Khan is a title for a ruler in Turkic and Mongolian languages. It was also used by Persians and Afghans for their chiefs and noblemen. Khan is also a surname found in Central and Western Asia. That all makes sense.
In history, the most famous Khan was Genghis Khan (1162-1227), the ruler of the Mongol Empire. His grandson was also famous enough, Kublai Khan. Genghis conquered most of Eurasia--the largest contiguous empire in history. Not just the history of Asia. In history. He united nomadic tribes brought the overland Silk Road under a stable socio-political environment. In Turkey and Mongolia, he's a hero.
In China, he gets mixed reviews. In Iran, Egypt and Europe, he was one of those threatening hordes.
In "Star Trek" TOS, he was the savage in "The Savage Curtain." That's the episode that pitted good (Abraham Lincoln, Captain Kirk, Spock and Vulcan hero Surak) against evil (Genghis Khan, Klingon empire founder Kahless, genocidal human Colonel Green, and having a bad-hair century Zora of Tiburon).
Khan was played by an East Asian American (Nathan Jung). And according to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, the Klingons were originally made to look like "futuristic Genghis Khan."
Of course, in Star Trek, there's that other Khan. I'm not talking about the 23rd Century USS Genghis Khan, but the infamous Khan Noonien Singh. He makes his first appearance in TOS episode "Space Seed," portrayed by Ricardo Montalbán. Montalbán reprised the character in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan."
Khan was supposed to be a genetically engineered superhuman Sikh from Asia. He took control over a quarter of Earth during a Eugenics Wars in the 1990s. When found by Kirk and Enterprise, he's been in suspended animation. Now in Star Date 2267, he attempts to take control of the Enterprise. Kirk defeats him, but puts him on a planet Ceti Alpha V. Fifteen years later, he escapes and attempts to get revenge upon Kirk.
The casting of Montalbán as a Sikh can be explained away as the convention of those times. Then for the movie, there was a matter of continuity. SPOILER ALERT. Yet for the current reboot of Star Trek, there is almost no credible explanation. Marissa Sammy called it "Star Trek: Into Whiteness."
In 2004, there was an estimated 27 million Sikhs. Most of them are in India. There are quite a few in the U.K. and the United States as well as Canada if accent was a problem for J.J. Abrams. I've not seen the movie yet and am unlikely to do so. I'm not pleased with Abrams casting choices for Kirk, Sulu or Spock and Uhura. I was a theater critic and the captains I admired all had stage presence and theater backgrounds. Like Christian Blauvelt, I appreciated what he calls the "exploratory spirit" of Gene Roddenberry's series. I liked the humor of TOS and also admired Janeway in the Voyager.
I'm not interested in an action movie that keeps our attention instead of attempting character development and writing in emotional or intellectual content. There are still many ethical and social questions that can still be explored in this century that could be transferred to the time of a young Captain Kirk, but not with J.J. Abrams.
And I particularly am not a fan of whitewashing history. Both Blauvelt and Marissa Sammy of Racebending.com noted this whitewashing as well. I enjoy Cumberbatch as an actor. I enjoyed the encore screening of his "Frankenstein" with Jonny Lee Miller. But he doesn't make me think Asian or Sikh and he won't replace the impression that Ricardo Montalbán made as Khan in my mind, even, I'm pretty sure, if I went to see the movie.
Aren't there enough Asians and Asian Americans in Los Angeles for J.J. Abrams and Hollywood to understand this? There's been a lot of whitewashing in movies--think of "21." And then there's yellowface.
Another point would be in this reboot, with an international market that TOS didn't expect to have, why don't the producers even acknowledge and give respect to Asia and ethnic Asians who make up over 60 percent of the world population. I'm not saying that the new Khan has to be Sikh. He should be able to pass as Sikh or Asian Indian. He should not be the same actor who has taken to playing some very distinctly English characters as in Sherlock Holmes (a modern version) or a British officer in "War Horse."
The Star Trek reboot had the opportunity to overcome the ethnocentric evaluation of Genghis Khan which I feel relates to why this villain is given the name of Khan Noonien Singh. We're in a different century, five decades after TOS. While "Iron Man" skillfully handled the issue of bringing The Mandarin forward into this century, "Star Trek into Darkness" went backward.
If the English considered the Asian Indians, including the Sikhs, as black like "Little Black Sambo" then why does our Sikh of the future Khan Noonien Singh appear to be so white? Is this like "Cloud Atlas" where the whole population of the Big Island of Hawaii becomes white as Tom Hanks? These two cases of whitewashing remind me of the 1944 "Dragon Seed" where white people can play any race and Asians and ethnic Asians can be background actors in the movies and life.
I don't know that 60 percent of Earth's population wants to remain background players in movies or in the world. When will the whitewashing end? Some day I hope that a Star Trek movie will reclaim Khan as Asian and that other Khans like Genghis will be re-evaluated as if the Federation actually has become a less Eurocentric organization. That would be a step into a future that Asian and Asian Americans can share and I would endorse. What J.J. Abrams proposes is a future that has gone backwards and his movie should come with a disclaimer: This is Khan and the Federation with an attitude from the 1940s but the CGI and technology of the 2010s.
*Help sponsor me at USC.
No comments:
Post a Comment