#historical racism

Read a post earlier* that clarified something I’ve been having trouble getting WRT OFMD and race: namely, why the topics of race and racism–which many people have compellingly argued are vital to understanding some of the key scenes, e.g, the Party Boat–are handled so obliquely.  And the answer is–I think–to avoid drawing attention to the corner they’ve painted themselves into with the setting in general and the figure of Stede Bonnet in particular. 

(*I didn’t do this as a reblog/reply because it’s the one that starts out, “I’m not posting this in the tags, but…”; was thinking of linking it, but now I’ve misplaced it.)

So the first difficulty, that this (Doylist) reading solves is the one from the first time I blundered into the Race in OFMD Conversation:  namely, there isa decent amount of evidence to support a reading of race-blind casting for the Blackbeard character.   Several people have patiently explained to me why that reading can be hurtful to fans of color, and I pretty much get it.  (And also agree that on balance, there’s more evidence for reading the character as a man of color.)  But, I’m sorry, there are things about the show for which race-blind casting would be a satisfactory explanation–I’ll lay those out in more detail it if somebody asks.  My point now, is that there’s a more compelling explanation. 

So, then, the question is, why?  Why, for instance, when Ed is talking about the violent caricature of him in the History of Pyrates book, is his list of Stereotypically Violent Others just about the whitest such list imaginable?  (Vikings, Vampires, Clowns–all known for being quite pale.)  Why does the French captain say “Donkey” when there’s, you know, another animal that would make it 100% unambiguous that this is a racist insult and that Ed is hearing it as such?  Why not telegraph this stuff more clearly?

Ed’s race in the show is almost as subtextual as his queerness would be in a typical mainstream genre show.  As subtextual as, say, Xena and Gabrielle.  If you know, you know, but if you don’t, it’s possible to miss it.   (I did–or at least misread it–and I flatter myself that I’m about as informed on race as your average white liberal.)  

(Note:  If your introduction to the concept “subtext” primarily from the “buttsex” joke, please note that “subtext,” on its own, is not an insult.  t doesn’t mean thing you’re making up.  It means something in the text that you have to interpret/dig for, rather than it being right there on the surface for anyone to see.)

And that’s a pretty unusual choice–especially if the show is trying to say things about race (as it very openly does in, say, the scene with the indigenous villagers).  

One answer is, “That aspect of the show isn’t for you, as a white viewer; if you didn’t get it, you don’t need to get it.”  But that’s not a very satisfying answer, because–as I worked through in another post–making a vital aspect of a character’s identity–an identity that viewers may share–deliberately difficult to discern is kind of an insulting move, whether that identity is sexuality, race, religion, disability.  It suggests that that identity is either something that needs to be hidden, or something that isn’t important enough to make it into the plain text.   

The more compelling answer is that, to be blunt, it’s a comedy, and slavery isn’t funny.  It’s basically impossible, if we suppose the story to be set in anything resembling the real world, that a person in Stede’s position would nothave gotten his wealth through slavery.  (As I think most of us know, the actual historical figure was definitely an enslaver.)  

It’s similarly unlikely that real people resembling Frenchie, Roach, Olu, and Ivan would have all not ever been slaves–you could come up with a compelling and plausible  backstory, that does not involve slavery, for how any one of them ended up where they are in the show, but all four would stretch credulity to the breaking point.  

Stede saying, “I sold a few slaves (instead of “a few acres”) for my own needs,” would not be funny.  Frenchie saying, “I was a house-slave (instead of “in service”) for about a minute” would not be funny.   There’s no way* that a show in this setting can be textually aboutrace and still be funny.  The most you can do is sort of glance at it out of the corner of the eye, and then get back to the pirate humor–bounce off “donkey” (and not the other word) straight to “skin him with the snail fork,” and don’t look back.  If you look too hard at Ed’s race, it becomes a story about a man of color falling in love with a man who enslaves other men of color, and nobody wants to watch that**.  

(*As far as I can tell!  Maybe the show will surprise me and address race more directly in Season 2.)  

(**I mean, I guess you could maybe pull it off as a serious drama where the main plot is the white guy realizing how fucked up his life is, becoming a staunch abolitionist, and figuring out a way to make amends to the people he and his family harmed?  But definitely not as a sitcom about pirates.)  

But I’m pretty sure the show’s oblique angle on race/racism is a deliberate choice to keep it on the tightrope of being a show with a diverse cast of characters (as well as actors), and situated in a place/time that was permeated with racism, and still have it be a comedy.   It comes across as kinda weird, because it is.