This is the thread for arguing about whether Game of Thrones is racist, misogynist, or something else I haven't thought of.
Please remember that this is a thread about the television show, which is different from the books. "That's not the way it is in the books" is not a reasonable answer. And "Something's going to happen later on that will change your mind" is a spoiler. If you've already read the books, please let others experience things for the first time before you tell them everything.
Also, treat each other respectfully. Someone attacking the show is not attacking you. Neither is someone defending the show.
Racism, Misogyny, and Other Incendiary Topics
Started by
TWoP Dietrich
, Apr 19 2011 04:29 PM
1393 replies to this topic
#1
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 4:29 PM
#2
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 4:47 PM
Thank you, the episode thread was really turning me off. Now, there's a place for them to debate.
On topic, I personally don't see any red flags yet. Most likely because I've be engulfed in too much fiction to care.
On topic, I personally don't see any red flags yet. Most likely because I've be engulfed in too much fiction to care.
#3
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 4:52 PM
moved post from the episode thread, and thanks for this Dietrich.
I saw them as a nomadic group from southern climates, hence, more sun, darker skin, that don't have privacy because they don't stay in any one place long enough to build houses, and don't need the heavy clothing that the northerners are used to. Oh, and obviously, this kind of group would capture some people from various conquests so there is much more racial diversity in their group, because they have been more places.
As far as "savage" behavior? Perhaps they were more open with their "savagery" but frankly, I saw just as much in the Northern groups...but they had doors to hide behind, and their murdering was done more secretly. We saw one murder from the Nomads, heard of or witnessed several in the Northern group. We saw two sex scenes with the Nomads, and ? how many with the Northerners, including incest, and group sex.
For the person who asked earlier, there IS ALREADY both a thread for book reading viewers to discuss the episode, where spoilers are allowed, AND a spoiler thread.
Trying to apply 20th century values to something obviously patterned after a time hundreds or thousands of years ago seems like a circular argument. Among the higher echelons, marriages were political and economic affairs most of the time, and that history isn't very long past. Even among less affluent, a daughter or son might be married off to a hateful person because two farmer's lands adjoined, or someone wanted a blacksmith in the family...whatever. As others have pointed out, some cultures still arrange marriages.
I would find it odd if, in this setting, there was a lot of romance involved in marriage, or really, much choice from a bride or groom at all. Consummation of many marriages, I think it's safe to say, would probably be described as rape by today's standards. Heck, many times the bride and groom never even met before a wedding. Cruel, ugly, mentally impaired, gay and not at all interested in you as a sexual partner? None of that mattered. You married who you were told to marry.
I saw them as a nomadic group from southern climates, hence, more sun, darker skin, that don't have privacy because they don't stay in any one place long enough to build houses, and don't need the heavy clothing that the northerners are used to. Oh, and obviously, this kind of group would capture some people from various conquests so there is much more racial diversity in their group, because they have been more places.
As far as "savage" behavior? Perhaps they were more open with their "savagery" but frankly, I saw just as much in the Northern groups...but they had doors to hide behind, and their murdering was done more secretly. We saw one murder from the Nomads, heard of or witnessed several in the Northern group. We saw two sex scenes with the Nomads, and ? how many with the Northerners, including incest, and group sex.
For the person who asked earlier, there IS ALREADY both a thread for book reading viewers to discuss the episode, where spoilers are allowed, AND a spoiler thread.
Trying to apply 20th century values to something obviously patterned after a time hundreds or thousands of years ago seems like a circular argument. Among the higher echelons, marriages were political and economic affairs most of the time, and that history isn't very long past. Even among less affluent, a daughter or son might be married off to a hateful person because two farmer's lands adjoined, or someone wanted a blacksmith in the family...whatever. As others have pointed out, some cultures still arrange marriages.
I would find it odd if, in this setting, there was a lot of romance involved in marriage, or really, much choice from a bride or groom at all. Consummation of many marriages, I think it's safe to say, would probably be described as rape by today's standards. Heck, many times the bride and groom never even met before a wedding. Cruel, ugly, mentally impaired, gay and not at all interested in you as a sexual partner? None of that mattered. You married who you were told to marry.
#4
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:03 PM
That's all true, LadyV - from a cultural standpoint their culture is perfectly reasonable to them.
But from a modern perspective, we have the disgust and fascination of the white skinned outsiders as they watch dogs get eaten, people fucking in broad daylight, random brawls that lead to death, booty shaking and drinking. And while this does go on (notably in frat parties) it's that symbol -of the white people looking on in disgust at the dark-skinned savages doing things that are horrible to their sensibilities, and coloring it as such - that I reasonably think causes ire.
It's somehow worse being a fantasy series, because it so closely resembles the real world's view but doesn't have to. There's no reason that the Dothraki couldn't do elaborate square dancing at weddings or they would want to fuck in front of the king and queen. There's no reason that the Westerosians don't do such a thing - except that it's modeled after our history and our culture. But that's it, and that is showing some biases in the creator.
It doesn't make it inherently wrong or make the show and the author racist, but it is at the very least not particularly sensitive.
But from a modern perspective, we have the disgust and fascination of the white skinned outsiders as they watch dogs get eaten, people fucking in broad daylight, random brawls that lead to death, booty shaking and drinking. And while this does go on (notably in frat parties) it's that symbol -of the white people looking on in disgust at the dark-skinned savages doing things that are horrible to their sensibilities, and coloring it as such - that I reasonably think causes ire.
It's somehow worse being a fantasy series, because it so closely resembles the real world's view but doesn't have to. There's no reason that the Dothraki couldn't do elaborate square dancing at weddings or they would want to fuck in front of the king and queen. There's no reason that the Westerosians don't do such a thing - except that it's modeled after our history and our culture. But that's it, and that is showing some biases in the creator.
It doesn't make it inherently wrong or make the show and the author racist, but it is at the very least not particularly sensitive.
#5
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:03 PM
Thanks Dietrich. These topics can be simultaneously enriching and exhausting.
Though I don't think it wholly counteracts the damage that having the "savages" come from a darker skinned people, I actually think that another poster raised a valid argument--sorry I can't remember where I read the response!--that perhaps the Dothraki ways were emphasized in their "otherness" because the writers were attempting to portray Dany's fear without the use of internal monologue. Meaning, it only seems "savage" in that it stems from Dany's perspective, and seeing as there is no incentive for Dany to combat her obviously ethnocentric view point, everything appears over-the-top in it's "savagery," when it's really just a different culture she has no means (familiarity) to navigate through. As I said, this does not negate my discomfort with seeing an image I'm all too familiar with and that I find troublesome (the only representation of people of color being that of the "noble savage"), but I do think it's an interesting interpretation of the few images we saw in the Pilot that may be expanded upon and further fleshed out in later episodes.
As far as "savage" behavior? Perhaps they were more open with their "savagery" but frankly, I saw just as much in the Northern groups...but they had doors to hide behind, and their murdering was done more secret.
Though I don't think it wholly counteracts the damage that having the "savages" come from a darker skinned people, I actually think that another poster raised a valid argument--sorry I can't remember where I read the response!--that perhaps the Dothraki ways were emphasized in their "otherness" because the writers were attempting to portray Dany's fear without the use of internal monologue. Meaning, it only seems "savage" in that it stems from Dany's perspective, and seeing as there is no incentive for Dany to combat her obviously ethnocentric view point, everything appears over-the-top in it's "savagery," when it's really just a different culture she has no means (familiarity) to navigate through. As I said, this does not negate my discomfort with seeing an image I'm all too familiar with and that I find troublesome (the only representation of people of color being that of the "noble savage"), but I do think it's an interesting interpretation of the few images we saw in the Pilot that may be expanded upon and further fleshed out in later episodes.
#6
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:12 PM
Thank you for creating this thread. While I hope this thread's existence does not "marginalize" conversations and critiques of racism, misogyny, and other "incendiary" topics to only this area of the board, I also hope this thread becomes a safe place where TWOP posters can comfortably and thoroughly discuss any uncomfortable issues and themes present in Game of Thrones.
Central to many viewers' concerns is the depiction of the Dothraki in the first episode, led by Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa, a multiethnic actor.) The producers have chosen to cast the Dothraki using a multiethnic, non-white cast including several black actors. Casting breakdowns for Dothraki extras requested people with "swarthy skin and dark hair..with either a Mediterranean, Hispanic, Mixed Race or Latin look about them." Coupled with set designer Gemma Jackson's decision to hybrid the Dothraki with Mongol and Native American influences, it suggests that the producers are aiming for an Ambiguously Brown group (which could in itself be problematic.)
Over at The Atlantic, Adam Serwer and Nick Baumann noted that the depictions of the Dothraki in the first episode might be problematic and reminiscent of a familiar stereotype:
Douglas Wolk at the Los Angeles Times also pokes fun at the Dothraki depiction:
So...racial politics of fantasy aren't necessarily subverted in the pilot. In the first episode the Dothraki are not depicted with the same depth as the white characters in the series and they are viewed from the perspective of a white female protagonist who is later raped by their leader. (After being bartered like chattel, natch.)
Critiques have also been made about the abundant boobage in the first episodes. Fan(boy) service? Or just HBO? After Gina Bellafonte's polarizing "boy fiction" New York Times review of the series, fans--especially fan girls--leapt to the defense of A Song of Ice and Fire and the fantasy genre, adamantly making it clear--not that women read fantasy, too--but that women read fantasy, period. Will fans' zeal to make that bold defense overshadow any feminist readings or concerns that could legitimately be applied to the show?
Just to reiterate what I said in the episode thread: We don't want women non-white characters to be depicted as perfect--we want them to be depicted with depth and humanity. We want them not to reinforce the simplistic stereotypes and discrimination many of us face in on our every day lives, and we don't think that is too much to ask from a franchise that prides itself in complex depictions of characters and themes.
Reia, this is an interesting defense/interpretation but I would also wonder why that choice was made. As pointed out in the Lannister's thread by Danny Franks, the depiction of Cersei in the series is actually very objective compared to her depictions in the novel. Viserys is also depicted the same way--he is depicted as he really is, a pathetic blowhard instead of intimidating brother (as he was from Dany's POV) So why that "objective" lens wouldn't also be applied to the Dothraki...
Central to many viewers' concerns is the depiction of the Dothraki in the first episode, led by Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa, a multiethnic actor.) The producers have chosen to cast the Dothraki using a multiethnic, non-white cast including several black actors. Casting breakdowns for Dothraki extras requested people with "swarthy skin and dark hair..with either a Mediterranean, Hispanic, Mixed Race or Latin look about them." Coupled with set designer Gemma Jackson's decision to hybrid the Dothraki with Mongol and Native American influences, it suggests that the producers are aiming for an Ambiguously Brown group (which could in itself be problematic.)
Over at The Atlantic, Adam Serwer and Nick Baumann noted that the depictions of the Dothraki in the first episode might be problematic and reminiscent of a familiar stereotype:
."The decision to make the Dothraki miscellaneous brown people rather than model them directly after the Mongol warriors on whom they seem to be based reinforces the problematic 'noble savage' stereotype. The nobles across the sea in Westeros are, of course, hardly any more civilized—but the false contrast is even less evident early in the series than it is in the books"
Douglas Wolk at the Los Angeles Times also pokes fun at the Dothraki depiction:
"As one of this episode's punch lines tells us, "There is no word for 'thank you' in Dothraki." Oh, those wacky, nobly savage indigenous peoples. The Dothraki do, however, have words for "leather vest," "stallion-like"
"Is the exaggerated visual contrast between the lily-pale, Euro-hairstyled Daenerys and the "savage," bronze-complexioned, queue-sporting, unsanitary-food-eating Dothraki warlord Khal Drogo creepy in a considerably less great way or what?"
So...racial politics of fantasy aren't necessarily subverted in the pilot. In the first episode the Dothraki are not depicted with the same depth as the white characters in the series and they are viewed from the perspective of a white female protagonist who is later raped by their leader. (After being bartered like chattel, natch.)
Critiques have also been made about the abundant boobage in the first episodes. Fan(boy) service? Or just HBO? After Gina Bellafonte's polarizing "boy fiction" New York Times review of the series, fans--especially fan girls--leapt to the defense of A Song of Ice and Fire and the fantasy genre, adamantly making it clear--not that women read fantasy, too--but that women read fantasy, period. Will fans' zeal to make that bold defense overshadow any feminist readings or concerns that could legitimately be applied to the show?
Just to reiterate what I said in the episode thread: We don't want women non-white characters to be depicted as perfect--we want them to be depicted with depth and humanity. We want them not to reinforce the simplistic stereotypes and discrimination many of us face in on our every day lives, and we don't think that is too much to ask from a franchise that prides itself in complex depictions of characters and themes.
Though I don't think it wholly counteracts the damage that having the "savages" come from a darker skinned people, I actually think that another poster raised a valid argument--sorry I can't remember where I read the response!--that perhaps the Dothraki ways were emphasized in their "otherness" because the writers were attempting to portray Dany's fear without the use of internal monologue. Meaning, it only seems "savage" in that it stems from Dany's perspective, and seeing as there is no incentive for Dany to combat her obviously ethnocentric view point, everything appears over-the-top in it's "savagery," when it's really just a different culture she has no means (familiarity) to navigate through.
Reia, this is an interesting defense/interpretation but I would also wonder why that choice was made. As pointed out in the Lannister's thread by Danny Franks, the depiction of Cersei in the series is actually very objective compared to her depictions in the novel. Viserys is also depicted the same way--he is depicted as he really is, a pathetic blowhard instead of intimidating brother (as he was from Dany's POV) So why that "objective" lens wouldn't also be applied to the Dothraki...
Edited by jedifreac, Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:22 PM.
#7
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:13 PM
I have to admit I'm having troubles not relying on the books for a defense. Well other than a point that could make me look really racist and bigotted.
Edited by Barbarossa, Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:18 PM.
#8
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:22 PM
Presumably because we don't have internal monologues to demonstrate this, and the viewer's discomfort goes along with Dany's. It's a way to make us on Dany's side more than anything as well as showcase the Other of the Dothraki. Without that - if you made the Dothraki just kinda cool random people doing a Hula or something like that, Dany going to them and her protests ("Nooo! I can't hula! Please don't make me do that Haka! My tongue isn't long! Nooo!") would seem kind of odd.Reia, this is an interesting defense/interpretation but I would also wonder why that choice was made.
#9
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:27 PM
I didn't really see the Nomads as any more savage than the Northerners though. In a way, they seemed more honest in their behavior (again, the warmer climates and no houses thing.)
I also got that we were seeing this from the bride's point of view, and while I understand that whole savage vs virgin thing, added in with their coloring could have been troubling for some, to me? I was far more creeped out by her brother. The most chilling part of this storyline for me was the incest overtones, and also when he said the thing about 40,000 men and their horses could fuck her if he got his kingdom back.
Maybe I have just read too much history, but the whole "rape" on a wedding night was just so expected, it felt real and of the time. He wasn't slapping her around, or being particularly violent. It was just "OK, wedding night, time to consummate, too bad we don't have a common language, makes it tricky."
Different cultures have different ways, and the bride here was in culture shock, and the lack of communication made that more frightening to her.
Is "savagery" in the open somehow worse than "savagery" hidden and lied about? I thought the main difference between the Northerners and the Nomads wasn't in actions, but in either setting or secrecy.
I also got that we were seeing this from the bride's point of view, and while I understand that whole savage vs virgin thing, added in with their coloring could have been troubling for some, to me? I was far more creeped out by her brother. The most chilling part of this storyline for me was the incest overtones, and also when he said the thing about 40,000 men and their horses could fuck her if he got his kingdom back.
Maybe I have just read too much history, but the whole "rape" on a wedding night was just so expected, it felt real and of the time. He wasn't slapping her around, or being particularly violent. It was just "OK, wedding night, time to consummate, too bad we don't have a common language, makes it tricky."
Different cultures have different ways, and the bride here was in culture shock, and the lack of communication made that more frightening to her.
Is "savagery" in the open somehow worse than "savagery" hidden and lied about? I thought the main difference between the Northerners and the Nomads wasn't in actions, but in either setting or secrecy.
#10
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:28 PM
Critiques have also been made about the abundant boobage in the first episodes. Fan(boy) service? Or just HBO?
I heard those critiques, and I actually think the nudity was tame compared to some of HBO's other shows. I mean, I just thought about Rome's first episode, and that that had two full-frontal nude scenes by the some of the main actresses (Polly Walker and Kerry Condon.) I can't remember if they had anything else, but I really thought Games of Thrones paled in comparison to Rome. And I won't even go into Starz' Spartacus, which is going all out in the gratuitous nudity and sex department.
As for the racism, I didn't notice it while watching, but I do see why it's being brought up. It is annoying that the only black characters on screen was during the Dothraki's orgy bash. I do hope they go more into detail about the Dothraki and their culture and don't make it so one-dimensional and arguably stereotypical. Haven't gotten too far into the books yet, so I don't know if there will be any main characters that are a different race. I doubt they would cast a character that was written as white a different race, because that would just outrage a good amount of the major fans (ex: the outcry when Community's Donald Glover was suggested as a possible Peter Parker/Spider-man.)
Glad to see this thread. Looking forward to some good discussions that don't devolve into "People who bring up racism are just overly PC and whiny" or "People who don't see it are secretly bigoted and racist."
Edited by thuganomics85, Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:40 PM.
#11
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:34 PM
That's all fine from an anthropological point of view. The problem is that it also coincides with some very nasty stereotypes from our history that also coincide with a lot of nasty behaviors associated with said stereotypes. While you can think that it's just as savage for the northerners to be doing things privately as the Dothraki to be doing things in public, that's not from a cultural perspective that's really relevant.Maybe I have just read too much history, but the whole "rape" on a wedding night was just so expected, it felt real and of the time. He wasn't slapping her around, or being particularly violent. It was just "OK, wedding night, time to consummate, too bad we don't have a common language, makes it tricky."
Different cultures have different ways, and the bride here was in culture shock, and the lack of communication made that more frightening to her.
Is "savagery" in the open somehow worse than "savagery" hidden and lied about? I thought the main difference between the Northerners and the Nomads wasn't in actions, but in either setting or secrecy.
Also, I don't really think crying, covering yourself up and being forced to be in a specific position is really hard to convey as 'do not want' despite the language barrier. Saying that it's 'tricky' is a bit disingenuous. Especially when he actually knew the word 'no'.
#12
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:38 PM
That's an interesting point, Lady V, but for me the main difference was what jedifreac pointed out:Is "savagery" in the open somehow worse than "savagery" hidden and lied about? I thought the main difference between the Northerners and the Nomads wasn't in actions, but in either setting or secrecy.
What was off-putting to me is the emphasis on the Dothraki as "the Other"; even if the white characters do some pretty horrifying things, we're privy to their viewpoints and asked to see them as people with complex motivations. The Dothraki were simply scary dark savages who defile super-white virgins. That's a familiar racist stereotype. (It actually reminded me of American Indian captivity narratives.)In the first episode the Dothraki are not depicted with the same depth as the white characters in the series and they are viewed from the perspective of a white female protagonist who is later raped by their leader.
HOWEVER, I totally get that this was just the first episode and that the characterization of the Dothraki is likely to change and deepen. I mean, I hope so.
Edited by Carlita09, Apr 19, 2011 @ 5:42 PM.
#13
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 6:08 PM
Sorry for this Dietrich, and everyone. Feel free to ban me for this but I’m going to break the episode only rule.
First off Its said that everything important in a Dothraki’s life is done under the open sky. Hence why a scene of Dany uh, riding her husband in front of the Khalasar is such a big deal. They have no really concept of subtlety, in the books Dothraki warriors wear bells in their hair because they want their enemies to know that they are coming.
In most ways the Dothraki are immensely male dominated, and its heavily implied the reason they always take women from behind is they are beneath them, and don’t deserve to luck upon the mens faces, particularly when they are of a conquered people or city. But the one mentioned Dothraki deity is the Mother of Mountains, and all the Khals are seemingly subservient the Dosh Kaleen, or crones, Former queens who have become sort of religious leaders/seers.
Also as has been mentioned and debated is the different depictions of Daenerys and Drogo’s first night. In the books as has been mentioned several times, there first time is far more consensual, and readers are divided on which way works better for characterization and the plot.
Also its never shown but they are countless mentions of rape back in Westeros, soldiers and Knights generally on peasants. But it has happened to noble women. Ned’s sister is said to have been raped, Lolys is gang-raped in a riot and gets pregnant, Ellia Targaryen nee Martell is raped after having watched her young children murdered, and Brienne and Sansa( a couple times) are almost raped. So yeah Martin does not shy away from violence between white people at all. Infact a major theme of the books is people will do things during war time, that they wouldn't otherwise, but i should clarify there plenty of whites that are willing to do it whenever.
Finally, if it is racist to point out the truth that yes the Mongols, and several other ethnic groups, including Vikings, Goths and other Caucasians did infact engage in Raping and Pillaging... Then I am.
First off Its said that everything important in a Dothraki’s life is done under the open sky. Hence why a scene of Dany uh, riding her husband in front of the Khalasar is such a big deal. They have no really concept of subtlety, in the books Dothraki warriors wear bells in their hair because they want their enemies to know that they are coming.
In most ways the Dothraki are immensely male dominated, and its heavily implied the reason they always take women from behind is they are beneath them, and don’t deserve to luck upon the mens faces, particularly when they are of a conquered people or city. But the one mentioned Dothraki deity is the Mother of Mountains, and all the Khals are seemingly subservient the Dosh Kaleen, or crones, Former queens who have become sort of religious leaders/seers.
Also as has been mentioned and debated is the different depictions of Daenerys and Drogo’s first night. In the books as has been mentioned several times, there first time is far more consensual, and readers are divided on which way works better for characterization and the plot.
Also its never shown but they are countless mentions of rape back in Westeros, soldiers and Knights generally on peasants. But it has happened to noble women. Ned’s sister is said to have been raped, Lolys is gang-raped in a riot and gets pregnant, Ellia Targaryen nee Martell is raped after having watched her young children murdered, and Brienne and Sansa( a couple times) are almost raped. So yeah Martin does not shy away from violence between white people at all. Infact a major theme of the books is people will do things during war time, that they wouldn't otherwise, but i should clarify there plenty of whites that are willing to do it whenever.
Finally, if it is racist to point out the truth that yes the Mongols, and several other ethnic groups, including Vikings, Goths and other Caucasians did infact engage in Raping and Pillaging... Then I am.
Edited by Barbarossa, Apr 19, 2011 @ 6:11 PM.
#14
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 6:13 PM
HOWEVER, I totally get that this was just the first episode and that the characterization of the Dothraki is likely to change and deepen. I mean, I hope so.
Yeah, it concerned me as well (and I've read the books, had similar feelings at this point of them). Hopefully we'll get a deeper look at them over the next few episodes otherwise things have gone... badly.
#15
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 6:29 PM
Barbarossa I've read the books multiple times over the past six years, but I think it's better to treat the two as separate entities, hence why future events in the novels pretty much bear no part in my analysis of the TV series.
Also, as I feel others have said in other threads, no one is claiming it's racist to state facts or for fiction to portray dark skinned individuals fighting, sexing, pillaging, and everything in between, simply that these images become frustrating and very problematic when they are the only images we see of certain races. This is also exacerbated by the fact that fantasy, as an entire genre, is often either white-washed or has people of color show up in the aforementioned roles and only in that capacity. Thus, given what we have seen of the Pilot episode, none of these problematic images were subverted, though they could be in the future.
Also, I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but you may want to steer away from "I'm not racist, but...." -esque statments. Nothing you said was racist, so you don't have to put a disclaimer, and it generally does more damage than good.
Also, as I feel others have said in other threads, no one is claiming it's racist to state facts or for fiction to portray dark skinned individuals fighting, sexing, pillaging, and everything in between, simply that these images become frustrating and very problematic when they are the only images we see of certain races. This is also exacerbated by the fact that fantasy, as an entire genre, is often either white-washed or has people of color show up in the aforementioned roles and only in that capacity. Thus, given what we have seen of the Pilot episode, none of these problematic images were subverted, though they could be in the future.
Also, I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but you may want to steer away from "I'm not racist, but...." -esque statments. Nothing you said was racist, so you don't have to put a disclaimer, and it generally does more damage than good.
#16
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 6:31 PM
Barbarossa, I suspect a number of people involved in this conversation are fans of the books and are familiar with the fictional male-dominated Dothraki culture, Martin's depictions of rape in Westeros, etc. I'm sure they are also familiar with history and understand that many cultures have involved raping and pillaging. The concern lies in the variability and depth of media representation and the depiction of underrepresented groups.
It's not "racist" to point out that Mongols and Vikings engaged in raping and pillaging...but it is certainly stereotypical and potentially racist when that is the predominant way they are depicted in entertainment media.
I would also hope that this thread's conversations about race and sexism in Game of Thrones does not simply focus on who is --ist and who is not. Conflating a problematic representation with someone's personal morality does not address the issue. The production does not need to be personally prejudiced towards women or people of color to reinforce negative or oppressive cultural messagse. Perhaps instead of "is GOT racist/sexism?" a more effective way to frame the discussion might be, "How is racism/sexism potentially reflected and/or subverted in GOT?" There is a subtle but important difference.
We do not have to be passive consumers of Game of Thrones. I think it's also important to contrast the show with the big picture. "There are douchebags of all races on this show" ignores the fact that GOT will by its nature dedicate more time to white characters, that GOT is part of a greater pantheon of Hollywood fantasy productions, and that people of color are still struggling to be as equally well-represented in modern media as white people currently are.
Finally, if it is racist to point out the truth that yes the Mongols, and several other ethnic groups, including Vikings, Goths and other Caucasians did infact engage in Raping and Pillaging... Then I am.
It's not "racist" to point out that Mongols and Vikings engaged in raping and pillaging...but it is certainly stereotypical and potentially racist when that is the predominant way they are depicted in entertainment media.
I would also hope that this thread's conversations about race and sexism in Game of Thrones does not simply focus on who is --ist and who is not. Conflating a problematic representation with someone's personal morality does not address the issue. The production does not need to be personally prejudiced towards women or people of color to reinforce negative or oppressive cultural messagse. Perhaps instead of "is GOT racist/sexism?" a more effective way to frame the discussion might be, "How is racism/sexism potentially reflected and/or subverted in GOT?" There is a subtle but important difference.
We do not have to be passive consumers of Game of Thrones. I think it's also important to contrast the show with the big picture. "There are douchebags of all races on this show" ignores the fact that GOT will by its nature dedicate more time to white characters, that GOT is part of a greater pantheon of Hollywood fantasy productions, and that people of color are still struggling to be as equally well-represented in modern media as white people currently are.
Edited by jedifreac, Apr 19, 2011 @ 6:35 PM.
#17
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 7:06 PM
Yeah. I get the impulse to discuss the books; I'd probably want to do so if I had read them. But I haven't, so I'm just talking about the TV show. I can't bring the deeper characterization presented in the books to bear on this discussion because I don't know anything about that context. I'm not even sure knowing about that context helps, because what we're shown on TV is necessarily different.Barbarossa I've read the books multiple times over the past six years, but I think it's better to treat the two as separate entities, hence why future events in the novels pretty much bear no part in my analysis of the TV series.
#18
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 7:25 PM
reia,jedifreac,
To point about my disclaimer, I've be burned before on statements I though were fairly innocent, so I've become overly cautious, and defensive.
Excluding stupid irrelevent things like 'Kick a Ginger-day' and "Gingers have no souls' I can readily admit to having never faced discrimination so my viewpoint is most probably skewed. But I feel like any possible negative representation of minorities in the media often gets unfairly jumped on and sometimes taken out of context. For the most part I agree with you that the disscussion has pretty much avoided such assumptions, but I've found a couple posts that veer IMO close to the line. But it very much could be my zealotry when it comes to Game of Thrones clouding my judgement
Barbarossa, I suspect a number of people involved in this conversation are fans of the books and are familiar with the fictional male-dominated Dothraki culture, Martin's depictions of rape in Westeros, etc. I'm sure they are also familiar with history and understand that many cultures have involved raping and pillaging.
An admirable way of viewing the show. One I am at the moment incapable of doing myself, unfortunately. From what I've seen while the split between newbies and book-readers is more even then I implied, it seems. to me that barring yourselves, more of people having a problem with the depiction of the Dothraki are new or newer to the fandom.Barbarossa I've read the books multiple times over the past six years, but I think it's better to treat the two as separate entities, hence why future events in the novels pretty much bear no part in my analysis of the TV series.
To point about my disclaimer, I've be burned before on statements I though were fairly innocent, so I've become overly cautious, and defensive.
Excluding stupid irrelevent things like 'Kick a Ginger-day' and "Gingers have no souls' I can readily admit to having never faced discrimination so my viewpoint is most probably skewed. But I feel like any possible negative representation of minorities in the media often gets unfairly jumped on and sometimes taken out of context. For the most part I agree with you that the disscussion has pretty much avoided such assumptions, but I've found a couple posts that veer IMO close to the line. But it very much could be my zealotry when it comes to Game of Thrones clouding my judgement
#19
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 7:53 PM
I think this is probably true. Obviously, then, the show is doing something the books didn't. Isn't it okay to explore that without referring to the context explained in the books? The site is about TV, and we're talking about the TV show. If all the things you detailed in your post are going to be examined in the show, great, but otherwise they don't have a lot of influence on newbies' first reactions to the show.From what I've seen while the split between newbies and book-readers is more even then I implied, it seems to me that barring yourselves, more of people having a problem with the depiction of the Dothraki are new or newer to the fandom.
Edited by Carlita09, Apr 19, 2011 @ 7:55 PM.
#20
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 8:07 PM
I've read the books and knew that scene was coming, and I still got chills at that point, because the thought came to me that he only knew that word because he had heard it so many times before.Also, I don't really think crying, covering yourself up and being forced to be in a specific position is really hard to convey as 'do not want' despite the language barrier. Saying that it's 'tricky' is a bit disingenuous. Especially when he actually knew the word 'no'.
#21
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 8:08 PM
I find it interesting that this entire thread, and many many pages on the episode thread have been devoted to racism based on a scene that was, what, 5 minutes long? And yes, I could see that people would be disturbed that the first time you see a dark skinned woman is when she's dancing and engaging in wild exhibitionist sex and naked, and the picture of the virginal white girl being forced to have sex by a dark skinned man raises certain visceral reactions (I always think of To Kill a Mockingbird in those situations because of the stereotype/lie in that novel).
Having said that, the guys killing each other during the wedding ceremony were white, I believe. And Khal Drogo is not meant to be a "black/African" man, and neither is the actor (Jason Momoa is Samoan). So really, are we just breaking it down into white vs non-white? Because, in some ways, that's worse. I think that we've seen much more misogyny portrayed in the episode (again, as a function of the time, and GoT doesn't endorse it in any way), but far less talk about that.
I am not white, and I have endured racism. But I have also seen when people are too quick to cry racism, as well as seeing my white friends be more sensitive to potential racism than I am in the same situation. So given that this is all based on a few minutes in 1 episode, it'll be interesting to see what the reaction is over the next few episodes.
Having said that, the guys killing each other during the wedding ceremony were white, I believe. And Khal Drogo is not meant to be a "black/African" man, and neither is the actor (Jason Momoa is Samoan). So really, are we just breaking it down into white vs non-white? Because, in some ways, that's worse. I think that we've seen much more misogyny portrayed in the episode (again, as a function of the time, and GoT doesn't endorse it in any way), but far less talk about that.
I am not white, and I have endured racism. But I have also seen when people are too quick to cry racism, as well as seeing my white friends be more sensitive to potential racism than I am in the same situation. So given that this is all based on a few minutes in 1 episode, it'll be interesting to see what the reaction is over the next few episodes.
#22
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 8:21 PM
I watched that show as a "newbie" although I have since been spoiled so much in the non-spoiler threads that I gave up and just went and read the spoilers.
Pre-spoilers, that scene didn't read as racist to me, although I can understand how some people see it that way. Everything was foreign to her, and since we were not given dialogue that we could understand from anyone but her? I simply assumed that we were supposed to be seeing it from her point of view in this episode, and that sooner or later, we would understand more about this group. (probably as she learns to communicate with them?)
I didn't see them as savages at all, but as a Nomadic warrior group, with different customs, but certainly not "worse" that what we had already seen from the lighter skinned Northern characters. The food reminded me of stuff I would see on an Amazing Race challenge, a balute on Survivor, or even Bourdain's show and his love of entrails, or Bizarre Foods. It was meant to invoke the "different" and though repellant to me personally, and to the blond bride obviously, not really better or worse. WE are not used to it. Neither was she.
As for the "rape" scene? Until quite recent history, women, in some ways especially royal women, were simply chattel, to be traded for advantages (in land, warriors, alliances, whatever) and, like it or not, and whether they liked it or not, most of them were probably not hot for their grooms, and it's very likely that sex was, at best, a duty for most of them on those wedding nights.
I really didn't see any brutality, and all we saw on the show was him bend her over. He didn't seem violent, there was a communication issue, and though I have now read spoilers, I still can't tell from that bit of a scene where they will go with this. Yes, he wiped away a tear, and he opened her arms, so he knew she was scared, but I saw no real force there, and hundreds of years ago, perhaps that was the way a wife was supposed to act? Heck, even a hundred years ago in this country, a virgin bride was supposed to be shy like that, in the minds of many.
I guess for me it's kind of like the incest stuff. In reality, it's abhorrent to me, but in the context of this? I am trying to put that aside and see the reasons or motivations of the people involved. The twin probably had an unpleasant wedding night as well, married to a man she obviously detests, and watching him whore around in front of her seems no more civilized by today's standards than what we saw with the Nomads.
The author wrote a fantasy place, but used a lot of our own history and customs when doing so. Both the Northern paler-skinned people with their castles and lands, and the roaming Southern darker-skinned people who sleep under the stars were shown as wild, selfish, hedonistic, violent, and violating current sexual ethical proprieties.
I guess I saw much worse behavior among the pale Northerners than the darker Southerners. They evoked the discomfort of the blond bride very well with the, to her, strange customs, but for me? They seemed to have much less artifice, and their actions were, by comparison, less horrific. Her brother's lack of compassion was worse to me, for example.
Anyway, we will see how it plays out. They are a stunningly beautiful couple though...and I could easily tell them apart from the rest of the cast...so that was a HUGE plus to this non-book viewer.
Pre-spoilers, that scene didn't read as racist to me, although I can understand how some people see it that way. Everything was foreign to her, and since we were not given dialogue that we could understand from anyone but her? I simply assumed that we were supposed to be seeing it from her point of view in this episode, and that sooner or later, we would understand more about this group. (probably as she learns to communicate with them?)
I didn't see them as savages at all, but as a Nomadic warrior group, with different customs, but certainly not "worse" that what we had already seen from the lighter skinned Northern characters. The food reminded me of stuff I would see on an Amazing Race challenge, a balute on Survivor, or even Bourdain's show and his love of entrails, or Bizarre Foods. It was meant to invoke the "different" and though repellant to me personally, and to the blond bride obviously, not really better or worse. WE are not used to it. Neither was she.
As for the "rape" scene? Until quite recent history, women, in some ways especially royal women, were simply chattel, to be traded for advantages (in land, warriors, alliances, whatever) and, like it or not, and whether they liked it or not, most of them were probably not hot for their grooms, and it's very likely that sex was, at best, a duty for most of them on those wedding nights.
I really didn't see any brutality, and all we saw on the show was him bend her over. He didn't seem violent, there was a communication issue, and though I have now read spoilers, I still can't tell from that bit of a scene where they will go with this. Yes, he wiped away a tear, and he opened her arms, so he knew she was scared, but I saw no real force there, and hundreds of years ago, perhaps that was the way a wife was supposed to act? Heck, even a hundred years ago in this country, a virgin bride was supposed to be shy like that, in the minds of many.
I guess for me it's kind of like the incest stuff. In reality, it's abhorrent to me, but in the context of this? I am trying to put that aside and see the reasons or motivations of the people involved. The twin probably had an unpleasant wedding night as well, married to a man she obviously detests, and watching him whore around in front of her seems no more civilized by today's standards than what we saw with the Nomads.
The author wrote a fantasy place, but used a lot of our own history and customs when doing so. Both the Northern paler-skinned people with their castles and lands, and the roaming Southern darker-skinned people who sleep under the stars were shown as wild, selfish, hedonistic, violent, and violating current sexual ethical proprieties.
I guess I saw much worse behavior among the pale Northerners than the darker Southerners. They evoked the discomfort of the blond bride very well with the, to her, strange customs, but for me? They seemed to have much less artifice, and their actions were, by comparison, less horrific. Her brother's lack of compassion was worse to me, for example.
Anyway, we will see how it plays out. They are a stunningly beautiful couple though...and I could easily tell them apart from the rest of the cast...so that was a HUGE plus to this non-book viewer.
#23
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 8:29 PM
Lady V, I could not agree more with your post.
I had mentioned in the episode thread about the food as well - why is different savage? Scots eat haggis, and we don't call them savage. I mentioned that I thought that the horse hearts, if anything, were supposed to honor the union (since, in a nomadic tribe that likely relied on horses for transportation, the slaughter of so many horses for their hearts showed wealth, and the heart itself has been a symbol of the soul for so long in many cultures, so was probably auspicious for the wedding).
I had mentioned in the episode thread about the food as well - why is different savage? Scots eat haggis, and we don't call them savage. I mentioned that I thought that the horse hearts, if anything, were supposed to honor the union (since, in a nomadic tribe that likely relied on horses for transportation, the slaughter of so many horses for their hearts showed wealth, and the heart itself has been a symbol of the soul for so long in many cultures, so was probably auspicious for the wedding).
#24
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 10:00 PM
TWOP Dietrich, that last part cracked me up. Thanks for starting the thread.This is the thread for arguing about whether Game of Thrones is racist, misogynist, or something else I haven't thought of.
Oh, Uranium, that's... such a different twist on the scene; I can definitely see that conclusion. And you're right, it is chilling.I've read the books and knew that scene was coming, and I still got chills at that point, because the thought came to me that he only knew that word because he had heard it so many times before.
Forgive me the joke, but I have to make it: I guess Dothraki doesn't have a word for "rape", either, along with "thank you." Drogo may not have beaten Dany, but that was clearly marital rape. She's crying, he has to undress her and does so obviously against her will, he forces her arms open when she tries to cover herself, and he's the one to bend her over. She doesn't do anything other than desperately try to communicate with him. She certainly doesn't consent, which is moot, because her consent is irrelevant - Drogo never asks. I realize this is a bit of a stretch, but her attempt to communicate with Drogo in that scene reminded me of people in a hostage situation, who try desperately to communicate with their executors in the hopes that (a) it will postpone the inevitable, and/or (b) it will humanize them in their captors' eyes and they'll be spared.
Lady V, you make a good point that women had relatively few rights until recently, and GoT is set in some sort of dark-ages equivalent which ties into and/or reflects our own world history - and yet as much as I can agree to that fact intellectually, it doesn't resonate with me entirely. I'll have to think about why that is and come back to it later. It's food for thought.
Edited by Whiteotter, Apr 19, 2011 @ 10:02 PM.
#25
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 10:19 PM
Lady V, you make a good point that women had relatively few rights until recently, and GoT is set in some sort of dark-ages equivalent which ties into and/or reflects our own world history - and yet as much as I can agree to that fact intellectually, it doesn't resonate with me entirely. I'll have to think about why that is and come back to it later. It's food for thought.
The usual argument is that because it's explicitly not our world, an inherent assumption of patriarchy when creating your world is itself sexist. An argument I'm sympathetic to, but with the danger of child birth in pre-modern times I could buy that some form of patriarchy is inevitable.
#26
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 10:31 PM
There are a lot of good points made here and it's all very interesting.
I think that this illustrates one of the problems of adapting written works to the screen. They really are very different experiences for the audience. Even when an author uses the most objective-seeming viewpoint, there is still more subjectivity in written narrative than there is in a filmed narrative. Or, rather, filmed narratives have a profoundly strong quality of objectivity. (Which, incidentally, makes film so powerful as a means to force people into subjective points-of-view they otherwise wouldn't be able to experience.)
The difficulty inherent in making the transition from page to screen is apparent in all this discussion about the Dothraki scenes. For one thing, as written, the audience is very aware that they are experiencing this through Dany's eyes; whereas on film, we feel we are seeing this exactly as it is, with perhaps only some small subjective emphasis via which particular things we see. Clearly, I think, the writer's intent was to highlight Dothraki "otherness" as experienced by Dany. There's still the same pitfalls there as we're discussing here, but they're easier to avoid or downplay on the page. But, on film, with its stronger sense of objectivity, the audience is encouraged, intentionally or unintentionally, to experience the Dothraki "otherness" both within their own context and with a strong suggestion (simply by virtue of it being filmed) that this "otherness" is an objective fact.
The filmmakers had few or no good choices here in translating this scene to film. Without direct access to Dany's thoughts and feelings--to any character's thoughts and feelings--the primary tool for the filmmaker is what is shown on screen. They wanted to provoke a sense of "otherness" about the Dothraki in the audience...and they correctly, if unfortunately, understood their audience, being what it is and responding to the tropes it's likely to respond to, cast swarthy people as Dothrakis and had them behave in stereotypically savage behavior. Again, much of this is on the page, too. But, as I'm trying to explain, there's a different psychological experience for a reader than a viewer. Readers, in their imaginings, bring to the table their stereotypes and bigotries, but they're still individual and varied. A filmmaker essentially realizes his/her stereotypes and bigotries on the screen, for the audience to experience.
I'm not saying that a writer in Martin's position can't have the same problems and make the same mistakes we're discussing about the episode. Obviously, novels can be very racist and sexist and bigoted. It's just that it's easier for a novelist to examine complex and difficult themes and avoid being racist and sexist and bigoted than it is for a filmmaker to do so. Probably much, much easier. I don't really want to make excuses for the filmmakers. I strongly suspect that they didn't think about these scenes as carefully as they ought to have. But, given that they are following the source material closely, I think that there likely was no way they could have avoided these problems.
By the way, the "there's no word X in language Y" thing is kind of a science-y untrue urban legend. It's in many cases quite literally true that there's no exact match for a word from one language to another. But it's rarely true that the meaning of a word in one language cannot be expressed in another language. And the intended cultural/psychosocial implication of such statements--that culture Z cannot even think about the ideas involved in word X--is pretty close to being never true.
This is such an almost universally believed and beloved wise little notion about differences in languages and culture that I'm sure that many people will immediately want to tell me that I'm flat-out wrong. But this is a persistent misconception among laypeople that linguists repeatedly combat, and you can do web searches (particularly of the linguistics blog "Language Log") to learn more about it. The idea zombies on in our culture largely via the old "Eskimos have a bazillion words for snow" claim. What's interesting about this is that English has a great many words for snow, too; each representing, as is claimed about Eskimo languages, different kinds of snow.
In the context of this discussion, one of the (among many) things which is attractive about this whole notion to people is that it emphasizes the "otherness" of other cultures. "They have no word for thank you!" "They have no word for responsibility!" "They have no word for now!" It's revealing how this trope is used in GoT; and it's revealing how this trope is often used. Usually (though unlike the Eskimo example) the "alien" culture is presented as lacking in some important concept that "we" cannot imagine missing and still functioning properly.
I think that this illustrates one of the problems of adapting written works to the screen. They really are very different experiences for the audience. Even when an author uses the most objective-seeming viewpoint, there is still more subjectivity in written narrative than there is in a filmed narrative. Or, rather, filmed narratives have a profoundly strong quality of objectivity. (Which, incidentally, makes film so powerful as a means to force people into subjective points-of-view they otherwise wouldn't be able to experience.)
The difficulty inherent in making the transition from page to screen is apparent in all this discussion about the Dothraki scenes. For one thing, as written, the audience is very aware that they are experiencing this through Dany's eyes; whereas on film, we feel we are seeing this exactly as it is, with perhaps only some small subjective emphasis via which particular things we see. Clearly, I think, the writer's intent was to highlight Dothraki "otherness" as experienced by Dany. There's still the same pitfalls there as we're discussing here, but they're easier to avoid or downplay on the page. But, on film, with its stronger sense of objectivity, the audience is encouraged, intentionally or unintentionally, to experience the Dothraki "otherness" both within their own context and with a strong suggestion (simply by virtue of it being filmed) that this "otherness" is an objective fact.
The filmmakers had few or no good choices here in translating this scene to film. Without direct access to Dany's thoughts and feelings--to any character's thoughts and feelings--the primary tool for the filmmaker is what is shown on screen. They wanted to provoke a sense of "otherness" about the Dothraki in the audience...and they correctly, if unfortunately, understood their audience, being what it is and responding to the tropes it's likely to respond to, cast swarthy people as Dothrakis and had them behave in stereotypically savage behavior. Again, much of this is on the page, too. But, as I'm trying to explain, there's a different psychological experience for a reader than a viewer. Readers, in their imaginings, bring to the table their stereotypes and bigotries, but they're still individual and varied. A filmmaker essentially realizes his/her stereotypes and bigotries on the screen, for the audience to experience.
I'm not saying that a writer in Martin's position can't have the same problems and make the same mistakes we're discussing about the episode. Obviously, novels can be very racist and sexist and bigoted. It's just that it's easier for a novelist to examine complex and difficult themes and avoid being racist and sexist and bigoted than it is for a filmmaker to do so. Probably much, much easier. I don't really want to make excuses for the filmmakers. I strongly suspect that they didn't think about these scenes as carefully as they ought to have. But, given that they are following the source material closely, I think that there likely was no way they could have avoided these problems.
By the way, the "there's no word X in language Y" thing is kind of a science-y untrue urban legend. It's in many cases quite literally true that there's no exact match for a word from one language to another. But it's rarely true that the meaning of a word in one language cannot be expressed in another language. And the intended cultural/psychosocial implication of such statements--that culture Z cannot even think about the ideas involved in word X--is pretty close to being never true.
This is such an almost universally believed and beloved wise little notion about differences in languages and culture that I'm sure that many people will immediately want to tell me that I'm flat-out wrong. But this is a persistent misconception among laypeople that linguists repeatedly combat, and you can do web searches (particularly of the linguistics blog "Language Log") to learn more about it. The idea zombies on in our culture largely via the old "Eskimos have a bazillion words for snow" claim. What's interesting about this is that English has a great many words for snow, too; each representing, as is claimed about Eskimo languages, different kinds of snow.
In the context of this discussion, one of the (among many) things which is attractive about this whole notion to people is that it emphasizes the "otherness" of other cultures. "They have no word for thank you!" "They have no word for responsibility!" "They have no word for now!" It's revealing how this trope is used in GoT; and it's revealing how this trope is often used. Usually (though unlike the Eskimo example) the "alien" culture is presented as lacking in some important concept that "we" cannot imagine missing and still functioning properly.
Edited by Unseelie Dan, Apr 19, 2011 @ 10:35 PM.
#27
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 10:33 PM
I don't know quite why, but I wasn't repulsed by the Nomads at all, although obviously they shot it to show Dany's shock. They just didn't seem bad to me, just different in customs, and accoutrements. It just made sense to me that in a culture without walls and doors, sex could evolve into an open activity. Oh, and I guess I just don't view that as bad. The killing felt, if anything, less icky among a group of warriors partying the night away during a big celebration.
The parts that "got" to me the most were things like the deserter being beheaded, and that he would be beheaded no matter what he said, or that he had a very good reason for running. Talk about no power! The charming child being pushed out of the window shocked and disturbed me. Dany's creepy brother, in just about every single way seemed far more evil to me than any of the nomads, and just as misogynistic, more so really, since he sought out the warriors and proposed the marriage.
I dunno, marriage was different then, and thankfully that has changed. People today put a high-value on love, but I have always known that is a relatively new convention, since I love history and anthropology. The idea of a woman saying "no" to consummation of a marriage and bearing children just didn't exist until a relatively short time ago.
The parts that "got" to me the most were things like the deserter being beheaded, and that he would be beheaded no matter what he said, or that he had a very good reason for running. Talk about no power! The charming child being pushed out of the window shocked and disturbed me. Dany's creepy brother, in just about every single way seemed far more evil to me than any of the nomads, and just as misogynistic, more so really, since he sought out the warriors and proposed the marriage.
I dunno, marriage was different then, and thankfully that has changed. People today put a high-value on love, but I have always known that is a relatively new convention, since I love history and anthropology. The idea of a woman saying "no" to consummation of a marriage and bearing children just didn't exist until a relatively short time ago.
#28
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 10:38 PM
The usual argument is that because it's explicitly not our world, an inherent assumption of patriarchy when creating your world is itself sexist. An argument I'm sympathetic to, but with the danger of child birth in pre-modern times I could buy that some form of patriarchy is inevitable.
One should also not assume that just because the particular societies we saw in the first episode are clearly patriarchal, every society in the universe of AGOIAF (or even in Westeros) must be patriarchal.
I would also contend (in the same vein) that if we who have read the books are not allowed to use what we know to defend -- which I agree is the way it should be -- then the converse should also hold: those who have not read the books should not be making broad generalizations about this world based on what was seen in this one episode (e.g., assuming that there is no agented, powerful, complex, respectable character of color to stand as contrast/variety to the female Dothraki dancers).
#29
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 10:47 PM
If anything, this makes it more bothersome to me because there was no reason to do that. They aren't some 'ambiguously brown' group in the books, so the casting director choosing to make them so doesn't actually quell my uneasiness.Central to many viewers' concerns is the depiction of the Dothraki in the first episode, led by Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa, a multiethnic actor.) The producers have chosen to cast the Dothraki using a multiethnic, non-white cast including several black actors. Casting breakdowns for Dothraki extras requested people with "swarthy skin and dark hair..with either a Mediterranean, Hispanic, Mixed Race or Latin look about them." Coupled with set designer Gemma Jackson's decision to hybrid the Dothraki with Mongol and Native American influences, it suggests that the producers are aiming for an Ambiguously Brown group (which could in itself be problematic.)
Which may at least partially be because while the behavior at the wedding in the book was still appalling, it was most memorable for violence.From what I've seen while the split between newbies and book-readers is more even then I implied, it seems to me that barring yourselves, more of people having a problem with the depiction of the Dothraki are new or newer to the fandom.
Also, in the book their descriptions didn't immediately tangle themselves with sensitive histories of racial issues. So it's really a casting issue of the show here.
(On a slightly different note, the marital consummation didn't come off quite as rape-like (though I actually have no issue with the way that the show highlighted the problematic nature of the situation. I don't think it actually substantially changes anything or is even particularly out the arc as a whole). I don't cry foul over it having been portrayed as far more rape-like. The show didn't gloss over problematic issues which were inherent in the situation from the start.)
I find it interesting that this entire thread, and many many pages on the episode thread have been devoted to racism based on a scene that was, what, 5 minutes long? And yes, I could see that people would be disturbed that the first time you see a dark skinned woman is when she's dancing and engaging in wild exhibitionist sex and naked, and the picture of the virginal white girl being forced to have sex by a dark skinned man raises certain visceral reactions
I finished up reading the first book last night (I had tried to finish before the series started but it's over 800 pages long so it took me a couple of weeks) but rape -- gang rape -- isn't an isolated incident and is labeled 'just the Dothraki way.' So, yeah, I considered that to be pretty 'savage'.
The thing is the show could've avoided the racial aspect had they not decided to cast the Dothraki as 'ambiguously brown'. Their description in the book didn't necessitate that. And there's really no reason that Westeros couldn't have non-gang-raping at will brown people in extras roles as it is specifically mentioned that one of the areas of Westeros is predominately black.
It really isn't nearly as much a book-controversy as a HBO pilot one.
Edited by laward, Apr 19, 2011 @ 11:12 PM.
#30
Posted Apr 19, 2011 @ 10:59 PM
One should also not assume that just because the particular societies we saw in the first episode are clearly patriarchal, every society in the universe of AGOIAF (or even in Westeros) must be patriarchal.
I would also contend (in the same vein) that if we who have read the books are not allowed to use what we know to defend -- which I agree is the way it should be -- then the converse should also hold: those who have not read the books should not be making broad generalizations about this world based on what was seen in this one episode (e.g., assuming that there is no agented, powerful, complex, respectable character of color to stand as contrast/variety to the female Dothraki dancers).
I would also contend you shouldn't assume which posters have read the books and which haven't unless previously stated. I've read them (as I had previously stated in this thread, actually), I was making a general statement about an argument relating to the fantasy genre as a whole. That because the world is explicitly not ours that means the developments that led to our general mistreatment of women didn't necessarily occur, so why is your world also patriarchal? Which is an interesting question and can be answered in a variety of ways.
Also, I'm curious which societies in the book you *don't* consider patriarchal? I feel like you could *maybe* make a case for
Dorne? Certainly not the Iron Islands, Wildings, any of the Lords, or anyone Dany interacts with across the Narrow Sea. Dorne is still pretty bad though.
Television Without Pity • © 2013 Bravo Media LLC • A Division of NBCUniversal • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy • AdChoices