 |
Apr 19, 2004
I've seen much bullshit, but this has got to be near the top.
The good news is that the "blunder" has been removed. The bad news is that somehow it made it there in the first place. And I put blunder in quotes because I highly doubt that it made it there by accident.
The claim--that Muslims discovered America before Columbus--belongs in the same category as the claims that Greeks stole philosophy from black Egyptians, or Holocaust denial. That is, as pseudohistory designed to glorify a particular culture by either ascribing it achievements that it didn't make, or by eliminating the more unsavory elements of its past.
We know very little about possible pre-Columbian Old Worlders discovering America. There have been claims that it has been done by Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Vikings, the Jesuits, the Knights Templar (which illustrates where such theories belong), the Africans, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Russians (!!!?), and the Bristol merchants of the early 15th century. With the exception of the Vikings, all of these claims have one thing in common: ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. As for the Vikings, there is some evidence that Leif Ericson founded a colony called Vinland on the island of Newfoundland around 1000 C.E., but even if he did, after a couple of years, all the colonists either died or went back. There was no sizable impact, and the expedition (that is, if it isn't a complete myth--certainly a possibility, through unlikely) was soon forgotten. As far as anyone else discovering America--there is ZERO evidence.
There is a movement in America whose goal is to turn it into an Islamic theocracy. They will protect themselves by anti-discrimination laws. They will infiltrate our institutions. This is just the beginning. We must fight any and all attempts to rewrite our history for the sake of political correctness. Otherwise, we're doomed.
"Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."--George Orwell, 1984
This was an attempt to take control of a small piece of our past. Nothing more. Nothing less. There will be more. Posted at 12:35 pm by Sauron
Mar 29, 2004
I spent most of the past week watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. Last night, I finally saw "Attached".
I have now watched every episode of the original series, every feature Star Trek movie, and every episode of The Next Generation.
Moving on to Deep Space Nine. Posted at 12:35 pm by Sauron
Mar 15, 2004
What liberal publishing industry?
Two books appeared early this year: the histories of our major political parties:
Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans
Party of the People: A History of the Democrats
First, the publishers accepted the description of the Democrats as the "Party of the People" without question. Second, take a look at the pictures on the covers of the books. Each author picked 5 presidents from the party he was writing about. Each one, obviously, picked those that present a positive image (neither Carter nor Nixon made it). But here's the crux: all the presidents appearing on the cover of Grand Old Party were actually, um...Republicans. Like, duh. And on the cover of Party of the People? Err...not really.
Presidents on the cover of Grand Old Party:
Abraham Lincoln (President 1861--1865)
Theodore Roosevelt (President 1901--1909)
Dwight Eisenhower (President 1953--1961)
Ronald Reagan (President 1981--1989)
George W. Bush (President 2001--)
Presidents on the cover of Party of the People:
Thomas Jefferson (President 1801--1809)
Andrew Jackson (President 1829--1837)
Franklin Roosevelt (President 1933--1945)
John F. Kennedy (President 1961--1963)
Bill Clinton (President 1993--2001)
DEMOCRATS HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THOMAS JEFFERSON AS ONE OF THEM.
THE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY SHOULD HAVE OBJECTED.
For those who don't know about the history of parties in America, here's a short summary. The first parties emerged out of conflict between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Followers of Hamilton were called Federalists, and followers of Jefferson, Democratic-Republicans. This system collapsed in the 1820s, and a new system emerged, with the new major parties being the Democrats under Andrew Jackson, and the Whigs under Henry Clay. This system lasted until the 1850s. At the end of that decade, the Republican Party emerged as a new major party in the Northern states, and with the election of Lincoln in 1860, the South (which by this time had effectively a one-party (Democratic) system) seceded. The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln. The first Democratic president was Andrew Jackson. Jefferson was neither.
Yes, most of the Jeffersonians became Democrats. So what? By that logic, Republicans can claim George Washington. Imagine the outrage THAT would cause.
The funny thing is, there are PLENTY of Democratic presidents whose appearence on that cover would in no way stain the positive image, and one cannot say the same for Republicans. Nearly all other Republican presidents are either unknown to the general public or are remembered negatively. Two Democratic presidents not on the cover are among the most important ones in our history: Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. Each of them did more for the country than Kennedy and Clinton combined.
Random House accepted Democratic propaganda without question. What liberal publishing industry? Posted at 03:59 pm by Sauron
Mar 1, 2004
First, the winners are listed here.
I am very glad Lord of the Rings won 11 Oscars. The only problem I see there is that the number of awards gives the impression that Return of the King is much better than Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers, which is not the case. They are about the same quality, and even though I think Return is the best, I am in the minority. I understand that the Academy wanted to compensate for underawarding the other two movies, but this is not the best solution. They should have either treated each episode separately, giving it what it deserves, even if that menat an overwhelming number of awards going to each one, or, more appropriately, treat the whole thing as one movie, giving out awards only this year for everything combined. But that is not very siginifcant.
What is more significant, and speaking in favor of the academy, is taht they didn't give in to political correctness, and refuesed to strip Peter Jackson of his Oscar for directing to have the "first American woman" win. Now, Lost in Translation is a good movie, but it doesn't match Lord of the Rings. Sofia Coppola has yet to live up to her father. But overall, I have no complaints withthe Academy. None of the awards appeared to be politically motivated, unlike last year Bowling for Columbine episode.
The acceptance speeches, and political commentary have been...interesting, to say the least. I don't have many complaints--the Hollywood elite seem to have learned at least a little from Michael Moore's outburst last year. There were two anti-Bush remarks (no, the joke that "13 years ago, everything was different: Bush was president, the economy was tanking, and we just finished the war with Iraq" doesn't count): the host Billy Crystal's quip about Bush's National Guard service, and Sean Penn's "we knew there were no WMDs" statement. However, these two deserve to be treated separately.
I do not have a problem with Crystal. OK, he made a joke. Those that complain about that should think: did you laugh when he said that Hillary Clinton's favorite movie was Kill Bill? If you did, and you are complaining about the Bush joke, you are applying a double standard. In my opinion, since the Hillary joke was both more visible and funnier than the NG service quip, it more than makes up for it.
Also, there was one really funny segment in the introduction, when they photoshopped Crystal and other people into various movie scenes as a way of introducing the host. In one place, with Crystal's face photoshopped on Legolas in the Batte on the Pellenor fields scene, Michael Moore appears and screams: "Shame on you, hobbits! Stop this war! This is a ficticious war!" SQUISH. Michael Moore is stepped on by an oliphaunt. That was just GREAT! Billy Crystal may not be a Bush fan, but he doesn't appear to be a Bush hater, either.
Sean Penn is just an asshole. His statement was so idiotic that I will not dignify it with a reply.
The Michael Moore getting stepped on was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. Count yourself lucky if you've seen it. Posted at 09:15 am by Sauron
Feb 18, 2004
It never happenned! And if it did, it would be good!
This is the position radical Muslims usually take on the Nazi Holocaust. This is also the position the American academia took on Communist subversion in the U.S., as documented in In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.
According to the authors, leftist academics used four closely connected techniques to take a stand with the Soviet Union: denial of the evil of the Soviet regime, denial of espionage directed at the the U.S., smearing anti-Communists of all stripes as "McCarthyites" and justifying espionage for the Soviets as "the greater good." All four techniques involve ignorance, lying, and sometimes conspiracy theories.
While the KGB and GRU archives are still mostly closed, a lot more information is available now than was the case in the 70s and 80s. The Venona project has been declassified, some Soviet archives have opened, and former KGB officers are now free to speak about what they did. The response of the leftist academia has been to ignore any facts that implicate American Communists as Soviet agents. To do that, they invent obscure conspiracy theories: for example, because footnotes for each Venona message have been put right after the message, one historian implied that the NSA is trying to trick readers into believing those footnotes are part of the message itself. They can't even notice that such rhetoric points to the weakness of their argument.
In cases where it has become impossible to deny espionage, academics justify it. The justifications include pearls like this: "Helping the Soviet Union get a nuclear bomb was a good thing, since it provided a counterbalance to U.S. power, thus helping to preserve the peace." Only a Communist shill would be able to stomach such an argument. Other justifications come from the same boat: "greater good", "anti-fascism", and even "the liberation of man" (by helping Stalin get nuclear weapons?!). Frequently, the arguments are so absurd, they would be laughed out of any community. Any, that is, except the American academia.
The book is well written and extremely interesting (OK, I may be biased there, since the subject of espionage is one of my big personal interests). Those who think that the subject is unimportant, consider this: the revisionist historians hold many, many professorships in our institutes of higher education. What are they teaching about current events, about the war on terrorism? I am willing to bet it's not the pro-American view.
Deniers of Nazi crimes are treated as the fringe lunatics they are. Deniers of Communist crimes teach our future leaders. Is this a problem? Yes. As big a problem as it would be in a reverse situation.
Posted at 04:39 pm by Sauron
Feb 17, 2004
Peace process? What peace process?
Book review: Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America by Kenneth R. Timmerman.
Timmerman details the anti-Semitic, anti-American statements made by radical Muslims around the world, and how in many cases, these statements led to anti-Semitic ACTIONS. According to Timmerman, our enemies simply don't operate on the same ground as we do, and any attempt to "understand" the "root causes" is futile: these people's minds are simply too poisoned for any antidote to be effective.
In the Middle East, the notorious forgery called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is widely circulated. Not only the masses, but intellectuals, university professors, and high government officials believe it. Only 4% of the non-Israeli Middle Eastern population believe Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. The people most often blamed are the CIA, the Mossad, or simply "the Jews." Some of the statements are simply breathtaking. For example, according to Moammar Ghadaffi, "the Jews" have invented AIDS to depopulate Africa, and are giving out candy to Palestinians that will make them infertile. In the West, people would think that someone who expresses such ideas belongs in an insane asylum, while in the Middle East, the view is mainstream.
While Jews and Christians have been persecuted and relegated to second-class citizens in Islam since its founding, it was no more discriminatory than the contemporary treatment of Jews in Christian Europe. In the 16th, 17th, 18th, even 19th centuries, Jews found refuge from European anti-Semitism in the Ottoman Empire. They paid more in taxes and their testimony in court counted for less than that of a Muslim, but there was no organized state policy to get rid of them, and spontaneous pogroms were no more frequent than in Europe. The kind of virulent anti-Semitism, backed up by government propaganda, to exterminate the Jews was imported into the Middle East directly from the Third Reich. During WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem visited Hitler and argued that he should invade the Middle East and kill all the Jews there, saying that the Arabs would help. Arafat was a good student of that Mufti.
This anti-Semitism has spread to Europe and to the United States. On college campuses in America, pro-Israeli speakers are frequently harassed, while radical Muslims are able to preach the most rabid anti-Semitism and get away with it. The Saudi-funded Muslim organizations smear anyone who dares to question them as "racists". They also applied the same label when the FBI raided several "charities" that raised money for Hamas.
While I've been closely watching the news about the Middle East for quite some time, the kind of anti-Semitic statements quoted in this book shocked me. Many could have come straight out of Der Sturmer. THIS BOOK MUST BE READ TO BE BELIEVED. My advice would be the same as on Why America Slept: read it before you vote.
P.S. I've criticized creationists frequently on this blog. I know that no scientific fact will change their mind: as Jonathan Swift once said, you cannot reason someone out of a position he didn't reason himself into to begin with. So maybe this will help: here's a quote from Dr. Saud Shawa, a professor in the Islamic University in Gaza, from his interview with Timmerman (p. 53):
You also have international Jewish professors like Darwin, who falsely trace the origin of the human being to the monkey. But it is written in the Holy Koran that Allah created the human being as a human being, not a monkey.
This is different from American creationists HOW?
I laughed really, really hard when I read that.
There's at least one other place where the absurdity of radical Muslim thought is illustrated, but I'll leave it to you to read the book and find out what it is. Posted at 05:51 pm by Sauron
The fact that I haven't done a book review in quite a while does not mean I haven't read anything. So to make it up, I'll do a couple of book reviews this week, starting with Why America Slept: the Failure to Prevent 9/11 by Gerald Posner.
Posner based much of his book on interviews with radical Muslims in the U.S. and government agents. His book is an indictment of our intelliegence agencies and of government officials' failure to do anything about it. Find out:
-How fighting over assets, lack of coordination, and failure to share information between the FBI and the CIA resulted in 9/11 hijackers being able to evade the authorities long enough to carry out 9/11.
-How, because of "civil rights" groups, it now takes years in the INS courts to deport visa violators.
-How Saudi-backed Islamic groups in America use the charge of "racism" against any anti-terrorist measure, and against anyone who warns of the danger of Islamic terrorism, like Daniel Pipes or Steve Emerson.
-How Bill Clinton met a total of TWO times with his CIA director, James Woolsey.
-How Bill Clinton used public opinion polls to judge his action on EVERYTHING, including response to terrorist acts.
-How the Oklahoma City bombing led the FBI to pretend Islamic terrorism was unimportant.
-How Germany became a haven for terrorist recruitment, and how the German government ignored it.
-How Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was interrogated by Arab-Americans pretending to be Saudis, and demanded to see a certain Saudi Prince whom he knew.
The Bush administration changed some things, but we still have a long way to go. The infighting between intelligence agencies still exists, and while we probably are safer then before, we cannot really know. Posner doesn't make his own judgements on this, instead letting the facts speak for themselves. The big issue here is that we never really know how well our intelligence agencies work: if they stop 99 out of 100 terrorists, the one that gets through will be the only one we know about.
Everyone should read this book BEFORE going to vote. Posted at 10:44 am by Sauron
Feb 13, 2004
BIG FUCKING DEAL!
Superstition, all of it. Hogswash.
Does anyone know why is it FRIDAY the 13th that is considered unlucky? I know why 13 is an unlucky number ("the Devil's dozen": 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6, and 13 is divisible by nothing except 1 and itself). But why Friday? Any other day would make as much (or rather, as little) sense.
Anyone? Posted at 08:19 am by Sauron
Feb 12, 2004
Yep, you read that right. I consider myself a conservative, but when I see crap coming from the right, I call it what it is. As I've mentioned before, one of the issues where I absolutely disagree with conservatives is creationism. That brings us to the topic of today's entry.
I subscribe to Bill Federer's American Minute: a daily email message about what happenned in the U.S. on this day. The messages are from a conservative perspective, and I while I disagree with Federer on separation of church and state, I did not criticize any of the messages here, since the degree to which a religion should be involved in government is a matter of opinion (unlike some extreme liberals, I don't believe most conservatives want a theocracy, so that issue is rather moot). Unless Federer publicly states he'd like to throw atheists in jail, or something that amounts using government power against them, I can respectfully disagree. If you want to subsribe to the messages yourself, go to Amerisearch.net.
However, I must dissect today's message, because it states something that is simply wrong. Not wrong in a sense "I don't think tax cuts help the economy, so tax cuts are wrong", but wrong in a sense "2+2=5". Wrong as a matter of FACT.
American Minute with Bill Federer
February 12th
Can you believe it? Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the exact same day, February 12, 1809, but their lives had completely different effects.
OK, that much is true.
Lincoln is best known for freeing the slaves by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, affirming that all men are equal.
Very well.
Darwin is best known for the theory of evolution, arguing that all men are not equal because some are more evolved.
And here's where we find the problem. Federer, YOU ARE WRONG. This interpretation of the theory of evolution is absolute nonsense.
This is a misconception among creationists. "More evolved" is meaningless. Physically, all people are essentially the same, and primitive cultures are just that--primitive CULTURES. Not species. Not subspecies. Not races. CULTURES. Meaning their differences have NOTHING to do with evolution.
In addition, there's another misconception: that modern so-called primitive species are somehow less evolved than more advanced ones. Wrong. Humans didn't evolve from modern bacteria, they evolved from more primitive bacteria that were humans' and modern bacteria's common ancestors. The two groups have been evolving for the same period since they split. Thus, modern bacteria are just as evolved as humans, or for that matter, as any other species.
It is true that people have used evolutionary theory to justify racism. But evolutionary theory did not make these people racists. It was an excuse, not a reason. If Darwin's theory didn't exist, they'd still be racists. Christianity has also been used to justify racism and slavery. But I have to make two points clear:
1. How a scientific theory is used (or abused) has nothing to do with its validity.
2. Saying that Darwin himself used evolution to justify racial superiory is LYING.
Darwin's theory has been used by atheists to explain away belief in God, whereas the last act of Congress signed by Lincoln, before he was shot, was to place the phrase "In God We Trust" on all our national coin.
I have no problem with "In God We Trust", but it would be better if it weren't there. And evolution does not imply atheism (another creationist misconsception). True, most atheists accept evolution. But so do most Christians. The dichotomy of evolution vs. God is a false one, used by creationists to win political victories.
Happy Darwin Day! Posted at 08:58 am by Sauron
Feb 10, 2004
A 'Return' of the White Patriarchy?
Tolerance.org, for those who don't know, is a site claiming they are dedicated to "religious tolerance". They are mostly liberal, but every once in a while, they do publish something of value. Not this time.
Some idiot named Andrea Lewis thinks The Lord of the Rings is racist and sexist. Well, it isn't exactly a new idea. We've been hearing that for some time ever since the movie came out. Check it out for yourself. Do a Google search for "Lord of the Rings racist".
Jan. 28, 2004 -- The "Lord of the Rings" and "Matrix" trilogies have defined early 21st century cinema more than any other big-screen flicks. But as critical acclaim has increased with each new hobbit-filled "Rings" installment, the "Matrix" films have fallen from favor.
And you know why? Because each subsequent LOTR movie was better, and each subsequent Matrix movie was worse.
"Return of the King" is hailed as "glorious," "a triumph," and "masterful," while "Matrix Revolutions" is ridiculed as "dismal," "pompous" and "underwhelming."
And you know why? Because it's more or less true. I don't hate Matrix Revolutions, but it left a lot to be desired.
OK, and now we have the stupidity:
Like most, I was entertained and awed by the artistry and technical achievements of "The Return of the King," but by the end of the film's 3.5 hours I thought the final chapter should have been dubbed "The Return of the Patriarchy."
Err...what?
The "Rings" films are like promotional ads for those tired old race and gender paradigms that were all the rage back in author J.R.R. Tolkien's day.
Promotional ads? WTF?
Almost all of the heroes of the series are manly men who are whiter than white.
Manly men? Like Frodo? Like Sam? Like Arwen? Like Eowyn?
They are frequently framed in halos of blinding bright light and exude a heavenly aura of all that is Eurocentric and good.
Having trouble with metaphors there? People IN ALL CULTURES identified light with good and dark with bad. The reason is our evolutionary heritage: like most primates, we are diurnal animals, have trouble seing in the dark, and night is full of dangers. We still like watching the sun rise, because in our subconciousness, it means the dangerous night is over. This has nothing to do with racism (or being Eurocentric) and everything to do with the way our ancestors lived.
Who but these courageous Anglo-Saxon souls can save Middle Earth from the dark and evil forces of the world?
For some reason, I missed the message that Frodo and Sam (and despite all the battles, it is THEY who ultimately save the world) were perfeclty Aryan. I suggest that you re-read Tolkien's own introduction to LOTR. According to Tolkien, many hobbits have rather dark skin (not absolutely black, more like dark tan, similar to that of Hispanics, Arabs, and Hindus).
On the good side, even the mighty wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) is sanitized and transformed from the weed-smoking, rather dingy figure we first meet in the "The Fellowship of the Ring," into Gandalf the White, who, by the time of "Return of the King," has become a powerful military leader complete with pure white hair and an Eisenhower attitude.
Ignorant of history, Ms. Lewis, you are. Gandalf's leadership is more Patton than Eisenhower. And we're back to your failure to comprehend metaphors. White = good, and that metaphor is universal. It has NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with racism.
Say what you will about the convoluted storyline of the "Matrix" trilogy — at least those films give women and people of color some characters they can relate to.
And here is the crux of the matter. Lewis thinks that people can "relate to" only members of their own race and gender. The idea is stupid, insulting, and, yes, racist. For some strange reason, in Star Wars, I find Mace Windu a much more interesting character than Qui-Gon Jinn.
I've missed the part where Eowyn was a man. I've also missed the part where Saruman the WHITE was a good guy, and, unlike Lewis, I noticed that the orc general in ROTK had (unlike most orcs) white skin.
Why do I get the impression that Andrea Lewis hasn't watched the movie?
A multi-culti 'Matrix'
From its earliest scenes, "The Matrix" flips mainstream Hollywood's minority representation manual on its head. A multi-culti group of hackers dressed in black leather and sporting funky hairdos are our heroes; Secret Service-type "agents" in suits and ties are the bad guys.
The problem is, Ms. Lewis, that I could argue just like you, and claim that "almost all" of them were also white. AND I WOULD BE RIGHT. In the original Matrix, only black Morpheus and hispanic Tank were minorities.
Neo, the trilogy's central figure, is played by mixed-race actor Keanu Reeves. His savior and mentor is Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), a powerful leader who also happens to be a black man. The wisest figure in "The Matrix" is the Oracle, a warm and witty African American woman.
Keanu Reeves is mixed-race? I didn't know that. Even if he is, HE LOOKS WHITE. But even if we accept all that, what do we get? Matrix has black people in it. BIG FUCKING DEAL!
Physically powerful female characters also rock and rule in "The Matrix," led by the high-kicking Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), an Emma Peel for the 21st century; daring pilot Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith); and military-wife-turned-fighter Zee, (played Nona Gaye, daughter of Marvin).
Matrix has women. BIG FUCKING DEAL!
Most of the really bad guys in "The Matrix" are Euro, including the very snobby Merovingian (Lambert Wilson) with his French accent; the dread-locked, very British albino twins (Neil and Adrian Rayment); and the Oracle's evil counterpart, the Architect (Helmut Bakaitis), a rather stuffy and pompous white guy with white beard and white suit who reeks of imperialism.
And that's supposed to be A GOOD THING? Isn't making all bad guys white is, umm...racist? If some movie made bad guys black, or Hispanic, or Jewish (see the uproar over Mel Gibson's creation) we'd never hear the end of it. And here's this lady, who supposedly believes in "tolerance", claiming that the fact that bad guys are all white is good. I think Orwell had a term for that, called doublespeak. And you also threw in the I-word. Wow. Original.
Fear and loathsome stereotypes
By comparison in "The Lord of the Rings," three women play minor roles: the powerful elf Galadriel (Cate Blanchett); the selfless Arwen (Liv Tyler), who is willing to give up immortality for the man she loves; and Eowyn (Miranda Otto), the niece of the king who must disguise herself as a man to go into battle.
I was worried that you wouldn't get to them. "Minor roles?" Probably somewhat more important then Niobe and Zee from Matrix.
This is a somewhat interesting and rather powerful persuasion technique. Think carefully what Lewis did. She mentioned three female characters from The Matrix and claims that the movie is anti-sexist. She then mentions three characters from LOTR, dismisses them as "minor" and proceeds to argue that the movie is sexist. I believe that's called a double standard.
Beyond this threesome, the rest of the women of Middle Earth are largely an unwashed, helpless mass who, in the face of a virtually hopeless battle against overwhelming enemy forces in "The Two Towers," can do little more than look anxious and cower with their children in fear.
And where are the rest of the women in The Matrix? I don't remember precisely, but I think the Zion army was also overwhelmingly male. That's not sexism or stereotyping, it's realism. It was always the men who fought wars. Sexist? Perhaps. But the there is the flip side: it is the men who fight, and it is also THE MEN who die.
Plenty of critics got lost in the complex post-modern philosophy of "The Matrix," but a few noted its more important message. As The New York Times said of the second Matrix installment:
"'Reloaded' has one of the most excitingly subversive and radical points of view ever seen in a major motion picture — a postmodern purview that accords philosophical ideals from people of color equal weight."
Wow. And that makes it a good movie? Didn't you just say that all bad guys are white? I don't think that the movie gives "equal weight" to Agent Smith's ideals. (I'm not saying it should). I could use that as a basis for arguing that The Matrix is anti-white.
A finale for the future
"The Return of the King" is a fantastic finish to a memorable film trilogy, but on a personal level, I was much more satisfied with the conclusion of "The Matrix" series.
Yes! It's a crappy movie, but it has black people! And they're all good! Yeeeeaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sounds stupid? Of course it does! Because it is!
For once, the major female characters in an action film aren't whimpering and waiting to be rescued by some steroid-laden Schwarzenegger-type.
Eowyn doesn't either. And what do you think of Trinity's decision to die for her man? Didn't mention that, did you?
For once, all of the major characters of color aren't lying in a heap of corpses as the credits start to roll.
The white people are! (Trinity is dead and Neo might be--I didn't understand what happens there.)
To my African American female eyes, the biggest difference between "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Matrix" isn't swords vs. automatic weapons, or low-tech vs. high-tech. It's the patriarchy of the past versus the Rainbow Coalition of the future.
Rainbow Coalition. Nice. White people (the bad guys) excluded.
Ms. Lewis, I hate to break it to you, but you're an idiot. The idea that you can only "relate to" characters of your own race and gender is sexist and racist in the extreme. The idea that it's a good thing to make all bad guys white is about as racist as you get. Such a claim has no place on a web site supposedly devoted to "tolerance."
Message to Ms. Lewis: RACE DOES NOT DETERMINE BEHAVIOR. MORPHEUS ISN'T A GOOD GUY BECAUSE HE'S BLACK. ARAGORN IS NOT A GOOD GUY BECAUSE HE'S WHITE. GOT THAT?
If I, like you, Ms. Lewis, was looking for racism everywhere, I would be complaining about anti-white bigotry in The Matrix. However, I have never seen such an argument ANYWHERE. The reason is that the argument is STUPID and everyone understands that. Your argument is no different.
The Lord of the Rings is better than The Matrix.
Posted at 10:34 am by Sauron
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
