[Hannibal]

As I see it pal, you came into this thread to argue, and it IS obvious, because so far you have ONCE AGAIN had nothing to say about the facts, or anything else, but whine about how I have insulted you, so far you have no reason to post anything in here. Do I waste time in your threads posting endless personal statements about you and your threads? No. I certainly don't. So either speak up or stop wasting space.

[Vwing]

Oh by the way, I love this line:

"Hannibal (if that is your real name - oh, wait never mind)"

I don't know Vwing...if that is your real name...

but using lines like this to cast dispersions is utterly senseless and ignorant. Its obviously an ID like "Vwing" or "Darth Nader" or "Despondant..."

Good God man, wake up.

Heh heh heh. Wow. Humor. It was my attempt at humor. No one here uses their real name. I've been here for a year. Do you think Vwing is my real name? Do you think that I ddin't realize Vwing wasn't my real name? I was trying to lighten the mood a little. You see, this is why I almost didn't post here, because I knew it would spark something like the other thread. But I've learned from that thread, I'm just going to quit while I'm ahead. I will not be goaded into cursing (even if it was only once and not at you) by you, I will not be goaded into anger, I will not be goaded into any of that. I will leave you be.

[Hannibal]

Keep to the point of this thread if you please and stop whining.

[Hannibal]

http://www.tachyon-tv.co.uk/news5.htm

IS EPISODE 2 RACIST?
George Lucas finds himself accused of racism once again as a row erupts over an evil alien race who appear in Episode 2 called the Nig Nogs™.

"It's just a name, it doesn't actually mean anything. It's as harmless as the Pak'keyes™ from the planet Spick™" said George.

"It's certainly not intentional," said George's best mate, Rick McCallum. "The merchandising opportunities that can be gleaned from the air-car pursuit sequence on Coruscant are the only race relations George is concerned with".

When confronted with the complaint that all the bad guys in Episode 2 have "stupid foreign accents", Lucas held firm. "That is simply not the case. Have you listened to Ewan McGregor in the trailer? He's one of the good guys, goddammit!"

[Hannibal]

POINT OF VIEW:
http://www.stardestr...ays/Racism.html

"Star Wars
There is a quiet movement afoot to brand George Lucas a racist because of "racist" stereotypes that are supposedly found in TPM. The people leading this movement may feel that it's a huge burning issue, but I find it amusing that in spite of their aggressive publicity, most ordinary people have never given the idea a second thought. If they've heard of it at all, the average person has dismissed it immediately as a joke.

What is this "controversy"? It basically centres on two alien species in TPM: The Neimoidians and the Gungans. The same argument has been made in dozens of entertainment industry articles with virtually no variation, so I will paraphrase the argument here rather than quoting one of the articles verbatim:

If you watch TPM, you can clearly hear that the Jar-Jar Binks character (and for that matter, the entire Gungan species) speaks with a Caribbean accent, in an obvious 18th century slave dialect. It isn't just him- the entire Gungan species speaks this same broken dialect. The broken dialect suggests to the viewer that the entire Gungan race is under-educated, and the imagery of them living in the sea, beneath the land-dwelling, well-educated Naboo people is so racist that it is unbearable. The Gungans (blacks) are uneducated and live in the dark depths, while the Naboo people (whites) are highly educated artisans who live in beautiful cities in the sun. The characteristically lackadaisical gait and floppy ears of the Gungans merely reinforce the stereotype. It doesn't really matter whether this horrific imagery is deliberate or intentional- the point is that it exists, and George Lucas should be ashamed.
The Gungans aren't the only racist stereotype in TPM- the Neimoidians are even worse! Start with the accent- they all speak in an obviously Asian-accented broken dialect which sounds like Charlie Chan, in a not-so-nice homage to the common "Yellow Menace" motif of the 1930's era serials from which George Lucas drew his inspiration. But the stereotype doesn't stop there- look at their appearance and behaviour. With their slitted eyes, flat faces, duplicitous nature, and economic aggression, they are clearly meant to represent one of the big Japanese corporations- is it Toyota? Sony? Toshiba? Does it really matter which corporation it is? The point is that TPM promoted horrifically racist stereotypes of Asian-Americans. What kind of message does this send to our children? It teaches them that these slit-eyed, heavily accented, deceitful business thugs represent Asians- how much more harmful could a stereotype get?

I'll start with the second "stereotype", since my racial background gives me an unusual perspective on this issue. First, I would like to ask you, the reader, the question: did you see the Neimoidians as Asian? If you did, then I think you need to ask yourself some hard questions regarding your own racism. Frankly, the instant I hear a white person telling me that my race is being insulted in TPM, I get pretty damned suspicious. Wouldn't I have noticed such an insult if it were there? I am not known for blithely ignoring racial attacks upon myself. Why then, did I fail to see that the Neimoidians were an "obvious" Asian stereotype? Why did I need a white person to explain the insult to me?
The answer is simple: I didn't see the Neimoidians as an Asian stereotype because they bear no resemblance whatsoever to Asians. Let's examine all of the imaginary Asian stereotypes in the Neimoidian species:

Accent: They claim the Neimoidians have an Asian accent. Well, many of my relatives come from Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc., and none of them sound remotely like the Neimoidians. In my opinion, the Neimoidians have a bizarre accent but it is not Asian. But what would I know about Asian accents- I'm just the son of Asian immigrants, and not a white Hollywood film critic.
Appearance: My eyes aren't "slitted". My children's eyes aren't "slitted." My parents' eyes aren't "slitted." Asian eyes do not bear signs of reptilian horizontal "slits"- our pupils are round just like everyone else's. And the last time I checked, I do in fact possess a nose, as do all of my relatives. We Asians are not flat-faced, slit-eyed freaks! If you think that we are, and that the Neimoidians therefore represent us, then you are a racist.
Behaviour: Frankly, I find it utterly abominable that anyone would even think of associating the Neimoidians behaviour with Asians. Are we to believe that any time we see a duplicitous alien species, it must represent Asians? Are we to believe that any time we see economic aggressors, they must be Asians? Anyone who instinctively associates duplicitous and economically aggressive behaviour with Asians is a racist, just as bad as the sort of scum who thinks that we're all slit-eyed freaks.
As for the Gungans supposedly being a "black stereotype", I can only speak for myself as a human being, and not as a member of the race which is supposedly being slighted (although my informed perspective on the supposedly Asian stereotype of the Neimoidians leaves me doubtful of the anti-Gungan allegations, to say the least). But I will point out the following:
Accent: I have only known a half-dozen people in my life who grew up in the Caribbean, but none of those people sounded like Jar-Jar Binks to me. The young actor who portrayed Jar-Jar Binks happened to be from the Caribbean- are the thought police using this fact in their allegations? From the Salem witch-hunt style of their attacks, I wouldn't be surprised.
Dialect: I have never met a black person who spoke in Jar-Jar's dialect. I don't understand where this stereotype comes from- if it exists, I can only assume that it comes from a very obscure source. If people have to explain the Stepin' Fetchit stereotype (and to be honest, I'm still not sure who Stepin' Fetchit is, or what obscure piece of literature he came from), then is it really a stereotype? How can a stereotype be a stereotype if no one knows about it?
Education: I don't know whether the Gungans are meant to be uneducated, or whether their native language is simply such that it affects the way in which they tend to speak Basic (the fictional language of the Star Wars universe). Frankly, the former sounds implausible to me, but regardless, the entire education angle is yet another product of racism. If you instinctively associate poor education levels with black people, then what does this reveal about you?
Gait: I had no idea that the Gungans walked like black people until I read one of those articles "explaining" the resemblance. This may sound like I'm beating a dead horse, but if someone has to explain to you that the resemblance exists, then maybe it doesn't exist. In my experience, black people don't walk any more "lackadaisically" than anyone else. I don't wish to be presumptuous in speaking on behalf of another visible minority, but I can only imagine that if I were a black person, I would be rather offended at the notion that lackadaisical movement is an intrinsic characteristic of black people.
Floppy ears: It is a testament to the rabid intensity of the politically correct thought police that they would somehow find a way of making Jar-Jar's floppy creature ears into a stereotype of black people (by associating them with a certain Caribbean hairstyle). How ridiculous is this? Shall we institute a moratorium on all floppy-eared children's toys? From the sounds of it, there are an awful lot of stuffed animals and children's toys out there which have now become "racist."
Ahmed Best: The young black actor who played Jar-Jar Binks is in the uncomfortable position of defending his portrayal against politically correct thought police who claim that he portrayed a racist stereotype directed against his own race. He claims that he was given wide latitude to control the character's physical mannerisms and speech patterns- his detractors retort that he is simply spouting the Lucasfilm party line and lying to everyone. Supposedly, he's part of a widespread conspiracy ... yeah, sure.
This manufactured "controversy" is based not on an attempt to combat racial stereotypes, but rather, on a wholesale surrender to those racial stereotypes. Think about it- one has to accept these stereotypes in order to see the resemblance!
Some racists believe that all black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid, and slovenly. Some racists believe that Asians are flat-faced, slit-eyed, dishonest economic predators. What have the politically correct thought police done here? They have taken these stereotypes, accepted them, and then used this acceptance to declare that the reverse connection is true! If black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly, then an illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly sci-fi creature must therefore be a black person! If Asians are flat-faced, slit-eyed business predators, then a flat-faced, slit-eyed business predator sci-fi creature must therefore be an Asian! TPM doesn't offend me- these critics offend me.

If someone portrays an Asian human being or a black human being in a negative light, then that might be offensive, depending on how it is handled. But when someone makes a fictional creature which is totally non-human in appearance, and someone decides to anthropomorphise its physical and behavioural characteristics in order to associate it with a particular human race, then he or she is simply demonstrating acceptance and reversal of the very racial stereotypes that he or she is supposedly trying to fight.

I recently saw a comedian on television who was joking about this very issue. He said that Jar-Jar Binks was obviously a terrible racial stereotype directed at Jamaicans, but he was curious as to why Germans had never complained about the robots, or why Italians never complained about Chewbacca. He got a big laugh, but he subtly made the same point I'm trying to make: such tenuous reverse racial associations reveal more about your own racism than they do about the subject matter. "

[Vwing]

oi, I can't even do what I said I was going to do for five seconds. Whatever, I gotta get this off my chest.

Hannibal, do you agree that the point of the thread is to discuss the ideas?

Do you agree that people can disagree about those ideas?

Do you agree that the proper way to respond to those people who have stated reasons why they disagree - not just saying they disagree but backing it up - is not by saying that they are ignorant fools who don't stay on topic, but is by yourself responding to the individual points they bring up in a reasonable manner, backing them up with your own opinion and interpretation?

If you agree with all three of those things, then I do not see what I have done wrong. All I want right now is for you to calmly respond to the points I raised with your own opinion. I DID after all come here for an argument

This post has been edited by Vwing: 03 November 2004 - 04:46 PM

[Hannibal]

Hannibal, you are the only one in the world who ever considered Star Wars to have racial stereotypes. Your crazy posts mean nothing. There is nobody in the entire world who would ever think George Lucas would do anything like that. No one has ever been offended, or ever even thought of this crazyness except. Hannibal, you are alone in this point of view, you are crazy, a nutcase, a freak, a looney...

[Hannibal]

For those of you intellectuals with money:

Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies
Publisher: Carfax Publishing Company, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
Issue: Volume 15, Number 1 / April 1, 2001
Pages: 15 - 32
URL: Linking Options

Readings of Racism: interpretation, stereotyping and The Phantom Menace


Will Brooker

A1 Richmond (the American International University in London)


This article does not have an abstract.




http://taylorandfran...ults,1:104563,1

[Hannibal]

Nobody but stupid people like Hannibal ever saw racial stereotypes in Star Wars:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=29394

The Merchant of Menace
Racial stereotypes in a galaxy far, far away?
By Bruce Gottlieb
Posted Thursday, May 27, 1999, at 12:30 AM PT


I don't think there's anything wrong with ethnic jokes per se. Some of my best jokes are ethnic. Like the one about the Jewish mother on a beach who screams "My son! My son the neurologist! Is drowning!" Or the two Scotsmen who tuck $10 bills into their friend's casket and the third who swaps the bills for a $30 check.

But what about a sober drama featuring evil mercantilists whose technologically advanced robots enslave a peace-loving nation and all at the bidding of a man known as "Emperor"? Oh, right, the mercantilists also have slanty eyes, wear long robes, and talk just like Charlie Chan. They attempt to hide their crafty schemes from the outside world by forcing the conquered nation to sign a faux treaty. They are ruthless and cruel in their occupation.



When Michael Crichton wrote a Japan-bashing film (and novel) back in 1993 called Rising Sun, critics roasted him for exploiting racial fears. But the racial stereotyping in George Lucas' latest Star Wars epic, The Phantom Menace, is far worse, and nobody seems to care.

Crafty Japanese trade villains aren't the only heavy-handed ethnic stereotype in The Phantom Menace. As the story continues, the heroes slip past the evil Japanese to a nearby planet. There, they attempt to repair their broken spaceship but are stymied by the hook-nosed owner of the local parts shop--Watto--who also happens to have a thick Yiddish accent! (To hear an example, click "Great.") Psychological manipulations that work on almost everyone fail with Watto--"Mind ticks don'ta work on me ... only money! No," he cries--and the heroes get what they want only through the bravery of a gifted slave boy (Anakin Skywalker). At the end of the desert planet sequence, Anakin is emancipated but separated from his mother, who still belongs to Watto. Even in a galaxy far away, the Jews are apparently behind the slave trade.


And then there's Jar Jar Binks, the childlike sidekick with the unmistakably West Indian accent and enormous buttocks. Jar Jar is likable, easygoing, and dumb as dirt--always being scolded or saved from death by the Jedi knights. His stupidity and cowardice are running jokes throughout the film. And his people, the Gungan, are a brave but primitive tribe who throw spears and rocks at the oncoming army in the climactic battle sequence. Only Hispanics escape Lucas' caricature, which is actually something of a mixed blessing since Hispanics often rightly complain that they are ignored in the national race debate.

In fairness to George Lucas, he gives Japanese traits to at least one heroine (Queen Amidala), and there is a black man (Samuel Jackson) on the august Jedi Council. And true evil in this movie--the so-called Phantom Menace--resides in a handsome white man (Sen. Palpatine) and a towheaded tot (Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader).

Until this last episode, the Star Wars series has shown a happy, multiculty universe, in which thousands of sentient species coexist, more or less peacefully. This hardly gives Lucas license to revive racist stereotypes. But it makes the latest characters seem like a lapse in taste rather than morals. What's especially puzzling, though, is that film reviewers have by and large given Lucas a free pass. A smattering of reviewers griped about Jar Jar Binks, and the Village Voice was offended by the "blatant ethnic stereotype" behind Watto, "the hook-nosed merchant insect." But far more typical was the Time reviewer, Richard Corliss, who gushed: "the junk dealer Watto is a little masterpiece of design: cinnamon stubble on his corrugated face, chipped rocks for teeth, the raspy voice of Brando's Godfather speaking Turkish." Turkish? Even without the visual clue of the hooked nose, Watto's accent is clearly Yiddish, not Turkish. Or click "No"; listen again; and you tell me: Is Corliss crazy or am I?


Related in Slate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Moneybox" explains why the trade war premise makes very little sense in the first place. David Edelstein panned The Phantom Menace, and "Summary Judgment" discussed it here, here, and here.

Related on the Web
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The official Star Wars site can be found here. Yahoo has a page chock full of Star Wars links. Don't miss Newsweek's interview with Carrie Fisher, in which she describes Lucas' directing style: "When George was directing, he'd only say two things: 'faster' or 'more intense.' Then he lost his voice during the shoot. Since he didn't talk much, it was hard to tell. We wanted to get him a wooden board with two horns he could honk: one for 'faster,' the other for 'more intense.' "

Bruce Gottlieb is a law student and a former Slate staff writer.

[Jesus Christ]

I THINK ITS FUNNY WHEN BLACK GUY SAYS SHE'S GONNA BLOW!!

BUT I LOVE ALL GODS CHILDREN.

[Hannibal]

25 Rules of Disinformation


1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

[jariten]

the real problem I have with these posts is that, like Vwing pointed out, at no point are you trying to discuss. youre simply trying to tell- this is the way it is, and look, im proving my point with endless, tedious cut and paste jobs of other peoples ideas and opinions. not only that, but there is nothing even remotly fresh or original about these ideas of other peoples that you're stealing, yet you present them from a condescending platform of smugless and intellictual superiority. when someone rightly challenges what youve posted, as Vwing did, you act like we're somehow the ones at fault, like such alternative, far out ideas are way beyond our comprehension.

im all for discussion. please Hannibal, give us something to discuss. forget the links, stop with the cut and paste stuff, and lets just hear what youve got to say.

[Hannibal]

"but there is nothing even remotly fresh or original about these ideas of other peoples that you're stealing, yet you present them from a condescending platform of smugless and intellictual superiority."


10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

[Despondent]

Hey, Hannibal,

word to the wise: less is more.

[Hannibal]

Im not worried.