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

Henry W Jones

New member
Attila the Professor said:
I did the first time I read your post. I think the implication that a critique is based in feminism is a bad thing is absurd. Besides, it seems to have little to do with <I>this</I> thread, as far as I've seen it. Incidentally, I don't see how your suggestion that she should get over sexism and racism are meant to make me friendlier to your argument.

Do I wish that RKO had taken Montana's advice to "put into words, with evidence, the reasoning behind [her] claims"? Absolutely. Do I resent her suggesting it's wrong to be rude to a lady as a way of avoiding more conversation? Yes. (Of course, . d like to see less rudeness as a general rule, regardless of who is involved.)

The thing is I am not trying to be rude. I have repeatedly asked for evidence and she hides behind empty statements about racism and sexism. I do not care she is a woman, but by reading her post I see it is a big deal to her. Her sex has no bearing on tbe topic. On one hand she screams about feminism and on the other hand wants preferential treatment because she is a lady. Same with Vance, I just don't think he has proven his point. I am not trying to be rude to him. He has repeatedly called me name's and told me I should be banned for disagreeing with him. My intent is only answers which the two of them seem unable to provide
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Henry W Jones said:
The thing is I am not trying to be rude. I have repeatedly asked for evidence and she hides behind empty statements about racism and sexism. I do not care she is a woman, but by reading her post I see it is a big deal to her. Her sex has no bearing on tbe topic. On one hand she screams about feminism and on the other hand wants preferential treatment because she is a lady. Same with Vance, I just don't think he has proven his point. I am not trying to be rude to him. He has repeatedly called me name's and told me I should be banned for disagreeing with him. My intent is only answers which the two of them seem unable to provide

My comment about rudeness wasn't aimed at you specifically. It was an aside.

But maybe those with whom you share this thread would be more willing to engage if you treated it more like a discussion and less like a debate in which there are points to be scored.

Do I think the films - and Temple of Doom specifically - are racist? I have a perhaps undue reticence to call things that in general. But I also haven't voted because I think there is plenty to discuss about whether, and to what extents, they and it may be offensive, ignorant, or culturally misguided. I haven't engaged much here because I've found the thread a little unwieldy, but perhaps I should make the effort. It is worth <I>discussing</I>.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Attila the Professor said:
My comment about rudeness wasn't aimed at you specifically. It was an aside.

But maybe those with whom you share this thread would be more willing to engage if you treated it more like a discussion and less like a debate in which there are points to be scored.

Do I think the films - and Temple of Doom specifically - are racist? I have a perhaps undue reticence to call things that in general. But I also haven't voted because I think there is plenty to discuss about whether, and to what extents, they and it may be offensive, ignorant, or culturally misguided. I haven't engaged much here because I've found the thread a little unwieldy, but perhaps I should make the effort. It is worth <I>discussing</I>.

I am more than willing to discuss if someone can point out what the actual racist content in the films is. What are the stereotypes in the film? I don't want to win, I want understanding to why some feel it is racist beyond it was banned and some people found it offensive.

Part of the problem is written word is sometimes hard to decipher the emotion behind it.
 

RKORadio

Guest
My suggestion that Henry not be rude to a lady was tounge-in-cheek. I may be a teen but I'm also a proud third way feminist.

I despise racism/sexism/ableism/fatphobia/adultism and any other 'ism.
 
Last edited:
Vance said:
At this point you're just willfully blind to racism shown in the movie and have an emotional vested interest in defending the film.
So says the emotionally vested:
Vance said:
Bull****.

This thread is inspired by your wildly emotional and baseless accusation that the film is INSANELY RACIST.

Not exactly the model of rational vestment...and contrary to your further accusations you are not defending your charge in any substantive way.

If I were to take you at your word I would believe that India kicked the production out of India.

By the way where are those TSR images taken during filming...in India?

Bullsh!t indeed.

Vance said:
There is no level of proof that you would accept that there are those whom would find scenes in Temple of Doom racist
You would first have to provide proof to make that claim.

But again you're content making reckless and baseless accusations instead.


Vance said:
- and you even go so far as to repeatedly demonize those people who are offended, as well as people, like myself, who merely point out that it was offensive.

I agreed people may have been offended already, but demonize?

Is this another word you're struggling with?

Its not surprising you see racism in Temple of Doom if you feel I've somehow represented you as diabolic.:rolleyes:

From December:

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.

Your contention that the films are racist is directly influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts which is another way to say: biased.

I call to question all of your perceptions...most especially as you feel justified speaking for others. I see RKO hasn't been " driven" anywhere, especially not by Henry.
 
Last edited:
AndyLGR said:
It seems as though the conversation is trying to be steered away to discuss other films instead of staying within the confines of the Indy movies.
Its apparent there are larger themes people allude to bu cannot express in terms other than the context of other films.

Based on the way Temple has been twisted, I'll wait till they figure themout and we han hash out the application to Temple directly.

AndyLGR said:
Just because someone says something that doesn't make it so.
That people were offended isn't in question, but some simply conflate it with racism.

AndyLGR said:
Looking through the thread I can see a lot of this, its like "well they say its racist and so do these people, so it must be racist". Yet it seems sometimes these comments are used but without any personal opinions being offered being offered in addition.

So you see why certain conversations are spinning their tires...
 
Mickiana said:
The movies are not racist, not even accidently racist.
Did they offend some people? Sure. Were they racist? No. :hat:

Mickiana said:
They were deliberately (consciously) written to present a certain style and humour, etc to a modern viewing public.

As mentioned earlier, (maybe later) they filmed a scene where a NAZI had a crisis of conscience for God's sake!

I find it highly unlikely a year or so later they abandoned their conscience.

Though I'm open to the argument...opinons aren't suffient proof.

Mickiana said:
If one cannot see the degrees of difference between the claims (of racism) and the actual achievements, then the task is to keep talking until both sides find an equal view.

The continued conversation, even if there is no resolution, reveals personality. I like it.

Mickiana said:
Yet again, not one instance of racism has been found to support the view that there is racism in the IJ movies.

That people believe there is racism and have been offended there is ample evidence but the objective presence of racism is still unsupported.
 
Stoo said:
@Rocket, my friend: You know that I love you...but you're next. It's a small (but important) detail about Pankot.:D :whip:
I look forward to your monkey brains smeared on this thread!

Just don't go all Jan Brady on me!

...and knowing neither of us require smilies or apologies
 

Henry W Jones

New member
RKORadio said:
My suggestion that Henry not be rude to a lady was tounge-in-cheek. I may be a teen but I'm also a proud third way feminist.

I despise racism/sexism/ableism/fatphobia/adultism and any other 'ism.

And it shows in your postings. I am not for racism, sexism ect. But I don't make it part of every conversation. You beat the horse after its long past dead. I don't have issue with you or your beliefs but I do have issue with you not having your own opinion about the film. You take what others say about it on the net and use other films and characters to make your point. When questioned about your opinions and when asked to elaborate you just disappear.Sorry you feel I have been rude . I feel you and Vance side stepping my questions is very rude. I have not been attacking you (both) I just feel if you are gonna make BIG statements, you should be able to back it up (and neither of you do) and you still have not been able to express what in the film you find racist. I really don't care other than being interested where the racism is in the film and other than when Vance has decided to question my character and talk smack about me personally, I have been fairly calm. My comments are not meant to be vicious. Again read with brain. Not emotion.

Sidenote. If you are so against racism and watch these films, knowing you find them to be racist, why would you watch movies and participate at a site that celebrates films you think are insanely racist? If I felt they were that demeaning to another race, I would not watch them. Sorry if you are offended by honesty in advance.
 
Last edited:

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
One moderately notable detail aside (but, of course, this Christian Science Monitor review from May of 1984 is likely based on just one viewing), this piece explains itself pretty well. I've bolded the parts I find most worthy of notice. (I don't necessarily disagree with what's said about Willie, but that's beyond the point in this thread.)

'Temple of Doom' sinks into sexism, racism.

By David Sterritt / May 31, 1984

THE idea behind ''Raiders of the Lost Ark'' was to revive the thrills and fun of the old Saturday-matinee serials. The same impulse runs through its boisterous sequel, ''Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.''

The new picture isn't just nostalgic, though. It's downright backward. Nobody expects deep philosophies from Steven Spielberg, who directed it, or George Lucas, who dreamed up the story. But moviegoers deserve more than the racism, sexism, and all-purpose mayhem on view here - failings that offset the razor-sharp action and technical brilliance also visible.

As before, the hero (Harrison Ford) is an archaeologist with a yen for adventure. His task is to restore a holy stone to an Indian village, and if he fails, a gang of brutal cultists will take over the world.

The religious twist recalls ''Raiders,'' of course, with its wacky mixture of Nazi conspiracy and Old Testament history. The similar hokum in ''Temple of Doom'' shows how drastically Hollywood has lost touch with reality. In the age of ''Star Wars,'' mere good guys vs. bad guys - or even struggles between nations - aren't enough anymore. The gimmick has to be apocalyptic, and sure enough, the ''Temple'' villains want nothing less than to overthrow ''the Hebrew God and the Christian God'' and set up their own deity instead.

There's no mention of other religions, by the way, and that's one measure of the movie's narrow attitude toward ''foreigners.'' Indiana Jones is shown as a great white hero, battling evil Chinese at first, then rescuing the hordes of India from a foe they're helpless to face by themselves. The message is plain: White people are good, yellow people are shifty, brown people are weak or sinister. Some lesson for the '80s!

Women don't fare any better. There's one in the story, played by Kate Capshaw , but when she isn't mooning over Indiana or fussing over a broken fingernail, she's whining and shrieking at hardships that real men - or even little boys, like Indiana's sidekick - take bravely in stride. Not since Fay Wray met King Kong has a heroine done so much screaming. Our hero actually complains about the noise, and pauses for a chuckle from the audience.

I don't impute bad motives to Spielberg or Lucas in these matters, or to Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, who wrote the screenplay. I think they just got carried away by their enthusiasm for old Hollywood conventions.

Enthusiasm without perspective is childish, though, and ''Temple of Doom'' is a very childish movie. Just look at the yucky ''special effects'' - not only the gleeful violence, but the creepy insects and ridiculously repulsive foods, often rubbed in the heroine's face. Indeed, as if the filmmakers were pining for their own kiddie years, they give a surrogate family to Indiana - with that yelping woman as the mommy and a sidekick called Short Round as the child.

In all this, ''Temple'' recalls last year's ''Return of the Jedi,'' which also featured a few gross-outs before closing with a sweet family snapshot. So look out, folks, it's a trend. Our most popular moviemakers are shuffling back toward infancy - where's the fun in stuffy grown-up values like maturity, sensitivity, and plain common sense.

Incidentally, the same critic, one David Sterritt, usefully adds a bit more to this in his Last Crusade review 5 years later:

Also soft-pedaled in ``The Last Crusade'' are the racist implications that became uncomfortably strong in ``Temple of Doom,'' where Indy strutted like a Great White Hero among people of color who were consistently helpless, villainous, or both. I don't think Spielberg or Lucas consciously intended any racist or sexist reverberations in that movie, but they should have been far more alert when they decided to base their Indy series on styles borrowed from Hollywood matinee serials of 40 years ago. Unfortunately, they picked up some very dubious baggage along with the appealingly nostalgic nuggets they unearthed and recycled. It's encouraging to see that they mostly avoid this trap in their latest venture.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
So, are we saying that people in films cannot be heros outside of their own country of nationality or it is racist? Or only when it is a white hero?
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Rocket Surgeon said:
These points have been made by members as well...question is: what do you think of /where do you stand on them?

I don't have a fully fledged opinion on the issue. That said, there are things that personally rub me the wrong way, as well as things that I think can reasonably be found objectionable even if they don't bug me that much. For an example of the latter...

Henry W Jones said:
So, are we saying that people in films cannot be heros outside of their own country of nationality or it is racist? Or only when it is a white hero?

It can be dubious when those being helped are so clearly helpless, yes. Do I think it is racist? Again, it takes me awhile to jump to that word. But here's an account of what's presented here:

Indiana Jones, an educated, white Westerner finds himself and his companions (one of them a young Chinese boy with an interest in America) in a remote, starving Indian village. The primary spokesman of the villagers is their shaman, who believes that Shiva brought Indy and friends to the village to save them from the evil that has befallen them. In the course of the film, he does so. We have no real reason to believe that the village has attempted self-salvation in any way. Only Indy can do it. They need him.

From a plot perspective, I can accept this. The villagers are, after all, starving. Indy, as a Westerner and a noted scholar, can achieve access to Pankot Palace that the villagers cannot. Indy does have certain qualities that allow him to do what he does, his name, race, and modern education included along with his more mercenary talents. There are, of course, many south Asians at the Pankot banquet as well, but they all seem to be of means; it's reasonable to expect that the village did not have access to either a sympathetic figure of like type or the means to masquerade as one.

But the film is constructed as such. The "Great White Hero" is an old trope, and the film is within its rights to employ it. And yes, the film definitely subverts it in having Short Round save Indy himself before Indy saves the slave children. The film also supports the point of view of the shaman in that <I>he was right</I>; the sivalinga did need to be recovered for life to return to the village. That is to say, the resolution of the film seems not to privilege a modern, perhaps Western, scientific point of view over an Eastern, mystical one.

I don't think the film should be penalized for presenting such a different plot from the first film. Indy isn't just presented with a mission by the same people as he was last time, to find an artifact before the bad guys do. It's a rescue mission, of both the artifact and the village's children. Unless we take Mola Ram seriously - and we can choose to do so - it's a much smaller threat than in Raiders. That's great; it's a departure from formula to an extent that, say, Ghostbusters II could never even dream of.

I don't claim to be eloquent on these issues. Indeed, I've stood up for Heart of Darkness on a number of occasions as a text that's much more about evils in Europe than evils in Africa, and people find that work a pretty easy target along these lines. Another partial reason I haven't dived into this thread up till now, and that I'm still reluctant to do so, is that I don't feel like a good spokesman on these issues. Many are more sensitive to the nuances than I am.

But simply as storytelling the depiction of that Mayapore village always rubs me the wrong way a little. I think it might be that it's a little simple; there's not much texture to it. We don't get any of the expositional grace notes we receive in Raiders, where we actually get some sense of the relationship between Eaton and Musgrove as well as those between Indy and Marcus. It's uninteresting; it's a simplistic third world vision.
 
Attila the Professor said:
I don't have a fully fledged opinion on the issue. That said, there are things that personally rub me the wrong way, as well as things that I think can reasonably be found objectionable even if they don't bug me that much. For an example of the latter...
I won't put you on the spot then...

My only significant objection...
Attila the Professor said:
Indy can do it.
Subverted by the Shaman's final words?

Attila the Professor said:
They need him.
As you note Indy needs Shorty, so maybe its them they need, not simply him...
 

Stoo

Well-known member
RKORadio said:
I despise racism/sexism/ableism/fatphobia/adultism and any other 'ism.
RKO, you have a schism with 'isms? Triangular prisms are pretty cool!:D

Rocket Surgeon said:
As you note Indy needs Shorty, so maybe its them they need, not simply him...
WOW! What a twist. Never even thought of that before. Amazing.:hat:
 

RKORadio

Guest
They also seem to have Christian-ised things, turning the multiple pantheon of Hindu gods and goddesses into a Christian-like "God and Devil" pairing of Shiva and Kali.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
RKORadio said:
They also seem to have Christian-ised things, turning the multiple pantheon of Hindu gods and goddesses into a Christian-like "God and Devil" pairing of Shiva and Kali.

Indeed. As Stoo says above:

Stoo said:
I voted that the films are not racist but can agree with the "indelicate" treatment of Hindu culture (perfect adjective, Vance) because of one, singular, outstanding factor: The portrayal of the goddess, Kali.

In the film, Kali is portrayed as satanic & evil. Her demonic face on the big statue in "Temple of Doom" was fashioned for the film...and it's a falsely, fabricated depiction of her face. Indian art never depicts her that way and neither do other, older films about Thuggee. I can understand how this would've upset Indians and can't count how many times people have had a gross misunderstanding about what Kali represents, due to the Indy movie and that movie alone (even I, myself, was guilty of that in the mid-'80s).

Rocket Surgeon said:
My only significant objection...
Attila the Professor said:
Indy can do it.
Subverted by the Shaman's final words?

Arguably, but not much in my view. 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. (<I>That</I> might be an interesting thing to look at throughout the series: Indy's Arab garb, Belloq's Hebrew breastplate and incantation, Indy's use of the Shiva incantation, the made-up story about Marcus's ability to blend in, and last but not least, crazy ol' Harold "Ben Gunn" Oxley with his poncho and wind instrument.)

Rocket Surgeon said:
Attila the Professor said:
They need him.
As you note Indy needs Shorty, so maybe its them they need, not simply him...

Certainly. They don't seem to need the blonde, though.

Two potential mitigating factors:
1) Shorty has a pretty strong interest in America: he speaks the language, wears a baseball cap, and wants to go join the circus.

2) Perhaps more importantly, Shorty is still an outsider from a more developed place. Not that all of China was more developed, but Shanghai sure was.

* * *

I came across something interesting when I was looking at one of the scripts earlier. This may be of special interest to you, Stoo:

Code:
                       SHAMAN
                         You will find them when you find 
                         sivlalinga.

                                     INDIANA
                         I'm sorry, I don't know how I can 
                         help you here.

               The shaman and the chieftain stare and Indiana, refusing to 
               accept that.

                                     INDIANA
                         The English authorities who control 
                         this area are the only ones who can 
                         help you.

                                     CHIEFTAIN
                         They do not listen.

                                     INDIANA
                         I have friends in Delhi and I will 
                         make sure they investigate this...

                                     SHAMAN
                         No, you will go to Pankot...
 
Attila the Professor said:
I don't have a fully fledged opinion on the issue. That said, there are things that personally rub me the wrong way, as well as things that I think can reasonably be found objectionable even if they don't bug me that much. It can be dubious when those being helped are so clearly helpless, yes. Do I think it is racist? Again, it takes me awhile to jump to that word.

As I read it, you find it objectionable in many ways, but not racist.


Stoo said:
WOW! What a twist. Never even thought of that before. Amazing.:hat:
I'm pretty sure Monty raises the idea in this thread first, but my first recollection of the idea is from the Why do you hate Willie Scott? thread:

Originally Posted by IndyFrench

Shorty is his loyal companion, brave of heart, and rarely fazed by the trouble around him.

Great, make the kid the hero. He drives, he swings, kicks and clubs, he climbs and saves, and uh, saves the hero?
 
Last edited:

Henry W Jones

New member
Did India in 1935 still have small, unadvanced villages in it along with many other countries? Not all of India before someone trys to take it there. If so, is it hard to believe, especially after reading throughout history that many people in the past believed in magic and were superstitious? Does a small village like that know how to fight men with guns? They may have been helpless in that village but my intellect tells me that other areas of India are more civilized. The villagers maybe helpless but the Pankot Indians while evil are not. Also aren't the soldiers at the end Indian? The villagers are not evil so not all Indians in the film are presented as evil. The soldiers also save Indiana at the end or he would have been arrowed on the bridge or the remaining Thuggee would kill them all. I think Stoo was on to something with the religion aspect being a little insensitivly handled but racism I still do not see.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Vance said:
Depends on the area, I guess. I found some protests in most major cities - but I grew up south of Indianapolis and there weren't any protests around us.

Can you post links to these protests please?

@ Rocket. Your inbox is full.
 
Top