George Lucas's take on Disney's direction of the franchise

[Emperordaniel]

I also seem to remember something from when I visited Tatooine in the Old Republic MMO, something about them being descended from Tatooine's original inhabitants who were bombed nearly into oblivion by the Rakata, largely glassing the planet's surface and turning it into the desert planet we all know. It also mentioned that they occasionally "adopted" kids of the settlers they killed in raids, bringing them up as part of the tribe before banishing them back to their own kind when the kids grew up.

[hamishspence]

It also mentioned that they occasionally "adopted" kids of the settlers they killed in raids, bringing them up as part of the tribe before banishing them back to their own kind when the kids grew up.

In the PT era there's the same adoptees- but no mention of them being returned to their own kind.

A'Sharad Hett in the comics, was the son of a Jedi who'd voluntarily joined the Tuskens, and an adoptee.

Tahiri Veila of Junior Jedi Knights, the NJO, and the post-NJO, was adopted by a tribe after her parents were killed- in this case, not maliciously - the tribe saw one of their members sparring with her father:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tryst_Veila

mistook it for a real fight, and came to that Tusken's rescue.

She was later identified as Force-sensitive, and handed over to the Jedi identifying her.

[warty goblin]

The thing is, a lot of people in the audience DID care. It caused a disconnect with them and made them see Anakin as a depraved monster who'd already completely fallen in their eyes. They saw him as already completely Dark Side; accepting that it was only a 'stepping stone' was too hard for many to swallow, and that he was still a Jedi after something like that was even harder still to believe. Because to a lot of people, it doesn't matter what race they were--killing children and other innocents isn't okay.

I think that's actually a pretty sensible way to read Episode II and III; that Anakin basically fell when he killed the sand people and it just took a couple of years for everybody to notice. It's not even clear one way or the other whether the Jedi knew what he had done, so given the exigences of the war, their clouded vision, and the fact he wasn't going around murdering kids on film, that he was pretty Dark sidey could just have been missed.

On the other hand, everybody seems to buy his redemption at the end of Return of the Jedi, which is kinda weird given that next to blowing up a planet, massacring one village is barely even rounding error, and saving one guy - no matter the blood relation - should be irrelevant. Really, all it points to is that one should not threaten or cause damage to family members of Anakin Skywalker, because he will kill those people, and the people in their general vicinity and apparently feel pretty good about it.

[hamishspence]

Shortly after the PT came out, junior novelizations of the OT were released.

The relevant scene in RoTJ one:

"Now, young Skywalker..." the Emperor snarled, "you will die."
Luke had not imagined pain beyond what he had already suffered, but then he was hit by a wave of power that was even more staggering. His harsh screams echoed across the throne room.
Beside the Emperor, Darth Vader continued to stand and watch. He looked to the Emperor again, then back to Luke.
And then, in a moment, something changed. Perhaps he remembered something heard in his youth a long time ago: an ancient prophesy of the Chosen One who would bring balance to the Force. Perhaps the vague outlines of someone named Shmi and a Jedi named Qui-Gon struggled to the surface of his consciousness. The most powerful, the most repressed thought of all could have emerged from the darkness: Padmé … and her undying love for someone he once knew well. And despite all the terrible, unspeakable things he'd done in his life, he suddenly realized he could not stand by and allow the Emperor to kill their son. And in that moment, he was no longer Darth Vader.
He was Anakin Skywalker.
He grabbed the Emperor from behind. The impossibly wretched Sith Lord gaped and squirmed in his embrace, continuing to release blue lightning, but the bolts veered away from Luke and arced back to strike the Sith Lords.

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah. It's not so much that Anakin fell because he slaughtered the sandpeople, as that Anakin slaughtered the sandpeople because he had fallen; they weren't sentient creatures in his eyes anymore, but inferior vermin to be exterminated. Anakin wasn't redeemed in RotJ by mathematics of 'lives saved vs. lives taken', but by his feelings and intentions; his love for Luke was strong enough to shatter the hold the Dark Side had established on him.

Not that SW canon has ever been consistent on this, so it's open for interpretation.

[BlueHerring]

As for how the current relationship between humans and sandpeople came to be, I have no idea. (I'm not sure if the EU ever had anything to say about it. Anybody better versed in that than me? And yes, I know that EU is no longer canon thanks to Disney, and I'd be surprised if any of the new canon has anything about the sandpeople at all at this point, but at the time the movie was made, it would have been valid supplemental material that could affect how the audience perceived that scene, so it's arguably relevant.) I don't know who started it or why, but I could pretty easily see a situation where the sandpeople (along with jawas?) were the native dominant lifeform and culture on Tatooine, and they were "invaded" by off-world settlers--including humans--and pushed to the fringes, launching a guerrilla war against the settlers. It's worth noting that we only ever see the sandpeople through the lens of humans--and that those same humans see them as savages.

In KOTOR, which is no longer canon, they were enslaved by the Infinite Empire during their expansionist period. When that collapsed thanks to the Star Forge, the Sand People mostly returned to their way of life. Then corporations like Czerka try to establish a foothold on Tatooine because evil corps are evil, and the Sand People are aggressive because it's their land.

It's all there in the game if you bother to go and talk through the entire Tusken enclave with HK-47.

[Jayngfet]

I also seem to remember something from when I visited Tatooine in the Old Republic MMO, something about them being descended from Tatooine's original inhabitants who were bombed nearly into oblivion by the Rakata, largely glassing the planet's surface and turning it into the desert planet we all know. It also mentioned that they occasionally "adopted" kids of the settlers they killed in raids, bringing them up as part of the tribe before banishing them back to their own kind when the kids grew up.

If EU counts then literally every group of bad guys will kidnap and indoctrinate children after murdering their families. Mandalorians do it, Dark Siders do it, hell, where do you think Vader himself gets whatever secret apprentice he's on this week? Kidnapping children isn't exactly a key factor of redemption.

And if we bring KOTOR era stuff into it lets not forget what we learned from the original game: The Sand People, no matter what you give them or what concessions you make, will literally never stop hurting people. They just outright refuse to and nothing you or anyone else can do, no matter how much of a light side goodie goodie you are of how awesome a negotiator you happen to be.

I mean to be honest, that's half the reason I don't really condemn Anakin: Any reasonable gamer has had to make the exact same call based on the simple fact that leaving them alive just means more innocent people get tortured to death.

And getting bombed by the Rakata or being influenced by their dark side machinations is still no excuse. Twi'leks live in an even more extreme hell hole built by them and are at worst occasional gangsters. Wookiees had their entire world screwed over just as bad, and I don't recall Chewbacca deciding that kidnapping children and torturing mothers was acceptable.

I mean hell, lets not forget the ultimate counterpoint: The ultimate end result of these Tuscan raised humans wasn't a great leader or a scientist who cured space cancer, it was a despotic Dark Lord of the Sith who killed more people than Darth Vader ever did, and the only reason he got that far was because both Obi-Wan and Luke both had him dead to rights and wouldn't kill him when they should have.

[Reddish Mage]

Yeah. It's not so much that Anakin fell because he slaughtered the sandpeople, as that Anakin slaughtered the sandpeople because he had fallen; they weren't sentient creatures in his eyes anymore, but inferior vermin to be exterminated. Anakin wasn't redeemed in RotJ by mathematics of 'lives saved vs. lives taken', but by his feelings and intentions; his love for Luke was strong enough to shatter the hold the Dark Side had established on him.

Not that SW canon has ever been consistent on this, so it's open for interpretation.

I think the moral calculus goes "one supremely evil emperor" + "sacrificing ones' own life" = redemption for all previous sins.

Anakin's redemption at the end is pretty clear when he's standing beside Obi-Wan and Yoda in the end joyously looking on the victory celebrations (Darth Vader's cremation included).

You don't have to agree but I think it's pretty clear what George Lucas is wrote, produced and occasionally directed.

EU KOTOR stuff about the vicious Sandpeople

Whether Sandpeople have a barbaric culture that encourages violence and torture of outsiders is not an issue, nor is the role they play in the Star Wars universe. KOTOR itself, Star Wars generally, and a ton of others make the point: killing innocent noncombatants, women and children is NOT OK and shouldn't even be a part of the discussion.

We are just debating how bad Anakin's failing is in Episode II, that it is a failure is not up for debate.

[MLai]

Nobody cares about Tuscan deaths because they're an entire species known for being cowardly thugs who shoot at passing cars and torture people to death. Anakin was responsible for his own actions but so are they. The only separating Vader from Random Tuscan .58 is that Vader can do it on a larger scale.

If the sand people don't want to be thought of as savages, they should stop acting like savages.

Wow, you really went there. I'm not trying to inflame by twisting words, because I think you're being pretty clear.

I think the mistake you're making is that you're seeing this through the eyes of a gamer and a Star Wars nerd, forgetting that the story you're analyzing is written by someone who has a penchant for casual racism borne out of lifelong privilege and just general literary quackery.

Instead, look at it through the lens others are looking through: Art as a reflection of life. If you replace the word "Tuscan" with any real-world human subgroup name, you should quickly see your mistake.

And yes, I understand that Tuscans are aliens and can conceivably be "born irredeemable" like LOTR orcs. But again, art as reflection of life. Also, orcs have an excuse because they're basically genetically engineered by a supervillain to be irredeemable. We've never been told that Tuscans are not natural life shaped by the same evolutionary principles which shaped all sentience.

[Jayngfet]

Wow, you really went there. I'm not trying to inflame by twisting words, because I think you're being pretty clear.

I think the mistake you're making is that you're seeing this through the eyes of a gamer and a Star Wars nerd, forgetting that the story you're analyzing is written by someone who has a penchant for casual racism borne out of lifelong privilege and just general literary quackery.

Hey, I'm just playing by the rules the setting made.

If the problem is "This person has targeted their family. They will never, ever stop hurting people. They have never, ever stopped hurting people. They cannot be appeased or reasoned with." The solution becomes to remove that person from the equation.

As for George Lucas being some kind of racist, I've never really found any truth in that argument. I mean for gods sake the man co-directed a film about the Tuskeegee Airmen and the worst thing anyone can say about his actions is "a character in this film has an accent, if you squint hard enough". Hell, pretty much every and any EU writer since then had a chance to portray the Tuscans as anything but violent monsters but they never do, and that's not just because of the films, since a large number of aliens seen in the films are shown to be wildly different on average from what one would expect.

So yeah. For your argument to have any merit whatsoever, we'd need to assume George Lucas is a hideous racist despite any and all evidence to the contrary, and that literally everyone else who's ever worked on a Star Wars movie is just as racist.

Whether Sandpeople have a barbaric culture that encourages violence and torture of outsiders is not an issue, nor is the role they play in the Star Wars universe. KOTOR itself, Star Wars generally, and a ton of others make the point: killing innocent noncombatants, women and children is NOT OK and shouldn't even be a part of the discussion.

We are just debating how bad Anakin's failing is in Episode II, that it is a failure is not up for debate.

Anakins romance in episode 2 was godawful. Lucas's directing was abysmal since everyone involved could act way better than they did(but being a bad director doesn't make you a racist) I won't downplay his fall though. Anakins fall was always about going from a jedi knight to a murdering lord of darkness. If you don't show that transition with high enough stakes it invalidates the entire original trilogy's worth of Vaders actions.

[Reddish Mage]

Um...okayyy so massacring people in the Prequels is perfectly appropriate for future Darth Vader...and I'm not sure if you mean you like the sandpeople scene or whatever.

My point was that YOUR claim amounts to Anakin did right by killing Sandpeople babies and that's heinous.

I don't see how someone can fail to see the racial overtones present in a massacre of a dehumanized race of identical-looking grunters, and using it as a throw-away mid-movie scene is all kinds of wrong.

However, your perfectly entitled to make the point that it's a good concept...just not by justifying killing babies.

[Jayngfet]

My point was that YOUR claim amounts to Anakin did right by killing Sandpeople babies and that's heinous.

Anakin did what a large number of people would do. That doesn't make it right. But it does make it understandable in context.

I mean lets think for a moment what literally anyone's response would be.

"Anakin, you shouldn't have killed the people who slaughtered my wife and friends."

"Anakin, what you did was wrong. Wait, what do you MEAN about us leaving her to die in the desert with no intention of saving her?"

The situation played out exactly as it should have. Anakin crossed a line, but in such a way nobody could call him on it. Because the only reason the situation even existed was because regular people couldn't do what the jedi didn't want to. Which is, going forward, Anakins motivation for going to the dark side.

The fact that the Tuscans are never shown with any redeemable qualities, and the fact that even EU material shows that even the most stringent Jedi who wants peace can still kill them by the score without issue, just gives the situation what it needs to be worked properly. Because if Tuscans were running a kitten charity, it never came up onscreen. As opposed to "if you leave your house at night, you will be taken and tortured to death".

I mean if we stop assuming the Tuscan Raiders are a stand in for generic brown people, lets throw the same thing into a different historical context. Vikings have taken your mother and she is dead. No matter what you say or do, they will kidnap, kill, and hurt many more for centuries to come. In an academic context yes, maybe the Norse aren't all bad, and maybe in a few centuries they'll stop, but if you're right there in the thick of things you can't really reason with them to not go around killing people. Which is why Charlimagne gets to be remembered a hero despite doing some pretty bad things himself.

[LokeyITP]

If someone wants to defend Red Tails about anything, go ahead and try. Just don't forget the much better film and tv movies like Lucas did in the publicity tour.

I forget what the Tuscans did in ep 4, that's probably important to discussion (of course it's not important to Lucas). It's really hard to say because everything else is so stupid anyway. Did the people that hop in a ship and go anywhere at the drop of a hat really forget about Shmi for 10 years?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Well, it's either that or they deliberately ignored her. Either way, they aren't people I want to be cheering for.

Also, I'm appreciating the irony of people claiming there's no real world bigotry involved, while continually referring to the Tusken Raiders by the name of a region in Italy.

[Jayngfet]

If someone wants to defend Red Tails about anything, go ahead and try. Just don't forget the much better film and tv movies like Lucas did in the publicity tour.

Like I said, being a good director and being racist are two different categories.

I forget what the Tuscans did in ep 4, that's probably important to discussion (of course it's not important to Lucas). It's really hard to say because everything else is so stupid anyway. Did the people that hop in a ship and go anywhere at the drop of a hat really forget about Shmi for 10 years?

In ep 4 the Tuscans attacked Luke mostly for the sake of it, and tried to loot his things after. They didn't want anything he had and had him dead to rights but they were going to go in for the kill anyway. When the imperials killed the Jawas they also tried to frame it on Tuscans as something they convincingly do, with the implication that Tuscans attack Jawas as well with some regularity.

According to Obi-Wan, the Tuscan Raiders generally seem to just attack wandering people for sport then flee if there's any resistance. Which is in line with how they attacked in episode one(trying to take potshots at unarmed civilians for sport), so by the time they take Shimi it's well established that they're a bunch of violent marauders who attack for sport more than need.

As for them just leaving and forgetting about her: Yep, that seems to be exactly what happened, and the Jedi's way of doing things. Some supplimentary material shows they may sometimes help if a padawan has a vision like that, but in the specific case I'm referencing(involving Zett Jukassa) they lied about it to him every step of the way and did it in the most roundabout way possible. Even then that Padawan's parents were still brutally murdered and the council didn't do anything until it was too late.

So yeah, the jedi don't give two squats about people in danger half the time. Their vows are more important than human lives and this is basically demonstrable every time we see a jedi who isn't considered some kind of maverick.

Well, it's either that or they deliberately ignored her. Either way, they aren't people I want to be cheering for.

Also, I'm appreciating the irony of people claiming there's no real world bigotry involved, while continually referring to the Tusken Raiders by the name of a region in Italy.

...so that's the secret. This entire time I've been racist against the Italians and I didn't even realize it. Thank you Rogar Demonblud, without you I never would have realized my own bigorty!

[Scowling Dragon]

Wait the Sand People had something to do with Italy?

I don't buy it. I mean, I don't see ONE moustache or plate of Spaghetti! And did I ever hear the Sand People say "Mamma Mia"? I think not!

[MLai]

Hey, I'm just playing by the rules the setting made.

Nobody said we can't. Just like I can acknowledge that LOTR orcs are irredeemable and can be exterminated. But I do so with an awareness of how the meta is troubling IRL, and being better at self-critique (not that hard, comparing myself to someone like Lucas) I would never commit such an error.

I thought you had made a simple mistake, but now it seems you're defending that lack of awareness.

As for George Lucas being some kind of racist, I've never really found any truth in that argument. I mean for gods sake the man co-directed a film about the Tuskeegee Airmen and the worst thing anyone can say about his actions is "a character in this film has an accent, if you squint hard enough".

Being ignorant of racism due to privilege, is not the same as being maliciously racist. That's what I meant by "casual racism." Maybe there's a specific term for it. So yes, even someone who decided he wants to make a film praising certain black accomplishments, can still be ignorant enough to casually demean minorities, or be on the wrong side of trending issues regarding racism.

And you don't have to squint at all to see and hear the racist characters in the Prequels. You may not have noticed it. But the thing is, the minorities who are caricatured do notice it.

"I'm race X, and I totally don't see how this character cartoonishly demeans race Y" is a statement of ignorance born of X privilege.

*Ignorance is a neutral word, btw.

[huttj509]

Wait the Sand People had something to do with Italy?

I don't buy it. I mean, I don't see ONE moustache or plate of Spaghetti! And did I ever hear the Sand People say "Mamma Mia"? I think not!

Misspelling Tusken as Tuscan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuscan

[hamishspence]

And you don't have to squint at all to see and hear the racist characters in the Prequels. You may not have noticed it. But the thing is, the minorities who are caricatured do notice it.

"I'm race X, and I totally don't see how this character cartoonishly demeans race Y" is a statement of ignorance born of X privilege.

*Ignorance is a neutral word, btw.

There was an essay on stardestroyer.net, from someone of the "caricatured minorities" (Racism in Star Trek & Star Wars" which argued that Neimoidians and Gungans don't qualify - and that plenty of Federation characters, even sympathetic ones like Picard and Sisko, do make very racist statements by contrast.


Given SD.net's tendency to be mildly NSFW due to language, I'm not going to link direct to it - but you can search for it if you want to using that name in search terms.

[MLai]

There was an essay on stardestroyer.net, from someone of the "caricatured minorities" (Racism in Star Trek & Star Wars" which argued that Neimoidians and Gungans don't qualify - and that plenty of Federation characters, even sympathetic ones like Picard and Sisko, do make very racist statements by contrast.

The fact that the author belongs to a minority means almost nothing, as it's simply an Argument From Authority fallacy.
And I'm not a Star Trek nerd just as I'm not a SW nerd, so I don't see the point of turning this into a Lucas vs Roddenberry.
Can you give a summary of how the Neimos and Gungs don't qualify?

[Lettuce]

Thanks for the EU references, guys! And apologies if I've misunderstood or misinterpreted anything as I try to pull together some observations and conclusions.

Just a thought--the reason that the sandpeople might 'not be willing to compromise' in KotOR is that there's no way to offer them what they actually want. And given what other people in this thread have said about their history as outlined in the EU, what they might actually want is for all of the other lifeforms who migrated to Tatooine to simply leave. They want their land back. They don't feel the occupation of of the settlers is legitimate. Anything short of all the invaders leaving isn't an acceptable deal because it doesn't meet their needs. (I have no idea what you CAN offer them, mind you--I haven't played through KotOR--but given that you say that they'll keep hurting people when they can, I'm assuming that getting the settlers to leave isn't an option.)

Again, I'm not saying this justifies the killing and torturing that at least some of them do. It doesn't. Not to mention that the logistics of relocating so many settlers would be a nightmare, and from a moral standpoint, given how long they've occupied Tatooine--I'm getting the sense that it's at the least many generations, from the comments others have made--the settlers are basically natives themselves at this point, and uprooting them would be equally unfair. I'm only saying that the sandpeople probably don't see it that way; for them it quite possibly boils down to a viewpoint that all settlers are enemy combatants. Given that there were past invasions and apparently terraforming-level bombing, I imagine that without a common tongue and with very little incentive to interact peacefully, the sandpeople might not know the difference of the various civilizations that have come to Tatooine--they're all just aliens trying to take their land from them. If the settlers don't want to be treated as enemies, then they shouldn't be in a warzone. And while the invaders have superior technology and attacks on their fortifications would surely fail, if they have the chance, they should take the opportunity to take out any targets they can.

And if the sandpeople's policy of killing, kidnapping, and/or torturing innocent children and noncombatants is wrong--which it is--then so is Anakin's policy of slaughtering innocents and noncombatants.

Irregardless, I don't think it's reasonable to hold the sandpeople to the same standard as one would a Jedi.

[MLai]

And if the sandpeople's policy of killing, kidnapping, and/or torturing innocent children and noncombatants is wrong--which it is--then so is Anakin's policy of slaughtering innocents and noncombatants.

Yes, the sandppl's ways are barbaric and wrong, but it's their planet. The cycle of violence is only present because of the Republic's aggressive colonization without the input of indigenous peoples. When you have no Prime Directive and you push lesser civilizations around via gunboats and boomsticks, your civilians reap what your policies sow.

It's never as simple as "These brown savages are all evil and irredeemable." That's how it's presented in a simplistic fairy tale written by Lucas, but we as readers should not just internalize it without awareness.

So yes, Anakin is wrong.

[hamishspence]

The fact that the author belongs to a minority means almost nothing, as it's simply an Argument From Authority fallacy.

It's more a counter to "members of the caricatured minorities notice it" - with the author being Asian and disagreeing with "Neimoidians are an Asian caricature".

Can you give a summary of how the Neimos and Gungs don't qualify?

The key points:

Spoiler

Show

The Definition of Racism

What is racism? If we simply examine the structure of the word, it would appear obvious that the word "racism" should be interpreted just like all of the other "isms". Just as humanism upholds the importance of human rights, nationalism upholds the importance of national differences, and theism upholds the importance of divine beings, racism upholds the importance of race.

Does race matter? In an ideal world, it wouldn't. The fact that I am of Asian descent shouldn't mean anything to anyone, on any grounds, except as a point of purely academic trivia. But that's an ideal world. In the real world, have we been moving toward this ideal, or away from it? Does the "political correctness" movement help, or hurt?

....


The television is awash in documentaries and soundbites about "black culture" or "asian culture" or "latino culture", and people proudly demonstrate their "racial sensitivity" by "respecting" these various "cultures." What a crock ... this show of "respect" is completely racist, no matter what the politically correct brigade may say. To even describe something called "asian culture" is to subtly make two claims:

All people descended from Asian immigrants act the same.
People of Asian descent have different cultural values than "we" do.

Star Wars

There is a quiet movement afoot to brand George Lucas a racist because of "racist" stereotypes that are supposedly found in TPM. The people leading this movement may feel that it's a huge burning issue, but I find it amusing that in spite of their aggressive publicity, most ordinary people have never given the idea a second thought. If they've heard of it at all, the average person has dismissed it immediately as a joke.

What is this "controversy"? It basically centres on two alien species in TPM: The Neimoidians and the Gungans. The same argument has been made in dozens of entertainment industry articles with virtually no variation, so I will paraphrase the argument here rather than quoting one of the articles verbatim:

If you watch TPM, you can clearly hear that the Jar-Jar Binks character (and for that matter, the entire Gungan species) speaks with a Caribbean accent, in an obvious 18th century slave dialect. It isn't just him- the entire Gungan species speaks this same broken dialect. The broken dialect suggests to the viewer that the entire Gungan race is under-educated, and the imagery of them living in the sea, beneath the land-dwelling, well-educated Naboo people is so racist that it is unbearable. The Gungans (blacks) are uneducated and live in the dark depths, while the Naboo people (whites) are highly educated artisans who live in beautiful cities in the sun. The characteristically lackadaisical gait and floppy ears of the Gungans merely reinforce the stereotype. It doesn't really matter whether this horrific imagery is deliberate or intentional- the point is that it exists, and George Lucas should be ashamed.

The Gungans aren't the only racist stereotype in TPM- the Neimoidians are even worse! Start with the accent- they all speak in an obviously Asian-accented broken dialect which sounds like Charlie Chan, in a not-so-nice homage to the common "Yellow Menace" motif of the 1930's era serials from which George Lucas drew his inspiration. But the stereotype doesn't stop there- look at their appearance and behaviour. With their slitted eyes, flat faces, duplicitous nature, and economic aggression, they are clearly meant to represent one of the big Japanese corporations- is it Toyota? Sony? Toshiba? Does it really matter which corporation it is? The point is that TPM promoted horrifically racist stereotypes of Asian-Americans. What kind of message does this send to our children? It teaches them that these slit-eyed, heavily accented, deceitful business thugs represent Asians- how much more harmful could a stereotype get?


I'll start with the second "stereotype", since my racial background gives me an unusual perspective on this issue. First, I would like to ask you, the reader, the question: did you see the Neimoidians as Asian? If you did, then I think you need to ask yourself some hard questions regarding your own racism. Frankly, the instant I hear a white person telling me that my race is being insulted in TPM, I get pretty damned suspicious. Wouldn't I have noticed such an insult if it were there? I am not known for blithely ignoring racial attacks upon myself. Why then, did I fail to see that the Neimoidians were an "obvious" Asian stereotype? Why did I need a white person to explain the insult to me?

The answer is simple: I didn't see the Neimoidians as an Asian stereotype because they bear no resemblance whatsoever to Asians. Let's examine all of the imaginary Asian stereotypes in the Neimoidian species:

Accent: They claim the Neimoidians have an Asian accent. Well, many of my relatives come from Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc., and none of them sound remotely like the Neimoidians. In my opinion, the Neimoidians have a bizarre accent but it is not Asian. But what would I know about Asian accents- I'm just the son of Asian immigrants, and not a white Hollywood film critic.
Appearance: My eyes aren't "slitted". My children's eyes aren't "slitted." My parents' eyes aren't "slitted." Asian eyes do not bear signs of reptilian horizontal "slits"- our pupils are round just like everyone else's. And the last time I checked, I do in fact possess a nose, as do all of my relatives. We Asians are not flat-faced, slit-eyed freaks! If you think that we are, and that the Neimoidians therefore represent us, then you are a racist.
Behaviour: Frankly, I find it utterly abominable that anyone would even think of associating the Neimoidians behaviour with Asians. Are we to believe that any time we see a duplicitous alien species, it must represent Asians? Are we to believe that any time we see economic aggressors, they must be Asians? Anyone who instinctively associates duplicitous and economically aggressive behaviour with Asians is a racist, just as bad as the sort of scum who thinks that we're all slit-eyed freaks.

As for the Gungans supposedly being a "black stereotype", I can only speak for myself as a human being, and not as a member of the race which is supposedly being slighted (although my informed perspective on the supposedly Asian stereotype of the Neimoidians leaves me doubtful of the anti-Gungan allegations, to say the least). But I will point out the following:

Accent: I have only known a half-dozen people in my life who grew up in the Caribbean, but none of those people sounded like Jar-Jar Binks to me. The young actor who portrayed Jar-Jar Binks happened to be from the Caribbean- are the thought police using this fact in their allegations? From the Salem witch-hunt style of their attacks, I wouldn't be surprised.
Dialect: I have never met a black person who spoke in Jar-Jar's dialect. I don't understand where this stereotype comes from- if it exists, I can only assume that it comes from a very obscure source. If people have to explain the Stepin' Fetchit stereotype (and to be honest, I'm still not sure who Stepin' Fetchit is, or what obscure piece of literature he came from), then is it really a stereotype? How can a stereotype be a stereotype if no one knows about it?
Education: I don't know whether the Gungans are meant to be uneducated, or whether their native language is simply such that it affects the way in which they tend to speak Basic (the fictional language of the Star Wars universe). Frankly, the former sounds implausible to me, but regardless, the entire education angle is yet another product of racism. If you instinctively associate poor education levels with black people, then what does this reveal about you?
Gait: I had no idea that the Gungans walked like black people until I read one of those articles "explaining" the resemblance. This may sound like I'm beating a dead horse, but if someone has to explain to you that the resemblance exists, then maybe it doesn't exist. In my experience, black people don't walk any more "lackadaisically" than anyone else. I don't wish to be presumptuous in speaking on behalf of another visible minority, but I can only imagine that if I were a black person, I would be rather offended at the notion that lackadaisical movement is an intrinsic characteristic of black people.
Floppy ears: It is a testament to the rabid intensity of the politically correct thought police that they would somehow find a way of making Jar-Jar's floppy creature ears into a stereotype of black people (by associating them with a certain Caribbean hairstyle). How ridiculous is this? Shall we institute a moratorium on all floppy-eared children's toys? From the sounds of it, there are an awful lot of stuffed animals and children's toys out there which have now become "racist."
Ahmed Best: The young black actor who played Jar-Jar Binks is in the uncomfortable position of defending his portrayal against politically correct thought police who claim that he portrayed a racist stereotype directed against his own race. He claims that he was given wide latitude to control the character's physical mannerisms and speech patterns- his detractors retort that he is simply spouting the Lucasfilm party line and lying to everyone. Supposedly, he's part of a widespread conspiracy ... yeah, sure.

This manufactured "controversy" is based not on an attempt to combat racial stereotypes, but rather, on a wholesale surrender to those racial stereotypes. Think about it- one has to accept these stereotypes in order to see the resemblance!

Some racists believe that all black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid, and slovenly. Some racists believe that Asians are flat-faced, slit-eyed, dishonest economic predators. What have the politically correct thought police done here? They have taken these stereotypes, accepted them, and then used this acceptance to declare that the reverse connection is true! If black people are illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly, then an illiterate, lazy, stupid and slovenly sci-fi creature must therefore be a black person! If Asians are flat-faced, slit-eyed business predators, then a flat-faced, slit-eyed business predator sci-fi creature must therefore be an Asian! TPM doesn't offend me- these critics offend me.

If someone portrays an Asian human being or a black human being in a negative light, then that might be offensive, depending on how it is handled. But when someone makes a fictional creature which is totally non-human in appearance, and someone decides to anthropomorphise its physical and behavioural characteristics in order to associate it with a particular human race, then he or she is simply demonstrating acceptance and reversal of the very racial stereotypes that he or she is supposedly trying to fight.

I recently saw a comedian on television who was joking about this very issue. He said that Jar-Jar Binks was obviously a terrible racial stereotype directed at Jamaicans, but he was curious as to why Germans had never complained about the robots, or why Italians never complained about Chewbacca. He got a big laugh, but he subtly made the same point I'm trying to make: such tenuous reverse racial associations reveal more about your own racism than they do about the subject matter.

[MLai]

It's more a counter to "members of the caricatured minorities notice it" - with the author being Asian and disagreeing with "Neimoidians are an Asian caricature".

Oh, I didn't realize the Neimos are those trade guild bureaucrats. In which case I agree: They do not seem Asian at all. I thought their whispery accents were supposed to ape Protoss.

When I speak of stereotypes in the Prequels, I'm actually talking about Jar Jar, and that junk salesman who owned Anakin. Those 2 were obvious Jamaican and Jewish stereotypes.

As for this author who couldn't tell Jar Jar is a blackface stereotype? He's ignorant, which black historians would not be. Jar Jar's droopy clothing and gait clearly mirror this type of cartoon character:

Spoiler: Large pic.

Show

[hamishspence]

It may be a case of :

"Jar Jar was based on Goofy from Disney" (which, in early iterations, came across as "cartoon version of blackface")

[The Glyphstone]

For that matter, I think the essay writer sort of misses the point even in his 'defense' of the Nemoidians. He says they're not racist in being slit-eyed because real Asians are not slit-eyed...of course not. But racist caricatures of Asians used to be slit/slant-eyed, and by making the Nemoidians share that trait, it reminded people of the aforementioned caricatures and seemed to be a continuation of such. Similarly, their accents are not reminiscent of any actual Eastern accent, but are reminiscent of racist portrayals of actual Eastern accents.

He even addresses these' claims' before refuting them, so I'm not sure if it is deliberately ignoring the argument via Appeal To Authority, or something else.

[Kitten Champion]

I was never up-in-arms about the racist caricatures because they hearkened back to Star War's foundation of old-fashion serial adventure stories and comics like Flash Gordon -- and the same with Indiana Jones.

They were created in that period, where things like Ming the Merciless were a thing.

[McStabbington]

For that matter, I think the essay writer sort of misses the point even in his 'defense' of the Nemoidians. He says they're not racist in being slit-eyed because real Asians are not slit-eyed...of course not. But racist caricatures of Asians used to be slit/slant-eyed, and by making the Nemoidians share that trait, it reminded people of the aforementioned caricatures and seemed to be a continuation of such. Similarly, their accents are not reminiscent of any actual Eastern accent, but are reminiscent of racist portrayals of actual Eastern accents.

He even addresses these' claims' before refuting them, so I'm not sure if it is deliberately ignoring the argument via Appeal To Authority, or something else.

I think more than anything he just really wants for Star Wars not to be bad, and racism is bad, and via the associative property, that makes Star Wars bad. Posters at Stardestroyer.net kind of self-select not to accept that last part as true under any circumstances, so it's more a conclusion in search of an argument than anything else. Suffice to say, however, that you are exactly right: racism isn't about how Asian-Americans or African-Americans actually act or who they are; neither Stepin Fetchit nor Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's were intended to accurately document their subjects. It's about how those marginalized groups are represented to the people buying the tickets, and the fact that those representations are all about presenting those groups as inferior and that this inferiority is the punchline of the joke. And it's really hard to look at Jar Jar Binks and not come to the conclusion that "Oh, Jar Jar, you are the Gilligan of your time!" is not the punchline of . . . just about everything he does.

But like I said upthread, I don't know that you need to go so far as to impute any outright malevolent intentions to Lucas to read him. I think it's enough to note that he unabashedly adores a lot of the media he grew up with, which hey fair enough, but he's also not terribly introspective and kind of tone-deaf, so he really doesn't distinguish the media he loved growing up that still works from the media that you would really, really need to tread carefully with. So he'll legitimately try to make a Goofy reference, and then be utterly bewildered by cries of "Racist!" because he never once stepped back and realized that the very earliest incarnations of Goofy was only separated from Stepin Fetchit by the fact that his signature line of surprise ("Gosh!") and Goofy holler ("ah-hyuck!") were explicitly patterned off of the language of poor white Southerners, and that this is distinction is completely eliminated when you take those same mannerisms and pair them with an obviously Caribbean accent. George, absent any help or people to kind of reign him in, is pretty much exactly the guy I'd expect to make "Springtime for Hitler" as a sincere, earnest musical about how life in the Third Reich sometimes offered moments of warmth and love. It's not malevolence; it's just he really might not see what could be problematic about pure unabashed storytelling.

[Jayngfet]

You know, in all this talk of minorities being abused did any of you Geniuses think to ask the minorities in question?

I mean I'm just saying the idea of Jar Jar being racist is stupid as hell when I, the person of that race and ethnic origin am currently telling you you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hell last I checked Scowling Dragon up there was also one of those poor impressed minorities Lucas MUST have offended with his accents and costume and I don't see him riding the offense train either.

[Bulldog Psion]

Also, I'm appreciating the irony of people claiming there's no real world bigotry involved, while continually referring to the Tusken Raiders by the name of a region in Italy.

Well, I don't think that people are associating them with Italians. I think that people are incredibly bad spellers who constantly mix up similar words.

A lot of people refer to Elan's dad "Tarquin" as "Tarkin;" by that logic, they must be bigoted against Grand Moffs.

A lot of people misspell "rogue" as "rouge" in MMO chat; by that logic, they must be bigoted against cosmetics.

A lot of people everywhere online write "a knight in shining armor" as a "knight in shinning armor;" by a similar logical process, they must be biased in favor of tibias.

If there's an irony here ... it's not quite the one you're describing.