Indiana Jones films: racist?

Are the Indiana Jones Films Racist?

  • No

    Votes: 61 79.2%
  • Yes - all of them

    Votes: 4 5.2%
  • Raiders of the Lost Ark

    Votes: 2 2.6%
  • Temple of Doom

    Votes: 9 11.7%
  • Last Crusade

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • Total voters
    77

Stoo

Well-known member
JD2008 said:
Ever since the British colonized, many Indians have become hypersensitive to the Western cultural perspective.
British control of India began in the mid-to-late 1700s (after the battles of Plassey and Buxar) which was almost 300 years ago. Please bestow upon us your insight about the average Indian's frame-of-mind towards "Western culture" before that period.
JD2008 said:
Sure, there are few neutral stereotypes (like the asian kid doing karate), but those go to make the movie more believable.
How do "neutral stereotypes" go to "make the movie more believable"?:confused: (And why do you label the "asian kid" as neutral, when he is a good guy?:confused:)
JD2008 said:
One has to consider the fact that the franchise is about an archaeologist, whom (naturally) often finds himself in distant and foreign lands, and it's adventure story, which happens to have a white character, as the protagonist. In Raiders of Ark, which proceeded it, the (White) Nazis were the enemy, and it was the entirety of the human race, which depended on Jones. Given that as an introduction to our character and the franchise, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that Temple of Doom is racially motivated.
If you read the entire thread, you'll find that nobody is claiming ToD to be "racially motivated" (as in; a mean-spirited, intentional slandering of India's people). It's been well stated, multiple times, that any controversial, racist aspects were NOT intentional.
JD2008 said:
Most of the franchise involves Indy in a race against the Nazis and power-thirsty characters (belloq, lao che) - not against any 'savage race',
"Most of the franchise"?:confused: Not as far as the Nazis are concerned:
- THEATRICAL FILMS: Only 38% (approx.) of the 4 movies are about Indy against the Nazis. That's definitely not "most"!:rolleyes: :p :whip:
- TV SERIES: 0% - No Nazis.
- FRANCHISE: (Novels, Comics, Role-playing games): I haven't bothered to figure out the % for these stories...but Nazis are NOT the villains in the large majority of these extra, franchised tales.

Nazi presence in the overall "Indy franchise" is minor, when weighed against everything else that's been released under Dr. Jones' name.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
If you read the entire thread, you'll find that nobody is claiming ToD to be "racially motivated" (as in; a mean-spirited, intentional slandering of India's people). It's been well stated, multiple times, that any controversial, racist aspects were NOT intentional.

thread reviver


(y)
 

JD2008

Member
British control of India began in the mid-to-late 1700s (after the battles of Plassey and Buxar) which was almost 300 years ago. Please bestow upon us your insight about the average Indian's frame-of-mind towards "Western culture" before that period.

Ok, wise guy - contemporary Indians are hyper-sensitive to the critique of Westerners.


How do "neutral stereotypes" go to "make the movie more believable"?:confused: (And why do you label the "asian kid" as neutral, when he is a good guy?:confused:)

You certainly are confused. I never label the Asian kid, as 'neutral', with respect to his motives, but rather the (neutral) with respect to the stereotype that he reflects. My point is that the reality of such things as the popularity of the martial arts among Asians, Americans in Shangai through the period, and poor villages among Indians, and all go to give the movie a more realistic atmosphere. However, Speilberg is careful not to cast negative generalizations.

If you read the entire thread, you'll find that nobody is claiming ToD to be "racially motivated" (as in; a mean-spirited, intentional slandering of India's people). It's been well stated, multiple times, that any controversial, racist aspects were NOT intentional.

If you read the entirety of the thread, you will see that there are some who clearly feel the movie has racial overtones. In fact, this thread is based on a poll, in which a certain (but small) percentage of folks are, somehow, convinced the series involves racism.

"Most of the franchise"?:confused: Not as far as the Nazis are concerned:
- THEATRICAL FILMS: Only 38% (approx.) of the 4 movies are about Indy against the Nazis. That's definitely not "most"!:rolleyes: :p :whip:
- TV SERIES: 0% - No Nazis.
- FRANCHISE: (Novels, Comics, Role-playing games): I haven't bothered to figure out the % for these stories...but Nazis are NOT the villains in the large majority of these extra, franchised tales.

Since we are in the Trilogy sub-forum, I think it's fair to exclude TV Series and Franchising, from any referencing (not to mention the fact that such series were not purely Speilbergian). And while , Crystal Skull is not part of the trilogy, that movie involves Indy fighting yet, another group of white people - the Russians. And that fact goes to even weaken the idea, that the series involves racism. (3 out of 4 antagonists being white people, 75%, as opposed to 2 out 3, 66%, in the trilogy)
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
So what about the line: "Now you understanh, da powah of da Rok" to which Young(Er) Jones says..."Yes, I understand"

Are you Dr. Gonzo, saying that Jones was simply mocking them all along?
Be careful, Pale. This might be used against you in order to call you a racist, as was done to me in this very thread, 4 months ago. I was very close to dropping down on that person like a tonne of bricks but decided to leave it alone. Now that this thread has been revived, however...

@Henry W Jones: Internet arguments aren't something to be proud of but I want to talk you about this instance and don't wish to create any bad blood between us. Will you be cool with it?:cool:
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
JD2008 said:
If you read the entirety of the thread, you will see that there are some who clearly feel the movie has racial overtones. In fact, this thread is based on a poll, in which a certain (but small) percentage of folks are, somehow, convinced the series involves racism.

Saying that the movie has racial or racist overtones is not the same as saying that those overtones were <I>intentionally</I> meant to slander or demean a given people or culture. They can be there without negative intent involved. That's the distinction that is being drawn.

JD2008 said:
Since we are in the Trilogy sub-forum, I think it's fair to exclude TV Series and Franchising, from any referencing (not to mention the fact that such series were not purely Speilbergian). And while , Crystal Skull is not part of the trilogy, that movie involves Indy fighting yet, another group of white people - the Russians. And that fact goes to even weaken the idea, that the series involves racism. (3 out of 4 antagonists being white people, 75%, as opposed to 2 out 3, 66%, in the trilogy)

You can't really bring in the other films to exonerate this one though, as if to say that since the bad guys are often as white as the hero, the portrayal of Indians in Temple of Doom is obviously fine, because they're the minority of the bad guys in the films. Temple of Doom is its own thing. Even that can be broken down further: certain moments in the film may be in dubious taste, others may not.

And who the bad guys are <I>isn't</I> the only question involved in whether the film or films have racist or racially-dubious elements. Portraying a people as too helpless to solve their problems isn't all that flattering.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Stoo said:
Be careful, Pale. This might be used against you in order to call you a racist, as was done to me in this very thread, 4 months ago. I was very close to dropping down on that person like a tonne of bricks but decided to leave it alone. Now that this thread has been revived, however...

@Henry W Jones: Internet arguments aren't something to be proud of but I want to talk you about this instance and don't wish to create any bad blood between us. Will you be cool with it?:cool:

What Pale said is a direct quote from the film. Your Asian people at Disneyland thing was very a stereotypical way of portraying Asians. I don't want to fight with you and I have nothing to be ashamed of. I don't bash Canadians like some people bash Americans.Your American bashing is not racist, but it is still on the same basic page. It is stereotyping others because of where they live. I don't want bad blood between us either. I say this cool as the other side of the pillow.:cool: I actually find you interesting most of the time my friend.

a>


Now, what shall we talk about?
 
Last edited:

JD2008

Member
Saying that the movie has racial or racist overtones is not the same as saying that those overtones were <I>intentionally</I> meant to slander or demean a given people or culture. They can be there without negative intent involved. That's the distinction that is being drawn.

Aside from the 'overtones'. The poll specifically asks, if the movies were racist. And some people responded YES.



You can't really bring in the other films to exonerate this one though

This shows how assumptive the allegation of racism (as this is what you are implying) can be. It can be reduced to the equivalence of suggesting that that any non-white antagonist ever portrayed in film, reflects some form of racism. If there is no pattern in our hero's behavior, than there is no reason to establish a generalization of his character.


And who the bad guys are <I>isn't</I> the only question involved in whether the film or films have racist or racially-dubious elements. Portraying a people as too helpless to solve their problems isn't all that flattering

And a lot of those helpless folks, happen to be white people.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
JD2008 said:
Aside from the 'overtones'. The poll specifically asks, if the movies were racist. And some people responded YES.

I can say for certainty that at least 33.33% of that vote was 100% satirical.

I strongly suspect that at least a further 33.33% was based on misinformed judgement.

JD2008 said:
This shows how assumptive the allegation of racism (as this is what you are implying) can be. It can be reduced to the equivalence of suggesting that that any non-white antagonist ever portrayed in film, reflects some form of racism. If there is no pattern in our hero's behavior, than there is no reason to establish a generalization of his character.

The question wasn't even about the character, but the films themselves.

The only behaviour Indy has is the mood Lucas and Spielberg happen to have been in at the time they settled on a piece of dialogue or action, or something Ford brought through his acting.

The films don't promote or condone racism but play with ideas, by nature of their intent and storytelling, from a time before political correctness ruled the roost.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
JD2008 said:
This shows how assumptive the allegation of racism (as this is what you are implying) can be. It can be reduced to the equivalence of suggesting that that any non-white antagonist ever portrayed in film, reflects some form of racism.

It <I>can</I> be, I suppose, but that's not an argument I, or Stoo, or Montana, is interested in making. No slippery slopes here.

JD2008 said:
If there is no pattern in our hero's behavior, than there is no reason to establish a generalization of his character.

As Montana says above, whether Indy is racist isn't the question. It's whether elements of the body of work featuring the character of Indiana Jones are.

JD2008 said:
And a lot of those helpless folks, happen to be white people.

Not in Temple of Doom they aren't. (Okay, there is a deeply helpless white woman involved.)

Showing the pathetic, superstitious Indian village, with its bug-ridden food and occasionally ominous shaman, is a far cry from any of the undepicted victims, potential or otherwise, in the other Indy films. We never get any German Jews being used as fodder for jokes.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
JD2008 said:
Ok, wise guy - contemporary Indians are hyper-sensitive to the critique of Westerners.
That's a pretty sweeping statement. You obviously aren't Indian but seem to be "hyper-sensitive" towards the mere suggestion that the films could possibly contain some racist elements. It's irrational to think that "there is no element in Temple of Doom, which a rational person can take much offense to".
JD2008 said:
You certainly are confused. I never label the Asian kid, as 'neutral', with respect to his motives, but rather the (neutral) with respect to the stereotype that he reflects. My point is that the reality of such things as the popularity of the martial arts among Asians, Americans in Shangai through the period, and poor villages among Indians, and all go to give the movie a more realistic atmosphere.
A kung-fu-fightin' Short Round may not be a negative portrayal but it is still racist because it's a stereotype based on his race.

Speaking of "reality", several Asian people have told me that the number of them who practice martial arts is miniscule in proportion to their population. In reality, it's something like 1% so the belief that a kung-fu-fightin' Asian kid helps make the movie "more realistic" is wrong. It would be more realistic if Shorty DOESN'T know any martial arts!
JD2008 said:
However, Speilberg is careful not to cast negative generalizations.
Have you read the transcripts of the 1978 story conference for "Raiders"? It's sprinkled with negative generalizations, by Spielberg and Lucas, all over the place.
JD2008 said:
If you read the entirety of the thread, you will see that there are some who clearly feel the movie has racial overtones. In fact, this thread is based on a poll, in which a certain (but small) percentage of folks are, somehow, convinced the series involves racism.
I've been following this thread since it began and am very familiar with its contents & poll. Nobody here has claimed that any perceived racism was INTENDED by the filmmakers (which is what you implied with your "racially motivated" comment). As Atilla already stated, that is the distinction being made but your reply to him (and me) shows that you're completely missing (or ignoring) this point.
JD2008 said:
Since we are in the Trilogy sub-forum, I think it's fair to exclude TV Series and Franchising, from any referencing (not to mention the fact that such series were not purely Speilbergian). And while , Crystal Skull is not part of the trilogy, that movie involves Indy fighting yet, another group of white people - the Russians. And that fact goes to even weaken the idea, that the series involves racism. (3 out of 4 antagonists being white people, 75%, as opposed to 2 out 3, 66%, in the trilogy)
Hey, it was you who kept referring to the "franchise". If you meant only the film series than you should have specified that.;)

Anyway, the claims of racism aren't exclusively confined to who the villians are. That said, your percentages are off.

1 of 4 - Raiders: Amerindians, Arabs, Asians, Whites
0 of 2 - Doom: Asians, Indians
2 of 4 - Crusade: Whites (Panama Hat's gang), Turks (Cruciform Sword Bros.), Whites (Germans + Elsa & Donovan), Turks (Hatay military)
1 of 2 - Skull: Whites, Amerindians
-------
4 of 12 = 30%
Only 30% of the antagonist groups in the 4 films are "white".:gun:
 

Tibor

Member
Goodeknight said:
Well, it has been argued that to study another culture, the observer must see himself as somewhat above the culture in question. Someone from a more developed country studying someone from a less developed one..

I don't think cultural anthropologists would support that notion. Mostly, the fieldwork centers around learning what being part of the culture means, understanding how they organize their world to solve their problems. What is often discovered by cultural anthropologists is that other cultures often answer their needs better than urban industrial nations, and in more sustainable ways, with better mental health, etc.

Now when it comes to archaeological technique, Indy is a bit lacking to say the least. ;)
 

RKORadio

Guest
Actually we do get something at German Jews expense. In Last Crusade, Donovan offers the Sultan riches "donated by the finest families in Germany", meant by the filmmakers to reference the confiscation of assets from wealthy German Jewish families by the Nazi government.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
RKORadio said:
Actually we do get something at German Jews expense. In Last Crusade, Donovan offers the Sultan riches "donated by the finest families in Germany", meant by the filmmakers to reference the confiscation of assets from wealthy German Jewish families by the Nazi government.

DONOVAN

Precious valuables, Your Highness, "donated" by some of the finest families in all of Germany.​

This isn't so much at the German Jews' expense, but in their defence.

Most viewers would be aware that racism figured prominently in Nazi ideology. It was one of the cards Hitler played to ensure his victory in 1933.

Did those lines actually make it into the film? I can't remember.


What Donovan says comes from actual historical record. Much valuable property, both movable and immovable, was appropriated through force or fear.

Though this doesn't form part of the answer as to whether the films have racist elements, since that's down to the structure of the stories: the ways in which Lucas and Spielberg portray the world of Indiana Jones.

Fictional worlds often have an internal logic. A set of rules that the audience/reader will learn. Without limitations a fantasy world can become chaotic. The totally unexpected can become jarring or 'world-breaking', such as it was for some when they nuked the fridge or introduced aliens into an otherwise alien-free environment.

The rules in Indiana Jones define the limits of the characters - just how far can Indiana go down the path of a thief and still maintain the air of respectability associated with a good role model? Because the world belongs to an older time than our own the laws are less restrictive in that regard. Who's going to take up the rights of a jungle tribe over those of two highly educated white men who will argue that they were merely expanding the knowledge of the civilized world through exploration?

The rules also permit for a corrupt native group to oppress a weaker native group. The helpless natives are forced to look to foreigners for help. At the climax even Indy requires the help of the British Empire to finally re-establish law and order on their terms.

If Temple of Doom had been set in 1984 there's a chance that Mayapore wouldn't have been so helpless, due to the growing pressure of political correctness. Yet the film is set in the past, in an age when it was normal to read about and see white men and women dominant over natives. Many stories and films from those times enforced stereotypes of race (the black man as childlike chauffeur or fearful jungle porter; the white woman as childlike maid).

Lucas and Spielberg avoided such specific stereotypes, and in many cases elevated the 'native' characters themselves. Yet their stories are still concerned with Euro-American dominance, depicting a time when South American natives were at the mercy of foreign burglars; the champion of Cairo was a sword-wielding poser; Egyptians were diggers - Sallah being the "best digger in Egypt"; the Chinese were gangsters, kung-fu fighting orphans or bullet fodder; weak Indian villagers only had recourse to the gods and the imperial powers; the Indian elite was corrupt and possessed of 'uncivilized' dining habits; and sultans were buffoons interested in British horsepower.

As for the whites, they're directing the 'natives' whether it's in the jungle or in the sand

The 'natives' exist to populate a world in which Indiana Jones can flourish.

And, you may say, "what if the 'hero' wasn't white?"

Well, that generally didn't happen in the old tales concerned with reasserting a certain worldview.

Lucas and Spielberg attempt to be authentic to those stories, while making adjustments to avoid endorsing the worldview they promoted. It's a very fine line. It's impossible not to break a few eggs. Indy can't catch them all. ;)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Most viewers would be aware that racism figured prominently in Nazi ideology. It was one of the cards Hitler played to ensure his victory in 1933.

Did those lines actually make it into the film? I can't remember.
There was some dialogue from Col. Dietrich to Belloq (though it's not "fodder for jokes", as Attila noted):

Dietrich: "Monsieur,...I am uncomfortable with the thought of this...Jewish ritual. Are you sure it's necessary?"

Montana Smith said:
Lucas and Spielberg attempt to be authentic to those stories, while making adjustments to avoid endorsing the worldview they promoted. It's a very fine line. It's impossible not to break a few eggs. Indy can't catch them all. ;)
Eggzactly & precisely put, Smiff.:hat:
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Henry W Jones said:
What Pale said is a direct quote from the film. Your Asian people at Disneyland thing was very a stereotypical way of portraying Asians.
A line from the film is no reason for excuse because Pale's quote sure wasn't written that way in the script. I suppose that my example of an Asian talking English can be called racist but it was using phonetic spelling to approximate a Short-Round-type speech, which has been done here before in numerous threads. It's not unusual for people to use phonetics here at The Raven (one member even had the screen name, 'so wah mu', which is Ke Quan's pronunciation of, "Short Round more") and a common usage is when writing as a German speaking English. Writing like zis is a schterheotypikal vay of portrhaying ze Germananic rhace becauze zat iz not zee vay zey all schpeak Englisch, ja? Now, you being part German yourself, are those types of instances offensive & racist, too?:confused:

To be honest, I used to be awfully racist but that has changed over much time and I try harder every day to be more considerate. Maybe sometimes not enough but my Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Egyptian, Tunisian, Jamaican, and African-American friends certainly think that I'm O.K.
Henry W Jones said:
I don't want to fight with you and I have nothing to be ashamed of. I don't bash Canadians like some people bash Americans.Your American bashing is not racist, but it is still on the same basic page. It is stereotyping others because of where they live.
OUTRAGEOUS. Henry W, you are the 1st person anywhere to accuse me of "American bashing". I like the States and have been there many, many, many times. Heck, more than half of my relatives are American (living in 8 different states, including your own) and friends & colleagues of mine are scattered all over the U.S. Please reflect on these facts, eh?;)

What I wrote in this thread was:
"One thing I don't like about reading posts here at The Raven or listening to the IndyCast is discovering how naive & ignorant some folks are (mostly Americans...and I'm sorry to say that...but it's a real & identifiable observation). :( "

I didn't say that you, personally, were naive & ignorant (as you implied 5 months ago) nor did I ever say that Americans are "stupid" (as you implied). Even intelligent people can be naive & ignorant. It could've been worded better but what I meant was 'unaware & uninterested in Indian culture' and was SPECIFICALLY REFERRING to the fan community at the Raven and the IndyCast*. Please note that I wrote "some folks" and that American fans were "most" of that "some". This is an extremely miniscule portion of the entire country. I also wrote "sorry" and added a sad face emoticon to show that the remark wasn't malicious (not to mention that people from other countries were included in that "some"). It was nothing more than a comment based on what certain Indiana Jones Fans have said + noticing where they are from. This is definitely not a case of "stereotyping others because of where they live".

*If you want examples & statistics, they can be provided.

Hope that makes things clearer. However, if you're thinking about this remark, that is just friendly ribbing, yo!:cool:

Your umbrage is irony at its best. If my observation offends you and is "on the same basic page" as racism, then it should help illustrate how some people consider "Temple of Doom" to have racist elements. See how that works?:p:gun:
Henry W Jones said:
I don't want bad blood between us either. I say this cool as the other side of the pillow.:cool: I actually find you interesting most of the time my friend.

<img src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2879/9264616939_870b373005.jpg" width="500" height="281" alt="Untitled"></a>

Now, what shall we talk about?
Fitting image and, yes, everything is cool. The Fonz told me so. :cool:

fonzie-on-bike.jpeg
 

RKORadio

Guest
An Indian would probably say that white people don't have the final say on whether TOD has negative or insensitive racial overtones and that the final word on such things should go to the Indian people.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Stoo said:
A line from the film is no reason for excuse because Pale's quote sure wasn't written that way in the script. I suppose that my example of an Asian talking English can be called racist but it was using phonetic spelling to approximate a Short-Round-type speech, which has been done here before in numerous threads. It's not unusual for people to use phonetics here at The Raven (one member even had the screen name, 'so wah mu', which is Ke Quan's pronunciation of, "Short Round more") and a common usage is when writing as a German speaking English. Writing like zis is a schterheotypikal vay of portrhaying ze Germananic rhace becauze zat iz not zee vay zey all schpeak Englisch, ja? Now, you being part German yourself, are those types of instances offensive & racist, too?:confused:

To be honest, I used to be awfully racist but that has changed over much time and I try harder every day to be more considerate. Maybe sometimes not enough but my Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Egyptian, Tunisian, Jamaican, and African-American friends certainly think that I'm O.K.
OUTRAGEOUS. Henry W, you are the 1st person anywhere to accuse me of "American bashing". I like the States and have been there many, many, many times. Heck, more than half of my relatives are American (living in 8 different states, including your own) and friends & colleagues of mine are scattered all over the U.S. Please reflect on these facts, eh?;)

What I wrote in this thread was:
"One thing I don't like about reading posts here at The Raven or listening to the IndyCast is discovering how naive & ignorant some folks are (mostly Americans...and I'm sorry to say that...but it's a real & identifiable observation). :( "

I didn't say that you, personally, were naive & ignorant (as you implied 5 months ago) nor did I ever say that Americans are "stupid" (as you implied). Even intelligent people can be naive & ignorant. It could've been worded better but what I meant was 'unaware & uninterested in Indian culture' and was SPECIFICALLY REFERRING to the fan community at the Raven and the IndyCast*. Please note that I wrote "some folks" and that American fans were "most" of that "some". This is an extremely miniscule portion of the entire country. I also wrote "sorry" and added a sad face emoticon to show that the remark wasn't malicious (not to mention that people from other countries were included in that "some"). It was nothing more than a comment based on what certain Indiana Jones Fans have said + noticing where they are from. This is definitely not a case of "stereotyping others because of where they live".

*If you want examples & statistics, they can be provided.

Hope that makes things clearer. However, if you're thinking about this remark, that is just friendly ribbing, yo!:cool:

Your umbrage is irony at its best. If my observation offends you and is "on the same basic page" as racism, then it should help illustrate how some people consider "Temple of Doom" to have racist elements. See how that works?:p:gun:
Fitting image and, yes, everything is cool. The Fonz told me so. :cool:

fonzie-on-bike.jpeg

The Fonz is a smart man. Have a good day Stoo. :hat: also, I can see why somebody might find Temple of Doom racist but I also think everybody takes things a step too far as far as calling things racist. I also don't think there was any malicious intent when writing the movie.
 

The Drifter

New member
RKORadio said:
An Indian would probably say that white people don't have the final say on whether TOD has negative or insensitive racial overtones and that the final word on such things should go to the Indian people.

Than why are you here claiming that it is indeed racist? Are you Indian?
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
I've watched ToD several times since its release, but I have never seen this racism in it that some people claim is there. Can they point out which scenes and precisely what is the racism depicted? Thank you very much.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Mickiana said:
I've watched ToD several times since its release, but I have never seen this racism in it that some people claim is there. Can they point out which scenes and precisely what is the racism depicted? Thank you very much.

Good luck there.
 
Top