> As a self-proclaimed social psychologist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote , "some people see controversy where NONE exists" (RE: Star
> Wars and race based features on characters) -
Why "self-proclaimed?" He _is_ a social psychologist.
Are you a "self-proclaimed" Job Analysis Training Group member?
> I would suggest that you (or your class) take another look at the
> characters, take notes of the features as you watch, assign "bad
> guy" or "good guy" labels to the characters and see what you come
> up with.
Probably the same things the authors did, actually. After all, they _wrote_
the "bad guys" to be "bad guys" and the "good guys" to be "good guys."
Incidently, why just guys? Isn't that sexist? And why assume that
definitions of "bad" and "good" are absolute instead of relative? Taking a
different SF Universe, the Star Trek one, is a Klingon "bad" or "good?" What
about a Ferengi? A Cardassian? A Bjorian? By _whose_ standards?
Even in the movie in question, a lot of questions exist--for example are
the Gungan "bad" or "good?" Your assumption would seem to be that, since
they are the group most strongly accused of being racial stereotypes, they
should be "bad." Yet they are "good" from the plot perspective. How about
Anakin Skywalker? He is a blond haired, blue eyed, young boy who "saves the
day" for the "good guys" in the movie. Clearly "good" right?
Of course, in the later part of the series (the part we've already seen
years ago) he turns out to be Daarth Vader--the most negative ("bad??")
character in the entire story, but . . .
Hmmmm . . .
That doesn't seem to work out real well with the assumptions you made. If
the most negative character is a blue-eyed blond Western European looking
male, and the group accused of being black stereotypes are among the more
positive ("good?") characters, in order for the film to be racist it would
have to be made from an Afrocentric perspective!
> You will find an interesting part of our language - we interpret
> good and bad through many visual clues - that fact that the
> characters are so believable as either good or bad guys (both
> sexes?) relies on a foundation in our minds eye that assigns good
> and bad traits.
By that standard, the Gungan are "bad" and the most negative characters in
the film (current AND future) are "good."
Why does that picture seem wrong somehow?
BTW, have you _seen_ the movie--or are you relying on second hand
information in your analysis?
> Think about it with your students in a semi- scientific way - you
> will learn alot about how racism works in society.
By casting blacks as "good" and whites as "bad?"
What society do you live in--it isn't the US.
> We deal a lot with overcoming type casting in interviews. We
> have found it is a far bigger problem than most people think.
> Teaching selection interviewers (or students) how to identify
> when we make these types of negitive inferences is a worth while
> effort. We may all learn something.
I agree we need to be conscious of racial (and sexist) biases. But to
extend that to characters in a Science Fiction film which aren't even human
really stretches that a bit. If they were deliberately portraying all black
characters as "bad" and white ones as "good" you might have a point--but
that is not what occurs (actually, the Gungan are not Black in the first
place--they look more like a cross between a cartoon rabbit and a lizzard
and are light skinned vegetarians).
If you haven't seen the movie--go see it. Your impressions may change quite
a bit, and you may find that your assumptions are based on stereotypes being
provided by someone else--itself a form of prejudice, of course.
> P.S.
> Henry Fonda, it is claimed, showed up on the set for the movie
> Once Upon a Time In The West" with brown contacts because he was
> going to play a bad guy. The director was very angry - he was
> making a spoof on westerns and wanted him to have bright blue eyes.
Brown eyed-blue eyed experiments anyone?
Sounds familiar to me.
Rick
