I don’t want to discuss it, though. Especially not when I’ve already shared my thoughts on this MONARCH-verse that’s trying to copy The MCU. Instead, I’d like to talk about the resurfacing debate over whether or not King Kong is racist. You ready? Of course not!
Anyway, there’s an argument that pops up occasionally about how the character of King Kong’s racist. The claim is that the titular character’s a stand-in for a black male from Africa who’s revered as a god by the locals. Said ape’s captured by the “civilized” white man and taken to The US to be displayed as a freak, but not before befriending a white woman and falling in love. Said ape then escapes, kidnaps the woman and climbs The Empire State Building, whereupon it’s attacked by planes and falls to its death. It’s all layered in-between a tragedy.
This one’s tough one to address, as its original creators are long dead, but it’s not like there isn’t an argument to be made: King Kong’s fur is black. He’s worshipped as a god by local natives. He eats women, all of whom are “sacrifices”. And he falls in love with his latest victim, who has to be rescued by the heroes. Sounds racist, no?
Apes being a stand-in for black people isn’t new. I’d first heard it when a black woman lectured me about my Jewish faith. But outside of that, there are many papers and essays about this in great detail. Despite the 1:1 parallels being seriously-flawed, especially since, while being primates, humans are different than other apes, this has definitely been a sore spot for eons. I also say that despite King Kong being a gorilla and not a chimpanzee.
It's worth noting how flawed the comparison is. Even ignoring that human didn’t descend from gorillas, gorillas are unlikely to provoke human beings unless threatened. They’re definitely territorial, but a gorilla’s more likely to be attacked than to attack. We see this with how often gorillas are hunted as trophies. But racism doesn’t adhere to facts or logic anyway...
Regardless, the argument has persisted. So it’s not hard, therefore, to read into King Kong as an allegory for black men stealing white women from white men. I don’t want to discredit that line of thinking, as art often has unintended meanings, but writing off the story’s merits, even for its time, based on that alone is disingenuous. After all, it had ground-breaking stop-motion effects! And the Peter Jackson-directed remake in 2005, while upping the racist characteristics of the natives, still managed an impressive and tragic love story between Kong and Ann Darrow via motion capture technology! Saying the story should be ignored, especially when many ground-breaking stories were racist, is ignorance. We should learn from the past, otherwise we can never grow!
It's worth noting how flawed the comparison is. Even ignoring that human didn’t descend from gorillas, gorillas are unlikely to provoke human beings unless threatened. They’re definitely territorial, but a gorilla’s more likely to be attacked than to attack. We see this with how often gorillas are hunted as trophies. But racism doesn’t adhere to facts or logic anyway...
Regardless, the argument has persisted. So it’s not hard, therefore, to read into King Kong as an allegory for black men stealing white women from white men. I don’t want to discredit that line of thinking, as art often has unintended meanings, but writing off the story’s merits, even for its time, based on that alone is disingenuous. After all, it had ground-breaking stop-motion effects! And the Peter Jackson-directed remake in 2005, while upping the racist characteristics of the natives, still managed an impressive and tragic love story between Kong and Ann Darrow via motion capture technology! Saying the story should be ignored, especially when many ground-breaking stories were racist, is ignorance. We should learn from the past, otherwise we can never grow!
On the flip side, we also can’t accurately ascertain that King Kong’s racist. Not only is the original creator dead, hence we can’t ask intent, but art takes on various meanings over time. It’s possible, for example, that Mother Gothel’s Antisemitic, and you can make a strong case for that, but it probably wasn’t intentional. Especially when modern storytelling repackages older stories, complete with any and all baggage. It’s hard to assess the racism of something without either asking the original artist, or deconstructing the story’s individual components.
But let’s pretend the intent of King Kong was, without a doubt, racism. So? Plenty of older stories are racist! Tarzan’s racist! Gone With the Wind’s racist! Birth of a Nation’s racist! That’s not to excuse the aforementioned, but they were as influential as they were products of their time. Acting otherwise is ignorance.
I’m not deliberately sidestepping the issue. While I enjoy King Kong, particularly the 2005 remake, it has little to do with its undertones and a lot to do with the story itself. I like Ann Darrow. I like King Kong. And I like how well they bond over 3+ hours. There are parts of the movie that haven’t aged well, but that doesn’t detract from the whole!
But let’s pretend the intent of King Kong was, without a doubt, racism. So? Plenty of older stories are racist! Tarzan’s racist! Gone With the Wind’s racist! Birth of a Nation’s racist! That’s not to excuse the aforementioned, but they were as influential as they were products of their time. Acting otherwise is ignorance.
I’m not deliberately sidestepping the issue. While I enjoy King Kong, particularly the 2005 remake, it has little to do with its undertones and a lot to do with the story itself. I like Ann Darrow. I like King Kong. And I like how well they bond over 3+ hours. There are parts of the movie that haven’t aged well, but that doesn’t detract from the whole!
This is the part that needs stressing. Yes, be critical of what you consume. But no, don’t write off something because of that. And for sure don’t use it to ruin someone else’s enjoyment, lest you be “that person”. Because no one wants to be “that person”!
Similarly, pointing out that King Kong’s racist, especially when you don’t quantify anything, isn’t the way to go. It’s like saying that “Democrats owned slaves” and leaving it there, as it not only ignores history, it also doesn’t accomplish anything. Because, like I said, so what? Is that supposed to impress me?
If it feels like I’m being dismissive, it’s only because this argument’s tiresome. It’s not like there isn’t a grain of truth, but it doesn’t get at why the story resonates with so many people. And besides, why mention it in relation to King Kong and Godzilla teaming up? You might think you’re being profound, but you’re not. If anything, you’re being irritating.
Similarly, pointing out that King Kong’s racist, especially when you don’t quantify anything, isn’t the way to go. It’s like saying that “Democrats owned slaves” and leaving it there, as it not only ignores history, it also doesn’t accomplish anything. Because, like I said, so what? Is that supposed to impress me?
If it feels like I’m being dismissive, it’s only because this argument’s tiresome. It’s not like there isn’t a grain of truth, but it doesn’t get at why the story resonates with so many people. And besides, why mention it in relation to King Kong and Godzilla teaming up? You might think you’re being profound, but you’re not. If anything, you’re being irritating.
So yeah, is King Kong racist? Yes, no, maybe, I don’t know. But is it relevant? Not really. And the sooner we move on, the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment