White Men Can't Karate (the Idiotic Controversy Surrounding Marvel's Iron Fist)

As a longtime fan of the character who never truly expected to see him appear on film or television, I am eagerly awaiting the debut of Marvel's Iron Fist on Netflix.  I will definitely be binge-watching the series this weekend, and I'll share my take once I have seen it.  Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic.  I'm excited because I think this property could be totally gnarly on the screen, and yet I'm a bit worried because it also has the potential to fall flat.  Still, I'm looking to forward to seeing whether or not it can wow me the same way that Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage have.

Having said all that, I must admit that I'm rather bummed by the nonsensical controversy that has led to a lot of bad press for the show prior to it being released.  Namely, a very vocal element of the PC police has apparently decided that white people shouldn't be allowed to practice martial arts or portray martial artists in the cinema.  A great many are deriding Iron Fist's ethnicity as some sort of appropriation, and these critics allege that Marvel should have abandoned the source material and the entire "stranger in a strange land" aspect of the character's origin.  Ever since Finn Jones was cast as Danny Rand in the lead role, there has been a lot of BS about "white saviors" and Asian culture being monetized out there in regards to the show, and there is a lot of genuine anger and outrage being directed at both Marvel and Netflix.

This irks me on a couple of levels.  Please, allow me to elaborate.

1) I'm a lifelong martial arts devotee, and I'm rather white, so of course I find it a bit ridiculous that there are those who believe that white people practicing martial arts is somehow offensive.  This argument is just as insightful as that "baseball is a white man's game" crap I used to hear from time to time in the foothills of rural Virginia.  Furthermore, I would argue that martial arts is a wonderful venture for anyone of any race who wants to experience all the many gifts that it has to offer, with those gifts including discipline, joy, confidence, respect, humility, and wisdom--and so much more.  Fortunately, in all the interactions I've had with other martial artists of various races (in various dojos, practicing various styles), I've never heard anyone express such a thoughtless perspective.

2) As a film buff and a martial arts devotee, I greatly enjoy a wealth of martial arts films (if you follow my blog, you know this already), and I feel that one really has to work at injecting vindictive political agendas and personal grudges into the viewing of such pictures to see them as monetizing any culture.  Additionally, while we Americans do love our karate flicks, it's probably fair to note that if one truly views such movies as some diabolical form of exchanging a precious culture for loot, they might want to go ahead and acknowledge that most of these pictures are . . . (gasp!) Asian.  So maybe we shouldn't burn Netflix or Marvel to the ground after all.  Of course, one so petty as to see the world in such a fashion could make similar arguments about westerns or any number of sub-genres, but it serves no real purpose.  I mean, it's not like we haven't seen people of virtually every race portray a martial artist in the cinema or on television at some point, so I just don't understand why anyone would expect Marvel to abandon the very concept of this character in their efforts to bring him to the screen.

3) The "white savior" bit is a real laugher.  Danny is pretty handy with his fists and his feet, but he's also a goofball who is frequently played for laughs.  Honestly, Negan from The Walking Dead is more apt to be described as a savior than Iron Fist.  Additionally, the mystical city where he got his powers has been around for a long time, and while Danny may have helped to save the day there on occasion, I don't think he's ever done it alone.  K'un Lun existed long before he got there and it should be around long after he's gone.  Besides, if you take Danny's origin out of the equation, it should be noted that he generally hangs out in the inner city.  Bonus points: he would have perished about a million times by now if he wasn't best buds with a certain black dude with unbreakable skin who serves as both the brains and the brawn of their unlikely partnership.  Apparently white saviors aren't all they're crackered up to be.

4) Shang-Chi!  Look, at the rate the Marvel universe is expanding in terms of its presence on the big screen and television, we're probably going to see Shang-Chi at some point--and Shang-Chi is an ultimate badass.  He could probably take Iron Fist down if he had to, and unlike Iron Fist, Shang-Chi doesn't have any mystical powers.  With that in mind, wouldn't Shang-Chi be a bit redundant (if not totally underwhelming) if Marvel did throw out Iron Fist's origin and have him be Asian in an effort to gain capital with a bunch of politically correct zealots?

5) Shang-Chi aside, there are a wealth of quality Asian characters featured prominently in the Iron Fist mythos.  I love Danny and all, but he's maybe half as cool as Lei-Kung the Thunderer.  Hell, Colleen Wing is going to be on the show, and she's a sensational character.  As someone who is extremely familiar with the material, let me assure you that it exists more as a tribute to kung fu cinema than any legitimate culture (the setting is a mystical city that doesn't exist, the characters have special powers, and there are dragons and stuff).  As such, anyone well-versed in the comics will surely note that the idea that Iron Fist exists to demean, diminish, or monetize Asian culture is no more a rational suggestion than aiming the same criticism at a film starring Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, or today's reigning champion of martial arts cinema, Iko Uwais.  Perhaps most importantly, the comic book has always featured a stellar cast of male and female characters representing various races, and it probably features more Asian characters than any other Marvel or DC title that comes to mind, so it seems rather bizarre to aim such small-minded criticism at this particular property.

Honestly, that's about all I have for now.  Again, I'm white, and I practice martial arts (true story: I'm no Chuck Norris, but I've actually thrown a few punches and kicks on screen once upon a when), and I guess that makes me some awful devil who gets his jollies from raping other cultures for personal gain, so take my opinion for what it's worth.  Seriously, though, I'm looking forward to the show and I'll provide an honest review of Iron Fist here once I have watched it from start to finish.

Stupid Arguments for $1,000: The Social Issues Riot vs. The Sporting Event Riot

Could we please stop comparing riots involving people who are upset about social issues to riots involving people who are upset/happy about sporting events? The only thing those scenarios have in common is that in each case the people who are rioting are idiots. I have no problems with a protest. I don't care if people have a parade or a party. Only a fool wreaks havoc and destroys things or hurts innocent people out of anger or joy.
I will also point out that when I've seen coverage of people rioting after a sporting event, the general vibe of the report was something akin to "look at these dumbasses" and not "check out these merry people showing their enthusiasm for sports. Hooray for them!"

Protest is Good, Riots Pretty Much Suck

I try to stay away from social issues (as well as politics and religion) because those are things that I'm passionate about that DO NOT sell books.  Yet sometimes I feel the need to speak out, and the recent events in Baltimore and much of the social commentary I've seen regarding such events makes this one of those times.  Keep in mind, I'm just some guy who writes books and makes movies, so I could be wrong about any or all of this.  Regardless, for those who are interested, these are a few things kicking around in my brain as I watch Baltimore burn:

I think that there is a need for protest.  I do believe that America has a serious issue in regards to how the police is treating civilians in 2015, and no group is more at risk than members of the black community. 

I also think that officers of the law have one of the hardest jobs on the planet and for every three scumbags in blue, there's at least one worthy soul.  Maybe the scales are balanced, maybe the lousy cops are even outnumbered by the good guys, but I'm not sure.

I think that a dignified protest sends a powerful message--particularly when the amount of people participating is a massive figure.  A multitude of wronged people respectfully expressing their frustration is a driving force for reflection and change.

I also think that it doesn't take many idiots who prefer a good old-fashioned riot to totally change the narrative.  Willful destruction and violence, as well as theft and brutality, serve no real purpose in such a scenario, unless that purpose is to degrade the efforts of those engaged in a peaceful protest.  While a peaceful protest can change minds, I believe that riots and rampant mayhem only reinforce the various prejudices that cause some members of our society to feel that the mistreatment of other members of our society (be they black, poor, or anyone who isn't wearing a badge) is warranted.

I think that many of those fools who are turning to violence and petty crime think they are cranking up the volume on the message being delivered when in fact they are simply drowning it out.

I believe the media sucks.  I hate the media.  I blame the media for many of our problems.  Yet I don't necessarily blame the media for focusing on rioters as opposed to protesters.  Generally speaking, no matter how large a group is, and no matter what the group has gathered for, if a small contingent of that group engages in bad behavior, that will always be the story.  It makes the actions of those selfish souls that much more disappointing.  I can't believe I'm going to bat for the media here, but a dignified display of unity will never generate more headlines than some asshole setting something on fire or smashing something.  That's not the world we live in--and maybe the media deserves a lot of the blame for that, but I digress.

I don't believe in taking shit.  As a society, I believe that we should stand up to bullies.  Yet I don't think that it makes much sense to bully someone else if we are bullied.  Punch the bully in the eye and I applaud you.  Punch some random soul in the eye and you just became another bully. 

I believe that this shit is very complex and there are no easy answers to many of the problems we currently face as a society.  I don't believe that destruction is going to provide any meaningful answers at all.

I believe that I would rather be blogging about a horror movie, yet I don't believe that ignoring situations such as the chaos unfolding in Baltimore is worthwhile.  We need more people trying to have rational discussions about the issues that led to this dismay and looking for legitimate solutions.

To sum this up, I believe that police reform is necessary and I applaud anyone engaging in a respectful demonstration toward that end.  I do respect many officers of the law (who are already doing a fantastic job) as much as I am disgusted by those cowardly public servants who would tarnish their office.  I am also every bit as proud of those peaceful protesters as I am disgusted by those selfish individuals who would use an occasion like this to wreak havoc and distract from their peers who are going about this the right way.

Is the term "Redskins" a racist description of Indians?

You know what?  I'm not sure that the term "Redskin" is a racist term.  I know that is a common view, but I think it's also entirely possible that it is a common misconception.  I've always been fascinated with Indian history, and as far as I can tell, they originally coined the term.  Additionally, I think they used the term in a neutral fashion, much like we throw around the terms "white people" and "black people" to this day.  Many others used the term in a neutral fashion as well, and even in today's "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words are the worst thing that ever happened to anyone" climate, the use of the term in a neutral or positive fashion is still commonplace.

There is no real evidence that the term has anything to do with bloody scalps as many claim, and when the owner of the Boston Redskins established the name in 1933, he did so as a tribute to the coach,  William "Lone Star" Dietz.  There is a lot of controversy surrounding Dietz's background, but he claimed to be an Indian and the name was meant to be a tribute, not a slight. 

Are there examples that the term was used in a negative fashion over the years?  Sure, but I don't know if any common description of any group of people could ever exist in our world without similar examples of prejudice popping up.

It's a complex issue and  I could be totally wrong here, but there is ample room for various interpretations.  Having said that, I think anyone who thinks it's simple case of prejudice should dig a little deeper.  Here's one of many interesting takes on the topic for anyone who is curious about the origins of the name and the history of the term itself:  The Origin of Redskin c/o Bill Poser

At some point, I think we need to take more interest in intent than what those squeaky wheels who are always clamoring for attention tell us we should deem offensive.  I understand that the term has been used in a racist fashion and I understand many consider it an insult.  Yet I can't understand why we're so willing to define terms by the worst examples of how they are used, particularly when it would be so much more logical to weigh such language by the manner in which it is used and the effect the speaker is striving for.