| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Terrahawk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
644 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2006 : 07:13:02 AM
|
The trouble is that there's some debate over whether nation-building legends are relevant in the modern age, or whether they can be actively dangerous.
Look at the nations that have thrown away their beliefs, their myths as some writers describe them. They either collapse from apathy or turn into authoritarian regimes. No nation can exist unless it has a set of common values. That is why multiculturalism is a suicidal wish for any nation. We aren't talk food differences and colorful dress here. We are talking about the fact that different cultures have different values and beliefs. For example, you can't really call freedom an absolute value or guiding principle on which to base a nation. Why? Freedom doesn't exist by itself in a cultural vacuum. A lot of Muslims will tell you that freedom means submitting to the rules of Allah. The Chinese claim that freedom means have the minimal necessities for life. People in the West define people in a different way. Now, can you mix a group of people who are determined to maintain their cultural beliefs and still have freedom as we define it? Probably not. It requires that either one definition rules or some compromise is reached which will not make anyone happy. Countries need shared beliefs and myths to be dynamic. Diversity actually leads to stagnation since you spend all of your time trying to placate the different groups.
The fact that it's directed at a mythical race only partly excuses it, because the impulse is the same.
The groups in question all seem to be culturally the same or similar, i.e. the racial groups are the same as the cultural group. The idea of not discriminating against a cultural group is one of the greatest illogical thoughts of current society. Suppose we believe as a country that killing flies is a great evil. Now, let's say there is another country where people believe killing flies is not only okay, but it is commanded of them to kill all flies. Is it wrong for us to not allow them into our country? Sure there may be non-fly killers in the group, but we really can't tell, can we. Therefore, we are forced to not allow them into our country. Even if we could tell and only let in the people who said they wouldn't kill flies, we would most like face a situation where they would put political pressure on the gov't to allow them to kill flies once there were enough of them in the country.
This leads back to the start of my post that countries require a certain level of shared belief.
The ROPe gives you three options, convert, submit, or die. There is a fourth, resist. |
 |
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 1:14:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Prankster
Visually, in the movie, the Mumakil-riders are pretty clearly African or "tribal", and the Easterlings--the ones who Frodo and Sam see entering the black gates--wear costume that evokes middle eastern armour and arabic-style script. They are described in the book as sallow and/or swarthy.
You said the movies were racially problematic. You have yet to cite a single piece of evidence that any of the actors or extras used in the film were "African" or "Asian". So far, the only so-called proof you've cited is that the way certain extras wore costumes evoked arabic-style script.
This is where conversations like this bog down and get silly. I didn't think Lion King was anti-British because Scar spoke with an English accent. I didn't think Star Wars had a racial subtext because all the heroes were white and the villain was voiced by James Earl Jones. People for years projected racial-messages onto Night of the Living Dead because they thought that the presence of Duane Jones "meant something". It never dawned on them that Jones was simply cast because he was the best actor for the role and that the character of Ben was originally written for a white guy. And so on.
I doubt Peter Jackson's costume designer is a racist; they probably just came up with something because it looked real good. Anyone putting heavier thought into the film than that probably has too much time on their hands.
Anyway, respectfully to everyone, I'm opting out of the rest of this thread. BTW, Prankster, I agree with you that there was something fishy about POC: Dead Man's Chest. Even if it was unintentional, the high mortality rate for blacks in that film was a little odd. Also the fact that they completely did away with Sparrow's love interest from the first movie, replacing her instead with a God-awful, one dimensional voodoo goddess played by Naomi Harris. The lady pirate from the first movie was a lot more interesting. |
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 07/25/2006 1:26:04 PM |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 3:49:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Terrahawk
The trouble is that there's some debate over whether nation-building legends are relevant in the modern age, or whether they can be actively dangerous.
Look at the nations that have thrown away their beliefs, their myths as some writers describe them. They either collapse from apathy or turn into authoritarian regimes. No nation can exist unless it has a set of common values. That is why multiculturalism is a suicidal wish for any nation. We aren't talk food differences and colorful dress here. We are talking about the fact that different cultures have different values and beliefs. For example, you can't really call freedom an absolute value or guiding principle on which to base a nation. Why? Freedom doesn't exist by itself in a cultural vacuum. A lot of Muslims will tell you that freedom means submitting to the rules of Allah. The Chinese claim that freedom means have the minimal necessities for life. People in the West define people in a different way. Now, can you mix a group of people who are determined to maintain their cultural beliefs and still have freedom as we define it? Probably not. It requires that either one definition rules or some compromise is reached which will not make anyone happy. Countries need shared beliefs and myths to be dynamic. Diversity actually leads to stagnation since you spend all of your time trying to placate the different groups.
I don't know if we're talking about the same things here. I'm talking about "nation-building" myths that romanticize historical events and characters, something that many powerful empires of the past, from Ancient Rome to Nazi Germany, have indulged in. The former had the myth of having been founded by descendants of Aneas of Troy, and that some day they would get revenge for the Trojan war, thus "justifying" the subjugation of Greece by Rome. The latter had the myth of the "Aryan nation", a garbled version of an interpretation of historical evidence (a similar culture/language group that seems to have spread across Europe and Asia) which led to...well, you know. It's essentially a form of propaganda based on rewriting history for the purposes of elevating people in the present. All countries are vulnerable to it, but democratic and small-l liberal countries like America are far LESS likely to fall prey to this. "The American race" is an absurd concept, instead what's exulted is "the American ideal"--something far more justifiable. (One isn't responsible for one's race, but you choose the ideal you follow.) It has nothing to do with "giving up your ideals"--just the opposite. The main concern is that you don't get to talking about how you're better than someone else because of something your great-grandfather did.
quote:
Originally posted by Terrahawk
The fact that it's directed at a mythical race only partly excuses it, because the impulse is the same.
The groups in question all seem to be culturally the same or similar, i.e. the racial groups are the same as the cultural group. The idea of not discriminating against a cultural group is one of the greatest illogical thoughts of current society. Suppose we believe as a country that killing flies is a great evil. Now, let's say there is another country where people believe killing flies is not only okay, but it is commanded of them to kill all flies. Is it wrong for us to not allow them into our country? Sure there may be non-fly killers in the group, but we really can't tell, can we. Therefore, we are forced to not allow them into our country. Even if we could tell and only let in the people who said they wouldn't kill flies, we would most like face a situation where they would put political pressure on the gov't to allow them to kill flies once there were enough of them in the country.
OK, there's two things here, one of which is a seperate debate from what I was originally talking about. I *do* think it's a mistake to assume that certain ideals aren't universal, or that there's a serious suggestion that we should treat all cultures, ideals and values equally...I'm certainly not suggesting it, at any rate. But that's a seperate issue.
All I'm talking about is the view of "Orcs" as being irredeemable monsters, fit only for slaughter by the good guys. We're talking about an entire race here, not an ideology or a nation. LOTR essentially portrays the genocide of the Orcs, the reason given being that they're "evil". But historically, that kind of thing has happened before, and we all know what they say about the victors writing history, right? Other races of people have been defined as "evil" in real life and it never ends well. Tolkien presumably would never have advocated something like that if it were applied to a real race, but he also presumably thought he was OK to demonize a fictional one. To me, that's a fairly superficial distinction. It's a weakness in his writing.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
Dirk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
237 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 4:49:22 PM
|
In Christopher Golden's tie-in to Jackson's version of Kong, it's explicitly stated that the "islanders" aren't islanders at all, but the amalgamated descendants of shipwreck survivors who got trapped there over the years. The wall, the ruins, the buildings, etc, were built by a civilization that had vanished long before the "islanders" that Denham et al encounter had even arrived. I thought Kong did a good job of scrambling to avoid racial overtones - they even lampooned the original movie's "islanders" during Denham's stage production at the end.
I think this whole LOTR controversy would end if people would realize that Orcs aren't just a stand-in for a "race of people." They're monsters - imaginary creatures, just like elves, gremlins, and eskimos (if I can get away with that racist Simpsons reference). There isn't an "Orc" box to check off below "Pacific Islander." The Haradrim/Easterling stuff, I can understand people being bothered by that. But come on - evil monsters are a hallmark of fantasy/sci-fi writing. Am I supposed to feel bad because I rooted against the aliens in "War of the Worlds" and "Independence Day"? Or that I want Kirk to beat those dastardly Klingons? |
|
|
|
jackspencerjr
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
262 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 5:05:00 PM
|
| When you guys get to the top of that thing, yodel. |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 9:32:36 PM
|
quote:
I think this whole LOTR controversy would end if people would realize that Orcs aren't just a stand-in for a "race of people." They're monsters - imaginary creatures, just like elves, gremlins, and eskimos (if I can get away with that racist Simpsons reference). There isn't an "Orc" box to check off below "Pacific Islander."
No no no. You don't get off so easily with logic and reasoning like this! We have to continue this in an emotional vein.
For example, I take exception with the way satanic "Dark Lords" are always portrayed by Hollywood. After years of watching movies like "Legend", "Kull", "The Exorcist", "Conan the Destroyer", "The Beastmaster", "LOTR" and others, I can only conclude that Hollywood is racially biased against the world's most evil, horned and supernaturally strong members of society.
|
|
|
|
commodorejohn
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
76 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 11:17:57 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by zombiewhacker
quote:
Originally posted by Prankster
Visually, in the movie, the Mumakil-riders are pretty clearly African or "tribal", and the Easterlings--the ones who Frodo and Sam see entering the black gates--wear costume that evokes middle eastern armour and arabic-style script. They are described in the book as sallow and/or swarthy.
You said the movies were racially problematic. You have yet to cite a single piece of evidence that any of the actors or extras used in the film were "African" or "Asian". So far, the only so-called proof you've cited is that the way certain extras wore costumes evoked arabic-style script.
And even if they were, there's no indication given, ever, that the rest of their people groups are evil. They are evil because (get this; it's a really earth-shattering revelation) they are mercenaries working for Sauron, MIddle-Earth's current big-time badguy. If they were not, they wouldn't be marching up to Gondor, and we wouldn't have heard squat about them in the first place, because the scope of the book's action is limited to those areas of Middle-Earth where its main characters venture.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Who -are- the overlords of the UFO? |
|
|
|
CDiehl
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
361 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 8:04:42 PM
|
I think the question of why the Men of the South and the East fought against Gondor is a chicken-or-the-egg question. We don't know if they have their own reasons to wage war on Gondor, and allied with Sauron because their interests happen to coincide, or if Sauron at some point subjugated their lands and tells their leaders when to attack Gondor or Rohan, or whoever else opposes him. The book doesn't address it because it's well outside the scope of the book. I would imagine that it's the latter, partly because these countries are probably ruled by descendants of the Black Numenoreans, who had come to worship Morgoth and serve Sauron, and also because I imagine their relationship with Mordor is similar to the offer the Mouth of Sauron made to Aragorn and Eomer in the book. This offer boils down to them laying down their arms and swearing never to make war on Sauron in exchange for keeping their thrones under the oversight of a representative appointed by Sauron.
As for the Orcs, they are created beings, created to be cannon fodder and nothing else. Their purpose is to fight, and when Sauron isn't herding them into hordes to fight his enemies, they'll fight among themselves very readily. All they do is fight and make equipment with which to fight. If they were capable of more than this, they would have done it by the end of the Third Age, and they haven't. They don't invent, not even new fighting styles, and they don't produce art, so it's not like they have a culture. Finally, when Sauron was destroyed, the Orcs and Trolls fighting at the Black Gate stopped fighting, and either fled, hid themselves or killed themselves, because they couldn't function without Sauron's control over them. Basically, the Orcs are an organic version of battledroids.
You know Grand Funk, don't you? The wild, shirtless lyrics of Mark Farner? The bong-rattling bass of Mel Schacher? The ... adequate drumwork of Don Brewer? |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 03:31:46 AM
|
You know, just because I disagree with you guys on this doesn't make me irrational.
And I think looking at how Star Trek tackles the Klingons would be highly illuminating to this topic.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 6:44:04 PM
|
The Klingons from the tv show were very clearly meant to represent the Soviets, as much as the Romulans were giving off some very "ChiCom" vibes. And they were given "alien" characteristics because it was science fiction. What made them alien or of "The Other" wasn't their physiological traits, it was their culture.
Starfleet crews were always ethnically mixed. Very multicultural. Suggesting that in the future we had finally overcome such things. Hard to make the case that Star Trek had racist undertones when you've got Nichelle Nichols walking around the set in a velour miniskirt. God bless racial inclusiveness!
A question about a hypothetical movie, say, set in Ancient Greece.
If the Greek characters, all early Democrats, were to point out in dialogue that Greek hoplites were better soldiers than their Persian counterparts because they worked as a team, valued discipline over individual acts of bravery (and showmanship) in a fight, and were masters of organized, systematic shock battle while Persian warriors were none of these things, would the movie be racist?
And why is it that World War Two movies set in the Pacific Theater always have Japanese guys as the villians? Don't we run the risk of making them look like Orcs or something? Or do we do it simply because, in WWII, the Japanese were the bad guys? And they'd have BEEN the bad guys even if they hadn't been Asians, based solely on the beliefs and imperialism that led them to war.
|
Edited by - Citizen Carrier on 07/27/2006 6:50:02 PM |
|
|
|
Dirk
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
237 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 11:30:15 PM
|
I didn't mean to imply you weren't being rational, Prankster - I can see how you reached your opinion re: the Orcs, and it's a valid point. All I'm saying is that fantasy and sci-fi writers have a long tradition of making up alien "races" and assigning them racial characteristics. Brutal and war-like Klingons, grumpy and greedy dwarves, beautiful and elitist elves, etc.
Where you make a good point is, I think, the fact that assigning a "race" of creatures a handful of basic characteristics seems a bit lazy, especially since the human "race" is always presented as having a myriad of characteristics, clutures, and nations. |
|
|
|
Sardu
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1126 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 01:09:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dirk
Where you make a good point is, I think, the fact that assigning a "race" of creatures a handful of basic characteristics seems a bit lazy, especially since the human "race" is always presented as having a myriad of characteristics, clutures, and nations.
That's always been a shortcut of sci-fi and fantasy though. All aliens look the same and have essentially the same traits. Klingons are warlike. Ferengi are greedy. Vulcans are smart. Cylons are genocidal. Harkonnens are evil. Hobbits like food. I suppose it is lazy on one hand, but often to do more would clutter the story telling.
Alien Nation is one of the few things I can think of that didn't use that kind of short-hand.
BTW, there is never more than one kind of alien culture per planet. *g*
"Meeting you makes me want to be a real noodle cook"
--Tampopo |
Edited by - Sardu on 07/28/2006 01:10:59 AM |
|
|
|
BrainFromArous
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 7:51:32 PM
|
Do we even dare get into the racial hangups of H P Lovecraft and R E Howard?
**********************
Boards don't hit back.
(Bruce Lee) |
|
|
|
Zev
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
USA
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2006 : 1:35:07 PM
|
That's it. For too long I've held my silence. You think Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is just an enjoyable summer blockbuster which emulates the adventure movies of old? Think again, buster. It perpetuates racist stereotypes! Because every single person involved in the making of the movie, from Johnny Depp on down, was a racist. You think someone would've stepped in and said "Hey, maybe we should put in a <i>positive</i> kraken character, just so all the young kraker watching at home can have a role model?" But no, instead the movie only served to attack the noble and peaceful kraken.
[img]http://www.mcfergesondvd.com/pics/clash/titan4.jpg[/img]
When are you gonna get it right, Hollywood?
Myth 1: Kraker eat human flesh.
This is a base lie. In the movie, the Kraken is shown eating several sailors with a clawed, Sarlacc-like mouth (another gross racist caricature. In real life, Kraker (not Krakens) have a beak). In reality, Kraker feed mainly on whales and occasionally mermaids. NOT HUMANS.
Myth 2: Kraker serve human masters.
Kraker cannot be domesticated and cannot live in captivity. A great many Kraker have been killed by zoos and amusement parks that try to capture them and put them on display. A lawsuit by my organization, the Kraker United Noninterference Team, has been filed against Seaworld for their blatant defiance of the Kraken Protection Act of 1976.
In the movie, the Kraken acts on the behest of Davy Jones, played by a human actor, Bill Nighy. The truth is, Kraker are independent creatures and do not demean themselves by doing tricks. Most of their days are spent composing poetry in their strange, shrill language and occasionally having sex. Kraker are the only species of cephalopod that have sex for recreation.
Myth 3: Kraker destroy ships.
In the past, there have been reports of Kraker attacking ships. These are lies disseminated by the British Empire in an attempt to justify hunting the peaceful Kraker to the point of extinction. Kraker, although curious creatures, go out of their way to avoid the noise and light of boats and will not attack unless provoked. Although there have been documented cases of Kraker attacking whaling vessels, this is probably after they were mistaken for a whale and accidentally harpooned. Today, Kraker are an endangered species, which makes it imperative that we stop the navies of the world from torpedoing Kraker.
Myth 4: Kraker can be harmed by cannonfire.
Kraker are invincible to all known weapons, except for those made of radioactive fragments of their homeworld. Honestly, POTC producers, do your research! These facts are easily available online and in my upcoming book, Kraker: The Heroes Among Us.
Myth 5: Kraker will hunt down specific individuals.
This myth actually is true. Kraker will relentlessly hunt down anyone who gets a kanji tattoo because it "looks cool." It just pisses them off.
Myth 6: Kraker have sex with human women.
Although doubtlessly informed by the lies of so-called hentai movies, Kraker do not have sex with human women or men. They do f--- hammerhead sharks though.
Maybe we shouldn't settle for merely identifying racist stereotypes as if we expect everybody to agree that they persist in our popular culture and that they're a problem--two assumptions we can't afford. Maybe we need to explain why they're a problem: in the case of Pirates because they reduce all Kraker to savage beasts or slaves for human people.
Most importantly, maybe we should ask why, in the twenty-first century, we're still taking such great pleasure from the racist propaganda of the twentieth century, or the nineteenth... or, now that Dead Man's Chest has bested all competitors, the fifteenth. Maybe we need to mock these caricatures relentlessly wherever we find them.
As long as we don't do it in a review.
[img]http://www.weichtiere.at/images/weichtiere/kopffuesser/e_dofleini1.jpg[/img]
Kraker and humans can live together in harmony.
-------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by TheFoywonder
Now they need to make a movie where soldiers in Iraq actually find one of Saddam Hussein's secret underground chemical weapons facilities only to find it overrrun with big mutant sand spiders. And the the film will be called IRAQNID!
|
|
|
|
Sardu
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1126 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2006 : 2:22:25 PM
|
For some reason I find the notion of anyone actually knowing that the plural of kraken is kraker very disturbing.
"Meeting you makes me want to be a real noodle cook"
--Tampopo |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked