Most Racist Book I've Read.

[Veho]

"Hey so I went to Africa and found some midget black people who lived in trees. They only ate bugs. I captured them and shipped them off to my factory to work for me for free and gave them all the bugs they could possibly want to eat."

You guys dont see something a little wrong with that?

It's all in how you paraphrase it. He found a tribe living in horrible conditions, and offered them jobs at his plant. He pays them whatever they ask for, remember? And it's not bugs (bugs are what they were forced to eat in the jungle), it's cocoa beans. Their favourite food, a rare and valued treasure, and probably their form of currency. "Hey, little black people, wanna stay here and spend your life in this craphole eating bugs and being eaten by ravenous monsters, or would you like to come work for me in a quite beast-free envirnoment and be paid in riches?" Even in the first editions, he offered them to come work for him, he didn't capture or force them. And they agreed.

The implications are much much closer to work immigration than any kind of slavery. People moving to a different country for a higher paying job in a beast-free environment. Is that racist and offensive?

 

[drizzt8886]

If you want to see racist look up the Universal Studios cartoon Scrub me Mama with a Boogie Beat. I laughed and am now going to hell. Anyone wanna join me?

 

[Blood Fetish]

Is it racist because they are from Africa and black? It is less racist if they are a white group of people from Africa?

 

[_Chaz_]

Personally, I lol'd.

 

[p1ngpong]

"Hey so I went to Africa and found some midget black people who lived in trees. They only ate bugs. I captured them and shipped them off to my factory to work for me for free and gave them all the bugs they could possibly want to eat."

You guys dont see something a little wrong with that?

It's all in how you paraphrase it. He found a tribe living in horrible conditions, and offered them jobs at his plant. He pays them whatever they ask for, remember? And it's not bugs (bugs are what they were forced to eat in the jungle), it's cocoa beans. Their favourite food, a rare and valued treasure, and probably their form of currency. "Hey, little black people, wanna stay here and spend your life in this craphole eating bugs and being eaten by ravenous monsters, or would you like to come work for me in a quite beast-free envirnoment and be paid in riches?" Even in the first editions, he offered them to come work for him, he didn't capture or force them. And they agreed.

The implications are much much closer to work immigration than any kind of slavery. People moving to a different country for a higher paying job in a beast-free environment. Is that racist and offensive?

Well just going by the original quote Davees posted all I see is a rather derogatory stereotype (of the time) about Africans. They lived in trees and ate bugs. They loved coco beans but were so primitive they could only find four a year between three thousand of them. He compares them more to animals than people. So much so Willy Wonka shipped them off "in large crates" as you would do with things or livestock. Frankly I see more parallels between him and a slave trader than I do with any sort of kind hearted humanitarian who is doing the Oompa Loompas a favour by allowing them to make chocolate in his fun factory of freedom.

 

[Ossot]

It's all in how you paraphrase it. He found a tribe living in horrible conditions, and offered them jobs at his plant. He pays them whatever they ask for, remember? And it's not bugs (bugs are what they were forced to eat in the jungle), it's cocoa beans. Their favourite food, a rare and valued treasure, and probably their form of currency. "Hey, little black people, wanna stay here and spend your life in this craphole eating bugs and being eaten by ravenous monsters, or would you like to come work for me in a quite beast-free envirnoment and be paid in riches?" Even in the first editions, he offered them to come work for him, he didn't capture or force them. And they agreed.

The implications are much much closer to work immigration than any kind of slavery. People moving to a different country for a higher paying job in a beast-free environment. Is that racist and offensive?

I was going to post about how it really just demonstrates the european mindset of cultural superiority. Our culture, our values, our belief system trumps yours. Don't worry though, we will save you. We will enlighten you and civilize you. Before posting though I decided to see what some more intelligent members of the community had to say on the subject, as i didn't want to be redundant. Than I saw your post and realized it served as another striking example of the colonial mindset.

He found a tribe living in horrible conditions? Know who else was found living in horrible conditions? The Native Americans. They ran around half naked, had no god, and didn't know the difference between a piece of glass and a precious stone. Hey Native Americans, want to spend your whole lives living in the jungle and doomed to eternal damnation by God, or would you like to have all the useless junk we can give you in return for your help, crops, land, and unwavering gratitude? Oh, our cultural mindsets are sooo completely different neither we, the clearly superior europeans, or you, the poor indigenous man realize what we're both agreeing to? No worries, it'l all turn out okay. we promise.

Granted, Willy Wonka is a fictional character. And no, it's not racist, as many others have pointed out. But it IS demonstrating our western mindset of placing our culture as the model that less "civilized" societies should be striving to achieve.

 

[Blood Fetish]

Granted, Willy Wonka is a fictional character. And no, it's not racist, as many others have pointed out. But it IS demonstrating our western mindset of placing our culture as the model that less "civilized" societies should be striving to achieve.

This isn't unique to the "west" at all. Every culture behaves in this manner. The tribe living simply with nature will look down upon more "civilized" people. Everyone wants to believe that they aren't wasting their life with stupid decisions, so they will actively berate anyone who is different.

 

[Ossot]

This isn't unique to the "west" at all. Every culture behaves in this manner. The tribe living simply with nature will look down upon more "civilized" people. Everyone wants to believe that they aren't wasting their life with stupid decisions, so they will actively berate anyone who is different.

No, human nature is not unique to the West. However, the most notorious cases of cultural superiority correspond with it. From Shakespeare to the war in Iraq.

Edit: And I was not implying it was, simply forcing cultural standards upon a "conquered" society, at least the more well known cases, involve the west, and predominately, the English. However during the days of colonial America nearly all major Euro powers were guilty of it.

edit 2: And when I say the well known cases, I am obviously referring to my western education which privileges western history.

 

[Davess]

I don't get it. How is it racist?

I didn't have time to write the whole chapter

 

[Veho]

Well just going by the original quote Davees posted all I see is a rather derogatory stereotype (of the time) about Africans. They lived in trees and ate bugs. They loved coco beans but were so primitive they could only find four a year between three thousand of them.
Which is still quite impressive, given that cocoa comes from South America and cocoa trees can't be found in Africa outside plantations. They weren't "too primitive" to find more, the resource they were gathering was simply that scarce. Again, signifying harsh conditions outside of their control. Just like the ravenous beasts.

The bugs they ate aren't the contemporary version of "fried chicken and purple drank", or something they eat because they're too lazy (or "primitive") to gather/grow/catch anything better. They're bugs. The Oompa Loompas were forced to eat them because there was nothing else to eat, and given a choice, they'd much rather eat something else. The shipping them out in crates bit has unfortunate implications, I admit, but that part is still there in the "politically correct" version and is now seen as comedy. They're white so it's okay.

I can't see how or where they're shown as "closer to animals than people". I must admit the description is incomplete, and it's up to you how you fill the gaps. Notice how a mere change in skin colour changes the description from a racist stereotype to an entirely inoffensive and quirky depiction. It's easy to find racist connotations in anything if you look for them, and fill the gaps accordingly. That doesn't mean they're there.

QUOTE(Ossot @ Sep 19 2010, 11:14 PM) //culture//religion//derp

After such a pompous introduction, I somehow expected more from your post, but got just another pointless knee-jerk rant aimed at the "horrible West" and the "shameful European collonialist mindset", which is completely unrelated to the subject at hand; but hey, why be relevant when all you need is an excuse to segue into a ready homily. There was no mention of religion or culture or any kind of "superiority" of either before you projected them onto the discussion and brought them up, just so you could have an excuse to parade your "morally superior" worldview (as opposed to some condemnable worldview you're so quick to, quite baselessly, attribute to others). Oh well, whatever makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

There is no mention or comparison of culture, values or religion. The only comparison that was made here are the living conditions, namely the criteria of "having enough to eat" and "not being mauled by beasts", and that's not a subjective measure. It's not open for debate. It doesn't depend on someone's point of view or "individual set of values". It's a pretty universal standard, and a step from "not eating" to "eating" is definitely an improvement in the general quality of life, regardless of "culture", "religion" or "values". There's no point in shoving these things where they didn't exist and don't belong. That is, unless you desperately need them to support three corners of your soapbox. But if you wish to continue this discussion, you'd better come up with a more applicable comparison, and some valid arguments, instead of drawing completely ridiculous parallels that seriously border on Godwin's law.

 

[Little]

Personally, I don't see, never have seen and never will see the Oompa Loompas as human.... the way they were described in the book always made me think of them as a fictional species i'd always grown up with in books... like pixies, elves and sprites. This was further more by their diminutive size (from the book I'd always pictured them as very tiny, like no higher than knee high at the very highest ), singing and strange completely non human like behaviours... such as only being seen when they want to.

 

[Pliskron]

Well people that live in tropical arias tend to have dark skin and eat fat worms and grubs. White men still haven't been to many such places. I'd say you need to get a grip you over politicaly correct dork. You don't even know what racism means.