PT The Phantom Menace - Is It Racist?

If I wanted a message, I'd go to my answering machine!

1) He isn't useful. If he did any valuable contribution as a "guide", it must've happened while they were cutting away to the TF. The only useful thing he does is randomly remember they've got an army, and lead a couple people to a couple places upon being asked.
2) Some find him irritating, others don't - Padme has a few moments where she thinks he's supercute (before it gets old), and even those irritated still take him on their important missions, and then the gungans all "acknowledge" him and make him general.
So yea, he was supposed to be annoying, but not as annoying as he ended up being / entertaining the audience by being annoying, i.e. Joe Pesci in LW, not actively irritate them.

 

Can you offer a link to an article or page supporting the contention that "[t]here was an old ster[e]o type, mostly in American film and literature of black people being clumsy, not very smart but very nice and lovable"? I have pored over this page looking for examples or descriptions that match yours, but I cannot find any. Yes, among American stereotypes for persons of African descent the "unintelligent" trait appears; so does the "very nice and lovable" trait... but clumsy? I can't find a reference to it anywhere on the 'net.

Jar Jar is certainly depicted as unintelligent and nice/lovable. But these traits are not linked exclusively to persons of African descent anywhere in the Star Wars Saga. C3PO is articulate in speech but rather clueless and naive, even arguably unintelligent; he never has any idea what is happening, and he makes several mistakes. Yet he is clearly a Caucasian, English "type" in both behavior and speech. Is he an anti-white racist stereotype? Meanwhile, the Ewoks are unsophisticated primitives, wielding spears and living in the forest, but no one has ever suggested they're supposed to be metaphors for black Africans. Are they anti-Native American racist stereotypes?

As to lovable, in the six SW films so far, there are many lovable characters, including Yoda and R2D2. Are they black sterotypes, too? Or is the trait only considered racist when the character is played by a black person? As to actual, on-screen African-Americans, Lando Calrissian is cagey, canny and cunning, certainly not unintelligent in the least; and he's lovable in a smooth, sophisticated way, not lazy or irresponsible as the real stereotype would have it. In TPM, Captain Panaka is sharp-witted, well-spoken and observant; he doesn't fit the unintelligent or lovable stereotypes. And Jar Jar, while certainly dumb and lovable, and while certainly played by a black actor, has orange skin -- the same color as the other Gungans, who are not depicted as dumb or clumsy.

It's all very confusing. If all the Gungans are metaphorical blacks, why don't Boss Nass or Captain Tarpals fit the "dumb but lovable" stereotype, or talk with a Jamaican accent, or walk like a racist-stereotypical black? Or, if only Jar Jar is meant to be a stereotype, why is his skin the same color as the other Gungans? It doesn't add up. It's an easy contention to make, largely because Ahmed Best happens to be black -- so his voice and manner of walking can be seen as "black" -- but on closer scrutiny, the lack of evidential support becomes apparent, and the contention collapses.

This is where some understanding of the origins of the Gungans is helpful. Lucas created the species through play with his young son; together they invented the speech and the names. Even if an argument could be made that Lucas unintentionally introduced racist elements into Jar Jar, a little boy with no formed opinions on the matter would not have been subject to the same cultural forces.

 

Oh dear

Which he didn't have to do. The guy was disowned by his species and then frequently either used or ignored by the group that took him in. He was under no obligation to stick with them. He could have jumped ship at any point but stayed loyal to the hand that fate dealt him. And when the time came, he helped bring a disparate two species together to defeat a ruthless foe. He also puts his life on the line in the ensuing battle. Say what you like, but without him, Padme and company would not have been able to retake the planet and the Trade Federation could not have been overcome. Fast forward to AOTC and he is the one that ends up giving Palpatine his emergency powers - something he is only in the position to do due to the events of TPM. To determine all of that as not being useful or significant smacks of nothing more than mere prejudice against the character.

He certainly has the same character function as Leo Getz, although I'd say it's much more pronounced in the Lethal Weapon movies... and as a result, we probably gain a greater sense of sympathy for that particular character. But imagine for a second a CGI-fied Leo Getz in The Phantom Menace (albeit with less racy language)... I have no doubt he'd have been just as loathed as Jar Jar. Then imagine for a second Jar Jar playing off Han Solo in the OT with Han giving back his "shut him up or shut him down" schtick. Personally, I think it would have changed the audience's feelings for him slightly. On reflection, one could argue that if Lucas did one thing wrong with Jar Jar, it was making the characters around him less cruel than they perhaps should have been. Although I maintain the key TPM players spend the majority of the movie wishing Jar Jar wasn't there, none of them are ever really nasty to him in a Han/Riggs-esque style.

 

Re: Peter Serafinowics

As much as I appreciate the talent he lent to the film, he really comes across as quite an idiot there. Is it a joke? Is he trying to make a news story? Or does he actually he actually feed into that garbage? How come the movie magically became racist after he already finished his role? If I, in good conscience, got the hint that something I was involved in was racist do you know what I would do? Leave.

The article itself is a sad excuse for journalism. It's one thing to hold a strong opinion on the prequels, but to try to reinforce that with racist propaganda? Well done, ScienceFiction.com.

 

I understand where people are getting at with this but, in my opinion. TPM is not racist. Sure Jar Jar enforces a stereotype. The definition of racism is thinking one race is superior . The Gungans are not seen as an inferior species, as they built a fantastic underwater city. Jar Jar is seen as a rotten apple by the Gungans. Only Obi Wan is constantly thinking they are inferior and that is because Lucas is depicting him as immature, to connect with ESB.

 

He doesn't think they're inferior...

That's some good spin doctoring you've done here, but:
1) He doesn't do any of those things out of nobility, he just gets persuaded easily.
2) Maybe, but he isn't useful there - and, arguably, Boss Nass puts him there anyway.
3) Without him randomly revealing there's an army, yea.
4) So a halfwit gets promoted senator and is the one fooled by Palpatine's ruse - awesome.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing for here. He's a nice fellow, but not that bright, and all around useless - which makes him even more annoying to most viewers. He's athletic, so he's got that going for him.
There are only a few very short moments where he appears more interesting and potentially hiding some kind of competence or spirit - the bit where they're swimming to the city, and the contemplative scene at the window. That's all.

And those are all genuinely funny.

Anyway, in addition to what I said, I think a significant percentage of 10- year olds finds him entertaining in the same way others find Leo Getz, but most older ones develop a distaste, just like they develop a distate for "childish stuff" like Care Bears or Lilo and Stitch. It is only natural.

 

Kudos to those publicly defending JJ Binks. Brave. Yeah, Jar Jar gets a bad rap. He's over the top, for SW, comic relief. Padme is mainly kind and sweet to him though. Qui-Gon is patient with him, until they eat at Ani's. Binks is one of my least favorite characters, for sure, but I don't hate him and will be polite if I ever meet him. : )
I repeat, his character isn't stereotypical of any race. All races have kind, yet unhelpful goofballs in them. And Binks was brave in battle! : ) And most of all, he was forgiving. He didn't hold grudges for impatient behavior.

 

I have to admit, I feel like the Nemoidians are racially insensitive, something different from racist. They seem inspired by the Asian-type villains of the 1930s and '40s serials Star Wars, and TPM especially, were based on. Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon, for example.

 

Why? What did they do, remind me please. I honestly forget where that happens. EDIT: They're aliens. Accents, assumed or otherwise, don't correlate to Earth. It's SW.
Agreed on your second point, regarding 1930's and 1940's culture influencing GL.
smoothkaz

 

What about the Asian influences in Amidala's costumery? Are those racially insensitive also? Or are we only to take offense if the so-called Asian characters are villains? Also, one of the Naboo pilots is clearly an Asian-American woman. Is her presence also racially insensitive?

 

No, because those weren't examples of exaggerated stereotypes previously used to portray Asians in a negative light.

I don't think George Lucas is racist. In fact, quite the opposite, I think he surely admires Asian culture and history greatly, considering how much it's influenced Star Wars from the beginning. I doubt he even considered that the Neimoidians could be seen as offensive.

 

Just so your position is clear, it's not offensive to depict Asian culture, iconography or imagery when the character is good. However, when the character is villainous the same imagery becomes offensive. Is that correct?

 

Agreed, maybe it was a mistake or some weird coincidence but they seem like blatant Asian (esp Japanese) stereotypes. One or two of these can be overlooked but not this many IMO:

- Speaking with "Engrish" accents.
- Allusions to Japanese Imperial robes & clothing.
- The Japanese stereotype of corporations, commerce & technology (at least George didn't call the TF the 'Sony Federation').
- Language is called "Pak Pak" !
- Japanese sounding planets & locations like Kato, Deko, Koru & Koto-Si (now they're beating us over the head with the similarity).
- Having long held stereotypically Asian physical features like:

Spoiler: potentially offensive

flat faces & narrow eyes.

That's just not cool. Never liked this on top of all of the other points.

So I mean...come on. I can't see how anyone can argue these guys aren't a racial stereotype. If you nitpick & say this is a bit different or that is more Chinese than Japanese etc, well that's an attitude that provides cover for anyone who wants to racially stereotype. Of course the stereotype isn't ever going to be exact or perfect. But if this isn't stereotyping then what is? Do they need to have a home planet called Japanium? Or eat using chopsticks to convince you?

The fact that these guys have so many similarities to a Japanese stereotype is one thing. That in the films they're greedy, cowardly & obsessed with money & technology makes them a negative racial stereotype. Because that same stereotype exists in our world. Less so now but certainly in the past.

Anyway that's what seems obvious to me. This is a sensitive issue though & everyone's entitled to their own view. I just can't see any other conclusion with this particular example.

 

Pretty convincing points Darth Downunder. Mainly due to accents, no? If different accent had been used, less controversy ensued. I don't know. They aren't Japanese or Asian or Earthlings, even. They are aliens.
If you are correct, how did this get past the execs and financiers? Sorry, I just don't assume the Neimoidians are derived from Asian stereotypes. Yet I almost do, since I read your post.
"Say it isn't so."

 

They're aliens but it's a stereotype when we see so many similarities. If they were humans played by Asian actors they would be...Asians. These guys are "space Asians" just like the Imperials are "space Nazis". The Imperials are a deliberate take on Nazi's. But no one complains bcs it's ok to poke fun at Nazi's & cast them in a bad light.

But to answer your question, yeah the accents are a big factor. "Engrish" is a blatant example of the old Asian movie character trope. The most famous example is probably the awful Mickey Rooney depiction from Breakfast at Tiffany's. However the accents of the Neimoidians alone if none of the other factors were present would not be a problem. A character speaking with an Asian accent is fine. It's when it's combined with all of those other points that it becomes on the nose, to say the least. I can't explain why this occurred. Lucas wouldn't have a racist bone in his body, I'm sure of that. Something strange happened for all of these factors to line up at the same time in one alien race.
There's substance to the argument of Watto & Jar Jar too IMO, but not to the level of the Neimoidians.

 

I would say that the neimoidians are more based on the East Indian Trading companies and the British trading companies that fought in the Opium war.

B.t.w. how are the neimoidians like Ming the Merciless? Also have you actually seen the old Flash Gordon adventures since Ming have just as many elements, if not more, from Prussia as he has from the orient.

Just want to point out that there have bean threads on this forum about what their accent is supposed to be and there was many suggestions and no real agreement

Can you give some examples of what Japanese Imperial robes & clothing you are thinking of becous I don't see it.

As mentioned above: I would say that the neimoidians are more based on the East Indian Trading companies and the British trading companies that fought in the Opium war.

How are those eyes narrow? And you do know they based the neimoidians on the already existing duros, rigth?

 

Oops.

 

So doesn't that justify it even more? If it's a throwback? People still enjoy FG, and they still enjoy Fu Manchu, and all that other stuff - so why not reference it in new stuff along the rest.

"Racial insensitivity" is an interesting thing: only a portion of those it's supposed to be "offensive" towards, are actually offended; others hate or laugh at being cuddled and protected like that, and the less the overall culture promotes the idea that offense at things like this is legitimate and those committing it should be reprimanded, the smaller the portion that gets offended, and the smaller the portion among those offended, who get indignated in order to feel self-righteous rather than for legitimate reasons.

So yea, unless meant to reflect reality by the creator, I think trashing those kinda jokes, or tropes in entertainment, is a bad idea.

I'm pretty sure making it an Asian stereotype was the intent, because it's a funny thing to do.
Having that said, if they were also influenced by other cultures in additon, that's alright too.

 

no.

 

You've no more evidence that he is "persuaded easily" than I do that he chooses to help.

Jar Jar knows nothing about him being of any use to the group until Padme calls him out on the ship. What happens next is off screen. All we learn is that he's gone back to Otah Gunga. Remember also, he was basically sentenced to death the last time he returned home and goes back knowing he could easily be given the same sentence again. That's pretty brave on his part, whether he's been persuaded or not. But this is all beside the point. You're making out the guy has no part to play in the movie and that's simply not true.

Again, you're missing the point. He ends up making a significant difference, be it good or bad. I repeat; he matters. Like the character or not, you have done nothing in your previous posts to successfully argue that his presence in the movie(s) has no impact on the course of events.

 

T

Its Sambo mixed with the clumsy sterotype which talked about in the book City of Clerks - for example.

A trait doesn't have to be exclusive to a group to be taken as racist. Also you have to look at the whole picture. Anyone 1 element doesn't mean anything, when you add them all together...... You can't go after each element individually and "discount them", you have to look at the entire "picture". 3PO and the Ewoks don't mesh all the elements together like Jar Jar and Gungans do. And Lucas has talked about the Ewoks being metaphors for the Vietcong.

Its very easy toa rgue the other Gungans fit the sterotype.

So if a young boy "invented" an existing racial slur, even in a different context, is it ok for that young boy to use that word for the rest of his life because its creation was not informed by the history of that world? (basically the Clerks 2 scene I mentioned above)

No. A "thing" is/can racist when it promotes and/or plays into negative sterotypes or characterization. For example, when white people wear black-face on Halloween, its possible for a white person to wear black face and be completely nuteral and not actively promote white as superior or black as inferior. BUT the entire notion of black face itself does that.

Ignoring the sterotype doesn't make them less true.

There is also the old sterotype of Asian people not being "classically brave or strong" but cunning, deceiftful, sneaky etc... All attributes I'd give to Nemoidians.

Now I also want to point that I DO NOT think Lucas is racist or sat there and thought "I'm not going to "send up" Blacks and Asians", but he did unfortunately fall into some racial sterotype's with TPM.

 

You're basing your perception of Jar Jar's supposed stereotyping on a misconception about what "Sambo" is and where the character comes from. In point of fact, Little Black Sambo was an East Indian character (not an American slave or African descendant) who outwitted tigers. He is not described as lazy, clumsy, or stupid; in fact, exactly the opposite. Today, the word is considered offensive because it used to denote a person of African ancestry in a racist or derogatory manner. But this doesn't have anything to do with Jar Jar, who has orange skin like the other Gungans. You're conflating three separate trails of information in order to make a confused and easily refuted point.

The word "sambo" came into the English language from the Latin American Spanish word zambo, the Spanish word in Latin America for a person of mixed African and Native American descent.[2] This in turn may have come from one of three African language sources. Webster's Third International Dictionary holds that it may have come from the Kongo word nzambu (monkey).

Also, City of Clerks is a book about Office and Sales Workers in Philadelphia, 1870-1920. It has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with clumsy black stereotypes.

Below the middle class managers and professionals yet above the skilled blue-collar workers, sales and office workers occupied an intermediate position in urban America's social structure during the age of smokestacks. Bjelopera traces the shifting occupational structures and work choices that facilitated the emergence of a white-collar workforce. He paints a fascinating picture of the lives led by Philadelphia's male and female clerks, both inside and outside the workplace, as they formed their own clubs, affirmed their "whiteness," and even challenged sexual norms.

So I'll ask again: Can you offer a link to an article or page supporting the contention that "[t]here was an old ster[e]o type, mostly in American film and literature of black people being clumsy, not very smart but very nice and lovable"?

A logical argument applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted to be true. If one or more of those propositions can be proven false, the argument collapses. Appealing to a large number of data points to support the truth value of the conclusion is a logical fallacy. A rational conclusion is not arrived at through the weight of sheer numbers of assertions. As to the "entire 'picture'" (your quotation), Jar Jar is orange, not black; the other Gungans are the same color and do not exhibit his supposedly racist stereotypical traits. Your position is unsupportable.

Also, why are you using scare quotes around the words "discount them" and "picture"? You're not quoting me, as I never used those words. What is the purpose of your placing them in quotes?

If it's so easy, why aren't you doing it successfully?

This is called a straw man argument. I never said it, wrote it or thought it, but you've mischaracterized my position either willfully or accidentally, and recast it in weak language so that you can defeat it with a simple refutation. Jett Lucas did not invent an existing racial slur (I don't know where you got that), nor is it okay for him to use a racist word (whatever word it is you believe you're proposing he uses or used). He and his father George arrived at the Gungan mode of speech and the character names through play. George then took those innocent play terms and ideas and applied them to his Episode I screenplay.

I'll leave it to the others whose arguments you've butchered to refute the rest of your irrational gibberish.

 

Doesn't change they are black sterotypes,a nd read the book.

And no my positino is quite sound, the issue with Jar Jar is how it all fits togethers. His ears, language, the attibutes individually do not mean anyhting, when taken as a whole.........it adds up.

No a strawman would be if I said that was your position. I simply asked you a question, which you didn't answer. And my comparison is very valid - simpoyl because Lucas and his son got to that mode of speech through playing together doesn't mean its not racist/racial insensitive. Just like the boy in my example - how you come up with the racist comment/theory/conept (whatver) doesn't affect if it is or isn't racist or racially insensitive. It can speak to ones intent to offend, but not to the affect it has on others.

 

I've asked you to provide some link to a page or article supporting your assertion that "clumsy" is among the traits associated with black stereotypes. You've been unable or unwilling to do so. Are we meant to change our position based on your say-so? That isn't how effective argumentation works. I'll accept your assertion if you can support it. Telling me to "read the book" when on-line reviews don't mention a thing about it does not support your position.

Jar Jar's ears don't look like dreadlocks to me. They look like orange fleshy rabbit-ears. To you they look like dreadlocks. This is the definition of "subjective". It's not helpful to your position.

Gungan speech only sounds "Jamaican" to some people (apparently including you, although you have not yet claimed it does), when it is spoken by Jar Jar. It doesn't sound remotely Jamaican when Boss Nass or Cap. Tarpals speak it. Moreover, we have yet to see see any kind of comparison between Jamaican pronunciation and Gungan speech, but again we're meant to accept your claim without any evidence to back it up.

 

But it's right in the movie... he gets persuaded. Sometimes doesn't even need to be persuaded.

Well, he gets told to go and then goes, it's not his initiative or anything.
Any more profound things that may have happened, took place off-screen and weren't hinted at, thus didn't take place.

And the way he then leads them to the sacred place, it doesn't look like he gives any second thoughtr to the danger.

Again, you're missing the point. He ends up making a significant difference, be it good or bad. I repeat; he matters. Like the character or not, you have done nothing in your previous posts to successfully argue that his presence in the movie(s) has no impact on the course of events.[/quote]
Huh? His presence does have impact, but only in terms of doing what others tell him or revealing information.


_________________

No it doesn't - the intent changes everything, it can only be misunderstood.