overall argument in your article only makes sense if the choices then and now were both conscious ones. If it was a "fortuitous accident" then and a "fortuitous choice" today, then there really isn't any precedent.
Oh, and using the term "virtue signaling" is absolutely a value judgement. It carries negative connotations. It implies insincerity and artificiality. It's a way of diminishing someone's choice. Have you ever seen it used in discourse in a non-negative way? I sure haven't.
I think we're arguing over trifles. Intent doesn't really matter much. Red hair was an intentional choice for Little Orphan Annie but not for the (1989) Little Mermaid. Black skin was an intentional choice for the (2023) Little Mermaid. What matters is how audiences *receive* those physical signifiers. And the overreaction from racists is a pretty good sign that the reception is doing something!
I think intent matters a great deal in any choice we make. We can try to anticipate how the actions we take will be received by others, but we're all human, and conflict will invariably arise. What matters most is how that conflict is handled by both sides. Humility is needed, today more than ever.
I have to admit that I don’t have a huge background of thought process about this. I grew up in a west coast environment where the racial profiling and stereotypes so common on the east coast at that time really didn’t communicate. We didn’t think twice about black friends and Asian friends and such (if there were prejudicial overtones in that area, which completely missed me as a youngster but to which my older siblings attest, it was towards Hispanics). I never saw The Little Mermaid until well into the 21st century (ah, those fundy quasi-cult days) and I never even thought of a red-haired connection, either in it or in Annie. I just never thought that way.
However, I’ve given much thought to the attitudes that have prevailed in the last 40 years as inclusion of other races, particularly blacks, has become a conversation topic in the arts. I watched as worthy black artists worked into opera performances, watched the reaction of typical white audiences, then watched the furor die down. (My husband has watched the same thing in professional sports.) The same thing happened in theatre and cinema over the years. But I will maintain, especially now, that if people just let it happen and don’t make such a big deal about it, there would be more common and more immediate acceptance. I don’t care what color a person’s skin or hair is, so long as they bring focused talent into a worthy role. If people are fetishing about the color of Ariel’s hair they are probably missing the larger themes of the story. I think Hamilton put to rest, with its smashing success, the question of the ability of established artists of any background being able to tell a story well, regardless of the story. What I would like to see would be a complete reversal of Hamilton — perhaps a black history story told, and told well, with the inclusion of white and Asian artists in key roles. It would be talked to death, and perhaps panned. What that demonstrates is that we as a people are not yet colorblind.
I personally think the best Ariel for the role would be Polynesian. Those are the peoples whose world is surrounded by the sea. But that’s just me….and I really don’t care. So long as the role is well done, I’m good.
"So long as the role is well done, I’m good."
^^^^^^^^
100%
While your background material on red hair's significance in American society in the early 20th century is pretty interesting (it especially interested me to learn the background behind the phrase "red-headed stepchild"), I don't think you made a clear case that this type of thought process was in any way involved in the choice to make OG Ariel red-haired. In fact, you seem to acknowledge that the true reasoning for her hair color was merely to not be blonde and therefore avoid association with a less tasteful mermaid character.
Given that, I think your attempt to create a parallel fails for the modern mermaid incarnation. I suspect Disney's choice to recast the race of a popular character was little more than virtue signaling. I mean it's their character and they can do what they like; we don't need to justify it (as if it needs justifying) or grasp for a deeper philosophical meaning behind it.
Yeah, I don't think it played a role in the red hair in the 1989 film, but it was a fortuitous accident with artistic/historical merit. And since recasting Ariel as Halle Bailey was intentional, it's a fortuitous choice with artistic/historical merit.
Who cares if it's "virtue signaling" or not? It's a good idea that worked out well.
Labeling an action as virtue signalling is not a value judgement. If you ascribe virtue to something and want to signal it, whoopty-doo. My comment was only questioning the premise for this article. From this reader's perspective, the flow of reasoning for this article seemed to be...
1. the racial re-casting of the Ariel character has been criticized by racists
2. red-haired people were marginalized in the 20th century similarly to black-skinned people today
3. therefore, racially re-casting Ariel in the 21st century was done for a similar reason as hair-color re-casting of Ariel in the 20th.
Your comment above now positions the 20th century example of red-haired Ariel as a "fortuitous accident." However, the last paragraph of your article says "realize that doing so is a reasonable artistic decision with strong historic precedent", which suggests a conscious decision rather than an accident.
I think the overall argument in your article only makes sense if the choices then and now were both conscious ones. If it was a "fortuitous accident" then and a "fortuitous choice" today, then there really isn't any precedent.