If George was really Ben's daughter whey did he allow his good friend Jonathan to make love to her? Squaw or not she was his daughter.
Why the hell not.
George seemed quite capable of making her own decisions. I doubt Ben could have disuaded her nor could Hemlock persuaded her to do anything.
The use of the 'S' word can get you locked up for a hate crime in most states.
I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed!share
And which States would those be? Although there are many who believe otherwise, the entomology of the word "squaw" does not indicate it to be an obscene insult. As such, it would be pretty though, and rather embarrassing, for a DA to make "hate crime" charges stick.
Among several other researched places, check out : http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000317.html
RFM-2
I was exaggerating. Your link didn't work but I am familiar with the Algonquin/French root. I'm not uncomfortable with it. Still, advocacy groups vigorously fight for its removal (some 60 place names so far in Arizona...like the local Athabascans give a sh*t). But, in the context used by Daiichi, 'squaw' detracts from daughter and so is perjorative reflecting racial and/or sexual prejudice. He's adopted a variant and derogatory definition that would not pass unchallenged in public discourse.
I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed!share
Hoochee Mama!! I just heard the old song, "Squaws Along The Yukon" on satellite radio. I think it was sung by Johnny Horton. Must check out IMDb for the old movie, "The Squaw Man". So the word is still alive in pop culture.
shareuaandub said, "..still alive in pop culture" referencing Johnny Horton.
Johnny Horton's been dead 45 years.
I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed!share
[deleted]
It makes no difference in the least if the word "squaw" has an obscene entomological origin, anymore than if the word *beep* does [it doesn't: it merely means "black"): its usage is - to many people - offensive. To me for instance. You probably couldn't be tried for hate crime for its usage (I think the poster was being hyperbolic for effect), but it certainly won't "win friends and influence people."
greetings from squaw valley!
now lock me up!!!
funny old post... ENTOMOLOGY is the scientific study of insects; Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time.
shareLast time I checked it was still free to say anything in the United States. I hope they haven't changed that law.
share"Last time I checked it was still free to say anything in the United States. I hope they haven't changed that law."
If we're so free as you say then why don't you try to board a plane and say these four words (and afterwards claim free speech): "I have a bomb."
Our freedom here in the USA is not an absolute freedom. It is but a limited one, and we should be thankful that it is. In other words, the law that says we have free speech doesn't say that we can say anything we want and nothing can be done to us for what we say.
[deleted]
freedom of speech unless it is either libellous i.e. Bill Clinton blows goats
or criminal i.e. i have a bomb on board.
Otherwise you r free to be as offensive as hell since offence is relative.
N words c,k,s u name it, elsewise your vocab would change dependent on who held political power.
That's why ethnic minorities etc use language as a lever of political power to be a fulcrum for their own interests and increase their silhouette above the political parapet.
As a limey I never get upset being called a Jock but cant understand being censured for using the n word i.e. november i.e. derived from latin for black, whilst popular culture is filled with AA's using the same term of themselves and their bro's n ho's.
So if we r to accept the removal of words it must be total not partial or politically opportunism.
Back in July '86 a guy I know was insensitive enough to use the word "bomb" in an airport, and he even said it again when the baggage checker gave him a dirty look. She then explicity said "Sir, please don't use that word in here". He was kind of surprised, but then, the La Belle Discothèque bombing had just been in April. And that was years before Lockerbie.
So "bomb" is probably more of a dirty word than "squaw" is. But then, the only place I have ever heard the word "squaw" is in the movies.
BTW, last time I checked, a "Jock" is a Scotsman. "Limey" sounds pejorative, i.e. probably something one Englishman wouldn't say to another. Just a guess (I'm American).
"Otherwise you r free to be as offensive as hell since offence is relative."
Don't forget the other side of that coin--you also get to receive the benefits of shooting off your mouth, like never finding another job, having your ass beaten to a bloody toothless pulp, or losing your wife and family... not to mention being considered a prick by everyone you know. Not to mention, you aren't free to say anything you want on any privately owned media--like a web page. All the Constitution guarantees you is that the government won't put you in jail for what you say... after that, your on your own.
By the way, whatever it was that you said would be more understandable AND more credible if every other word wasn't a shortcut, or spelled wrong.
Generally, celebrities cannot win slander/libel suits.
To win a case, the statement must be untrue and damaging.
Any defense attorney could find a hundred people who already believe blubba clinton blows goats, and a hundred who'd realize it was metaphorical (at least I hope so, but one never knows with that man).
Then, it would have to cause economic or reputational damage to his character. As he has no character, no damage can be done. (At least, said attorney could line up a hundred character witnesses to state he has no character).
There are also a goodly number of people who would claim that blowing goats makes him a better man, a paragon of humility, an adventurer, etc.
The combination of "untrue and damaging" really hinders charges by famous persons against their detractors...which is what our Founders intended.
Now, if you claim he raped your daughter or such, he'd have a case. Of course, if you can prove he did...
He never won any settlement from Gennifer Flowers or others on such allegations. So any future charges are unlikely to go anywhere, assuming he'd make them in the first place, which he won't.
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com
[deleted]
'Our freedom here in the USA is not an absolute freedom. It is but a limited one, and we should be thankful that it is. In other words, the law that says we have free speech doesn't say that we can say anything we want and nothing can be done to us for what we say.'
Ummm...actually that's exactly what free speech means, you are confusing free speech with making threats or you are just being silly.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Plotholes are like Bigfoot, people who claim to see them are just trying to stir things up.
"The use of the 'S' word can get you locked up for a hate crime in most states. "
If the use of the N word cant get you locked up the use of squaw wont either. May I remind you of the 1st Amendment?
Georges behavior with the hypodermic becomes more plausible if she felt she was protecting her father rather than being paid by Miles. Was she set up by Ben who had a change of heart or do it off her own bat.
Makes sense of the dialogue between ben and jonaton discussing motive - Love, no money.
consider that the term 'daughter' is not one of biological descent. Spy-code.
Remember Miles was the one who got George off of drugs so she may have felt she needed to do this to protect the one who saved her.
shareI need to go back and watch the movie again, as it's been a little while, but I do remember that George's reason for attacking Hemlock with the needle was explained, and gave the whole Ben/Hemlock relationship a more ironic and dark element.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS!
First off, in the original novel, Henri Baque WAS one of Hemlock's very good friends...however he was not Agent Wormwood. Wormwood was a seperate character whose fate at the beginning is identical to that of the Wormwood character in the film. Baque was a fellow agent who was directly murdered by Miles. Miles escaped while Henri died in Hemlock's arms, and from then on Hemlock swore that he would get revenge on Miles. When he catches up with Miles at Ben's place, Miles reveals to Hemlock that the reason he killed Henri was because Henri was actually a double agent and a traitor. Yet, Hemlock still feels loyal to Henri and dispatches Miles in the same way he does in the film.
In the case of Ben and George, Ben reveals his connection to Miles at the end, also very similarly to in the film. However, Miles has been constantly bringing Ben into very shady matters, such as Wormwood's murder and the recovery of the microfilm, and he had George attack Hemlock in order to manipulate him, making him think that it was Miles so that Hemlock would kill him and get him out of Ben's hair, and also so that Hemlock killed him before Miles revealled the identity of Hemlock's target (Ben). So in the novel, Hemlock's loyalties are extremely *beep* up, which I believe was a significant point that Trevanian was trying to make.
---------------------------------
Jerry Goldsmith
1929-2004
Yes, those are spoilers, not that I mind. I only saw the film hundreds of times, but I have never read the book! You explained that very well, and it makes sense. And you're right that this was not explicitly explained in the film, even though the viewer is free to deduce that on his own. I will pass your explanation on to a friend who also likes this film. We've been fans of this since it first showed in cinema. Thanks!
shareGlad it helped - for a second, I thought it came across as convoluted rambling.
---------------------------------
Jerry Goldsmith
1929-2004
So, when you're about 25 will your father still be running your life? Of course, I assume you're a child whose father is already doing that, by your comment.
shareWow. That was a tad harsh. I would think that most poeple would feel some desire to protect their parents, regardless of age. So I found it to be a perfectly plausible explanation. I'm 34.
shareCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
sharewonderful, we have people who think having sex with your friends daughter is incest and others who are ridiculously pc about the word squaw. Next thing you won't be able to use the term warrior either. Hell, we may as well outlaw language all together as there will always be somebody who gets offended by something somebody says.
shareI'm still trying to figure out how this is incest?
Gawd, what a boring read this thread was.
[deleted]