Indiana Jones films: racist?

Henry W Jones said:

When did I say it wasn't? What was the point of that comment? Toast for breakfast is also still around in modern USA. I live here and have a very diverse family and I am very aware of racism in the US. Any other obvious things you would like to point out? Maybe you could finally explain the racism in Indiana Jones instead of telling me facts about a country I live in that everyone is aware of still has racism. We are not talking about racism in America.

Still no proof of racism in Indiana Jones and still no elaboration about Charlie Chan. I would ask again but you will just sidestep some more.

Click to expand...

I know I said keep trying but there comes a time when you have to factor in return on investment. She replies to you but I don't see her stream of racist conscience and free associations being any more than a burr under your saddle.

If you allow them to push your buttons they surely will, especially when they've painted themselves into a corner. The "emo" comes out and running mascara changes the complexion of the discussion.

If anything try to keep it about Indiana Jones...

Rocket Surgeon said:

If anything try to keep it about Indiana Jones...

Click to expand...

I thought this was about "Is Indiana Jones Racist?". Is this not about whether the films are racist in regards to their content?

You keep on banging on about examples. They have been provided.

Added to this is comments made by and to Roshan Seth.

Seth: The banquet scene was a joke that went wrong. I got a great deal of flak for it because people kept saying, "How does an intelligent man like you agree to be in a film which shows Indians dining on beetles and eels?"

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Seth: Amrish Puri, who played Mola Ram, was a very nice guy. He was operatic; he couldn't have been a better villain. But I have to say this: Indian people are very embarrassed when they see one of their own playing roles like that.

Click to expand...

Why are they embrassed? Could it be *gasp* pecieved as being a bit 'racist' because as clever as the filmakers thought were they played to the racist sterotypes.

JuniorJones said:

I thought this was about "Is Indiana Jones Racist?". Is this not about whether the films are racist in regards to their content?

Click to expand...

I don't see the conflict, even out of context.

In context it was meant as a suggestion not to get sucked into meaningless posts by people who scat and run, post like: "What about Charlie Chan?"

JuniorJones said:

You keep on banging on about examples. They have been provided.

Click to expand...

So, instead of complaining, list them and we can move on.

JuniorJones said:

Added to this is comments made by and to Roshan Seth.

Click to expand...

Seth: The banquet scene was a joke that went wrong. I got a great deal of flak for it because people kept saying, "How does an intelligent man like you agree to be in a film which shows Indians dining on beetles and eels?"

Click to expand...

JuniorJones said:

Indeed.

Click to expand...

Indeed, there's not a mention of racism, just stupidity...and Temple of Doom has stupidity in spades!

Seth: Amrish Puri, who played Mola Ram, was a very nice guy. He was operatic; he couldn't have been a better villain. But I have to say this: Indian people are very embarrassed when they see one of their own playing roles like that.

Click to expand...

JuniorJones said:

Why are they embrassed? Could it be *gasp* pecieved as being a bit 'racist' because as clever as the filmakers thought were they played to the racist sterotypes.

Click to expand...

Heh, nice try. Could it be? No. It can't.

As mentioned stupidity is ample reason to be embarrassed, no need to compound the statement further or read into it what isn't there.

He's an intelligent man. I'm sure if racism was an issue he could have formed the word with his command of language and of his own accord.

But he didn't.

Stupidity ≠ racism.

Racism = racism.

Rocket Surgeon said:

I don't see the conflict, even out of context.

In context it was meant not to get sucked into meaningless posts by people who scat and run, post like: "What about Charlie Chan?"

Click to expand...

He's an acceptable 'positive' racist sterotype. Still Racist.

A 'positive' racist sterotype is simply another means of control by the discriminating race.

Rocket Surgeon said:

So, instead of complaining, list them and we can move on.

Click to expand...

Been there and done than. The films are chock full of ethnic stereotypes

At the moment you simply do not except them as "racial" sterotypes due to the fantasy nature of the films.

Again. People are offended by the representation based on India racial sterotypes. They are offended by the race element. This makes it racist.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Indeed, there's not a mention of racism, just stupidity...and Temple of Doom has stupidity in droves!

Click to expand...

Eh? You can't be stupid and racist at the same time? Regardless of ignorance (stupidity) or not you can still be racist. You may not even know you are racist until someone tells you!

Rocket Surgeon said:

As mentioned stupidity is ample reason to be embarrassed, no need to compound the statement further or read into it what isn't there.

Click to expand...

Stupidity because what they did was being percieved as racist. Which it was.

Rocket Surgeon said:

He's an intelligent man. I'm sure if racism was an issue he could have formed the word with his command of language and of his own accord.But he didn't.

Click to expand...

Heh, nice try. He said it without saying it. He didn't have to mention the word. The man was being diplomatic.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Stupidity ≠ racism.

Click to expand...

Stupidity race oriented humour that backfires = racism due to arrogance and ignorance on the part of the filmakers.

Rocket Surgeon said:

I know I said keep trying but there comes a time when you have to factor in return on investment. She replies to you but I don't see her stream of racist conscience and free associations being any more than a burr under your saddle.

If you allow them to push your buttons they surely will, especially when they've painted themselves into a corner. The "emo" comes out and running mascara changes the complexion of the discussion.

If anything try to keep it about Indiana Jones...

Click to expand...

No buttons are being pushed here. I type none of this with anger or malice intent. I only would like an answer. I actually find the thread interesting mostly because no one can provide me a solid reason. The closest was Stoo but even he said it was more insensitive to religion than race. Then again, maybe I read that wrong though since I am an ignorant and naive American.

Here's some other people who thought it was racist but back in 1984.

JuniorJones said:

Here's some other people who thought it was racist but back in 1984.

Click to expand...

Just because some people are stupid enough to watch a film and assume all the characters are a representation of that race makes it racist? So, again, all European people in Die Hard are evil and thieves. Is it racist towards Europeans?

Henry W Jones said:

Just because some people are stupid enough to watch a film and assume all the characters are a representation of that race makes it racist? So, again, all European people in Die Hard are evil and thieves. Is it racist towards Europeans?

Click to expand...

Why are these people stupid? Is Mr Khan stupid? Is it because he's from Pakistian that he's stupid. Are you saying that all people from Pakistian are stupid because they are not intelligent enough to understand when they are confronted with racist sterotypes.

Are you too arrogant in assuming your opinion is correct and that Mr Khan and the 29 other people were stupid in being offended?

Die Hard. Depends if you feel your race was misrepresented racially or belittled racially by another. I imagine some Germans would take issue.



So, misrepresentation is okay in art but not in life. Nobody can feel hurt or racially abused if their race has belittled.

JuniorJones said:

Why are these people stupid? Is Mr Khan stupid? Is it because he's from Pakistian that he's stupid. Are you saying that all people from Pakistian are stupid because they are not intelligent enough to understand when they are confronted with racist sterotypes.

Are you too arrogant in assuming your opinion is correct and that Mr Khan and the 29 other people were stupid in being offended?

Die Hard. Depends if you feel your race was misrepresented racially or belittled racially by another. I imagine some Germans would take issue.

So, misrepresentation is okay in art but not in life. Nobody can feel hurt or racially abused if their race has belittled.

Click to expand...

They can be offended all they like. Everyone can feel a certain way about something but if they took it as a representation of an entire culture, yes, I will say stupid. You are trying to make me out as a arrogant racist but that's not gonna happen. Just because I believe that a handful of people of a certain race are stupid certainly does not mean I believe the whole race is. Kind of my point. Like your last comment to me was extremely stupid and I have no idea about your nationality. Does that make me racist? I don't dislike you or them but I do feel your opinions on this are ridiculous.

I'm sure if someone was willing to do a newspaper search from 1984, they'd find plenty of examples of Temple being picketed for racism.

Remember Song of the South in 1946? ("We fought for Uncle Sam, not Uncle Tom")

RKORadio said:

I'm sure if someone was willing to do a newspaper search from 1984, they'd find plenty of examples of Temple being picketed for racism.

Remember Song of the South in 1946? ("We fought for Uncle Sam, not Uncle Tom")

Click to expand...

You should get on that but it will need examples of what makes it racist not just someone took it personal.

Why do you keep bringing up non related things like Song of the South? We are discussing racism in Indiana Jones not racism of history. You have nothing Indiana Jones to bring to the table as usual.

This is a debate that could run and run. Yet I can see some can't explain or articulate themselves very well.

Do I think they conformed to racial stereotypes for the time period these movies are set in, yes of course they do. Not just in TOD either;
All nazis = bad. All Egyptians = diggers or market traders. All Indians = helpless villagers or evil cult members. The English = pompous or seemingly upper class. South Americans - loin cloth wearing spear throwers.

But do I think the Indy films are intentionally racist - no.

One of the general comments about TOD is interesting, which is that because Indians are portrayed as either helpless or an evil monkey brain eating cult member means that anyone watching TOD will automatically think that's true of the whole Indian race. That to me actually says more about the intellect of the viewer watching it if they think that's true of an entire nation. Because to anyone of any intelligence that's not the case.

Equally of course I can understand India being offended or unhappy by how they were portrayed in the movie. I would imagine it was a major coup that the sequel to a worldwide smash like ROTLA was going to be shot in their country, yet when they find out in what respect they would be portrayed it doesn't necessarily show India as maybe they would like. I'm sure I've read other instances of countries being unhappy at their portrayal in recent times and subsequently banning the film, but what that film was escapes me now.

The only way it could of been offset is by having an Indian as Indy's sidekick or helper. But that didn't happen.

Race is such an emotive subject, personally I prefer to hear the opinions of those races / people who actually feel they are being racially discriminated against, rather than the do gooders that are plentiful in this day and age who feel they should tell us what is acceptable or not.

AndyLGR said:

This is a debate that could run and run. Yet I can see some can't explain or articulate themselves very well.

Do I think they conformed to racial stereotypes for the time period these movies are set in, yes of course they do. Not just in TOD either;
All nazis = bad. All Egyptians = diggers or market traders. All Indians = helpless villagers or evil cult members. The English = pompous or seemingly upper class. South Americans - loin cloth wearing spear throwers.

But do I think the Indy films are intentionally racist - no.

One of the general comments about TOD is interesting, which is that because Indians are portrayed as either helpless or an evil monkey brain eating cult member means that anyone watching TOD will automatically think that's true of the whole Indian race. That to me actually says more about the intellect of the viewer watching it if they think that's true of an entire nation. Because to anyone of any intelligence that's not the case.

Equally of course I can understand India being offended or unhappy by how they were portrayed in the movie. I would imagine it was a major coup that the sequel to a worldwide smash like ROTLA was going to be shot in their country, yet when they find out in what respect they would be portrayed it doesn't necessarily show India as maybe they would like. I'm sure I've read other instances of countries being unhappy at their portrayal in recent times and subsequently banning the film, but what that film was escapes me now.

The only way it could of been offset is by having an Indian as Indy's sidekick or helper. But that didn't happen.

Race is such an emotive subject, personally I prefer to hear the opinions of those races / people who actually feel they are being racially discriminated against, rather than the do gooders that are plentiful in this day and age who feel they should tell us what is acceptable or not.

Click to expand...

Intentional or not, do you find them racist?

JuniorJones said:

Die Hard. Depends if you feel your race was misrepresented racially or belittled racially by another. I imagine some Germans would take issue.

Click to expand...

I am part German. You don't see me crying about it.

Henry W Jones said:

Intentional or not, do you find them racist?

Click to expand...

Not at all. I never have. In fact I was quite surprised to find a thread on the Indy films being racist. I have never considered them to be that.

But then again possibly a white Englishman is the wrong person to ask, however I respect others will have different views on that. Maybe an Indian or an Egyptian are the best people to ask if they found the Indy films racially offensive in some way.

It then leads in to another argument as to where do film makers draw the line? For instance take the TOD banquet scene, how can you make an attempt at humour like that not seem racist towards the nation where the film is set? Do they start inventing fictional countries so as not to cause offence? Do they cut the scene? How do they balance it out? Or ultimately do they leave it up to audience sensibilites to make up their own minds that in actual fact this is just fiction and India isn't actually like that in real life?

The only way around it would of been to make the cult a Nazi cult hiding out somewhere, possibly that would of drawn no criticism then

I was only 11 when TOD came out so the racism issue passed me by in terms of reading about it in the press. I was more bothered about the gross out in terms of the animals they were eating and how funny as a kid I thought that scene was and how dark the film was overall in comparison to ROTLA. I never gave the issue of the depiction of India a thought. Not once throughout the film did I think about how India was coming across as a nation. Maybe thats a result of growing up somewhere where multi-culturism is the norm, so I know not to judge race by whats depicted on the screen or maybe thats the innocence of an 11 year old reacting to just the story presented. But even now the issue of racism doesn't come in to my mind when watching it. Yes I can see the alternative viewpoint on it, but I don't watch it and feel offended for India. It never enters my mind as I know India isn't like that as I can separate fact from fiction.

I mentioned racial sterotypes earlier, its hard not to get away from the fact that you've set a film in Egypt, so whos going to be digging there? Other Germans? No that wouldn't of looked right. You're making a film about an evil cult and a decimated village in India, who's going to play the cult members and the villagers? You're going to raid an ancient South American temple, what will the tribe look like that want to defend it? Its impossible to get away from the picture that people expect to see on the screen. You need a stuffy old museum director whos a bit of a bumbling fool really, lets use an Englishman.

Its a subject where we are treading on eggshells that people are so sensitive over for fear of offending others. I suppose the question people are asking now is how could some of that of been balanced out better? But in the case of TOD we are now viewing a 30 year old piece of work though 2013 sensibilites, and we need to remember that as time has gone by that views have changed, for the better I might add. But you only need to go back 10 years prior to TOD to look at what was happening with films like Blazing Saddles or even on TV with It ain't Half Hot Mum or Love thy Neighbour. That kind of stuff would never be made now and those IMO are racist, but I don't level that same criticism on Indiana Jones.

Incidentally, totally off topic, even recently I remember some reviews for TPM slating Lucas for giving the Neimodians and Gungans accents that sounded Asian and Jamaican, saying that was racist! We seem to analyse everything looking for the offensive, and we need to be careful of accusing film makers of being racist when unintenionally there was never any offence or racism intended in the first place.

JuniorJones said:

He's an acceptable 'positive' racist sterotype. Still Racist. A 'positive' racist sterotype is simply another means of control by the discriminating race.

Click to expand...

He's not in any Indiana Jones film I've ever seen.

JuniorJones said:

Been there and done than. The films are chock full of ethnic stereotypes

At the moment you simply do not except them as "racial" sterotypes due to the fantasy nature of the films.

Click to expand...

I guess I'll have to wait until you provide a real example.

Someone who is offended by the Indians portrayed in the film doesn't make the portrayal racist.

Racism has been defined.

Where does the film belittle the Indian race as all helpless villagers?
Where does the film belittle the Indian race as all twisted cultists?
Where does the film belittle the Indian race as all soldiers?

It doesn't.

JuniorJones said:

Again. People are offended by the representation based on India racial sterotypes. They are offended by the race element. This makes it racist.

Click to expand...

What exactly are India's racial sterotypes?

JuniorJones said:

Regardless of ignorance (stupidity) or not you can still be racist. You may not even know you are racist until someone tells you!

Click to expand...

Point being he never claimed racism, intelligence was the only qualification in the quote.

I'm not about to infer racism when someone doesn't have the balls to say it...and once it's said you better back it up with evidence.

Words have meaning.

JuniorJones said:

Stupidity because what they did was being percieved as racist. Which it was.

Click to expand...

Those perceptions have been challenged and debunked for the bunk they are...

JuniorJones said:

Heh, nice try. He said it without saying it.

Click to expand...

Ha! Like seeing it without it being there!

JuniorJones said:

He didn't have to mention the word. The man was being diplomatic.

Click to expand...

Please, he gave it no creedence because it merited none.

JuniorJones said:

Stupidity race oriented humour

Click to expand...

Didn't they say Pankot Tradition?

When did they say "hey everybody, we're Indian and this is what we eat!" ?

They didn't We were warned that the palace was evil...a new evil.

There was no racial element to the meal.

JuniorJones said:

Here's some other people who thought it was racist but back in 1984.

Click to expand...

I decided to look him up and the first result:

Rate My Professor

You can have him...

Based on the article, Bob Bond is right...his sweeping conclusions are prejudiced.

I'm concerned that an educator is outraged over the opportunity questions, (answers and discussions) about an Indian child's culture might provide.

You make my points for me.

Funny. Thanks!

AndyLGR said:

This is a debate that could run and run.

Click to expand...

All the more fun!

AndyLGR said:

Do I think they conformed to racial stereotypes for the time period these movies are set in, yes of course they do. Not just in TOD either; All nazis = bad. All Egyptians = diggers or market traders. All Indians = helpless villagers or evil cult members. The English = pompous or seemingly upper class. South Americans - loin cloth wearing spear throwers.

Click to expand...

Since you are referencing all the films, Mac was neither pompous or upper class. They filmed a Nazi with a conscience so I'd argue balance was always a consideration. Imam was an Egyptian Scholar. The Indians were soldiers as well, and while Baranca and Sapito may have worn loin cloths and thrown spears, that's not a fan fiction I'm interested in!

I agree with the vast majority of your post, though an Indian sidekick would have been the only way it could of been offset for stupid people who don't know what racism is.

What they did was show the same vulnerabilities in the hero, or "white man" as the race baiters would have it.

AndyLGR said:

Do they cut the scene? How do they balance it out?

Click to expand...

As Vance has mentioned in the past (along with others I believe) the cut line, or a line of dialog would have been reinforcement...

AndyLGR said:

Not once throughout the film did I think about how India was coming across as a nation.

Click to expand...

A minute fraction did...those who carry that bagage daily. Those who filter everything through that preposterous stipulation.

AndyLGR said:

Its a subject where we are treading on eggshells that people are so sensitive over for fear of offending others.

Click to expand...

I think the misguided are being overly endulged.

AndyLGR said:

But in the case of TOD we are now viewing a 30 year old piece of work though 2013 sensibilites, and we need to remember that as time has gone by that views have changed, for the better I might add.

Click to expand...

I reject that idea as an absolute...views changing for the better that is. Especially with regard for the eggshells surrounding the easily offended.

AndyLGR said:

But you only need to go back 10 years prior to TOD to look at what was happening with films like Blazing Saddles or even on TV with It ain't Half Hot Mum or Love thy Neighbour. That kind of stuff would never be made now and those IMO are racist, but I don't level that same criticism on Indiana Jones.

Click to expand...

This is the danger regarding tangents, in my case Blazing Saddles which of course was a critique of racism/racists.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Since you are referencing all the films, Mac was neither pompous or upper class. They filmed a Nazi with a conscience so I'd argue balance was always a consideration. Imam was an Egyptian Scholar. The Indians were soldiers as well, and while Baranca and Sapito may have worn loin cloths and thrown spears, that's not a fan fiction I'm interested in!

Click to expand...

TBH I didn't even have KOTCS in mind. I'd forgtton about it.

When someone wants to argue that something is racist then they will convieniently forget any bits of balance that may exist elsewhere and just focus on the elements that they feel are offensive.

Rocket Surgeon said:

though an Indian sidekick would have been the only way it could of been offset for stupid people who don't know what racism is.

Click to expand...

True, you have people stupid enough not to realise that its fiction on the screen and think everyone will assume that to be real. Then you have people speaking on behalf of the alleged victim telling people what they should and shouldn't say or do or what they should be offended by.

I think TOD is a nice departure from the normal Indy movie in that its not a race to find an artifact. I like the fact its steps out of the box and does something different to help someone in need. It was a bold decision imo and is something they should explore if they ever did an Indy 5.

Rocket Surgeon said:

I reject that idea as an absolute...views changing for the better that is.

Click to expand...

I think the point I was trying to make, but probably didn't make too clear, was that racism in certainly the TV shows I mentioned was all about mentioning their colour repeatedly or their creed for the benefit of a laugh and to belittle. Which nowadays we don't see. I also think its something that I don't think applies when people say "Indiana Jones and the...." is a racist movie. I don't see any belittling of a race or nation in the Indy movies. I really don't.

Rocket Surgeon said:

This is the danger regarding tangents, in my case Blazing Saddles which of course was a critique of racism/racists.

Click to expand...

Yes of course and was a very funny film too and turned the tables on the racists by making the anti-hero be the one the racists had to depend on. But my only reference for mentioning this film was the use of its language and belittling of the slaves and races in some scenes. Particularly at the start of the movie. This to me is racism and is again nothing that is seen in any Indy movie.

Some of the commentary asserting the racist question in this thread is amidst the most pseudo-intellectual, sophomoric, phony nonsense that I have ever read. If racism is equivalent to parody in a Hero film whereby someone winds up in India and there are Indian bad guys there, then we are in big trouble as a society. I can only imagine that whoever is asserting this is either an idiot kid who is vying for self-importance by creating a nonsense cause to champion, or a moron adult who typifies everything that is wrong with the world today.

Even the question itself is posed like a child would do it, hence the child-like phrasing of the question: "Is Indiana Jones racist?". It's like asking "Is bowling racist?" - it's an idiot's question, but we'll address it as if it was valid.

Do you mean the character himself? Then no. It's clear that he has a deeply rooted respect for cross-cultural differentiation which would most likely negate racists overtones in his life.

If you mean the movies at large? The answer is no, the movies were available to a wide range of audiences across the world, and offered as entertainment, and while using certain aspects of a given culture as the villain, the movies also offered aspects of each culture as valid and not all encompassing.