I think it's that last part, wherein the intent of changing Etta's race might (or might not) be to create more minority representation in an otherwise lily-white TV series, that makes this a little bit of a dangerous double-standard to me. Because arguing that a Caucasian character might not be truly identified with his or her race isn't actually a very large step at all from arguing that a black or Asian character might not be truly identified with his or her race. I know this because I've seen people take that exact specific step, make that precise argument, in support of adaptations that cast white actors for parts that were originally minorities.
After all, if we're saying that Etta Candy the character was so originally so racially-ambiguous that it doesn't even matter that much if she's a white woman, then the opposite would be true as well, wouldn't it?...if she was originally a black woman in the comics, then all else being equal there shouldn't be any problems with casting her as a white woman in the TV series.
Honestly, that's the only real concern I have to any of this. Things can be done in support of diversity, with the noblest of intentions, and still be done the wrong way. The concept of affirmative action, for instance, gets a really bad rep and sometimes deserves it; it was established to abolish inequality, but does so by being unequal. Point being, not being careful about these kinds of acts and being all laissez-faire about it can send really conflicting messages and results.
I honestly and deeply agree with everything you've said here. Regarding the double-standard that you've mentioned, yes by all means it stands that the opposite implication is possible, and it's a very harsh one at that. But at the same time the opposite has not occurred here. The biggest stretch in comics has got to be Nick Fury's Ultimate-version, even the writers on it admitted that it was to "make Fury more hip", and while I want to believe with every ounce of blood in me that they meant 'Samuel L. Jackson' the person(ality), I just can't get rid of the idea that by 'hip' they do mean 'turn him black, it's cool to be black these days, black black black'. That's just plain wrong. But if we consider the change within the context of the story (this is an entirely new point) was Nick Fury the character really effected by the colour-swap? It's jarring, it's a terrible implication, but I think you used the term rather well -
laissez-faire. It's perhaps liberalism at its darkest.
If a stance that increases diversity and a stance that suppresses diversity can both be argued for with the exact same rationales -- "It's a reinvention, things can be changed." "This character is racially-inconsequential, doesn't matter if we change it." "It's more accessible this way." "etc etc" -- then maybe there's something deeply problematic about those rationales.
No I don't think that the rationale for diversity was "it's a reinvention", I only mentioned that because with reinventions (or adaptations) change is inevitable, and in this case among many others, the change is one of characterisation. Has the holistic character of Etta, or Pete, changed? Yes, of course they have, but has anything inherent about them changed with it? Not so much. It's still the character we've known from the source material. It's again as you've mentioned, you can interpret this quasi-diversity (superficial diversity?) both as something positive or something negative, and I agree that when there is something a big of a change as this the writers should be careful, but at the same time I'd like to think that we will accept the characters for who they are, not only by the colour of their skin. Is that too bizarre? Perhaps. The rationale is not 'the character is racially inconsequential' but maybe it's that the character is round enough to be recognisable beyond his or her race. I know this brings another problem to the table: if the character is so round, is he not similar to a real individual? If that is so, shouldn't she retain her original characterisation?
Maybe Etta or Pete isn't as rounded as we'd like to believe. Maybe the rationale for the change really is accessibility, that wouldn't be all that terrible an implication. But maybe it's just that they found Thoms or Sam Jones to be the more preferred actor, not because of their racial diversity but because of their availability?
True, but I might also point out that it's becoming another sort of awkward precedent wherein the white protagonist's best friends have the tendency of becoming black in these sorts of live-action adaptations. Evidently, the main characters are always too "racially-defined" to ever think of changing, but these secondary-characters are just the right amount of racially-ambiguous in the source material to turn into minorities? And why even make that kind of change? Do audiences just react better when the white protagonist's sidekicks are black? That's...not really okay either.
Eh... sure you can always go that route. Why is Lucius Fox, while still being the CEO, a subordinate to Bruce Wayne? It's a white-man trying to squeeze resources out of a black guy's life, giving some things, but taking away his sense of professionalism! Fox is a subaltern! We can do that, post-colonial interpretations are some of my favourite sort. But I don think there's a point where we might be reading too much into it, in which case we're just showing
our unwillingness to see things equally. But y'know what? That just might be ignorance talking again. It's no big riddle that majorities benefit from notions of equality (when they are superficial): Dude you can't possibly pull the racist card here! We're equal! "Yeah but whenever you're plannin to hang out or have meaningful conversations or whatever, it's either with Chloe or Lex... and I think--" "Shut up Pete! Shut up! You just don't have that much going for you in this episode is all. Now dig up this hole for the ship while I super-speed over to Lana's".
But to be really fair, neither Pete, Lucius nor Black-Etta are 'others'. They are from the same world as their buddies, from the same culture, and ultimately inhabiting the same space (Krypton and Themyscira notwithstanding). Does this kill their racial dimension? On the whole it does not, but when we go to see their characterisation it really isn't visible at all (no idea for Etta, I'm talking about the other two). Maybe it's a nationalist approach to everything?
I'm not sure I understand. Etta Candy served the purposes of a minority in the comics in the sense that she was female and overweight (and she sure ain't gonna be overweight on the show; Tracie Thoms is perfectly fit) and so it...makes sense to have her serve as a whole other, more accessible sort of minority representation on this show? That's not just terrible, that's outright crazy. Minorities are no more interchangeable with each other than they are with the majority.
No that isn't what I meant. Of course they're not interchangeable. But maybe society has changed and the best way to reflect the
idea of a minority group (not a
specific minority group) is by choosing certain character traits that best reflects a contemporary minority. ...Um... am I being too vague? I'll gladly elaborate this view if you want me to.
I personally don't think we're at the point in society where those sorts of things won't ever matter to a character. And frankly, I'm not sure we ever
want to be at that point. Diversity is great because it's
diverse. You brought up the concept of destroying otherness earlier and, while that's a great notion, I have to say that it's important to be mindful of not destroying
race itself right along with otherness in the process. I like the way that
this article puts it: "I would like the uniqueness of every single person to be admired, not ignored. Instead of trying to tackle and dismantle the idea of race, it would be more productive to address the racial inequality that prevails." There's absolutely nothing wrong with seeing differences in race, culture, gender, or nationality -- it's wrong when you discriminate based on those things, sure -- and a character that's devoid of those identifiers might as well be an alien from space (
though...not always) instead of a real human being.
This is a sound opinion, I will go through the article(s?) soon. And I agree, the nature of diversity is preserved when you accept the difference, not merely when you point a finger at them (which I believe mainstream comics are, unfortunately, guilty of doing). But somehow I don't think this is what is happening in the reinvented race-swaps. We might not be at that point in society but it's certainly something that is promoted, this is especially so in the American media (though I have a lot of respect for its willingness to question itself, a trait that is frighteningly missing in other nations).
If we come back to Etta and what this change might bring to the WW history: instead of the change showcasing a denouncement of racial diversity, perhaps its a vehicle through which it is announced? Maybe by making Etta a black woman you not only force the majority of viewers (themselves Caucasians) to consider the racial dimension of the character, but you highlight the importance of race itself, the need for diversity. Wonder Woman's is certainly the kind of story that encourages those themes. With her we don't run the risk of over-analysing the role of diversity (if such a thing exists), but are rather reminded of it in an implicit, if not explicit, manner. In this regard I would really like to know your views of modern-day Nu'bia.
) It's true, Catwoman was terrible. I've officially had to imagine it as part of the Joel Shumacher universe to ameliorate my conscience.
the Marston comic books 
