In light of feminist outrage over the supposedly RACIST! way some Vogue photographer posed LeBron James and Giselle Bundchen (LeBron being a man — and a Black man, at that — was too stupid, presumably, to notice that he was being used by the white power structure to denigrate his own race; and Giselle, being a “pretty white thing,” was probably too frail and fearful to put an end to her clear objectification and her use as a prop in this racist set piece. Poor flower. But still, a wielder of white privilege, so, you know, let’s not get too sympathetic), I thought I’d repost this earlier bit about King Kong and racism, written back in 2005.
Why? Just to show how the same battles are being perpetually fought — often times as if the people fighting pretend they’ve never been fought before. From “Monkey Shines,” December 2005:
Long-time readers of this site have heard me mention this before, but several years back, while teaching an honor’s seminar in interpretation theory, I made the intentionalist argument via a backhanded play: having assigned H.A. and Margret Rey’s Curious George to my class, I supplied along with it three essays (ostensibly from scholarly journals), each purporting to analyze the story through a specific theoretical lens.
The essays were fakes (see a portion of one here)—I had written them myself and attributed them to professors and academic journals I’d invented (without making my students aware of this just yet)—but each one represented a well-argued reading of the story: one from the perspective of queer theory and iconography (the tension created in the interpretive space between experiencing the illustrations and “reading” the text; the shape of the Big Yellow Hat; the tall, phallic trees in the foreground; an illustration of George and the Man in the Big Yellow Hat being rowed out to a waiting steamship by a sailor, whose crotch and straining muscles provided the focal point of the illustration—all while George smiled, his tongue exposed; George slipping in the Man in the Big Yellow Hat’s pajamas, etc); one that drew on feminist theory (the notable lack of women in the story); and finally, one from post-colonial theory (the Man in the Big Yellow Hat goes to Africa, traps the native Other, and brings him home as a trophy/pet, where he sets out to try to domesticate the troublesomely curious monkey).
Ultimately, my point was to argue that, though all of these interpretations were plausible and, indeed, coherent and compelling, if argued persuasively—in what way could H.A. and Margret Rey’s Curious George be said to mean any of these things?
Clearly, the “meaning” here was being derived from what we were able to do with the signifiers—with how we were able to resignify them so that they fit a narrative of our own interpretive process. What was missing, however, was the final (and most important) step: what is the likelihood we had correctly reconstructed the Reys’ signs? And of course, to decide that, we had to focus on the Reys’ intent. Were the Reys—either consciously or unconsciously—writing a homoerotic narrative (or, more literally, a narrative implying approval for bestiality)? A misogynistic narrative? A racist, imperialist narrative of subjugation of the native other? Or were they simply interested in writing a story about a man and a monkey?
Not surprisingly, the class—after careful consideration of the evidence—decided on the last.
The bottom line being, that though Curious George could come to mean a lot of things, what that meaning is remains dependent upon how the signifiers (both verbal and iconongraphic) are resignified and shaped into a narrative of our own process of decoding and re-encoding. And in both principle and kind, some of the “meanings” we considered in class were derived no differently than were the meanings early Puritan settlers took from a locus infestation (which, when seen through a particular interpretive worlview, suggests a sign of God’s wrath), or those a child sees in clouds, where he discovers a fluffy bunny or a rocking chair; because without appealing to authorial intent, we become the authors of the text; and because we are in effect rewriting that text, we have created an entirely new text.
All of which I bring up in prelude to this piece, by Newsday’s Jim Pinkerton, which takes a critical look at King Kong:
Is “King Kong” racist?
Lots of people say it is. And, if it is, why does the film keep getting remade? What does it say about us if the new “Kong” is a huge hit?
Any movie that features white people sailing off to the Third World to capture a giant ape and carry it back to the West for exploitation is going to be seen as a metaphor for colonialism and racism. That was true for the original in 1933 and for the two remakes: the campy one in 1976, and the latest, directed by Peter Jackson. (In addition, a “Kong” wannabe, “Mighty Joe Young,” has been made twice.)
Movie reviewer David Edelstein, writing in Slate.com, notes the “implicit racism of ‘King Kong’ – the implication that Kong stands for the black man brought in chains from a dark island (full of murderous primitive pagans) and with a penchant for skinny white blondes.” Indeed, a Google search using the words “King Kong racism” yielded 490,000 hits.
Comparing the new film with the original, The Washington Post’s Stephen Hunter observed, “It remains a parable of exploitation, cultural self-importance, the arrogance of the West, all issues that were obvious in the original but unexamined; they remain unexamined here, if more vivid.”
And by more vivid, Hunter might be referring to the natives of mythical Skull Island, where Kong is discovered. Director Jackson took people of Melanesian stock – the dark-skinned peoples who are indigenous to much of the South Pacific, including Jackson’s own country of New Zealand – and made them up to look and act like monsters, more zombie-ish than human. Indeed, one is moved to compare these human devils to the ogre-ish Orcs from Jackson’s mega-Oscar “Lord of the Rings” films. The bad guys are dark, hideous and undifferentiatedly evil.
One might note that the original source material for both films dates from the same period: “Kong” in ‘33, J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit” four years later. Both works are ultimately meditations on the West and Western uniqueness. Which is to say, what’s the role for white Europe – and for its ethnic offshoot, North America – in a world that is mostly non-white?
Some would label such sentiments as racist, but others would note that every ethnicity naturally feels a special affection for its own kind. Yet, in the West, outright invocations of white nationalism, such as the 1915 film “Birth of a Nation,” were politically unacceptable, even in the ‘30s, and so the same race-conscious sentiments were encrypted into allegory – in print or on celluloid.
The new “Kong” drills home its race consciousness by making repeated references to Joseph Conrad’s 1899 novel, “Heart of Darkness,” which denigrates both the colonizing whites and colonized blacks. In the novel’s climax, the once-idealistic character Kurtz writes of Africans, “Exterminate all the brutes!” Conrad presents Kurtz as crazy, but Africa is presented as a crazy-making place.
The new Kong is, as always, a noble beast with a tender side. But, at the same time, his killing is presented as a cruel necessity. And at the end of the film, the white people – love interests Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody – are brought closer together, thanks to their brush with the big ape.
But if the movie is so loaded with race-charged imagery, why isn’t it being protested? Why aren’t we seeing pickets and boycotts? Perhaps it’s because today, as people look around the world, they see that most political strife is, in fact, ethnic strife. Folks like to say that “diversity is our strength,” and they resolve to fight racism, but every day’s news reminds us that ethnic conflict lurks in the human heart.
That’s a gloomy reality that “Kong” captures, in its crypto fashion, and so there’s no point in getting worked up over it.
Is it possible Kong is a movie “about” colonialism and western cultural arrogance? Certainly. Is it likely? Well, that’s the point, isn’t it: to believe as much, you have to believe that the original author and filmmakers were encoding their film with just such a message, even if their intent was an unconscious one; and given the thinking on race, manifest destiny, western supremacy, assimilation, et al., percolating through the sciences and cultural conversation at the time Kong was made, it is quite possible that the original Kong was in fact interested in exploring such topics—if only peripherally and allegorically.
The remakes, then, are by necessity forced to reinterpret the source material (shot-by-shot Gus Van Zant remakes are rare)—and nobody would make the claim that either the 1976 version or this latest Peter Jackson remake are, consequently, the “same text” as the 1933 film, precisely because it is obvious to us that the new directors and writers and effects people and casting agents, et al, have supplied new perspectives to the familiar palimpsest (some of which is doubtless drawn from their own fluid interpretations and internalizations of the previous versions). So again, to make the claim for what these movies “mean”—as opposed to what it means to them as viewers—critics should be appealing to the intent of the filmmakers.
Is the new Kong “racist”? Is it approving of cultural arrogance? Is it ennobling of the Other (in which case, one can make the claim for it that it is the romantic stepchild of Rousseau)? Is it indifferent to any of these ideas—content simply to pay homage to the original (or the 1976 remake)? And if so, does that make it simply a film about a giant ape? Or does it make it a film about a giant ape that at one point was intended as a cultural critique of western imperialism, or a critique of third world cultures (and a implicit defense of colonialism), or of the threat of the big strapping (ex) slave to the “virtue” of the weak, fair-haired, waifish white women?
All interesting questions—but all dependent, if we’re truly interested in what the films mean—on the creators’ (“authorial”) intent.
All else is to engage in arguments over our own films—the ones we’ve made in our minds and imbued with our own meanings.
****
related: “Kong in Love” (the sexual politics of Kong)
some other recent discussions on language and interpretation here.
All else is to engage in arguments over our own filmsâ€â€the ones we’ve made in our minds and imbued with our own meanings.
Damn, that needs to be one of your rotating titles or engraved on a plaque.
Bravo, Jeff.
Is the new Kong…
Answer: [D] — None of the above. Modern filmmakers (and Jackson is no exception) have no concepts outside the tiny bubble of “cinema”. Like everything else recently, the only narrative present in the remake of King Kong is a discussion of the previous versions. If you want to seek “meaning” in it, treat it as editorial comment or “critique” on the original made by people utterly ignorant of any underlying issues that original may have addressed.
Regards,
Ric
Jackson’s remake was loooong and, ultimately, boring.
I don’t think he intended that.
What would have been cool is if they could have gotten UB40 to do the soundtrack but I think they broke up.
To pick some nits, I imagine the Maoris are a little surprised to be referred to as Melanesians. RACISTS!!!ONE!
“What does it say about us if the new “Kong†is a huge hit?”
Two things, I would guess:
1. That “us” felt like spending $12 on a movie.
2. Pinkerton is a navel-gazing douche.
JeffG
Your link to your faux-essay is self-referring to this post.
Heeee’s baaaack!
Mwah!
As Freud would say: “Sometimes a monkey is just a monkey. By the way, who thought a shot for shot remake was a good idea; it worked wonders for VanSant’s Psycho, not!
The intent is to make money off an old trope: fear of the other. The fact that the other could be extended to the blackfellow running for president is just gravy.
Sometimes my cigar is just a cigar; but yours is whatever I say it is.
You are far more Other to me than is Obama, cynn. Speaking as an ex-academic with a white mother, a dazzling smile, and a bunch of lefty friends.
Unless you have really huge ears. Then maybe it’s, like, an Otherness tie.
The 1976 version of the King Kong had a promotional tie-in with Der Wienerschnitzel. I know cause I found a cup when I went up into the attic after Dad died. Back then they were called Der Wienerschnitzel and their deal was that they had both hamburgers and dogs. Now it’s just dogs. This for sure doesn’t clarify things at all really.
Oh. Now it’s just dogs and also they lost the Der part.
um, happyfeet, I’m seeing hamburgers on the menu. on the site that wp won’t let me link, apparently.
all the heres point to here.
:(
im not existential enough for that.
Das Wiener Schnitzel, correctly.
I watched the Jackson Kong remake with some resentment. A waste of our time, because Jackson could have moved forward with The Hobbit. Instead, he pursued his own desires to remake his childhood favorite, thus losing the momentum of interest three instant classics (and the Oscar) gave to him.
Today? Jackson won’t direct The Hobbit; and the first (!) part won’t air until 2011. But we have a nice monkey movie in the nominal bin.
– The overall impression I came away with when I viewed Kong for the first time as a youth is the one that I think carries the most weight for me, simply because it doesn’t depend on any notion of racism or sexual innuendo, both of which I had very little knowledge of at that age.
– I knew only what I felt, the emotions that the film evoked in me, none of the politics, and knowing the motivations of the Hollywood business as I have come to understand all such enterprises, I would say if anything, those initial unbiased impressions have only come to be reinforced with time and experience.
– That impression centers on the idea of the “Untamed beast within”, and the frustrations of man in his inability to move himself past that basic brutish impulse, despite eons of supposed “social evolution”.
– From the remote, and darkly ominous setting of Skull Island (a metaphor for the hidden darker side of mans nature), to the bright lights of Broadway, (the enlightened evolved templet of modern society), we see that inner beast brought forth to be examined, discussed, analyzed, and managed, except the process always goes off the rails, the analog of mans failure to achieve that true enlightenment he seeks relentlessly.
– And that failure is not just complete in and of itself, but fails to even achieve a moral victory, because the beast is neither improved nor even maintained, but is instead taken from his natural environ, pressed into a world where he can never successfully function, and ultimately destroyed, calling into question even the moral and rightness of mans arrogant ideals.
– Faye Ray embodies those ideals, the matrix of which eschews the brutal nature of mans existence, and takes instead the framework of the gentle, passive, academic vessel, as if to state that the brutish animalistic represents everything that needs to be “corrected” within man himself so that true civility can finally be realized.
– This ultimate failure of mans attempts to tame his own rude nature, as personified in wars, and the continuous background noise of ongoing slaughter of innocents, even in the most civilized of societies, is brought home with a final inescapable crash to earth. A scene so heavy handed as to allow no room for question, that in the end the beast in his habitat needs no wars or killing for improvement, while the final condemnation of mans ineffectual striving for higher purpose, is delivered with guillotine like precision in the closing line of the movie;“….twas beauty killed the beast”.
Jeff,
Το λακονιζειν εÃĀειν ÆιλοÃοÆειν.
The links are from an old post and probably contain pointers back to one of the other blog publishing softwares I was using.
You can get to the “here” stuff by going to the greatest hits and looking through the stuff labeled language and intentionalism.
For the curious george essay, you’ll probably have to do a search. I can’t remember now where it was.
All else is to engage in arguments over our own filmsâ€â€the ones we’ve made in our minds and imbued with our own meanings.
Then we also have the matter of “Polls”.
The intent is to make money off an old trope: fear of the other
Oh for heaven’s sake, cynn… people have been telling scary stories about the Menancing Unknown out there since fire was discovered and allowed ’em to ask “what’s on the wall tonight, dad?”
Sometimes the schlooping green goo that eats your face is just the schlooping green goo that eats your face.
Oh. Burgers and dogs. You’re right.
nk —
Are you performing “it’s all Greek to me”? Because if not, it’s all Greek to me.
I demand translation!
I demand translation!
I think the sense is something along the lines of “brevity is the soul of wit”.
To lakonizein estein philosophein.
That could be way wrong though.
Philosophein is easy.
Lakonizein I’m guessing is related to “laconic”.
Well, when I go with brevity and wit, I’m labeled a racist hater. So sometimes I like to bust out the fiddy-cent words.
serr8d,
Jackson could not have moved fwd with The Hobbit, as New Line was screwing him (among others) on the LotR money.
The spectacular flop of The Golden Compass brought an end to that (and New Line, really).
So sometimes I like to bust out the fiddy-cent words.
Yes, but then you’re privileging yourself over those who practice Other Ways of Communication.
What if you made King Kong only with a big ass lizard? Or a goat or bunny or somesuch? It seems to me that if you have to equate black folk with gorillas to see racism, the onus is on the interpreter.
After all this, I decided, hey, why not take a look at the magazine cover and see if they had a point. I wouldn’t have sees the parallel if it hadn’t been explained to me, and frankly I don’t buy it anyway. The fact that the woman is smiling and seems to be happy and feeling safe takes the wind out of their argument.
They see racism because that’s what they want to see, nay, expect to see. If you look hard enough for something, you can find it, even if you have to re-mold reality to suit your preconceptions. In fact, as long as reality is mutable you can make everything fit your world-view.
I don’t remember being able to do that ever. I wonder what it’s like to live a life of delusion.
I look at the cover and I see a tough dude, a ballplayer, holding a hot chick who looks like she enjoys being with him.
Apparently liberal feminists look at the cover, and they see a subhuman monkey-man with a womyn victim of the patriarchy’s rape machine.
See, that’s why I can’t be a liberal feminist. I’m just not sensitive enough to subtle nuances. Also, every time I see a black person, I don’t think “monkey!!!!”
*sniff*
Jeff’s back!
The times, it’s a chang’n quickly innit? “…a Google search using the words “King Kong racism†yielded 490,000 hits.” Au contraire mon frère:
king kong racism =182,000
+“King Kong” +racism =102,000
“King Kong racism†=283
But why aren’t we seeing pickets and boycotts? Because something mightor might not be racial, doesn’t make it necessarily racist.
The new Kong, from what I could tell by the small bit I bothered to watch, was an opportunity to show off a bunch of new CGI and that’s pretty much it.
>/contrarianism
The True Meaning of King Kong
by Boris Badanov
Even an ape knows how to treat a sweet young thing.
The End.
“Comment by rhodan on 4/27 @ 7:48 pm #
As Freud would say: “Sometimes a monkey is just a monkey. By the way, who thought a shot for shot remake was a good idea; it worked wonders for VanSant’s Psycho, not!”
I’m sorry, rhodan, but “monkey” is a non-permitted word in the new millenium. You need to familiarize yourself with the rules.
I would think that by now you would have discovered that the Constitution is a “living” document, and no longer means what it clearly says.
Oh, and nishizonoshinji, you are the only one I find here that obviously drinks more sake than I do. Shams on you!
Or “shame on you”, as the case may be.
One question: how much chalk did they use to outline Kong’s body?
You’re not anything, enough. I suggest that you stop.
Or at least, stop talking. You’ve already removed all doubt.
I do not like postfractural plurality of canons
I do not like them, Sam-I-am
Do not like them here or there
I do not like gay/lesbian canons anywhere.
Not in a house, not felching a mouse
Not here or there, not anywhere
I do not like mini-canons in my curricula
I do not like them, Sam-I-am
Could you? Would you? Canonize the goats?
Could you? Would you? On a boat?
Could you? Would you? In the rain?
Could you? Would you? On a train?
Not with a canonical goat. Not on a boat.
Not in the rain. Not on a train.
Not in my house. Not felching a mouse.
Oh, no!
Not in a box. Not with a fox.
Not even in an elegy. You let me be!
I do not like postfractural plurality of canons!
I do not like them, Sam-I-a
Seriously, when Kong crashed to the ground, how many cop cars, cops, and reporters were crushed? How did they get rid of his huge stinking corpse–did they cut it up with chainsaws? Did they bury the pieces or was he stuffed and put in the Smithsonian, or maybe only his penis, like Dillinger? Who got sued for the deaths of the theatergoers, the blonde Kong threw away, the people hurt in the El car, etc.? Did the gov’t. charge for the use of Air Corps planes?
The only cool parts of the new movie were with the dinosaurs and the giant bugs and critters. Naomi Watts’ gymnastics irritated me.
Those words are all English, but make no sense in that combination.
I think King Kong and skinny white women is a metaphor for Jeff Fecke and glazed donuts.
Anyone who doesn’t see it – yup, that’s Uterine Privilege.
Thanks, SP&B #s 26 & 27,
It’s from Socrates* and it has wide connotations. “Brevity is the soul of wit” is good but does not say it all. The Spartans were well known for pithy phrases which communicated relatively complex ideas in two or three words. For an example today, a library full of books on racism will not match Jeremiah Wright’s “God Damn America”.
*Some people take it as Socrates poking fun at the Spartans but to me it makes more sense that he meant it literally.
I still like “Μολὼν λαβΔ, myself, for pithy Spartacisms.
[yeah, yeah, I copied it from wiki. Sue me]
so nice to see you back in the game jeffie.
Why are we so interested in Kong, when we could be talking about Miley Cyrus?
I mean, gosh! What a scandal! I just can’t even concentrate on work for the pain it is causing me. It’s not even a good picture, but it has thrown my life into an uproar!
What is the problem here? Don’t we know what is serious in this world anymore?
You know, I was hoping for an actual scandal, there. Unfortunately it appears that the young lady in question was, in fact, clothed. Despite media attempts to paint it that she was topless. Sure: I’m naked right now. Under my clothes, I mean.
I see Kong as a hours long re-make of the Phrase: “Fuck with the bull, you get the horns”.
But, then again, I’m not a guilty white racist, like much of the liberal left, who equate a black man with a fierce expression on his face with a gorilla.
LeBron wore a Yankees cap at the Indians home playoff game last year. Do you think he’s worried about what people think? Somebody gets in his face and I’ll go all silver-back on their ass.
Dirk Nowitzki wore a dead monkey to Arizona Silverbacks game. Up that in-yo-face!
Dirk can flat-out ball! But not in a screeching simian way. More of a “carries a compact mirror in the little key-pocket of the b-ball trunks” kind of way.
But mad skillz, nonetheless.
Evidently, nk disagrees.
*snort*
Only if you mean that Wright’s a wonderful example of how racists come in all colors and ages.
Disappointingly, no one thought to say “silverback” when we were making fun of them, but when the Mavericks briefly wore silver foil jerseys designed by noted anti-black crusader P. Puff Diddy-Daddy, Dirk, unlike the majority of his teammates, didn’t look like a baked potato. Shiny shirts = white privilege.
Also, having seen him up close enough to be filled with race-terror, though I’m a considerably taller-than-average guy, I think they might have shrunk LeBron in that picture. His real-life Kongy disproportion-to-Bunchen has to be bigger than that. Dude’s huge, and she’s small. On that cover, not so much. At the very least, the pose conceals his actual, startling massiveness…just as you’d expect in a RACIST! Kong reference.
I was about two sentences in before I realized it was Jeff. It was a nice realization.
One thing about King Kong that I’ve only ever seen Ace note and that really seems obvious. They’re on an island full of dinosaurs and they bring back the ape with a glandular problem?
Still, the 3–count ’em, 3–T-Rexes were most excellent. Do you suppose they were boys or girls trying to eat Naomi Watts and would our interpretation change if we knew the T-Rexes’ sex?
Impressive, Mr. G!
Darryl Dawkins, or Chocolate Thunder to his friends, named one of his dunks “The Go-rilla”.
Loved that dunk. Is that wrong?
Jeff, someone may have already said this, but the “here, here, here” links all seem to go nowhere.
“And at the end of the film, the white people – love interests Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody – are brought closer together, thanks to their brush with the big ape”
Did Jeff G. just say that the Kong remake is a veiled critique of Hollywood’s Magic Negro trope (cf. Bagger Vance)?
Racist
Or maybe he just said that for me to make that connection, I must impart my own meaning to the work>
(to self): Racist!
“How did they get rid of his huge stinking corpse–did they cut it up with chainsaws?”
Well, in the “Simpsons” version of this, Mr. Burns used the corpse to sell monkey stew to the Army.
(Bonus points for the story’s mention of David Edelstein. I remember his foul presence on Cathy Seipp’s old message boards. The fact that Miss Seipp is gone while he still lives is proof of an unjust universe.)
I thought the moral was, blonde hair and silky drawers = wild and free beasts who can never possess you CAPTCHAd and PWND. But then I haven’t read a lot of Curious Georges.
Damn, I spend the weekend sweating copper and tiling the backsplash in the new kitchen, and I miss the fun when all hell breaks loose at PW!
You’re all missing the point of the cover. It’s all about the white man’s insecurity over penis size. They might as well have put in a big cartoon balloon saying, “Tom Brady, I got your woman here — see the big smile on her face? I’ll send her back when I’m done.”
Sorry, GMS, I missed what you said. My penis got out again and was smothering the entirety of the seventeen inch monitor.
Ahem.
Racist? Naw. Consider when it was made. At no point do any of the natives, or Kong himself, roll their eyes and say, “Feets, git movin’!”
…aaaaand the Puppy Blender throws you a bone!
God knows where it came from. Best not to ask.
I enjoyed the latest Kong remake with one large reservation. I think Jack Black’s role as the driven entrepreneur was intended to portray capitalism’s moral depravity in contrast to Kong’s natural nobility and Naomi Watts’ compassionate (that would be leftist) sensibility. I avoid most modern cinema mainly because the ubiquitous leftist message usually swamps any entertinment value there may have been. In this one, there was more entertainment than most recent efforts.
Oh, C’mon. Jack Black? The Screaming MeMe?
Jeff Bridges rocked.
This is really a perfect example of why I haven’t been following PW as much recently. See, here Jeff is saying something interesting in its own right (pointing out that critical theories may provide insights but the fact that there are so many theories, each of which see “obviously” a completely different interpretation, shows the interpretation has more to do with the interpreter than the story) and then connecting it with politics.
So many of the other posts come down to be just another right-wing blogger seeing the absurdities of the left in more or less the same way.
Yay, Jeff. More.
Actually, Jeff, I thought you had one of those Asus EE 7″ PCs. Or am I confusing you with another blogger?
All Mac, all the time.
I’m like Dolemite that way.
Insta-lanche!
And what about those tubular penis-vaginas-dentata in the swamp? How do they fit in?
I bet George wouldn’t be so curious if he’d seen them.
I think Jack Black’s character is Peter Jackson pulling out his own dark side and showing it to us.
Of course Jackson is a good man. Weta had become quite huge in order to finish the third Rings movie, and Jackson deliberately asked for so many creatures in Kong that he wouldn’t have to lay off too many people. Remember that when the extended edition makes your ass sore.
Jeff,
Excellent article. But I believe you are wrong when you say “Director Jackson took people of Melanesian stock – the dark-skinned peoples who are indigenous to much of the South Pacific, including Jackson’s own country of New Zealand. . . .” The indigenous people of New Zealand were Polynesian, not Melanesian. Some have argued that the Polynesians developed from the Melanesians, but that does not seem to be supported by genetic research :
“a study published by Temple University [found] that Polynesians and Micronesians have little genetic relation to Melanesians; instead they found significant diversity of between groups living within the Melanesian islands.[1] Genome scan shows Polynesians have little genetic relationship to Melanesians. Friedlaender, Jonathan; Friedlaender JS, Friedlaender FR, Reed FA, Kidd KK, Kidd JR, et al. (2008-01-18). “The Genetic Structure of Pacific Islanders”. Public Library of Science PLoS Genet (4(1): e19 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0040019). Philadelphia, PA 19122: Temple University.”
Thanks, Robert. But that bit was actually from Jim Pinkerton’s article, from which I’m quoting at length.
What’s funny is, my mother interpreted Curious George stories as a colonialist fable and refused to buy those books for me when I was a kid. Of course, I had access to them at the school library (fortunately, the little black sambo stories weren’t there). But my mom didn’t want to be part of educating a young black child about how it’s okay to transplant a monkey from his natural environment, and then blame him for not being able to assimilate. All those stories are about how George is at fault, but George isn’t at fault. He’s being himself. It’s the man who made that choice for him. The Man. In. The Yellow Hat needs to keep his colonizing tendencies to himself. How would he have gotten along if the situation were reversed, and George had kidnapped him to George’s home in the wild?
And it’s not a stretch to see King Kong as racist given the history of seeing black people as sub-human and comparing them to apes/monkeys in racist artifacts of popular culture. This, coupled with the racist myth of the black male rapist who’s out to get white women, makes the analogy easy to see. You may not be aware of it, but black folks see that a coming mile away.
All black folks, coco?
How homegenized.
I’m sorry your mother decided to equate a monkey with blacks, or a man in a yellow hat who shares his bed with said monkey, with whites.
How the Brady Bunch must have taunted that poor woman — filling the entire screen, quadrant by quadrant, with a beaming projection of the American idea of wholesomeness.
If only they’d cast a very young Gary Coleman as Cousin Oliver…
It’s not as though those stories were written and published at a comparatively non-racist point in American history. Given the historical context, why would it be such a stretch to see those connections?
I don’t know if the Vogue cover was totally racist, but I doubt that the photographer (who has a long, and distinguished career) was ignorant of the history of those images. As a professional photographer, if anything, she was probably more informed than the general public. Given that she has control of her composition and subjects, she, or the editorial team, could have easily made a different editorial choice.
someone is reading a LOT of minds.
My mother didn’t equate black people with monkeys, that was an existing facet of American culture that she chose not participate in either overtly or implicitly. She also chose not to impose colonialist narratives on me. The Babar story is also problematic as well.
I suppose not all black people see that coming a mile away, but black people who are aware, make others aware — which is how that kind of analysis might be circulating outside of your sphere of consciousness.
and the brady bunch didn’t particulary torment me, but I remember watching Bugs Bunny cartoons as a child and being told not to believe the imagery of the cannibal who was putting bugs in his pot. “That’s not true about black people,” she said.
When the media is frequently a source of negative imagery about people who look like you, it’s important to take a critical stance to protect your self-image, and the developing self-esteem of children with less discernment.
Well, given that I wrote the fake colonialist narrative, it obviously wasn’t circulating outside my sphere of consciousness. What it boils down to is intent: you mother essentially taught you that HA and Martha Rey were colonialists. For writing a children’s book. About a monkey.
Who, given that your mother didn’t want you to come into contact with an existing facet of American culture in which blacks were equated with monkeys — and given her decision to prevent you from reading CG — it seems to me that she made an active move toward participating in that which she claimed to decry, if only by virtue of cheapening the interpretive process at the expense of the authors’ intent; or else by accusing the authors of racism, and passing that lesson on to you.
Wait, she dressed you like a cannibal?
I have to admit, I never felt particularly like Bluto, or Yosemite Sam, or any of the villains on Scooby Do — despite our shared skin color. And of course, by fourth grade, I wanted to be J.J. Evans. So it goes, I guess.
when the image of the “american idea of wholesomeness” does not include you, where does that place you in relationship to the idea of what is “American” or what is “wholesome”?
friends, seinfeld … these are shows about ppl who live in NYC and don’t know or interact with any minorities on a regular basis? i don’t think that’s giving the whole picture. looks rather incomplete to me.
sure it’s not as though you have to identify with Bluto, because you can identify with Popeye or that cheeseburger guy or many other positive/ heroic characters. Where is that comparitive range of portrayals of black people in a cartoon. Okay, Fat Albert, but that was some 40-odd years later with how many more negative caricatures created in the intervening years?
Not everyone interacts with everyone else. Nor should they have to. Creativity need not be guided by some Utopian wish of superficial diversity, else we’ll truly have taken away personal freedom. Besides, Monica worked in a restaurant. Which means it’s almost certain she would have interacted with some Mexicans.
…See what I did there?
You need to learn to laugh, coco. After all, you got Lionel Jefferson, and I got Archie Bunker and Mike Stivik.
The free-loading cheeseburger guy? Probably a Jew. Definitely not a heroic type.
Nor was Popeye, the militaristic swabby with a penchant for fisticuffs. Plus, he thought he owned Olive Oyl. Likely a misogynist, deep down.
offscreen Mexicans? next door neighbors who aren’t minorities? friends who aren’t minorities? it’s so funny when i’m off camera or limited by folks’ narrow creative capacities, who can’t imagine minorities in New York.
Does anyone remember that old sketch comedy show with Jim Carrey? Man, that was one funny show. Wish I could remember who else was in it…
“You” are not off-camera. Just as “I” am not Ross, Joey, or Chandler.
Squid: You’re thinking of White Chicks, I think.
I like you, Jeff. Honest. Don’t be so sensitive to a little friendly teasing. I am probably the least rowdy of your commenters here.
I’m not being sensitive. Just maintaining a certain aspect of a persona.
Squid: In Living Color
I think poor coco was out of his/her/its depth. However, politeness goes a long way, so cudos to coco.
Or kudos, whichever. Choose your own spelling, and enjoy!
cranky-d —
Yes, coco was very polite, and should be commended. And yes, we know it was “In Living Color.” Part of the joke, brother. Blog grammar and all. ;-)
This is all very well, but what shall we make of Frankenstein?
I mean, like, what? It’s a Zombie thing, and I wouldn’t understand?
.
“The Man. In. The Yellow Hat needs to keep his colonizing tendencies to himself. How would he have gotten along if the situation were reversed, and George had kidnapped him to George’s home in the wild?”
..and..
“It’s not as though those stories were written and published at a comparatively non-racist point in American history. Given the historical context, why would it be such a stretch to see those connections?”
Coco, the Reys fled Paris with the manuscript for Curious George hours before the Nazis, er, “colonized” the city in 1940. Both were German-born Jews. I’d say they were rather familiar with the concept of how to make your way when home isn’t home anymore.
One of the original propaganda posters pointed to in this Vogue cover incident portrayed the germans as the savage beast ravaging a fair maiden — propaganda isn’t solely aimed at people because of their race, but it does tell consistent narratives. the bad guys are savages coming to take your women, in the US that’s been black folks.
Also, the guy who wrote Curious George was a minority, but that doesn’t mean he is unable to participate in the colonialist mindset. BET for example, is a black network that pushes the worst kinds of cultural portrayals of black people. That doesn’t mean that black people don’t critique it. The Boondocks devoted an entire episode to calling out the network for that. Huey went on a hunger strike over BET!
on the flip side, think about Grey’s Anatomy. That show not only has a non-stereotypical black character as the head doctor (I don’t watch closely, so I’m only approximating her role), but the [black female] author has the ability to imagine and write white characters with depth and range. What’s so hard about not slandering or ignoring people in creative media?
Creativity need not be guided by a dystopian vision of a monoracial society.
Except when it’s been the Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Polish, the Jews, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russian mafia, the Muslim terrorists…
It’s very easy when you belong to a group that’s been treated unfairly, to assume yours is the only group that has ever been treated unfairly.
…well, except the Muslim terrorists. The only way to treat them unfairly is to let them live. And that’s even more unfair to Muslims who aren’t terrorists.
you forgot the Gypsies, McGehee. or do they only steal children?
Hanging out with whomever you choose in now “dystopian”? Funny, I always thought it was called “choice” — an important aspect of freedom.
Learn something new every day…
The Boondocks devoted an entire episode to calling out the network for that.
Ah, yes. The brave truth-to-power-speaker MacGruder, who I once saw whining about being “silenced” in Bush’s AmeriKKKa.
On CSPAN.
How would he have gotten along if the situation were reversed, and George had kidnapped him to George’s home in the wild?:
Why, then it would have been written by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the main character loved him some apes.
One was his “mother.”
Oh, but he killed a grouchy one with a full nelson.
Bad Tarzan.
I think it was the “monoracial” part that was dystopian. Which will come as quite a surprise to the Japanese and Koreans.
People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! ,
[…] Just what is it about the Left that they see an image of a monkey and immediately think “Black guy”? […]