TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Indiana Jones Trilogy
User Name
Password

View Poll Results: Are the Indiana Jones Films Racist?
No 60 78.95%
Yes - all of them 4 5.26%
Raiders of the Lost Ark 0 0%
Temple of Doom 11 14.47%
Last Crusade 0 0%
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 1 1.32%
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-14-2013, 04:35 PM   #501
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
I look forward to your monkey brains smeared on this thread!

Just don't go all Jan Brady on me!
BWA-HA! "Jan Brady" - Your insult that broke the fights between us back in 2009. Marsha! Marsha! Marsha!

For anyone who doesn't get the joke, here's a visual aid:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
...and knowing neither of us require smilies or apologies
Noted and logged but I like to use "smilies" and try to be polite when it's deserved.

Anyway, you've mentioned a couple of times that "Chatter Lal's proclamation of Pankot Tradition" is a sign to the audience that the dinner scene isn't "normal" and, therefore, shouldn't be offensive.

Indeed, Chatter Lal does announce the Maharaja as the "Guardian of Pankot tradition" but Pankot isn't just the palace, it's an Indian STATE (albeit fictional). In those days, the size of a maharaja's state/kingdom could vary from small to large. Judging from the size & rich splendour of Zalim Singh's palace and number of guards within, it's safe to say that his area of rule was relatively extensive and most likely included the village of Mayapore and several others.

All of this to say: If that type of meal was a Pankot tradition, then having Eyeball Soup and eating Living Baby Snakes would be a REGIONAL tradition and not confined to just the palace nor the (fictional version of) Thuggee. Hence, those 4 words of dialogue CANNOT be used to further the "not racist" view because they don't stand up under scrutiny.

(It's also possible that the dinner guests are not Thugs but I'll save that theory for later.)

Last edited by Stoo : 03-14-2013 at 04:40 PM.
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 05:45 PM   #502
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 837
I don't see that a line of dialogue that was cut or could of been added would of placated someone who felt the banquet scene was offensive or racist towards their religion or nation or fellow countryman.
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 06:06 PM   #503
Vance
IndyFan
 
Vance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
I don't see that a line of dialogue that was cut or could of been added would of placated someone who felt the banquet scene was offensive or racist towards their religion or nation or fellow countryman.

Shockingly, I'm going to disagree, with a bit of a caveat. If there had been some attention drawn to the scene with Indiana Jones telling the Colonel "These aren't Hindi," it may have helped dramatically. If we had also learned that Chatter Lal or Mola Rom's 'Western Education' had allowed them to corrupt local teachings (thus making Indiana Jones more of a champion of Kali, which would make his angry challenge make more sense at the end) it would have helped.

Again, something to highlight the 'there's something very very wrong here' for the dinner scene rather than play the whole thing up for laughs with Willie and Short Round.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 06:09 PM   #504
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
offensive ≠ racism.
True. However...

Rasicm = offence
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
I don't see that a line of dialogue that was cut or could of been added would of placated someone who felt the banquet scene was offensive or racist towards their religion or nation or fellow countryman.
It's already been mentioned in this discussion before but there was an exchange in the script between Blumburtt & Indy that would've helped.

Blumburtt: Rather bizarre menu, wouldn't you say?
Indy: Even if they were trying to scare us away, a devout Hindu would never touch meat. (Looking around) Makes you wonder what these people are...

Last edited by Stoo : 03-14-2013 at 06:18 PM.
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 06:49 PM   #505
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
True. However...

Rasicm = offence
It's already been mentioned in this discussion before but there was an exchange in the script between Blumburtt & Indy that would've helped.

Blumburtt: Rather bizarre menu, wouldn't you say?
Indy: Even if they were trying to scare us away, a devout Hindu would never touch meat. (Looking around) Makes you wonder what these people are...
I just think that if someone is going to be offended by the banquet then they will be and even if they added a disclaimer type line during the meal people would still say that's racist, and that one line Indy disclaimer doesn't get you out of the fact that you are still showing Indians eating insects and monkey brains. I suppose I'm trying to say that people who do or want to get offended by such stuff would still ignore the caveat.

I will say that line should of been kept in, it adds a real sinister feel to the scene I think.
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 07:08 PM   #506
Vance
IndyFan
 
Vance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
I will say that line should of been kept in, it adds a real sinister feel to the scene I think.

The dinner scene is actually my biggest problem with the movie, not just because it comes off as extremely culturally insensitive, but also because it ruins the ****ing narrative! Seriously, there's a big and important conversation with Chatter Lal going on (where the evil plot (TM) is actually discussed), but it's nearly muted and largely ignored so we can get more gross-out takes from Willie and Short Round.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 09:41 PM   #507
RKORadio
Guest
 
RKORadio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 107
Lucas has a tin ear for scripts:
RKORadio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 09:55 PM   #508
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
I just think that if someone is going to be offended by the banquet then they will be and even if they added a disclaimer type line during the meal people would still say that's racist, and that one line Indy disclaimer doesn't get you out of the fact that you are still showing Indians eating insects and monkey brains.
Agreed, Andy, sort of. Had that bit of dialogue been included, there would have been *2* disclaimers, since Blumburtt's line is just as important as Indy's (and they both would've helped the 'not-racist' stance).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
I suppose I'm trying to say that people who do or want to get offended by such stuff would still ignore the caveat.
There is a lot of 'ignoring' in this discussion so ignorance can work both ways!
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 08:02 AM   #509
Henry W Jones
IndyFan
 
Henry W Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry W Jones
From Lone Ranger Thread: I have Native American friends that find it highly offensive that Depp will be playing a Native America in this film.(The Lone Ranger) I have not seen it yet but I know many will take issue. Is it racist since some Native Americans are offended?

P.S. I believe my friends are being overly sensitive since they have not even seen the film and are already offended. I also told them they were being sensitive and none of them decided to stop talking to me. Luckily my friends are mature enough to hear another opinion without freaking out and taking it personal

Also I can actually provide links to these conversations should one question my comment.

Also, I love your new Indiana Jones thread RKO. Indy title, usual empty post. At least this time it was about IJ. Out of curiosity, which racist character do you like better? Mola Ram or Lao Che?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKORadio
Lucas has a tin ear for scripts:

Sorry to say it but, your writing leaves a lot to be desired. Let's say tin ear for posting. Pretty harsh attacking the man. He has written full stories for several blockbuster movies while you normally can't even provide a paragraph with any relevancy. Sorry for pointing out the obvious. I would think as much as you dislike people being poorly treated, you could at least give the man a little credit. He did create the original character that we all are here for. (Well most of us are here for)

Last edited by Attila the Professor : 03-15-2013 at 10:13 AM. Reason: Double post.
Henry W Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 10:13 AM   #510
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,436
Exclamation Double Posting and Argument by Photo

I'm putting on my moderator's hat for a moment to urge you all to quit posting multiple times in a row. Combine multiple replies into a single post. It's not hard. You all know how copying and pasting works. Use that methodology.

And Henry? You're getting closer and closer to attacking the poster, and not the posts. Piling on doesn't make anybody look good.

Incidentally, folks, I'd also love to place a moratorium on pictures on their own masquerading as discourse, especially since this most recent one is going to put "Yakety Sax" into my head for hours. Think more in the future about whether the picture you're going to use is really worth a thousand words, and about whether those thousand words are at all relevant.

Last edited by Attila the Professor : 03-15-2013 at 10:18 AM.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 10:17 AM   #511
Henry W Jones
IndyFan
 
Henry W Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
I'm putting on my moderator's hat for a moment to urge you all to quit posting multiple times in a row. Combine multiple replies into a single post. It's not hard. You all know how copying and pasting works. Use that methodology.

And Henry? You're getting closer and closer to attacking the poster, and not the posts. Piling on doesn't make anybody look good.

Afterthoughts, not attacks. I am on a cell phone and it make it hard to cut and paste. Sorry.
Henry W Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 10:25 AM   #512
RKORadio
Guest
 
RKORadio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 107
Sorry, Atilla.

They're repeating The Benny Hill Show on Aussie pay-TV and it just seemed a good choice.

Besides, Harrison Ford is the one who pointed out Lucas's tin-ear.
RKORadio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 10:47 AM   #513
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry W Jones
I am on a cell phone and it make it hard to cut and paste. Sorry.

That's all right then, in those cases.

Anyhow, back to your regularly scheduled programming, all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKORadio
Sorry, Atilla.

They're repeating The Benny Hill Show on Aussie pay-TV and it just seemed a good choice.

Besides, Harrison Ford is the one who pointed out Lucas's tin-ear.

And I don't disagree that Lucas has a big tin-ear, but that's something that's said of dialogue, which Lucas didn't write for these films.

It's these folks, the alleged India experts, who are to blame and to credit for the dialogue:



(You're not the only one who does the photo thing, but you're newer here, so bad habits and all. Besides: longer-term members can afford to be reminded. It's not a rule; it's just good practice.)

Last edited by Attila the Professor : 03-15-2013 at 10:58 AM.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 10:58 AM   #514
RKORadio
Guest
 
RKORadio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 107
Ah. I'm reminded of those people that say they're an expert on a country - or acquire an accent - after spending two hours in an airport transit lounge!
RKORadio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 11:12 AM   #515
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKORadio
Ah. I'm reminded of those people that say they're an expert on a country - or acquire an accent - after spending two hours in an airport transit lounge!

I wouldn't be so sure. I know I'm the one who introduced "alleged" into the conversation a few moments ago, but Gloria Katz, at the very least, claims that the gross-out elements of the dinner are not the work of her and her husband:

Quote:
Originally Posted by People Magazine
The four brainstormers were temporarily stumped trying to devise a scene that would keep the audience awake while a human-sacrifice cult was explained. Huyck and Katz proposed a tiger hunt. "There's no way I'm going to stay in India long enough to shoot a tiger hunt," Spielberg said. They finally settled on a dinner scene. "Steve and George both still react like children, so their idea was to make it as gross as possible," says Gloria. Thus the banquet of beetles, monkey brains and baby snakes was cooked up.

Apart from that, they had a somewhat significant collection of Indian paintings for quite some time. Mola Ram, in fact, is the name of an 18th century Indian painter. As Grantland tells us:

Quote:
Katz and Huyck supplied details about India: They'd traveled the subcontinent, collected Indian art,2 and even had photographs of the Thuggee demonstrating their strangling technique.

Oh, and from the same Grantland piece:

Quote:
Spielberg was slightly baffled. "The Sankara stones, the Eastern religion, a lot of the stuff in there — he didn't fully grasp what it was," Lucas said. "So it was harder for him to sort of interpret that into something we have a stake in. And let's face it: It's my fault."

Last edited by Attila the Professor : 03-15-2013 at 11:21 AM.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2013, 04:33 PM   #516
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Anyway, you've mentioned a couple of times that "Chatter Lal's proclamation of Pankot Tradition" is a sign to the audience that the dinner scene isn't "normal" and, therefore, shouldn't be offensive.

Indeed, Chatter Lal does announce the Maharaja as the "Guardian of Pankot tradition" but Pankot isn't just the palace, it's an Indian STATE (albeit fictional). In those days, the size of a maharaja's state/kingdom could vary from small to large. Judging from the size & rich splendour of Zalim Singh's palace and number of guards within, it's safe to say that his area of rule was relatively extensive and most likely included the village of Mayapore and several others.

All of this to say: If that type of meal was a Pankot tradition, then having Eyeball Soup and eating Living Baby Snakes would be a REGIONAL tradition and not confined to just the palace nor the (fictional version of) Thuggee. Hence, those 4 words of dialogue CANNOT be used to further the "not racist" view because they don't stand up under scrutiny.

(It's also possible that the dinner guests are not Thugs but I'll save that theory for later.)

I appreciate the care and effort with which you've crafted your points...

...and your deductions are reasonable but not definitive.

My initial argument using the Pankot Tradition lines was to draw the distinction between the film characterizing India as a country and the reality of the film portraying in your view a province in mine and the confines of the film a Palace.

In effect telling the audience in no uncertain terms what you are seeing is not an indictment of the entire culture of India...

...telling might not be accurate, how about proclaiming in a loud voice?

My inclusion of his proclimation was merely tacked on to a series of moments in the film which sum up the point: It's not a portrayal of India, but an Indian State as you would put it.

Please quote where I would have said the dinner wouldn't have been offensive...I clearly remember posting that I wouldn't be surprised if people felt so, just that it doesn't substantiate racism.

Not that I would ever question your judgement, ( ) but you are engaging in some estimation, and in mine racism is too serious an accusation to blur lines.

Not that you're painting an Edvard Munch tribute, but a consideration is time. How long have they been reviving Pankot Tradition for this "new evil" to spread?

A generation? A year? Two?

The most important aspect is the distictin between the Indian Nation (racism) and a state.

Do you judge the United States based on Mississippi Tradition?

Does 1907 Vancouver speak for all of Canada?
Has it b
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 12:51 PM   #517
Henry W Jones
IndyFan
 
Henry W Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,162
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-m...me-2012-5?op=1

Quote from article. 'Just so everyone is clear, Hindus are not human-sacrificing creepy idol-worshipping people. And sure, "Temple Of Doom" is not saying they are, but for people who don't know about the religion, it sure looks that way.'

So, even in this article calling it racist states it is not made to look as if all Indian people act this way. The author basically says to the uneducated of the religion, hence ignorance to the culture and the assumption everything you see on screen is true, it sure looks that way.
Henry W Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 02:54 PM   #518
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry W Jones
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-m...me-2012-5?op=1

Quote from article. 'Just so everyone is clear, Hindus are not human-sacrificing creepy idol-worshipping people. And sure, "Temple Of Doom" is not saying they are, but for people who don't know about the religion, it sure looks that way.'

So, even in this article calling it racist states it is not made to look as if all Indian people act this way. The author basically says to the uneducated of the religion, hence ignorance to the culture and the assumption everything you see on screen is true, it sure looks that way.

So that would, at the very least, seem to make the film irresponsible, right, seeing as, in answering a 2001 survey by the Opinion Research Corporation, 95% of Americans reported little or no knowledge of Hindu belief or practices and 71% said they had no contact with their Hindu neighbors. 75% were unaware of their positive contributions to their communities. Another article reports that 59% of respondents in the same survey were not interested in learning further.

And that's a survey from 2001, 17 years after Temple of Doom and yet prior to 9/11, so you can't attribute it to confusion about which brown people are which. I'm not saying Temple of Doom is responsible for the 2001 state of ignorance, but rather that I would guess that the figures for the mid-1980s were in the direction of even greater ignorance. Even if there were problems with the survey - always a distinct possibility - those percentages are striking even with some suspicion about their precision.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 06:01 PM   #519
JuniorJones
TR.N Staff Member
 
JuniorJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Scannerland.
Posts: 1,987
In terms of the view I have been advocating this leads quite nicely to concept of acceptable "Passive Racism". In TOD case is based on a misrepresentation of a race by either ignorance, a cheap larrrf or worst - knowingness.

This type of racism can only be identified if someone is offended, whether they are right to be offended is another question but it is clear from the sloppy narrative that TOD is offensive to Hindu.

Indiana Jones is....Guilty! Guilty! GUILTY! That and it not being a tenth of Raiders.


Last edited by JuniorJones : 03-16-2013 at 06:08 PM.
JuniorJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 06:08 PM   #520
Henry W Jones
IndyFan
 
Henry W Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
So that would, at the very least, seem to make the film irresponsible, right, seeing as, in answering a 2001 survey by the Opinion Research Corporation, 95% of Americans reported little or no knowledge of Hindu belief or practices and 71% said they had no contact with their Hindu neighbors. 75% were unaware of their positive contributions to their communities. Another article reports that 59% of respondents in the same survey were not interested in learning further.

And that's a survey from 2001, 17 years after Temple of Doom and yet prior to 9/11, so you can't attribute it to confusion about which brown people are which. I'm not saying Temple of Doom is responsible for the 2001 state of ignorance, but rather that I would guess that the figures for the mid-1980s were in the direction of even greater ignorance. Even if there were problems with the survey - always a distinct possibility - those percentages are striking even with some suspicion about their precision.

Where do we draw the line for who is responsible? Is it a film makers job to make sure everybody in that country is represented? Is it up to the viewer to realize it is fiction? I could see it if their race was depicted as a whole a murderous cultists. So, if a movie where made where a group of people from India, at the beginning of the film are shown broke down on the side of the road, on a tour bus in America. Along comes a family of psycho's a they offer help. They accept. Unfortunately, after a disgusting meal of rabbif brains, frog eyes and dog testacles served by the American psycho's, they start being murdered one by one. After the first few die they start to fight back. By the end of the film, the last two alive are an Indian man and woman. No racial slurs where used in the entire film and no other Americans are represented in any way. Is it a racist film towards Americans?
Henry W Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 05:34 AM   #521
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Think more in the future about whether the picture you're going to use is really worth a thousand words, and about whether those thousand words are at all relevant.



Side note: Apparently the most direct route to India from Shanghai is over the Great Wall of China. In all the years of watching the flick, I can't believe I missed that little geographic error. It's sort of like flying from Seattle to San Francisco via Chicago. Or, for our European friends, from London to Berlin via Rome.

Which is to say that it's about a fifteen hour trip from Shanghai to the nearest section of the wall in Beijing. Not exactly the most direct route.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
It's these folks, the alleged India experts, who are to blame and to credit for the dialogue:

Errors in geography aside (given ceiling limits on prop engine planes, wouldn't a more southerly route into India make more sense?), I don't feel they did a particularly bad job as "experts". While Stoo is generally correct in that Kali is never represented as she is in Temple of Doom, a lot of the detail work is accurate.* That even includes the "magic powers" Mola Ram, and Indy himself, later displays.

*-I'm currently rewatching the movie on Blu-ray (for the first time!) to prove a point to myself, and to make a larger one on the subject at hand.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 08:47 AM   #522
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
With regard to your proposal of mitigating factors:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
The Stone wouldn't have recovered itself, but Indy was able to use it - and his knowledge of Hinduism - to defeat Mola Ram.

It is true that he had to go native a bit to achieve his goals, what with the incantation on the broken bridge.

Don't these examples mitigate the idea that Indiana Jones represents a white savior?

Clearly he's not employing his white culture or faith in these examples to establish "white" superiority, moral or otherwise...

...and where he has previously failed...


Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
I just think that if someone is going to be offended by the banquet then they will be and even if they added a disclaimer type line during the meal people would still say that's racist, and that one line Indy disclaimer doesn't get you out of the fact that you are still showing Indians eating insects and monkey brains. I suppose I'm trying to say that people who do or want to get offended by such stuff would still ignore the caveat.

I will say that line should of been kept in, it adds a real sinister feel to the scene I think.
Couldn't agree more, including the effect of keeping the line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKORadio
Lucas has a tin ear for scripts:
Irony abounds...but wouldn't this have been a better choice:



God knows junior knows what I mean...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance
While Spielberg since then has made a remarkable effort to be more 'fair' to other cultures, Lucas has shown absolute contempt towards any criticism levelled at him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ...the same Grantland piece:
Spielberg was slightly baffled. "The Sankara stones, the Eastern religion, a lot of the stuff in there — he didn't fully grasp what it was," Lucas said. "So it was harder for him to sort of interpret that into something we have a stake in. And let's face it: It's my fault."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Which is to say that it's about a fifteen hour trip from Shanghai to the nearest section of the wall in Beijing. Not exactly the most direct route.

*-I'm currently rewatching the movie on Blu-ray (for the first time!) to prove a point to myself, and to make a larger one on the subject at hand.
Intrigued...

Last edited by Rocket Surgeon : 03-17-2013 at 09:13 AM.
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 12:01 PM   #523
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
With regard to your proposal of mitigating factors:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
The Stone wouldn't have recovered itself, but Indy was able to use it - and his knowledge of Hinduism - to defeat Mola Ram.

It is true that he had to go native a bit to achieve his goals, what with the incantation on the broken bridge.

Don't these examples mitigate the idea that Indiana Jones represents a white savior?

Clearly he's not employing his white culture or faith in these examples to establish "white" superiority, moral or otherwise...

They certainly do. I hoped I'd indicated as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry W Jones
Where do we draw the line for who is responsible? Is it a film makers job to make sure everybody in that country is represented? Is it up to the viewer to realize it is fiction? I could see it if their race was depicted as a whole a murderous cultists. So, if a movie where made where a group of people from India, at the beginning of the film are shown broke down on the side of the road, on a tour bus in America. Along comes a family of psycho's a they offer help. They accept. Unfortunately, after a disgusting meal of rabbif brains, frog eyes and dog testacles served by the American psycho's, they start being murdered one by one. After the first few die they start to fight back. By the end of the film, the last two alive are an Indian man and woman. No racial slurs where used in the entire film and no other Americans are represented in any way. Is it a racist film towards Americans?

Leaving apart the fact that American isn't a race (they could be Indian-Americans!), it could depend on a few things.

A) Who is the film made by?
B) Is it a commentary on Americans themselves, or on a set of films or cultural depictions?

Of course, films like this have been made in America, but without Indian protagonists. I think it's reasonable to find something like Deliverance or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, as great as they are, to contain objectionable depictions of Southerners. But, then, the creepy redneck is a trope too, just like the helpless native village and the demonic cult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
I just think that if someone is going to be offended by the banquet then they will be and even if they added a disclaimer type line during the meal people would still say that's racist, and that one line Indy disclaimer doesn't get you out of the fact that you are still showing Indians eating insects and monkey brains. I suppose I'm trying to say that people who do or want to get offended by such stuff would still ignore the caveat.

I'm relatively indifferent to those who go out of their way to be offended. Yes, dialogue can often be used to brush away what seems like the fuller intent of a piece; sometimes it seems irrelevant, or as though it's there to protect the film from controversy.

But I absolutely think that an acknowledgement within the film that the meal was unconventional within an Indian context, and not just the context of the viewer or the film's American and Chinese outsiders, would be an asset. An asset because it would be more responsible than allowing two unpalatable meals to be shown in India, with nothing else than some conventional, familiar fruit offered up as acceptable cuisine, and because it would give the meal a point beyond just (lame) comic relief. As you say, it would add a sinister feel to the scene.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 02:14 PM   #524
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
True. However...Rasicm = offence
Wouldn't it really be Offence ≨ Racism?

That is: a subset of?

Racism is certainly more than offensive.

I'm certainly not offended by racism, I've gone on to being bemused by it and somewhat amused at the idiocy of it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorJones
In terms of the view I have been advocating this leads quite nicely to concept of acceptable "Passive Racism".
Oh jeeze... ...here we go!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorJones
In TOD case is based on a misrepresentation of a race by either ignorance, a cheap larrrf or worst - knowingness.
The premise is so wrong. If any thing was misrepresented its the menu...and even that is still being debated. Surely you've read the testimonies regarding Indian fare.

Here's a spark for the tinder box:

Would endulging in cow urine be more to your taste than beetles?


How about bugs, brains or, DOG!?:

Bizarre Indian Dishes!

Quote:
1. CHICKEN'S BLOOD FOR CURRY? :This is a scintillating food story. Ever heard of Jadoh? Cooked and eaten by the Jaintia tribes of the North East, it is a dish that has pig intestines and blood of the chicken as the ingredients. With this food on your plate, it sure does get crazier!


2. PIG'S BRAIN GARNISHED: We play so safe with our usual dal and roti that it is time we explore the weirder side of food in our own land! Doh Khlieh, a Meghalayan cuisine, will definitely push you out of your comfort zone. Made of pork and garnished with pig’s brain which is steamed, it is considered to be a delicacy. Dare to eat?


3. DOGS! THE NAGA WAY: People in Nagaland love dogs and eat them too! Someone surely said, “Indian food is like Indian dialect… it changes by the kilometers of the land you cover”. This is true! We can take a dislike towards what we choose to eat. But here is the best part. When we say British food, all sorts of breads and croissants come to our mind, with India it is the spice and the curry that the world is crazy about! The difference in eating habits spanning the nation makes it so interesting.


4.CHILLY AS ANTS? :For those bravehearted hoggers, here is something new that you can try. Make your dish spicy by garnishing it with small dried fish, tomatoes and little Portuguese chillies. This sauce can be a sore for your nose but when it comes to setting your tongue on fire, yes, it is guaranteed! Also, delicious red ants cooked along with their eggs into heady and hot chutney, Chaprah is Chattisgarh’s dish that the people are crazy about. Ready for some unearthly experience?

My favorite line, if you failed to notice:
Quote:
“Indian food is like Indian dialect… it changes by the kilometers of the land you cover”.

WAIT! They DID do bugs and brains!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorJones
This type of racism can only be identified if someone is offended, whether they are right to be offended is another question but it is clear from the sloppy narrative that TOD is offensive to Hindu.
Were the Thuggee offensive to Hindu?

What is your definition of "Passive Racism"?

None of the characters indicate the Indians are inferior...they just don't share the same tastes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorJones
Indiana Jones is....Guilty! Guilty! GUILTY! That...it[s] not being a tenth of Raiders.



This we can agree on!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
They certainly do. I hoped I'd indicated as such.
I thought as much, but its surrounded by so many if, ands, and buts, I felt it important enough to make that point stand proud.

Last edited by Rocket Surgeon : 03-20-2013 at 02:41 PM.
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 03:04 PM   #525
Henry W Jones
IndyFan
 
Henry W Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
They certainly do. I hoped I'd indicated as such.



Leaving apart the fact that American isn't a race (they could be Indian-Americans!), it could depend on a few things.

A) Who is the film made by?
B) Is it a commentary on Americans them. lves, or on a set of films or cultural depictions?

Of course, films like this have been made in America, but without Indian protagonists. I think it's reasonable to find something like Deliverance or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, as great as they are, to contain objectionable depictions of Southerners. But, then, the creepy redneck is a trope too, just like the helpless native village and the demonic cult.

But it still depicts Americans only in a negative light whether it is a "race" or not. Is the commentary on Indians themselves in TOD other than the location? What if the cult is christians in my scenario and have American flags in their home? Does who directs the film change the content? I
Henry W Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 AM.