Re: Star Wars Racist?

James J Rovira (jrovira@juno.com)
Sun, 01 Aug 1999 13:47:12 -0400 (EDT) 

>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.

Yeah, the emphasis was definitely upon the clumsy or accident prone
nature of his personality, but he seemed to be treated with quite a bit
of disrespect because of it.   I think he was looked down upon because of
these qualities, which are usually associated with the kind of stupidity
that goes along with being unthinking or carelesss.  It's more an "inept"
sort of stupidity rather than a "low IQ" sort of stupidity.  

  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.

Nah, I don't think you're giving the KIng enough credit.  But I'm
beginning to think we've both fallen prey to the central devices employed
by the movie.  I think Lucas pretty well knows his audience -- largely
North American.  And that moviegoers anywhere would identify more with
the human-like characters rather than the more alien looking.  So the
human like characters "speak our language," ie, the language of the
perceived audience (thus, english), while the alien characters are
represented by non-American stock characters -- Jamaican, Asian, etc.  I
don't believe Jaja in any way represents American blacks.  

What about the little blue guy with the wings?  Shrewd trader in the
marketplace...Lucas employed perhaps an Arab stock character for him? 

Anyways, my point was going to be that the most non-human characters had
to speak English with an accent, because they were the "outsiders" from
the audience's perspective (again, a North American target audience). 
It's a human tendency to view lack of facility with OUR native language
as "stupidity," especially an ignorant American tendency.  But I think
that's just what we're doing.  The King seemed perceptive and intelligent
in that he knew how to make the right decision given the situation.  I
expect nothing less than that type of competence from a person in charge.
I respected the King character.  Course, this particular issue may be
just differences in our point of view.     

>
>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.

I think you've gone way wrong here.  If I understand you correctly, then
ANY negative depiction of a minority (minority, that is, if you live in
America) is inherently racist.  I'm sorry, that just doesn't fly, largely
because it would lend some legitimacy to a knee jerk censorship process
that your posts, however intelligent and thought out, lend credence to.  

The reality is that human qualities such as stupidity, being servile,
selfish, greedy, lustful, or  whathaveyou, is found in all people groups
and all races.  I don't think your point of view allows for that truth to
be represented in fiction (movies, storys, poetry, etc.)   

>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.

To me, the basic difference here between a stereotype and and archtype is
that one is an original while the other is a sad imitation.  But they're
both doing essentially the same thing.  One simply does so more
competently than another.

>certainly though, an archetype can be stereotypical, but is not by
>definition.  kind of like saying that apples and fruit are the same 
>thing.

That is a good distinction.

>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.

wait...whatsa matter with that? :)

I think this really has more to do with the sensitivities of specific
American subcultures than with the nature of archetypes/stereotypes
themselves.  

>"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?
>

Yes, that's true.  I'd also have to ask also why these characters are
"flat," and what is meant by that term.  Think about the word "stock." 
To me, it carries with it the connotation of being ready made, already on
the shelf, prefabricated.  The point is that once you figure out what
kind of a character this is (and you do almost immediately) you already
know how he or she is going to act and what he or she will say in given
situations.  That is why these characters are also called "flat."  They
don't have a lot of emotional "depth," there's nothing beneath the
surface.  They don't exceed or extend the limits of their predefined
character.   

You know, another problem with this movie is that it somehow allowed
people to think the worst possible things about it :)  (if they walked
into it with any expectations at all).

>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.
>

I disagree with you here too.  I think he fits into a Caribbean mold
quite well, probably Jamaican.  But I don't see how he's American black
at all.  His "servile" attitude was explained in the movie in a pretty
facile way by his "life debt" to Liam Neeson's character.  I see this
character as more along the lines of the Jamaican bobsled team in Cool
Runnings than anything else.  

It's unfortunate that he was a somewhat servile character associated with
one specific African stock character -- Jamaican.  It allowed people to
make such assumptions.  But I don't think they are very well justified. 
I think, when I first heard them, that they were the squealings of people
whose existence is only justified by their ability to complain.  You seem
to take a higher road and that's commendable, even if I still disagree
with your point.

Jim

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.