I saw King Kong - I WAS SHOCKED

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallumits a well known pyschological fact that people with problems often express then in their output.

by making blacks appear stupid and look inferior he messages his ego by feeling superior by using the pecking order symbolism.he was bullied therefore he bullies the next one below him..i.e blacks.

its very probable at school he was bullied and called names.

do you understand now?


I think you were bullied by a fat rich boy with glasses and now you (try to) take revenge on fat rich men with glasses by writing nonsense on the internet.
Why can't you just play World of Warcraft instead? It's fun and will keep you entertained for hundreds of hours.




posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I'm quite interested to see now, how he'd like to explain another way for people who have never seen "civilisation" to act.

It makes no sense.

You can't be racist for showing things as they are. The people who lived on Skull Is. lived that way, showing their way of life is hardly racist. Unless of course you'd like to say that National Geographic is racist for all its shows.


jra

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Peter Jackson is fat with a beard and moustache and wears glasses and he made this film deliberately racist to divert attention due to his frustration in getting a girl to go out with him.


Actually Peter Jackson lost a lot of weight between the LotR's and King Kong. Also he's married and has two kids... nice try though, better luck next time.

Yeah I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I felt the need to clarify that bit at least.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Sorry ese, but this is obviously some subconscious freudian issues your dealing with here. The only people that are seeing this is you, and your the one making these things racist. If anything that only prooves YOUR the racist.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Is he making sense to anybody?

I did not even read his initial post of racism before My original post in this thread. Then all of the sudden I am being bashed by this member whom I have never met.

The only member in this thread spewing hate, is saying we are the racists.

Can we please cut this troll off?





[edit on 16-5-2006 by chissler]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   


For example when YOU see a banana you automatically associate it with monkeys and black people because of the 60 years of associated imagery in your head from books,magazines,tv,movies.


oh please......i actually think of the banana plant i have in my garden....or the cartoon charachter banana man....perhaps its actually you that thinks the above?

I believe your post is wasting space on ATS...i believe you have some real issues you need to resolve regarding YOUR blinkered outlook on the world.

You still didnt answer my question regarding banning 'Gorillas in the mist'?

Were you picked on at school?.....have you left school yet?

please dont tell me what i think....ask any of the other (well established) members of ATS if i fit your offence description of me?......i think you will find your wrong.

I think you have made a mistake in joining this site....did you really intend to join:-

www.whingingaboutabsolutegarbagewhilstbeingoffensive.com?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   
now im annoyed with myself for even replying to this rubbish.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Sorry ese, but this is obviously some subconscious freudian issues your dealing with here. The only people that are seeing this is you, and your the one making these things racist. If anything that only prooves YOUR the racist.


Look Mr War i have backed up my statements with proof with references.

Do you understand?

Do you?

You have buried your head in the sand and refused to look like truely ignorant people who are full of dogma.


Archangel above made the most stupid statement ever when he said "natives would behave like savages if they "saw" "civilisation""".

These are shocking and very racist statements.

Many white modern documentary makers have visited natives in S.America in the Amazon jungle and you could see the natives behaving as being merely curious.


Look at Mr chissler.

he admits to not even reading the initial post and then making very asinine statements.


SEE?

I have proved my statements wth lengthy detailed backed up by independent proof while you lot have resorted to insults ,abuse and sweeping generalisations against me because of your big fat egos blinkering you.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
That doesn't mean that this tribe would greet them with open arms. They are supposed to be wild, what would be the point if they were all nice? It wouldn't have been an exciting movie at all!

Can you answer these questions seriously please? Ok? Ok!
1: How old are you?
2: How much do you weigh?
3: Do you wear glasses?
4: Have you ever had sex?
5: Do you live at your parents?

Thanks in advance.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchangelOfCool
I'm quite interested to see now, how he'd like to explain another way for people who have never seen "civilisation" to act.

It makes no sense.

You can't be racist for showing things as they are. The people who lived on Skull Is. lived that way, showing their way of life is hardly racist. Unless of course you'd like to say that National Geographic is racist for all its shows.


hi

i was away.

i am just back from a conference in Atlanta.

I have no interect in your prize or your ranks.

I am not obsessed.

I am simply right.

I have total confidence in my position.

The reports of these attacks were in all the local newspapers at the time.I am sure you can find them by simply typing King Kong racism or racist in google....

You have to accept the sad fact that many white people deep down hate blacks and wish they were all dead.

Your assertion you did not think of sex while watching King Kong IS A LIE.

Every survey indicates men think of sex every 35 secods and women every 90 seconds.

The film King Kong helps brings this underlying hatred to the surface and helps the justification of this hatred by reinforcing stereotypes that makes whites feel superior to blacks and therefore encouraging interracial strife.

This helps to keep certain self appointed leaders in power or increase their power.

Remember only by creating division ,strife and hatred can these people gain control.

It should be pointed out that blacks themselves are to blame by failing to make any progress towards a better future and failing to innovate in their countries.

Every single African country is ruled by dictators.

All the foreign aid is stolen by these thugs and used to buy arms to repress and murder and torture the populace.

The Kenyan and Uganda GOVERNMENTS MINISTERS STOLE £400 million OF AID BY SETTING UP FAKE COMPANIES AND AWARDING THEMSELVES DUMMY CONTRACTS.

£400 000 000 JUST THINK OF THAT.

ALL FOREIGN AID SHOULD BE STOPPED TO THESE AFRICAN CRIMINALS.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
You have to accept the sad fact that many white people deep down hate blacks and wish they were all dead.


The only sad fact we need to accpet is that you are allowed to write on this forum.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Your assertion you did not think of sex while watching King Kong IS A LIE.

Every survey indicates men think of sex every 35 secods and women every 90 seconds.


I am a 52 year old grandmother. About the only time I think of sex is when someone else brings up the subject.

Thanks for the memories!



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
This is the funniest thread I've read in a long time! I've been wrongly quoted twice, and I don't think I've ever laughed as hard as I did when I read darkelf's comment.

Anyway, back to the topic.

I want to know how you'd expect people that have lived on an island in the middle of the ocean with no european contact whatsoever to act? Would they speak english and live in cottages sipping tea? Or perhaps live in a more primal way...as they are shown to in King Kong?

We all know the primal instincts of humanity are mostly violent ones and that's a sad fact. So the most basic people, people who as of yet haven't been shown an outside way of life, would act as they would in their most simple form, with the most simple emotions and ways of thinking. There are two ways to show them. Wild "savages" or curious, almost childlike, people. They live on an island with giant monsters everywhere I think they would lean towards being violent in order to be able to protect themselves....hmm....think about it



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchangelOfCool
This is the funniest thread I've read in a long time! I've been wrongly quoted twice, and I don't think I've ever laughed as hard as I did when I read darkelf's comment.

Anyway, back to the topic.

I want to know how you'd expect people that have lived on an island in the middle of the ocean with no european contact whatsoever to act? Would they speak english and live in cottages sipping tea? Or perhaps live in a more primal way...as they are shown to in King Kong?

We all know the primal instincts of humanity are mostly violent ones and that's a sad fact. So the most basic people, people who as of yet haven't been shown an outside way of life, would act as they would in their most simple form, with the most simple emotions and ways of thinking. There are two ways to show them. Wild "savages" or curious, almost childlike, people. They live on an island with giant monsters everywhere I think they would lean towards being violent in order to be able to protect themselves....hmm....think about it



I was away but now I am back......


You are clearly not very intelligent and MAKE VERY STUPID STATEMENTS...



Your statement as to how people would behave if they did not have contact with Europeans is very racist ,bigoted and very ignorant.


I mean oh my god the chinese never had any european contact yet when europeans visited them did they take up spears and scream and shout like savages?

I PUT IT TO YOU THAT THE REASON FOR YOUR VIEWS IS THAT THE CHINESE ARE LESS DARK THEN YOUR NATIVES.THE MORE WHITE THE LESS SAVAGE IS WHAT YOU ARE REALLY SAYING.



i



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   
this whole racism thing gets more and more ridiculous every time someone brings it up. enjoy the freakin movie, quit reading into everything. jesus.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I for one agree with esecallum to a point. I agree that the original film was filled with racial archtypes, and very obviously played on the sexual fears and stereotypes of the time about the savage black race. And it's horrible, and despicable.

However, I don't see that parallel in the new movie. Firstly, Peter Jackson did an amazing job of eliminating the sexual relationship between Kong and the girl. It was more a platonic understanding that bonded the two together, as opposed to the Gorilla clumsily trying to take off her clothes with a creepy grin on his face. He was trying to protect her.

And as for the "savages" on the island, yes, it was a bit creepy, intentionally so, but I don't think it was an attempt to be overtly racist. Let's imagine there is an island that has been isolated for thousands of years in the middle of the ocean near australia. Wouldn't one expect it to still be filled with "natives", i.e. not white europeans. Wouldn't it be odd if there was a mixture of cultures on an island that was isolated?

I think you're taking your justified anger from the first film, and projecting it onto the remake.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
And yes, I understand that Peter Jackson played off of the xenophobic idea that foreign cultures are hostile and different, but firstly, that is frequently a historical truth, for example the White Europeans attacking and killing millions of Native Americans, to the Zulus attacking the English settlements, to the Mongols attacking Rome to the Crusades. Whenever there are two different cultures with language and cultural barriers, there is going to be fear and xenophobia, and quite frequently, violence.

But, I think you are forgetting the fact that the "savages" on Skull Island were not the only black people portrayed in the movie. Did you forget that one of the most noble, self sacrificing, and caring characters was a black guy? As a white person, should I be complaining that the white people in the movie were portrayed as xenophobic conquerers, only interested in exploiting the natural world for money? Because I could just as easily claim Peter Jackson was being racist against white people.

Again, i think you're just projecting your disgust from the old movie onto the new one.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion
And yes, I understand that Peter Jackson played off of the xenophobic idea that foreign cultures are hostile and different, but firstly, that is frequently a historical truth, for example the White Europeans attacking and killing millions of Native Americans, to the Zulus attacking the English settlements, to the Mongols attacking Rome to the Crusades. Whenever there are two different cultures with language and cultural barriers, there is going to be fear and xenophobia, and quite frequently, violence.

But, I think you are forgetting the fact that the "savages" on Skull Island were not the only black people portrayed in the movie. Did you forget that one of the most noble, self sacrificing, and caring characters was a black guy? As a white person, should I be complaining that the white people in the movie were portrayed as xenophobic conquerers, only interested in exploiting the natural world for money? Because I could just as easily claim Peter Jackson was being racist against white people.

Again, i think you're just projecting your disgust from the old movie onto the new one.


You are totally wrong.

Even before the new Kong film racism was rampant and still is....


And i can prove it by quoteing someone who is black and from his perspective....




....Disney gives us an Indian guy running around the jungle in a loincloth whose goal in life is to get with a (very) white woman trying to civilize him. She's protected by her (very) white father, a high-ranking British military officer. Sam Neill plays the father because his ancestors spent generations in the British army in India. Neill enjoys the luxury of reliving colonialism, but this time without a conscience: the natives are savages with designs on white women, so they deserve whatever they get....



....Disney has a long history of ethnocentrism. Aladdin came with these endearing lyrics about Arabs:

Oh, I come from a land, from a far-away place
Where the caravan camels roam
Where they cut off your ears if they don't like your face
It's barbaric, but hey, it's home!

The male hero's face was purposely modeled on the features of Tom Cruise, while the villains all had hooked noses, turbans, facial hair -- you know, natives. The film's setting, the mythical town of Agrabad, derived its name from Agra, site of the Taj Mahal in India, and a number of Muslim cities like Islamabad. Forget geography, and culture be damned -- we can't tell them A-rabs apart......


.....Disney is perhaps the most damaging purveyor of illusion because it socializes millions of children. Its popular films play fast and loose with cultures, so is it any wonder that American kids place India in the Middle East, call Indians "Iraqis," and believe India sprang into being when the British invaded? I shudder to think what new wounds Disney will inflict with the upcoming Pocahontas. Unfortunately, entertainment aimed at adults is hardly better. South Asians litter the American media landscape as a turbaned convenience store owner on "In Living Color" and an unethical 7-11 store buffoon on "The Simpsons." We spent all of 1994 tuning into the #-eating grins of Sirajul and Mujibur, the Bangladeshis whom Letterman patronized for their accents, their names, and the way they dressed....


you can read more from a Asian perspective:-

www.vij.com...


see?

just a small sample of the hatred being generated by Disney.....


By stereotyping blacks they generate hatred and promote arson stabbings,thuggery,assualt.....war..

Most people are easily influenced from an early age and start behaving in a pre-programmed pavlovian manner due to the conditioning recieved from the mass media.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Wait, what are we arguing about here?

I never said that racism isn't present in modern media. Of course it is. We still have a long way to go before racism is completely elliminated.

I'm arguing that the new King Kong movie is not a subversivly racist movie. The first one was. And there are still many, many, many, many racist films, and racist protrayals. Of course there are.

So I don't see how presenting other movies that have obvious racist overtones (especially Disney movies, like good ol' Aladin) is germane to your original arguement.

If you want to argue that main stream media (i.e. television and movies) frequently have racist overtones, that's one thing, but that's not what you originally posted about.

So try getting that all sorted before telling me that I am "dead wrong" and then providing "evidence" that has nothing to do with the topic we are debating.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
And i can prove it by quoteing someone who is black and from his perspective....


A black person's perspective is not proof. As a white person's perspective isn't either. Please do not base all your opinions on other people's biased views.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join