For people who disliked the Prequels, consider this:

You know way better than to seriously claim that the assertion that Anakin is only evil when he is black is actually real.....we all know that's a dumb assertion with zero knowledge of the series, which is why we dismiss MHP completely.

You are really not reading. You are using examples that aren't racist and trying to claim they are. You are being your own strawman. It's hilarious.

We are trying to explain the multiple ways of why a character, that is made as a reference to an out-of-time stereotype caricature, is hurtful. That may be too nuanced for your simplistic 'yes' or 'no' way of looking at things, like a Sith.

 

1. You are in full denial now.

2.

Good call there. Couldn't see how anyone could make the connection.

3. Not looking for it. Never looked for it. It was just there.

4. No, still just you and the other troll.

 

Yes, and Lucas and co. didn't do that. Some aliens share some attributes, that aren't caricatures any more then Vader is a caricature of criminal, absent black father.

Watto doesn't have a hook nose or anything else "Jewish" about him. He has a trunk and wings.

And that suit IS him for 2 7/8 movies, and the actor who voices him a black. And Luke wears black to show the conflict within him - same reason Anakin wears black and dark colours in the PT (mmmmm light = good and black = bad..........)

Just like your "blue skinned, flying aliends with tunks and tusks = Jews" and "amphibious, pale and green aliens = black" because 1 of the form was greedy and lazy and 1 of the later spoke in a sterotypical way is a weak argument.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 3, 2017 ---

No - none of those pictures look anything like this


Your mental gymnatics are impressive though.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 3, 2017 ---

Yes, and a reasonable person would come to the same conclusions about characters like Jar Jar and Watto - they share some attributes with sterotypes but are far from racist themselves and are obviously NOT designed to be racist and are obvously not caricatures of black people or jews. So what does that say about you claiming characters who aren't racist are?

RoyleRancor actually came up with the Cassian thing, I didn't anything even remotely racist about his character (but unlike him, I don't look for it), but he made a nice point against his own beliefs.

A perfect non-Star Wars example of this is Michael Pena in Ant-Man. Virtually everyone LOVED the character, the role and the job he did. But a few people, looking to be offended/racism, found his character a racist, hurtful caricature. Doesn't mean it was racist, just means some people were looking for it.

 

Oh dear god. I honestly have run out of possible ways to address this.

I will address the Cassian issue one last time.
He is not a racist caricature. He's a character with issues. He doesn't rely on the white girl to save him. He doesn't display traits only and often associated with Mexicans or other minorities.
It was an example of the MHP complex you have.
You can't separate satire from serious.

Look, you don't have to be offended by this stuff, but to deny it's existence is what is getting you the responses you are.

 

The intent of an act does not have to be prejudicial for the act to be prejudicial. You can commit a crime without having a certain level intent - but that conversation would likely be too nuanced for you). Acknowledging why its prejudiced is to the benefit of all. The use of the caricature, that was based in prejudicial beliefs of 70 years ago, is hurtful in its use in 1999, and therefore offensive. This is that simple. Culture determined that the caricature should not be used because it was hurtful. It was used. Therefore, the stereotype was hurtful. The intent has nothing to do with it. It was used, and it was hurtful. We forgive George for not realizing that it would be, but it doesn't change what it was.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 3, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 3, 2017 ---

Pena's character did upset a lot of people. I did not find it that way myself, a Hispanic, but not Mexican-American or from the West Coast. He was also one of the best parts of the movie and a great sidekick. He wasn't Jar-Jar and the Neimoidians, who are embarrassing characters and should be found offensive. I have zero problem acknowledging that the character was a racist caricature. I did enjoy it, but that doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge the alienation that many Mexican-Americans, especially from the West Coast felt. I fully understand their viewpoint.

To belittle their point would be to deny their opinion, background and history. Something that I learned from Star Wars, is not the right thing to do.

 

I agree with you Cassian isn't racist in the least.

The point, which you don't seem to get is, that one can claim he is using the same logic and arguments you're using for jar jar and watto. The difference here is YOU WANT to find issues with the later characters and not the former. As Melissa Harris proves, you can FIND those issues with Vader if you want to find them, doesn't make them true. You've done that with Jar Jar and Watto.

On the other hand, you can be look to be offended as often as you want too, but don't claim things are racist when they aren't just because you want them to be.

 

Bingo.
I don't think George did it intentionally at all. I think he was trying to diversify his aliens and when doing so he just didn't put enough forethought into exactly what he was doing and, let's be honest, the writing in the prequels was a bit lazy and bad....it's easy to see his focus was elsewhere.

If, for example, you flipped Jar Jar with Watto in terms of how they present themselves, you would probably avoid a lot of these issues solely based on the designs of the characters.

Now the Nemoidians really just needed a different approach to their voice acting. You know, like brought forward and not 1961 Mickey Rooney in Breakfast At Tiffany's bad. Made all the worse because he was voiced by Tom Kenny...yes Spongebob Squarepants himself.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 3, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 3, 2017 ---

I can claim I'm the King of Wakanda. Doesn't make it true.
It's not finding issues. The issues are right there. Most everyone sees them. Some don't care, which is their right.
But denying them is legitimately belittling the problems with these characters.

 

well thats big of you forgive Lucas, I'm sure he feels good about that. LMAO

The problem is, they aren't caricatures. Youre just looking for something to be offended about. And your comments about Pena in ant-man.....wow. So basically you acknowledge it was a racist caricature but you liked it so its ok........So your issue isn't that Jar Jar and Watto are racist caricatures (which they aren't, just like Pena isn't) its that they are racist caricatures AND you don't like them.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 3, 2017 ---

You're right its not true - in hte same way that Jar Jar and Watto aren't racist.

 

Your denial is on another level man.

 

No. I can acknowledge that a character was racist and not want to see it again. And I don't. When Pena returns, I'm pretty sure they won't use the same trope. It didn't affect my personal enjoyment of the film and I did not think about it until it was brought up in a review afterwards.

It was a hurtful stereotype. I have no problem stating that and hoping they can fix the character in Antman & the Wasp.

 

whatever you say King Roylerancor.

 

Lol.
So saying that there are bad and hurtful stereotypes makes me a king?

Childish temper tantrum over with now? Or are you going to spam me with more red rep?

 

You went from thinking he was the best part of the movie to believing it was racist and hurtufl because someone else said to you that? You need to think for yourself and make up your own mind more often. More often then not, if something doesn't offend you right away, its not offensive. Just because someone else is more easily offended then you doesn't make them right.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 3, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 3, 2017 ---

No you said you were the King of Wakanda - and that statement is as legit as your statements about Jar Jar and Watto, which you claim is correct/truth. Therefore....you must alos be the kind of Wakanda.

Just paying you back.

 

You don't understand how someone could have a more nuanced approach to things and understand why it might be hurtful after hearing such an opinion voiced?

Welp.

 

How about a little mental exercise.

TFA brought us a highly recognizable, black, hero figure in the character of Finn. Suppose a young, white child truly loves and admires the Finn character. Suppose that child wants to dress as Finn for Halloween and, to be accurate, darken his face with makeup to fully sell the look.

Now, is that child a racist? No, most definitely not. The exact opposite in fact. However, is it likely that a significant number of people could potentially interpret that act as racist? Yes. Is that reaction warranted? Ultimately, that’s entirely subjective with respect to your personal values and emotional investment.

Ideally, the child’s parents would intervene in the situation provided they themselves are aware of the potential misunderstanding.

 

Yes. Ego is overrated, in fact, there's a quote from a certain movie about first impressions and assumptions about the world.

Its......oh, "Unlearn what you have learned."

I liked the humor when I saw the film.
Watched a review that mentioned the character.
It makes them offended.
Then you can acknowledge they're offended and discover why.
I understand why. I can therefore be an adult and acknowledge another person's reality.

I want them to enjoy AntMan in the future and I hope the way the character is used is a bit differently.

This isn't complicated.

 

This is a good post.
IMO it's more comparable to college kids doing black face to dress as Finn or even the swarms of ladies who did Orange is the New Black.
Is it inherently racist? No. But you should know better at that point.
You should understand WHY that is so sensitive to some and just know better and avoid it.

 

How about - your focus determines your reality - when you focus on finding things like racism, you find racism.

And the more say non-racist things are racist (like Pena or Jar Jar), the more you cheapen actual instances of racism. And the more you cry wolf about it, the more people you harden against the accusations when they are real.

 

You do understand, that we are doing exactly that, by ignoring things like the satirical Chasing Amy scene or MHP and trying to keep the focus on things that have actual base in reality in terms of racism.

 

Focus on one reality does not negate the reality of another. That quote only means not to dwell on the future and what has not happened yet...."at the expense" of the moment.

Notice, I have avoided the use of the word 'racist' or 'racism'. I have used terms such as 'hurtful', 'caricature', 'prejudice'. I have used these terms to better illustrate the situation. Myself and others are speaking of the use of 'racist caricatures' from the 30's that were hurtful and contribute to prejudices. In no way are we throwing around 'racist' or 'racism'.