James Bond is a symbol of xenophobia and imperialism

The argument

James Bond was originally created during the Cold War, at a point when British influence was heavily waning, and the timing explains a great deal about what the character was for. A country losing its position in the world acquired a fictional agent who kept winning, and the series functioned as a Trojan Horse for anti-Communist and pro-British Empire ideas — carrying them inside entertainment, where they did not have to be argued for and could be absorbed as the background against which the story simply made sense. The treatment of non-white characters follows from the same premise. There have been several instances of overtly racist portrayals in the films. The white actor Joseph Wiseman wore makeup to portray the eponymous half-Chinese character in Dr. No, and in a further example of yellowface, James Bond disguises himself as a Japanese man in You Only Live Twice. In both cases an Asian identity is treated as something a white performer can put on and take off, which presumes that there is nothing behind it that requires an actual person. These images serve to portray broad conceptions of Asian culture and to perpetuate stereotypical ideas about the people who live there. The two strands are one strand. Bond is a weapon of the British Empire, sent out to defeat Communists and other evil-doers, and a story organised around that mission needs a world in which British authority is the natural centre. Along the way non-white people are Othered as unimportant — present as scenery, as obstacles or as costume, but not as people whose own interests bear on what the hero should do. That is what makes the character problematic rather than merely dated: the xenophobia is not incidental to the films but structural to the role their protagonist performs.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Defenders reply that the early films reflect the prejudices of the era in which they were made, and that practices like the yellowface casting in Dr. No were widespread across mid-century cinema — deplorable, but not unique to or definitional of Bond. Judging a sixty-year franchise by its worst 1960s moments is anachronistic. They add that the series has evolved: it has diversified its casting, dropped those portrayals, and in the Craig era self-consciously interrogated Bond as an outdated imperial relic. Read as escapist spy fiction whose villains span every nationality, Bond resists being pinned down as a coherent 'weapon of empire.'

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Bond's Cold War origins reflect the anxieties of the era they were made in; that context doesn't make the ongoing franchise a coherent vehicle for pro-Empire propaganda. [Rejecting P2] Yellowface such as Dr. No's casting was a widespread mid-century industry practice, deplorable but neither unique to nor definitional of Bond — and later films abandoned it. [Rejecting P3] The series has evolved, diversified and even critiqued Bond as an imperial relic (notably the Craig era), so a fixed 'symbol of xenophobia and imperialism' reading ignores sixty years of change.