Am I Racist for Liking "The King and I?" — Page 2

Joey Ledonio said: "All the white people on this thread granting OP permission to love a racist piece of theatre is a puzzlement.

People are entitled to their opinions of whether The King and I is racist. But Joey, since you believe it is, why did you choose a song from the musical, "I Have Dreamed," as part of a medley in your senior showcase last year?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jQE3fWIqqU

You could have picked a song from any musical in the world, but you chose one from a show you say is racist - and then come to this board a year later and attack people who disagree.

It is, indeed, a puzzlement.

Joey Ledonio said: "All the white people on this thread granting OP permission to love a racist piece of theatre is a puzzlement.

"

Sorry, Joey, but I don't buy this recent argument that only marginalized minorities get to dictate what reality is to everyone else. (And I include my own LGBT+ minority in that opinion.)

OF COURSE, only YOU get to tell us what TK&I means to you as an Asian-American actor, and you may well change how most of us see the show. If so, so be it.

But as for "yellow face", of course I am against it in large cities with large pools of acting talent. But when my local semi-pro theater did the show with mostly Latinos and Native Americans as Thais last year, I understood they didn't have a large pool (or any pool) of genetic Asians from which to draw.

ETA Thank you for the kind private message, Joey. I can't PM you back, but I want to be clear that I am not dismissing your view in any way.

Updated On: 6/17/20 at 09:38 PM

Joey Ledonio said: "
The CAUCASITY of this post
we get ittt you love TKAI"

Joey, in another post you wrote:

"Are u white cuz as a genetic Asian I feel attacked

ur white aren’t u it’s ok if you are but like whaaatttt"

I am a white, gay man from a working class background. So privileged in some ways, in others not so much.

I am greatly confused by the gracious tone of your PM to me as opposed to your much-less-gracious public posts. But no matter, I'm not wounded and I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong.

I don't know why YOU felt attacked. That was certainly never my intention and I am sorry that was the result.

And THAT is my most important point: nobody can dictate the subjective intentions (or reactions) of everyone else. The post of mine that was deleted pointed out a number of representational problems with TK&I, so your assumption that I, as a white male, LOVE the show blindly lacks foundation.

Yes, I loved TK&I! When I was 12 in 1966. I've had a lot of education and exposure to other views since then. Nowadays, I would say I find it historically interesting more than love it.

Sutton Ross said: "It's Australia's racist version of The King And I. Soon, they'll be Aussies in this thread justifying this decision..... "

Nope! We all thought it was horrendous too! They did it for the publicity that came from Lisa McCune and Teddy Tahu Rhodes becoming a real-life couple while in South Pacific (while everyone believed she was still married) - a terrible reason for casting in any event, but in this case also a terribly racist one. He was then replaced by Jason Scott Lee for the Melbourne run who was then replaced by Lou Diamond Phillips after Jason was injured early on (they did not even have a suitable understudy - he was about 20 years younger than Lisa).

^Nope

I have questions about this word that has blossomed in fairly recent times.

Can one be a racist through thought alone, or does it have to be accompanied by action? If I owned a hotel in New York City in the 40's, and I thought that the white race was superior to the black, am I a racist? Or do I have to discriminate against the blacks by assigning them the worst room locations?

If I am a Chinese graduate student doing doctoral work at MIT, and I believe that Asians as a class produce more top nuclear physicists than Whites, am I racist? Or must I believe in the superiority of my race in more than nuclear physics? Or does it depend on whether I show racial bias in interviewing potential candidates for the grad program?

"Western People Funny" is an anti-white savior song that some might not think strong enough. Do these women think that the White race is superior? No. They believe that the English are too ignorant to know how to dress in environments of extreme heat.

As an Asian, why would I be offended by the inference that my culture is inferior to that of the Europeans, knowing the "white saviors" a generation later would be involved in the bloodiest and most barbaric war in history, for a reason that is still hard to determine. (See The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman, Pulitzer Prize.winner).

OlBlueEyes said: "I have questions about this word that has blossomed in fairly recent times.

I'm not an authority on these issues, but here are my thoughts, based on everything I've read and heard about racism, how it operates, and how it exists in our society:



Can one be a racist through thought alone, or does it have to be accompanied by action? If I owned a hotel in New York City in the 40's, and I thought that the white race was superior to the black, am I a racist?Or do I have to discriminate against the blacks by assigning them the worstroom locations?



The question of mental vs. behavioral racism isn't a question of "am I racist or not?" It's a question of "Am I perpetuating racism or not?"

Any white person can have racist beliefs, or subconscious racism. And in fact, most white people experience internal racial prejudice in some form, because we have been socialized in a racist society, and been given racist depictions in the media. One of the most common example of this is the imagine of the "scary Black man" - many white people may find that we are more scared of Black men on the street than White men. If you find yourself clutching your bag as you pass by a Black man, it probably means you have subconscious racism. But that doesn't mean you're a bad person, because you've grown up in a society that is constantly depicting Black men as dangerous criminals. What's important is how you respond, and how you analyze yourself. If you clutch your bag when passing a Black person on the street, the most important thing is that you take personal responsibility for your biases, and try to challenge them internally. And then, you fight for racial justice in your behavior. A quote I heard recently was "You aren't responsible for your first thought, but you are responsible for your second thought, and your first action." I also read a quote from Ijeoma Oluo that said "The beauty of anti-racism is that you don't have to pretend to be free of racism to be anti-racist. Anti-racism is the commitment to fight racism wherever you find it, including in yourself."


"If I am a Chinese graduate student doing doctoral work at MIT, and I believe that Asians as a class produce more top nuclear physicists than Whites, am I racist? Or must I believe in the superiority of my race in more than nuclear physics? Or does it depend on whether Ishow racial bias in interviewing potential candidates for the grad program?"



What you're describing here is more along the lines of "bias" or "prejudice." It's a common misconception and oversimplification to define "racism" as simply "prejudice based on race." It's actually more complicated than that. For it to count as "racism," it has to come from a place of power. White people, in our society, have more power than Asian people. So while an Asian person might be prejudiced against White people, they cannot technically be "racist." This is why "reverse-racism" is actually a myth perpetuated by insecure White people.



"Western People Funny" is an anti-white savior song that some might not think strong enough. Do these women think that the White race is superior? No. They believe that the English are too ignorant to know how to dress in environments of extreme heat.



I think "Western People Funny" is a great example of Hammerstein attempting to subvert the white savior narrative, and give the Siamese community agency and complexity. But just because Hammerstein's TRIED not to be racist, doesn't mean he fully succeeded. The white savior narrative still dominates the plot, even if it's complicated and diluted by Hammerstein's comparatively liberal views. And similarly, the orientalism is baked into the concept of the show.



As an Asian, why would I be offended by the inference that my culture is inferior to that of the Europeans, knowing the "white saviors" a generation later would be involved in the bloodiest and most barbaric war in history, for a reason that is still hard to determine. (See The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman, Pulitzer Prize.winner)."



Because the show doesn't address those factors - so we have to look at how the piece paints the Europeans, not how the Europeans were in reality.

Joey Ledonio said: "Wilmingtom said: "K&I is not a story about race. It's a story of two strong-willed people squaring off with each other, the woman a progressive and the man threatened by change.I'd hate to think that schools and community theaters can't do this wonderful, uplifting musical if they don't have an Asian community. Just cast the show with who you have and the audience will go with you, no yellowface needed."

King and I is the story of the people of Siam being saved by a white English woman. It’s absolutely about race. A colonized nation is racial. Remember that."

Except for British Colonies, Canada. Siam is not a colony, but it is in fear of becoming a colony.

Thanks, JBroadway. That's a good shot at it. But what if you have "scary Black syndrome" because when you were 24 years old and going to law school in Washington you walked down to the Mall area and were pushed to the ground, kicked, and had your wallet and your grandfather's 18k gold retirement watch stolen by four young black teens?

I was not at all happy with what was done to be, but because I was an educated person I did understand that the blacks hated the whites because they lived in slums, and had for years, only a few blocks from the majestic Capitol. And no matter what the rich liberals said when addressing the Senate, nothing ever changed.

New York has a low violent crime rate now. Great progress has been made even if no one wants to admit it. In the bad old days of the 80's and 90's New York parks were not safe after dark. Whites were the objects of "wilding" which meant blacks running through the parks and attacking eligible white. One strange summer five children were hit accidentally by bullets flying between black gangs.

The Washington Post has a database that they've been keeping since 2015 on every fatal shooting by every police department in the country. for the five year period. The numbers were remarkably consistent over the five years. One thousand were killed by the cops, 50% white, 26% black and 19% Hispanic. Thus twice as many whites are killed each year by the cops as blacks, although blacks are killed at a rate well in excess of their population percentage.

The New York City police, covering a population of over 8 million, over the five years killed only 32 souls, or about six per year. This is not the picture of a police force out of control. I believe that the lower crime rate and the low rate of police killings go together and New York should maybe even congratulate the police force.

But the actual problem of the Blacks is not police brutality. It is their continued residence on the first rung of the socioeconomic ladder. Here the opposite is true, that the state and city are to blame for a great deal of the problem. The UCLA Civil Rights Project, a watchdog for civil rights, last year on the 65th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, reiterated what they had written a scathing report on in 2014: that New York schools are the most racially segregated in the country. Blacks in New York face their greatest discrimination when they are assigned to public schools that are of much lower quality than those to which the children of the wealthy and the middle class are sent.

In conjunction with this, only a third of male black high school graduates around the country enroll in four year colleges, and of these 60% graduate. This is 10 to 12 percent lower than black women high school graduates. can't believe that no one is talking about this. But maybe they put a lower value on education than I do.l

The King and I was not written to make a statement about race and colonies. If you have no knowledge of your own, then do some research. The greatly popular British Music Hall star, Gertrude Lawrence, was aging and and lawyer, looking for a vehicle, came upon the 1944 novel Anna and the King of Siam and thought it would be perfect. So Rodgers and Hamilton agreed to write the musical. No one had any interest in writing a musical about race or colonies.

I don't think I've written anything controversial here, but I'll keep my head down.

Updated On: 6/18/20 at 02:33 PM

joevitus said: "Don't totally agree, John Adams. The King in terms of the musical wants to change, but really can't. He is the past, and the past must give way. That's why he dies, essentially.Anna represents the present and the future, which insist on things being done a new (implicitly better) way. [...]"

I couldn't agree less (but I find that exciting in terms of a stimulating debate).

It is not the King who can't change. If you want to see a character who is resistant to change, look to Lady Thiang.

One of several examples where Lady Thiang demonstrates her clinging to the old ways of thinking is the map scene ("Getting To Know You". Lady Thiang presents her version of a geography lesson using the "current" map of Siam and Burma. Contrast that with Anna's lesson using the new map that's just arrived from England.

It's very important to note that this scene is not an example of Anna acting as "white savior". Why not? Anna did not arrive in Siam by her own decision, on a mission to educate the Siamese peoples. It was the King who sent for her. She does not even have a choice RE: who she teaches. Per the King: "You shall only teach children of mothers who are in favor of King". (more about that later..)

...and who provided that map? Did Anna bring it with her?
Anna: "It was a gift to us from His Majesty, your king."
Children: "The Lord of Light!"
Anna: "Ah, yes... The Lord of Light"

On the other hand, the King is a much more complex character than a mere representation of the past. I believe the opposite is true. He is representative of the future. He's just so unsure of himself, and under WAY too much pressure from the expectation that as King, he must always be right. Recall Chulalongkorn's line when discussing the world as ball on a stick vs. rides on the back of a turtle: "but he MUST know because he is King!" This scene is followed by the King's "A Puzzlement" soliloquy; also filled with examples of his unsurety and self-doubt, in spite of what he feels certain is true. His spoken lines before he sings are: "I'm not sure! I'm not sure of anything!"

We (in present times) know what the future will be, so it's easy for us to provide our 20/20 hindsight, and see, and know things the King cannot. That's the reason I find the King to be so complex. He's revolutionary, but he's unsure of himself, his and his country's futures, can't trust his political allies, and with the exception of Anna, is surrounded by wives, and subjects who don't think as "scientifically" as he does.

PS:

I also wanted to respond to: "He is the past, and the past must give way. That's why he dies, essentially."

The King dies because that's what happened historically. Both he and Chulalongkorn were on an expedition together and contracted malaria. (The purpose of that expedition is an interesting testament to King Monkut's scientific prowess. It's worth googling.)

Chulalongkorn survived, but the King did not. Although there's no mention of Chulalongkorn also being ill, the King was succeeded by his son as depicted in the show.

Updated On: 6/18/20 at 05:23 PM

snort... after you wrote a novella...

toottoot - You registered for this chat board just to add such keen insight to this thread?

joey - Actually I did add some white guilt to my reaction to the crime. Guess you missed it. I thought that I was being pretty generous.

I was not at all happy with what was done to be, but because I was an educated person I did understand that the blacks hated the whites because they lived in slums, and had for years, only a few blocks from the majestic Capitol. And no matter what the rich liberals said when addressing the Senate, nothing ever changed.

Ol’ Blue Eyes, that group of teenagers that mugged you probably did so because of socioeconomic conditions brought on/exacerbated by—you guessed it—race. Your white worldview will never be wide enough to carry the entirety of their experience. I live in DC and this is no excuse for having “scary Black man syndrome” as you dub it. Please don’t profile black teenagers. Your racism is showing, further proving the fact that anti-black bias hides even in the most progressive of liberals.

I certainly don't claim to be the most progressive of liberals. I don't claim to be a liberal.

So I shouldn't profile black teenagers. Does that include the three black teens who caught Barnard College freshman Tessa Majors outside last December, robbed her, and then stuck a knife into her heart?

I don't want to pick on you since you are probably just some kid who doesn't know any better. When I was a college freshman I went around quoting Eldridge Cleaver. But people like you who defend violent crime against whites are going to make it very hard to excise racism from the country. They appear to justify it.

Just as there are some things that whites can't say publicly even if they believe them or even if they are true, there are some things that blacks or their supporters can't say publicly.

It's not about defending individual crimes committed by Black people against White people (or any crimes by anyone against anyone) - it's about the fact that you chose to use specific examples of Black people committing crimes to validate the fear of Black people. Yes, it's true that there is often a higher crime rate in Black communities, and as Joey pointed out, that's because the communities have been put at a socioeconomic disadvantage through centuries of systemic racism. It's not that the economic disadvantage makes it ok for them to commit crimes, it's that demonizing these entire communities because of a higher crime rate isn't going to solve the underlying issues. And in fact, putting the emphasis on the individual people who commit crimes, rather than the systems that forced their communities into poverty, only serves to make white people more afraid of Black people in general, forcing millions of innocent Black people across the country to walk around the world being seen as a threat. And this only serves to continue the cycle, because if society doesn't value Black people and Black communities because they're seen as "dangerous," this will only perpetuate their economic disadvantages, and cops will continue murdering them at a much higher rate than they murder people of other races.

OlBlueEyes said: "snort... after you wrote a novella...

toottoot - You registered for this chat board just to add such keen insight to this thread?



longtime (several years, in fact) lurker. decided to jump in the fray.

Who gets to decide?

Even today, I will find myself singing along to "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah", does that mean I don't find the actual film it came from Disney's "Song of the South" offensive or at the least problematic? Some can't detach it from the movie it came from, so yes I can understand their visceral negative reaction.

"The King and I " has one of, if not the best score/numbers of any of the R & H body of work so there's that. Of course it's not historically accurate, and it's depictions of the Thailand and the King is problematic. Yet You look back and there are sooo many musicals with things offensive to POC, woman, gays,ethnic stereotyping, etc, etc.

Hell, I find Dear Evan Hansen extremely offensive per how it deals with teen suicide.

As a student for a film class I watched the 1915 "The Birth of a Nation" and even knowing it's historical importance, I still had a "What the F**"! reaction to it. I can't see that film again, it is incredibly offensive to me. OTOH, Leni Reifenstahl's 30's films I have compartmentalized the technical brilliance of her work from the offensive content.