link
When Frank Miller’s
“300″ film was released, I was absolutely outraged by the racist content
of the film and more so at the insensitivity of movie-goers who simply
argued “it’s just a movie.” Later on, I would hear these same
individuals say, “The movie makes you want to slice up some Persians.” I
wrote an article about the film almost immediately after it was
released, and now that I’m still noticing people quoting the movie or
listing it as their “favorite movies,” I’ve decided to update my
original post and discuss some points that will hopefully shed some new
light.
“300” not
only represents the ever-growing trend of accepted racism towards
Middle-Easterners in mainstream media and society, but also the
reinforcement of Samuel P. Huntington’s overly clichéd, yet persisting,
theory of “The Clash of Civilizations,” which proposes that
cultural and
religious
differences are the primary sources for war and conflict rather than
political, ideological, and/or economic differences. The fact that “300”
grossed nearly $500 million worldwide in the box office may not be
enough to suggest that movie-goers share the film’s racist and
jingoistic views, but it is enough to indicate how successful such a
film can be without many people noticing its relentless racist content.
As Osagie K. Obasogie wrote
in a brilliant critique of the film,
“300” is “arguably the most racially charged film since D. W.
Griffith’s ‘The Birth of a Nation’” – the latter being a 1915 silent
film that celebrated the Ku Klux Klan’s rise to defend the South against
liberated African-Americans. Oddly enough, both films were immensely
successful despite protests and charges of racism.
Media
imagery is very important to study. Without analyzing and critiquing
images in pop culture, especially controversial and reoccurring images,
we are ignoring the most powerful medium in which people receive their
information from. A novel, for example, may appeal to a large
demographic, but a film appeals to a much wider audience not only
because of recent video-sharing websites and other internet
advancements, but also because the information is so much easier to
process and absorb.
According
to the Cultivation Theory, a social theory developed by George Gerbner
and Larry Gross, television is the most powerful storyteller in culture –
it repeats the myths, ideologies, and facts and patterns of
standardized roles and behaviors that define social order. Music videos,
for example, cultivate a pattern of images that establish socialized
norms about gender. In a typical western music video, you may see female
singers like Brittany Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Beyonce wearing
the scantiest of clothing and dancing in erotic and provocative ways
that merely cater to their heterosexual male audiences. These images of
women appear so frequently and repetitively that they develop an
expectation for women in the music industry, i.e. in order to be
successful, a woman needs to have a certain body type, fit society’s
ideal for beauty, and dance half-nakedly. Stereotypical images of men in
music videos, on the other hand, include violent-related imagery,
“pimping” with multiple women, and showing off luxury. Such images make
violence and promiscuous sexual behavior “cool” and more acceptable for
males. As we can see from two studies by Greeson & Williams (1986)
and Kalof (1999), exposure to stereotypical images of gender and sexual
content in music videos increase older adolescents’ acceptance of
non-marital sexual behavior and interpersonal violence.
Cognitive
Social Learning Theory is another social theory which posits, in
respect to media, that television presents us with attractive and
relatable models for us to shape our experiences from. In other words, a
person may learn particular behaviors and knowledge through observing
the images displayed on television. A person may also emulate the
behavior of a particular character in a film or television show,
especially if a close-identification is established between the viewer
and the character. Both theories – Cultivation Theory and Cognitive
Social Learning Theory – apply in my following analysis of “300.”
In
order to deconstruct “300,” I will start by (1) discussing its
distortion of history, then (2) contrast the film’s representation of
Persians and Spartans, (3) correlate Frank Miller’s Islamophobic remarks
on NPR with the messages conveyed in “300,” and (4) conclude with the
importance of confronting stereotypical images in mainstream media and
acknowledging the contributions of all societies and civilizations.
Distortion of History
Initially
a graphic novel written and drawn by Frank Miller, who is best known in
the comic book industry for reinventing Batman in his critically
acclaimed “The Dark Knight Returns,” the inspiration for “300” stems
from true historic events, although Mr. Miller states that it was never
intended to be a historically accurate account of the Battle for
Thermopylae. In any case, the information we have about the Battle for
Thermopylae comes from the classical Greek author, Herodotus, who lived
in the Persian city of Halicarnassus. His book, “The Histories,” became
part of Western folklore in 1850, when America embraced it as the
leading authority on Persian history. Interesting enough, and many
people may not know this, is that prior to 1850, the West had a very
favorable impression of the Persian Empire, particularly because its
main source for Persian history was rooted in the Bible and the
“Cyropaedia,” which was written by another Greek author named Xenophon.
The “Cyropaedia” glorifies the rule of Cyrus the Great, a benevolent
Persian king who will be discussed later. In respect to the Battle of
Thermopylae, the events may have occurred, but it was far different than
the famous myth explains: 300 Spartans held Thermopylae for three days
against over a million Persian soldiers.
This
version of history is portrayed in the Hollywood adaptation of “300” in
heavily stylized fashion that remains faithful to the comic book. The
film’s director, Zack Snyder, said during an MTV interview, “[t]he
events are 90 percent accurate. It’s just in the visualization that it’s
crazy.” And yet, the film hardly mentions that the 300 Spartans were
allied with over 4,000 Greeks on the first two days of the battle, and
over 1,500 on the final day (other sources mention that there were 7,000
to 10,000 Greek allies). The battle was fought in a narrow mountain
pass of Thermopylae where not even two chariots could pass through side
by side; the choice of using this terrain benefited the Spartans and
their Greek allies immensely against the Persians. Many historians agree
that the massive Persian army would have obliterated the Spartan/Greek
forces without much difficulty if the battle were fought on an open
battlefield. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the Spartans were
heavily armored and wore armor that weighed 30-40 kg, while the Persians
were lightly armored.
Ephraim
Lytle, assistant professor of Hellenistic History at the University of
Toronto, states that “300” selectively idealizes Spartan society in a
“problematic and disturbing” fashion, which would have seemed “as
bizarre to ancient Greeks as it does to modern historians.” Touraj
Daryaee, Baskerville Professor of Iranian History at the University of
California, Irvine, criticizes the film’s use of classic sources:
Some
passages from the Classical authors Aeschylus, Diodorus, Herodotus and
Plutarch are spilt over the movie to give it an authentic flavor.
Aeschylus becomes a major source when the battle with the “monstrous
human herd” of the Persians is narrated in the film. Diodorus’ statement
about Greek valor to preserve their liberty is inserted in the film,
but his mention of Persian valor is omitted. Herodotus’ fanciful numbers
are used to populate the Persian army, and Plutarch’s discussion of
Greek women, specifically Spartan women, is inserted wrongly in the
dialogue between the “misogynist” Persian ambassador and the Spartan
king. Classical sources are certainly used, but exactly in all the wrong
places, or quite naively.
As I wrote in my post on “
The Truth About Thanksgiving: Brainwashing of the American History Textbook,”
omitting and ignoring an entire race of people in historical accounts
is a form of racism because it negates the achievements and stories of
the “Other.” In the film, Persians constantly threaten Spartans with
slavery, and yet, any honest historian knows that the Persian Empire,
particularly the Achaemenid Empire, was built on a model of tolerance
and respect for other cultures and religions. According to the
documentary, “
Persepolis Recreated,”
the Persian Empire is the first known civilization in the history of
humankind to practice international religious freedom. Images carved on
the walls of Persepolis testify how Persians interacted and conversed
with nobleman of other nations respectfully and without enmity. Denying
another civilization its own accomplishments and contributions to the
world is like blotting them out from history altogether and rewriting
one’s own prejudice version. As we will learn later, any mentioning of
Persian valor, compassion, and sophistication, would have resulted in a
potential backfiring to the film’s agenda.
At
one point in the film, the Spartan protagonist, King Leonidas,
describes the Athenians as “boy lovers,” which, according to Paul
Cartledge, professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, is
ironic, since “the Spartans themselves incorporated institutional
pederasty [erotic relationships between adolescents and adult men] into
their educational system.”
The
fact that Frank Miller and Zack Snyder stripped the Spartans of
homosexual relations and, instead, made them accuse the Athenians of
being “boy lovers” in order to reinforce their masculinity, shows us a
distortion of history that favors a heavily masculinized and homophobic
take on the Spartans. In modern society, homosexual males are frowned
upon the most because society discourages men to behave in ways that are
contrary to their expected gender traits, i.e. a man must be strong,
emotionless, and courageous – and of course, these play into stereotypes
about homosexuals since it suggests they cannot possess any of those
traits. Therefore, if a man is a “boy lover,” he can never be as great
of a fighter as a heterosexual Spartan. It’s obvious that mentioning the
facts about Sparta’s institutional pederasty would not have made a
connection with the film’s directed heterosexual male audience. This is
evident from Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” film, where many expressed their
outrage of Alexander engaging in homosexual relations, therefore never
developing a close-identification with the character.
Distorting
the history in “300” merely fulfills one component in glorifying the
Spartans and vilifying the Persians. In the next section, we will see
how the film’s visual representation of Spartans and Persians accompany
its biased history for the sake of reinforcing the divide between West
and East.
Spartans and Persians: Glorification, Demonization, and Tokenism
Perhaps
the most noticeable offense in the film is how the Persians are
horrifically depicted as monsters. It is not hard to notice the
punctuated differences in skin color: the white-skinned Spartans versus
the dark-skinned Persians. The Persian King, Xerxes, is shown as an
abnormally tall, dark-skinned, and half-naked madman with facial
piercings, kohl-enhanced eyes and,
as Dana Stevens from Slate writes,
“[has] a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him.”
The rest of the Persians are faceless savages and demonically deformed.
This demonization of the Persian race extends to malformed characters,
including Persian women, who are depicted as Lesbians and concubines.
Even the elephants and rhinoceroses look like hell spawns. Stevens also
adds:
Here
are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with
the “bad” (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown
people. Disfigured people. Gay men… Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians.
Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws…
Also
noticeable is how the Spartans wear no body armor; instead they are
bare-chested and wear only a helmet, cape, and underwear. This is common
in comic books where physical attributes of male characters such as
muscles are magnified and exaggerated to symbolize strength, power, and
heroism. In sheer contrast, the Persians are dressed in typical
Middle-Eastern attire in pure
Orientalist
fashion, which only degrade them into invisible and insignificant
characters without stories. We have seen these contrasting images of
West and East cultivated before, and we still see them today. Whenever a
crisis in the Middle-East is covered by the mainstream Western media,
we tend to see the images of garbed Middle-Eastern men burning flags and
shouting like barbarians, but rarely ever see scholarly and
intellectual Middle-Easterners who are treated with respect and
credibility. As Jack G. Shaheen discusses in his book, “
Reel Bad Arabs,”
Hollywood is guilty of vilifying Arabs and Muslims; repeating images of
light-skinned and attractive Western (mostly American)
counter-terrorist heroes blowing away dark-skinned, unattractive, and
“rag-headed” Middle-Easterners. These images have been repeated so much
in the mainstream media that they become the socialized norm:
Arab/Muslim = Evil, oppressive, terrorist, and uncivilized, etc.
Although the ancient Persians in “300” are neither Arab nor Muslim, they
are confined into the same group through modern-day Orientalism.
Throughout
the film, for instance, the constant emphasis on “The Clash of
Civilizations” is not just limited to the manner of visual
representations, but rather extends to what the Spartans and Persians
stand for. Early in the film, we see the Spartan King, Leonidas, resist
against the Persian call for “submission” by bellowing about freedom and
liberty. Just like the visual depictions of Persians in “300” are no
different than Hollywood’s stereotypical and insulting representation of
Arabs and Muslims, neither are the themes. As adolescents and fans
alike eccentrically shout the film’s most memorable quote, “This is
Sparta!” – a line that Leonidas says right before kicking an African man
down a well – they knowingly or unknowingly establish a
close-identification with the Spartan characters and, subsequently, the
heroism they are meant to epitomize. As a result, Persians get
perceived, in modern terms, as “terrorists” – monstrous beings that are
mysteriously driven by an innate desire to conquer, slaughter, and
oppress.
These
differences between Spartans and Persians ring eerily similar to
modern-day tensions between the West and the Middle-East. As Obasagie
writes, “this racialized depiction of freedom, nation, and democracy
becomes central to “300’s” take home message,” but what remains even
more unnoticed is the film’s “unapologetic glorification of eugenics.”
In the very beginning of the film, for example, we see the newborn
Spartans being inspected for “health, strength, and vigor,” while the
weak and disabled are hurled off a cliff onto a large pile of dead
babies. Obasogie further elaborates:
The film suggests that this rather crude form of eugenics is put in
place for military reasons: every Spartan child should either be able to
become a soldier or give birth to one… Initially shocked, audiences are
quickly reassured that this is all for the greater good: nation,
freedom, and the Spartan family. How else can Sparta defend itself – and
inspire modern democracies – unless it reserves scarce resources for
the strongest?
Strongest
men, that is, which brings me to my next point: the exploitation of female characters. A blog post written at
FirstShowing.net explains “Why Women Should Go See ‘300.’”
The list, which is not even written by a woman, reads: 1. Gerard
Butler, 2. Gerard Butler Naked, 3. Empowered Women, 4. Strong
Relationships, and 5. 300 Nearly Naked Men with 8-Pack Abs. The author
apparently thinks that male eye-candy, romantic relationships, and a
dash of “feminism” constitute a “good film” for all women.
At first glance, the Spartan Queen Gorgo may look like an empowered woman, but she is a
token
character, at best. In a predominately White male film, she serves as
the only central female character and assumes a pseudo-feminist role of
flaunting her femininity for the sake of reinforcing the film’s racism
and singular image of masculinity. For instance, early in the film, the
Persian messenger angrily responds to her, “What makes this woman think
she can speak among men?” She responds proudly, “Because only Spartan
women give birth to real men.” Yes,
real men, i.e. the
one-sided view of masculinity: aggressive, violent, dominating,
muscular, etc. It seems that any man who doesn’t meet these
characteristics is not a “real man.” It also seems that Spartan women
are treated as merely “manufacturers” of these “real men.”
The
mentioning of women occurs enough times in the film to establish that
Spartans treat their women “better” than the Persians. The only Persian
women we see are sex slaves and disfigured lesbians. In actuality, there
were Persian Empresses such as Azarmidokht, who ruled Persia under the
Sassanid Empire. Ancient Persian women not only engaged in political
matters, but also served as military commanders and warriors. One of the
great commanders of
The Immortals
was a Persian woman named Pantea (pictured left), and during the
Achaemenid dynasty, the grand admiral and commander-in-chief for the
Persian navy was a woman named Artemisia. Persian women also owned
property and ran businesses. Unfortunately, we do not see any such
representation in “300.”
A counter-argument may
state that Queen Gorgo actually plays a pivotal role in the film since
she convinces the council to send more soldiers to aid the Spartans.
But her success could never have been accomplished if she did not do
what stereotypical female characters usually do: use her body to get
what she wants. Queen Gorgo initially tries to convince a corrupt
Spartan politician, Theron, but then realizes that she has no choice but
to submit herself sexually to him.
As
we have seen in this section, the glorified violence, racism, and
erotic imagery of the Spartans, as well as the use of women, accentuates
their superiority over the Persians, but perhaps nothing can drive the
point home more than Frank Miller in his own words.
Frank Miller and Islamophobia
NPR: […] Frank, what’s the state of the union?
Frank Miller: Well, I don’t really find myself worrying about the state of the union as I do the state of the home-front. It
seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World
is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants … and we’re behaving like a collapsing empire. Mighty cultures are almost never conquered, they crumble from within. And frankly,
I think that a lot of Americans are acting like spoiled brats because
of everything that isn’t working out perfectly every time.
NPR: Um, and when you say we don’t know what we want, what’s the cause of that do you think?
FM: Well,
I think part of that is how we’re educated. We’re constantly told all
cultures are equal, and every belief system is as good as the next. And
generally that America was to be known for its flaws rather than its
virtues. When you think about what Americans accomplished,
building these amazing cities, and all the good its done in the world,
it’s kind of disheartening to hear so much hatred of America, not just
from abroad, but internally.
NPR: A lot of people would say what America has done abroad has led to the doubts and even the hatred of its own citizens.
FM: Well, okay, then let’s finally talk about the enemy. For
some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and
the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people
saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate
their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are
sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have
been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three
thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never
could have built.
NPR: As you look at people around you, though, why do you think they’re so, as you would put it, self-absorbed, even whiny?
FM: Well, I’d say it’s for the same reason the Athenians and Romans were. We’ve got it a little good right now. Where
I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he
motivated our military, but he didn’t call the nation into a state of
war. He didn’t explain that this would take a communal effort against a
common foe. So we’ve been kind of fighting a war on the side,
and sitting off like a bunch of Romans complaining about it. Also, I
think that George Bush has an uncanny knack of being someone people
hate. I thought Clinton inspired more hatred than any President I had
ever seen, but I’ve never seen anything like Bush-hatred. It’s
completely mad.
NPR: And as you talk to people in the streets, the people you meet at work, socially, how do you explain this to them?
FM: Mainly in historical terms, mainly saying that the country that
fought Okinawa and Iwo Jima is now spilling precious blood, but so
little by comparison, it’s almost ridiculous. And the stakes are as high
as they were then. Mostly I hear people say, ‘Why did we attack
Iraq?’ for instance. Well, we’re taking on an idea. Nobody questions
why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were
taking on a form of global fascism, we’re doing the same thing now.
NPR: Well, they did declare war on us, but…
FM: Well, so did Iraq.
Iraq
declared war on the United States? Not only are Frank Miller’s words
filled with incredible absurdity and ignorance, they’re also plagued by
disgusting prejudice that should raise questions about his underlying
messages in “300” and other recent works of his. One of the things I
found really disturbing in Miller’s interview was how he suggested that
“teaching all cultures are equal” and “every belief system is as good as
the next” is a bad thing! What is he implicating here? Are we to teach
that certain cultures and belief systems are better than others?
In
his next response, he essentially calls Islam “sixth century
barbarism,” and then lumps the entire Muslim world into one stereotype.
Then he says “I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a
product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand
of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could
have built.” Perhaps someone should educate Mr. Miller that the Islamic
empires
preserved the beloved Greek philosophical texts by
Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Ptolemy, Aristotle, and many others. He
should also be informed that algebra was invented by a
Persian Muslim,
Mohammad Al-Khwarizmi. The word English word for “algorithm” actually
comes from “Al-Khwarizmi” and the significance of algorithms in
computers, programming, engineering, and software design is immensely
critical. As stated by Michael H. Morgan, author of “
Lost History: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers, and Artists,”
Al-Khwarizmi’s new ways of calculating “enable the building of a 100
story towers and mile-long buildings, calculating the point at which a
space probe will intersect with the orbits of one of Jupiter’s moons,
the reactions of nuclear physics… intelligence of software, and the
confidentiality of a mobile phone conversation.” Ironically, the Western
achievements that Frank Miller boasts about could not have been
possible without the
collaboration of civilizations.
Conclusion
As
I have written many times in my previous essays, racism is most
dangerous when it has been made more acceptable in society. When the
Nazis dehumanized the Jews, they did so in cartoons and propaganda films
so that the rest of the country didn’t feel sorry about killing them.
When early American cartoons and cinema depicted African-Americans, they
drew them with ugly features and had White actors wear blackface
makeup, respectively. At the time, these obviously racist acts were
acceptable. In modern times, when the insulting Danish cartoons of
Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were released, many non-Muslims
were too shocked at the Muslim world’s reaction than actually taking the
time to realize that the cartoons were drawn out of hate and sheer
Islamophobia. Rather than seeing the cartoons as racist or prejudice,
many defended it as “freedom of expression.” The manner in which certain
people in the Muslim world reacted to the Danish cartoons is another
subject altogether, but it’s worth mentioning that their response
represents a sensitivity that the West has made very little efforts to
understand. For Islamophobes, demonizing the Prophet of Islam wouldn’t
be such a bad idea since dehumanizing the enemy is an essential process
of war. Vilifying the “Other” makes racial slurs acceptable – slurs like
“rag heads,” “camel jockeys,” “towel heads,” “dune coons” among much
worse things.
Although
the Persians in “300” are not Muslim (the movie takes place in the
Pre-Islamic and Pre-Christian era), the visualization of Persians are
identical to the stereotypical images we see of Muslims in other media
representations. Demonizing the Persians during a time when
Middle-Easterners and Muslims are already being vilified simply makes
dehumanization of the “Other” acceptable and more recognizable. I
remember having one odd conversation with a young man who started his
argument by saying, “Xerxes and his Muslim army were a bunch of
tyrants.” I stopped him immediately and told him that his ignorant
comments are precisely the reason why I raise awareness and accuse “300”
of being a propaganda film. Xerxes and his Persian army were not
Muslim, yet I saw many people correlating the film with present-day
tensions between the United States and Iran.
Joseph Shahadi recently informed me, the right-wing party of Italy
even uses images of “300” in their campaign posters!
It’s sad how many don’t seem to realize that dehumanization of certain
groups has dangerous consequences; after all, before the Holocaust, Jews
were dehumanized.
“300”
may look like a visual breakthrough in cinema “art”, but that doesn’t
make up for its blood-spattering jingoism or its racist content.
Counter-arguments in the film’s defense are often weak with excuses
like, “it’s just a movie,” or “it’s based on a comic book” or “it’s
simply meant to entertain.” The counter-arguments are short and weak
because the film is unapologetic and doesn’t contain anything
sympathetic or appreciative about Persians, their culture, and their
history. It would benefit Frank Miller and Zack Snyder if they saw
Ridley Scott’s brilliant film, “Kingdom of Heaven,” which explores the
complexity of war and celebrates dialogue between great civilizations.
Such films are beneficiary to society because they convey much-needed
messages of coexistence, respect, and understanding that reach wide
audiences.
On a
personal note, it is discouraging that so many people, including
academics, doctors, and scholars, are either not bothered or don’t see
the racism in “300.” And every once in a while, another one of my
friends will do the Spartan “Ha-oooh!” chant around me and not realize
how offensive it is. The fact that so many people cite the movie and
enjoy watching it provides enough support for the cognitive social
learning theory, where people find the Spartan characters likable and
admirable. It is likely that this may be the reason why so many are
defensive of the film – simply because they like the movie so much. But
we, as a progressive society, need to be bold enough to stamp our foot
down and say we will not tolerate racism, just like we would never
tolerate watching or promoting films that glorify the Ku Klux Klan and
the Nazis. As Dana Stevens writes, “If “300” had been made in Germany in
the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside “
The Eternal Jew” as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war.”
My
personal hope is that people will appreciate this analysis and realize
the immense impact media has on shaping our thoughts, perspectives, and
views of each other. I would also hope that people are inspired to study
ancient Persian history and learn about the countless contributions of
the Persians, who were among the greatest philosophers, thinkers, poets,
artists, physicians, mathematicians, astronomers, and innovators in the
history of the world – before and after the Islamic era. I must point
out that almost 90% of the paintings I post on my blog are Persian
paintings (compare them with Frank Miller’s horrific depiction of
Persians in “300″ and you will understand how upset and offended one can
be).
The Arab,
Iranian, and/or Muslim communities need to make their mark in the film
industry and I cannot stress that enough. The release of “300” angered,
but also frustrated me because I felt like I could not respond with a
film about Persians due to my low-budget. It is a personal dream of mine
to make a “Cyrus the Great” film someday, and I’m sure many of us have
dreams of certain films we’d like to see about our communities, but they
cannot remain dreams. They must be manifested and brought to life, and
only through perseverance, sheer dedication, and passion can we achieve
our dreams. As evident in “300,” there are people making a living out of
vilifying our cultures, histories, and religions while many of us stand
by and watch the propaganda machine do its dirty work. I understand
that not all of us are aspiring filmmakers, but to those of you who are:
the longer we remain the silent, the less people will know about our
beautiful stories.
I
believe very firmly that Truth prevails in the end and I have faith that
the new generation of progressive-thinkers, Middle-Easterners, South
Asians, and Muslims alike are on their way in making a profound
difference in our world. Someday, the Middle-East and Muslim world will
no longer be demonized and feared, but appreciated and respected. The
media has the power to turn tables around in such a way.
Someday…
Look, I love Animal House,
but… come on, you can’t tell me that the scene in which the boys take
their dates to a club filled with giant, menacing black dudes isn’t at
least slightly racist. Just a tad anyway. I mean, yeah, “Mind
if we dance with yo dates?” is a funny quote from a funny movie but
watching it recently I couldn’t help but think “What the hell? That’s,
uh, that’s kind of racist.” From the terrified reaction of the guys to
the meek, submissive fear shown by the white women, it’s a scene that
could never be filmed today. People would go nuts. Sure, the giant
black dudes treated the women with dignity and respect, but that’s why it’s
so racist. I mean, that was part of the joke – the dudes just wanted
to dance but because they were giant black dudes everyone assumed they
wanted to rape the white girls and kill the frat boys. How in the hell
is that not racist? Oh, also, how about all those minority students at
Faber College? Oh, wait…
The plot of Dangerous Minds:
An intrepid white lady, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, braves the wild
urban jungle in order to bring civilization to a gang of inner-city
thugs and reprobates who are completely incapable of educating
themselves or finding reasons to live without the guidance of a gentle
white hand. Do I need to go on? No? Good. Also, this movie made
Coolio think that he was an important artist, which honestly is the
worst and most irresponsible thing on this entire list.
According to 300,
the Spartans – representing the defenders of Western Civilization – are
all chiseled demi-gods willing to give their lives in defense of
everything noble and right, while the Persians – representing the East –
are all rampaging degenerates, disgusting mutants, wild sex fiends with
nothing but animal lust in their hearts and treachery in their lizard
brains. Honestly, I’d rather hang out with Xerxes and his friends than
Leonidas and his boys while they polish their shields all night and
admire each other’s rock hard, uh, abs, but that’s beside the point.
The point is that in a movie in which the chief conflict is between East
and West – which let’s face it is kind of relevant given today’s world –
the forces of the East are all portrayed as inhuman monsters. Yeah,
yeah, I know the movie is about the heroic last stand of the Spartans at
Thermopylae, but to anyone paying attention it’s impossible to ignore
the subtext of the movie, which is that Westerners are all Greek Gods
and Easterners are all shifty perverts and monsters. Uh, on second
thought, maybe the racism in this one wasn’t so subtle.
I
was going to give each one of these movies a place of their own on this
list, but why bother? They’re basically all the same movie – a native
tribe tries to fend off the greedy advances of the cruel, spiritless
Western world while a single noble white man struggles with his own
place in that Western world before being embedded with the spiritually
advanced natives, who teach him their ways and then sit back while he
takes over and leads their resistance. Seriously, that is the basic
plot to all three of these movies. Whether it’s Kevin Costner fighting
Union troops on behalf of helpless Indians or Tom Cruise fighting Union
trained troops on behalf of helpless Japanese Samurai or Sam Worthington
fighting grizzled space marines and greedy developers on behalf of
helpless Indians, er, I mean Na’vi, they all have the same moral: white
people are soulless greedheads, native people are all soulful spirit
warriors and in the end, only a single spiritually evolved white man can
save their dying civilizations. Some would call these movies
progressive, but that shit is racist, yo.
Lessons learned from watching The Passion of the Christ:
Jesus is cool, Jews are all evil and would sell out their own savior,
and oh yeah, they really, really enjoy watching him get his ass beat
because, again, they are evil, just like the bad guys in Lethal Weapon. Okay, got it. Thanks for the lesson, Mel.
What’s racist about Hoosiers?
Well, how about the fact that the whole movie is built around the
fantasy of a bunch of humble, midwestern white kids banding together
thanks to grit, hustle, teamwork, David Eckstein and a lot of other
buzzwords used by secretly racist old white dudes to champion
un-athletic mediocre white athletes, in order to defeat the unstoppable
inner-city black monsters in the end to win the state championship? Uh,
that’s at least a little racist, right? Look, I love Hoosiers but let’s face it, this movie is a Klansman’s wet dream.
The
Rocky movies are, like Hoosiers, basically a white man’s fantasy.
Every single one of them is built around the white man triumphing over
the black man, who is basically used throughout the series as a symbol
for everything that’s keeping the white man from getting his piece of
the pie. Let’s break down the series, movie by movie, shall we? 
