• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pippi Longstocking and 6 other supposedly racist children's characters

Which makes your comparison of Congo and wars about Romans pretty irrelevant,

Why should race alone be the crux of the issue here? Do you think the Europeans would have been any less inclined to conquer the native peoples they encountered if they had been light skinned, rather than dark?

I highly doubt it. Frankly, the history of Russian colonialism proves otherwise anyway (Ever notice how you never hear anything about that either? :roll: ).

I myself objected to the overtly racist elements being depicted in the book (the art style, the native character's broken English, etca). What Hat was referring to had nothing to do with those problems. It was concerning the idea that a European would be held in high honor by natives, and that a European should teach native peoples about his culture as if it were their own.

I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with "race." That is an issue of culture, and assumed cultural superiority.

The Romans were basically all about that kind of thing.

For another, the Roman Empire is not around to colonize anyone.

And Belgium is? :lol:

The book in question is almost one hundred years old!

Finally, the Roman Empire has nothing to do with this issue, and even if it did, that wouldn't make it the TinTin story OK.

You're picking and choosing what can and cannot be considered to be "offensive" by the measure of how much "butt hurt" it is capable of causing alone.

You can be that way if you want, but don't pretend like it is in any sense rational.

Umm, no. He doesn't show himself to be a better native, he doesn't single handedly lead them to victory, he doesn't become their leader, and his life is saved by one of the natives near the end of the movie.

You don't seem to know anything about what you're talking about

He effortlessly tames the untamable bird monster that has never been tamed, unites all of the tribes together, and is instrumental in bringing down the imperialist forces that the natives would've never had the courage to fight head on before he arrived.

Deny it all you want, the guy is basically a purple Paul Atreides. :roll:
 
Last edited:
:shock: Holy crap!!! Avatar is one of my favorite movies of all time, and reading your interpretation of it is making me want to poke out my eyes with a pickle fork!! It's worse than when my born-again daughter and her husband tried to convince me that The Chronicles of Narnia was actually a Bible story, only Jesus was played by a lion! (No, I'm not kidding... sadly)

Dude. Whatever you're smoking, please share.

Ummm... You realize that they're actually 100% correct, right? :lol:

The Chronicles of Narnia is a notoriously unsubtle Christian allegory.

Likewise, Avatar is "white guilt" driven propaganda, which simply happens to have some rather racist undertones running through its plot.
 
:shock: Holy crap!!! Avatar is one of my favorite movies of all time, and reading your interpretation of it is making me want to poke out my eyes with a pickle fork!! It's worse than when my born-again daughter and her husband tried to convince me that The Chronicles of Narnia was actually a Bible story, only Jesus was played by a lion! (No, I'm not kidding... sadly)

Dude. Whatever you're smoking, please share.

the chronicles of narnia are a well recognized christian allegory with the lion being a direct representative of jesus.

<<<You are mistaken when you think that everything in the books 'represents' something in this world. Things do that in The Pilgrim's Progress [a 1678 allegory by John Bunyan] but I'm not writing in that way. I did not say to myself 'Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia': I said, 'Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as he became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen.'
C.S. Lewis, quoted in Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Companion and Guide>>>

<<<Each of the Chronicles focuses on a different part of the Christian story and theology. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe draws on themes of sacrifice and resurrection. In The Magician's Nephew, the first book in chronological order, Narnia is sung into being by Aslan but corrupted by original sin. The Last Battle is an apocalyptic culmination. Other books feature pilgrimages, "the restoration of the true religion after a corruption" and the foiling of many evil schemes.>>>

BBC - Religions - Christianity: C.S. Lewis
 
Some people take their books and movies WAY too seriously. I mean really, most of the people who read these books or watch these movies are children, and they are not making these connections. To the kids, they are simply fun and entertaining.
 
:shock: Holy crap!!! Avatar is one of my favorite movies of all time, and reading your interpretation of it is making me want to poke out my eyes with a pickle fork!! It's worse than when my born-again daughter and her husband tried to convince me that The Chronicles of Narnia was actually a Bible story, only Jesus was played by a lion! (No, I'm not kidding... sadly)

Dude. Whatever you're smoking, please share.

Avatar is basically Dances With Wolves in space.

The Chronicles of Narnia draw pretty heavily on Christian allegory. C.S. Lewis was a pretty devout Anglican.
 
Ummm... You realize that they're actually 100% correct, right? :lol:

The Chronicles of Narnia is a notoriously unsubtle Christian allegory.

Likewise, Avatar is "white guilt" driven propaganda, which simply happens to have some rather racist undertones running through its plot.

Which simply goes to prove that some people will fabricate whatever they want to see, presume they are correct, then run around preaching the "gospel of their personal beliefs" as if it was actually worth something.

Avatar was the story of the human race, it's greed, it's narcissism, it's arrogance, and how after ruining its own planet, and dumping members of their own species who were not "perfect" to languish in the shadows of poverty... (i.e. in a wheelchair)... it flew to distant planets, intent on plundering the wealth of others and taking it for themselves. Humans found a planet where intelligent beings lived in perfect physical and spiritual harmony. Humans then ridiculed the "religion" of the inhabitants, murdered them, tore up the flora and fauna for its own use, and eventually learned that even the most peaceful, spiritual of beings will kick the humans' self-indulgent, planet-destroying ass when they have ****ing had enough, because *gasp!* the inferior "natives" were stronger and smarter than the entirety of the human race, and unlike humans, found goodness and value on the inside rather than judging by physical usefulness.

And you managed to turn that into "white guilt" propaganda, with racial undertones? Good lord. Get thee to a literary class immediately, then fall on your knees and beg the professor to forgive your foolish transgressions and teach you how to understand what another individual is actually trying to say via his writings instead of fabricating your own twisted version that coincides with your personal beliefs and lets you sleep at night.

Now I shall quietly beat my head on the keyboard, and weep for my species.
 
Avatar is basically Dances With Wolves in space.

The Chronicles of Narnia draw pretty heavily on Christian allegory. C.S. Lewis was a pretty devout Anglican.

Not to mention CS Lewis himself said Aslan was what Jesus would be in an alternate reality.

Avatar was Billy Jack in Space. Heavy handed and apparent to seemingly everyone but a few.
 
And you managed to turn that into "white guilt" propaganda, with racial undertones? Good lord. Get thee to a literary class immediately, then fall on your knees and beg the professor to forgive your foolish transgressions and teach you how to understand what another individual is actually trying to say via his writings instead of fabricating your own twisted version that coincides with your personal beliefs and lets you sleep at night.

Now I shall quietly beat my head on the keyboard, and weep for my species.

the irony of posting this after totally missing the whole christian angle of the chronicles is worth the admission alone
 
Why should race alone be the crux of the issue here? Do you think the Europeans would have been any less inclined to conquer the native peoples they encountered if they had been light skinned, rather than dark?

I highly doubt it. Frankly, the history of Russian colonialism proves otherwise anyway (Ever notice how you never hear anything about that either? :roll: ).

I myself objected to the overtly racist elements being depicted in the book (the art style, the native character's broken English, etca). What Hat was referring to had nothing to do with those problems. It was concerning the idea that a European would be held in high honor by natives, and that a European should teach native peoples about his culture as if it were their own.

I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with "race." That is an issue of culture, and assumed cultural superiority.

The Romans were basically all about that kind of thing.



And Belgium is? :lol:

The book in question is almost one hundred years old!



You're picking and choosing what can and cannot be considered to be "offensive" by the measure of how much "butt hurt" it is capable of causing alone.

You can be that way if you want, but don't pretend like it is in any sense rational.

You're the one who is picking and choosing as much as anyone else is. You're just "butt hurt" because you disagree with the consensus and don't have a problem with the racist and colonialist depictions of the past.



He effortlessly tames the untamable bird monster that has never been tamed, unites all of the tribes together, and is instrumental in bringing down the imperialist forces that the natives would've never had the courage to fight head on before he arrived.

Deny it all you want, the guy is basically a purple Paul Atreides. :roll:

You're delusional. Taming an animal doesn't make him a leader, he doesn't unite the tribes, nor is he instrumental in bringing down the invaders. And he didn't become a leader, as you falsely claimed.
 
PS Avatar was a pretty **** film once you got past the cgi and 3d
 
Which simply goes to prove that some people will fabricate whatever they want to see, presume they are correct, then run around preaching the "gospel of their personal beliefs" as if it was actually worth something.

Avatar was the story of the human race, it's greed, it's narcissism, it's arrogance, and how after ruining its own planet, and dumping members of their own species who were not "perfect" to languish in the shadows of poverty... (i.e. in a wheelchair)... it flew to distant planets, intent on plundering the wealth of others and taking it for themselves. Humans found a planet where intelligent beings lived in perfect physical and spiritual harmony. Humans then ridiculed the "religion" of the inhabitants, murdered them, tore up the flora and fauna for its own use, and eventually learned that even the most peaceful, spiritual of beings will kick the humans' self-indulgent, planet-destroying ass when they have ****ing had enough, because *gasp!* the inferior "natives" were stronger and smarter than the entirety of the human race, and unlike humans, found goodness and value on the inside rather than judging by physical usefulness.

And you managed to turn that into "white guilt" propaganda, with racial undertones? Good lord. Get thee to a literary class immediately, then fall on your knees and beg the professor to forgive your foolish transgressions and teach you how to understand what another individual is actually trying to say via his writings instead of fabricating your own twisted version that coincides with your personal beliefs and lets you sleep at night.

Now I shall quietly beat my head on the keyboard, and weep for my species.

Are you really telling me that you fail to see the obvious Left Wing symbolism behind a film where evvvvviiilllll capitalist and imperialist white men descend upon (quite literally) "perfect in every way" peaceful communist natives living in harmony with nature, and are then all mercilessly slaughtered by (again, quite literally) the "power of nature" in the end? :roll:

It is nothing less than blatant eco-nut post-colonialist wish fulfillment fantasy.

The "racial overtones" come in the form of the main character. He is an open minded white man (i.e. a proxy for the film's intended audience) who "throws off the shackles" of his oppressive society (i.e. he stops being an evil white man) so he can become one with nature and with the natives. He also just so happens to magically be better at everything the natives do than the natives themselves (again, because he's an audience proxy), and he saves everyone from the rest of his "evil white man" compatriots at the climax of the story.

The hilarious (and undoubtedly unintentional) implication of this is that the natives ultimately required a self-loathing white man to save them from all the other white men.

I'm sorry, but that is sort of racist. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Are you really telling me that you fail to see the obvious Left Wing symbolism behind a film where evvvvviiilllll capitalist and imperialist white men descend upon (quite literally) "perfect in every way" peaceful communist natives living in harmony with nature, and are then all mercilessly slaughtered by (again, quite literally) the "power of nature" in the end? :roll:

It is nothing less than blatant eco-nut post-colonialist wish fulfillment fantasy.

Which is why your description of the movie as "invincible almighty white man teaching helpless natives and becoming their leader" is so frigging hysterical! :lamo

The "racial overtones" come in the form of the main character. He is an open minded white man (i.e. a proxy for the film's intended audience) who "throws off the shackles" of his oppressive society (i.e. he stops being an evil white man) so he can become one with nature and with the natives. He also just so happens to magically be better at everything the natives do than the natives himself (again, because he's an audience proxy), and he saves everyone from the rest of his "evil white man" compatriots at the climax of the story.

The hilarious (and undoubtedly unintentional) implication of this is that the natives ultimately required a self-loathing white man to save them from all the other white men.

I'm sorry, but that is sort of racist. :lol:

Except that he's so inept that he needs to be saved by a native woman...

..because he's "magically better at everything the natives do" :lamo
 
:shock: Holy crap!!! Avatar is one of my favorite movies of all time, and reading your interpretation of it is making me want to poke out my eyes with a pickle fork!! It's worse than when my born-again daughter and her husband tried to convince me that The Chronicles of Narnia was actually a Bible story, only Jesus was played by a lion! (No, I'm not kidding... sadly)

Dude. Whatever you're smoking, please share.

Avatar was a film that I completely, without shame, wanted the colonizers to win. :mrgreen:
 
Perhaps, but I think you would be running into the relativist extreme of a valid historical orientation toward historicism. I mean, we certainly instruct young people differently about popular culture regarding slavery, and I do not think outside of Gone with the Wind we tolerate happy portrayals of the so-called "peculiar institution."

I'm not entirely making value judgments so much as showing how in the 1940s, certain value judgments were placed from the Belgians onto the Congo colony and its peoples. The fact that post-colonialists frequently have an agenda themselves is something you should certainly keep in mind, but it is frequently not my concern.

I certainly do not advocate that we eradicate the existence of historical documents (in fact I'm still weeping over just that over my own research topic), however, what you and I tried to bring up needs further examination.

If we can accept the concept that acculturation of Belgians, Europeans, and North Americans to accept various precepts of colonialism existed everywhere from popular culture to the schools, then let's not toss aside the virtues of indoctrination so quickly. Afterall, you're more or less defending the existence of these materials in public view, partially in deference to it being historical, and partly because to toss them aside induces cultural self-loathing. Doesn't this indicate that you are in favor, to some extent, in indoctrination as the post-colonialists are?

My own perspective is perhaps to some extent opposite of what the post-colonialists want, but I still use their insights to argue in favor of what I may accept as perhaps "benign" nationalism. As Orwellian as that may sound, I learned from the post-structuralists and the post-modernists that indoctrination is everywhere anyhow.

Agreed. I'm certainly not going to deny that the themes to which you refer existed in the book. I was simply arguing that they didn't necessarily need to be viewed as being "offensive" in and of themselves simply because they disagreed with "politically correct" modern socio-political norms.

As you said, other works expressing highly dated values and social perspectives are allowed to remain in circulation (i.e. Gone with the Wind, the Merchant of Venice, and the Taming of the Shrew, to name just a few). There is really no reason to single out "colonialist" works in particular.

If all that was wrong with "Tin Tin Goes to the Congo" were the scenes Hatuey posted (and not the racist art style, or the depiction of the native peoples as being unintelligent and worthy of ridicule), I would actually argue that it could probably be left on the shelf. It would simply be a relic of a different era, and would be explained to children as such.
 
Unobtainium and giant arrows, enough said. :lamo
 
Avatar is basically Dances With Wolves in space.

The Chronicles of Narnia draw pretty heavily on Christian allegory. C.S. Lewis was a pretty devout Anglican.

Yeah, and I would add, the criticism of Avatar that he pretty much laid out is a concern for many in Hollywood films depicting African Americans and Native Americans. White savior complex dominating the narrative, reducing agency of the minority or oppressed population.
 
the irony of posting this after totally missing the whole christian angle of the chronicles is worth the admission alone

Everything that has been construed as the "Christian" angle... sacrifice and resurrection, corruption by sin (greed, etc.), the foiling of evil, the triumph of good, has been the mainstay of nearly every work of fiction, including ancient theatrical performances (especially in East Asia) for millennium. If people wish to pluck out pieces to create allegories that fit their personal ideology, it's not too difficult to do so. As a novelist, I learned that there are only seven basic plots in existence, and all works of fiction draw from one or more of these plots in constructing their stories.

Hell, I just played a video game in which my protagonist character sacrificed herself to save her friends, was resurrected by a wizard who was controlled by a demon inside of him, went on to fight the corrupt, sinful evil of an oppressive regime, free mages from slavery, and save the kingdom from war. Depending upon how I wished to categorize this particular storyline, it could be religious, conquering, gladiators fighting for survival, or for justice, or to free the oppressed, or just a medieval story of a bunch of rag-tag wanderers whose adventures bring them fame, wealth and riches.

I saw no "Christian" angle in the Narnia chronicles. I saw a compilation of plot-points that had already been told in thousands of ways, retold in another rich, creative manner, and excellently expressed on the screen. People will color what they see through the prism of their own beliefs, as we have already discovered... no matter how much they must stretch credulity to do so.

Anyway, I'm not up for one of your protracted contrariness marathons, so I've said my piece and I'm going to go slaughter pixelated monsters for no other reason than I suddenly feel like doing so. :)
 
Some people take their books and movies WAY too seriously. I mean really, most of the people who read these books or watch these movies are children, and they are not making these connections. To the kids, they are simply fun and entertaining.

To an extent, sure. However, noting the "authoritarian" tendencies of Nolan's Batman trilogy, I rather strongly thought, "Yeah, if that was his intention, he would be guilty as charged. And I'm loving it."
 
Some people take their books and movies WAY too seriously. I mean really, most of the people who read these books or watch these movies are children, and they are not making these connections. To the kids, they are simply fun and entertaining.

Having played Cowboys and Indians as a child, and remembering how no one wanted to be an Indian, I have to disagree about them not making connections.
 
You're the one who is picking and choosing as much as anyone else is. You're just "butt hurt" because you disagree with the consensus and don't have a problem with the racist and colonialist depictions of the past.

The "consensus" to which you refer is self-serving and politically motivated. I was simply pointing it out as such.

I'm sorry if it offends you. :roll:

You're delusional. Taming an animal doesn't make him a leader, he doesn't unite the tribes, nor is he instrumental in bringing down the invaders. And he didn't become a leader, as you falsely claimed.

The tribes only agree to unite because he can ride the giant bird monster that no one else can ride, and he actually talks to the intelligent tree that causes nature to rise up against the invaders in the first place.

Without the "mighty whitey" main character, the natives would have been doomed.

I'm also just about positive that he became their de facto leader at the end, given how pretty much every other major native character (besides his girlfriend) died fighting against the humans.

Except that he's so inept that he needs to be saved by a native woman...

..because he's "magically better at everything the natives do" :lamo

After uniting the tribes and talking the freaking planet into winning the battle for the native side. :roll:

He was also winning against the colonel for most of their fight as well.

Avatar was a film that I completely, without shame, wanted the colonizers to win. :mrgreen:

Colonel Quaritch FTW!! :rock

colonel-miles-quaritch.jpg
 
Colonel Quaritch FTW!! :rock

View attachment 67157623

When Michelle Rodriguez died in that film, I cheered. I gagged when a soldier-turned-merc had the audacity of saying "This wasn't what I signed up for!" I'm like, God dammit, you did too! Why the hell else are you dorks there!?
 
Yeah, and I would add, the criticism of Avatar that he pretty much laid out is a concern for many in Hollywood films depicting African Americans and Native Americans. White savior complex dominating the narrative, reducing agency of the minority or oppressed population.

Lawrence of Arabia

lawrence-of-arabia-18553-hd-wallpapers.jpg
 
I'm also just about positive that he became their de facto leader at the end, given how pretty much every other major native character (besides his girlfriend) died fighting against the humans.

I guess we'll find out in Avatar 2!
 
The "consensus" to which you refer is self-serving and politically motivated. I was simply pointing it out as such.

I'm sorry if it offends you. :roll:

and your opinion is just as self serving and politically motivated.

Not sorry if that offends you.



The tribes only agree to unite because he can ride the giant bird monster that no one else can ride, and he actually talks to the intelligent tree that causes nature to rise up against the invaders in the first place.

Umm, no. That is not why the tribes unite


I'm also just about positive that he became their de facto leader at the end, given how pretty much every other major native character (besides his girlfriend) died fighting against the humans.

Umm, no. The leaders invite him to stay with them




After uniting the tribes and talking the freaking planet into winning the battle for the native side. :roll:

He was also winning against the colonel for most of their fight as well.

He didn't unite the tribes, and he had to be saved from being killed by the col.
 
Everything that has been construed as the "Christian" angle... sacrifice and resurrection, corruption by sin (greed, etc.), the foiling of evil, the triumph of good, has been the mainstay of nearly every work of fiction, including ancient theatrical performances (especially in East Asia) for millennium. If people wish to pluck out pieces to create allegories that fit their personal ideology, it's not too difficult to do so. As a novelist, I learned that there are only seven basic plots in existence, and all works of fiction draw from one or more of these plots in constructing their stories.

Hell, I just played a video game in which my protagonist character sacrificed herself to save her friends, was resurrected by a wizard who was controlled by a demon inside of him, went on to fight the corrupt, sinful evil of an oppressive regime, free mages from slavery, and save the kingdom from war. Depending upon how I wished to categorize this particular storyline, it could be religious, conquering, gladiators fighting for survival, or for justice, or to free the oppressed, or just a medieval story of a bunch of rag-tag wanderers whose adventures bring them fame, wealth and riches.

I saw no "Christian" angle in the Narnia chronicles. I saw a compilation of plot-points that had already been told in thousands of ways, retold in another rich, creative manner, and excellently expressed on the screen. People will color what they see through the prism of their own beliefs, as we have already discovered... no matter how much they must stretch credulity to do so.

Anyway, I'm not up for one of your protracted contrariness marathons, so I've said my piece and I'm going to go slaughter pixelated monsters for no other reason than I suddenly feel like doing so. :)

There you go dodging that you got caught being worng. :mrgreen:

Just google Chronicles of Narnia and see where the author himself says it's about Jesus in alternate reality. Of course, if you won't take the author's word for it... :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom