The small, hunched over, sharp-teethed peoples obsessed with money (to the selfish and wonton destruction of any conventional conception of cohesive functional societal constructs) may or may not be associated with the Nazi Germany stereotype for Jews.
Paramount having a Jewish actor explain that it’s an allegory for any non-specific “out group” may or or may not be a PR response to the questions around if the small, hunched over, sharp-teethed people obsessed with money (to the selfish and wonton destruction of any conventional conception of cohesive functional societal constructs) may or not be associated with the Nazi Germany stereotype for Jews.
Edit: And for the record, I’m not from the USA, England, or Australia. Culturally closest to Australia, I suppose. But the point stands that there are local cultural prejudices that probably do inform interpretation, but that doesn’t necessarily negate culturally explosive prejudiced characteristics that were generated by the cultural juggernaut that was Nazi Germany. Just because Australians might think Chinese, doesn’t mean the American writers weren’t modelling after American stereotypes adopted from Nazi Germany
So you think the writers of Star Trek TNG (in the 80s) were secretly all former Nazis (or neo-Nazis)? The show is progressive in all other ways, so I guess these are progressive Nazis?
Which is more likely, that you are right and progressive neo-Nazis secretly based the Ferengi on Jewish stereotypes? Or that the Jewish actors who literally wore the makeup and spoke the lines are right? Hmmm…
I do think the writers, like all people, are vulnerable to application of stereotypes.
I do think that nobody exists in a binary state of progressive or regressive, either.
I also think that the two options you present are not mutually exclusive. The writers may have drawn upon what they maybe didn’t even consciously recognize to be ethnic stereotypes. The Jewish actors are free to communicate whatever interpretation they choose for whatever reason they choose.
I guess I’d challenge you with a few questions of my own: do you believe that being a member of a community confers upon you absolute discretion on if an institution of which you belong is racist? If so, do you accept African American Republicans claim that the RNC is not racist? What weight do you give Caitlin Jenner’s assertion that the RNC is not transphobic? How do you reconsile that with members of those communities who say they are racist and transphobic?
Do you believe that actors always honestly communicate their own personal views regarding the projects on which they work? Do you believe there could be a conflict of interest should they speak negatively about their employers? Do you believe that it’s possible that some people, when put in a position of internal conflict, may construct an interpretation of reality in which they are morally absolved of the harm their employment might have? Do you believe everyone at Chevron, Lockheed Martin, or Nestle would tell you that in the course of their employment that they participate in harm?
The small, hunched over, sharp-teethed peoples obsessed with money (to the selfish and wonton destruction of any conventional conception of cohesive functional societal constructs) may or may not be associated with the Nazi Germany stereotype for Jews.
Paramount having a Jewish actor explain that it’s an allegory for any non-specific “out group” may or or may not be a PR response to the questions around if the small, hunched over, sharp-teethed people obsessed with money (to the selfish and wonton destruction of any conventional conception of cohesive functional societal constructs) may or not be associated with the Nazi Germany stereotype for Jews.
Edit: And for the record, I’m not from the USA, England, or Australia. Culturally closest to Australia, I suppose. But the point stands that there are local cultural prejudices that probably do inform interpretation, but that doesn’t necessarily negate culturally explosive prejudiced characteristics that were generated by the cultural juggernaut that was Nazi Germany. Just because Australians might think Chinese, doesn’t mean the American writers weren’t modelling after American stereotypes adopted from Nazi Germany
So you think the writers of Star Trek TNG (in the 80s) were secretly all former Nazis (or neo-Nazis)? The show is progressive in all other ways, so I guess these are progressive Nazis?
Which is more likely, that you are right and progressive neo-Nazis secretly based the Ferengi on Jewish stereotypes? Or that the Jewish actors who literally wore the makeup and spoke the lines are right? Hmmm…
I don’t think the writers were neo Nazis.
I do think the writers, like all people, are vulnerable to application of stereotypes.
I do think that nobody exists in a binary state of progressive or regressive, either.
I also think that the two options you present are not mutually exclusive. The writers may have drawn upon what they maybe didn’t even consciously recognize to be ethnic stereotypes. The Jewish actors are free to communicate whatever interpretation they choose for whatever reason they choose.
I guess I’d challenge you with a few questions of my own: do you believe that being a member of a community confers upon you absolute discretion on if an institution of which you belong is racist? If so, do you accept African American Republicans claim that the RNC is not racist? What weight do you give Caitlin Jenner’s assertion that the RNC is not transphobic? How do you reconsile that with members of those communities who say they are racist and transphobic?
Do you believe that actors always honestly communicate their own personal views regarding the projects on which they work? Do you believe there could be a conflict of interest should they speak negatively about their employers? Do you believe that it’s possible that some people, when put in a position of internal conflict, may construct an interpretation of reality in which they are morally absolved of the harm their employment might have? Do you believe everyone at Chevron, Lockheed Martin, or Nestle would tell you that in the course of their employment that they participate in harm?
I provided a first hand source and your rebuttal is “No, it conflicts with what I thought up on my own.”
Obviously nothing is going to convince you that you’re wrong.
My rebuttal is that your firsthand source isn’t actually authoritative, and I explained exactly why.
I did you the honour of responding to literally every single point you made.
You have done me the dishonour of responding to none of mine and then attacking me personally.