# The 'Racist' Tapestry of LotR



## Krug (Dec 30, 2003)

Boy is this guy deluded or what..
http://paris.indymedia.org/article.php3?id_article=13086


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 30, 2003)

I've heard that argument before.   I'm so tired of people telling me about racism in everything that I simply stopped caring and paying attention to it.  When I read reviews of the trilogy and see that people say it could use a post-modern coat of paint to get more women and ethnic people involved I want to scream, "write your own story where the noble africans queens and Xena's battle the evil of whoever and win!"   It was racism in Star Wars:The Phantom Menace when the Trade Guild guys were deemed to be, "Too asian" and may offend.     

People have no right to not be offended.   I don't know why so many cling to the belief that they do.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 30, 2003)

I cling to the right to be offended by ignorant people and people that are offended with no reason!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 30, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I cling to the right to be offended by ignorant people and people that are offended with no reason!




I should say, "everyone has a right to be offended, just don't expect society to mold itself after your hangups"


----------



## Bass Puppet (Dec 30, 2003)

Man, I feel dumber after reading that. It's so sad to see such a waste of a human being.

B.T.W. I made my will save, so I won't be commenting on him being French.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 30, 2003)

And the pebble is dropped into the pond, ripples flow out until they hit something and more ripples are created and then more and everyone stops to watch the waves.

don't give weight to something so far fetched.


----------



## Knightcrawler (Dec 30, 2003)

That was hilarious, especially the replies.  What a friggin idiot.


----------



## Richards (Dec 31, 2003)

I rather liked how he kept using the phrase "people of skin color."  Heck, I'm a Caucasian, but I have skin color: mine's a kind of peachy-pink.

Johnathan


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 31, 2003)

This raving lunatic lost me at the following line:



> In these times when a homicidal maniac from Texas (the Texas capital punishment policy under Bush) has stolen the American throne and called for a "crusade" against the "evil doers" in nations that white people have been invading, terrorizing, raping and pillaging in for 5000 years with zero provocation, ...




While I'm no Bush supporter, In strongly disagree that he stole his position. If anything the system that allows for a president to lose the popular vote and still make it into office needs to be revised. Nor do I agree that there has been zero provocation. If 9/11 was considered zero provocation then I am unable to continue any sort of dialog with this person, given his completely alien mindset. 

And where does 5000 years come from anyway? Recorded history only dates back 6,000 years, and of that history Europe's is only somewhat defined for 3,000 years. I suppose you could point to Roman wars against Carthage as an early example, but that's weak at best.

The rest of what he has to say from that point on is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 31, 2003)

Hey now.  This guy makes a lot of sense.  The Lord of the Rings should be changed so that it's about oppressed women and minorities overthrowing their white male oppressors!

[/sarcasm]

Seriously.  This kind of rabid, knee-jerk political correctness makes me sick to my stomach.  I'm glad that a lot of the people who replied to the article told the author that he was an idiot.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 31, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I should say, "everyone has a right to be offended, just don't expect society to mold itself after your hangups"



Not unless you have the power and means to back it up.  

Btw I didn't reply either. Mostly because I don't feed idiots.

Also would like to say to Darrin this: 9/11 was justifiable in attacking Afganastan. Iraq...I'm finding myself going on man. (Mind you this was well after the whole chasing out the Taliban to the outskirts. I still believe you don't kill a bunch of mosiquites with tanks shells. You just spray them and keep on alert until they come back. Cause they will.)


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 31, 2003)

Nightfall, Whisperfoot.  I'm no moderator, but could you please not turn this into a discussion about politics?  I don't want to see this thread closed.


----------



## The Serge (Dec 31, 2003)

I've heard about this for two days now and I just had the opportunity to read it.  And, I'm not surprised.  What I find ironic about this article is that it's apparently written by "white" European (French, I think someone said) and not by a person of color...

I think that it is easy to apply the standard of cultural/ethnic/racial insensitivity on LotR in the same way it's easy to point out homoerotic images in Batman and Robin or Nazi references in Superman.  But I've always been of the opinion that easy-to-find metaphors and "symbols" are often likely to be, at best, found as a result of shallow exposure.

I'm an African American.  To this day, after reading the books and watching the movies over the past 15 years, I still don't see any racist material in this. 

LotR is a mythology for England.  As such, it stands to reason that it will largely feature "white" people.  And, since England lies in the west of Eurasia, it stands to reason that the parallel between its real-life location and the statement _Aragorn_ (not Theoden) makes in the movie about "Men of the West" is there.  And let's consider the imagery of the various allies of Sauron...  In LotR, as in much of Western European color symbolism, black and white often represent good and evil.  To a degree, Tokien follows this... To a degree.  Gandalf the Grey is clearly not "neutral" and Sauruman the White quickly reveals himself to be evil (and Many-Colored... something he also really isn't).  Many Elves have very dark features (black hair and such) and, considering some of the images I've seen, remind me of either Asians or Native Americans. 

I find it interesting that the writer refers to Tolkien, but then doesn't bother to really clarify what he _thinks_ Tolkien was trying to say about race.  Frankly, if anything, I would say that Tolkien was very much a multicultural person, except he wasn't using the obvious (and, at the time in which he was writing this stuff, it wouldn't have been obvious) human "racial" breakdowns.  The fact that it required Elves and Men to defeat Sauron in the first War of the Ring, and then all the races of Middle-Earth to oppose him the second time, forcing them to put aside their differnces in the face of a greater threat, reveals an attitude I wouldn't expect from a man of his age in that time (regardless of his education).  

And let's consider the context here as well.  We are talking about a man who was writing a mythology for England.  He wasn't writing one for Africa or the Americas or Asia.  This is reflected in the films.  I would have been somewhat disappointed if Jackson decided to throw in a black actor to play a major role since that clearly would have been done to avoid criticism rather than to promote the nature of Tolkien's stories.  Indeed, I'm pleased that we didn't see any people of clear African descent in this film (including among the Uruk-Hai and Orcs).  

I am a liberal.  I agree that there needs to be greater inclusiveness in our society.  On the other hand, when folks decide to analyze elements of popular culture to determine where we need to shore up, such people really need to examine their intent and do some research before they open their mouths.  All this person's done is further erode any drive to promote diversity since he's clearly made a huge donkey out of himself.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 31, 2003)

Opens mouth to comment...

Reads The Serge's post...

Shuts mouth and applauds. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Dec 31, 2003)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I'm an African American.




As an aside, are you really African?

One of my friends is African, and gets strongly annoyed when people call themselves African American when they really mean Black-skinned American, which seems to be really common.

Why do they call themselves African?

Geoff.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 31, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Not unless you have the power and means to back it up.
> 
> Btw I didn't reply either. Mostly because I don't feed idiots.
> 
> Also would like to say to Darrin this: 9/11 was justifiable in attacking Afganastan. Iraq...I'm finding myself going on man.




Well, if you think I was for _that _ war, go read my blog. I talk about all kinds of things that I can't otherwise talk about here. Well, once I add a few more updates anyway. I'd be happy to continue this conversation elsewhere.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> All this person's done is further erode any drive to promote diversity since he's clearly made a huge donkey out of himself.




Good call!  I'm all for diversity when it comes about naturally, not when its injected. For example - the cast of The Matrix is good diversity since all the races of mankind were represented in a context that made sense and promoted a positive image of everyone involved (with the notable exception of the French ) without promoting typical stereotypes. The crew of Star Trek Voyager is not an example of good diversity, in my opinion, since it seemed to artificially inject it, though the characters were otherwise very much made of cardboard.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 31, 2003)

That's pretty silly, indeed; almost as silly as people who read racial overtones into the drow.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 31, 2003)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Why do they call themselves African?




Because, back when black-skinned humans came to the American continents, there were only two places to get that skin tone - Australia and Africa.  Yes, some of the "African Americans" did a stop off in the Carribean first, but they pretty much all originated in Africa.  

Whether they deserve the title culturally is a matter for debate somewhere other than in this forum.

[edit: Hr. You know, we just don't have enough color words.  I needed to use "black-skinned", even though I know that many or most of them aren't literally black, but are instead various shades of brown.  However, brown also describes many Native Americans, who aren't really "red".  Darned language limitations ]


----------



## Alcareru (Dec 31, 2003)

I am constantly exasperated by pundits who crop up at every release of an LOTR movie to play this card. While social decontructivism has a place in some areas of study, it is misplaced in an analysis of the LOTR for any deeper meaning about the social and political goings of the world.

And while we know little of Prof Tolkiens inner feelings on race relations and politics (as far as can be discerned, he was a fairly apolitical person) we can see how he felt about such universal themes as spirtuality, heroism and loyalty. Like any writer he wrote about what he knew best: in this case Anglo/Northern European myths.

A sad thing about this is that the myths, histories, and lore he loved so much have been forever tarred by the vile brush of Nazi ideology. "Germanic" and "Nordic" lore and history was coopted by that regime- a situation touched upon by Tolkien in one of his letters to his son. 

Anyway, enough is enough IMHO. BTW there is an outstanding defense of this called "The Shadow of Racism" which was on theonering.net website. Its been taken down now since its part of the their book The Peoples Guide to JRR Tolkien. I recomend that essay to anyone.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Dec 31, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! wrote:







> It was racism in Star Wars:The Phantom Menace when the Trade Guild guys were deemed to be, "Too asian" and may offend.




Y'know, funny thing about that whole thing, I'm an American of Asian ethnicity and.......I was never offended by the Trade Federation guys. I was just offended by the suckiness of the movie itself. 

The writer of the article has his heart in the right place...but he's fighting his fight all in the wrong ways. I do wish there were more diversity and equality on the big screen. But I don't cry 'racism' when I don't see an Asian person being represented. LotR takes place in Middle-Earth.....the story revolves around certain races.....it is what it is. No racism here. I never for once thought there was any obvious or even subtle tones of racism at all. I agree with The Serge on all he said. A large part of this story has to do with mulitple races working together to battle evil. 'Nuff said.

Things that I think are somewhat racially offensive are things that continue to promote the Hollywood stereo-type of the impotent asian male while at the same time making the asian female 'the exotic flower of the east' object of desire. How many American made movies do you know where the Asian female spurns all her asian male suitors until one day ...magically....a beautiful caucasian male comes along to give her exactly what she's been always dreaming of?

Hollywood just doesn't get it. They don't realize that a lot more of the  'real world' has risen above ethnicity barriers a lot longer ago than they think. You can have a movie with no lead male caucasian actor and it will be fine. People will see it. You can have a female lead middle-eastern character and people will like it. Its all about the quality of the story, directing and performance. 


I have a pretty ethnically diverse circle of friends and we've had discussions on this. Which of our races gets shafted the most in Hollywood more?  Its always a funny subject matter. My African-American friend hates when we refer to him as 'African-American'....he just says, "I hate that term, I'm a black guy...c'mon now....."

We talk about the usual, black guy gets killed first.....asian guy doesn't get to kiss the girl.....the latino guy has a criminal or shady background...... blah, blah, blah...

But no matter how bad we think we got it....we have all concluded...the ethnic group to get the worst from Hollywood are those of middle-eastern background.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 31, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> My African-American friend hates when we refer to him as 'African-American'....he just says, "I hate that term, I'm a black guy...c'mon now....."




Another one I've heard - "I am not a 'senior citizen', damn it... I am an _old man_!"

-Hyp.


----------



## KenM (Dec 31, 2003)

There is racisim in LotR movies. In Return of the King, the big fight scene with the dwarf was cut while they leave the elf's big fight scene in. Dwarven discrimnation, I tell you.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 31, 2003)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> How many American made movies do you know where the Asian female spurns all her asian male suitors until one day ...magically....a beautiful caucasian male comes along to give her exactly what she's been always dreaming of?




Off the top of my head?  Zero.

Guess I haven't seen as many movies as you.



> But no matter how bad we think we got it....we have all concluded...the ethnic group to get the worst from Hollywood are those of middle-eastern background.




Bah.

For the last decade or so, Hollywood has been extremely reluctant to portray arabs as bad guys.  Take _The Sum of All Fears_, for example.  In the novel, the terrorists were Islamic fundies. In the movie, Hollywood decided to politically-correct it and turn the bad guys into rich white male neo-fascists.  Because in this day and age, the only inoffensive bad guys are space aliens and white people. 

Even movies that have arab villains such as _The Siege_ and _True Lies_ often include at least one good guy arab.

A good villain should be judged not by race or gender, but by the evilness within.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 31, 2003)

Darrin, and the rest,

I apologise for policitizing a thread with my politics even though this is a semi-political thread with some major political ramifications for later on. Uhm perhaps.

Maybe I just want to use the politics in some form... alot!  

In any case, nice post Serge!


----------



## Dirigible (Dec 31, 2003)

Ving Rhames would have made an awesome Frodo.


----------



## DM_Matt (Dec 31, 2003)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> As an aside, are you really African?
> 
> One of my friends is African, and gets strongly annoyed when people call themselves African American when they really mean Black-skinned American, which seems to be really common.
> 
> ...




African-American is the current politically correct term in the US, altouhgh we get a new word every generation or so.  Its not entirely accurate -- it doesnt differentiate between poeple who are actually form Africa and black people who can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years in this country; it doesnt count white south Africans who may have immegrated from there after their family was there for centuries, one or both of which would make them African in some way; and it is extremely inaccurate with respect to North African Arabs that have been there througohut human history but aren't who we mean when we say African-American.

To those non-Americans out-there:  What terms are genreally used in your societies for minority groups?  We hyphenate just about all of them...African-American, Asian-American A(or sometimes Japanese-American, Chinese-American, Taiwanese-American, etc...all countries can have their own hypenated term), Hispanic or Latino-American (Latino/a is gaining acceptance, as well as Chicano/a for Mexicans, but those are still mostly on the fringe although up=and=coming), Jewish-American, Arab-American, Native American, etc.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 31, 2003)

The author of the rant pretty much lost me when he declared that the orcs were "Imitations of native americans". Umm, which native americans are you thinking of, because the Jackson LotR orcs pretty much didn't even come close to resembling any of the ones I can think of.


----------



## The Serge (Dec 31, 2003)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> As an aside, are you really African?



My parents are Caribbean (father's Haitian, mother's Jamaican).



			
				Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> One of my friends is African, and gets strongly annoyed when people call themselves African American when they really mean Black-skinned American, which seems to be really common.



I've also had "white" South Africans refer to themselves as African Americans.  Now that's interesting to hear...



			
				Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Why do they call themselves African?



This is a political decision on my part.  I hate the term "Black American" or "Black-skinned" American because my skin's not black.  It's a rich, chocolate color.  Good enough to eat.  If you like chocolate.

Seriously, though, the problem with these descriptions is that they are based upon an erroneous concept of race fueled largely by the slave-trade and the culture that was created as a result by the early 18th century.  There needed to be a "moral" foundation to support slavery based upon skin-color, and the creation of "races" was a convenient way to do this (it also allowed for fewer problems with lower-class people of European decent).  

As I mentioned in my previous post, in Western thought (and it could be argued, I suppose, that other cultures have similar imagery) black is often associated with evil, death, despair, and so on.  Although I'm not personally bothered by this, I am concerned about how this sort of attitude seeps into the subconscious of other people, who in turn witlessly act out their concerns.  I suspect that this, in addition to attitudes with roots in early 18th century racist thought, is why African American men continue to be viewed with a degree of trepidation and as savages, and why why African American women are viewed as succubi.

Now, I will say this.  I don't consider myself African in any way.  Indeed, up until I was 14 or 15, my parents did not consider themselves in the same "boat" as what they referred to as "black Americans."  I was not a "black American;" I was a Haitian-Jamaican-American (and, like your friend, they viewed the use of the term "African American" as foolish since they weren't African.  To them -- and I agree with this on a personal and not political level -- one identifies with ones _national_ heritage, and not one's "racial," and therefore non-existant, heritage since there's no real such thing as race).  However, to most white Americans, there was no visual difference between me and "black Americans."  I would be treated in the same fashion as a "black American" despite some serious cultural differences.  This realization for me and my family encouraged us to recognize that, in this country, there is a necessity to acknowledge the reality while simultaneously fight against it.  Language is a simple means to accomplish this.

I think these attitudes are sort of reflected in Tolkien.  How many different names are there for Elves?  Eldar is the larger one, but then there are Noldor, and couple others.  Then there're are words to describe those that traveled to the West and those who remained, and then those who returned...  Never at any point is there a suggestion of a different race, but there is a suggestion of different attitudes based upon different experiences that revolve around location and geography and how those experiences shaped attitudes.  

On the other hand, Tolkien's Middle-Earth is mythological and some creatures are simply born evil.  As a mythological world, this is a reflection of the evil in all beings made manifest as a race.  As a myth, this must be taken as a grain of salt rather than as some kind of gospel.  Furthermore, let's consider "races of Men" who followed Sauron.  Every country, every civilization, at one time or another has villified another country/people because of a lack of understanding on each other's part.  In the case of those who worshipped Sauron, this is a reflection of their weakness and his power over them... not to mention his manipulation of their ignorance.  How is this any different in how Hitler, or Mussolini, or Stalin, or any number of demogouges from Africa, the Americas, or Asia manipulated the ignorance of others, which in turn allowed them to commit horrific acts against their fellow human beings?  Does this automatically mean that all Germans are evil?  Of course not.  However, for that brief period in history, in reading about the past, to someone who doesn't really consider what brought Germany and its people to that point, it can certainly seem that way.  People can apply this same thought to Sauron's relationship with the various evil Men in Tolkien's mythology.

But, back to your original question...  African American is a term that I use for political reasons.  The US is still a country in which "race" is an issue.  I'm not blindly idealistic, so I would never just say, "I will just call myself American," because to do so will not change the reality or the pride that I think all people in a pluralistic society should have for their background.  And, such a statement recognizes one's "national" background more so than the idea of some "race" that doesn't exist in the first place.  I agree that it is "politically correct," because I think that PC -- real PC -- is a good thing.  It shows that there is an institutional problem that permeates a society and that people need to be conscious of how their words are reflections of their attitudes.  I am a firm believer that by encouraging people to adjust their language, people are encouraged to adjust their attitudes.  Fake PC, which is an attempt to use new language just for the sake of new language without any real desire to positively impact society or simply not saying things, is not what this is about.  I think use of the terms "white" or "black" to describe people reinforces old attitudes and the idea that "race" exists as a reality rather than as a social construct and this is unhealthy.


----------



## Greatwyrm (Dec 31, 2003)

Dirigible said:
			
		

> Ving Rhames would have made an awesome Frodo.




That's an interesting image...

_"I need a couple of hardcore, pipeweed-hitting hobbits to go down there and straighten him out..."

"Your Hobbiton privileges have been revoked."_


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 31, 2003)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> To those non-Americans out-there:  What terms are genreally used in your societies for minority groups?  We hyphenate just about all of them...African-American, Asian-American A(or sometimes Japanese-American, Chinese-American, Taiwanese-American, etc...all countries can have their own hypenated term), Hispanic or Latino-American (Latino/a is gaining acceptance, as well as Chicano/a for Mexicans, but those are still mostly on the fringe although up=and=coming), Jewish-American, Arab-American, Native American, etc.




In a text book, I once saw the term British African American in reference to a person of African descent who had never set foot in the United States. I found it amusing. 

I do agree with the Serge on just about every point he makes.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 31, 2003)

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> That's an interesting image...
> 
> _"I need a couple of hardcore, pipeweed-hitting hobbits to go down there and straighten him out..."
> 
> "Your Hobbiton privileges have been revoked."_



Actually laughed out loud. I never do that.

And now, to milk this for all it's worth:

"You hear me talkin' Morgul boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'm gonna get Second Age on your ass."

_Frodo:_ "You ain't got no problem Sam. I'm on the mother. Go back in there, chill them hobbits out and wait for the Wizard who should be coming directly."
_Sam: _"You sendin' the Wizard? Well, that's all you had to say, negro!"

"I'm prepared to scour Middle Earth for that mutha. If Gollum goes to Far Harad, I want a Hobbit waiting in a bowl of rice to pop a cap in his ass"

/pushing it


----------



## The Serge (Dec 31, 2003)

Heh heh heh.


----------



## Villano (Dec 31, 2003)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> It was racism in Star Wars:The Phantom Menace when the Trade Guild guys were deemed to be, "Too asian" and may offend.




Yet, strangely, no one complains that all the bad guys in A New Hope were all white, British men, even Vader (his voice may have been portrayed by James Earl Jones, but his body was provided by British David Prowse).



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> LotR is a mythology for England.  As such, it stands to reason that it will largely feature "white" people.




Anyone else remember that Prince Valient cartoon that aired on the Family Channel back in the very early 90s?  I clearly recall that one of the knights of the Round Table was black (another _might_ have been Asian, but I'm not sure). 

BTW, let's not forget that Disney's Aladin was attacked by Arab groups as being racist because the villain was Arab.  Of course, they conveniently overlooked the fact that the hero, princess, genie, parrot, monkey, king, flying carpet, and everyone else in the movie was Arab since the whole damn thing was set in the middle east.    

Ironically, the Asian groups should have been upset since the original story took place in China.   Once again, the Man supresses the truth!   

Since political correctness says that the only people your can portray as evil or mock are white men, you know what that means:  Open season on Canadians!


----------



## The Serge (Dec 31, 2003)

Villano said:
			
		

> BTW, let's not forget that Disney's Aladin was attacked by Arab groups as being racist because the villain was Arab.  Of course, they conveniently overlooked the fact that the hero, princess, genie, parrot, monkey, king, flying carpet, and everyone else in the movie was Arab since the whole damn thing was set in the middle east.



Well, let's take a good look at the protagonist and his allies.  Aladin and the Princess do not exhibit too many of what some would associate as Middle-eastern/Arabic features.  Both are relatively pale despite their dark hair... particularly Aladin, who, as a street-rat, I would have expected to be much darker in complexion.  And the Sultan.  He looks like a pudgy Santa Clause rather than an Arabic king.  Jaffar, the villain, has the most extreme features that border on steroetype, so I can see the "concern."  

Disney's not new with this.

As for Prince Valiant, if that's true, that's one of the most asinine things I've ever heard.


----------



## DM_Matt (Jan 1, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> BTW, let's not forget that Disney's Aladin was attacked by Arab groups as being racist because the villain was Arab.  Of course, they conveniently overlooked the fact that the hero, princess, genie, parrot, monkey, king, flying carpet, and everyone else in the movie was Arab since the whole damn thing was set in the middle east.




The thing that they were mostly complaining about were the origional lyrics to the theme song:

"I come from a land, from a faraway place
Where they cut off your hand 
if they don't like your face
Its barbaric, but hey, its home."

It was edited out for the soundtrack.  I could see why they would be offended, but Arab groups ought to be more concerned about the fact that there are STILL plenty of Arab countries that are like this (and there were two more at the time than there are now) than the fact that a movie mentions that this was the case a long time ago.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 1, 2004)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> It was edited out for the soundtrack.




Not really.  The soundtrack has 

"Where they cut off your ear 
if they don't like your face
It's barbaric, but hey, it's home"

There's still cutting off of body parts for little reason, and it's still called barbaric.


----------



## Villano (Jan 1, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Well, let's take a good look at the protagonist and his allies.  Aladin and the Princess do not exhibit too many of what some would associate as Middle-eastern/Arabic features.  Both are relatively pale despite their dark hair... particularly Aladin, who, as a street-rat, I would have expected to be much darker in complexion.  And the Sultan.  He looks like a pudgy Santa Clause rather than an Arabic king.  Jaffar, the villain, has the most extreme features that border on steroetype, so I can see the "concern."




We shouldn't forget that we're talking about non-realistic designs ("cartoony", if you will), so we shouldn't look for anatomical accuracy.  And Jaffar really isn't any different than any other Disney villain.  Does Cruella DeVille represent the British?  Or Ursula purple-skinned octopus people? 

In fact, the only Disney villain I can think of off-hand that were attractive were the Wicked Queen in Snow White and the hunter (whatever his name was) in Beauty & The Beast.  And they were only good looking because that was the hook of their stories.   



> As for Prince Valiant, if that's true, that's one of the most asinine things I've ever heard.




Oh, it's true, alright.  I never bothered to watch it as it was pretty boring (they took out all the magic and watered down the action), so I never found out if the black knight was really supposed to be The Black Knight.  I'm serious, would anyone be surprised if he was actually called that?   

I'm still stunned that they took out the magic.  It's a cartoon!  You could do some great stuff with magic!  The reason they axed it was because the producers said they wanted to stress realism...so they included a black guy...in _King Aurther's_ court.  Look out for all that realism!   

Oh, I almost forgot, in an episode I actually saw, a huge lizard attacked Valiant in Norway (or someplace like that).  Did they have dinosaurs in Norway in the middle ages?



			
				DM_Matt said:
			
		

> The thing that they were mostly complaining about were the origional lyrics to the theme song:
> 
> "I come from a land, from a faraway place
> Where they cut off your hand
> ...




I'm reminded of an episode of The Family Guy where Peter goes on stage and says that Christmas is the time of year when the ghost of Jesus stalks the land searching for blood and people sing carols to lull him back to sleep (or something like that).  Someone in the audience gets angry, but, when his friend tells him there nothing he can do, he says, "Huh, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor then."


----------



## buzzard (Jan 1, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> <stuff deleted>




You know, if I bothered to try to respond how I think PC is fundamentally wrong I would get smacked down for bringing up politics so fast it would make my head spin. I have faith that our dear moderators won't bother to castigate you however. Then again I should think this thread would have been on a path towards destruction from the start- amazing how long it managed to stay on the rails. 

buzzard


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 1, 2004)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> To those non-Americans out-there:  What terms are genreally used in your societies for minority groups?.




In NZ amongst those I associate with we 'recognise' Maori (native peoples of NZ), Pakeha (NZ Europeans), Pacific Islanders, Samoans, Tongans , Cooks Islanders, Fijians, Asians, Indians, South Africans (mainly White South Africans), English, Australians (white not Aboriginal) and everyone else.

In the Everyone else category - the breakdown is usually on national basis with very little regard to colour (so a 'white' american and a 'black' american will both be refered to as American, I also know a few Sudanese, Jamaicans, Tahitians, Dutch and Iranians.)

As for the original article HAHAHAHA - it was truely mindnumbing

oh and The Serge - preach on brother

(oh me I'm a New Zealand Native (aka Maori)- and that makes me Polynesian)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 1, 2004)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> In NZ amongst those I associate with we 'recognise' Maori (native peoples of NZ), Pakeha (NZ Europeans), Pacific Islanders, Samoans, Tongans , Cooks Islanders, Fijians, Asians, Indians, South Africans (mainly White South Africans), English, Australians (white not Aboriginal) and everyone else.




It should be noted that a lot of NZ Europeans _loathe_ the 'Pakeha' label.

And a lot of the groups you identified are frequently grouped as simply 'Polynesian' or 'Islander' when someone isn't sure or doesn't care exactly where a person is from.

-Hyp.


----------



## kirinke (Jan 1, 2004)

*lol*

in all of the polls and such in which they need a 'racial' break-down u know, caucasion etc and at the end they put down other:______
i always go the the other thing and write down 'human'
cuz in this day an age with the multi-cultural thing goin on, _*we're alll mutts.*_
and i'm darn proud of my junk-yard dogism. ^_^


----------



## Templetroll (Jan 2, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> Yet, strangely, no one complains that all the bad guys in A New Hope were all white, British men, even Vader (his voice may have been portrayed by James Earl Jones, but his body was provided by British David Prowse).




From what I recall hearing the reason they got an American voice for Vader was because they realized all the Empire villians all had British accents.  Had some uncomfortable overtones to that.  

So, do you think James Earl Jones will cameo Vader's voice in Episode III ?  That at least would be something worth going for other than Natalie Portman.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 2, 2004)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> From what I recall hearing the reason they got an American voice for Vader was because they realized all the Empire villians all had British accents.  Had some uncomfortable overtones to that.




I always assumed it was deliberate, just for consistency.

-Hyp.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jan 2, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head?  Zero.
> 
> Guess I haven't seen as many movies as you.




Possible. I do watch a ton of movies. Probably too much.  I could go to IMDB and start a list of all the movies that do this.....but I'm too lazy at the moment. Plus the debate isn't important enough for me to go spending that much free time to trying to prove my point.





			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Bah.
> 
> For the last decade or so, Hollywood has been extremely reluctant to portray arabs as bad guys.  Take _The Sum of All Fears_, for example.  In the novel, the terrorists were Islamic fundies. In the movie, Hollywood decided to politically-correct it and turn the bad guys into rich white male neo-fascists.  Because in this day and age, the only inoffensive bad guys are space aliens and white people.
> 
> ...




I agree.

But just to clarify my point......I wasn't judging equality and fair portrayal on how many times a race is made a bad guy or a good guy. I judge it on how they're characters are written. An accurate non-offensive ethnic portrayal can still be one from a 'bad guy'....so long as its done correctly. So long as the character's reasons from doing his/her evil actions are realistic. 

However, it is true...along side accurate portrayals, realistic or not....some ethnic groups seek diversity as well. Its not that they hate it when they see someone from their ethnic group being a bad guy. The regular guy from that ethnic group doesn't mind that at all. Its just that they want one playing a good guy every now and then too. That's all. I find this to be one of the most misunderstood complaints. Then usually someone who is having problems empathizing with them comes along and scoffs at the validity of their complaints. You really have to look at it from their point of view. 

I will give the entertainment industry one positive comment. They are getting better. It is mosty an offensive thing from older films. Mostly the 80's.  However, I should've clarified my original complaint against them by saying, "although they have been getting better over the years, they still have a ways to go."


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jan 2, 2004)

Just to bring this sucker back to topic:

  From the article:


> Can you imagine how people of skin color, of Persian, Arab and East Asian ethnic background feel when they come out of these films where all the heroes are white and all the "evil doers" are of dark skin.



 I can imagine their first feeling (if they're anything like me) is an intense need to hit the bathroom. Their next thought is, Holy Crap, Legolas killed that oliphant BY HIMSELF! 

 Because, yeah, not every "person of skin color" goes to movies and plays Spot the Minority.



> Being married to an Asian American I watch people disregard my wife everyday while regarding me, simply because of her skin color.



 Or maybe because she's a woman and people automatically assume it's the man they should be talking to. I think that's a lot worse than a racial stereotype.



> Being part of a European family that has lived on the North American continent for 400 years I've been lucky enough to gain perspective that when you create an evil character (Uruk-hai) that resembles native Americans as they have done in the Lord of the Rings films a great deal of cultural and racial alienation will occur.



 Uhhhh, how does being a white guy dating back 400 years (I'd like to see his paperwork on that, please) grant him some unique perspective on the plight of the Native American? Weren't those guys the ones who screwed them over in the first place? I guess that's a perspective.  Oh, and if he thinks they look or act like Uruk-hai, maybe he should try MEETING one before he decides to champion them.



> I am sure that once the filmmakers read this article



 I'm sure once Peter Jackson's done counting his money and polishing up his acceptance speeches, he'll get around to reading this guy. I hear he's just kicking himself that he hasn't gotten around to reading every internet article that comes up on a Google search for "LotR AND Freemason conspiracy".



> In fact allEurope's mathematics, reading and writing and technological advancements in transportation and warfare are allbased on African and Asian concepts. The reason that Western medicine has not advanced to the enlightened technological level as Chinese herbal medicine and why most Western technology is diametrically opposed to all life on this planet, poisoning our air and water and causing widespread disease and death is for the simple fact that the Freemasons and the Church have not yet let go of the death grip they have on each other's throats.



 And the award for Run-On Sentences that Start Off with Fashionable Bashing of Western Cultures and Devolve into Gonzo anti-Catholic Rantings goes to...



> It would not have been that difficult to make a contemporary version of the Lord of the Rings that included the heroic symbols of people of skin color.



 I can see it now...elf and man locked in mortal combat with the Uruk-hai when, at first light on the fifth day, Aragorn casts his eyes look up to see...Tonto, Bruce Lee and Shaft appear! 

 Filmmakers: "Huzzah!  We've pleased everyone!"



> After watching the Lord of the Rings films I thank the universe and Mother Earth for the Rap/hip-hop culture and the counterbalancing influence the Rap/hip-hop culture has on the youth here in America and around the world.



  ...And who can forget the time people of all races, creeds and colors came together as one, linked their hands, and sang:

_I like big butts and I cannot lie_...


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 2, 2004)

Bravo, Terrasque Wrangler!

Mike Nelson, Crow T. Robot, and Tom Servo couldn't have done a better point-by-point rebuttal of that article.


----------



## Oubliette (Jan 2, 2004)

kirinke said:
			
		

> in all of the polls and such in which they need a 'racial' break-down u know, caucasion etc and at the end they put down other:______
> i always go the the other thing and write down 'human'
> cuz in this day an age with the multi-cultural thing goin on, _*we're alll mutts.*_
> and i'm darn proud of my junk-yard dogism. ^_^






Hybrid vigor all the way, brother (or sister?)


----------



## Numion (Jan 2, 2004)

About the only thing in common between native americans and the movie Uruk-Hai is that they both use war paint on their face. I'm no expert, but even those aren't very similar.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 2, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> Oh, it's true, alright. I never bothered to watch it as it was pretty boring (they took out all the magic and watered down the action), so I never found out if the black knight was really supposed to be The Black Knight. I'm serious, would anyone be surprised if he was actually called that?
> 
> I'm still stunned that they took out the magic. It's a cartoon! You could do some great stuff with magic! The reason they axed it was because the producers said they wanted to stress realism...so they included a black guy...in _King Aurther's_ court. Look out for all that realism!



Well, I thing you're lacking perspective on that one.  You need to consider who produced Prince Valiant.  The Family Channel, in it's original incarnation (i.e. Pat Robertson and friends) produced the show.  Hence, there could be no magic, few if any fantastic elements, very little violence and they sometimes went way out of their way to try and be politically correct.  A classic example is the episode with the thinly vieled 'children shouldn't play with gu....err, crossbows' plot.  Pity, that.

However, the idea of a black knight is not on the list of political correct mistakes, per se.  Prince Valiant's cartoon was, because they didn't use the actual members of the Round Table who were black (or Moors, technically), but instead invented one...showing that they really weren't that aware of the source material at all.  The knight Pallamedes, a companion to Sir Tristam supposedly named for the figure from Greek mythology, was clearly defined as being black and a moor, being the only knight to carry two swords (as he was ambidextrous).  So too was Sir Morien, the literal Black Knight, who once fought Lancelot, saves Gawain and then goes on to join the Round Table.

Oh, and ss for James Earl Jones, he mentioned that he'd be doing about 5 minutes worth of dialogue for the end of Episode III at a public speaking event back in January of 2003.


----------



## Atridis (Jan 2, 2004)

I'm always dismayed by articles such as that one because they take away from genuine complaints, a sort of guilt-by-association. It's easy for us to get annoyed by something like this and disregard all cries of racism as hysterics or paranoia, but I feel it's my personal responsibility to not allow myself that luxury. 

imho, Hollywood is guilty of racism*, but I don't think LOTR is the right ground on which to make the point. furthermore, this author brings WAY too much into his article. for his own sake, I would have advised him to narrow his focus, and to be sure of the "facts" that he cites. a published article, regardless of the forum, should be a little more thoughtful than this. 

lastly, I think this complaint has too often been misdirected: the problem, in my view, is not that there are too many non-white villains but that there are not enough non-white heroes. I was knocked over by the people who complained that "Saving Pvt Ryan" didn't reflect the experiences of Black soldiers in World War Two. well, duh!! the problem was not "Saving Pvt Ryan", the problem was the lack of movies about Black servicemen in WWII (such as "The Tuskeegee Airmen", a fun movie if you've never seen it). 


* in the year following Halle Berry's "breakthrough", 3 of 25 nominees for major individual Academy Awards were non-white (Salma Hayek, Queen Latifah, and Pedro Almodovar). of this year's Golden Globe Awards nominees, 1 of 27 is non-white (Ken Watanabe). I think it was either Denzel Washington or Samuel L. Jackson who, when asked about the awards given to Washington and Berry, said "I'll consider it progress when it's no longer such a big deal."


----------



## Seonaid (Jan 2, 2004)

Atridis said:
			
		

> I think it was either Denzel Washington or Samuel L. Jackson who, when asked about the awards given to Washington and Berry, said "I'll consider it progress when it's no longer such a big deal."



Damn straight.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jan 2, 2004)

Lord of the Rings Racist...

Hrmmm....

Black Speach....

I wonder what the word, in the language of Mordor, is for "shizel."


----------



## Mark Chance (Jan 2, 2004)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> An accurate non-offensive ethnic portrayal can still be one from a 'bad guy'....so long as its done correctly.




This can still be the result of ducking real issues. A lot of those offensive ethnic portrayals are based very much in reality. There are offensive ethnic "subtypes" (for lack of a better word) out there. For me, the key is whether such offensive ethnic "subtypes" are portrayed in a cause-effect manner, such as "Sayd is a terrorist _because_ he is Arab." Using ethnicity as the cause for aberrant behavior is, at least, a sign of lazy writing. To use an example that hits close to home for me, there are very real reasons why about 3/4 of Hispanic students in Houston, Texas, do not finish high school. There are very real reasons why huffing paint is on the rise among Hispanic teenagers. There are very real reasons why Houston, Texas, has some profoundly violent gangs, many of which are Hispanic (and few of which are white).

But none of those reasons are because the kids involved are Hispanic.

This cuts both ways. Someone cited Denzel Washington and/or Samuel L. Jackson as saying he'll be happy (or whatever) when it isn't such big news that an African-American is nominated for an award such as an Oscar. The assumption is that larger numbers of African-Americans (or Hispanics or Asians or whomever) aren't nominated because Hollywood is racist. This begs the question. It _might_ be that, for example, fewer African-Americans are nominated for Oscars because there are fewer exceptional African-American actors, screenwriters, directors, et cetera. I'm not saying this is the case, mind you. It's not like I've done an exhaustive study on the subject, but too often people (such as an actor) ascribe false motives to others (such as the Academy) because they mistake their perception for reality.

But, more to the point, anyone who reads LotR as a racist allegory is a bonehead. Tolkein himself was quite clear that his work is not an allegory, that he, in fact, disliked allegory as a device in fiction. What's more, to the extent that LotR is at least analogical, it is largely a Catholic Christian analogy, another point that Tolkein was rather clear about.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Jan 2, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> There is racisim in LotR movies. In Return of the King, the big fight scene with the dwarf was cut while they leave the elf's big fight scene in. Dwarven discrimnation, I tell you.




Stupid elves...

Actually, I think that these movies promote a lot of racial tolerance...perhaps even friendships.  Maybe not the "traditional black/white" racial issues...but you have elves, dwarves, hobbits, and men.  And all races needed to put aside their differences and work together to destroy the evil.

How 'bout them apples?

I like apples.


----------



## Villano (Jan 2, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Well, I thing you're lacking perspective on that one.  You need to consider who produced Prince Valiant.  The Family Channel, in it's original incarnation (i.e. Pat Robertson and friends) produced the show.  Hence, there could be no magic, few if any fantastic elements, very little violence and they sometimes went way out of their way to try and be politically correct.  A classic example is the episode with the thinly vieled 'children shouldn't play with gu....err, crossbows' plot.  Pity, that.




I had totally forgotten about that.  The Family Channel has gone through so many hands I can't remember who had it when what aired.  It's been owned by CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), Fox, and ABC (I think it was even Disney Family for a time).  The fact that Robertson owned it does shed new light on how dinosaurs were roaming around in the middle ages on the show, though (evolution doesn't exist, man & dinosaur co-existed, and the Earth is only a few thousand years old).  

But, I think everyone here talking about race and Hollywood is forgetting the bigger picture:  X2 was all about homosexuality, Hulk was loaded with pro-Republican, government propaganda, and America really started World War 2.*   

*I swear I read that on someone's blog.  According to him, the US secretly declared was on Japan and tried to invade it.  Pearl Harbor was attacked in self defense.  Oh, and we "forced" all the other countries of the world to fight "for" us.  

Aside from how amazingly screwed-up that is and the fact that it ignores Hitler, the Holocaust, and the entire war in Europe, there were people who were agreeing with him and cheering him on in "setting the record straight".  

The leason is that even crazy people have internet access...and they can find each other!


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 3, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> and America really started World War 2.*
> 
> *I swear I read that on someone's blog.  According to him, the US secretly declared was on Japan and tried to invade it.  Pearl Harbor was attacked in self defense.  Oh, and we "forced" all the other countries of the world to fight "for" us.




_Actually Pearl Harbour was revenge from the Invasion of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. The Japanese Empire had established close relations with Hawaiian royalty and a marriage between the two households was planned. The American invasion of Hawaii was a deliberate attempt to curtail Japanese influence in the Pacific. The Japanese then used WW2 as a means to restablish their 'just' claim_

- at least thats one theory I've heard


----------

