StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Do you feel the same way about the non-white slave cloneforce in Star Wars, the stereotypical "missa Jar Jar", the Neimoidians, or the fact all the human goodies, barring the token Sam L Jackson, are white? It's a similar mythic backdrop, good vs evil with an almost entirely white cast, aryan pure white children turned into black tyrants, millions of non-white workers that are easy to get from "Kamino". These coincidences would be enough to condemn LotR, presumably and have even less justification in such a futurist setting, meaning you should be even more "queasy". I don't find them convincing personally, but coincidences are apparently a "good" argument that goes over and above the author's view and the themes of the narrative in accusations of racism. The stereotypes arguments could go either way; do they reveal Tolkein's racism, your racism or both? I've never seen any black people that look and act like Uruk Hai, for instance, nor have I ever really known any primitive people that look like whitish neanderthals. Hence my original accusation of people "reading in" meanings, instead of taking them out of it.

Rye wrote:Do you feel the same way about the non-white slave cloneforce in Star Wars, the stereotypical "missa Jar Jar", the Neimoidians, or the fact all the human goodies, barring the token Sam L Jackson, are white? It's a similar mythic backdrop, good vs evil with an almost entirely white cast, aryan pure white children turned into black tyrants, millions of non-white workers that are easy to get from "Kamino". These coincidences would be enough to condemn LotR, presumably and have even less justification in such a futurist setting, meaning you should be even more "queasy". I don't find them convincing personally, but coincidences are apparently a "good" argument that goes over and above the author's view and the themes of the narrative in accusations of racism. The stereotypes arguments could go either way; do they reveal Tolkein's racism, your racism or both? I've never seen any black people that look and act like Uruk Hai, for instance, nor have I ever really known any primitive people that look like whitish neanderthals. Hence my original accusation of people "reading in" meanings, instead of taking them out of it.

I'm sorry, but when we look at the the original trilogy, we find an all-white Empire, with all the racial minorities appearing on the side of good. When we get to the prequels, you seem to be assuming that Lucas intended us to agree with the use of clone soldiers, and therefore his choice of a Maori actor was mere coincidence. Guess that's "reading meanings in", though. When it comes to the Neimoidians, I'm not sure that "greedy businessman" is enough of a stereotype all by itself to validate the accusations of Asian stereotypes, in particular since I've heard Chinese and Japanese accents before. Jar-Jar, meanwhile, is presented as a clumsy idiot; while the other Gungans share his accent, they are not presented as inherently clownish. His body language, meanwhile, was created entirely by his voice actor, so perhaps you could accuse Ahmed Best of racism, but not necessarily Lucas. The accent itself might be considered racist, of course. Meanwhile, TPM has a very similar relationship between Naboo and Gungan that is resolved by the end of the film. I guess that it can't be racist period, because it was thus obviously intended to be an anti-racist film! Do you have a point with this, apart from deciding that attacking other films will surely cause me to become defensive?

Now we come to the question of why should authorial intent triumph over the death of the author? You seem to hold the opinion that it is inherently superior, hence your dismissal of my arguments. Why? Justify this superiority. Further, let us review the pieces here.

1. LOTR draws upon European history, myth and legend for inspiration, in particular Germanic legend and the Late Antiquity period. We can all agree on this, I hope.

2. The people to the south and east of the main story are allied with the main villain, and contribute their armies to his forces.

3. Said people are representatives/analogues of North Africans, West Asians/Middle Easterners, Eastern Europeans, and Central Asians. They are the only representatives of said groups within the book.

4. The main villain is a supernatural creature, an example of absolute evil. So are his most characterized servants, though to lesser extents.

As a result, we have the only examples of non-white groups being servants/allies of the forces of evil, and being associated with him. This carries certain implications from the combination of these factors, which Tolkien probably did not foresee. It is however, somewhat like if someone were to write a novel about invading evil space lizards where the population of the Middle East served the space lizards as allies. Would there be racist implications in having an entire group of people associated with evil? Lovecraft did something similar in The Horror at Red Hook, only with Eastern European immigrants. Does it only become valid if we know the author was blatantly racist? Is intent all that matters?

Finally, we come to my favorite part of any argument: grotesque distortions. Nobody is saying (in this thread, at least) that orcs are supposed to be a caricature of blacks. This isn't a barn; keep your piles of straw out. The problem with saying "oh they're obviously Neanderthals runs into the problem that there is no description of any of the phenotypal features of Neaderthals, real or imagined; no sloping forehead, no brow ridges. All you have is height. What we have, then, is an ambiguous group, one with common stereotypes of "primitives" which were common in Tolkien's day. Whether he intended an Efe pygmy or Cro-Magnon caricature is probably lost to the ages, falling out of your limitation of author's intent and running into the nebulous argument over whether the theme you perceive can be contradicted within a work.

The argument about racism concerning the orcs is entirely different, mainly because the range of descriptions we get of orcs suggest that they have the full range of skin colors and so saying they are obviously analogues for one or another falters. It instead concerns the problems of having a species that is absolutely evil yet has free will. I prefer arguing that they are not inherently evil to resolve the contradiction, but of course you are free to disagree.

Finally, your attempts to dismiss this argument with, "well, if you see a stereotype, then you're just racist yourself" is ever-charming, and only brings you closer to "smug white guy" status. I wish you sincere luck in refuting all criticisms of racial stereotypes with this. Thankfully the internet lends you anonymity to allow you achieve higher degrees of smug than would be present in face-to-face conversations. Cheerio!

Bakustra wrote:I'm sorry, but when we look at the the original trilogy, we find an all-white Empire, with all the racial minorities appearing on the side of good.

We did? All I remember was the all-white Millenium Falcon (aside from Chewie & robots).

When we get to the prequels, you seem to be assuming that Lucas intended us to agree with the use of clone soldiers

No, now you're going onto narrative interpretation, instead of "uncomfortable coincidences". The fact is that as of order 66 or whatever it was, you have all the white goodies being shot at by an ethnically monolithic slave race.

, and therefore his choice of a Maori actor was mere coincidence. Guess that's "reading meanings in", though. When it comes to the Neimoidians, I'm not sure that "greedy businessman" is enough of a stereotype all by itself to validate the accusations of Asian stereotypes, in particular since I've heard Chinese and Japanese accents before. Jar-Jar, meanwhile, is presented as a clumsy idiot; while the other Gungans share his accent, they are not presented as inherently clownish. His body language, meanwhile, was created entirely by his voice actor, so perhaps you could accuse Ahmed Best of racism, but not necessarily Lucas. The accent itself might be considered racist, of course. Meanwhile, TPM has a very similar relationship between Naboo and Gungan that is resolved by the end of the film. I guess that it can't be racist period, because it was thus obviously intended to be an anti-racist film! Do you have a point with this, apart from deciding that attacking other films will surely cause me to become defensive?

Lucas the director is ultimately responsible for how racist his actors are in his own film, but no, I was interested how you'd go with the same argument against something that's bound to be the most popular franchise here.

Now we come to the question of why should authorial intent triumph over the death of the author? You seem to hold the opinion that it is inherently superior, hence your dismissal of my arguments. Why? Justify this superiority.

Any work of fiction/non-fiction is a product of an author communicating a message to an audience. The meaning is contextualised relative to author's intent, the culture that produced it, the audience's received understanding and the narrative content itself.

As a result, we have the only examples of non-white groups being servants/allies of the forces of evil, and being associated with him. This carries certain implications from the combination of these factors, which Tolkien probably did not foresee. It is however, somewhat like if someone were to write a novel about invading evil space lizards where the population of the Middle East served the space lizards as allies. Would there be racist implications in having an entire group of people associated with evil? Lovecraft did something similar in The Horror at Red Hook, only with Eastern European immigrants. Does it only become valid if we know the author was blatantly racist? Is intent all that matters?

It's an interpretation that gains a lot more weight.

Finally, we come to my favorite part of any argument: grotesque distortions. Nobody is saying (in this thread, at least) that orcs are supposed to be a caricature of blacks. This isn't a barn; keep your piles of straw out. The problem with saying "oh they're obviously Neanderthals runs into the problem that there is no description of any of the phenotypal features of Neaderthals, real or imagined; no sloping forehead, no brow ridges. All you have is height. What we have, then, is an ambiguous group, one with common stereotypes of "primitives" which were common in Tolkien's day. Whether he intended an Efe pygmy or Cro-Magnon caricature is probably lost to the ages, falling out of your limitation of author's intent and running into the nebulous argument over whether the theme you perceive can be contradicted within a work.

It's possible to be contradictory, sure, but I'm prepared to give the films the benefit of the doubt.

The argument about racism concerning the orcs is entirely different, mainly because the range of descriptions we get of orcs suggest that they have the full range of skin colors and so saying they are obviously analogues for one or another falters. It instead concerns the problems of having a species that is absolutely evil yet has free will. I prefer arguing that they are not inherently evil to resolve the contradiction, but of course you are free to disagree.

I'm not sure what that argument has to do with racism, but okay. Personally, I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that selective breeding, conditioning and testosterone could easily create an "evil" human breed. It works with other animals, as does the opposite (which is how dogs were tamed).

Finally, your attempts to dismiss this argument with, "well, if you see a stereotype, then you're just racist yourself" is ever-charming, and only brings you closer to "smug white guy" status. I wish you sincere luck in refuting all criticisms of racial stereotypes with this. Thankfully the internet lends you anonymity to allow you achieve higher degrees of smug than would be present in face-to-face conversations. Cheerio!

I was actually paraphrasing that well known smug white guy Mike on that one.

Rye wrote:

Bakustra wrote:I'm sorry, but when we look at the the original trilogy, we find an all-white Empire, with all the racial minorities appearing on the side of good.

We did? All I remember was the all-white Millenium Falcon (aside from Chewie & robots).

And Lando, Ackbar, all the background aliens and the black, Asian, and female pilots in the background scenes in ROTJ. Looking at merely ANH is like looking at only FOTR when it comes to LOTR. Meanwhile, the Empire lacks even that, apart from the bounty hunters.

When we get to the prequels, you seem to be assuming that Lucas intended us to agree with the use of clone soldiers

No, now you're going onto narrative interpretation, instead of "uncomfortable coincidences". The fact is that as of order 66 or whatever it was, you have all the white goodies being shot at by an ethnically monolithic slave race.

Okay. So we have a multiracial group of heroes, (unless green is the new white) being shot at by an ethnically monolithic slave race.

, and therefore his choice of a Maori actor was mere coincidence. Guess that's "reading meanings in", though. When it comes to the Neimoidians, I'm not sure that "greedy businessman" is enough of a stereotype all by itself to validate the accusations of Asian stereotypes, in particular since I've heard Chinese and Japanese accents before. Jar-Jar, meanwhile, is presented as a clumsy idiot; while the other Gungans share his accent, they are not presented as inherently clownish. His body language, meanwhile, was created entirely by his voice actor, so perhaps you could accuse Ahmed Best of racism, but not necessarily Lucas. The accent itself might be considered racist, of course. Meanwhile, TPM has a very similar relationship between Naboo and Gungan that is resolved by the end of the film. I guess that it can't be racist period, because it was thus obviously intended to be an anti-racist film! Do you have a point with this, apart from deciding that attacking other films will surely cause me to become defensive?

Lucas the director is ultimately responsible for how racist his actors are in his own film, but no, I was interested how you'd go with the same argument against something that's bound to be the most popular franchise here.

So, say, for example, the infamous Star Trek episode "Code of Honor" makes Gene Roddenberry responsible for the directorial decisions of Russ Mayberry, and therefore implicates him as a racist as well? There are limits as to how much responsibility can be transferred, I would think. Finally, I fail to see how my statement differs noticeably from your own, unless you felt that I would immediately decry Star Wars as racist beyond a doubt.

Now we come to the question of why should authorial intent triumph over the death of the author? You seem to hold the opinion that it is inherently superior, hence your dismissal of my arguments. Why? Justify this superiority.

Any work of fiction/non-fiction is a product of an author communicating a message to an audience. The meaning is contextualised relative to author's intent, the culture that produced it, the audience's received understanding and the narrative content itself.

So what, then, should we do about Ulysses? James Joyce deliberately wrote that for people to create their own interpretations of. What of works that don't have a handily preserved set of notes or interviews defining the author's intent? What of differences between the culture that produced the work and the one interpreting it?

As a result, we have the only examples of non-white groups being servants/allies of the forces of evil, and being associated with him. This carries certain implications from the combination of these factors, which Tolkien probably did not foresee. It is however, somewhat like if someone were to write a novel about invading evil space lizards where the population of the Middle East served the space lizards as allies. Would there be racist implications in having an entire group of people associated with evil? Lovecraft did something similar in The Horror at Red Hook, only with Eastern European immigrants. Does it only become valid if we know the author was blatantly racist? Is intent all that matters?

It's an interpretation that gains a lot more weight.

So, we don't disagree, because I do not consider this to be a gigantic part of Lord of the Rings, but rather something for people to keep in mind about the work, much like keeping the historical context in mind for any Cold War-era thriller, in the case of my generation.

Finally, we come to my favorite part of any argument: grotesque distortions. Nobody is saying (in this thread, at least) that orcs are supposed to be a caricature of blacks. This isn't a barn; keep your piles of straw out. The problem with saying "oh they're obviously Neanderthals runs into the problem that there is no description of any of the phenotypal features of Neaderthals, real or imagined; no sloping forehead, no brow ridges. All you have is height. What we have, then, is an ambiguous group, one with common stereotypes of "primitives" which were common in Tolkien's day. Whether he intended an Efe pygmy or Cro-Magnon caricature is probably lost to the ages, falling out of your limitation of author's intent and running into the nebulous argument over whether the theme you perceive can be contradicted within a work.

It's possible to be contradictory, sure, but I'm prepared to give the films the benefit of the doubt.

So what is this benefit of the doubt? Are you rejecting the idea of unconscious or unintentional racist aspects? Because I don't think that there's really any benefit of the doubt you can give that I don't already give (namely, the assumption that none of it was intentional or noticed.

The argument about racism concerning the orcs is entirely different, mainly because the range of descriptions we get of orcs suggest that they have the full range of skin colors and so saying they are obviously analogues for one or another falters. It instead concerns the problems of having a species that is absolutely evil yet has free will. I prefer arguing that they are not inherently evil to resolve the contradiction, but of course you are free to disagree.

I'm not sure what that argument has to do with racism, but okay. Personally, I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that selective breeding, conditioning and testosterone could easily create an "evil" human breed. It works with other animals, as does the opposite (which is how dogs were tamed).

That depends on the definition of evil. I'd dearly like (Well, no. That would be cruel.) to see a breed of dog that randomly attacked other dogs regardless of environmental conditions, as the orcs do within Mordor. For that matter, I would love to see someone breed pack behavior out of dogs or humans. I think it would be harder for humans, since we have no solitary relatives among the great apes, and so I doubt that our genes are really plastic enough to produce a genetically solitary/psychopathic. You also don't see anything wrong with the idea of a genetically evil species with equal free will to ordinary humanity?

Finally, your attempts to dismiss this argument with, "well, if you see a stereotype, then you're just racist yourself" is ever-charming, and only brings you closer to "smug white guy" status. I wish you sincere luck in refuting all criticisms of racial stereotypes with this. Thankfully the internet lends you anonymity to allow you achieve higher degrees of smug than would be present in face-to-face conversations. Cheerio!

I was actually paraphrasing that well known smug white guy Mike on that one.

Oh, let's see you prove this, then. I want some sort of clear statement where he said "if you recognize stereotypes you're definitely racist". The TPM essay is nine years old, and is speaking specifically about jumping to the conclusion that the Neimoidians must be Asian, because it betrays a lack of familiarity with, say, Japanese or Chinese accents.

Bakustra wrote:And Lando, Ackbar, all the background aliens and the black, Asian, and female pilots in the background scenes in ROTJ. Looking at merely ANH is like looking at only FOTR when it comes to LOTR. Meanwhile, the Empire lacks even that, apart from the bounty hunters.

So if the Empire were all black, would you be okay with that?

Okay. So we have a multiracial group of heroes, (unless green is the new white) being shot at by an ethnically monolithic slave race.

Like the dwarves, ents and so on in LotR vs a more diverse enemy?

So, say, for example, the infamous Star Trek episode "Code of Honor" makes Gene Roddenberry responsible for the directorial decisions of Russ Mayberry, and therefore implicates him as a racist as well?

No, the director is responsible. THAT IS HIS JOB.

So what, then, should we do about Ulysses? James Joyce deliberately wrote that for people to create their own interpretations of.

You just answered your own question. He apparently wanted people to create their own interpretations and interpretation should be understood relative to that.

What of works that don't have a handily preserved set of notes or interviews defining the author's intent? What of differences between the culture that produced the work and the one interpreting it?

Look at how scholarship analyses the Bible, it's the same principle. What purpose does the text exist for, who wrote it, when was it written, how are audiences understanding it and how should they understand it to get the most accurate view?

So, we don't disagree, because I do not consider this to be a gigantic part of Lord of the Rings, but rather something for people to keep in mind about the work, much like keeping the historical context in mind for any Cold War-era thriller, in the case of my generation.

Absolutely, and hence why I've tried to keep it to the film rather than Tolkein himself, though he was a surprisingly liberal man of his time.

So what is this benefit of the doubt? Are you rejecting the idea of unconscious or unintentional racist aspects? Because I don't think that there's really any benefit of the doubt you can give that I don't already give (namely, the assumption that none of it was intentional or noticed.

I think I've covered this already.

That depends on the definition of evil. I'd dearly like (Well, no. That would be cruel.) to see a breed of dog that randomly attacked other dogs regardless of environmental conditions, as the orcs do within Mordor. For that matter, I would love to see someone breed pack behavior out of dogs or humans.

Orcs have pack behaviour too, that's why they can mount a military war machine.

I think it would be harder for humans, since we have no solitary relatives among the great apes, and so I doubt that our genes are really plastic enough to produce a genetically solitary/psychopathic. You also don't see anything wrong with the idea of a genetically evil species with equal free will to ordinary humanity?

From a fictional or hypothetical standpoint? No. I don't believe in free will to begin with, and there's all manner of terrifying, awful human beings that need little prompting to become total shits as the Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments have shown, not to even mention the litany of atrocity our species has perpetrated against its own members.

Oh, let's see you prove this, then. I want some sort of clear statement where he said "if you recognize stereotypes you're definitely racist".

[/quote]

Why? I didn't say that.

Rye wrote:

Bakustra wrote:And Lando, Ackbar, all the background aliens and the black, Asian, and female pilots in the background scenes in ROTJ. Looking at merely ANH is like looking at only FOTR when it comes to LOTR. Meanwhile, the Empire lacks even that, apart from the bounty hunters.

So if the Empire were all black, would you be okay with that?

If you're going to play this card, then you'll have to disguise your hand better. No, that is not something that I would be "okay" with, since there are unpleasant associations with associating racial minorities with evil empires in American art,- and secondarily, every work of literature (For Us, The Living as a notorious example) that incorporates such childish speculation has ultimately sucked golf balls through garden hoses, even if it is not racist per se.

Okay. So we have a multiracial group of heroes, (unless green is the new white) being shot at by an ethnically monolithic slave race.

Like the dwarves, ents and so on in LotR vs a more diverse enemy?

Dwarves: Short white guys with beards.
Ents: Not at the Pelennor. Obviously.
Ethnically monolithic: Not ethnically diverse.

Work on your comparisons a little.

So, say, for example, the infamous Star Trek episode "Code of Honor" makes Gene Roddenberry responsible for the directorial decisions of Russ Mayberry, and therefore implicates him as a racist as well?

No, the director is responsible. THAT IS HIS JOB.

So Roddenberry bears no responsibility as an executive producer who was active within the production of early TNG for the decisions and actions of his underlings? Is there some kind of industry manual that spells this out?

So what, then, should we do about Ulysses? James Joyce deliberately wrote that for people to create their own interpretations of.

You just answered your own question. He apparently wanted people to create their own interpretations and interpretation should be understood relative to that.

So what is the message that he was trying to convey, then? Your methodology relies upon deliberate messages and themes, and this runs into problems with certain aspects of modern and post-modern works. What about authors who deny the presence of themes and messages? Is there no plot to Huckleberry Finn because Mark Twain assiduously denied so in his introduction?

What of works that don't have a handily preserved set of notes or interviews defining the author's intent? What of differences between the culture that produced the work and the one interpreting it?

Look at how scholarship analyses the Bible, it's the same principle. What purpose does the text exist for, who wrote it, when was it written, how are audiences understanding it and how should they understand it to get the most accurate view?

So why is this better than the alternatives? You have merely asserted that the search for meaning is the most important aspect of analyzing literature, you have not supported this. Further, why should we assume that there is a discernible accuracy in views? Why should we assume that there is necessarily meaning? If I free-associate 100 words and put it forth on the internet, what is the specific meaning I am conveying? Is it not a creative work?

So, we don't disagree, because I do not consider this to be a gigantic part of Lord of the Rings, but rather something for people to keep in mind about the work, much like keeping the historical context in mind for any Cold War-era thriller, in the case of my generation.

Absolutely, and hence why I've tried to keep it to the film rather than Tolkein himself, though he was a surprisingly liberal man of his time.

I agree.

That depends on the definition of evil. I'd dearly like (Well, no. That would be cruel.) to see a breed of dog that randomly attacked other dogs regardless of environmental conditions, as the orcs do within Mordor. For that matter, I would love to see someone breed pack behavior out of dogs or humans.

Orcs have pack behaviour too, that's why they can mount a military war machine.

Except for the part where they randomly slaughter friends, or the problem that said military war machine is organized almost entirely by Sauron, or the orcs only holding together as a nation because they hate humans and elves more than each other. Other than that, they're just as social an animal as a wolf or bonobo!

I think it would be harder for humans, since we have no solitary relatives among the great apes, and so I doubt that our genes are really plastic enough to produce a genetically solitary/psychopathic. You also don't see anything wrong with the idea of a genetically evil species with equal free will to ordinary humanity?

From a fictional or hypothetical standpoint? No. I don't believe in free will to begin with, and there's all manner of terrifying, awful human beings that need little prompting to become total shits as the Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments have shown, not to even mention the litany of atrocity our species has perpetrated against its own members.

Genetically evil. Born evil. Not conditioned into obeying authority to the point of killing other people, not conditioned into viewing others as subhuman. According to Tolkien, even orc children are evil.

Oh, let's see you prove this, then. I want some sort of clear statement where he said "if you recognize stereotypes you're definitely racist".

Why? I didn't say that.

That was the sentiment you expressed, although I was a little too harsh, perhaps. You know,

What you wrote:The stereotypes arguments could go either way; do they reveal Tolkein's racism, your racism or both? I've never seen any black people that look and act like Uruk Hai, for instance, nor have I ever really known any primitive people that look like whitish neanderthals. Hence my original accusation of people "reading in" meanings, instead of taking them out of it.

Things like that.

Rye wrote:

Bakustra wrote:And Lando, Ackbar, all the background aliens and the black, Asian, and female pilots in the background scenes in ROTJ. Looking at merely ANH is like looking at only FOTR when it comes to LOTR. Meanwhile, the Empire lacks even that, apart from the bounty hunters.

So if the Empire were all black, would you be okay with that?

What the fuck are you talking about? The Empire was not all black. That's the whole point. Even if we look only at ANH, what's the problem? Yeah, everybody is white, but that includes the bad guys. What the hell does this have to do with LOTR's Africa/Asian parallels?

Do you feel the same way about the non-white slave cloneforce in Star Wars, the stereotypical "missa Jar Jar", the Neimoidians, or the fact all the human goodies, barring the token Sam L Jackson, are white?

Let's see ...

1) The clones: they are neither good or evil.
2) Jar-Jar: in what way does he remind you of a real ethnicity? Many said he seemed "black"; I seriously never saw the parallels between him and black people; nothing about his clothing, his gait, his physiology, or his behaviour seem like stereotypical black behaviour to me. What blacks have you seen that act anything at all like Jar-Jar? As far as I can tell, everything anyone has ever said about him is based on certain aspects of his speech.
3) The Neomoidians: is this the "Neimoidians look Asian" thing people have said? I am an Asian myself, and I never saw anything Asian about them. What about them seems Asian?
4) Sam Jackson being a "token"; is that how you dismiss it? I would have appreciated a "token" black elf; I already mentioned that earlier. You may say that a "token" character means nothing, but it actually does mean something. Just as tolerance is not the same as acceptance but it's a good start, a "token" character may not be the same as full integration but it's still a good start.

Darth Wong wrote:2) Jar-Jar: in what way does he remind you of a real ethnicity? Many said he seemed "black"; I seriously never saw the parallels between him and black people; nothing about his clothing, his gait, his physiology, or his behaviour seem like stereotypical black behaviour to me. What blacks have you seen that act anything at all like Jar-Jar?

I think the point was not that he is meant to resemble actual black people, but rather that he resembles crude racist and innaccurate stereotypes of black people. If you ever watch really old Looney Toons cartoons, you can see a slight resemblance between the portrayal of Jar Jar and the portrayal of lazy house servants, in both gait and vernacular. I personally didn't find it extremely obvious - a much better example of something like this would be those minstrel-bots from the second Transformers movie. Those just pissed me the fuck off.

3) The Neomoidians: is this the "Neimoidians look Asian" thing people have said? I am an Asian myself, and I never saw anything Asian about them. What about them seems Asian?

lol, Well the Nemoidians are aliens, I don't think they were meant to physically similar to Asians. That would be some amateur Star Trek shit (Yangs and Kohms, anyone?). But I kind of thought their accents were reminiscent of stereotypical FOB "Engrish" accents.

wolveraptor wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:2) Jar-Jar: in what way does he remind you of a real ethnicity? Many said he seemed "black"; I seriously never saw the parallels between him and black people; nothing about his clothing, his gait, his physiology, or his behaviour seem like stereotypical black behaviour to me. What blacks have you seen that act anything at all like Jar-Jar?

I think the point was not that he is meant to resemble actual black people, but rather that he resembles crude racist and innaccurate stereotypes of black people. If you ever watch really old Looney Toons cartoons, you can see a slight resemblance between the portrayal of Jar Jar and the portrayal of lazy house servants, in both gait and vernacular. I personally didn't find it extremely obvious - a much better example of something like this would be those minstrel-bots from the second Transformers movie. Those just pissed me the fuck off.

I just find it unbelievable that Rye would think something as subtle as that can even be remotely compared to the myriad similarities between LOTR's eastern hordes and real-life African and Asian enemies. The Men of Harad are particularly galling; the only real difference between them and real-life stereotypical eastern hordes is that their elephants are unrealistically large. The similarities go right down to the goddamned geography and elephants and skin tone and manner of dress, for fuck's sake.

3) The Neomoidians: is this the "Neimoidians look Asian" thing people have said? I am an Asian myself, and I never saw anything Asian about them. What about them seems Asian?

lol, Well the Nemoidians are aliens, I don't think they were meant to physically similar to Asians. That would be some amateur Star Trek shit (Yangs and Kohms, anyone?). But I kind of thought their accents were reminiscent of stereotypical FOB "Engrish" accents.

That's the thing: one possibly subtle and most likely unintentional parallel is something you're going to find in sci-fi. It's when you start seeing multiple parallels that you have to say "OK, this is more than coincidence".

Darth Wong wrote:What the fuck are you talking about? The Empire was not all black. That's the whole point.

Right, the Empire was all white. If they were all black or all asian or pakistani or even mixed (while all the heroes were white) there'd be LotR-style accusations of racism, right? I doubt it.

Even if we look only at ANH, what's the problem? Yeah, everybody is white, but that includes the bad guys. What the hell does this have to do with LOTR's Africa/Asian parallels?

Nothing directly.

Let's see ...

1) The clones: they are neither good or evil.

I think you missed the point. The point was devil's advocate for unintentional racism in SW to illustrate what the racist LotR interpretation looks just like to me. To continue in that vain, this response is inadequate at best, and more offensive at worst. Inadequate since it could arguably be representing poor minorities like hispanics in America, coming from the road (camino) to work for anyone. More offensive would be the implication that they're machines and as easily replaceable brown people, they're not as important as the heroic white lead characters. They're literal cannon fodder, and far more acceptable to throw away. This is obviously not because they're brown, but using your own argument, "it's not AS racist as it could be..." isn't a refutation of this uncomfortable correlating fact, right?

2) Jar-Jar: in what way does he remind you of a real ethnicity?

He doesn't, this was sort of the point of my comment and my whole line of argument about reading in meanings that are only there if you want to see them. The Haradrim/orcs/etc of the films don't remind me of any real ethnicity either because they're fictional humanoids.To me, the Haradrim were egyptianish Moor-inspired entities. You even see them up close and they're wearing egyptian eyeliner. Given I personally have Moorish ancestry, I didn't feel it was representing my ancestors or me but a fictional nation. Plus the Moors were like everyone else and have blood on their hands, being invaded is never fun. Having a fantasy version of that isn't racist.

Haradrim weren't eastern as far as I know, I'm pretty sure they're to the south and their ethnic symbolism was mixed and unique like I already said.

3) The Neomoidians: is this the "Neimoidians look Asian" thing people have said? I am an Asian myself, and I never saw anything Asian about them. What about them seems Asian?

They don't look particularly asian (perhaps their hats have some relation to fu manchu, but I doubt it), their voices are actually stereotype fodder though. Neimoidian voice at 3:35, Splinter, Shredder and his lacky.

4) Sam Jackson being a "token"; is that how you dismiss it? I would have appreciated a "token" black elf; I already mentioned that earlier. You may say that a "token" character means nothing, but it actually does mean something. Just as tolerance is not the same as acceptance but it's a good start, a "token" character may not be the same as full integration but it's still a good start.

Yeah, black men that get killed off don't disprove a general trend though.

Darth Wong wrote:1) The clones: they are neither good or evil.

Here's a question, and this is an honest question, not some attempt at leading: Suppose the casting for Star Wars were different and Jango Fett was played by a black man. Now you have a clone army of what are essentially black slaves. Would that make a difference? It would certainly feel different at first blush.

I would have appreciated a "token" black elf

I guess it would have been better than nothing, but it still would have pissed me off. I'd have been sitting there going "Oh come on, where the hell did that guy come from? He's the only black one, what is that the elf version of being an albino?" every time he appeared.

I don't know what sort of games you play, but you see this sort of bullshit a LOT in fantasy games. World of Warcraft, for example. There are various fantasy races present in an array of weird colors. Human beings, however, only come in one color, namely white. But since they don't want to appear racist, the occasional human NPC (typically one with no real speaking role) is given dark skin.

And again I'm left going "Where the hell did he come from?" because there IS no black race in that world, no real place for one to exist, there's just a monolithic white human kingdom with a couple of random dark skinned guys hanging around for no reason. And this wasn't even produced seventy years ago or something, this is a 21st century production.

All the producers of a Lord of the Rings movie really needed to do was give the orcs big monster elephants to ride and get rid of those "Hey brown people do exist in this world and we fight for the badguys!" dudes. Maybe make the orcs all white/pink since there's no good reason not to when the elves are all white.

Then it becomes a nice little self-contained story about a fantasy version of Europe, and anyone who cares can think whatever they want about what people in other parts of that world are like. Better yet, you haven't resorted to "here's a black goodguy, please don't ask how" tokenism and you haven't even changed the story. Only hardcore Tolkien nerds would give a shit about the changes made, and even that would be drowned out in general "Wah where were Bombadil and Glorfindel?" tears.

Bakustra wrote:That depends on the definition of evil. I'd dearly like (Well, no. That would be cruel.) to see a breed of dog that randomly attacked other dogs regardless of environmental conditions, as the orcs do within Mordor. For that matter, I would love to see someone breed pack behavior out of dogs or humans. I think it would be harder for humans, since we have no solitary relatives among the great apes, and so I doubt that our genes are really plastic enough to produce a genetically solitary/psychopathic. You also don't see anything wrong with the idea of a genetically evil species with equal free will to ordinary humanity?

That's what could happen if there were enough female sociopaths to match the maek numbers. Then you could sequester them and isolate them and IF they managed to co-operate enough to prosper and survive on there own for a few generations, then by our standards they would be rather evil. Isn't there a fantasy race that is basically this?

Forgotten Realms drow, but the orcs are more like cenobites, with one of there possible backgrounds, in that they are altered Xs.

DudeGuyMan wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:1) The clones: they are neither good or evil.

Here's a question, and this is an honest question, not some attempt at leading: Suppose the casting for Star Wars were different and Jango Fett was played by a black man. Now you have a clone army of what are essentially black slaves. Would that make a difference? It would certainly feel different at first blush.

How many black men have New Zealand accents?

Personally, I wouldn't care about the skin color of the clonetroopers any more than I'd care that Darth Vader is played by a black actor. For me it's a matter of whether the character is meant to be a bad guy and just happens to be black, or if he's depicted as evil because he is black. For example, the movie Zulu shows the battle at Rorke's Drift between the British and the Zulus. The Zulus depicted as the enemy, but not as being evil because they are Zulus. They are simply the enemy in a war.

In LOTR, the orcs are truly monstrous, and are shown literally eating their own. You also are told that if they take Helm's Deep or Minas Tirith, every living thing in sight will be killed in gruesome fashion because orcs are evil. One group of humans fighting for Sauron are told they can take back land from the people of Rohan (presumably Rohan stole it from them), and the other is allied with Sauron. The difference is that these men aren't depicted as monsters who plan to massacre and eat many of Gandalf's finest -and blondest- friends*.

I would have appreciated a "token" black elf

I guess it would have been better than nothing, but it still would have pissed me off. I'd have been sitting there going "Oh come on, where the hell did that guy come from? He's the only black one, what is that the elf version of being an albino?" every time he appeared.

I feel the same way. It's like the way the police captain in most movies and TV shows is black. It's a throwaway role given to a black actor and it's patronizing as hell.



* Extra points to the first person to guess the reference.

Elfdart wrote:I feel the same way. It's like the way the police captain in most movies and TV shows is black. It's a throwaway role given to a black actor and it's patronizing as hell.

What if the "token" was asian instead of black? Would you even notice?

If he had a stereotypical accent, it would be funny. At first.


I think the movie Crash dealt with this well. Then again, it was an odd step for Hollywood.

Formless wrote:

Elfdart wrote:I feel the same way. It's like the way the police captain in most movies and TV shows is black. It's a throwaway role given to a black actor and it's patronizing as hell.

What if the "token" was asian instead of black? Would you even notice?

Maybe. I've seen this particular kind of tokenism for almost 30 years (apparently they ran out of Irish to play the typical police captain), so I'd be pleasantly surprised. For me (I'm not black so maybe I don't have any business being offended on behalf of black people) it's as much a matter of an annoying cliche as it is a matter of patronizing black actors.

Elfdart wrote:In LOTR, the orcs are truly monstrous, and are shown literally eating their own. You also are told that if they take Helm's Deep or Minas Tirith, every living thing in sight will be killed in gruesome fashion because orcs are evil. One group of humans fighting for Sauron are told they can take back land from the people of Rohan (presumably Rohan stole it from them), and the other is allied with Sauron. The difference is that these men aren't depicted as monsters who plan to massacre and eat many of Gandalf's finest -and blondest- friends*.

<snip>

* Extra points to the first person to guess the reference.

Blackadder, season four, Red Baron von Richthoven.

On-topic: I never got the impression that the Men who worked for Sauron were evil or malicious: in fact, it was shown in the movies and talked about in the books and their appendice that many of those Men who served Sauron had legimitate grievances against Rohan and Gondor. The most unsympathetic of the whole bunch were the Black Numenoreans and the Corsairs of Umbar, who were basically obsessed with racial purity and superiority.

The Orcs, on the other hand, were not human: they didn't even look like humans besides general humanoid features in the movies and the books were pretty sparse with actual descriptions of them, besides noting their monstrous appearance and habits. And the effect the Ring's destruction and Sauron's fall imply (and it is even stated outright) that the Orcs and Trolls were spell-bound to serve Sauron and his desires and once that horrible spell disappeared along with its maker, they suddenly lost their will to fight or even to live. The Orcs and Goblins of the Misty Mountains were maybe the likeliest candidates for free-willed Orcs, since Sauron was so far away from them during the Third Age (and which would explain why the Dwarves felt they could bargain with the Great Goblin during the events of The Hobbit) and even they got a short end of the stick, thanks to the presence of the Balrog and Saruman.