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

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
So the racism is subjective, or biased...which of course is prejudice in favor of one thing, which in turn is a preconceived opinion not based on reason.

I don't think racism is ever based on reason.

It might be reasonable to dislike small groups of people for the values they express, but never a whole race, since a whole race does not think or act alike.

Every race has its racist elements, but I don't think Lucas and Spielberg would intentionally set out to offend large sections of the world when they're in the business of producing something for a global market. Hence there are positive representations of race throughout the films, along with negative ones.

From t'other thread:

Smiffy said:
Charges of racism made by the victims are a means towards self-empowerment. In many cases, as illustrated by history, the charges are well founded.

In post-colonial studies the views of dominant and subaltern can sometimes get a little bent out of shape. Cultures who have every right to be outraged by the imperialism of the past sometimes tackle instances in the media as if nothing has changed.

Something like Temple of Doom isn't a statement of fact, a recreation of past actions, or an assertion one way or another. Something like Temple of Doom is also more problematic, since exposing its failings exposes only the failings of the past, moderated by some modern sensibilities.

Lucas took the non-politically correct past and replayed it for a modern audience. Not as a political statement, but a cultural one, i.e., cinematic.

By 1930s/40s standards ROTLA Indy is a hero. By later standards he’s an anti-hero sometimes displaying unfashionable attitudes towards Third World peoples.

In TOD we see Indy forced to confront his own attitudes. He puts aside fortune and glory to do the better thing. This part of his character derives from his conception in the later twentieth century. Yet, he is always an inspiration of earlier imperialistic times. The Idol-grabbing Indiana Jones of 1936 still stands, because, barring 'Special Editions', that was the alternately heroic/anti-heroic character which Lucas and Spielberg wanted to present.

Indy is a conflicted character who spans the attitudes of the 1930s and the 1980s. And not to mention that the world he inhabits isn't really ours, but one of Lucas and Spielberg's imagination. Hence the China and India of TOD and their respective cultures and histories do not exactly match those that exist (and existed) in our world.
 

Colonel Corey

New member
Finn said:
No need to defend anything. This is an Indiana Jones fan community, kiddo. You don't find a single soul here who'd actually think something ill of the films. <At least the first three.>


Oh, you're right... Thanks. ;)
But still, there are some people who actually don't like TOD... And have an account here. Heck, for all I know, there could be somebody who has never even seen ay of the films except for ROTLA... :eek: :dead: Well, but you're right overall. Thanks, "kiddo". ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
 
Montana Smith said:
I don't think racism is ever based on reason.

It might be reasonable to dislike small groups of people for the values they express, but never a whole race, since a whole race does not think or act alike.

Every race has its racist elements, but I don't think Lucas and Spielberg would intentionally set out to offend large sections of the world when they're in the business of producing something for a global market. Hence there are positive representations of race throughout the films, along with negative ones.
My contention is that there are NO caricatures of race in any of the films positive or negative. The representations are of individuals regardless of ethnic origin.

As such, the accusations of racism in the films are the result of subjective and highly biased personal opinion and baseless in objective fact.

Therefore invalid.


...and you thought I meant something else...
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
My contention is that there are NO charicatures of race in any of the films positive or negative. The representations are of individuals regardless of ethnic origin.

As such, the accusations of racism in the films are the result of subjective and highly biased personal opinion and baseless in objective fact.

Therefore invalid.

Yes, no one race is singled out as either wholly 'good' or 'bad', 'heroic' or 'cowardly'.

While Mola Ram might be regarded as a stereotypical 'native' villain, after Shamba in Jungle Girl (1941), he was at least played by a native of the country he was representing.

PDVD_002-1.jpg


http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=517442&postcount=41


Much of the racism in the originals revolved around non-white actors being given demeaning roles, such as child-like servants. Or it would be a race wanting to take over the world, often the Chinese. After Pearl Harbor it was the Japanese who became subject to American propaganda.

For every Mola Ram there's a Belloq, Toht, Vogel or Donovan.


TOD represents an impoverished Indian village requiring outside assistance. Yet the film subverts the originals by not having 'the great white hero' being their saviour.

If Indy hadn't befriended the Chinese orphan he'd still have been a zombie slave to Mola Ram.
 
Montana Smith said:
Yes, no one race is singled out as either wholly 'good' or 'bad', 'heroic' or 'cowardly'.

So there is no racism in the films?

Montana Smith said:
TOD represents an impoverished Indian village requiring outside assistance.
Funny thing is, that's another biased view that's unsupported.

The key word being "required."

That Indy, (or Shorty) was the straw that broke the Thuggee's back, the film may have implied white (or yellow) superiority to that mind carying racist baggage.

Personally I thought the sacrificial victim was a village father who was simply not successful in his rescue attempt.

Too bad he didn't have a small asian boy in tow.

Doom Town and I were working on a radio drama where a village father made an unsucessful attempt on the life of the Maharaja before/during the dinner scene.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
So there is no racism in the films?

Haven't seen them in a while. ;)

Rocket Surgeon said:
Funny thing is, that's another biased view that's unsupported.

The key word being "required."

The film is set up that way.

Marhan the Shaman actually spells it out:

SHAMAN

It is why Krishna brought you here.

...

We pray to Krishna to help us find the stone. It was Krishna who made you fall from sky -- so you can go to Pankot Palace. To find sivalinga -- and bring back to us.
 
Montana Smith said:
Haven't seen them in a while. ;)

Eternally Elusive...

Either you karate do "yes" or karate do "no"...

Montana Smith said:
The film is set up that way.Marhan the Shaman actually spells it out:
The Shaman would hardly see it in those terms...would a fellow Hindu?

Are we imposing our own values and norms on a philosophy that wouldn't make those distinctions?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
The Shaman would hardly see it in those terms...would a fellow Hindu?

Are we imposing our own values and norms on a philosophy that wouldn't make those distinctions?

How much clearer could it be?

He said they prayed to Krishna for help to find the stone.

He believes Krishna made Indy fall from the sky, so he could go to Pankot to retrieve the stone for the village.


The script wasn't (presumably) written by a Hindu, but from a western perspective.

The pilots abandoned the aeroplane, forcing Indy et al to end up on the river to Mayapore. The village shaman takes their arrival as a sign from the gods. This was the help he believes they were waiting for.

Indy is set up as the last hope since the village is dying.
 
Montana Smith said:
The script wasn't (presumably) written by a Hindu, but from a western perspective.
Yes of course.

Montana Smith said:
The pilots abandoned the aeroplane, forcing Indy et al to end up on the river to Mayapore. The village shaman takes their arrival as a sign from the gods. This was the help he believes they were waiting for.

Indy is set up as the last hope since the village is dying.
As you point out "et al" ("their arrival", "the help") were instrumental, (not Willie of course), and as such doesn't pan out as racism after all...

Montana Smith said:
How much clearer could it be?
Indeed.
 

Goodeknight

New member
I think people are misusing the term "racism" here, and that's what spawning a lot of the heated debate.

Rocket, I know you posted the definition initially. This is from Merriam Webster:
Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

That's not going on in any of the Indy films, and Indy is not, by this definition, a racist.

In most of the instances cited, people are talking about culture, not race.

"Imperialism" is also being misused.
Again, Merriam Webster:
Imperialism: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

Indy globe trotting or ripping off artifacts from the locals isn't imperialism. Even this is largely a cultural issue.

So back to Edward Said's book, Orientalism -- the subject of my Master's thesis at the American University in Cairo. Highly influential book. Insightful, but, I believe, deeply flawed - but that's beside the point here.

Orientalism originated in the 19th century when colonial types decided that to properly and effectively subjugate other cultures you needed to understand them. So they translated their literature, and put them under the microscope to study them. By knowing the Orient, the West could own it.

Later, Orientalism came to be associated with the adaptation or interpretation of eastern art. The art deco movement is a prime example, and the Egyptian influence on art after Howard Carter's discovery of King Tut's tomb.

Still later (and thru to the present) Said redefined Orientalism when he wrote his book. Orientalism came to mean the stereotyping of the East and the Oriental (whether Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, or whatever other non-westerner) as mysterious, exotic, and essentially weak (yet captivatingly dangerous). That's the real key.

It's about the images projected and accepted of the East.

Take this pop quiz:

* First image when you think of "Cairo."
* First image when you think of "China."
* First image when you think of the term "Arab man."
* First image when you think of the term "Arab woman."
* First image when you think of "India."

"Orientalism" would argue that most people given that quiz think:

* Cairo = Pyramids, camels, belly dancers, Bedouin, smoke filled hookah houses
* China = Chinese lute, Geisha, martial arts, the Forbidden City
* Arab man = terrorists with rpgs, guys wearing turbans, covered faces, and lots of yelling
* Arab woman = subjugated female covered head to toe
* India = masses of poor in colorful saris

etc., etc., etc. Stereotypes of the mysterious east.

In this sense, all of the Indy movies and the character of Indiana Jones are certainly Orientalist. Masses of brainwashed Indian thugs (or thugees if you like), Mola Ram, traditional dancers, bug feasts, Hovitos in loin cloths wielding spears and arrows, Chatar Lal as the aristocratic Indian in the Naru jacket, the Maharaja with his turban and jewelry, the slave children, the villagers weeping and reaching out to Indy, the Egyptian diggers chanting, the Nepalese huddled into the Raven, the nameless porters, the superstitious locals, the dude who deciphers and headpiece, and the list goes on and on.

To Said it didn't matter if these people or people like them existed. It was all about the stereotypical portrayal, and the generalized depictions that became the standards for beliefs about entire cultures and people groups. And, further, it was about the stance of superiority that the West took over them as the Orientalists studying, dissecting, and subjugating them. A stance taken, largely, on the basis of the stereotypical portrayal of the Other as undeveloped, backward, irrational, illiterate, uneducated, and/or unenlightened.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
As you point out "et al" were instrumental, (not Willie of course), and as such doesn't pan out as racism after all...

I wasn't claiming there was racism in this scene, but again that Lucas plays with ideas and stereotypes from an earlier time, and then subverts them.

The film is set up that Mayapore requires the help of 'the great white hero', but not only is he initially unwilling, but later is not in a state to even help himself.

Lucas' version is more culturally sympathetic.
 
goodeknight said:
It's about the images projected and accepted of the East.

Take this pop quiz:

* First image when you think of "Cairo."
* First image when you think of "China."
* First image when you think of the term "Arab man."
* First image when you think of the term "Arab woman."
* First image when you think of "India."

"Orientalism" would argue that most people given that quiz think:

* Cairo = Pyramids, camels, belly dancers, Bedouin, smoke filled hookah houses
* China = Chinese lute, Geisha, martial arts, the Forbidden City
* Arab man = terrorists with rpgs, guys wearing turbans, covered faces, and lots of yelling
* Arab woman = subjugated female covered head to toe
* India = masses of poor in colorful saris

etc., etc., etc. Stereotypes of the mysterious east.

Great post. Funny thing, I visualized Pyramids, The Great Wall, a Turban wearing man / burka wearing woman and the Taj Mahal for India.

I didn't ascribe qualifiers like "subjugated" at all.

Reviewing it I see the general in terms of their greatest standing accomplishments and the individuals in customary dress.

Edit: For the time period...there was of course the blue jean beauty queen behind Indy as he drank to Marion's death.

goodeknight said:
In this sense, all of the Indy movies and the character of Indiana Jones are certainly Orientalist. Masses of brainwashed Indian thugs (or thugees if you like), Mola Ram, traditional dancers, bug feasts, Hovitos in loin cloths wielding spears and arrows, Chatar Lal as the aristocratic Indian in the Naru jacket, the Maharaja with his turban and jewelry, the slave children, the villagers weeping and reaching out to Indy, the Egyptian diggers chanting, the Nepalese huddled into the Raven, the nameless porters, the superstitious locals, the dude who deciphers and headpiece, and the list goes on and on.
Can you offer an alternative way to present these characters /themes?

goodeknight said:
To Said it didn't matter if these people or people like them existed. It was all about the stereotypical portrayal, and the generalized depictions that became the standards for beliefs about entire cultures and people groups.
Does he support or provide evidence that these general depictions were standard beliefs and the sum knowlege of the culture(s) versus an accessible pervasive representation?

goodeknight said:
And, further, it was about the stance of superiority that the West took over them as the Orientalists studying, dissecting, and subjugating them. A stance taken, largely, on the basis of the stereotypical portrayal of the Other as undeveloped, backward, irrational, illiterate, uneducated, and/or unenlightened.
Ultimately the English did subjugate because they were superior in every / any metric they deemed important.

Except morally, right?:hat:

Montana Smith said:
I wasn't claiming there was racism in this scene, but again that Lucas plays with ideas and stereotypes from an earlier time, and then subverts them.

The film is set up that Mayapore requires the help of 'the great white hero', but not only is he initially unwilling, but later is not in a state to even help himself.

Lucas' version is more culturally sympathetic.
AH! So they're NOT racist!

Thanks...
 
Last edited:

Goodeknight

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Great post. Funny thing, I visualized Pyramids, The Great Wall, a Turban wearing man / burka wearing woman and the Taj Mahal for India.

Yep. Those work, too.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Can you offer an alternative way to present these characters /themes?

That's the point. The characters are characterizations, as are the themes, all of which lend to the general depictions that create the pervasive image of the East.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Does he support or provide evidence that these general depictions were standard beliefs and the sum knowlege of the culture(s) versus an accessible pervasive representation?

Said would simply say the accessible pervasive representation was the problem, in that it created the us/them and superior/inferior standard by which they were subjugated and used.

Please know I certainly won't be defending Said to the death. Most of my thesis was spent tearing him apart. I hated Orientalism. While I do believe the foundation is rather solid, Said takes it *way* over the top, because he himself suffered from weaknesses and faults that helped him form his own stereotypes about the West. West as the imperial father to the subjugated Mother East (inferior female). That's Said in a nutshell. He never addressed the fact that his own father was abusive and domineering while his mother was weak and wouldn't defend him against ol' Domineering Dad. And he was picked on at the private boarding school, where he was the only Middle Eastern kid.

So in the end, his own view of the imbalanced relationship between East and West was based on his own view of his parents' imbalanced relationship and the schoolyard bullying he got. Reading his autobiography, he was obviously filled with bitterness about his childhood and resentment at his father. He criticized scholars, artists, academics, filmmakers, and others who portrayed the East based on stereotypes. But he stereotyped just as much as anyone, based on his own unpleasant childhood.

Montana Smith said:
No, but they may very well be orientalist. :p

Ha! I'm gaining some ground here....
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Ha!

You better vote that way!
Let's go! Waiting on "8" pal!

Not while there's still muddy, croc infested water.


goodeknight said:
Ha! I'm gaining some ground here....

Can orientalism be applied to South American native indians? Occidentalism won't work as that's views of the west by those of the east.


ROTLA Screenplay said:
The two Indians jabber in Quechua, near hysteria. Barranca is sweating profusely, eyes darting. He yells at the Indians in Quechua to "shut up".

In the undergrowth, there is slithering movement. Indian #1 draws aside a branch and is faced with a horrific stone sculpture of a Chachapoyan demon. The Indian is so frightened no sound comes out when he screams. He turns and runs silently away.

Indian #2 calls to his friend. Getting no response, he steps in that direction. A huge macaw, flushed from the undergrowth, screams and flies away. Indian #2 does exactly the same thing, never to be seen again.


This scene is a replay of numerous times in old films and serials when African bearers were shown to more cowardly, and more highly superstitious than their white masters or employers. (Though in effect it often speaks volumes for the ignorance of the whites about the environment they're walking into).

When not in the jungle a non-white character might be seen to be afraid of the slightest thing - such as Charlie Chan's chauffeur acting in an embarrassingly childlike manner.

In their original playing, could these scenes be considered more racist than orientalist?

goodeknight said:
This is from Merriam Webster:
Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.


If Lucas and Spielberg were toying with these 'classic' cinematic ideas, out of nostalgia, they are at the very least in danger of reinforcing those ideas if the medium of 'homage' is not recognized clearly enough by the audience.

Can a film which is not intentionally racist, be racist by association?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Racist by association?!

By reinforcing caucasian supremacy in the heart of darkness: fleeing natives vs. stoic white hero.


An Indian village in desperate need of a miracle, believing that the 'white hero' is the one who has been sent to save them.

SHORT ROUND

Indy, they make our plane crash? To get you here?

INDIANA

It's just superstition, Shorty. Like a ghost story.

...



The old man speaks again in his own tongue and Indy looks disturbed.


WILLIE

What'd he say now?

INDIANA

It was destined that I came here -- and the future cannot be changed...


Indy is seen to be the key. The Shaman believes they are effectively helpless without him. It's only later that the process of the 'miracle' is subverted, but that doesn't deny the path that Lucas chose to lead the audience down - and it's one that has been replicated many times before.









double-take.gif


charliechancollection7.jpg


birminghambrown.jpg
 
Montana Smith said:
By reinforcing caucasian supremacy in the heart of darkness: fleeing natives vs. stoic white hero.
That's bullsh!t. Indy came out and said it: "...that's what scares me." He was weary, hesitant and fearful.

Montana Smith said:
An Indian village in desperate need of a miracle, believing that the 'white hero' is the one who has been sent to save them.
You may just as well substitute "meat eater" because it has as much relevance.

Meat eater and leather wearer.


Montana Smith said:
Indy is seen to be the key.
No Indy is just the next in line. A zero sum sacrifice for the village.

Montana Smith said:
The Shaman believes they are effectively helpless without him.
You can't know that...unless you let the rest of us read his journal as well.:rolleyes:

Montana Smith said:
It's only later that the process of the 'miracle' is subverted
The "process of the miracle", subverted.

Please expound on your class in creative parsing.

Prosecutor:Montana Smith, you forced yourself on that girl! She clearly said: "No! Don't! Stop!"

Montana Smith: I was there sir, and she said: "...no, don't stop..."

:p


Montana Smith said:
but that doesn't deny the path that Lucas chose to lead the audience down - and it's one that has been replicated many times before.
Which is?


PS I know it's hard for you to keep to the films, and I don't mind the various sources you quote, but citing them would be helpful.

Wow 4 votes for racist, but no supporting posts!

Cowards.
 
Last edited:
Top