Re: Star Wars Racist?

JediMars@aol.com
Sun, 01 Aug 1999 02:03:06 -0400 (EDT) 

i dunno jim... i'm too tired at the moment to read all this... :)
all i have to say is that i didn't notice all this the first time i saw the 
movie..
i was more annoyed over lucas creating some dumb character like jar jar.. 
(there were also a lot of other things i didn't like about the movie..)
anyways...
the people i went with were really offended by the movie.. because they found 
something wrong with how lucas portrayed jar jar and his society..
i dunno... i don't know what i think of it really.. i don't understand why 
lucas would've made the movie racist or anything... it doesn't seem to be 
something that would fit into the whole star wars world...   or maybe it 
would... what do i know

~marisa



In a message dated 7/31/99 10:13:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jrovira@juno.com writes:

<< 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.
 
 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.
 
 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.        
 
 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?
 
 First person to call someone names loses :)  
 
 But I think you already understand that...at least in one sense...
 
 Jim
  >>