Protestants Dominating Christian Fiction

[Gxg (G²)]

My Matushka loves that book and highly recommends it. It's on my list, too.

Mary

Would love to see if it is at the library...

ditto

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well, Easy, you made up for whatever you seemed to miss with Tolkien in spades as you got older. You seem to be a keenly insightful observer of book, film, and entertainment now, moreso than many actually..

Although I got through Tolkien's stories in highschool, I've gotten more into it as I got older. It tends to grow on you - and I love the genre of fantasy, from Disney's "Gargoyles" to Sailor Moon and others. I'm thankful for others who are theologians of pop culture/the philosophies present in it.

On a different topic, I know you like Sinbad, the comic. I was thinking today about a bit he did in the mid 90's somewhere, where he made fun of Interview with a Vampire, the vampire movie, where he said he would let Dracula kill his girlfriend as long as he could get away...I spent like 1.5 hours searching the internet EVERYWHERE for it. I started to think, "did I dream that up?" Then I found it on Internet Movie Database on Sinbad's page when he hosted SNL around 1994 or so! I cracked up all over again watching it. I love that dude....can't believe Maxim magazine voted him the worst comedian of all time. Lame

Maxim of all magazines??? They have very little room talking on what is or isn't lame when so much garbage comes through their magazines....but indeed, that one was funny in what he noted with Interview with a Vampire. Glad to know the man is still around, as his last comedy special "Where you been" was bananas..

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well, first of all, just to be clear, when I mention the Spartan 300, never ever ever ever am I referring to the idiotic film! I'm referring to the real history. And of course it was much more than 300 Spartans. Everyone knows that the Spartans led the way after the oracle spoke to Leonidas, etc. but there were anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000 to 7,000 depending on which historian you want to trust, Herodotus or Pausanius on up....I never ever look to graphic novel films for my history!

When it comes to "life is cheap," I suggest you call on Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, the foremost Greek expert pretty much on the face of the planet. He is recognized from TLC to History Channel to CNN to Fox to PBS, etc. He is senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford, and teaches at Anapolis and has books published that are history blockbusters about Greek warfare and civilization. He has lectured at Harvard, Anapolis Military Academy to generals, Cambridge in England, and he lived in Greece for years. I was fortunate enough to be his student at Fresno State in the mid 1990's! It was the thrill of a lifetime. The class started with 40 people, by drop-date, it was down to like 25. At the end of the semester, two people had an A in his class---me and this other guy. His tests were brutal, his papers hardcore, his midterm and final exquisitely hard. It was the toughest challenge of my college career and I loved every solitary second of it. If you read Dr. Hanson's books, which by far smoke any other historian anywhere anytime, his thesis, backed up by thousands of pages of history, is that the Greeks valued private property and commerce, valued life and the spirit of freedom as well as justice and philosophy. They invented Western Civilization. The Persians typify the East and their life is cheap approach. Western combat will always defeat Eastern because Western combat values human life to a higher degree and fights to protect personal liberty where Eastern warfare is the exact opposite.

Hanson's approach is quite honest. The Greeks were far from perfect. They had a very low view of women, allowed slavery, Sparta was a brutal oligarchy military barracks culture, Athens developed into an elitist colonizing empire that eventually got its cummupens, and the intrigues of the Peloponnesian Wars with Thebes eventually rising to the fore, showed huge holes in Greek culture. The Greeks evolved. They started off as dark age monarchies that eventually collapsed and returned as oligarchies, then back to monarchies, then democracies by and large (or oligarchies like Sparta), but there was for quite a while a strong Greek civilization that gave us so much.

While the Persians did have mathematics, architecture, education systems, and so many other great attributes, the world benefited far more from the Greeks than the Persians.

Darius I, Xerxes, these guys were beligerent thugs. They attacked Greek lands, conquered Greek city-states in Asia Minor expecting the Greeks to like it, and got their panties in a wad when they got their butts clobbered at Marathon. At Thermopylae, Xerxes acts as if he deserves the whole of Hellas just because he's, well, Xerxes! Bull. He got taught a lesson. Then the Persians were punitive to the Greeks torching Athens to the ground. The persians just relied on cannon fodder wicker conscripted slavery to win. The Persians were morons in battle. Themistocles was able to embarrass them twice despite the experience and technology Persia had. Pausanius, Leonidas, and so many others were heroic while guys like Mardonius got their lunch.

The Persian satraps and kings were known for ultra high taxes, large-scale enslavement, little upward mobility, etc. It was a monarchy with no democracy, no jury system, no voting, art aimed at nobility and monarchs rather than the populace, less interesting mythology, etc. It depended on threats and numbers to keep its conquered nations in line.

The Persian gods like Ahura Mazda, Mithras, and all the demons and other gods they have did not have the quest for truth and beauty that the Greek had. Likewise I'd say the West inherited precious little from the Persians and yet the Greeks forever changed the world. The best attributes of modern democracies and constitutional republics benefit from the Greco-Roman heritage while guys like Assad, Hussein, Kaddafi, and other cannon fodder dictators would look more to the Persians.

Persians actually had very impressive armor /tatics to make up for where other things may've been weak..and I wouldn't say one can really praise anything of Greeks if/when not seeing where there had PLENTY of times they fought against democracy/property rights - for much of Greek Democracy came at the expense of other cultures.

And as it concerns democracy, I don't see that present in what the Seleucid Empire did with other groups - namely those from the Maccabees Account and their revolt against one of the corurpt Greek Kings who forced them to reject God's laws/culture and murdering all who got in the way . I can't recall which ancient Greek remarked on the irony that Ancient Greek democracy had come to depend for its survival in part on the subjugation of others.

It was actually well - known where the Persians valued the same thing the Greeks did that you noted - with the soldiers noting often how they considered it an honor to fight for the empire. It was a very diverse place. With the Persian Empire, The Achaemenid period (559 - 330 BC) was characterized by a society structured into four classes (priests, warriors, peasants and merchants). The empire was based on Cyrus' conquests of Lybia, the Greek city states around the eastern Mediterranean Sea and Babylon. It absorbed many of the cultural and scientific achievements of the conquered empires but maintained its own religion of Zoroastrianism. The education system was based on strict adherence to religious doctrine and emphasized responsibility to the family and community, acceptance of imperial authority and military discipline. Persia was a cradle of science in ancient times. Persian scientists contributed to the current understanding of nature, medicine, mathematics, and philosophy. Persians made important contributions to algebra and chemistry, invented the wind-power machine, and the first distillation of alcohol. Persians made important contributions to algebra and chemistry, invented the wind-power machine, and the first distillation of alcohol.

For example, the first teaching hospital where medical students methodically practiced on patients under the supervision of physicians was the Academy of Gundishapur in the Persian Empire. Some experts go so far as to claim that: “to a very large extent, the credit for the whole hospital system must be given to Persia”. The idea of xenotransplantation dates to the days of Achaemenidae (the Achaemenian dynasty), as evidenced by engravings of many mythologic chimeras still present in Persepolis.

Several documents still exist from which the definitions and treatments of the headache in medieval Persia can be ascertained. These documents give detailed and precise clinical information on the different types of headaches. The medieval physicians listed various signs and symptoms, apparent causes, and hygienic and dietary rules for prevention of headaches. The medieval writings are both accurate and vivid, and they provide long lists of substances used in the treatment of headaches.
Many of the approaches of physicians in medieval Persia are accepted today; however, still more of them could be of use to modern medicine.

• The Influences of the Persian Empire - History
• Persian Empire - A documentary about the Persian Empire and Its role in world civilization

Interesting to see the sentiment, considering that not all Greeks saw the Persians as such or considered them to have a "life is cheap" mindset.

Can definately see where Greeks did that - although the Persians did the same and it has been noted often throughout history when studying them fully

And most folks, when going past the "300" presentation of history, often note the ways that Greek life and Persian often mirrored one another in multiple ways....and while the Greeks were better in certain areas, Persians also did better in others.

• Spenta Productions | THE TRUTH BEHIND ‘300’

The Persians & Greeks: Crash Course World History #5​

IMHO, one would have to forget about all the mess that ended up following that battle with the Greeks - from the other wars they fought with one another (and their harshness toward others - Spartan society and Trojans against others) to the idolatry, sexual immorality and a host of other things. Not saying Persia was innocent - but to be fair to history, one cannot ignore the dark side of things where it was apparent. And Xerxes - corrupt as he was - was not the summation of all things Persia since many kings differed from him and were highly revered...and with the Greeks, even they ended up falling to some of the same things that others say the Persians were weak in - before being conquered themselves.

Can definately understand - although I'd not go with Sparta at any point.
Cyrus ROCKED!!! Isaiah 44:27-28 /Isaiah 45:1-3 and 2 Chronicles 36:22-23

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think that both authors were in part trying to construct a really Christian creative mythology that didn't require any specific understanding of Christianity, that might in fact work to give people a fresh experience of the themes and values of Christianity (and humanity) without saying "these are Christian themes and values".

For many people, their experience of explicit Christianity has been compromised and so the power of its stories to move them just isn't all that great. Or they have heard them so much that they don't listen to them. I think Tolkien and Lewis were looking to help fill that gap, and possibly subversively too, without people knowing that it was being done.

If you look at what Lewis says about his experience of Norse mythology as important in his eventual conversion, many many years later, you get an idea what he was looking to do.

Great points. I do think Tolkien and Lewis were doing what they could to communicate truth - and some of it is similar to how others - in Western Christianity - took many of the names/stories inherent in the culture of the Celts or Norse and British Isles..and then utilized aspects of them as bridges for introducing/understanding Christianity for what it was. As shared before in another discussion dedicated to exploring the issue - and as another noted to me - the mythic stories of the god/creatures (i.e. elves, dwarves, fairies, centairs, griffens, dragons, goblins, ghosts, mermaids, minotaurs, etc.) in other cultures are classics and probably related to archetypal patterns common to the human mind . They aren't going to be disappearing any time soon. Probably not something we could destroy or purge even if we wanted too. They would just come back again with a new name. If someone said they were going to destroy the archetypal love story or hero myth they would certainly have a lot of work ahead of them lol. Even in the Christian medieval period the stories continued to be told under the names of mythologized saints.

Many often complain on the "pagan" elements present in what Lewis and Tolkien presented in their material - but stuff based on old mythology doesn't bother me at all levels per se. Just as St. Paul praised the Greek poets for the truth they had, some ancient mythologies sometimes depicted with some truth the concept of good versus evil, or a singular master deity, or some other such parallel to divine revelation in Christianity. For God did reveal Himself through nature and other ways even to Gentiles prior to Christ, according even to Scripture (Rom 1:19ff) - and thus, Tolkien and Lewis were ahead of their time for doing as they did.

 

[Thekla]

One of my favorite Cavafy poems:

Thermopylae
C.P. Cavafy

Honor to those who in the life they lead
define and guard a Thermopylae.
Never betraying what is right,
consistent and just in all they do
but showing pity also, and compassion;
generous when they are rich, and when they are poor,
still generous in small ways,
still helping as much as they can;
always speaking the truth,
yet without hating those who lie.

And even more honor is due to them
when they foresee (as many do foresee)
that in the end Ephialtis will make his appearance,
that the Medes will break through after all.

Translated by Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard

 

[Gxg (G²)]

One of my favorite Cavafy poems:

Thermopylae
C.P. Cavafy

Honor to those who in the life they lead
define and guard a Thermopylae.
Never betraying what is right,
consistent and just in all they do
but showing pity also, and compassion;
generous when they are rich, and when they are poor,
still generous in small ways,
still helping as much as they can;
always speaking the truth,
yet without hating those who lie.

And even more honor is due to them
when they foresee (as many do foresee)
that in the end Ephialtis will make his appearance,
that the Medes will break through after all.

Translated by Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard

Beautiful poem Although I was curious as to what you were speaking in reference to and why you enjoyed that one specifically..

 

[Thekla]

Beautiful poem Although I was curious as to what you were speaking in reference to and why you enjoyed that one specifically..

Sorry - the discussion re: Persia and the 300 (Spartans), the Greeks and the East.

I've not much to say on that matter, but as this poem refers to the Battle of Thermopylae, I thought of it as an aside of the other discussion.

Re: the poem specifically, the 'defining' of 'right', and the perseverance to defend that, even when it seems an immediate defeat is certain ... (and even including an Ephialtis in your midst).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well, first of all, just to be clear, when I mention the Spartan 300, never ever ever ever am I referring to the idiotic film! I'm referring to the real history. And of course it was much more than 300 Spartans. Everyone knows that the Spartans led the way after the oracle spoke to Leonidas, etc. but there were anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000 to 7,000 depending on which historian you want to trust, Herodotus or Pausanius on up....I never ever look to graphic novel films for my history!

Cool to know - as I am glad for that since I've seen way too many folks treat "300" as if it's Gospel and not even verifiy certain realities.

When it comes to "life is cheap," I suggest you call on Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, the foremost Greek expert pretty much on the face of the planet. He is recognized from TLC to History Channel to CNN to Fox to PBS, etc. He is senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford, and teaches at Anapolis and has books published that are history blockbusters about Greek warfare and civilization. He has lectured at Harvard, Anapolis Military Academy to generals, Cambridge in England, and he lived in Greece for years. I was fortunate enough to be his student at Fresno State in the mid 1990's! It was the thrill of a lifetime. The class started with 40 people, by drop-date, it was down to like 25. At the end of the semester, two people had an A in his class---me and this other guy. His tests were brutal, his papers hardcore, his midterm and final exquisitely hard. It was the toughest challenge of my college career and I loved every solitary second of it. If you read Dr. Hanson's books, which by far smoke any other historian anywhere anytime, his thesis, backed up by thousands of pages of history, is that the Greeks valued private property and commerce, valued life and the spirit of freedom as well as justice and philosophy. They invented Western Civilization. The Persians typify the East and their life is cheap approach. Western combat will always defeat Eastern because Western combat values human life to a higher degree and fights to protect personal liberty where Eastern warfare is the exact opposite.

Glad you had the opportunity to investigate things with Dr.Handon - as he sounds like a wonderful/well travelled indivdual. Will consider checking him out in light of his credentials/reference - as he seems similar to others I do enjoy others From the British Museum to scholars at Harvard and Cambridge. Obviously, those I tend to favor have similar credentials who've taken opposite approaches. Dr. Roman Ghirshman (more shared here, here, here, and here) is amongst my favorites - as he's a French archeologist of Ukranian origin, one of the pioneers of archeological research in Persia where he spent almost thirty years excavating numerous sites. He was mainly interested in the archeological ruins of Iran, specifically Teppe Gian, Teppe Sialk, Bagram in Afghanistan, Bishapur in Fars, and Susa. Really enjoyed his books which have been very on point ..as he has over 300 papers and 20 books published and Ghirshman was one of the most prolific and respected experts on ancient Iran.

• PERSIAN ART by ROMAN GHIRSHMAN/PARTHIA SASSANIA
• Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War - Kaveh Farrokh - Google Books

Glad for the work he and others have done for a long time showing how beautiful Persia was and the ways other groups within it - small and og = often benefited from things, even though it wasn't perfect (and of course, what nation is).

Hanson's approach is quite honest. The Greeks were far from perfect. They had a very low view of women, allowed slavery, Sparta was a brutal oligarchy military barracks culture, Athens developed into an elitist colonizing empire that eventually got its cummupens, and the intrigues of the Peloponnesian Wars with Thebes eventually rising to the fore, showed huge holes in Greek culture. The Greeks evolved. They started off as dark age monarchies that eventually collapsed and returned as oligarchies, then back to monarchies, then democracies by and large (or oligarchies like Sparta), but there was for quite a while a strong Greek civilization that gave us so much.

There were also a string of dictators that came out of Greek culture as well - sad to see. Every culture has its good and bad - and just as the Greeks evolved, so did the Persians.

Long before the birth of Islam Persian Science influenced Greek philosophy. It is no coincidence that the first pre-Socratic thinkers settled in Asia Minor that was under Persian rule. Thinkers such as Thales of Miletus and Heraclitus of Ephesus introduced Persian science into a liberal Greek society that willingly embraced these new sources. The period of cultural flowering in Greece is not only a local miracle or achievement but was supported by the long tradition of scientific transfers from Persia to Greece between 600-300 BC. Archeology has found traces of human settlers on the Persian plateau that are over 40.000 years old. These people began about 9000 years ago with agriculture, built the first cities s Susa and started exporting their products to other countries over 5000 years ago. The so-called Persian Plateau is not only a region but also involves cultural phenomenas that can be found from the Ural Mountains in nowadays Russia to India in the East, the Indian Ocean in the south and the Euphrate river in the west. With the construction of Persian city-states start the mythology of ancient people which is now one of the few sources on the history of antiquity. The Persian mythology contains, in comparison with other mythologies, concrete and practical material that can be used to link civilizations and put major events in perspective. Persian mythology provides a basic understanding on the early days of chemistry and pharmacology during antiquity.

Persian mythologies represent a history of tying human behaviour to celestial bodies. Ancient Persian associated, for instance, gold with our sun and silver with the moon. That’s why the raw materials of chemistry had a hint of philosophical hint over them. This gave Persian thinkers, the opportunity through analysis and recognition of these raw materials, to discover their physical characteristics. Ancient Persian scientists assumed that raw materials had specific characteristics ad that these could be used to create new structures with specific properties or characteristics. This new innovative way of thinking became the foundation for chemistry and pharmacology in ancient Persian.

Remarkable archaeological finds form areas in central Persian (sialk) suggests that the first pharmacologists in the world were women. They searched in fields and woods for edible herbs, roots, leaves and seeds and investigated how they interacted with the human body. As in ancient mythology women were important and medicine conquered a place in religious thoughts and theology....something radically in contrast to how women were often treated in Greek culture. Persian scientific efforts contributed significantly to the academic development of clinical chemistry, pharmacology or pharmaceuticals. As an example we can look at the practical production in food industry. Neither the Chinese nor the Indians were capable of producing sugar in its clearest shape from sugar canes. However, Persian scientists improved the cooking process in such a way that long before others they could enjoy the taste of pure sugar.

Arabic invaders became, during their military intrusion into Persia, familiar with the sugar cane factories in the Persian province of Khuzestan. Especially in Gondi Shapur, an ancient Persian university city, white sugar was produced in its present form. The Arabic invaders initially hesitated to use this new knowledge due to their origin. They destroyed many libraries in Persian as their culture was unfamiliar with books, schools or education. Even after the emergence of Islam there was hardly any change as it would take at least two centuries for this religion to adapt to the standards of higher developed civilizations.

All of that - again - is to note the ways that even Persian culture experienced harm in the same way that Greece did.

.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1

While the Persians did have mathematics, architecture, education systems, and so many other great attributes, the world benefited far more from the Greeks than the Persians.


Darius I, Xerxes, these guys were beligerent thugs. They attacked Greek lands, conquered Greek city-states in Asia Minor expecting the Greeks to like it, and got their panties in a wad when they got their butts clobbered at Marathon. At Thermopylae, Xerxes acts as if he deserves the whole of Hellas just because he's, well, Xerxes! Bull. He got taught a lesson. Then the Persians were punitive to the Greeks torching Athens to the ground. The persians just relied on cannon fodder wicker conscripted slavery to win. The Persians were morons in battle. Themistocles was able to embarrass them twice despite the experience and technology Persia had. Pausanius, Leonidas, and so many others were heroic while guys like Mardonius got their lunch.

There are many scholars on both sides who've noted that the Persians often had times where pride caused them to miss key opportunities in battle where they didn't need to (EVEN when they had good technology and things to counter-balance where they may've been weak military wise). I like what one individual noted wisely (for brief excerpt):

The strength of the Persian army could be found in their training ability to use various forms of combat. The Persian army was a better trained and disciplined army compared to the Greeks. These were professional soldiers. They knew how to fight, and they knew how to win. In their training, many of the soldiers learned how to ride horses and became experienced cavalry riders. As not many others cultures were doing this at that time, the advantage is perfectly clear. Archers were also trained along with many other troops into hand-to-hand combat. This gave the Persians the advantage of “versatility” with the various war units. Take all of this and add to the fact that the Persian army had many years of experience expanding a very impressive empire that had conquered Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, and many other cultures and the scales tip in Persia’s favor. Greece was coming out of the Dark Ages and just developing into an empire that would be talked about for centuries. It would be like a high school baseball player going up against a major league all-star player.

As with anything, weaknesses can also be found even in a major league veteran. The Persians did not have heavy and protective armor. Instead, they wore thick clothing to protect themselves. This was not very effective against spears and swords. Another weakness could be found in the actual weapons that they used. Their spears were much shorter compared to the Greeks’. This put them at a disadvantage when it came to hand-to-hand combat with the Greeks’ longer spears. Weakness also showed up in the leadership of the Persian army. The soldiers could be trained, but leadership could sometimes be lax. Though there were huge strengths, it only takes a small vital weakness to bring a nation down.

The Greeks, who were fighting for their freedom, were not as well trained as compared to the Persians. Of all the Greek armies, only the Spartans had extensive training. This gave the Persians an advantage. The leadership of the Greek army was also not very clear. The style of government from Athens actually put the leadership under the strategoi back in Greece and not on the front lines. With the lack of disciplined training, it could be said that the Greek army was unruly and was not as prepared for battle as they should have been.

On the other hand, the Greeks had a few things up their sleeves that helped them defeat the Persians. Unlike the Persians, the Greeks wore heavy armor. Despite the weight, it allowed the experienced soldier to move about freely in the midst of the fighting. In addition to this, the spears of the Greek soldiers were much longer. Therefore, death could be met a lot quicker at the end of the Greek spear than that of the much shorter Persian spear or sword. Another advantage that the Greeks had was the phalanx. It was this form of fighting that gave the Greeks a tactical advantage. The development of this style of fighting gave the Greeks a psychological piece of warfare.
​

At other times, even though some revolts were unecessary, there were times people went into territories and simply expected others not to say anything - and I don't blame many of the Greeks for responding as they did. Of course, Greece had some similar experiences later when it came to certain city-states trying to conquer others/punish them needlessly ....including the cities that were punished for not helping in the war effort against the Persians.

The Persian satraps and kings were known for ultra high taxes, large-scale enslavement, little upward mobility, etc. It was a monarchy with no democracy, no jury system, no voting, art aimed at nobility and monarchs rather than the populace, less interesting mythology, etc. It depended on threats and numbers to keep its conquered nations in line.

Can see what you're saying to a point - as there were also high taxes in Greek culture and many times not all were able or allowed to vote without certain actions being done. And threats were given within Greek culture often - some of them seeming bananas at times, IMHO.

The Persian gods like Ahura Mazda, Mithras, and all the demons and other gods they have did not have the quest for truth and beauty that the Greek had.

Not seeing that due to the fact that the Persians were very focused on promoting beauty/design all throughout the Empire - including valuing beauty in the natural. There were differing emphasis in where they placed beauty at - although it tended to go into seeing beauty from the perspective of the elements and the monarchy. In democracy, it's not so much about glorifying one person above all others - but in empires/monarchies where the king is seen as having Divine rights, it's different.

Likewise I'd say the West inherited precious little from the Persians and yet the Greeks forever changed the world. The best attributes of modern democracies and constitutional republics benefit from the Greco-Roman heritage while guys like Assad, Hussein, Kaddafi, and other cannon fodder dictators would look more to the Persians.

There have been dictators from every system - ironically enough, from many democractic systems where people abuse the concept of choice - and effectively dominant others. With that also comes the horror of MOB rule. Be it here in the U.S or in other Western cultures where we inherit some of the same spirit of the Greeks and have ended up just as decadent (if not more so ) than they anyday. I can understand why many in the East look at the West saying "You need us for Civilization!!" and they look at us saying we're civilized barbarians doing the same things we accuse of. The Berber Nomad in the Desert is seen as "less intelligent" as the person from a Constitutional Republic - and the woman from the marketplace is seen as "less free" as the girl who flaunts her body off in the West.

Even with Democracy touted by the Greeks, they forced Socrates - in the name of democracy - to kill himself when he disagreed.

Of course, the same horrors with dictators/CORRUPTION were also found in Persian culture (as with Xerxes and so many others ) - and IMHO, you can find beauty in both the East and the West. It simply depends on where you look.

But of course, I don't feel that the East was superior to the West. There are multiple things the West has that the East lost - some of that Shared before when conveying how I was blessed to be able to go to a musuem entitled "Passages" ..and at that gathering, there was a book I was able to pick up that really blessed me. It's entitled The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization by Vishal Mangalwadi. Although Euro-Centric thought seemed to dominante many cultures without cause - I am glad for others who take the time to point out how it truly has shaped so much - and mainly due to the Bible. Rather than Greek culture, my mindset is that it was Scripture/Bible that was the bedrock for Western civilization at many points - and that it was what helped to take things the Greeks did to levels they had never known.


That said, cool discussion - as I'm surprised all of this came out of wondering why it seemed that those of a Persian/Eastern look were deemed to be the "bad guys" in the series by Tolkien It's definately not something that many process on, but I wish folks did more

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Sorry - the discussion re: Persia and the 300 (Spartans), the Greeks and the East.

I've not much to say on that matter, but as this poem refers to the Battle of Thermopylae, I thought of it as an aside of the other discussion.
.

Got ya - thanks for the clarification. I'm guessing, by the way, that you're on the side of Greek/Western culture or thinking that the Eastern culture was vastly inferior to what Greece felt - correct? If I got it wrong, my bad....but I was wondering in light of the conversation on why Tolkien seemed to portray those from Eastern culture as bad and those from Western culture as good.

Re: the poem specifically, the 'defining' of 'right', and the perseverance to defend that, even when it seems an immediate defeat is certain ... (and even including an Ephialtis in your midst

So true.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, first of all, just to be clear, when I mention the Spartan 300, never ever ever ever am I referring to the idiotic film! I'm referring to the real history. And of course it was much more than 300 Spartans. Everyone knows that the Spartans led the way after the oracle spoke to Leonidas, etc. but there were anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000 to 7,000 depending on which historian you want to trust, Herodotus or Pausanius on up....I never ever look to graphic novel films for my history!

well, before we go all crazy on Frank Miller, remember his graphic novel is supposed to based on a campfire story of the actual event, so it's supposed to be all jazzed up and "wrong," because that's what folks do when they tell campfire stories, they exaggerate.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

They reminded me more of Persians around the time of the Greco-Persian warss, which was fine with me. I'm more on the Spartan 300 side of that war! I think from a Western point of view, the Arabs, Persians, etc. conjur thoughts of the Crusades and Persian Wars and in each case it's obvious who the West view as the good guys and bad guys there. ...

Found this and thought it was interesting in discussion - as it concerns the concept of anything Middle-Eastern being inferior compared to European/Western thought (similar to what was said in imperialism/colonialism....and part of the reasons many Near/Middle-Eastern cultures get harmed - from the Sryain Orthodox to the Copts and others ) and seeing the ways that Tolkien may've written certain things that were taken to mean more than he intended - be it in claiming he was against Arab/Middle Eastern culture or that he wrote based on his idea of European backgrounds being of a certain look:

• Haradrim=Arabians? - Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza

As said best in Racism in Tolkien's Works - Tolkien Gateway:

One potentially racist element in Middle-Earth is that the majority of the men who serve Sauron are the dark-skinned peoples of the Easterlings and Southrons. They come from the South and East of Middle-Earth, corresponding with Asia and Africa in the loose connection between Middle-Earth geography and that of the real world. The Easterlings are aligned with Morgoth or Sauron with the single exception of Bór. They are described as being of fairly dark skin complexion, swarthy and exceedingly cruel. The Southrons (or Haradrim) are described black-skinned, cruel and evil, and are apparently at least inspired by Indian cultures with traits such as fighting on Mumakil-back.

In some cases, people having the slightest blood relation to enemies, like Freca and Wulf, who are related to the Dunlendings, are presented as evil themselves, as if evilness is hereditary. Some of these are also called "swarthy" (dark). Usually, those whose appearance was 'unpleasant' (Maeglin, Bill Ferny) and disliked by the main protagonists, turn out to be traitors. Bill Ferny is said to be swarthy, and this can be traced to his Dunlending ancestry.

While the Easterling and the Haradrim are dark-skinned people in the service of the Enemy, the Woses are primitive, small, and alien compared to other peoples (their chief Ghan-buri-Ghan only wears a grass skirt) yet they are valuable allies (in The Return of the King). While Tolkien does not mention their skin colour, they were considered monsters by the Rohirrim who hunted them as animals, which the narrative explicitly condemns. However in the First Age they were counted as Edain, or noble Men, and were allies of the Elves.

However, not all enemies are non-white. Noteworthy examples are Saruman, Gríma, Gollum, and at least two of the Nazgûl. Also Lotho Sackville-Baggins and the ruffians are white-skinned characters who ravage and take over the Shire. Indeed, while during the timeframe of Lord of the Rings those enslaved and serving Sauron are darker skinned people from the South and East, during the history of Middle-Earth many of the white races of man and even some Elves were fooled and coerced by the Enemy.

​

A lot of folks may end up working backward Influences on the fantasy genre - as there were times I interpreted the series by Tolkien based on what was present in popular media since the enormous popularity of Tolkien's epic saga greatly expanded the demand for fantasy fiction. For largely thanks to The Lord of the Rings, the genre flowered throughout the 1960s, and enjoys popularity to the present day...spawning many other series like Dungeons & Dragons, which popularized the role-playing game (RPG) genre in the 1970s and featured many races found in The Lord of the Rings, most notably halflings (another term for hobbits), elves, dwarves, half-elves, orcs, and dragons.

Of course, Gary Gygax, lead designer of the game, maintained that he was influenced very little by The Lord of the Rings, stating that he included these elements as a marketing move to draw on the popularity the work enjoyed at the time he was developing the game. Nonetheless, because D&D has influenced many popular role-playing video games through Dragon Warrior, the influence of The Lord of the Rings extends to many of them as well, with titles such as EverQuest, the Warcraft series, and the Elder Scrolls series of games as well as, quite naturally, video games set in Middle-earth itself.



For reference:

• "The Influence of Literature and Myth in Videogames

I was fascinated to learn of how some research suggests that some consumers of fantasy games derive their motivation from trying to create an epic fantasy narrative which is influenced by the Lord of the Rings - and for reference, one can go to "Using the Imagination: Consumer Evoking and Thematizing of the Fantastic Imaginary.

When you consider the ways that the genere of fantasy has been very present in our culture, with many from all types of cultures portrayed, it's not surprising to see many fans of it notably surprised that the film itself didn't have anyone in it to show real diversity like they've been used to seeing in the genere of fantasy - and with the opportunity to make more films by Tolkien, others are hoping to see just that.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

well, before we go all crazy on Frank Miller, remember his graphic novel is supposed to based on a campfire story of the actual event, so it's supposed to be all jazzed up and "wrong," because that's what folks do when they tell campfire stories, they exaggerate.

A lot of campfire stories can be quite accurate even when it seems to be far out

 

[Thekla]

Got ya - thanks for the clarification. I'm guessing, by the way, that you're on the side of Greek/Western culture or thinking that the Eastern culture was vastly inferior to what Greece felt - correct? If I got it wrong, my bad....but I was wondering in light of the conversation on why Tolkien seemed to portray those from Eastern culture as bad and those from Western culture as good.

Actually, I don't have a firm preference for either side (though these days, am of the opinion that there is much wrong with the western worldview, and appreciate the more eastern).

Christianity a la Orthodoxy certainly has an 'eastern flavor', which I truly value. And to some extent, Greek culture seems to share elements of both eastern and western (my Pappou used to refer to himself as an Oriental and an Hellene, and his children and grandchildren as Occidental in outlook/understanding.) Thanks to the work of Edward Said, it seems of late there is a greater potential to reconsider earlier characterizations of the Orient as shallow. (There's a wonderful book on this re: the Balkans - which I haven't finished - Imagining the Balkans, by Maria Todorova).

It's been decades since reading Tolkien, so I'm truly out of this loop. I liked Tolkien, but am not such a fantasy fan -- and have a massive pile of books to read, so likely won't return to Tolkien.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

"Gather 'round the campfire kids. Now long ago, there was this Greek Spartan commander, Leonidas. He was 13 feet tall, weight 400 lbs, knew how to fly, and had claws like Wolverine. He spoke Bachi and had the power to bend metal. But anyway, enough about him. Let's talk about Xerxes, his cowardly enemy who was a member of the Legion of Doom..."

well, before we go all crazy on Frank Miller, remember his graphic novel is supposed to based on a campfire story of the actual event, so it's supposed to be all jazzed up and "wrong," because that's what folks do when they tell campfire stories, they exaggerate.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm sure there are people who think Tolkien was insensitive to little people hating midgets. I'm sure there are also people who think he was a chauvenist pig for making most (except Eowyn, etc.) women quiet and the men all action and tough. I'm sure industrialists think he's a tree-hugger anti-business type of guy, too. My wife is a filipino with gold skin and jet black hair. When I read this stuff to her, about racist undertones and such accusations and she rolled her eyes to me and said, "good grief! give me a break!" LOL

I think each race has a certain lack of representation somewhere. Like in India, the stories of their lore/mythologies/religion don't have African-Americans, filipinos, Brits, Canadians, Mexicans, and people from Chile. Why? They're Indians. Same with Arabian Nights. I don't get upset that there aren't enough Anglo-Saxons on there. And unless it's flat out obviously racist nonsense, I don't get too hung up on different races being "badguys" or "goodguys." Some white folks, I'm sure, get tired of having to be reminded of slave owners and the red neck "get on the back of the bus, boy!" types. Personally, I'm fine with it. It's a part of history. Everybody gets so sensitive to racial casting in books or movies. Sometimes, imho, it seems overly-arbitrary how we go too far out of our way to portray formerly white characters as black and vice versa. For me, I always hate the way Hollywood used to cast white guys to play Asian actors or Native Americans. Lame. Look at how Bruce Lee was shut out of his own project--Kung Fu, and replaced with Carradine!? But sometimes, I think to myself on the other hand, why Ben Kingsley to play The Mandarin, Iron Man's nemesis? The dude was Chinese! Now we have Gandhi playing him? LOL....My dad, who is the most UN-racist guy you'll meet, grew up watching Wild Wild West. He thought it was absurd that, all of a sudden, Robert Conrad's white character was Will Smith? He was irked. Does every white character have to be replaced with a black one? It just seems overboard and almost pandering after a while.

Tolkien's characters are mostly inspired by Norse/Celtic type mythos. Not sure how to say this delicately---they're white! And heck, there are plenty of dirtbag white characters---Grima Wormtongue, Sauromon the white wizard, Denethor, and the Orcs are race-neutral! LOL

Maybe they should re-boot the Lord of the Rings movies:

Aragorn--Denzel Washington
Gandalf--Edward James Olmos
Legolas--John Leguizamo
Gimli--Jamie Foxx
Boromir--Jet Li
Eowyn--Salma Hayak
Arwen--Priya Rai
Galadriel--Lucy Liu
Frodo--Katt Williams
Sam--Sinbad
King Theoden--James Hong
Sauron--Owen Wilson

This way, the white guy is the ultimate bad guy and it's an all-minorities cast!

I think sometimes people take these things a tough too seriously and forget a real obvious item: this is all make-believe mythology.....

Found this and thought it was interesting in discussion - as it concerns the concept of anything Middle-Eastern being inferior compared to European/Western thought (similar to what was said in imperialism/colonialism....and part of the reasons many Near/Middle-Eastern cultures get harmed - from the Sryain Orthodox to the Copts and others ) and seeing the ways that Tolkien may've written certain things that were taken to mean more than he intended - be it in claiming he was against Arab/Middle Eastern culture or that he wrote based on his idea of European backgrounds being of a certain look:

• Haradrim=Arabians? - Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza

As said best in Racism in Tolkien's Works - Tolkien Gateway:

One potentially racist element in Middle-Earth is that the majority of the men who serve Sauron are the dark-skinned peoples of the Easterlings and Southrons. They come from the South and East of Middle-Earth, corresponding with Asia and Africa in the loose connection between Middle-Earth geography and that of the real world. The Easterlings are aligned with Morgoth or Sauron with the single exception of Bór. They are described as being of fairly dark skin complexion, swarthy and exceedingly cruel. The Southrons (or Haradrim) are described black-skinned, cruel and evil, and are apparently at least inspired by Indian cultures with traits such as fighting on Mumakil-back.

In some cases, people having the slightest blood relation to enemies, like Freca and Wulf, who are related to the Dunlendings, are presented as evil themselves, as if evilness is hereditary. Some of these are also called "swarthy" (dark). Usually, those whose appearance was 'unpleasant' (Maeglin, Bill Ferny) and disliked by the main protagonists, turn out to be traitors. Bill Ferny is said to be swarthy, and this can be traced to his Dunlending ancestry.

While the Easterling and the Haradrim are dark-skinned people in the service of the Enemy, the Woses are primitive, small, and alien compared to other peoples (their chief Ghan-buri-Ghan only wears a grass skirt) yet they are valuable allies (in The Return of the King). While Tolkien does not mention their skin colour, they were considered monsters by the Rohirrim who hunted them as animals, which the narrative explicitly condemns. However in the First Age they were counted as Edain, or noble Men, and were allies of the Elves.

However, not all enemies are non-white. Noteworthy examples are Saruman, Gríma, Gollum, and at least two of the Nazgûl. Also Lotho Sackville-Baggins and the ruffians are white-skinned characters who ravage and take over the Shire. Indeed, while during the timeframe of Lord of the Rings those enslaved and serving Sauron are darker skinned people from the South and East, during the history of Middle-Earth many of the white races of man and even some Elves were fooled and coerced by the Enemy.

​

A lot of folks may end up working backward Influences on the fantasy genre - as there were times I interpreted the series by Tolkien based on what was present in popular media since the enormous popularity of Tolkien's epic saga greatly expanded the demand for fantasy fiction. For largely thanks to The Lord of the Rings, the genre flowered throughout the 1960s, and enjoys popularity to the present day...spawning many other series like Dungeons & Dragons, which popularized the role-playing game (RPG) genre in the 1970s and featured many races found in The Lord of the Rings, most notably halflings (another term for hobbits), elves, dwarves, half-elves, orcs, and dragons.

Of course, Gary Gygax, lead designer of the game, maintained that he was influenced very little by The Lord of the Rings, stating that he included these elements as a marketing move to draw on the popularity the work enjoyed at the time he was developing the game. Nonetheless, because D&D has influenced many popular role-playing video games through Dragon Warrior, the influence of The Lord of the Rings extends to many of them as well, with titles such as EverQuest, the Warcraft series, and the Elder Scrolls series of games as well as, quite naturally, video games set in Middle-earth itself.




For reference:

• "The Influence of Literature and Myth in Videogames

I was fascinated to learn of how some research suggests that some consumers of fantasy games derive their motivation from trying to create an epic fantasy narrative which is influenced by the Lord of the Rings - and for reference, one can go to "Using the Imagination: Consumer Evoking and Thematizing of the Fantastic Imaginary.

When you consider the ways that the genere of fantasy has been very present in our culture, with many from all types of cultures portrayed, it's not surprising to see many fans of it notably surprised that the film itself didn't have anyone in it to show real diversity like they've been used to seeing in the genere of fantasy - and with the opportunity to make more films by Tolkien, others are hoping to see just that.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm sure there are people who think Tolkien was insensitive to little people hating midgets. I'm sure there are also people who think he was a chauvenist pig for making most (except Eowyn, etc.) women quiet and the men all action and tough. I'm sure industrialists think he's a tree-hugger anti-business type of guy, too. My wife is a filipino with gold skin and jet black hair. When I read this stuff to her, about racist undertones and such accusations and she rolled her eyes to me and said, "good grief! give me a break!" LOL
....

There really haven't been any complaints about Tolkien making fun of short people or women or those who cut down trees - although the racial undertones are pretty present - and of course, seeing the the casting director for the Tolkien saga got fired for not casting a Pakistani woman as a hobbit/telling her she didn't look it, I've always been humored when some of the friends I have say "Well of course - you could have seen that a mile away." One of them noted that racial stereotyping is present in multiple places (and it doesn't require one be a "racist" to do so). ..and although it's rather apparent in the series, it probably wouldn't get changed.

I think each race has a certain lack of representation somewhere. Like in India, the stories of their lore/mythologies/religion don't have African-Americans, filipinos, Brits, Canadians, Mexicans, and people from Chile. Why? They're Indians. Same with Arabian Nights. I don't get upset that there aren't enough Anglo-Saxons on there.

Obviously there'd be no need to be shocked at the lack of no Anglo-Saxons being present in folklore based on how the cultures you noted where - as they were not a present force in those lands. It'd be like me getting shocked that they don't have a Hispanic face in a story based on Aboriginal folklore and presented before an Aboriginal audience. Of course, if ABoriginal culture was the basis of a movie and Aboriginal culture happened to have plenty of folks who did indeed look Hispanic or Philipino, then of course one would raise eyebrows since the culture that a film was supposedly made of didn't really represent things as they were.

In India, they make films with others who are of all shades/variations - yet they have the common theme of being Indian. A big part of the culture there are Indians of Dark coloration, which is common throughout India...and in line with those who are Dark South Asians (with dark skin often looked down upon in Asia and is a big deal over there). Darker Indians may not be as favored within the culture for various reasons - but they're nonetheless apart of Indian culture - and to be accurate about Indian culture would mean one do real examination on presenting all of those present. The same goes for those apart of Arabian culture - considering the ways that they also have people of a variety of shades/colors ...and even some of the Berbers were very dark -skinned, with some of the Arabs being known as "Ravens" due to their tone (more shared in #45 ). I could note the same with people in my own West Indian heritage - as others would be shocked if they went to Panama and saw people who had Chinese features and yet were considered Chinese Hispanic...or those who were Indian Hispanic since many came to Panama from all over the world over the centuries/intermixed with the culture. The same thing goes for places like Jamaica - be it with Chinese Jamaicans, White Jamaicans or the ones who have the traditional "black appearance" ( more shared in #305 ).

On a humorous note, I'd crack up seeing some of the responses if someone said that the saga by Tolkien was made predominately for Black people - as you'd probably have A LOT of folks saying "There were no black people in the movie and Tolkien wrote from the perspective of speaking to those of fair-skin/EUropean features" - and then be shocked at how many Africans there are who look very much like the traditional look in Europe (due to mixed heritage and also due to just looking very light-skinned due to where they grew up in spite of their ancestry)

Had that myself a number of times when talking to people who you think were full -blooded white people - and it happened to be the case that they had black parents/ancestry and turned out white looking. But they themselves didn't see themselves as "white" nor did they think all others who looked white were simply that. Thus, for them to look at a bunch of people who had EUropean features in a movie or film would not mean they were seeing white people only - but they would've considered many of those same people to be black as well (more shared here in #341 /#361 ).

So in that sense, you could say that perhaps there was a good presentation of black culture in the TOLKIen saga even though they may've not looked black.

If aware of those who are mulattos, then things make more sense. The film "Imitation of Life" does an excellent job showing the struggle that many blacks had when it came to being able to adapt to white culture because of their skin tone and hating black culture for how it seemed limited to them...and yet they could never escape the fact that they had black in their background. Add to that the factors of others who may've been white and yet didn't consider themselves as a part of some "dominant culture" that all other non-whites would assume of - like the whites who are from the Hills and Rural America (often deemed as "trailer trash" and Hillbillies/Mountain folk) and many other variations. ..and the same as it concerns other blacks discriminating against one another, as often happened in the nation when light-skinned blacks would deem those who were darker as inferior---or consider those blacks that were mixed/light skinned as not really being "black enough" to be accepted into the community. .

And unless it's flat out obviously racist nonsense, I don't get too hung up on different races being "badguys" or "goodguys." Some white folks, I'm sure, get tired of having to be reminded of slave owners and the red neck "get on the back of the bus, boy!" types. Personally, I'm fine with it. It's a part of history. Everybody gets so sensitive to racial casting in books or movies.

Sometimes, although it can be unecessary, there are some things one needs to have a good level of sensitivity rather than acting like it's of no consequence.

In example, why would you make a film about Native American culture and have the person playing the part be someone from Vietnam? Or someone who's Irish/lilly looking and with red hair play the role of an abused slave when discussing the South? Some things would not make sense to say "Well, this is artistic liscense."

SOmetimes, of course, exceptions can be made. One of the people who I've considered a role-model in many things (Patrick Stewart) once shared one of his experiences in Shakespearean Theatre - and he noted his desire to play the role of Othello. Othello, as I'm assuming you know, is a story about a Moor (dark skin) dude falling in love with a European woman and it being forbidden in many ways - but because Stewart was white and was such an amazing actor who loved to push the button/play great roles, the Casting director had ALL the other cast members be made as black people and had Othello be played as the only white person in the play. Truly brilliant . FOr reference,

Sir Patrick Stewart | Carpool

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

James Earl Jones for Othello all the way! Of course I've read Othello a few times, been about ten years though!

Good post, Easy.

There really haven't been any complaints about Tolkien making fun of short people or women or those who cut down trees - although the racial undertones are pretty present - and of course, seeing the the casting director for the Tolkien saga got fired for not casting a Pakistani woman as a hobbit/telling her she didn't look it, I've always been humored when some of the friends I have say "Well of course - you could have seen that a mile away." One of them noted that racial stereotyping is present in multiple places (and it doesn't require one be a "racist" to do so). ..and although it's rather apparent in the series, it probably wouldn't get changed.

Obviously there'd be no need to be shocked at the lack of no Anglo-Saxons being present in folklore based on how the cultures you noted where - as they were not a present force in those lands. It'd be like me getting shocked that they don't have a Hispanic face in a story based on Aboriginal folklore and presented before an Aboriginal audience. Of course, if ABoriginal culture was the basis of a movie and Aboriginal culture happened to have plenty of folks who did indeed look Hispanic or Philipino, then of course one would raise eyebrows since the culture that a film was supposedly made of didn't really represent things as they were.

In India, they make films with others who are of all shades/variations - yet they have the common theme of being Indian. A big part of the culture there are Indians of Dark coloration, which is common throughout India...and in line with those who are Dark South Asians (with dark skin often looked down upon in Asia and is a big deal over there). Darker Indians may not be as favored within the culture for various reasons - but they're nonetheless apart of Indian culture - and to be accurate about Indian culture would mean one do real examination on presenting all of those present. The same goes for those apart of Arabian culture - considering the ways that they also have people of a variety of shades/colors ...and even some of the Berbers were very dark -skinned, with some of the Arabs being known as "Ravens" due to their tone (more shared in #45 ). I could note the same with people in my own West Indian heritage - as others would be shocked if they went to Panama and saw people who had Chinese features and yet were considered Chinese Hispanic...or those who were Indian Hispanic since many came to Panama from all over the world over the centuries/intermixed with the culture. The same thing goes for places like Jamaica - be it with Chinese Jamaicans, White Jamaicans or the ones who have the traditional "black appearance" ( more shared in #305 ).

On a humorous note, I'd crack up seeing some of the responses if someone said that the saga by Tolkien was made predominately for Black people - as you'd probably have A LOT of folks saying "There were no black people in the movie and Tolkien wrote from the perspective of speaking to those of fair-skin/EUropean features" - and then be shocked at how many Africans there are who look very much like the traditional look in Europe (due to mixed heritage and also due to just looking very light-skinned due to where they grew up in spite of their ancestry)

Had that myself a number of times when talking to people who you think were full -blooded white people - and it happened to be the case that they had black parents/ancestry and turned out white looking. But they themselves didn't see themselves as "white" nor did they think all others who looked white were simply that. Thus, for them to look at a bunch of people who had EUropean features in a movie or film would not mean they were seeing white people only - but they would've considered many of those same people to be black as well (more shared here in #341 /#361 ).

So in that sense, you could say that perhaps there was a good presentation of black culture in the TOLKIen saga even though they may've not looked black.

If aware of those who are mulattos, then things make more sense. The film "Imitation of Life" does an excellent job showing the struggle that many blacks had when it came to being able to adapt to white culture because of their skin tone and hating black culture for how it seemed limited to them...and yet they could never escape the fact that they had black in their background. Add to that the factors of others who may've been white and yet didn't consider themselves as a part of some "dominant culture" that all other non-whites would assume of - like the whites who are from the Hills and Rural America (often deemed as "trailer trash" and Hillbillies/Mountain folk) and many other variations. ..and the same as it concerns other blacks discriminating against one another, as often happened in the nation when light-skinned blacks would deem those who were darker as inferior---or consider those blacks that were mixed/light skinned as not really being "black enough" to be accepted into the community. .


Sometimes, although it can be unecessary, there are some things one needs to have a good level of sensitivity rather than acting like it's of no consequence.

In example, why would you make a film about Native American culture and have the person playing the part be someone from Vietnam? Or someone who's Irish/lilly looking and with red hair play the role of an abused slave when discussing the South? Some things would not make sense to say "Well, this is artistic liscense."

SOmetimes, of course, exceptions can be made. One of the people who I've considered a role-model in many things (Patrick Stewart) once shared one of his experiences in Shakespearean Theatre - and he noted his desire to play the role of Othello. Othello, as I'm assuming you know, is a story about a Moor (dark skin) dude falling in love with a European woman and it being forbidden in many ways - but because Stewart was white and was such an amazing actor who loved to push the button/play great roles, the Casting director had ALL the other cast members be made as black people and had Othello be played as the only white person in the play. Truly brilliant . FOr reference,

Sir Patrick Stewart | Carpool

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Sometimes, imho, it seems overly-arbitrary how we go too far out of our way to portray formerly white characters as black and vice versa. For me, I always hate the way Hollywood used to cast white guys to play Asian actors or Native Americans. Lame. Look at how Bruce Lee was shut out of his own project--Kung Fu, and replaced with Carradine!?

They really did Bruce Lee an injustice when they did that - but Bruce Lee rocks and others had his back. The epic memory of the man in the films he was in cannot be shot down by folks who wanted to shut him out - and the same thing goes for times others make films that have the traditional formula of not having people from a culture play dominant roles in presentations with portrayals of that culture.

The Hollywood forumla is something that tends to go past a lot of people. In example, "The Last Samurai" was an amazing film and I loved it - and yet I couldn't help but agree with others who noted how crazy it was that the Last Samurai had to be a white man. It seemed like more of the mythological "White Savior"/"white guilt" dynamic where they had to show someone who was white choosing to save those who were helpless. It’s not a new story – white person penetrates the culture of those deemed to be like noble savages, realizes that culture is so much simpler yet more awesome than their own, then ends up saving the population and gains redemption for themselves by way of benevolent paternalism. This is a narrative that has been played out countless times in films like “Dances with Wolves,” “Pocahontas,” “Fern Gully,” “Dangerous Minds,” and “The Last Samurai.” It’s a plot line that draws easy distinctions between good and bad, framing the white savior as the only character able to cross such lines. ..and yet it is untrue when seeing what has happened multiple times throughout history.

Rarely will you see things in reverse - although the film "To Sir, With Love" (a 1967 film about a brilliant black teacher who chooses to go into a bad British community which was highly racist/backward - and helps the kids get changed for the better). It starts one of the most amazing actors of all time, Sir Sidney Poitier ..

But sometimes, I think to myself on the other hand, why Ben Kingsley to play The Mandarin, Iron Man's nemesis? The dude was Chinese! Now we have Gandhi playing him?

Which film was that? Haven't heard of it - but would be interested to see He is a brilliant actor who can fit well into roles regardless of culture - one who has also played the roles of Egyptians as well when he starred as Potiphar as well in the TUrner Film called "Joseph"....and he also played in the film "Prince of Persia" as a very corrupt uncle/royal member of the King's family

LOL....My dad, who is the most UN-racist guy you'll meet, grew up watching Wild Wild West. He thought it was absurd that, all of a sudden, Robert Conrad's white character was Will Smith? He was irked. Does every white character have to be replaced with a black one? It just seems overboard and almost pandering after a while.

I think of it more so from the historical aspect. I was a bit surprised when Will Smith was rumored to be the main one playing in the film - but of course, I was concerned about the historical dynamic of how many were actually black cowboys and how little people are aware of where that was something dominated by minorities at one point....only for the formula to come up that said Cowboys were always white/solely from that background.

Will did alright in the film - although the concept didn't really bother me. To me, it seemed like people tripped over nothing at others daring to show a presentation against the norm. It would'n't require EVERY white character to be replaced with a black one in order to simply do artistic liscense and show some things that others would not often consider because they're used to see everything as white dominated. Some of this I mentioned earlier when talking on other films that have done the same. As said before, I'm actually considering adding the film "Dijango Unchained" to the list of films I've seen by Tarintino (despite the language in it..and on that, I know others have strong feelings - but I grew up with certain realities that make certain things seem normal/unreaslitic when it doesn't happen - much like my highschool teacher, who grew up in the army, was not bothered by the language in "Saving Private Ryan" since that's what happened and he felt it needed to be shown how it was). Something about the movie which really struck a chord for folks. And honestly, it's something I glad broke A LOT of rules in Hollywood with the sterotypes of heros - and real/relatable ones at that. Historically - when it comes to what happened in the West/Southern culture with violence and gun-slingers who were people of color ( more shared here or here ). And for reviews:

• Rainbows and Lilacs: Django!
• Django Unchained Review: Now That's a Bingo
• Dr. Boyce: Three Reasons Why I Loved “Django Unchained”
• Why Django Unchained’s Slavery Tale Had to Be a Spaghetti Western

Tolkien's characters are mostly inspired by Norse/Celtic type mythos. Not sure how to say this delicately---they're white! And heck, there are plenty of dirtbag white characters---Grima Wormtongue, Sauromon the white wizard, Denethor, and the Orcs are race-neutral! LOL

He didn't just use Norse/Celtic culture, from what I studied and was told of his background...and people would be surprised seeing some of the background with Norse/Celtic culture and how much color is in there. Although, counter to what many have advocated when boycotting the film (Lord, Have Mercy ), not all white people were seen as "good guys" since there was corruption all around. ANd thankfully the Orcs were human so that is not a problem. Other cultures who had dark skin features (as already mentioned) did have basis in what was seen in Non-European backgrounds - and that can be problematic when seeing that others from those backgrounds don't fit a "bad guy" image universally.....but the film itself isn't one I'd walk away and say "THis is saying all white people are good guys!!!"

Maybe they should re-boot the Lord of the Rings movies:

Aragorn--Denzel Washington
Gandalf--Edward James Olmos
Legolas--John Leguizamo
Gimli--Jamie Foxx
Boromir--Jet Li
Eowyn--Salma Hayak
Arwen--Priya Rai
Galadriel--Lucy Liu
Frodo--Katt Williams
Sam--Sinbad
King Theoden--James Hong
Sauron--Owen Wilson

This way, the white guy is the ultimate bad guy and it's an all-minorities cast!

You'd probably get a lot of minorities ticked since thinking that some representation of minorities in an all white cast doesn't mean folks want ALL whites to be excluded or all whites to be portrayed as bad guys - or the heros who may be minorities portayed with BAD actors. Owen Wilson is a terrible actor in serious roles (outside of "Behind Enemy Lines) and to play the chief villian would be a comedy - and to have Katt Williams (foul mouth as he is ) play Frodo would make it feel like I'm watching something straight out of a COmedy Central spoof. Same with having someone like John Leguizamo - who I despise with a passion in most of his films.

Keep Lucy Liu and Salma Hayak, though...as they're excellent actors/wonderful folks who could pull off the roles you assigned them I'd add that Zoe Saldana would be an excellent substitute for Priya Rai (as I don't know why she was even chosen due to her unsavory background and involvement in raunchy movies) - as her acting/beauty are priceless and Zoe is a gem, IMHO. Jet Li as an Elf could work rather well - if putting him in the role of Legolas...and (in the event his English didn't come off right) simply have him speak in Elvish the entire time with sub-titles I'd even go so far as to have the actor who played Seraph from "The Matrix" series play the role of Legolas - and of course, if doing that, get some more portrayals of Elvish warriors/culture as having an Asian look. Not that difficult seeing how elegant Asians look - and thankfully, there are many wonderful Asian Actors in Hollywood. Kenneth Choi is one that comes to mind. As it concerns Aragon, I'd keep him with the actor who played him (Vigo.M) since he was perfect for that part - and having him remain as he is would add a beautiful dynamic of multi-cultural romatic relationships.

I think sometimes people take these things a tough too seriously and forget a real obvious item: this is all make-believe mythology.....

I agree. Some things you notice and it's good for dialouge/consideration - but ultimately, a good movie is a good movie and it should be enjoyed. One of the reasons why, like my friends who shared the same, I am going to continue enjoying the film even when seeing things that are hard to ignore as if they just happened

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Brue Lee was indeed a legend. I have watched all his movies so many times! Enter the Dragon and Fists of Fury, oh man, classics! I love his archival footage, interviews, all the tidbits. He was a rarity among men.

Love Sidney Portier!!! Love that guy. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" is a classic. You know, I love some of his later, underrated movies like Shoot to Kill with Tom Barringer and "The Jackyl" with Bruce Willis and Richard Geer. Classics.

As far as the reference to Ben Kingsley (whom I incidentally also LOVE! You're right, he was outstanding in those A&E Bible flicks like Joseph and Moses and his part in Schindler's List inspires!), he's in the upcoming Iron Man 3. He plays the Mandarin. Scroll to around 1:15...

Iron Man 3 - Official Trailer (2013) [HD] - YouTube

They really did Bruce Lee an injustice when they did that - but Bruce Lee rocks and others had his back. The epic memory of the man in the films he was in cannot be shot down by folks who wanted to shut him out - and the same thing goes for times others make films that have the traditional formula of not having people from a culture play dominant roles in presentations with portrayals of that culture.

The Hollywood forumla is something that tends to go past a lot of people. In example, "The Last Samurai" was an amazing film and I loved it - and yet I couldn't help but agree with others who noted how crazy it was that the Last Samurai had to be a white man. It seemed like more of the mythological "White Savior"/"white guilt" dynamic where they had to show someone who was white choosing to save those who were helpless. It’s not a new story – white person penetrates the culture of those deemed to be like noble savages, realizes that culture is so much simpler yet more awesome than their own, then ends up saving the population and gains redemption for themselves by way of benevolent paternalism. This is a narrative that has been played out countless times in films like “Dances with Wolves,” “Pocahontas,” “Fern Gully,” “Dangerous Minds,” and “The Last Samurai.” It’s a plot line that draws easy distinctions between good and bad, framing the white savior as the only character able to cross such lines.

Rarely will you see things in reverse - although the film "To Sir, With Love" (a 1967 film about a brilliant black teacher who chooses to go into a bad British community which was highly racist/backward - and helps the kids get changed for the better). It starts one of the most amazing actors of all time, Sir Sidney Poitier ..

Which film was that? Haven't heard of it - but would be interested to see He is a brilliant actor who can fit well into roles regardless of culture - one who has also played the roles of Egyptians as well when he starred as Potiphar as well in the TUrner Film called "Joseph"....and he also played in the film "Prince of Persia" as a very corrupt uncle/royal member of the King's family

I think of it more so from the historical aspect. I was a bit surprised when Will Smith was rumored to be the main one playing in the film - but of course, I was concerned about the historical dynamic of how many were actually black cowboys and how little people are aware of where that was something dominated by minorities at one point....only for the formula to come up that said Cowboys were always white/solely from that background.

Will did alright in the film - although the concept didn't really bother me. To me, it seemed like people tripped over nothing at others daring to show a presentation against the norm. It would'n't require EVERY white character to be replaced with a black one in order to simply do artistic liscense and show some things that others would not often consider because they're used to see everything as white dominated.
He didn't just use Norse/Celtic culture, from what I studied and was told of his background...and people would be surprised seeing some of the background with Norse/Celtic culture and how much color is in there. Although, counter to what many have advocated when boycotting the film (Lord, Have Mercy ), not all white people were seen as "good guys" since there was corruption all around. ANd thankfully the Orcs were human so that is not a problem. Other cultures who had dark skin features (as already mentioned) did have basis in what was seen in Non-European backgrounds - and that can be problematic when seeing that others from those backgrounds don't fit a "bad guy" image universally.....but the film itself isn't one I'd walk away and say "THis is saying all white people are good guys!!!"You'd probably get a lot of minorities ticked since thinking that some representation of minorities in an all white cast doesn't mean folks want ALL whites to be excluded or all whites to be portrayed as bad guys - or the heros who may be minorities portayed with BAD actors. Owen Wilson is a terrible actor in serious roles (outside of "Behind Enemy Lines) and to play the chief villian would be a comedy - and to have Katt Williams (foul mouth as he is ) play Frodo would make it feel like I'm watching something straight out of a COmedy Central spoof. Same with having someone like John Leguizamo - who I despise with a passion in most of his films.

Keep Lucy Liu and Salma Hayak, though...as they're excellent actors/wonderful folks who could pull off the roles you assigned them Jet Li as an Elf could work rather well - if putting him in the role of Legolas...and (in the event his English didn't come off right) simply have him speak in Elvish the entire time with sub-titles
I agree. Some things you notice and it's good for dialouge/consideration - but ultimately, a good movie is a good movie and it should be enjoyed. One of the reasons why, like my friends who shared the same, I am going to continue enjoying the film even when seeing things that are hard to ignore as if they just happened