Does King Kong symbolize the big black rapist?
CVK
No he doesn’t, according to Stanley Crouch, who delivers us another rambling column for the New York Daily News that is supposed to be about King Kong, but is really just another excuse to bitch about hip hop.
In that period of race theories, one could hear that the 1933 film “King Kong” was actually about something other than what it seemed. It was a fanciful tale about the boxer Jack Johnson who was brought down from the top of the world because of his love affairs with white women, or it was a metaphor for the way that Negro men were supposed to go crazy over white women, especially blonds.
It would be hard to read a movie that way today because, especially among young people, the old taboos about race and interracial dating mean very little.
OG-Unit Wrapper wrote:
Trivial fact 1 - Gorillas actually have units only about 1.5″-2″ long
Trivial fact 2 - Jack Johnson used to wrap his unit in gauze to make his package look bigger and exploit racist stereotypes to his sexual advantage..
And based upon all his White groupies…it worked.
Posted 15 Dec 2005 at 5:20 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
A better comparison between old and new is here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2132377/nav/tap1/
Deals more w/ the sexual politics over race, but the racial idea is obviously tied into sex, so there you go.
Posted 15 Dec 2005 at 5:47 pm ¶
Luke wrote:
SeXtv in Canada had a great piece on this during halloween.
Every popular monster/fantasy character ever, ever created has some basis with race/sexuality attitudes during the time. The witch, the frankenstein, the vampire, king kong, etc etc.
This Stanley guy, sigh. It takes a real piece of work to say that the King Kong character doesnt speak to sexualized and racialized stereotypes. Birth of a Nation? That awful movie “Mighty Joe Young” with Charlize Theron? The porn industry anyone? “The old taboos about race and interracial dating mean very little”? Seriously? If you look at heterosexual and even increasingly homosexual pornography, when you have an entire genre devoted to interracial and predominantly “Black on White” films starring black men and white women…maybe, just maybe America has some closeted fetishes that become really extreme when locked away in a don’t-talk-about-it-topic like XXX.
And number two, the king kong story is complete and utter, utter crap anyways. I don’t even have the words to describe my hatred for this story that for some reason, people drool over. The main element of the whole predator/prey love-that-wasn’t-supposed-to-be “they’re chasing me omg they think i’m hurting you but i’m not” is that its the same type of tragic interracial relationship story that I read and saw as a kid growing up.
Posted 15 Dec 2005 at 10:10 pm ¶
Dave wrote:
I always thought Kong symbolized Pacific Islander men.
Posted 16 Dec 2005 at 8:03 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>I always thought Kong symbolized Pacific Islander men.
I think the subtext of the original pitted “civilized” white entities against the “savage” non-white entities (both the native humans on Kong’s island and the beast itself). Maybe the P.I. resonated for some Americans during, say, WWII.
Given the racial tensions of the US, I say you can “insert-group-here” for the imagery of Kong. But I can see the POV of people who say that “big dark violent and fixated on white blonde women” will always scream of African-American male stereotypes.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the Kong story either. But it’s interesting to see what issues the story digs up in the American psyche.
Posted 16 Dec 2005 at 10:04 am ¶
justin wrote:
Is’nt King Kong from Hong Kong. Peter Jacksons lord of the rings trilogy had gorrillas riding hyenas, robin hood on safari killing elephants, all kinds of slavery Golem calls Frodo masser and Sam Gamgee is a serf.
Posted 18 Dec 2005 at 6:33 am ¶
Hong Kong Phooey! wrote:
Anyone notice how the Asian bit role was *predictably* some short, demeaning “ah-so” Chinaman servant with a thick chop-socky accent? Similar to Bonanza’s Hop Sing or yellowfaced Mickey Rooney in “Breakfast At Tiffany’s?”
And meanwhile, a 25′ CGI GORILLA got more HUMANIZED and sympathetic treatment in this flick than a CHINESE MAN in this flick!
Meanwhile, the Black dude got least ot a respectful role as a wise vet. Despite the fact that they were still heavily-discriminated against by Whites in the 30s. But, I guess there is no Hollywood revisionism and time stands still for the “silent minority.”
So, apparently in the White liberal mind: Whites > animals > Blacks > Asians…
Posted 18 Dec 2005 at 5:02 pm ¶
Interesting wrote:
^Uh huh. It seems you’re not as upset about the demeaning role of the Asian actor as you are about the fact that the black guy wasn’t confined to a similarly one-dimensional role.
Interesting indeed.
Posted 18 Dec 2005 at 10:03 pm ¶
JK wrote:
For those who haven’t seen it, the islanders in the original movie are all played by black actors with hilarious Buckwheat-from-the Little-Rascals hairstyles. Basically your run-of-the-mill deepest, darkest Africa sterotypes. I highly doubt Peter Jackson loved the original movie because of any racial overtones that do or don’t exist. He probably likes it for the same reason I do: the creatures were neat and the movie is cheesy but fun. I did find his version of the islanders stupid, and not so-bad-its-funny stupid like in the 1933 movie.
Posted 18 Dec 2005 at 11:55 pm ¶
justin wrote:
The New King Kong movie was made in New Zealand. Peter Jackson is a New Zealander and a super patriot. There is no significant Black community in NZ. Asians, Polynesians, and Maori are the largest minority groups. NZ is an english speaking white nation that clings to its colonial past. There are two state funded tv channels one for english content the other for american ‘entertainment’. Lord of the Rings was about creating a mythic white history for NZ. King Kong is probably about putting the primitive back in his place. New Zealanders hate Asians and they are patronising to Polynesians.
I’m writing this from New Zealand, can some one get a hellacopter and rescue me? Carmen and Jen you need to do a mixed around the world segment about NZ. Try and get an interview with Don Brash (NZs leader of the opposition) or his Minister for the eradication of political correctness. A disturbing amount of NZ right wing politicians are sleeping with Singaporean women. Their children will have the same background as me ( which makes me feel ill).
Sorry for being so divergent. King Kong is’nt about America, it’s about honkeys and their subconcious.
Posted 19 Dec 2005 at 3:50 am ¶
Anonymous wrote:
Hmmm, I wonder why my comment was excluded from the discussion?
Anyway, in reference to the above post: I find it interesting that the poster doesn’t seem as outraged about the demeaning role given to the Asian actor as the fact that they black guy wasn’t given a similarly one-dimensional role.
Very interesting indeed.
Posted 19 Dec 2005 at 9:12 am ¶
Bak Mei wrote:
“And meanwhile, a 25′ CGI GORILLA got more HUMANIZED and sympathetic treatment in this flick than a CHINESE MAN”
So sad but true. A 25′ gorilla was viewed as a more viable date/mate than a lowly 5′ Chinaman. The gorilla was humanized and the Chinaman animalized like some domestic pet in a “touching” modern liberal role-reversal…
Posted 19 Dec 2005 at 10:15 am ¶
TMJ wrote:
It often seems as if S. Crouch PURPOSEFULLY finds ways to alienate himself from every person on the planet. In this topic, he totally ignores the history of race in our country to say nooooo, of course the ape/blonde story doesn’t signify race and sex politics! when it so obviously does. He agitates me with his deliberate obtuseness, and I no longer read his articles for fear of apoplectic rage taking over me. Insert any race you want into the ape’s spot, but the story never changes–savage killed for loving white woman. (subset: white woman dalliances with savage, then runs back to white man once savage is killed.) King Kong sucks. And I am starting to wonder about Peter Jackson’s racial ideas.
Posted 19 Dec 2005 at 1:11 pm ¶
Ah So wrote:
“It seems you’re not as upset about the demeaning role of the Asian actor as you are about the fact that the black guy wasn’t confined to a similarly one-dimensional role.”
And it seems you’re not upset that a CGI ape got better treatment than a Chinaman in this film? Not to mention White men (leads), women (leading lady), Jews (romantic lead) and Blacks (noble co-star)…?
The comparison with Blacks was merely to highlight the fact that Asians have now replaced them as the worst-treated in Hollywood film today.
Posted 19 Dec 2005 at 4:34 pm ¶
Patrick Bateman wrote:
^Ah sorry, but as much as you’re whining about the big bad Hollywood liberals (just code to mask your anti-semetism) and their poor and stereotypical treatment of Asian people, you must admit that Asians have been the “pet” minorities of the left since at least the mid-1980’s.
Posted 19 Dec 2005 at 7:57 pm ¶
Interesting wrote:
“The comparison with Blacks was merely to highlight the fact that Asians have now replaced them as the worst-treated in Hollywood film today”
Well, if that’s the case, the I understand what you mean. I guess I misinterpreted your comment.
Posted 19 Dec 2005 at 10:10 pm ¶
Asians now PE#1! wrote:
“Well, if that’s the case, the I understand what you mean. I guess I misinterpreted your comment.”
Yup, it’s official:
“31 percent of Asians surveyed reported incidents of discrimination, the largest percentage of any racial or ethnic group, with African Americans the second-largest group at 26 percent.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802037.html
Asians are now PUBLIC ENEMY #1. And actually, have been for a while now - but are just too marginalized and afraid to report it…
“Asians generally file fewer discrimination complaints than other groups, according to the EEOC.”
Posted 20 Dec 2005 at 5:42 pm ¶
TMJ wrote:
Patrick Bateman, what?!
1st, hollywood sucks because they cater to stereotypes and that’s what sells. i don’t see any anti-semitism there.
2nd, pet minority? are you crazy? dude, I am Black. as another minority, I can tell you that asians are NOT the pet minority (there isn’t one). Yeah, Black folks have a lot of crappy parts, but we do a lot of movies nowadays (but not in proportion to the #s). Asian folks get crappy parts that ONLY INVOLVE MARTIAL ARTS (previous comment) or something similarly silly like that–and STILL barely get movie parts! I have been enthused by movies like “Memoirs” and such, but they are a penny in a flood of millions.
So what are you really talking about?
King Kong is racist to everyone, even white folks.
Posted 21 Dec 2005 at 2:52 pm ¶
Jen Brea wrote:
“the old taboos about race and interracial dating mean very little.”
What is this man smoking??
Posted 23 Dec 2005 at 4:14 pm ¶
John wrote:
^Have you seen “Memoirs”? You shouldn’t be enthused.
Can I get an ahh-so?
Posted 23 Dec 2005 at 5:34 pm ¶
Cryin Wolf wrote:
^ Don’t have to - let me guess - Asian women get portrayed as whores, Asian men as chauvinist pussies?
TMJ - “Anti-Semitism” is just a phony red herring charge Jews use to deflect ANY criticism - deserved or not.
I mean, do Black hate crime victims automatically get accused of “anti-Whiteism” whenever they accuse their White victimisers? Do rape victims get accused of misandrism whenever they accuse their attackers? No. So, why are Jews always assumed innocent while all others are guilty?
Especially when one has to look no further today than apartheid Israel and the entire history of Hollywood & Jew-owned US media to see that, yes, Jews can be extremely racist. Heck, even their language is racist - their commonly-used term for non-Gentile women is “shiksa,” deriving from the filthy root word for house rats.
All “anti-Semitism” does in a large number of cases is unfairly BLAME THE VICTIMS. So, DON’T FALL FOR IT.
“While these rappers kill each other, them Jews they stick together
like glue; and generate more money than FUBU
For somethin made ‘for you by you’” - T.O.D.A.Y., Royce Da 5′9″
Posted 24 Dec 2005 at 5:07 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:
“TMJ - “Anti-Semitism” is just a phony red herring charge Jews use to deflect ANY criticism - deserved or not.”
And people who blame “the Jews” for any and everything usually lack the intellect to engage in a sincere debate.
Funny that someone who has posted such an obviously anti-semitic screed is howling about how Jews always cry racism.
Posted 26 Dec 2005 at 10:17 am ¶
Master Bateman wrote:
Hmm, well it is certainly interesting that the protagonist here is a huge black gorilla, with his next leading co-stars both Jewish (Jack Black & Adrien Brody). Followed by an assortment of White and a Black man.
And the trophy prize here for all the top 4 leads is a blue-eyed blonde Aryan poster girl…who falls for Kong but ultimately ends up with Brody as a socially-acceptable consolation prize.
And yes, the only subhuman slave in this pic is the lowly Chinaman.
Posted 26 Dec 2005 at 6:33 pm ¶
Marlena wrote:
Come on! BE FOR REAL!
This is JUST a laughing Joke I think someone just wants money out of this deal & trying to be noticed…………….
I HAVE SEEN THE NEW AND OLD KING KONG MOVIES AND NOT ONCE DID I THINK THIS MOVIE WAS PUTTING ANY RACE DOWN…. OR FOR THAT MATTER LOOK AT COLOR ONCE…..I DID NOT SEE KING KONG “THE GORILLA” RAPE THE GIRL OR AS FAR AS THAT GOES TOUCH HER SEXUALLY!!!!!!!! THERE IS NO NUDITY IN THE MOVIE IT WAS A GREAT MOVIE AND THEY NEED TO MAKE MORE OUT THERE LIKE THIS ONE……… SO STOP WITH THE HATE & STOP THINKING THAT THE DAMN GORILLA IS BLACK & THE WOMENS WHITE THAT THIS IS A BAD MOVIE… BE FOR REAL….. WHERE DO YOU SEE A WHITE GORILLA THAT COULD OF PLAYED IN THE MOVIE. AS FAR AS THAT GOES THEY SHOULD OF JUST PUT A DAMN ZEBRA THAT WAY NO BODY CAN BITCH IT”S BLACK AND WHITE. LOL
Posted 18 Jan 2006 at 12:17 am ¶
yeah wrote:
Marlena, I think I’ve had words with you before in the “Is Mariah carey white or black” forum. Of course YOU don’t see the racism in King Kong, because you have a ONE DIMENSIONAL MIND. You’re too myopic and simple minded, sweetheart. Try thinking a little harder and not take things at face value, it might save you the embarrasment of thinking the world is a bed of roses.
Posted 21 Jan 2006 at 11:59 am ¶
dhardway wrote:
King Kong represented the white man’s fear of the sexual potency of black men. Here is proof:
1. Notice the partial anagram “King Kong”…change the “K” to a “D” and you have a reference to genitilia, “Ding Dong” (Ok then where did the name King Kong come from?).
2. King Kong climbs a huge phallic symbol (the Empire State Building), symbollically proclaiming himself “King” of sexuality as he stands atop the tallest structure (”Biggest D#ck in the world).
3. He symbolically holds the white woman (pale blonde, no less) “captive”.
4. It is only through military technology (figther airplanes) that he is knocked off of this sexual throne.
5. Originally made in 1933, contemporary films were Birth of a Nation.
Here’s the kicker…Star Wars had similar symbollic sexual references, such as:
1. Partial anagram “Darth Vader” or “Dark Invader”, perhaps a reference to a sexual act with a black male (penis invades vagina).
2. Darth Vader literally looks like a black penis (see helmet). Be honest…
3. The main characters fight with light sabres (colored phallic symbols). The good guy has a white colored one while the bad guy has a red one (I guess you couldn’t make a “light” sabre black, now could you??).
4. Opening scene: a) Triangular shaped (or Vagina shape, that is) Emperial ship; b) Storm Troopers (dressed in white, like semen) breaches Princess Lea’s ship, followed by Dark Invader (the huge black phallic symbol). Similar to the act of ejaculation during sex.
5. Death Star a huge sphere (testicle) capable of annihilating an entire planet (see black testicles).
6. “Dark” side of the force (???)
7. “Luke I am your father” (to Luke’s angst). Clearly referencing the resentment that anglo must feel knowing that they too a descendents of “black” africans.
8. Last act where the Jedi must fly their crafts through a canal to deliver a charged load to destroy the Death Star (Sounds like a symbolic sex act to me, what about you?).
9. R2D2 is a little white d#ck who manages to outsmart everyone, overcoming his disadvantages of size, to become the hero.
10. Dark Invader has incredible powers of persuasion and is even able to “strike down” Obi Juan Konibe (or whatever) with his more powerful “light sabre”.
11. James Earl Jones voiced over the original actor, David Prowse, because he had a more “sinister” voice (or ethnic).
Posted 02 Feb 2006 at 10:51 pm ¶