Racist?

Sorry, but your logic has a flaw. You say white people evolved from black people. No, we both evolved in Africa, and those early humans probably looked more like modern black people than modern white people. But you seem to think that white people migrated north, and lost the melanin that is nature's sunscreen, while black people remained exactly the same. No, they evolved right along with all the other tribes of man. We are one species. Not one of us is so evolved that they can not breed with another. We have differences, yes, but no evolutionary divergence has occured. We are a remarkably homogeneous race; there is far more genetic diversity in any mouse or chimpanze than there is in the human race.

And to address another comment, no, the subhumans aren't cro magnon; they are supposed to be neanderthals.

just throwin' that out there.



Hi, I'm God. Can I touch You?

I think if you are uncomfortable with something like this then I think you are letting some emotional sensitivity and prejudice influence you irrationally.

This to me is like arguing about how chocolate is better than vanilla (so it is true black is better) or on the other hand, diamond is more precious than coal (so it is true white is better)... does it mean anything? Anybody want to pointless argue any of that for a few hours?

I think a caveman's color also fall into this category -- but the thing is even if they are dark, they most certainly weren't "black" -- black and white evolved later and probably concurrently. So anybody here having a little race war trying to say white is more evolved because it is newer or claim blacks came first because of some misleading African lineage (as if we definitively knew homosapiens originated in Africa and definitely not in China or Indonesia, or presume they was originally black just because of what color they are now) are deluding themselves.

If you are of African decent, which I assume you are as you singled out "black" and ignored "red", "brown", "tan", and "yellow"...? I think not only are you being needlessly sensitive, I think you are also being a little arrogant, as this probably has little to do with our species let alone any race. Yet you still refer to and so must obviously see "black" savages, a color reserved for Africans, yet there several other "savages" where not only is the skin color a better match but so is the hair.

However you are correct that the term savages does immediately brings images of natives who either want to to eat you or skalp you based on that there are two colors that we could use in racist way.


So to address your question... I think these PRIMATIVES were probably from an entirely different species, an entirely different continent (Thuria or Hyboria), and an entirely different color... and while they may not have been white, they also weren't black. So it is up to you to guess at the races involved when you should be ignoring them because #1 you don't know and #2 it doesn't matter.

If we were to look at another film like Planet of the Apes where this is all better illustrated (pun)... You can again erroneously draw the same stereotypes but they are far more extreme yet are you still as just as sensitive? That film actually deals with the topic of prejudice and the same things you are reading into the savages in this film because you aren't capable looking past the skin.


Finally, I'd like to leave everyone with these images:
http://www.blalang.com/pictures/?p=107
or else you all should try to find the pictures of hairless chimpanzee's yourself... or go find a cat or a dog and shave them and consider what color they are. Anybody who has any preconceived notion of what the skin color of any of these animals are, are not only racist... but they are also stupid.

interestng to ask. My take is that it was based on frazetta paintings and his paintings were based on stories by Rice Burroughs and E Howard and those stories were msotly about great white hunters in dark African countries, i think.

Sure, Frazetta drew good-looking and respectable-looking blacks, but a lot of those paintings also had subhuman like characters in exotic countries that chase after the lovely white characters. funny stuff. i'm more amused than offended.

and yeah even Tolkien's LOTR stories had dark-skinned, subhuman types but no human-looking black characters. it is what it is.

u can't help but notice things like that with stories like these. And Bakshi, in my opinion, loves to explore different ways people see blacks. There was a heavy theme in "Heavy traffic" about how people SEE and treat blacks. kudos to Bakshi. Love this movie.

[deleted]

It's probably because most of the subhumans were played by black people.
Something most of you people seem to forget is
that the movie's style was based on the art of Frank Frazetta,
and the way he drew subhumans in his art is the same way the subhumans are in this movie.

Seeing racism in this movie is about as ridiculous as seeing racism in King Kong and if anything suggests you may have a rather low opinion of black people yourself.

The minions in this film are based off of past Frazetta work, everything in this film is based off of past Frazetta work from the Princess to the Berzerker. Necron's minions are neanderthals, dehumanized enemies. The hero of the film, Dark Wolf, has the darkest skin out of everyone.

racist? no. this movie is not (intentionally) racist. homoerotic? yes. its muscles and 80's barbarian man-thongs all day. that aspect is what made me laugh most at this movie. its almost as gay as that show sparticus blood and sand.