She was apologizing to the GLBT community for generalizing them based on the comments of one individual.

But why is it okay to generalize if it's about a group that you view as privileged?

Why is it okay to generalize men, white people, straight people, rich people, cis people, et cetera. None of these groups are homogenous entities, they're filled with diverse individuals from diverse communities. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes_against_...

Some more background for your erasure of what happened in Poland.

So the germans murdered 6 million Pols based on what? The nazis declaring that the Slav race was inferior to the German race and systematically wiping out their language, culture and life was only based on Nationalism?

Just because in America you may not think there's a difference between a Pol or a German, or an Irishman and an Italian, or w/e doesn't mean everyone thinks that way.

I'm not now, nor have I ever tried to compare how hard different people may have it. I know that there are (a lot) of places in the world where I'll get treated better than a black person just based on skin colour. But the term white people gets thrown around a lot in here. And the idea that white people are always in the wrong is really very troublesome.

You define racism as privilege+power? Well, privilege+power=/=white people. If you want to work around it then go ahead and use your whiteness term, and stop generalizing please.

PS offended, not uncomfortable.

No no, not whiteness as a marginalized identity. I accept that whiteness (which I guess you define as the colonial empires and their modern offshoots?) has oppressed and marginalized people in countries all over the world. Obviously.

But not every white community in the world exists in a position of privilege. Not every white person in the world enjoys a position of power. You can discuss the evils of whiteness all you like, but not every white person fits into that box. There are white people who have been marginalized for their race. Jews, Roma, Irish, Yugoslavs, Bosnians, Pols, etc. There exist white people in this world who are marginalized and you erase them every time you throw down the 'white people' blanket.

My Polish grandmother had to flee persecution. I myself have experienced being refused entry to a business because of my race. I've been refused a cell phone contract because of my race, I had to buy the phone outright and get a monthly contract. I've also been dumped before because their family didn't like my race (and that even happened in Canada).

"Whiteness has privilege on every square piece of land on this planet"

Just because in your community and your experience white people are privileged and never marginalized doesn't mean that's true all over the world.

Does this mean you're going to be more careful about not mixing up 'whiteness' and 'white people'?

I know you get angry whenever I comment, but the majority of the problems I have with things you've said is when you generalize all 'white' people all over the world. This despite the fact that I generally agree with you.

The world is a big place. And not every white person is a privileged English-speaking, American (or even European) Anglo Saxon.

I'm not missing the point, I'm just coming at it from a different perspective.

As I see it there are three areas where you are criticizing Xavier: (1) who he is, (2) what he does, (3) how he is portrayed. You seem to have problems with all of them, but only mentioned how you would change 1 and 3. So, I talked about 2. I think the real issues with the movie, however, are in 3.

1) Who he is: a paraplegic wealthy white man.

You seem to think he would be a better character if he wasn't race or class privileged. I'd agree, and an alternate version of Xavier that is poor and/or a visible minority would be interesting. The main point of Xavier is not his race, but his disability and his role as a mentor/guide. You can change anything else and it'll still be Xavier.

2) What he does: founds a school for mutant children.

The idea of a school dedicated to the disabled is controversial. Many cultures erase disabled people by hiding them away in their own little schools and forgetting about them. Schools for the Deaf are an interesting case. Historically, they had often been terrible places, but without them we would never have seen the birth of Sign Language or of the Deaf community. Before Deaf schools, sign language was very basic, and designed by hearing people as a means of letting the Deaf simulate spoken English. But language doesn't work that way, and the children in these schools developed their own fully realized language using the Language Acquisition Device active in their brains (linguistic theory, read up on Chomsky for more) completely independent of their hearing teachers. This contributed to a revolution in how we think about language, because according to the thinking of the time this was impossible.

Anyways, despite schools aimed at people with special needs being controversial, they are important. Deaf children with hearing parents need a place with other Deaf people in order to learn sign language. They're probably the best example, the important thing is providing these children with the resources they need, without segregating or isolating them.

In X-men, Xavier's school is underground (secretive and isolated) because mutants are actively persecuted by the government.

"A school whose goal is to bring mainstream acceptance of its students to a society that rejects them?"

This wasn't my thought, this is what he actually did. But I still don't see how it is disablist. I would genuinely appreciate an explanation.

3) How he is portrayed: not severely hindered by his paralysis.

I think the movie was problematic in this regard. They glossed over a lot of the challenges that the X-men face.

I think the only one fully explored was Rogue's inability to touch other people. A lot were featured without being fully explored or explained, like Cyclops wildly blasting wildly when losing his visor (though the end part where Magneto takes advantage of Cyclops' disability to force Cyclops to endanger Jean Gray was good), Wolverine screaming every time his claws come out, et cetera.

But the biggest miss, even more so than Xavier, was the portrayal of Storm.

She suffers from severe claustrophobia and has panic attacks when confined. (during the panic attacks her powers go out of control and destroy everything around her)

There is a bit near the end of the movie where she gets knocked into an elevator shaft and comes out and blasts Toad. It doesn't come across so well in the movie, but being in the elevator shaft actually touches off her claustrophobia and she flies out and blasts everything. But in the movie it just looks like she's mad and in control. Missed opportunity.

Anyways, X-men is an allegory for all the struggles that people in the world face, whether it be with race, disability, sexuality, or anything. The movie focused mainly on the mutant aspect, without touching on the real struggles, and that is the biggest criticism I can make of the film. Xavier doesn't struggle with paralysis, Wolverine doesn't struggle with chronic pain, Storm doesn't struggle with Claustrophobia (or being Kenyan). They erased the sexuality part completely (none of the GLBT X-men are in the film). These struggles are the real point of X-men, but they're not really the main focus of the movie.

(again, this post is probably waaaaaaay too long)

What would you advise a wealthy, white, privileged man to do if he were to become paralyzed?

How about founding a school for under-priveleged youth that teaches them to overcome their various challenges? A school that accepts students regardless of their race, creed, nationality, sexuality, disability, et cetera. A school whose goal is to bring mainstream acceptance of its students to a society that rejects them?

If you strip away all the sci-fi and fantasy that's what Xavier is all about.

Note: I use the word foreigner a lot, because it is the direct translation of the word that Japanese people use (外国人 lit: outside country person)

I live in Japan, for about half a decade now. While in our native countries, as immigrant
cultures, we separate nationality and race all the time, that concept almost doesn't exist here. Japan is so incredibly homogenous that the idea of a foreigner being a Japanese citizen is fairly unheard of. Even me, as a permanent resident, is looked at as just a long-term tourist. And permanent Chinese/Korean residents are usually looked at as unwelcome invaders. Classism is somewhat present (though not as bad as in the past) but foreigners don't really fit into it. Our class is foreigner.

The only reason I comment on some stories like this, despite the fact that it really enrages and challenges some people, is because there are aspects of my life where my race (despite being 'white') has caused problems for me. And I feel personally attacked/minimalized/erased by some things said in this space. And I don't believe in silencing myself in public spaces when that happens.

I admit there are times when I've gotten better treatment by virtue of being white. I came back from a trip to Thailand once and I just got waved through customs while all the Thai people had to go through a lot more bureaucratic hoops.

But that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of being victimized based on my race. My main concern is my complete lack of parental rights. I plan on being married and having children with my Japanese partner in the next few years so this is a big concern for me. Despite being very happy now, if we were to break up then I would lose my children, never to see them again and I would be completely powerless to stop it. All because I'm not Japanese (gender isn't even accounted for, foreign mothers/fathers of any race have no recourse). And because of my ethnicity I can never become a Japanese National.

Technically, if I marry a Japanese National, renounce my native citizenship, and change my name I can get Japanese citizenship, but even then I will not be regarded as truly Japanese. You can read about a man who did that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debito . He's famous for refusing to show his ID to cops. Foreigners have to present documents to authorities on demand but Japanese people aren't. I'm actually legally obligated to carry either my passport or my 'Alien Registration Card' with me at all times. And besides. I think renouncing my Canadian citizenship would cause more issues than it would solve.

I don't know that anything I've ever said is 'revisionist' or even vaguely racist. Please call me on it if I do. But just because 'white' people aren't widely marginalized in modern Western cultures doesn't mean that it is a universal truth. Sorry for the huge block of text.

PS: Don't get me wrong, I live Japan, Japanese culture, and Japanese people. My experience has been overall incredibly positive. But that doesn't mean we should ignore injustice when we see it.

As of today, the three largest economic powers in the world are the US, China, and Japan. And last I checked America is a lot less 'white' than most countries in Europe.

What about the Chinese 'empire' now? They've bought up large swathes of Africa by offering to build infrastructure in exchange for mineral rights. Or what about all the things they've been doing in Tibet?

Japan in the 40's did as bad or worse as any of the European empires during the Colonial age.

If you want to talk about Africa, the Zulu empire dominated south-east Africa through military methods, they even fought off the colonialists for a while.

I've already gone further back in time than I meant to. But my point is that while 'White' empires did terrible things all over the world, they're not the only ones. And it's unfair to villify all white people all over the world as the source of all the world's problems.

I used to work with a Japanese lady whose child was half-white. She lived in New York for years, had met a (white) man, married him, and had a child. When they broke up, she just grabbed the kid and flew back to Japan. That man has no legal recourse and will never see or speak to his daughter again. Japanese law unequivocally supports the native-Japanese parent. Anything he tries to do from America will be ignored, and if he comes to Japan he'll get arrested and deported. Isn't that racist?