Re: Star Wars Racist?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: JediMars@aol.com: "Re: Star Wars Racist?"

>Here's where your reasoning fails.  I guess this is, in part, a response
>to Jedi's (marisa's) post as well.  You slipped from "jarjar and his
>whole society" to a description applicable to jarjar alone.  His wasn't a
>member of a society of "shuffling happy negroes wanting to please their
>white masters."  He was singled out as being a particularly inept figure
>**even within the context of his own society.**  In other words, other
>members of his society (with the same Carribbean patois) thought Jarjar
>was pretty stupid too.  And that, to me, is the point.  If his whole
>society was indeed shuffling and stupid, then I think you would have had
>a point.

hmmm... i may be remembering incorrectly, but my impression was that his
own people thought he was clumsy or accident-prone, with a propensity to
get into trouble, but not stupid.  and i think the king was represented as
INCREDIBLY stupid.  he also fell into a stereotype of the fat, sloppy,
jolly, tribal king - with that ridiculous headshaking, jowlslapping thing -
but they were excellent warriors (workers) who could kick ass if
neccessary.

again, i may be misremembering as i only saw the movie once on the day
after it came out.  but this is what i remember.  as for jarjar vs. the
rest of his people, he and the king were only ones who had real speaking
parts, so they are the only ones i can really comment on.  my other
question is this - does only negatively representing one character out of a
group mean that by definition that portrayal cannot be stereotypical?  i
don't think i agree with you on that one.  having some characters portrayed
in a more respectable light does not change the questionable ones.

>Now, my question is, what is the difference between stereotypes and
>archetypes?  For that matter, what is the difference between stereotypes,
>archetypes, and stock characters?  In effect, there is none. These words
>carry essentially the same meaning, only two employ negative connotations
>and one positive.  We say "archetype" when the character we have seen
>before in a hundred other works is seen in a work we like.  We say
>"stereotype" or "stock character" when the character is in a work we do
>not like for some reason.  Or when the depiction of the characters
>themselves are unpleasant to us.

although i think you are correct in your assessment of the way people use
not only those words, but also those concepts, i think that there is a huge
difference in the words themselves.  according to the american heritage
college dictionary, an archetype is defined as "an original model or type
after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype".  a stereotype
is defined as "1.a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception
or image 2. one seen as embodying or conforming to a stereotype".  by these
definitions i think it is fair to say they are not the same thing.
certainly though, an archetype can be stereotypical, but is not by
definition.  kind of like saying that apples and fruit are the same thing.
i think characters that fall into "the master and the apprentice" roles are
archetypal, but if the master is male and all-knowing, and the apprentice
is female and is nothing without his tutelage, then it becomes a
stereotype.  holden caulfield is an archetype of a young disillusioned
male, while phoebe is an archtype of an innocent yet wise child.  i don't
think we like holden because he is a pleasant person - we like him b/c we
can see into him, even relate to him.  there is a depth to his character.
many movies now portraying a young disillusioned male are more
stereotypical.  they don't explain what he hates or why.  they don't show
why he is disillusioned.  they oversimplify and at times degrade.  i see a
huge difference between these two things.

"stock character" was a new term to me, so i talked to a friend who knows
more about writing than i do.  by stock characther i assume you mean flat
characters as opposed to round characters, flat characters being the one
used to make the story move along without having to invent a personality
(the sports announcers, for example), and round characters being the
personalities you invent and develop at the hub of a story.  is that
correct?

>What we need to ask if we really want to see if we're dealing with racist
>paradigms are:
>
>1. Does the film portray the single character as representative of his or
>her race/species?
>
>2. Does the film imply that the character has such characteristics
>because they are members of a particular race or species?  In other
>words, even if the character is the only member of a particular race
>depicted in a film, are we allowed to believe (or led to believe) that
>the character has specific negative characteristics because of their
>race?
>
>I would say the answer to both questions are "no" in the case of Star
>Wars.

my feeling about jarjar binx is not that he is a stereotype of his people.
i know little about his people.  my feeling is that he fits into a few very
specific stereotypes of black men in america and the caribbean.  and i
think that those stereotypes are based on racist ideologies.

please understand that i do not advocate a society which does not "see"
differences.  of course people (individually or in groups) may have
recognizable characteristics.  but how we choose to represent or exploit
these difference should be given a lot of attention.  that is the only way
to have meaningful dialogue and to make progress.  and at this point, i
think most (if not all) people are still in a position of fact-finding
about the depth of racism in this country as well as in ourselves.  i think
that is an okay place to be, but it requires a willingness to question
one's OWN beliefs as well others'.  if i said something in this post that
someone finds offensive or hurtful, i would be very hypocritical if i
didn't seriously listen to their thoughts about it.

>How well we're going to be able to honestly dicuss this pretty well
>depends on you -- are dissenting opinions going to be seen as racist
>themselves?  Or is honest discussion genuinely possible?

i certainly hope that honest discussion is genuinely possible.  i believe
that is the only way to have conversations like these.  and i certainly
don't think that someone is racist just because they disagree with me.  in
fact, my idea of what racism does not preclude me being a racist
neccessarily.  i think racism is a system that places one loosely defined
group of people (white people) superior to another loosely defined group of
people (non-white people). this system operates on many levels, conscious
and unconscious.  i don't much point in claiming one person is a racist or
not a racist.  i think acts can be racist.  i think thoughts can be racist.
but i think people are to complex to be labeled as racists, unless they
live their lives intentionally furthering the ideas of racism.  THIS DOES
NOT MEAN THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN THOUGHTS AND
ACTIONS.  absolutely people are responsible for their own lives and
choices.  but blame is destructive.  honesty and acknowledgement are not.
i can only tell you what i believe to be true, and to try understand where
you are coming from as much as possible.  then i can make my own decision
about what i believe to be the validity of your arguement.

>First person to call someone names loses :)

deal!

>But I think you already understand that...at least in one sense...

i hope so.  feel free to point it out if i don't seem to.

elizabeth

• Next message: JediMars@aol.com: "Re: Star Wars Racist?"