[Kerrigan]

King Kong feeds into all the colonial hysteria about black hyper-sexuality - read Kwame McKenzie's article and send your comments, below.

[f1000]

I didn't realize King Kong was a black man.

[wataru]

It's called symbolism.

[Rev-O]

Damn the white man for keeping Kong down!

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Rev-O

Damn the white man for keeping Kong down!

[BigBadWolf]

There are an awful lot of idiots in the world.

[Albert Pujols]

King Kong... Ain't Got Nothin'... On Me! Aaaaaghhhhhh!

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by BigBadWolf

There are an awful lot of idiots in the world.

and another symbol of black hyper-sexuality ought to know! ;-)

priceless.

be well.

laeth

[Sandkat]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a giant ape, is just a giant ape.

[Azzgunther]

Just by calling a giant ape a giant ape you are racist, elitist and sexist. And as far as the cigar comment, Sandkat- well I don't even want to BEGIN counting how many ethnicities should take offence to that filth! Cigar. Unbelievable!

I am offended.

GOOD DAY.

[SeSawaya]

"nobody cared when Jaws died, nobody cried when Jaws died, when my Kong died, everybody cried" -- Belushi

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

King Kong feeds into all the colonial hysteria about black hyper-sexuality - read Kwame McKenzie's article and send your comments, below.

I'd agree that the point could apply at the time the original movie was made, but I hope that we've made progress such that we can talk about/have movies about apes without immediately thinking of "black people."

Or, at least some of us can...

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

King Kong is black on blond porn that is just very wrong.

[timmerk]

yes.

[Cubeoid]

I'm black.

[timmerk]

I'm white.

[Doofy]

I thought Clyde's portrayal of the Scottish in "Every Which Way But Loose" was far more racist.

[moonmonkey]

I think its stupid to rake all this King Kong stuff up, it happened a long time ago, we all realize that it was a dumb move to visit that damn island in the first place. Do we really need a second bloody documentary about it?

[Hawkeye_a]

I'm in between

[RAILhead]

Gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see!
Gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see!
And when I kill all the whities I see, the whitie - he won't botha me!
Gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see!

Gonna get me a woman wearing a navy blue sweater...

[Kerrigan]

Did anyone rtfa? Apparently this guy thinks that LOTR is racist too, because the villians are sort of black. Hehehe, so ridiculous.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Did anyone rtfa? Apparently this guy thinks that LOTR is racist too, because the villians are sort of black. Hehehe, so ridiculous.

Well, racism may not be the right word. But it is clear that black/colored/strong accents people are more often than not used as bad/primitive/weird/alien counterpart.

The paranoia and fantasmatic of white people from the earliest times of colonization (and maybe from the time of the Moors invasions) as been turned into this meme of antagonism.

It is also about our ongoing prejudice (here, used in the sense of judging a situation without knowing enough to make a clear assessment, which is a very human thing to do, especially when we are upset and very emotional), which often feeds our imagination.

Let's remember this is part of our subconscious, and avoid acting it out as real.

Finally, the movie is a rproduction of the original King Kong, and I suspect that may have played as a factor.

Regarding LOTR, I believe Tolkien was making bad guys Dark and their speech unpleasant as well, while the good guys all seemed to carry positive values in terms of appearance.

Archetypes. all.

[Eriamjh]

I don't need to RTFA to know that if they made Kong white and "beauty" a black woman, that there would have been complaints about that, too.

[wdlove]

The PC police are certainly keeping themselves busy.

[pathogen]

PC Police?

Try any second year liberal arts student taking a few English classes! Most of them can analyze King Kong better than that Slate article, because the original is rife with colonial context.

BUT I haven't seen the movie, and I would guess that Peter Jackson and the screenwriters spent a lot of time taking everything into consideration (these people are well known for doing their homework).

Knowing the ending, that SPOILER ALERT Ong-kay Ies-day and its a Ragedy-tay, makes the movie a good vehicle for a criticism of the said "exploitation" of the third world and our present taboos about race relationships. So, that really makes the point - the new movie apparently tries to subvert the old racist symbolism and make it logically affirmative.

[turtle777]

-t

[monkeybrain]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Regarding LOTR, I believe Tolkien was making bad guys Dark and their speech unpleasant as well, while the good guys all seemed to carry positive values in terms of appearance.

Archetypes. all.

I believe the only black people in LOTR are those guys that ride on the elephonts aren't they? My view is that Tolkien saw black people as more primitive and therefore easily seduced by a large glowing eye. It's not overly racist though, however, it is all very sexist.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

I don't need to RTFA to know that if they made Kong white and "beauty" a black woman, that there would have been complaints about that, too.

From whom; associations of albinos?

[xMetal]

um, people. The color black has been symbolic of "darkness/evil/etc" since time began, as even Kwame says. White has been a symbol for "light/purity/good" for as long. Read the bible or something. WHy he has to suddenly make a gorilla (they don't often come in white now do they) fit a humanistic pattern is beyond me.

And I don't know what the hell you people are talking about but I've never seen a "black" person or a "white" person in my entire life. I'm wearing a white shirt today and there's no way in hell I'm the same color as that. And a truly black person would probably get hit by cars alot at night.

A big "Chill out" goes out to all.

[PacHead]

xMetal is correct - White = Good, Black = Evil, that's a simple enough concept for anybody with half a brain to comprehend. That's the way it always has been, and that's the way it will always be.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain

I believe the only black people in LOTR are those guys that ride on the elephonts aren't they?

Yes, the Haradrim (riding the oliphaunts) are the only black people in LotR, and they're not even really black. They are explained as being darker of skin than their Northern brethren because the Sun glows hotter in the southern lands where they dwell; but nowhere are they described as being 'black', just darker of skin (which can be anything from a Mediterranean bronzed to a Central African, almost pitch-dark, brown).

My view is that Tolkien saw black people as more primitive and therefore easily seduced by a large glowing eye. It's not overly racist though, however, it is all very sexist.

Tolkien was rather sexist, there's no real denying that. Plus, LotR is a classical fairytale, and those are nearly always rather sexist, whether obtrusively so or not.

He wasn't racist, though, and nor is the fact that, at the time when LotR takes place, the Haradrim are on Sauron's side. Sauron had previously beguiled both the Númenóreans and the Men of Gondor into his servitude, though later both had rejected him. I believe it is mentioned at some point (in the [i]Quenta Silmarillion[/quote], possibly) that he simply chose to turn his eye towards the Haradrim as his allies at a later time, when Gondor had refused him. Since the events in LotR end in Sauron's (and thereby evil's) destruction, the story makes no mention of whether the Haradrim would eventually have done what the Númenóreans and the Men of Gondor did before them, and disavow their loyalty to Sauron.

[mania]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Yes, the Haradrim (riding the oliphaunts) are the only black people in LotR, and they're not even really black. They are explained as being darker of skin than their Northern brethren because the Sun glows hotter in the southern lands where they dwell; but nowhere are they described as being 'black', just darker of skin (which can be anything from a Mediterranean bronzed to a Central African, almost pitch-dark, brown).

He wasn't racist, though, and nor is the fact that, at the time when LotR takes place, the Haradrim are on Sauron's side. Sauron had previously beguiled both the Númenóreans and the Men of Gondor into his servitude, though later both had rejected him. I believe it is mentioned at some point (in the Quenta Silmarillion, possibly) that he simply chose to turn his eye towards the Haradrim as his allies at a later time, when Gondor had refused him. Since the events in LotR end in Sauron's (and thereby evil's) destruction, the story makes no mention of whether the Haradrim would eventually have done what the Númenóreans and the Men of Gondor did before them, and disavow their loyalty to Sauron.

hmm, yes I see.

[Kerrigan]

Frankly I think it is quite ridiculous. This is something which nobody would have even thought about, but now it is becoming political, and naturally all the liberals here will start saying that King Kong is racist because Slate and Newsweek say so, and the movie will be tainted.

This is the only movie this year which I've been looking forward to, and now it's being politicized for something incredibly stupid.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain

I believe the only black people in LOTR are those guys that ride on the elephonts aren't they? My view is that Tolkien saw black people as more primitive and therefore easily seduced by a large glowing eye. It's not overly racist though, however, it is all very sexist.

I think we need to be careful in our interpretations. Making evil dark does not mean that Black people are demonized.

A color is a color, a person is a person. Once we mix both, it is easy to mix meanings.

You refer to coloured peoples; they were strangely reminiscents of Arabs (skin colour, writings, etc.) and all the monsters are dark, black, except those from the spirit world. Does that make the film maker, or the writer a racist?

The blame would have to be put on us, if we were to get out of the movie and claim, because evil is pictured as dark in the movie, it confirms that human evil should be dark.

There is a world between the imagination and reality. What is exposed on paper, on film, is not depicting the reality surrounding us.

Myself, I am weary of political correctedness. Art is art, period. But what we take from it says a lot about who we are and what we believe, and also how we act.

I have not read the article, nor have I seen the movie (I am looking forward to see it and have great expectations, as I was excited for LOTR which I enjoyed greatly) and I won't because I do not care. In the end easy judgements are just that, and are equivalent to prejudice.

What people interpret from a movie is theirs. I'll take what I want from it ands hope to have a great time myself.

[Azzgunther]

Actually no, "all the liberals" will not start saying that.

Please refrain from saying profoundly stupid things Kerrigan.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by PacHead

xMetal is correct - White = Good, Black = Evil, that's a simple enough concept for anybody with half a brain to comprehend. That's the way it always has been, and that's the way it will always be.

I think that is relative. These colours took that meaning as a convention, and turned into meme. I am not certain this will be as it is forever, unless you can see into the future.

Symbols carry the meanings we appose to them. They are pure inventions, and any other qualities related to colour says more about a frame of mind, or a culture, than about the colour itself.

[Kerrigan]

Really, Azzgunther? As soon as an issue becomes decidedly "liberal" or "conservative", peoples' opinions become solidified along party lines, especially here at MacNN.

Resident "liberals" are already desperately trying to come up with ideas why Peter Jackson might be racist. Did you read that comment about how Peter Jackson thinks that black people are easily entranced by a big eye?

Soon there will be all sorts of reasons why Peter Jackson is racist, and people will act like they have known this all along, even though they probably hadn't even given it any thought at all before I posted this thread.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Yes, the Haradrim (riding the oliphaunts) are the only black people in LotR, and they're not even really black. They are explained as being darker of skin than their Northern brethren because the Sun glows hotter in the southern lands where they dwell; but nowhere are they described as being 'black', just darker of skin (which can be anything from a Mediterranean bronzed to a Central African, almost pitch-dark, brown).

I believe there were lots of "black" creatures... But yes, they are not "people" per se. Yet, the symbolic is there, and it may be accidental that Jackson posed the Haradrim as on the side of Sauron, as a litteral convenience.

Tolkien was rather sexist, there's no real denying that. Plus, LotR is a classical fairytale, and those are nearly always rather sexist, whether obtrusively so or not.

He wasn't racist, though, and nor is the fact that, at the time when LotR takes place, the Haradrim are on Sauron's side. Sauron had previously beguiled both the Númenóreans and the Men of Gondor into his servitude, though later both had rejected him. I believe it is mentioned at some point (in the Quenta Silmarillion, possibly) that he simply chose to turn his eye towards the Haradrim as his allies at a later time, when Gondor had refused him. Since the events in LotR end in Sauron's (and thereby evil's) destruction, the story makes no mention of whether the Haradrim would eventually have done what the Númenóreans and the Men of Gondor did before them, and disavow their loyalty to Sauron.

Thank you for this bit of information. I read the Silmarillion 20 years ago... I really forgot most of it.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Frankly I think it is quite ridiculous. This is something which nobody would have even thought about, but now it is becoming political, and naturally all the liberals here will start saying that King Kong is racist because Slate and Newsweek say so, and the movie will be tainted.

This is the only movie this year which I've been looking forward to, and now it's being politicized for something incredibly stupid.

Let's turn what was an interesting discussion into a Left-Right debate.

I mean, we don't have enough of those in the Pol Loounge already.
Let's make sure we expand the concept to the other fora as well, so everyone can enjoy this bit of political... BS.

[Azzgunther]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Really, Azzgunther? As soon as an issue becomes decidedly "liberal" or "conservative", peoples' opinions become solidified along party lines, especially here at MacNN.

Oh my god.

You're the one trying to polarize this issue in the first place by labeling it politically. That you tried to make this political and threw out an accusation in the same post says a lot about you.

Idiots are not native to any political party. Moving on before this turns into a flamefest...

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Really, Azzgunther? As soon as an issue becomes decidedly "liberal" or "conservative", peoples' opinions become solidified along party lines, especially here at MacNN.

Resident "liberals" are already desperately trying to come up with ideas why Peter Jackson might be racist. Did you read that comment about how Peter Jackson thinks that black people are easily entranced by a big eye?

Soon there will be all sorts of reasons why Peter Jackson is racist, and people will act like they have known this all along, even though they probably hadn't even given it any thought at all before I posted this thread.

Like colours, political parties carry the meanings we want to attribute to them. "Decidedly" in your mind.

[maxelson]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

King Kong feeds into all the colonial hysteria about black hyper-sexuality - read Kwame McKenzie's article and send your comments, below.

That. Is the funniest and dumbest crap I have read this week. Well, it would be funnier if I didn't think this guy was serious. I think he's serious. While it is still funny, it is funny in a kind of pathetic way. Kind of like saying JarJar and those Trade Federation dudes were meant to degrade Asians and Jamaicans. Now THAT was some funny and sad s**t. HEy. Wow. We had a brawl on that one here too!

Anyway. I can only say it is the funniest and saddest crap I've read this week because I read a lot of crap. Both funny and sad. A lot. A whole lot.
This does hit the top of the fecal pile, though.

Incidentally, I have been classified as a resident "liberal". Just thought I'd put that out there.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Symbols carry the meanings we appose to them. They are pure inventions, and any other qualities related to colour says more about a frame of mind, or a culture, than about the colour itself.

My understanding was that the negative connotaion to black and positive connotation to white had to do with human nature; we cannot see in the dark, it obscures things, and creates uncertainty. Light, however, makes things clear, makes things visible, we know what is and what isnt before us.

Also, some things will NEVER be disassociated with certain colors, ie fire-red/orange, water-blue, nature-green etc etc. That has nothing to do with culture.

I could be wrong, but that just seems to make sense to me.

==========

I have not seen it, but I HIGHLY doubt that King Kong (the new one at least) is racist OR sexist in any way shape or form. As far as the bad guys in LOTR being dark... well doesnt the white hand symbolize Sauroman? (spelling) And well those urak hai or whatever, well theyve been in mud and ****, hell they were concieved in mud... how could they not be dark. Then you also have to consider artistic composition. Having a "pretty-boy" white guy as an orc JUST DOESNT WORK. Having a messy, dirty, bulking, dark figure does.

I think that a lot of blacks are just looking for things to call racist so that they can feel like we owe them something. pfft.

[Rolling Bones]

King Kong is white. I saw the actor who plays him on TV. He has a double roll too.

So being white I would say he is racist.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by loki74

As far as the bad guys in LOTR being dark... well doesnt the white hand symbolize Sauroman? (spelling)

It does—but don't forget that pure white is also the colour of deceit; and Saruman was most certainly a deceiver.

[MightyWinnebago]

Originally Posted by Sandkat

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a giant ape, is just a giant ape.

AHAHahhAHhHahHAhaha.

[MightyWinnebago]

Originally Posted by loki74

My understanding was that the negative connotaion to black and positive connotation to white had to do with human nature; we cannot see in the dark, it obscures things, and creates uncertainty. Light, however, makes things clear, makes things visible, we know what is and what isnt before us.

Also, some things will NEVER be disassociated with certain colors, ie fire-red/orange, water-blue, nature-green etc etc. That has nothing to do with culture.

I could be wrong, but that just seems to make sense to me.

Point taken. But if I put a burning cross in front of your yard..... would that be just a burning cross? Or would you read into it?

[MightyWinnebago]

Originally Posted by turtle777

-t

Is that mindfad?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by loki74

My understanding was that the negative connotaion to black and positive connotation to white had to do with human nature; we cannot see in the dark, it obscures things, and creates uncertainty. Light, however, makes things clear, makes things visible, we know what is and what isnt before us.

Also, some things will NEVER be disassociated with certain colors, ie fire-red/orange, water-blue, nature-green etc etc. That has nothing to do with culture.

I could be wrong, but that just seems to make sense to me.

I understand what you mean, but that does not invalidate my point either, although what you put makes a lot of sense.

I am not certain what human nature has to do with this, besides the fact that to interpret is natural in humans, but to give a specific interpretation is certainly cultural.

To use "dark" to depict evil is an atribution. The rationale you use is also an attribution when you say it is human nature. From an anthropological perspective, it makes a nice theory, but to prove its validity is a totally different story.

Attributing a color to an object is somewhat obvious. However, you will have difficulties to find agreement once you start defining colours and degrees as the frequency changes. And yes, it still has to do with culture.

In generalizing ("this has been so for the longest time and will be as is forever" or "everyone says so") gives a sense of permanence. But I invite you to visit other cultures and you may find that the interpretation of colours is not so standardized. Many opf our ideas we believe universal (like the so-called "universal truths") are mental constructs that depend of information shared amongst a few minds.

Because it makes sense to you does not mean it makes sense the same way to others.

A good example of this, taken from a book by Lee Smolin (Three roads to Quantum Gravity), exposes that during a lunch, some aspects of the theory of quantum mechanics are not understood the same way by these scientists. They reconcile, always, on the mathematical formulation, because those formulas cannot be interepreted in the end. But to draw a meaning from these formulas is an ongoing process of attribution.

A rock is a solid when we look at it. But over time, it appears like a liquid, as it is shaped and transformed due to the impact of its surrounding. Ideas are even more malleable. Look at the language of teenagers of my time, and compare to the language of teenagers today. Look at the way people spoke English at the Victorian era, and compare to today. You might have a difficult time to adapt to such a culture.

There is also a question of archetypes, which appears to be symbols that do not lose their meaning; this is where we may agree, through some Law of limitation of possible interpretations of phenomena. But there is still an area where meaning varies, and so it changes from time to time, and place to place.

Anyway, I am not an expert in the matter; just sharing an opinion.

==========

I have not seen it, but I HIGHLY doubt that King Kong (the new one at least) is racist OR sexist in any way shape or form. As far as the bad guys in LOTR being dark... well doesnt the white hand symbolize Sauroman? (spelling) And well those urak hai or whatever, well theyve been in mud and ****, hell they were concieved in mud... how could they not be dark. Then you also have to consider artistic composition. Having a "pretty-boy" white guy as an orc JUST DOESNT WORK. Having a messy, dirty, bulking, dark figure does.

As heroes goes, so are successes of movies. The best movies are those from which we can take something from. You can be sure that the capacity of an audience to identify itself to heroes (usualy their attributes) is a factor in revenues. The opposite is also true; to be able to value ourselves in differentiating ourselves against a model presented on the screen has the same effect, hence, the success of "Dumb And Dumber"...

When you have a mix of both, success is even more strong. The opposition of the White-Good against the Black-Evil is an excellent combination. Showing a movie where everyone is White-Good and nothing bad happens makes a bad movie. Showing a movie with only Black-Evil works well (horror movies) because the audience separates itself from the protagonists and this creates a better feeling about one's self.

I am pretty sure you don't identify to Tupac... or see any reasons to. (I could be wrong however).

Funny enough, this can goe as far as identifying to the aggressor; self-esteem works in such a way that the self-image has to be a positive one. People having been tortured, or kidnapped, with a weak personality will identify to the aggressor (actually, his strenght and determination) because it is the only thing they can take from him, the only way to win in a situation, at least, virtually...

By the way, it works the same for politics.

I think that a lot of blacks are just looking for things to call racist so that they can feel like we owe them something. pfft.

That last sentence is a nice piece of attribution and prejudice.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by MightyWinnebago

Point taken. But if I put a burning cross in front of your yard..... would that be just a burning cross? Or would you read into it?

There is the difference that both the cross in itself and the burning cross are already fixed symbols in our culture in themselves; unlike the whole 'black vs. white' thing, which is more abstract symbolic values applied, loosely or strictly, to definite objects.