James Bond is a symbol of xenophobia and imperialism

Question: Who is James Bond?
Position‹3 of 4›: James Bond is a problematic figure
Argument‹2 of 3›: James Bond is a symbol of xenophobia and imperialism

James Bond was created to justify British imperialist rule, and xenophobic undertones have underpinned much of the franchise.

The argument

James Bond was originally created during the Cold War, when British influence was heavily waning. Correspondingly, the series was a Trojan Horse for anti-Communist and pro-British Empire ideas. There have also been several instances of overtly racist portrayals of characters in James Bond movies. For instance, the white actor Joseph Wiseman wore makeup to portray the eponymous half-Chinese character in Dr. No. In a further example of yellowface, in You Only Live Twice, James Bond disguises himself as a Japanese man. These images serve to portray broad conceptions of Asian culture, and perpetuate stereotypical ideas about the people who live there. James Bond is a weapon of the British Empire, sent out to defeat Communists and other evil-doers. Along the way, non-white people are Othered as unimportant.

Premises

[P1]James Bond was created during the Cold War as a vehicle for anti-Communist and pro-British Empire ideas as British influence waned. [P2] The films feature overtly racist portrayals, such as the yellowface of a white actor playing Dr. No and Bond's disguise as a Japanese man, perpetuating Asian stereotypes. [P3] Bond acts as a weapon of the British Empire who Others non-white people as unimportant along the way. [C] Therefore, because James Bond is a symbol of xenophobia and imperialism, James Bond is a problematic figure.

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it has diversified its casting, dropped those portrayals, and in the Craig era self-consciously interrogated Bond as an outdated imperial relic.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.