Search Box

Monday, April 22, 2013

Ethnic cleansing in the land of Oz

Last week I saw Oz the Great and Powerful. It had little of the charm of the original, and seemed to be aimed primarily at kids.

That aside, what I was really struck by were the racial dynamics of the casting. Roughly ten percent of the Munchkins and Tinkers were black, yet there was not a single Asian or Hispanic in sight. Hollywood is obviously uncomfortable excluding blacks, yet they seem to feel perfectly comfortable excluding Asians and Latinos. What gives?

Even worse, this movie was supposed to be a prequel to The Wizard of Oz. Yet by the time Dorothy landed in Oz, there was not a black to be seen. What had happened in the intervening years? Had the white Munchkins simply killed all of the black ones? They certainly showed no signs of their intentions in Oz the Great and Powerful, even going so far as to appoint a black man as chief tinker, a position requiring great mechanical ingenuity.

I would never have guessed that the Lollipop Kids were white supremacists, but it does appear that way. (Were the Scarecrow and the Tin Man guilty as well? Perhaps Oz himself played the role of Hitler.) Somebody should investigate.

Another interesting aspect of the movie was that all of the white residents of Oz looked like cornfed Anglos straight from the 1943 cast of Oklahoma! And the good witch was played by Michelle Williams, a blonde Anglo of part Norwegian descent:

Yet the wicked witches were played by Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis, both of whom are of Jewish descent:

Was there a message being conveyed there? Are the folks who run Hollywood really that anti-Semitic?

I must confess myself greatly confused.


Anonymous said...

"What had happened in the intervening years?"
They turned into flying monkeys.
(I'll show myself out)

John Craig said...

Anon --
You were wise to remain anonymous with that comment.

bluffcreek1967 said...

The Chief Tinker was probably their equivalent of black actor, Morgan Freeman, who's seemingly in almost every film these days. He always portrays the wise black man whom whites look up to in awe and totally dependent upon.

As I'm sure you're quite aware, blacks are almost always portrayed in TV and the movies as smarter and more advanced than they are in real life. TV commercials, especially, make blacks appear calm, intelligent and somewhat low-keyed than they are in reality, while white men are portrayed as feminine, somewhat goofy and awkward, and completely intimidated by women.

John Craig said...

Ambrose --
Yes, I'm well aware of that; I think the quintessential Morgan Freeman role was when he played God.

The thing is, I meet black people all the time whom I like, on a personal basis. I always know that deep down, their loyalties will be different from mine, but if they are polite and congenial, I like them. What I resent is the constant hypocrisy from the media, and from political spokespeople. Any sort of honesty about racial differences is looked upon as blasphemy, and there is a huge double standard about what sorts of criticism and loyalties are allowed by different groups. I think that it's that double standard which causes resentment more than the behavior of individual blacks.

The IQ difference just shouldn't be that big of a deal. Whites have higher IQ's, on average, and blacks have more testosterone, on average. If race weren't such a sacred cow in this country, those differences wouldn't necessarily be all that radioactive, or even interesting. Look at the difference in muscularity between men and women; no one makes a big deal about that, or harps on it, or denies it. It's just there, front and center, accepted by all, and no big deal. But racial differences are anathema to those who who set the limits of polite discourse in our society -- and that, more than anything else, sours race relations.

I personally have known plenty of people with high IQ's whom I've despised, and plenty of those with lower ones whom I've liked. Dishonesty and hypocrisy are contemptible traits no matter the IQ of those who exhibit them, and nowhere are they exhibited more blatantly than on the subject of race.

Anonymous said...

re: difference in male/female musculature

The "anything you can do" feminist policies in recruiting police, fire(persons), and soldiers present a nominal admission of the difference -- in the form of different testing standards for pushups, etc -- but even having those double standards is a denial of the difference. Those jobs require well-known, base abilities of their applicants, to be able to physically handle a firehose, combat pack, or a 300-lb motorist on PCP. None of those objects will suddenly lighten up, after noticing that a weaker female is attempting to manipulate them.

John Craig said...

Anon --
You're exactly right. I was talking about most people in the country being accepting of gender differences, not the fringe lunatics of the feminist movement. The mere fact that we have separate athletic competitions for males and females is tacit acceptance by just about everybody that there are built in differences which will never be bridged. I'd love to hear a feminist agitate for "integration" when it comes to competitive sports.