Were the villains of THE QUEST selected over racial lines?

By villains, I'm referring to the fighters, and not the film's other villains, such as the (presumably Italian) gangsters of New York City, or the pirates attacking Roger Moore's ship, all of which were acceptable. Even the character that Moore played was a villain of sorts, a liar and a cheat, but at least a charming rogue.

Let's analyze whom among the fighters we were told to like, and whom to dislike, or even hate. Most were depicted in a way that was neutral, such as during one of the first match-ups, Brazil and France. We weren't supposed to feel strongly either way, the fighters were just "there."

The ones we were expected to develop a kind of affection for were the fighter from Siam (who was spiritual, and performed his Buddhist style prayers; all in line for the traditional set-up when he would get sadistically creamed by the film's worst villain). Elements of civility were on display for some of the other fighters, as the one from Greece, who extended his hand for a handshake before the match, turned down rudely by the film's worst villain.

Of course, the film's worst villain was the Mongolian. Let me say at the outset that I actually appreciated for the main villain to have been a Mongolian, because Mongolians never get serious notice anymore (and the less serious notice they get, such as I believe the big brute from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK whom Karen Allen challenged with the beer drinking, is almost always "negative"), so for the choice of the worst villain to be Mongolian was actually pretty imaginative. (In effect, then, even though Mongols are thought of negatively here, that is at least better than to be completely ignored, as Mongols have been in films. If that makes sense. The old bad advertising being better than no advertising line of thought, as long as it's not overdone.)

But why Mongolian? That is because in the West, thanks to the brutal reign of Genghis Khan and his successors (not that any other famous conquerors in history got to where they got because they weren't being brutal, but therein lies the subjective hypocrisy of history), when Mongols ruled much of the world, the Mongols will always be looked upon as savage monsters. Everything we associate about Mongols is bad, such as the name given to those who look like "Mongoloids," and diseases, and whatnot. So Mongols are a group that are relatively powerless, and we all accept that Mongols are "bad," therefore making the worst villain of THE QUEST a Mongol was a safe and easy choice.

The second worst villain of the film was the Turk. Again, the Turks seriously challenged Christian Europe at one point centuries ago, and they are another politically acceptable "villain" in the West. They are a voiceless people, and so when hateful groups wish to attain political gain by making charges of "genocide," as with the Armenians (where the facts don't substantiate; even the British held a kind of Nuremberg after WWI, called the Malta Tribunal, where not a stitch of evidence for a plan of extermination was to be found), they will get away with such defamatory charges easily, since the prejudice is solidly in place. In the film, the Turkish fighter exhibited his cruelty by deliberately going below the belt with his Scottish foe, and in addition, the (Arab?) actor was one weird and ugly looking character, compared to most of the other fighters. (Although at least he had nice muscular definition on his side.)

These were the film's two worst villains. An "almost" villain was another of the West's "safe" villains, the German. He was an "almost" villain only because of the way he looked, at least in one shadowy close-up, as our clean-cut "American" hero faced him, the German looking like a scary, expressionistic caricature.

Another traditional villain is the Russian, but in this film, the burly fighter representing the Soviet Union looked pretty good, as far as his features and his civilized-looking dress, and there was nothing shown, either blatantly or subtly, to make us want to dislike him. Maybe that was because he was punched out in the first round.

Now, of course, in a movie such as this, you've got to have villains, particularly a "fight" movie where our clean-cut underdog hero must be up against a real monster. (And indeed, the Mongolian was so unlikable, so bereft of any positive qualities whatsoever, that when he finally got decked out at the end, no one came to assist him as he rested on his back, out cold -- not even members of his entourage! The crowd just drifted away from him, and he was all alone, driving home the point of just desserts.) But the question to ask is:

Why doesn't a movie like this have the courage to depict a nation that isn't racistly and typically regarded as savage, as the Mongols and the Turks, but a nation that is usually looked upon as somewhat "good"? Note how the Western fighters (with the possible exception of Germany), even if they are neutrally presented and aren't shown as blatantly "good," all look (and some act) rather nice and civilized: the Scotsman, the Frenchman, the Spaniard and the Greek. Why couldn't one of these nations have been chosen for the monster, in place of the Mongolian? The answer may have something to do with protests, of course, and so it becomes far safer to go with the usual and safe old stereotypes. If anyone charges racism with the traditional groups such as Turks and Germans, no one is going to care.
.