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

Vance

New member
Temple of Doom certainly had more than a few racist overtones in it (particularly in Pankot) ... and some of the behind the scenes commentary about George Lucas certainly reinforces at least his racism. If you don't believe the film was racist against Indians, India would disagree with you, since it was banned in that country for that reason for a number of years.
 

The Drifter

New member
Montana Smith said:
Short Round is a martial arts expert, because is oriental.

Hah, also remember his "sounds like fortune cookie" quip?

Monty said:
Natives will run in terror from certain signs or locations.

I would run in terror if I seen a statue of an evil Goddess that I believed strongly in; staring at me with a necklace of bloody human fingers too!

Natives will be splattered on windscreens for comedic effect.

How was this playing off of anything racist or stereotypical? That would've been funny if it had been anyone! Even if it was Marcus Brody (that would have been funnier to be honest).

Natives will be lecherous and have to be beaten with frying pans.

I hate that scene.

Natives who honour and protect objects deriving from other natives will have those objects removed for display in museums so civilized white people may see them, and white mercenaries may be paid.

I'm pretty sure a few civilized black or yellow people would go and see them as well. :p


The films play with stereotypes existing in the source material, though it is uncertain whether this is purely homage or actual racism.

I agree. But, I think it's all done in fun. I don't think any malice was intended at all.


TOD mixes it up. Shorty might be a martial arts expert based upon his race, but he is also the real hero, without whom the slaves wouldn't be freed, and Indy would have remained a white zombie to a brown master.

More than that; Indy and Willie would both been splattered all over the asphalt if not for Shortie driving the vehicle under the awning at that exact time!
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
I voted no to racism but the films benefit from using stereotypes. It's an interesting question, does using stereotypes imply racism? I don't think that leap, as an argument, can be made.

Exploiting stereotypes in IJ movies is done for reasons other than claiming superiority of one group over another. If a prejudice is expressed against a racial group as a result of using stereotypes, then I suppose racism can be claimed. Prejudice against Nazis, though they are not a racial group but did hold racial attitudes, would seem to be OK.

Do the films dodge a social responsibility by claiming to be nothing more than light entertainment while perpetuating stereotypes? As Montana asks, are they homage or racism? I do not think they are racist overall. They are homage using techniques that include stereotyping as a deliberate way to fulfill that genre and do not pretend to be education pieces. I think that gets them off the hook.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Vance said:
Temple of Doom certainly had more than a few racist overtones in it (particularly in Pankot) ... and some of the behind the scenes commentary about George Lucas certainly reinforces at least his racism. If you don't believe the film was racist against Indians, India would disagree with you, since it was banned in that country for that reason for a number of years.

This is the heart of the matter.

'Racism', if not overt, as in the systematic degrading of a race through statement or action, may be perceived based on the viewer's cultural perspective.

As such, the Indy movies may be regarded any way you like, as The Drifter remarks on my tongue-in-cheek example:

The Drifter said:
How was this playing off of anything racist or stereotypical? That would've been funny if it had been anyone! Even if it was Marcus Brody (that would have been funnier to be honest).

There are some who will find racism in the slightest thing, because it's what they want to find, in order to build a case.


The Drifter said:
I agree. But, I think it's all done in fun. I don't think any malice was intended at all.

That's the way I see the films. Though it could be argued, and has been argued, that willful ignorance on the part of the film-makers equates to racism.

I don't think Lucas and Spielberg cared enough about real culture and history to bother researching facts. The films were intentionally negligent because all they needed to create was an environment that allowed them to play out 1930s and 1940s fantasies for a 1980s audience.

There were obviously those that either didn't see the intention, didn't want to see the intention, or simply didn't like the intention:

Vance said:
Temple of Doom certainly had more than a few racist overtones in it (particularly in Pankot) ... and some of the behind the scenes commentary about George Lucas certainly reinforces at least his racism. If you don't believe the film was racist against Indians, India would disagree with you, since it was banned in that country for that reason for a number of years.

The original films and serials were filled with racism: ignorant/stupid/simple-minded natives; non-white races in subordinate roles playing for laughs. They often under-valued/degraded/demeaned non-white races. Since these films and serials were often aimed at children they were in effect instilling in them hierarchical stereotypes.

The films reflected their times, and Lucas was reflecting the films. Yet, he makes certain amends: Sallah, Katanga, Short Round, etc etc. The hero may still be white, and he may have inherent imperialist views, but he is more respectful than his original forefathers.



(Incidentally, the Charlie Chan films actually invert the situation in 1930s Shanghai: the Chinese detective is superior to the idiotic, simple-minded black chauffeur/servant. Though Charlie Chan was famously played by non-Asian actors, which muddies the water).
 

Vance

New member
Montana Smith said:
The films reflected their times, and Lucas was reflecting the films. Yet, he makes certain amends: Sallah, Katanga, Short Round, etc etc. The hero may still be white, and he may have inherent imperialist views, but he is more respectful than his original forefathers.

I can forgive most of the Indiana Jones scenes as being 'pulpy' which was also very anglo-centric and played with stereotypes. The problem with that Pankot theme was that there weren't even stereotypes being used here.. just simple, haterful, 'barbarianization' of India that, in the mid 1930s, was actually more advanced that most of the rest of the world.

This is to say nothing of overtly offending one of the most populous religions on the planet, getting the name of a major deity wrong, adding human sacrifice to a real-world cult that never had it, and so on. Really, it seemed like the film was going out of its way to be hateful to India at many points.

Seriously, what the **** was wrong with George in this bit?

(Incidentally, the Charlie Chan films actually invert the situation in 1930s Shanghai: the Chinese detective is superior to the idiotic, simple-minded black chauffeur/servant. Though Charlie Chan was famously played by non-Asian actors, which muddies the water).

Sadly, not too much has changed. It's very hard to get a lead Asian actor in Hollywood today unless there are martial arts involved. I actually can't think of one...
 
Many generalizations swirling around...and from the strangest places. The fact that "Natives" were not all protrayed in a negative fasion trumps the race card ladies.

People who don't want the lowest common denominator of their race portrayed are hypocrites.

Montana Smith said:
Short Round is a martial arts expert, because is oriental.
I'm taking that as your words until you post otherwise...which would make you (and any other like mind) the racist, no?

Montana Smith said:
Natives will run in terror from certain signs or locations.
Ted Grossman ran screaming, the Indians simply murmered...did they expressly state all "natives" act this way or is that another Evil Knevel leap in logic and over common sense?

Montana Smith said:
Natives will be splattered on windscreens for comedic effect.
One of how many WORKING men? This is beyond silly even for you Tana,

Montana Smith said:
Natives will be lecherous and have to be beaten with frying pans.
Ah, you mean lecherous natives? No? Because Cairo never spawned a reprobate? THAT would be a racist comment asserting superiority...

Montana Smith said:
Natives who honour and protect objects deriving from other natives will have those objects removed for display in museums so civilized white people may see them, and white mercenaries may be paid.
Wow...going the distance for that one! I'll let you pare it down to something worthy or ignore it for the tripe it is!

Montana Smith said:
The films play with stereotypes existing in the source material, though it is uncertain whether this is purely homage or actual racism.
Stereotypes...what were they?

Montana Smith said:
TOD mixes it up. Shorty might be a martial arts expert based upon his race
...or he might not be...

Montana Smith said:
...but he is also the real hero, without whom the slaves wouldn't be freed, and Indy would have remained a white zombie to a brown master.
Not "Brown Slaves"? :rolleyes:

Someone has a chip on his shoulder, at least for argument's sake!:D
 

Vance

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Many generalizations swirling around...and from the strangest places. The fact that "Natives" were not all protrayed in a negative fasion trumps the race card ladies.

You realize that's the "I have a friend who's black" defense, right? Barring that, I can't think of any single Indian character portrayed in a non barbaric, in not outright bad light in Temple of Doom. Even the Maharajah (who wouldn't be one, really... another inaccurate point) is either played for laughs (for his age) or is another brainwashed villain... Chatter Lal is the best we get, and he's a drooling manaic just a few scenes later.

People who don't want the lowest common denominator of their race portrayed are hypocrites.

Some of us would like a more honest cross-section. We largely got that in Raiders and Crusade, and not at all in Temple of Doom.

I'm taking that as your words until you post otherwise...which would make you (and any other like mind) the racist, no?

You did not just frellin' go there!

Someone has a chip on his shoulder, at least for argument's sake!:D

Yes, and it seems to be you. Just because we're pointing out that there are some racist overtones in some of the Indiana Jones franchise doesn't frickin' mean you get to call people who disagree with you racists!

Period. End of story. We're done.
 

The Drifter

New member
I just wish to openly apologize to Rocket. I just now seen racism being discussed in another thread, and now understand the need for this poll/thread.
 
Vance said:
You realize that's the "I have a friend who's black" defense, right?
No I don't. Because I don't know what that is, please enlighten me.

Vance said:
Barring that, I can't think of any single Indian character portrayed in a non barbaric, in not outright bad light in Temple of Doom.
You should watch the film again, how was the Mayapore Shaman (D. R. Nanayakkara ) portrayed in an outright bad light?:confused: I almost feel sorry for you that you can't even see the first...

Vance said:
Even the Maharajah (who wouldn't be one, really... another inaccurate point) is either played for laughs (for his age) or is another brainwashed villain... Chatter Lal is the best we get, and he's a drooling manaic just a few scenes later.
Let's start with the Mayapore Shaman...


Vance said:
Some of us would like a more honest cross-section. We largely got that in Raiders and Crusade, and not at all in Temple of Doom.
Go make your own film. But first open your eyes and watch Temple of Doom again.

Vance said:
You did not just frellin' go there!
I did, I did!

Vance said:
Yes, and it seems to be you. Just because we're pointing out that there are some racist overtones in some of the Indiana Jones franchise doesn't frickin' mean you get to call people who disagree with you racists!
Racist overtones...do you mean implied or implicit tendencies? Not surprisingly you miss my meaning completely as I'm not calling Monty a racist. His posts can be wildly wide reaching and often purposefully absurd to make a larger point. I was certainly addressing him and I'm more than comfortable that he understands I'm aguing the counter-point.

You see I'm not addressing you in this manner.

He and I have established a certain repoire and you're taking the subtext out of context.


Vance said:
Period. End of story. We're done.
If you've got nothing substantive I agree, you are done...well done, cooked.

The Drifter said:
I just wish to openly apologize to Rocket. I just now seen racism being discussed in another thread, and now understand the need for this poll/thread.
Yeah Drifter, that was my inspiration. No big deal, we...(me and you) do this every now and again and it's no big deal. Sorry for dragging it out, I tried to put it aside but we haven't spoken in so long...

You got on board after a while anyway! Now to deal with that racist Montana Smith!

Amazing I'm defending Temple huh?!
 
Last edited:

Gear

New member
Of course the Indy films are racist! INDY: "Nazis, I hate these guys". Really offensive to the Aryans.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Many generalizations swirling around...and from the strangest places. The fact that "Natives" were not all protrayed in a negative fasion trumps the race card ladies.

People who don't want the lowest common denominator of their race portrayed are hypocrites.

I'm taking that as your words until you post otherwise...which would make you (and any other like mind) the racist, no?

Ted Grossman ran screaming, the Indians simply murmered...did they expressly state all "natives" act this way or is that another Evil Knevel leap in logic and over common sense?

One of how many WORKING men? This is beyond silly even for you Tana,

Ah, you mean lecherous natives? No? Because Cairo never spawned a reprobate? THAT would be a racist comment asserting superiority...

...or he might not be...

Not "Brown Slaves"? :rolleyes:

Someone has a chip on his shoulder, at least for argument's sake!:D

Rocket Surgeon to Vance said:
Racist overtones...do you mean implied or implicit tendencies? Not surprisingly you miss my meaning completely as I'm not calling Monty a racist. His posts can be wildly wide reaching and often purposefully absurd to make a larger point. I was certainly addressing him and I'm more than comfortable that he understands I'm aguing the counter-point.

...

He and I have established a certain repoire and you're taking the subtext out of context.

Indeed, as I wrote:

Smiffy said:
'Racism', if not overt, as in the systematic degrading of a race through statement or action, may be perceived based on the viewer's cultural perspective.

As such, the Indy movies may be regarded any way you like, as The Drifter remarks on my tongue-in-cheek example...

There are some who will find racism in the slightest thing, because it's what they want to find, in order to build a case.


Rocket Surgeon said:
Stereotypes...what were they?

I was referring to stereotypes appearing in the 1930s films and serials which gave birth to Indy:

Smiffy said:
ignorant/stupid/simple-minded natives; non-white races in subordinate roles playing for laughs. They often under-valued/degraded/demeaned non-white races. Since these films and serials were often aimed at children they were in effect instilling in them hierarchical stereotypes.

Black actors were often given menial roles as servants, which they played for laughs as comic relief. Or they were simple natives carrying the baggage of the white safari members. Often, at the first sign of trouble, the appearance of a bad omen or upon reaching forbidden territory, they will drop the luggage and flee. The superior whites will then complain about their cowardice or simple-minded superstitions.

As I wrote, the 1930s/1940s films and serials reflect their times, and Lucas was reflecting those films. Without losing too much of the sense of the originals, it would be hard for Lucas to pay homage without addressing the stereotypes.

ROTLA Screenplay said:
The two Indiana 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.

While in other areas Lucas updates the process. Katanga, for instance, isn't a cowardly and idiotic servant, but a man who puts his life on the line to protect Indy and Marion:

KATANGA

You and the girl must disappear. We have a place in the hold. Go, my friend!

...

KATANGA

Jones is dead.

...

We killed him. He was of no use to us. The girl, however, has certain value where we are headed. She will bring a very good price. If that cargo you have taken was your goal, then go in peace with it. But leave us the girl. It will reduce our loss on this trip.


Katanga did more than Lando did a year before!


Smiffy said:
Natives who honour and protect objects deriving from other natives will have those objects removed for display in museums so civilized white people may see them, and white mercenaries may be paid.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Wow...going the distance for that one! I'll let you pare it down to something worthy or ignore it for the tripe it is!


That one was more specifically imperialist. Indy's approach is indefensible. He went into the Chachapoyan temple to take the Idol for profit, and the glory of doing so before Belloq.

It's a microcosm of land-grabbing imperialism. The race by western powers to acquire territory and resources (in the case of imperialism resources also included people).

What greater right did Indy have to the Idol over the Hovitos, in whose area the temple now lay, and who honoured and protected the Idol?
 

Colonel Corey

New member
Temple of Doom - !AWESOME!

Well, in my opinion, Indy is completely not racist... I mean, TOD wasn't really... RACIST, now is it? George & Steven we're just being creative by using the Thuggee thing. Not all Indians we're Thuggees, we're they? Of course they we're not... TOD must be defended! :gun:
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Guys... reel it in. Even if the upkeep is perfectly aware that you mean nothing by it and are simply enjoying a healthy debate, we got some complaints of noise.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Colonel Corey said:
TOD must be defended!
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.>
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
Guys... reel it in. Even if the upkeep is perfectly aware that you mean nothing by it and are simply enjoying a healthy debate, we got some complaints of noise.


Not more trouble from the neighbours?

love-thy-neighbour-logo.jpg



A British sit-com that eclipses any political incorrectness in TOD.
 
Montana Smith said:
Originally Posted by Smiffy

'Racism', if not overt, as in the systematic degrading of a race through statement or action, may be perceived based on the viewer's cultural perspective.

As such, the Indy movies may be regarded any way you like, as The Drifter remarks on my tongue-in-cheek example...

There are some who will find racism in the slightest thing, because it's what they want to find, in order to build a case.
So you're saying the films aren't objectively racist?

That is: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

You're saying they're subjectively racist? Which is, well the opposite: based on feelings...you know:biased.

And you believe this is a valid criticism?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
So you're saying the films aren't objectively racist?

That is: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.[/

I don't think Lucas and Spielberg set out to make racist pictures. Yet, the originals on which Indy was based were often racist.

Sometimes they'll cross paths, because similar situations are re-imagined.

Rocket Surgeon said:
You're saying they're subjectively racist? Which is, well the opposite: based on feelings...you know:biased.

There are always going to be some people offended by what they believe they're witnessing. Or that what is being shown or said is the view of the creators and not the characters themselves.

Rocket Surgeon said:
And you believe this is a valid criticism?

With fluff like Indy movies I think they're over-egging the pudding. Mistaking homage for statement.

Like the comments Stoo received for his Raiders of the Lost Archive video, missing the point of homage and instead seeing only "Steven Stealberg".


I never saw Indy in the original trilogy as a good role model for children, and that's what made him interesting - like original Han Solo. Indy wasn't politically correct by today's exacting standards, and if he was, then he'd be too far removed from the 'heroes' he's intended to represent.
 
Montana Smith said:
I don't think Lucas and Spielberg set out to make racist pictures. Yet, the originals on which Indy was based were often racist. Sometimes they'll cross paths, because similar situations are re-imagined. There are always going to be some people offended by what they believe they're witnessing. Or that what is being shown or said is the view of the creators and not the characters themselves. With fluff like Indy movies I think they're over-egging the pudding. Mistaking homage for statement. Like the comments Stoo received for his Raiders of the Lost Archive video, missing the point of homage and instead seeing only "Stephen Stealberg". I never saw Indy in the original trilogy as a good role model for children, and that's what made him interesting - like original Han Solo. Indy wasn't politically correct by today's exacting standards, and if he was, then he'd be too far removed from the 'heroes' he's intended to represent.
So, despite your vote...you don't think the films are racist?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
So, despite your vote...you don't think the films are racist?

I didn't vote!

The films are only racist in terms of that which they mimic. Yet, since it is mimicry or pastiche, and without malice, and set in a wacky universe, I don't think the claim will stick very hard.
 
Montana Smith said:
I didn't vote!
Wise move, considering your response that is!

Montana Smith said:
There are always going to be some people offended by what they believe they're witnessing. Or that what is being shown or said is the view of the creators and not the characters themselves.
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.
 
Top