When Frank Miller’s “300″ film was released, I was absolutely outraged by the racist content of the film and more so at the insensitivity of movie-goers who simply argued “it’s just a movie.” Later on, I would hear these same individuals say, “The movie makes you want to slice up some Persians.” I wrote an article about the film almost immediately after it was released, and now that I’m still noticing people quoting the movie or listing it as their “favorite movies,” I’ve decided to update my original post and discuss some points that will hopefully shed some new light.
“300” not only represents the ever-growing trend of accepted racism towards Middle-Easterners in mainstream media and society, but also the reinforcement of Samuel P. Huntington’s overly clichéd, yet persisting, theory of “The Clash of Civilizations,” which proposes that cultural and religious differences are the primary sources for war and conflict rather than political, ideological, and/or economic differences. The fact that “300” grossed nearly $500 million worldwide in the box office may not be enough to suggest that movie-goers share the film’s racist and jingoistic views, but it is enough to indicate how successful such a film can be without many people noticing its relentless racist content. As Osagie K. Obasogie wrote in a brilliant critique of the film, “300” is “arguably the most racially charged film since D. W. Griffith’s ‘The Birth of a Nation’” – the latter being a 1915 silent film that celebrated the Ku Klux Klan’s rise to defend the South against liberated African-Americans. Oddly enough, both films were immensely successful despite protests and charges of racism.
Media imagery is very important to study. Without analyzing and critiquing images in pop culture, especially controversial and reoccurring images, we are ignoring the most powerful medium in which people receive their information from. A novel, for example, may appeal to a large demographic, but a film appeals to a much wider audience not only because of recent video-sharing websites and other internet advancements, but also because the information is so much easier to process and absorb.
According to the Cultivation Theory, a social theory developed by George Gerbner and Larry Gross, television is the most powerful storyteller in culture – it repeats the myths, ideologies, and facts and patterns of standardized roles and behaviors that define social order. Music videos, for example, cultivate a pattern of images that establish socialized norms about gender. In a typical western music video, you may see female singers like Brittany Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Beyonce wearing the scantiest of clothing and dancing in erotic and provocative ways that merely cater to their heterosexual male audiences. These images of women appear so frequently and repetitively that they develop an expectation for women in the music industry, i.e. in order to be successful, a woman needs to have a certain body type, fit society’s ideal for beauty, and dance half-nakedly. Stereotypical images of men in music videos, on the other hand, include violent-related imagery, “pimping” with multiple women, and showing off luxury. Such images make violence and promiscuous sexual behavior “cool” and more acceptable for males. As we can see from two studies by Greeson & Williams (1986) and Kalof (1999), exposure to stereotypical images of gender and sexual content in music videos increase older adolescents’ acceptance of non-marital sexual behavior and interpersonal violence.
Cognitive Social Learning Theory is another social theory which posits, in respect to media, that television presents us with attractive and relatable models for us to shape our experiences from. In other words, a person may learn particular behaviors and knowledge through observing the images displayed on television. A person may also emulate the behavior of a particular character in a film or television show, especially if a close-identification is established between the viewer and the character. Both theories – Cultivation Theory and Cognitive Social Learning Theory – apply in my following analysis of “300.”
In order to deconstruct “300,” I will start by (1) discussing its distortion of history, then (2) contrast the film’s representation of Persians and Spartans, (3) correlate Frank Miller’s Islamophobic remarks on NPR with the messages conveyed in “300,” and (4) conclude with the importance of confronting stereotypical images in mainstream media and acknowledging the contributions of all societies and civilizations.
Distortion of History
Initially a graphic novel written and drawn by Frank Miller, who is best known in the comic book industry for reinventing Batman in his critically acclaimed “The Dark Knight Returns,” the inspiration for “300” stems from true historic events, although Mr. Miller states that it was never intended to be a historically accurate account of the Battle for Thermopylae. In any case, the information we have about the Battle for Thermopylae comes from the classical Greek author, Herodotus, who lived in the Persian city of Halicarnassus. His book, “The Histories,” became part of Western folklore in 1850, when America embraced it as the leading authority on Persian history. Interesting enough, and many people may not know this, is that prior to 1850, the West had a very favorable impression of the Persian Empire, particularly because its main source for Persian history was rooted in the Bible and the “Cyropaedia,” which was written by another Greek author named Xenophon. The “Cyropaedia” glorifies the rule of Cyrus the Great, a benevolent Persian king who will be discussed later. In respect to the Battle of Thermopylae, the events may have occurred, but it was far different than the famous myth explains: 300 Spartans held Thermopylae for three days against over a million Persian soldiers.
This version of history is portrayed in the Hollywood adaptation of “300” in heavily stylized fashion that remains faithful to the comic book. The film’s director, Zack Snyder, said during an MTV interview, “[t]he events are 90 percent accurate. It’s just in the visualization that it’s crazy.” And yet, the film hardly mentions that the 300 Spartans were allied with over 4,000 Greeks on the first two days of the battle, and over 1,500 on the final day (other sources mention that there were 7,000 to 10,000 Greek allies). The battle was fought in a narrow mountain pass of Thermopylae where not even two chariots could pass through side by side; the choice of using this terrain benefited the Spartans and their Greek allies immensely against the Persians. Many historians agree that the massive Persian army would have obliterated the Spartan/Greek forces without much difficulty if the battle were fought on an open battlefield. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the Spartans were heavily armored and wore armor that weighed 30-40 kg, while the Persians were lightly armored.
Ephraim Lytle, assistant professor of Hellenistic History at the University of Toronto, states that “300” selectively idealizes Spartan society in a “problematic and disturbing” fashion, which would have seemed “as bizarre to ancient Greeks as it does to modern historians.” Touraj Daryaee, Baskerville Professor of Iranian History at the University of California, Irvine, criticizes the film’s use of classic sources:
Some passages from the Classical authors Aeschylus, Diodorus, Herodotus and Plutarch are spilt over the movie to give it an authentic flavor. Aeschylus becomes a major source when the battle with the “monstrous human herd” of the Persians is narrated in the film. Diodorus’ statement about Greek valor to preserve their liberty is inserted in the film, but his mention of Persian valor is omitted. Herodotus’ fanciful numbers are used to populate the Persian army, and Plutarch’s discussion of Greek women, specifically Spartan women, is inserted wrongly in the dialogue between the “misogynist” Persian ambassador and the Spartan king. Classical sources are certainly used, but exactly in all the wrong places, or quite naively.
As I wrote in my post on “The Truth About Thanksgiving: Brainwashing of the American History Textbook,” omitting and ignoring an entire race of people in historical accounts is a form of racism because it negates the achievements and stories of the “Other.” In the film, Persians constantly threaten Spartans with slavery, and yet, any honest historian knows that the Persian Empire, particularly the Achaemenid Empire, was built on a model of tolerance and respect for other cultures and religions. According to the documentary, “Persepolis Recreated,” the Persian Empire is the first known civilization in the history of humankind to practice international religious freedom. Images carved on the walls of Persepolis testify how Persians interacted and conversed with nobleman of other nations respectfully and without enmity. Denying another civilization its own accomplishments and contributions to the world is like blotting them out from history altogether and rewriting one’s own prejudice version. As we will learn later, any mentioning of Persian valor, compassion, and sophistication, would have resulted in a potential backfiring to the film’s agenda.
At one point in the film, the Spartan protagonist, King Leonidas, describes the Athenians as “boy lovers,” which, according to Paul Cartledge, professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, is ironic, since “the Spartans themselves incorporated institutional pederasty [erotic relationships between adolescents and adult men] into their educational system.”
The fact that Frank Miller and Zack Snyder stripped the Spartans of homosexual relations and, instead, made them accuse the Athenians of being “boy lovers” in order to reinforce their masculinity, shows us a distortion of history that favors a heavily masculinized and homophobic take on the Spartans. In modern society, homosexual males are frowned upon the most because society discourages men to behave in ways that are contrary to their expected gender traits, i.e. a man must be strong, emotionless, and courageous – and of course, these play into stereotypes about homosexuals since it suggests they cannot possess any of those traits. Therefore, if a man is a “boy lover,” he can never be as great of a fighter as a heterosexual Spartan. It’s obvious that mentioning the facts about Sparta’s institutional pederasty would not have made a connection with the film’s directed heterosexual male audience. This is evident from Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” film, where many expressed their outrage of Alexander engaging in homosexual relations, therefore never developing a close-identification with the character.
Distorting the history in “300” merely fulfills one component in glorifying the Spartans and vilifying the Persians. In the next section, we will see how the film’s visual representation of Spartans and Persians accompany its biased history for the sake of reinforcing the divide between West and East.
Spartans and Persians: Glorification, Demonization, and Tokenism
Perhaps the most noticeable offense in the film is how the Persians are horrifically depicted as monsters. It is not hard to notice the punctuated differences in skin color: the white-skinned Spartans versus the dark-skinned Persians. The Persian King, Xerxes, is shown as an abnormally tall, dark-skinned, and half-naked madman with facial piercings, kohl-enhanced eyes and, as Dana Stevens from “Slate” writes, “[has] a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him.” The rest of the Persians are faceless savages and demonically deformed. This demonization of the Persian race extends to malformed characters, including Persian women, who are depicted as Lesbians and concubines. Even the elephants and rhinoceroses look like hell spawns. Stevens also adds:
Here are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with the “bad” (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown people. Disfigured people. Gay men… Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians. Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws…
Also noticeable is how the Spartans wear no body armor; instead they are bare-chested and wear only a helmet, cape, and underwear. This is common in comic books where physical attributes of male characters such as muscles are magnified and exaggerated to symbolize strength, power, and heroism. In sheer contrast, the Persians are dressed in typical Middle-Eastern attire in pure Orientalist fashion, which only degrade them into invisible and insignificant characters without stories. We have seen these contrasting images of West and East cultivated before, and we still see them today. Whenever a crisis in the Middle-East is covered by the mainstream Western media, we tend to see the images of garbed Middle-Eastern men burning flags and shouting like barbarians, but rarely ever see scholarly and intellectual Middle-Easterners who are treated with respect and credibility. As Jack G. Shaheen discusses in his book, “Reel Bad Arabs,” Hollywood is guilty of vilifying Arabs and Muslims; repeating images of light-skinned and attractive Western (mostly American) counter-terrorist heroes blowing away dark-skinned, unattractive, and “rag-headed” Middle-Easterners. These images have been repeated so much in the mainstream media that they become the socialized norm: Arab/Muslim = Evil, oppressive, terrorist, and uncivilized, etc. Although the ancient Persians in “300” are neither Arab nor Muslim, they are confined into the same group through modern-day Orientalism.
Throughout the film, for instance, the constant emphasis on “The Clash of Civilizations” is not just limited to the manner of visual representations, but rather extends to what the Spartans and Persians stand for. Early in the film, we see the Spartan King, Leonidas, resist against the Persian call for “submission” by bellowing about freedom and liberty. Just like the visual depictions of Persians in “300” are no different than Hollywood’s stereotypical and insulting representation of Arabs and Muslims, neither are the themes. As adolescents and fans alike eccentrically shout the film’s most memorable quote, “This is Sparta!” – a line that Leonidas says right before kicking an African man down a well – they knowingly or unknowingly establish a close-identification with the Spartan characters and, subsequently, the heroism they are meant to epitomize. As a result, Persians get perceived, in modern terms, as “terrorists” – monstrous beings that are mysteriously driven by an innate desire to conquer, slaughter, and oppress.
These differences between Spartans and Persians ring eerily similar to modern-day tensions between the West and the Middle-East. As Obasagie writes, “this racialized depiction of freedom, nation, and democracy becomes central to “300’s” take home message,” but what remains even more unnoticed is the film’s “unapologetic glorification of eugenics.” In the very beginning of the film, for example, we see the newborn Spartans being inspected for “health, strength, and vigor,” while the weak and disabled are hurled off a cliff onto a large pile of dead babies. Obasogie further elaborates:
The film suggests that this rather crude form of eugenics is put in place for military reasons: every Spartan child should either be able to become a soldier or give birth to one… Initially shocked, audiences are quickly reassured that this is all for the greater good: nation, freedom, and the Spartan family. How else can Sparta defend itself – and inspire modern democracies – unless it reserves scarce resources for the strongest?
Strongest men, that is, which brings me to my next point: the exploitation of female characters. A blog posting written at “FirstShowing.net” explains “Why Women Should Go See ‘300.’” The list, which is not even written by a woman, reads: 1. Gerard Butler, 2. Gerard Butler Naked, 3. Empowered Women, 4. Strong Relationships, and 5. 300 Nearly Naked Men with 8-Pack Abs. The author apparently thinks that male eye-candy, romantic relationships, and a dash of “feminism” constitute a “good film” for all women.
At first glance, the Spartan Queen Gorgo may look like an empowered woman, but she is a token character, at best. In a predominately White male film, she serves as the only central female character and assumes a pseudo-feminist role of flaunting her femininity for the sake of reinforcing the film’s racism and singular image of masculinity. For instance, early in the film, the Persian messenger angrily responds to her, “What makes this woman think she can speak among men?” She responds proudly, “Because only Spartan women give birth to real men.” Yes, real men, i.e. the one-sided view of masculinity: aggressive, violent, dominating, muscular, etc. It seems that any man who doesn’t meet these characteristics is not a “real man.” It also seems that Spartan women are treated as merely “manufacturers” of these “real men.”
The mentioning of women occurs enough times in the film to establish that Spartans treat their women “better” than the Persians. The only Persian women we see are sex slaves and disfigured lesbians. In actuality, there were Persian Empresses such as Azarmidokht, who ruled Persia under the Sassanid Empire. Ancient Persian women not only engaged in political matters, but also served as military commanders and warriors. One of the great commanders of The Immortals was a Persian woman named Pantea (pictured left), and during the Achaemenid dynasty, the grand admiral and commander-in-chief for the Persian navy was a woman named Artemisia. Persian women also owned property and ran businesses. Unfortunately, we do not see any such representation in “300.”A counter-argument may state that Queen Gorgo actually plays a pivotal role in the film since she convinces the council to send more soldiers to aid the Spartans. But her success could never have been accomplished if she did not do what stereotypical female characters usually do: use her body to get what she wants. Queen Gorgo realizes she has very little choice when the corrupt Spartan politician, Theron, says he wants sex in exchange for helping her. After she drops her top, Theron forces her against the wall and rapes her. Later on, Theron stands before the council and accuses Queen Gorgo of being an adultress and a “whore Queen.” Although Queen Gorgo stabs him in this scene, it’s nowhere near as disturbing as the rape scene.
As we have seen in this section, the glorified violence, racism, and erotic imagery of the Spartans, as well as the use of women, accentuates their superiority over the Persians, but perhaps nothing can drive the point home more than Frank Miller in his own words.
Frank Miller and Islamophobia
It should be in the interest of those who may disagree with my analysis of “300” to listen to Frank Miller’s interview on National Public Radio (NPR) on January 24th, 2007 (or read the transcript). The interview followed former President Bush’s State of the Union address and is pasted below (emphases added):
NPR: […] Frank, what’s the state of the union?
Frank Miller: Well, I don’t really find myself worrying about the state of the union as I do the state of the home-front. It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants … and we’re behaving like a collapsing empire. Mighty cultures are almost never conquered, they crumble from within. And frankly, I think that a lot of Americans are acting like spoiled brats because of everything that isn’t working out perfectly every time.
NPR: Um, and when you say we don’t know what we want, what’s the cause of that do you think?
FM: Well, I think part of that is how we’re educated. We’re constantly told all cultures are equal, and every belief system is as good as the next. And generally that America was to be known for its flaws rather than its virtues. When you think about what Americans accomplished, building these amazing cities, and all the good its done in the world, it’s kind of disheartening to hear so much hatred of America, not just from abroad, but internally.
NPR: A lot of people would say what America has done abroad has led to the doubts and even the hatred of its own citizens.
FM: Well, okay, then let’s finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we’re up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.
NPR: As you look at people around you, though, why do you think they’re so, as you would put it, self-absorbed, even whiny?
FM: Well, I’d say it’s for the same reason the Athenians and Romans were. We’ve got it a little good right now. Where I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he motivated our military, but he didn’t call the nation into a state of war. He didn’t explain that this would take a communal effort against a common foe. So we’ve been kind of fighting a war on the side, and sitting off like a bunch of Romans complaining about it. Also, I think that George Bush has an uncanny knack of being someone people hate. I thought Clinton inspired more hatred than any President I had ever seen, but I’ve never seen anything like Bush-hatred. It’s completely mad.
NPR: And as you talk to people in the streets, the people you meet at work, socially, how do you explain this to them?
FM: Mainly in historical terms, mainly saying that the country that fought Okinawa and Iwo Jima is now spilling precious blood, but so little by comparison, it’s almost ridiculous. And the stakes are as high as they were then. Mostly I hear people say, ‘Why did we attack Iraq?’ for instance. Well, we’re taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, we’re doing the same thing now.
NPR: Well, they did declare war on us, but…
FM: Well, so did Iraq.
Iraq declared war on the United States? Not only are Frank Miller’s words filled with incredible absurdity and ignorance, they’re also plagued by disgusting prejudice that should raise questions about his underlying messages in “300” and other recent works of his. One of the things I found really disturbing in Miller’s interview was how he suggested that “teaching all cultures are equal” and “every belief system is as good as the next” is a bad thing! What is he implicating here? Are we to teach that certain cultures and belief systems are better than others?
In his next response, he essentially calls Islam “sixth century barbarism,” and then lumps the entire Muslim world into one stereotype. Then he says “I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.” Perhaps someone should educate Mr. Miller that the Islamic empires preserved the beloved Greek philosophical texts by Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Ptolemy, Aristotle, and many others. He should also be informed that algebra was invented by a Persian Muslim, Mohammad Al-Khwarizmi. The word English word for “algorithm” actually comes from “Al-Khwarizmi” and the significance of algorithms in computers, programming, engineering, and software design is immensely critical. As stated by Michael H. Morgan, author of “Lost History: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers, and Artists,” Al-Khwarizmi’s new ways of calculating “enable the building of a 100 story towers and mile-long buildings, calculating the point at which a space probe will intersect with the orbits of one of Jupiter’s moons, the reactions of nuclear physics… intelligence of software, and the confidentiality of a mobile phone conversation.” Ironically, the Western achievements that Frank Miller boasts about could not have been possible without the collaboration of civilizations.
Conclusion
As I have written many times in my previous essays, racism is most dangerous when it has been made more acceptable in society. When the Nazis dehumanized the Jews, they did so in cartoons and propaganda films so that the rest of the country didn’t feel sorry about killing them. When early American cartoons and cinema depicted African-Americans, they drew them with ugly features and had White actors wear blackface makeup, respectively. At the time, these obviously racist acts were acceptable. In modern times, when the insulting Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were released, many non-Muslims were too shocked at the Muslim world’s reaction than actually taking the time to realize that the cartoons were drawn out of hate and sheer Islamophobia. Rather than seeing the cartoons as racist or prejudice, many defended it as “freedom of expression.” The manner in which certain people in the Muslim world reacted to the Danish cartoons is another subject altogether, but it’s worth mentioning that their response represents a sensitivity that the West has made very little efforts to understand. For Islamophobes, demonizing the Prophet of Islam wouldn’t be such a bad idea since dehumanizing the enemy is an essential process of war. Vilifying the “Other” makes racial slurs acceptable – slurs like “rag heads,” “camel jockeys,” “towel heads,” “dune coons” among much worse things.
Although the Persians in “300” are not Muslim (the movie takes place in the Pre-Islamic and Pre-Christian era), the visualization of Persians are identical to the stereotypical images we see of Muslims in other media representations. Demonizing the Persians during a time when Middle-Easterners and Muslims are already being vilified simply makes dehumanization of the “Other” acceptable and more recognizable. I remember having one odd conversation with a young man who started his argument by saying, “Xerxes and his Muslim army were a bunch of tyrants.” I stopped him immediately and told him that his ignorant comments are precisely the reason why I raise awareness and accuse “300” of being a propaganda film. Xerxes and his Persian army were not Muslim, yet I saw many people correlating the film with present-day tensions between the United States and Iran. Joseph Shahadi recently informed me, the right-wing party of Italy even uses images of “300” in their campaign posters! It’s sad how many don’t seem to realize that dehumanization of certain groups has dangerous consequences; after all, before the Holocaust, Jews were dehumanized.
“300” may look like a visual breakthrough in cinema “art”, but that doesn’t make up for its blood-spattering jingoism or its racist content. Counter-arguments in the film’s defense are often weak with excuses like, “it’s just a movie,” or “it’s based on a comic book” or “it’s simply meant to entertain.” The counter-arguments are short and weak because the film is unapologetic and doesn’t contain anything sympathetic or appreciative about Persians, their culture, and their history. It would benefit Frank Miller and Zack Snyder if they saw Ridley Scott’s brilliant film, “Kingdom of Heaven,” which explores the complexity of war and celebrates dialogue between great civilizations. Such films are beneficiary to society because they convey much-needed messages of coexistence, respect, and understanding that reach wide audiences.
On a personal note, it is discouraging that so many people, including academics, doctors, and scholars, are either not bothered or don’t see the racism in “300.” And every once in a while, another one of my friends will do the Spartan “Ha-oooh!” chant around me and not realize how offensive it is. The fact that so many people cite the movie and enjoy watching it provides enough support for the cognitive social learning theory, where people find the Spartan characters likable and admirable. It is likely that this may be the reason why so many are defensive of the film – simply because they like the movie so much. But we, as a progressive society, need to be bold enough to stamp our foot down and say we will not tolerate racism, just like we would never tolerate watching or promoting films that glorify the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. As Dana Stevens writes, “If “300” had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside “The Eternal Jew” as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war.”
My personal hope is that people will appreciate this analysis and realize the immense impact media has on shaping our thoughts, perspectives, and views of each other. I would also hope that people are inspired to study ancient Persian history and learn about the countless contributions of the Persians, who were among the greatest philosophers, thinkers, poets, artists, physicians, mathematicians, astronomers, and innovators in the history of the world – before and after the Islamic era. I must point out that almost 90% of the paintings I post on my blog are Persian paintings (compare them with Frank Miller’s horrific depiction of Persians in “300″ and you will understand how upset and offended one can be).
The Arab, Iranian, and/or Muslim communities need to make their mark in the film industry and I cannot stress that enough. The release of “300” angered, but also frustrated me because I felt like I could not respond with a film about Persians due to my low-budget. It is a personal dream of mine to make a “Cyrus the Great” film someday, and I’m sure many of us have dreams of certain films we’d like to see about our communities, but they cannot remain dreams. They must be manifested and brought to life, and only through perseverance, sheer dedication, and passion can we achieve our dreams. As evident in “300,” there are people making a living out of vilifying our cultures, histories, and religions while many of us stand by and watch the propaganda machine do its dirty work. I understand that not all of us are aspiring filmmakers, but to those of you who are: the longer we remain the silent, the less people will know about our beautiful stories.
I believe very firmly that Truth prevails in the end and I have faith that the new generation of progressive-thinkers, Middle-Easterners, South Asians, and Muslims alike are on their way in making a profound difference in our world. Someday, the Middle-East and Muslim world will no longer be demonized and feared, but appreciated and respected. The media has the power to turn tables around in such a way.
Someday…
~Broken Mystic~
February 16th, 2009
Sammer Z. said,
February 18, 2009 at 3:12 am
You know, as I watched 300, I enjoyed the fighting, the gore and even the story-line. But seeing the barbaric dark skinned, stereotypically dressed like Orientalist Persians fighting against “white”, heroic men who stood for freedom and liberty was a thin veil for its contemporary parallel. Obviously their own version of the past is what they are trying to push, but is THAT the past that mainstream will take away as what happened in the Middle East? I hope not…I thoroughly enjoyed reading your analysis and hope more people read it and realize to what extent the subliminal and not so subliminal brainwashing that is going on in the media.
As for your hopes of people becoming more aware of it, I hope you’re right.
brokenmystic said,
February 18, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Salaam Sammer Z.,
Thank you for your comments
I couldn’t enjoy anything about the movie because I was already disturbed by the images I saw in the film’s trailer. The violence and visual effects are there to appeal to younger audiences, and what’s so problematic about this is that people think they can get away with saying, “well I enjoyed the visual effects, that’s the only reason why I like it.” Would people say that same thing if there was a film about the KKK and filled with incredible special effects?
The worst part was that I saw fellow Muslims getting pumped up about the movie and not even realizing how racist it is. The worst counter-argument I heard was, “well, I saw the Spartans as the Iraqis, and the Persians as the United States.” Uh… wow. All I can say to anyone who thinks like that is to read Frank Miller’s interview. It says enough.
Anyway, as an aspiring filmmaker myself, I believe it is crucial for our diverse Muslim Ummah to get involved in the media. I haven’t shared one of my films on this blog (even though its on my YouTube channel) since this is a personal blog where I’d like to remain anonymous, but maybe soon I’ll post it up. I’m wrapping up another film right now which is about coexistence between Muslims, Jews, and Christians, and I also have another project lined up which is about racial profiling.
Crimsonsilk said,
February 18, 2009 at 4:29 pm
The film was pretty low profile here in the UK and I didn’t know anything about it before I sat down to watch it. I love historical epics and so was pleasantly surprised by the opening. Half an hour later I had to switch it off for all the reasons you mention – I felt quite disturbed and couldn’t understand the ‘point’ of the film which had no real story or character depth. It felt less about the last standing of the 300 than about the clash of civilisation and a strong undercurrent of western superiority
Sammer Z. said,
February 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm
As I read your review, I did see deeper into the film and Frank Miller’s interview really made the point clear. You’re right that if it was about the KKK, no one would admire it for its special effects. I hope as others read it, they see it too. Even if they enjoyed it, now they will be able to see through the propaganda to what is really there. I’m glad you are making films and hope to see some soon!
Joseph said,
February 23, 2009 at 5:09 am
This is a fantastic analysis of 300 Jehanzeb. With any justice this film will be viewed in retrospect alongside Birth of a Nation as a racist epic. I am still thinking through the great points you have made but I will add that the tendency of Western filmmakers to misrepresent the acceptability of same sex relations among the Greeks and instead demonize it as a typical Middle Eastern sexual practice is not limited to depictions of ancient history. Oliver Stone’s script for Midnight Express (the true story of a white western guy who is thrown in a Turkish prison for drug smuggling) does the the same thing. Among other distortions Stone has the Turks obsessed with homosexual sex while the virtuous, “masculine” American prisoner gently turns down a pass by another male prisoner. In reality Billy Hayes, the author of the memoir the movie was based on, had a consensual sexual relationship with another prisoner and credits the affair with helping him stay same while in jail. After it was released Hayes complained that the portrayal of Turkish culture in the film were racist distortions of his story. It seems the western anxiety around homosexuality requires it to be relocated away from western heroes and projected on to Middle Eastern bad guys.
Eloquent Bohemian said,
February 24, 2009 at 8:41 pm
An excellent and extremely well-thoughout analysis of the film. Though I initially observed some of the elements you discussed, your essay has enlightened me on more aspects I missed.
I was especially taken aback by Frank Miller’s statements and attitude in the interview. Closed-minded prejudice and ignorance.
I would like to know your thoughts on the film “Kingdom of Heaven”.
Frank Miller’s “300″ and the Persistence of Accepted Racism at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture said,
February 27, 2009 at 1:00 pm
[...] by Guest Contributor Jehanzeb Dar, originally published at Broken Mystic [...]
“300″ Critique Published on “Racialicious” « Broken Mystic said,
March 1, 2009 at 8:23 am
[...] the link between race and pop culture. In case if you missed my critique, you can either read it on my blog here or on [...]
gatamala said,
March 1, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I watched Persepolis Recreated. I enjoyed it and will pass it on.
Frank Miller’s “300″ and the Persistence of Accepted Racism « Muslim Lookout said,
March 13, 2009 at 5:10 am
[...] March 13, 2009 by Jehanzeb By Special Correspondent Jehanzeb and originally published on Broken Mystic. [...]
Barey Jones said,
April 26, 2009 at 12:41 am
damn. Your blog is about the biggest piece off bs garbage that I have ever come across. 300 was a great movie. Racist, of course. Racist against ancient Persians! Nothing at all wrong with that because they have all been dead for THOUSANDS of years!
I can’t wait for a sympathetic Nazi movie to come out. I’m betting that you would love it!
brokenmystic said,
April 26, 2009 at 3:49 am
@ Barey Jones,
Considering that I mentioned Nazi propaganda films that demonized the Jews, your comment comes off sounding very childish and ignorant. It’s ironic that you act like you’re ant-Nazi and yet support a film that vilifies an entire group of people.
You admitted that “300″ is a racist movie. Thanks for confirming everything that I wrote in my post!
Barey Jones said,
April 27, 2009 at 1:30 am
You are missing the point that the film is a fictionalized account loosely based on ancient historical events. ANCIENT historical events. Literally thousands of years old. The peoples, languages and cultures represented in the film are extinct today. Modern day Greek and Persian cultures share very little with what was represented in the film. The Persians in the film (and the Spartans) are no more a representation of their modern cultural descendants than Ancient Egypt is a representation of that country’s culture today . Modern Greece and Persia have a completely different language, culture and religion.
So is the film racist towards modern day Persians? Of course not! Racism is a term used to describe MODERN sentiments aimed at modern day peoples and groups.
Nobody questions a film that vilifies Nazis during WWII or Redcoats during the American Revolutionary War. Why do you think that is?
Racist, hardly. Unless of course you are some kind of time traveler or a caveman like in those commercials.
Jorge said,
June 5, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Great comment Barry, I would like to further emphasize that the Persian empire was composed of many nations, cultures and languages. I recommend reading on the Seleucid Empire and ‘Hellenization’ in order to understand what a diverse empire it was.
To people who disagree with Barry:
Shouting racism at the film is unfounded. There are other things of greater importance to get wound up than just about a Hollywood film, yes a Hollywood film, how about getting wound up by the discrimination of women within modern Iranian culture in Iran or perhaps discrimination against ethnic minorities within European and American culture but over a Hollywood film? Come on.. oh and yes I’ve read the article thrice over.
brokenmystic said,
June 5, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Wow, racism in the film is unfounded? The creator of “300″ himself made anti-Islamic statements on NPR, how can you defend against something like that?
You also need to study media literacy. As I mentioned in my response to Barey Jones, Frank Miller has been charged with racism and sexism in the past (read my response below).
It seems that when you bring up “discrimination of women within modern Iranian culture,” you’re trying to justify the racism in the film “300.” You’re also implying that racist media isn’t important. This post is not about women in Iran nor is it about the discrimination against ethnic minorities within European and American culture (if you want to read about those things, including my own experiences with discrimination, then feel free to explore my blog), this post is about critiquing the film, “300.” Just because I’m not talking about anything else in this post (and why should I when I’m critiquing a movie?), it doesn’t mean that I don’t speak out against those other issues. The fact that people still make racist statements against Persians and Middle-Easterners with the film’s context is enough to make me question the perception that the movie creates of Persians and Middle-Easterners.
And it’s funny that you’re defending Barey Jones because he flip-flopped in his comments. If you read his initial comment, he admitted that the film was racist, but after I responded, he said it wasn’t racist. Then he assigned a ridiculous stereotype on me saying that I would “Love” a film that was “sympathetic” towards Nazis. Please tell me how you are agreeing with such childish statements.
brokenmystic said,
April 27, 2009 at 2:32 am
Barey Jones,
Based on your comment, it seems pretty obvious that you didn’t read my post. Did you read or listen to Frank Miller’s interview on NPR? He’s clearly referring to Muslims and Middle-Easterners. The guy has been charged with racism and sexism in the past (see “Turk” and Elektra from his Daredevil comics). Perhaps you should study media literacy and read Edward Said’s “Orientalism” to get a richer understanding of how stereotypical and hateful representations of certain groups of people have a negative impact on the way the general public perceives them, especially when it’s presented through media – the number 1 storyteller in our society.
Instead of just emotionally reacting to my post, how about you try reading it? Like I said in my post, people who defend “300″ often respond with lack of substance. When the Nazis vilified the Jews in their propaganda films, it was perceived as something acceptable — it was accepted racism. The same thing happened with African Americans in American cartoons and it was seen as something acceptable.
“300″ represents how vilifying and demonizing Middle-Easterners is accepted racism. You admitted that it was racist. Now you’re saying it’s not racist. You seem to be flip flopping.
zayzayem said,
June 21, 2009 at 5:14 am
I enjoyed 300. Up until I just read Frank Miller’s own personal politics, I thought it must have been intended as an immense political satire of the state of affairs.
There is a problem when movies are expected to be text-books for how-things-should-be, rather than artworks to examine and discuss. If we didn’t have 300, we wouldn’t have such a perfect example of poorly construed glorified stereotypes used to desensitize the populace.
brokenmystic said,
June 21, 2009 at 7:30 am
In other words, are you saying that we need movies like “300″ which contain negative stereotypes that are harmful to the Middle-Eastern and/or Muslim community? Do you think I enjoyed writing this? Can you find any other lengthy critiques of “300″ like this?
I don’t think “300″ should be seen as “artwork” and I never said I expected it to be “text-books for how-things -should-be.” My argument here is that it is racist propaganda. Being able to see it anything other than that is a matter of White non-Muslim privilege. The fact that many White non-Muslims said to the Middle-Eastern community, “it’s not racist, you’re over-reacting, you’re looking into it too much” shows us that they think, somehow, that they have more credibility than us, as if they know what it’s like to be vilified in media.
When someone calls you a “terrorist” to your face or calls you a “Persian” in a stupid Gerard Butler accent, then come back and comment.
zayzayem said,
June 21, 2009 at 10:36 am
Wow. Way for attacking someone who was enjoying your blog and automatically assuming I’ve never been called a terrorist because of my appearance…
I definitely was not saying 300 was racist. That would be as ridiculous as saying it’s not violent. But it’s a further step to say it encourages and glorifies the concepts. Sure it’s probably easier to make the case that it does when it comes to 300 (especially once you here Miller’s and Snyder’s comments on their production) – but does that mean any film with racist elements needs to be denounced as wrong?
Aris said,
August 4, 2009 at 7:17 am
Such a great post, I felt disturbed to my bones while watching 300. what is most ironical is that even according to the internal narrative of the movie the Spartans are far from what we might call “modern views” on violence, on childhood, democracy etc, Leonidas kills the messenger without consulting the senators, the deformed children are killed etc and still they are portrayed quite anachronistically, as saviors of freedom, democracy (we are bombarded with all those shits by that Nordic-faced hero who also acted in LOTR) and all the great things into which we invest so much emotional value these days. and I must say, I liked Sin City for its anti-sentimentalism and family myths but now the interview you have quoted opened my eyes quite wide.
kudos.
Jay said,
November 5, 2009 at 1:50 am
Admin Note: Dude, are you spamming on my blog? Seriously? You really don’t have anything better to do? Is that how absorbed you are in your hatred for Muslims? I feel very sorry for you. Good luck finding something better to do with your time
Alain said,
January 16, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Your analysis based on how “bad” the Spartans really were and “good” the Persians really were. Yet the fact remains, the Persians invaded Sparta. And the Persian empire only became an empire because the invaded and conquered nations.
Watching the movie, I didn’t feel modern-day Persians were demonized. Neither were ancient Persians, for that matter—the hatred and contempt and violence shown by the Spartans would have been the typical reaction of any person whose country was invaded towards its invaders. Or do you think Russians during WWII did not insult and despise Germans?
The story, of course, is told from the Greek side, which in those days was prone to myth-making. They surely would have written about monsters and the like invading their country.
And about the women—the Queen’s comment was probably one that a woman from that time would have made. I don’t think it was sexist, but merely reflective of that day and age.
Lauropedeerry said,
May 3, 2010 at 7:44 am
If you are a real estate professional, be really careful in dealing with KoRes Corp. in Weston Florida. Tulio Rodriguez & Monica Cataluna-Shand are shysters and look for anyway to steal ones customers. They attempt to steal your client by requesting their contact information and later contact them behind your back to get them to deal with them directly.
lol'd hard said,
November 30, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I love how mad you guys are getting.
1: Semitic Arabs aren’t their own classification ( ” race ” ), they are Caucasians: the same exact classification as white people.
2: No shit they made the Spartans white, Sparta is Greek and the last time I checked Greeks and Romans were white.
3: The reason they’re dressed in black has to do with the depiction of evil, since in the Spartans eyes, the Persians were evil. That’s why you don’t see villains shimmering in white armor, it has to do with religion.
Further explanation: Back when Humans were primitive, they believed in sun worshiping. That led to the Egyptian religion which believed that Ra ( the god of the sun ) and Set ( the god of darkness ) were forever battling for superiority. The sun gave warmth, grew crops, kept everything alive. The darkness was cold, predators came out, death happened. The night is black. Set is night. Set is evil. Black ( the shade ) is evil. The sun is light. Ra is light. Ra is good. Light colours are good. White is as light of a colour as you can get. Good people wear white.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BIGOTRY.
brokenmystic said,
December 30, 2010 at 3:30 am
Your privilege is showing. Big time. The next time you say “it has nothing to do with bigotry,” think about whether or not you’re on the receiving end of those images, actions, words, etc. Also, ancient Persians are not Arabs. Even if I was talking about Arabs, they don’t share the same social status as white Americans of European descent. Trying to lump them into the “Caucasian” category is not only ignorant, but it’s also a pathetic attempt to dismiss the concerns expressed in this post. If you actually had Arab friends, you would know that many Arabs write “Arab” on consensus forms instead of choosing “Caucasian.”
And you’re wrong about the color of white. In ancient Persia and other eastern cultures, white was the color of grief, mourning, and death.
blayzertrayl said,
December 31, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I am muslim and i didnt make such a leap into ‘this film is racist’ position. i can assure u all my faculties are intact. all my friends, mostly muslim ..from kashmir, afghanistan, bangladesh heritage..made no such remarks either. We just enjoyed the movie for what it was.
i think you are simply reading too much into the impact that this film will have on society (rather eloquently thought i might add). it has an artistic exaggerated expression which a lot of ‘action’ films employ. a good vs bad scenario.
To make the persian into beasts was to emphasize ‘evil’ in a comic book sense. im sure ppl were not attributing these features to real ppl that fought in that battle back then.
The minute i saw these fantastical ‘lord of the rings’ type beastly characters it went out the realm of history and into fantasy. bereft of any real factual premise. Im sure many people did too. If Frank Miller was trying to insidiously imply people of Persia were like this ..then he shot himself in the foot by creating this dream world.
Most americans are dumb (sorry about my prejudicial statement there ..but since we talking about stereotypes) i dont think they will make the cognitive leap that Persia (which doesnt exist anymore) is linked to iran ..and much less muslims. afterall, i immediately didnt.
Thats like saying jews in The Passion of the Christ were really muslims ..coz simply put ..to me they all looked like modern day arabs. But, they werent, they were regional Jews of antiquity on the frontier of Christianity.
300 may serve this purpose though…people looking up the true history of what occured at the Battle of Thermopalye. A bit like i did for Braveheart (where i find the battles didnt take place in an open field at all ..and that Wallace was as much maligned as hero worshipped) Or with the Ten Commandments ..to find Moses, according to the bible, was a lot more cruel and almost a megalomaniac towards the end of his prophethood. Not to mention a whole host of other historical films that use artistic license to depict entire scenarios that never happened at all.
I think the author may just be reaffirming that muslims are hyper sensitive about their creed and faith as much as the subliminal messages of racism in this picture.
brokenmystic said,
December 31, 2010 at 10:15 pm
blayzertrayl,
There’s a lot to unpack in your comment. Accusing me of “reaffirming” the stereotype that Muslims are “hyper sensitive” is a dismissal of the concerns expressed here, as well as the way Muslims are perceived and treated in white supremacist, capitalist heteropatriarchy. That is, if a white man were to write a feminist and anti-racist critique of this film, he would not be accused of “reaffirming” any stereotypes about white people. The Muslim “hyper sensitive” stereotype was created by Islamophobia and the reality of racism in western, non-Muslim societies. In other words, you’re saying that I’m fulfilling a stereotype that non-Muslim white-dominant societies have made about Muslims and people of color.
“The Unapologetic Mexican” is a blogger and writer who creates terminology to identify responses and attacks that white people use against people of color. “The Oversensitive” attack, as he calls it, is when the “brown person’s logic, no matter how sound,” is “sidestepped; their point, no matter how relevant, will be overlooked; their feelings, no matter how understandable, will be misinterpreted as nothing more than a burp in the mental functionality of an ‘oversensitive’ person. As you’ve guessed, this is a spin off of, and further fueled by, the widely-held unspoken and racist assumption that those with darker skin tone comes unstable emotional functionality.”
He elaborates further:
“People of color endure a barrage of insult and dehumanization as how they are depicted in everyday media and literature. They are shown or envisioned, most of the time in stereotyped presentations that serve to perpetuate a social hierarchy also reflected in the statistics of what types of people are arrested most often, searched most often, suspected of more crime, given promotions, given preferential treatment, thought of as more able and worthy, thought of as smelly or diseased or dirty more often, thought of as heroes more often, thought of as incompetent most often.”
There is no such thing as saying “it’s just a movie,” especially with a film like “300″ which has been so successful. Film and television are the most powerful storytellers in society, and it would be inaccurate and dishonest to deny that. Media establishes social norms and shapes our attitudes, perceptions, beliefs about race, gender, class, sexual orientation, beauty, body image, patriotism, war, lifestyle, and so on (see Gerbner’s “Electronic Storyteller”/cultivation theory). The stereotypical and Orientalist depictions of Persians in “300″ follow the same pattern of how Muslims, Arabs, Middle Easterners, and South Asians are often depicted in mainstream television and film (see Jack Shaheen’s book “Reel Bad Arabs,” where he analyzes over 900 Hollywood films). Studies have consistently found correlations between media representations and the way people behave, speak, and/or treat others. Do you really think that media vilification has nothing to do with the annually increasing number of discriminatory acts and hate crimes against Muslims (and those perceived to be Muslim) in the United States? It doesn’t sound like you read the introduction of my critique where I mentioned cultivation theory and cited a couple of studies.
It also seems like you missed the part about Frank Miller’s Islamophobia. I included the whole interview in this post (and you can click on the link to *listen* to it if you’d like). You don’t need to “read into it” to miss Miller’s shameless Islamophobia (and Miller doesn’t have a good record when it comes to racism and sexism). It’s quite obvious. Perhaps you should read the interview again. After all, the man hates your religion.
blayzertrayl said,
January 1, 2011 at 4:48 am
The graphic novel 300 was published by Frank Miller back in 1998, probably penned a year or so before that. Well before the 9/11 incident and before the rise of islamaphobia. Before this time the average american individual would have had as much a phobia of islam as they would have had of bhuddism or shintoism.
The interview u cite seems to have happened January 2007. Though i must admit this is quite damning for Frank Miller. It must have come from him in light of what occured in media reels after 9/11 ..after the Iraq invasion ..videos of beheadings etc etc. He is quite wrong, simplistic & misguided in his opinions to my liking. And i think he fed on the fox news reels and seems one of the few pro-Bush fans u can find from the arts world.
If you can find material or evidence to suggest he was virulent practicing racist/islamaphobe well before 9/11 and about the time of 1998 I would appreciate it. Then i could definitely see it bled into his work on 300. As u say ‘Media establishes social norms and shapes our attitudes, perceptions, beliefs about race, gender, class, sexual orientation, beauty, body image, patriotism, war, lifestyle’. He may have been such a victim of this. From his stupid radio comments im guessing he was. All his other work before or after 9/11: Sin City, Dark Knight ..doesnt seem to depict any positive/negative racial dynamics that any1 credibly has picked up on. It seems all his characters whether white or coloured, man or woman, have dark demonish sides, get equally beat on etc etc.
It just seems one day in 1998 he decided to write a graphic novel on the battle of thermopaley. saw a dynamic where there was a few vs the many and then exaggerated the heroism of that effort. i see nothing sinister in that. anymore than randall wallace writing about the exploits of william wallance for the movie Braveheart to make the English look incredibly cruel and beastly.
My dismissals ARE of the concerns expressed in your article. Quite frankly i think they have been overblown. Even in light of the transcript of what u put as Frank Miller saying in 2007. Ill say again; i think you are simply reading too much into the impact that this film will have on society. No more than what ‘Lord of the Rings’ had with Christianity. The connotations to ‘islam’, for the average joe, in 300 are simply not that obvious.
However you writing this article will start ppl to make more of a ballyhoo. Muslim/Westerners alike may say ‘actually …u know what..come to think about it!’ …where simply they just wouldnt have made this parallel. Even now the link is tenuous to me.
To be honest ..i identified with the spartan army almost on the same level as a palestinian would against the almighty israeli army. In fact you can go on youtube and there is a dubbed version of spartans music/sayings from 300 with the usual video of palestians throwing stones at tanks and ducking/diving soldiers. (i cant seem to find that video now)
About the hypersensitivity issue. Islamic belief is simply taking much less abuse than christianity did from this ‘white supremacist, capitalist heteropatriarchy’. Films: Life of Brian…all the way to Zeitgeist…and much much more were not even thinly veiled attacks …they were direct attacks on Christianity – from laughing at Jesus ministry to saying the bible is just all fabrication. U can say christians and their beliefs portrayed in the media are almost a laughing stock now. The word ‘islamaphobe’ which in itself seems a media term ..i hear it all the time on TV.. abit like ‘holocaust denier’ is overly used in even to the smallest questioning of a religious/political issue.
I can agree sections of the media demonizing muslims in news reports but 300 simply is not as overtly bashing on muslims..as much as films like Kingdom of Heaven, Syriana, Farhenhiet 9/11 are fair on muslims from arab countries. In fact these films make the west look like evil insidious plotters. Im sure you wouldnt complain about the same ‘white supremacist, capitalist heteropatriarchy’ peddling these films. 300 shud be blip on the islamaphobe seekers radar. Until u put your spin on it I cant say that i really saw it. Nor did my muslim friends. Having said that…my persian friend ..who prides himself on being persian and not a practicing muslim took quite a bit offence to it. lol. Which summed up the issue for me.
brokenmystic said,
January 1, 2011 at 6:01 am
Wait, so Frank Miller can’t be anti-Persian or anti-Muslim in 1998? Read Miller’s Daredevil comics and look at the way the black character, Turk, is portrayed and treated like a punching bag. I’m not the only one who calls attention to Miller’s sexism, misogyny, and racism. Just run a google search on it (or read the comments on “Racialicious” where my post on “300″ is also published).
It doesn’t sound like you have a background in media literacy at all. Nor does it sound like you’re familiar with Edward Said’s “Orientalism,” Shaheen’s “Reel Bad Arabs,” or anti-racist literature that focuses on media representations of people of color. You may see the film in your own way, but it doesn’t change Miller’s shameless racism and Islamophobia. It doesn’t change the reality that media vilification of Muslims, Arabs, and Iranians has played a huge role in the rising number of hate crimes and discriminatory acts. I personally find it amusing how you associate white, bare-chested Spartans with Palestinians and the turban-clad, orientalist Persians with the Israeli army. Have you seen how Palestinians and Arabs are portrayed in Hollywood movies? Their depictions are more like the Persians in “300.”
No, Islamophobia is scholarly and academic term. Muslim leaders, authors, bloggers, anti-racist activists, feminists all use the term. Also, attacks on Christianity is not the same as the vilification on Islam. Both are wrong, but you don’t see the same amount of hate crimes and discriminatory acts directed towards Christians. Christianity is not seen as a “foreign religion,” whereas Islam is, and this is evident in how racialized Islam is. That is, people associate Arabs with the religion of Islam, as if Muslims are a race.
Islamophobe seeker? People go looking for Islamophobia? Why would anyone want to do that? Have you read the incident reports and statistics of Islamophobia in the US?
You’re pulling a ventriloquy by bringing up your Persian friend. I can do that, too, and talk about my Persian friends who found the film incredibly offensive and racist. But you don’t need to do that; there are plenty of Iranian academics who condemned this film. I cited some of them in this post.
Also, you do know there is something called internalized racism, right? Read this post:
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/internalized-racism/
And watch Spike Lee’s film, “Bamboozled.”
blayzertrayl said,
January 1, 2011 at 5:30 am
Oh just one more comparison. When the film ‘The Passion of the Christ’ came out. There was a bit of rabble and protesting coming from the jewish community. That the film was overtly anti-semetic. That it could lead to jew bashing. I found this position from them quite pathetic.
Mel Gibson too was later found to have given antisimetic remarks in reports. This didnt taint my view of the film which i found an honest depiction of what the christian world and in particular the Catholics believe happened in the final hours/day of Jesus. Even tho some incriminating line in the film was said to have been removed for the jewish sensibility….even this i feel should not have been edited out.
Watching it I found no compulsion to blame Jews from the perspective of Christians. I didnt think all the Jews conspired to kill Jesus. It was clear in the film that it was a section of the jewish hierarchy that condemned him. Plenty other jews in the film were wailing for Jesus. And furthermore i thought it was the Romans that came off the demonic ones. So why all this hullabaloo from the Jewish community? it was ridiculous and overblown!! It was just a story which can be found in the bible …been there for 100′s of years in plays …it was visualized for cinema… and i say it was a job well done. Couldnt have been done any other way.
brokenmystic said,
January 1, 2011 at 6:05 am
Before you say the film wasn’t anti-Semitic, ask yourself whether or not you’re on the receiving end of those images. Just because you don’t see what the controversy was about doesn’t mean they weren’t hurtful to a group of people.
Instead of being so quick to condemn something, do your research, talk to people from the community, and stay open-minded.
NNN said,
June 18, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Don’t forget the mutant characters in The Dark Knight Returns are essentially meant to be black ghetto youths.
No wonder comic creators are so racist.
300fan said,
June 19, 2011 at 2:06 am
god! would you stop whining pls brokenmystic? i have dealt with derogatory remarks and racism all my life. it seems people like you are just looking for something to be outraged about. life is hard get a helmet.
brokenmystic said,
November 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm
LOL, sounds like you’re the one who is whining. Your comment comes off as saying, “Why are you talking about racism?! How dare you talk about Hollywood’s long history of Orientalism!”
deathender said,
December 14, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Thank You! Great analysis of the movie!
off to watch Persepolis Recreated
John said,
October 8, 2012 at 2:13 am
Well, now you know what it felt like in America to be Irish or Chinese in the 1800′s; Japanese, German, or Italian after WW2, Russian in the 80′s, or African or Native American since the first settlement of America, etc, ad nauseum. Media will always have an agenda (to get money), and it will always be at someone else’s expense.
This stuff is nothing new, it will be someone else’s turn to be the bad guy soon, probably China or North Korea again.
Welcome to the melting pot.