The Race of Khan: Whitewashing in the New Star Trek Film

"Moltoban"? Really?!?

You kind of ruined the movie for me. I didn't know Cumberbatch was playing Khan!

I read online that they tried to cast a few different actors for the role of Kahn, Benicio del Toro being one of them but either schedules did not work out or they wanted more money. Then J.J. Abrams watched an episode of Sherlock and was captured by Cumberbatch's performance and wanted him for the role. I am a huge Star Trek fan, and I'm not just talking about the reboot and parallel universe, but about the classics that I used to sit and watch with my dad when I was a kid.

All these characters you have working together as a crew are different; you have earthlings, vulcan, in one series you have Worf, a Klingon. So if there is anything a Trekkie should take away from the Star Trek franchise it's that it is not about your race, color, or background--it's about your performance.

But by all means, sit out on seeing an amazing movie with a fantastic story and gripping performances, because you can't but help be narrow-minded, and would rather be offended.

If you're gonna complain that the movie is whitewashed because Khan was not played by an Indian actor, then complain that in the original episode and the original movie he was not played by an Indian actor. Plus, Ricardo Montalban is white.
Spanish people are white Europeans. he was just born in Mexico, it does not make him a person of color.

Are you forgetting that Khan was a villain? If Khan was played by an Indian man, then you would be writing an article about how racist the new Trek movie is by casting a brown person as the villain, and thus promoting the stereotype that brown people are evil and bent on destruction and revenge.

Khan was always a mess. He's supposed be a mix of all sorts of materials and was made in a lab in India, but he's guessed as Indian in Space Speed (it's never confirmed canonically). Then when we get to the Wrath of Khan, he looks completely different (no brown makeup or Indian clothing) and his ethnicity is dropped entirely, since an Indian man is pretty unlikely to have an obviously Spanish accent.

More people know the white-appearing RM from TWOK. His name is even nonsense: as a first name, Khan is Turkish. Noonien is Asian, Chinese most likely, and Singh is Indian, but he would have been randomly named by scientists, given his backstory. It's hard to call it whitewashing when the character is so ambiguous when you look at both Space Speed and TWOK.

As a side note, the article gives Rodenberry too much credit. Khan was a white Nordic dude first. The casting director went with Montalban because of his audition, and that's when they changed him, because RM obviously wasn't Nordic. Plus, all the other superpeople in TWOK are white anyway.

I don't know what to think about the actor, as he was contracted believing he was an original character.

They changed it to Khan mid-stream, when costly production had already taken place. This was a nasty move on their part towards him. (the producers admitted to this here: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/the-reel-breakdown/check-star-trek-writers... )

First - quit whining about spoilers. Everyone should know by now not to go anywhere near the internet, radio, tv, or friends if they don't want a movie they haven't seen spoiled.

Second - y'all can argue back and forth about was it white washing or wasn't it (it was), and would it have been worse if the bad guy had been Indian (maybe, but no one bitched much about Montalban being the bad guy in TWOK), but even if neither of those things are true - as a Trek fan you can only put up with so much BS. I gave the first re-boot a pass because, ya know, "alternate timeline", and I thought they did a good job with the casting and characters. But the timeline is only supposed to have altered SINCE the attack on the Kelvin, a good 150-250 years AFTER Khan and his cohorts went into hibernation. Since that had already happened (in the Trek universe), there is no way that would've changed, so the Khan fratboy Kirk and crew run into would be the same one that Shatboy Kirk and crew ran into originally. Yes, spending some time in London after being revived MIGHT make you pick up the accent, and God knows they have very little sun, but no one would end up THAT white (and pasty, btw). Also (even more geekery) Khan in the original series episode is not as psychotic as he is in TWOK. In Space Seed he is arrogant and ruthless, but also charismatic, intelligent, and even nobel. He's violent and psychotic in TWOK as a result of having spent 15 years surviving on a planet that had a huge natural disaster 6 months after he was put there, losing his wife, and generally having 15 years to blame Kirk. But that hasn't happened in the JJ Abrams "altverse". So, just a bad choice all the way around.

(Yes, I know that wasn't the point of this article, I'm simply pointing out that there are plenty of OTHER reasons for crying "FOUL" on this casting. And for the record, I am a HUGE Sherlock fan.)

Why would Ricardo Montalban be identified as non-white if he was born in Mexico but his family is originally form Spain, genetically he is of European descent, perhaps he looks more like a southern European, but technically he would be considered white. It truly takes a Latino raised in the United States to begin to see the theme and moral of every story from a racial and skin color point of view. It's a point of view we learn well in the United States because of the country's false mythical concepts of race. Latinos raised in the United States cease seeing the world as humans and instead see the globe split up in camps of Black White and Brown. And I am Latina! A Latino raised in Latin America would not have made the race of the actors their paramount concern. In Latin America as in Spain there are many Latinos and Spaniards whose family line includes people who resemble both Monatalban and Cumbarbatch. Aside from the fact that race shouldn't matter in a work of art, except for meeting the guidelines of US Equal Employment Opportunity, it is the content of character and talent which is most important in interpreting a character in acting.

The fact that the cast is all of light skin doesn't spoil the film for me at all! The author forgets that in Latin American films and TV only Hispanics appear, and no one has made a comments about their racial types. Unless the same bias made with Montalban in this article is made with erroneously categorizing the race of Latin Americans. The bias is that once you have a Latin American surname you are not white, even though your parents were originally from Spain. And perhaps if you are from Spain to a northern European you are not white either. So that this criticism is based on false mythical and political racist concepts of race! Those who have been the victims of racism carry it around and it does them much wrong, And in terms of the analysis of what would be the physical appearance of an interracial human, the assumption that it will look more like Montalban is wrong. As a Latin American of also Spanish heritage we already have that mixture for many generations and the result off springs that look like Montalban and like Cumberbatch!

To begin, America is the bastion of racism against Black people, next to the socio-politicalisms of South Africa and the socio-religious caste system of India. Always has been. America is a "work in progress" as far as race relations, but the traditional power structure is always sympathetic - if not out right - deferring to the "racist sensibilities" of its' White masses, especially when such have a direct impact on profit-driven venues such as TV shows and movies.

With that stated, Gene Roddenberry was a extraordinary, visionary, creative man, who created Star Trek as a universe of "What If?" humans were free or tolerant of ALL races in the race conscious era of 1960s America. He PURPOSELY cast an African-American female, Asian male, and a Latino male (in the role of Khan) to not only buck the race conscious, and racist, thinking of the heads of studio, but to set up story-lines which would make Star Trek a forerunner to TV and theatrical productions to come, Star Trek and non-Star Trek related.

Casting Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan in the movie, Star Trek: Into Darkness, is not an affront to the vision of Gene Roddenberry (although some more race sensitive individual may prefer to differ, or even show anger, sadness or outrage at this), but it IS a deviation that does disregard the purpose Mr. Roddenberry placed in HIS Star Trek. Modern India is home to a wide range of INDIGENOUS human complexions; from pale, tan, beige to browns and burgandy-blue browns (black.) Thus, Cumberbatch's casting is NOT out the Indian "norm"; it just does not fall into the limited parameters of non-Indians what an "East Indian" should look like.

I am of the opinion that a swarthier-complexioned actor should have been cast. But, again, that is MY opinion. I validate that opinion by the premise of EXPECTATION, as most - if not all - traditional fans of Star Trek have come to expect of the franchise. In this regard, J.J. Abrams failed miserably to respect the traditional expectations of Trekkies, as most of us will agree.

This also strikes to the heart why some of us show disbelief, and even outrage, that "Black" Vulcans were introduced into the Star Trek mythos, in the character of Tuvok of ST:Voyager. It makes a question of whether we are so preoccupied with the concept of what race constitutes that we do not wish to entertain biological facts that environmental adaptations could have occurred on Vulcan and created a variety of characteristic among the Vulcanians (rarely used term, but used here for reference and deference) just as human beings display outward signs of environmental adaptions? I say: Get over IT! There is widespread opinions among Trekkies as to what Star Trek means and should be, but there are those of us who are "Roddenberrian" Trekkies, who do not seek to cluster our opinion with personal feelings but ONLY focus on what Roddenberry's vision was, and is, from a quasi-sacred viewpoint: We value Star Trek for its premises, not by own own prejudices and cultural limitations.

As a Roddenberrian Trekkie, I say that Star Trek is still broadening its borders and causing us all to examine our own beliefs on race, religion, culture...to this day, and for that I am quite sure that overall Gene Roddenberry would be pleased.

p.s. Mr. Abram? Should you cast yet another Star Trek venture, it is now hoped that YOU respect Mr. Roddenberry's vision in its totality and cast so appropriately. Thank you.

Montelban >> Hipster Khan

It's funny how none of you complain about Samuel L. Jackson bieng cast as Nick Fury in the Avengers.

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this issue.

I was initially really looking forward to this film but when I read about the possibility of Cumberbatch being Khan, I just couldn't watch this at all. It wasn't the only reason - all the explosions and the Spock/Uhura romance put me off but having a White British man playing an augment of clear asian ethnicity just was a bridge too far.

I can't help but think of better casting alternatives - how about Naveen Andrews from Lost for example?

...he doesn't care. This is what happens when you hire someone to helm a franchise...that doesn't LIKE the franchise.

This article is so uninformed. At that time all "ethnic whites" were typecast and extoticfied in the U.S. you have Polish and Italian people playing native americans for gods sake. So if Ricardo was the child of German parents to Mexico and had very blond hair and blue eyes would you still call him a poc? he wasn't a poc, just because he didn't call himself white doesn't mean he wasn't usually immigrants call themselves by their nationality not by a race. and since he was born in mexico he felt himself to be mexican and spoke for mexican actors, that doesn't mean he was a poc! anymore than mitt romney's father was a poc. He was a white man period. So you should have a problem with the original casting, for gods sakes they darkened his skin it!

<p>Whitewashing is still a problem in the cinema and TV, yes. But I don't accept the argument by some that a white man should have played the role of Khan on the ground that it's a sticky wicket to cast a man of colour as a villain. Really? In the 21st century, aren't people enlightened enough to understand that just as real people good and bad come in all shapes, sizes and colours, so do heroes and villains? That casting a man of colour, a real Indian in the role of Khan would not indict a whole group of people as villainous terrorists? (Maybe not.) On the other hand, this whole issue of ethnicity could have been avoided by leaving the character Khan out of this story. If they wanted to follow a similar plot, they could easily have had a "superman" other than Khan from the same Eugenics Wars days with his own group hidden in torpedoes,. Acc. to Star Trek canon, as it were, Khan's group escaped Earth on the Botany Bay in cryo- compartments but were caught by Kirk centuries later and exiled on a faraway planet. That's why even using Khan at all here is contradictory. And please don't say this may be a "different timeline"&gt; That's way too easy an excuse to whitewash the character..</p>

I was reading you people's blog.... i am also big fan of star trek movies...... and i think there should not be any discussion
about racial crap............ although i am an indian but i like benedict cumberbatch as khan.... and north indian sikh ( which khan is ) have nearly fare skin as a maxican without any british descent ( as sir kingsley have ) ..... but i am not worry about it that khan is white ...... movie was excellent ..... thats all ..... this discussion is supposed to be of uncivilized .....
which you people are not ..... there are a lot of other things to be worry about....
LIKE WHY I CAN NOT BE CAPTAIN KIRK......... :)