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:-
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