Chronicles of Narnia

[Doc]

One little detail I am pissed off about.

Disney gave the White Witch dreadlocks.

Thanks a lot you bastards. As if people with dreadlocks didn't have enough problems with ignorant stereotypes already. Now you get it in to little kid's heads that people with locks are somehow evil and shouldn't be trusted.

Why, WHY do people with locks in movies always have some sort of negative light shed on them? Whisky Tango Foxtrox is up with that? Really... Why do the people with locks always have to be the bad guys, or the people you shouldn't trust, or the people that you should always be afraid of? You just look at them in a movie and think "Oh hey, that must be the bad guy! Just look at his hair!"

SCREW YOU HOLLYWOOD.

[Taem]

...though the Voyage of the Dawn Treader will probably be the one they make due to its adventure settings.

Occhi
[right][snapback]96453[/snapback][/right]

I just got threw reading this book to my children for bedtime after a couple weeks and this book could really get a Hollywood overhaul to be exquisite, such as the Island of Dreams, the relationship between Caspian and Ramandu's daughter, not to mention the tension that could be established before setting foot on every new island! A lot could be elaborated on.

Prince Caspian would be rather boring; not much real story to relate, just a war that the Pevensies are never around that much. It would be a good movie to throw in some intriguing character dialog setting it up for the Voyage of the Dawn Treader!

As for the rest of the books, I simply don't remember them. I've been reading one of the books to my children for bedtime for the last couple months and will start the latest book tonight :) .

[Taem]

Newer?  :blink:

My tattered copies of those books have 1967 listed as the publication date (they are the Puffin softback series), and they start with the Magician's Nephew.

(Yes, I have loved those stories for a long time.  :wub: )
[right][snapback]96431[/snapback][/right]

Lookie!

I was also confused until I found this site. Read down on the faq about publications from the 1950's. The entire site is a rather good C.S. Lewis site and I highly recommend checking it out :D .

[NiteFox]

One little detail I am pissed off about.

Disney gave the White Witch dreadlocks.

Thanks a lot you bastards. As if people with dreadlocks didn't have enough problems with ignorant stereotypes already. Now you get it in to little kid's heads that people with locks are somehow evil and shouldn't be trusted.

Why, WHY do people with locks in movies always have some sort of negative light shed on them? Whisky Tango Foxtrox is up with that? Really... Why do the people with locks always have to be the bad guys, or the people you shouldn't trust, or the people that you should always be afraid of? You just look at them in a movie and think "Oh hey, that must be the bad guy! Just look at his hair!"

SCREW YOU HOLLYWOOD.
[right][snapback]96498[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, sorry.

[kandrathe]

No, I'm just very afraid of VERY white people with dreads.



See. Run away!

[Doc]

All I see is "user posted image".

And as far as caucasians with locks, white folk have a long rich history that most seem to ignore with locks. Saying they can't have locks is rather ignorant and slightly racist. Some do, but they seem to forget what goes along with locks, wearing them as a fashion statement.

Ancient Celts for example, let their hair lock up. Poor warriors would have fat locks that they would dip in lyme, giving them the pale blue spikey look the Celts were famous for. The locks dipped in lyme or mud would form a hard outer shell and the inner layers would offer some cushioning against blows. When you were to poor to afford a metal or leather helmet, this was better than nothing.

Vikings also had locks. The salt water and the sea would lock their hair up quickly. Such care was taken of their hair, and so strong was it, that they could weave cut locks together to form emergency sections of rope.

Early Christians, early Roman Christians, would grow out their hair and let it lock as a symbolic reminder of the Mane of the Lion of Judah that had died on the cross. It was also a rejection of Roman values, which caused most people to have their head shaved.

Many of the settlers that went West and settled had their hair lock up by accident. Lack of combs and all of the wind and elements whipped their hair in to tangles that formed locks.

Locks are a powerful religious and social statement. They are still outlawed in some countries that fear spiritual symbolism. Almost every major religious culture that has ever existed has had locks featured prominately as part of that culture. From the Jews, who had figures like Samson and his seven locks, to the Christians with John the Baptist that never cut or combed his hair, to East Indian Yogis (Like Tat Wale Baba, which most of you have never heard of I am sure) and mystics, who, when they were taken in to slavery by the British, brought their locks over to the islands of the Americas and to a new spiritual movement sweeping through the black slave population. This new movement had no name for the longest time. It would later become Rastafarianism. Even Asian cultures have locks in their history.

They are a universal human feature. All hair is capable of locking. It should be respected and treated with dignity. It shouldn't be a "hair style" or some part of a pop culture movement.

So tell me, what is wrong exactly with white folks having locks? So long as they are doing it to embrace their own history, their own culture, their own roots, and not trying to be something they are not, and believe me, I see a lot of folks that get them for all the wrong reasons, what is wrong with having them?

[Occhidiangela]

All I see is "user posted image".

And as far as caucasians with locks, == rant full of sound and fury == what is wrong with having them?
[right][snapback]96522[/snapback][/right]

Nothing. Pick your hair style, folks. With all the people adding silly colors to their hair, how are dreads any big deal? You want to spend the time to do them, at least do them well. That, of course, is an admonition that could cross all social lines.

Occhi

[roguebanshee]

One little detail I am pissed off about.

Disney gave the White Witch dreadlocks.

Thanks a lot you bastards. As if people with dreadlocks didn't have enough problems with ignorant stereotypes already. Now you get it in to little kid's heads that people with locks are somehow evil and shouldn't be trusted.

Why, WHY do people with locks in movies always have some sort of negative light shed on them? Whisky Tango Foxtrox is up with that? Really... Why do the people with locks always have to be the bad guys, or the people you shouldn't trust, or the people that you should always be afraid of? You just look at them in a movie and think "Oh hey, that must be the bad guy! Just look at his hair!"

SCREW YOU HOLLYWOOD.
[right][snapback]96498[/snapback][/right]

Being afraid that people will view you as a villain because of your hair and the hair of the main villain of a movie seems silly to me.

If anything they'd link pale white females with white dreads with evil and not everyone with dreads. And kids would be more likely to connect the whiteness with evil than the dreads.

[Doc]

Nothing.  Pick your hair style, folks.  With all the people adding silly colors to their hair, how are dreads any big deal?  You want to spend the time to do them, at least do them well.  That, of course, is an admonition that could cross all social lines.

Occhi
[right][snapback]96526[/snapback][/right]

I have always taken very good care of mine. I wash them frequently. And until recently, I have always kept them ripped, er, pulled apart and neat and tidy.

Lately, I have stopped caring and stopped ripping them apart at the roots. I have tons of congos, locks that have grown out together with hydra ends. I have this "Crazed Lord of the Forest" look going on right now, which I have become quite fond of. Even my mustach has locked up.

And I am sorry for all my sound and fury, but this is one thing, one of the very few things, that I take seriously. I can't stand that the pop culture movement has adopted locks, and the abominations coming out of salons now, synth locks, dread perms, etc. All these people walking around with Lee Press On Locks, stupid, vacous, insipid, just bugs me. They are going for a look... Some sort of weird industrial grunge rock something or other sort of look. Or when locks are put on the stereotypical villian, like the White Witch. Well, for lack of a better way of explaining it in more delicate words, when people do stuff like this it really offends me. It's like somebody coming in and pissing on the altar of a church or something or somebody burning a sacred book. And I can't bloody stand it when some snotty faced little twit half my age comes up and asks which salon I had my locks done in or asks if I am trying to make my self look younger by having locks like "all of the rest of the kids" and then laughing in the most insipid way you could imagine. I grow tired of all the idiots that have embraced lock culture that have spread the most vile untruths you could imagine as this vast collection of idiots tries to make themselves look cool, and all of the lies they spread, which only further causes bad stereotypes of locks in general. Like people saying that you must start locks with toothpaste or peanut butter, or that if you have locks, you can never wash your hair. Or that people with locks are somehow dirty and have lice, and that dreadlocks are actually lice nests, or any number of lies out there. Because there are all these ignorant twits out there spreading these untruths, and they don't wash their hair, and become filthy and nasty, people like me are made to suffer for something that we hold dear.

I am sorry for all my ranting, but the fact that Disney has once again made quite a statement is upsetting to me in a sort of "Song of the South" sort of way. I am really quite offended. Pissed. Angry. I don't expect people to understand... A lot of folks couldn't seem to understand why so many people were offended by "Song of the South" either. But some things just rub folks wrong.

:angry: People should be more respectful :angry:

[Doc]

Being afraid that people will view you as a villain because of your hair and the hair of the main villain of a movie seems silly to me.

If anything they'd link pale white females with white dreads with evil and not everyone with dreads. And kids would be more likely to connect the whiteness with evil than the dreads.
[right][snapback]96533[/snapback][/right]

That is quite can of worms. I hope I read that wrong.

If you don't mind clarifying for me, just to make sure that I did, infact, read that the wrong way... Were you trying to say that kids are more likely to connect that whiteness with evil, as in being a white person, or just the fact that pale sallow albino coloured people are evil?

:blink:

Sometimes, over the net, you read something and it can be just a little hard to make out what people are trying to say. This is how misunderstandings happen. :D

[Guest]

I think youre spinning a bit.

There was a bit of a purposeful feral look about "locks" in some the cultures you mentioned and understtod but unintended feral nature about them in yet other of those cultures. I think you are slantin the presentation.

Im all for people enjoying thier hair how ever they wish.
But much like our clothes its an image e choose for ourselves and and only fair if we let others judge us by the image we present(of course it might be wise to take a more sircumspect view to cultural transplanrs.).

[Doc]

I think youre spinning a bit.

There was a bit of a purposeful feral look about "locks" in some the cultures you mentioned and understtod but unintended feral nature about them in yet other of those cultures. I think you are slantin the presentation.

Im all for people enjoying thier hair how ever they wish.
But much like our clothes its an image e choose for ourselves and and only fair if we let others judge us by the image we present(of course it might be wise to take a more sircumspect view to cultural transplanrs.).
[right][snapback]96548[/snapback][/right]

Just a question. What you said was an entirely fair statement. I don't think you are trolling, which is really nice.

Who defines "feral" and what is "civilised"?

A long time ago, ALL human beings had locks. No combs. It is natural for hair to entwine with it's self and create locks. It's part of the human evolution. In the blistering heat, you can soak your locks in water, and the slow evaporation with air flow through the locks acts as a radiator effect. (Even normal sweating will cool you) Evaporation and airflow cools the head considerably. In the freezing cold, locks, with pockets of air trapped in them, keep you warmer and act as a better insulator than combed hair. The ability to have our hair lock is what allowed us total environmental adaptation, in addition to our wonderful brains and flexable thumbs. It's all part of the total package.

A very very long time ago, let's go back to early Egypt. People wore locks. Even in the later parts of the Egyptian Empire. King Tut had locks, which are still remarkably well preserved. Would you say that the Egyptians were "feral"? What about the Babylonians? Persians? Ancient Hebrews and their early civilisations?

It's a fair question.

It bothers me that people with locks in movies are always shown in a negative light. It bothers me that people like you hold views that locks are somehow associated with being "feral". It bothers me that you have been spoonfed an image your whole life, one that you are not even aware of I believe, that anybody that somehow looks different from you is somehow "feral". Don't feel bad, it is associative xenophobia, something pounded in to our heads by our parents, our surrounding milieu during our impressionable years, and our educational system. It is also a deeply ingrained instinctual response hardwired in to our brains that causes us to see anybody different from us as a threat to our own subgroup, from way back in the days when human beings were a remarkably fragile species on the verge of being wiped out by anything, and were still competitive with each other for territory, living space, and food.

And that's what bothers me. I would venture a guess that some clever person gave the White Witch locks in an attempt to make audiences really dislike her on some deep instinctual level... By tapping in to that "associative xenophobia". She is obviously different. And therefore, bad. People have built in programming that can be tapped to hate her. It would build emotional tension in the audience. And most people will never even be able to put their finger on why they don't like her, although many will make the connection that she is after all, a witch, and she is evil, but there will be sense of revulsion that goes deep down in to the onion layers of our brains... A programmed response that few can deny. Even better, in a theatre, surrounded by like looking social milieu most likely, people that look very much the same, on a deep empathetic level, there will be a group sense of revulsion, which is really a very interesting psychological response if you want to get right down to it.

Oops. Er... Hey um... I think I just gave my self away. I am obviously not the absent minded old fool that many think of me to be. I shall go back to being a fool that makes jokes about everything now and stop being so bloody serious.

Just something to think about folks when you go to the theatre folks. Ponder the real enemy.

[Munkay]

Just a question. What you said was an entirely fair statement. I don't think you are trolling, which is really nice.

Who defines "feral" and what is "civilised"?

A long time ago, ALL human beings had locks. No combs. It is natural for hair to entwine with it's self and create locks. It's part of the human evolution. In the blistering heat, you can soak your locks in water, and the slow evaporation with air flow through the locks acts as a radiator effect. (Even normal sweating will cool you) Evaporation and airflow cools the head considerably. In the freezing cold, locks, with pockets of air trapped in them, keep you warmer and act as a better insulator than combed hair. The ability to have our hair lock is what allowed us total environmental adaptation, in addition to our wonderful brains and flexable thumbs. It's all part of the total package.

A very very long time ago, let's go back to early Egypt. People wore locks. Even in the later parts of the Egyptian Empire. King Tut had locks, which are still remarkably well preserved. Would you say that the Egyptians were "feral"? What about the Babylonians? Persians? Ancient Hebrews and their early civilisations?

It's a fair question.

It bothers me that people with locks in movies are always shown in a negative light. It bothers me that people like you hold views that locks are somehow associated with being "feral". It bothers me that you have been spoonfed an image your whole life, one that you are not even aware of I believe, that anybody that somehow looks different from you is somehow "feral". Don't feel bad, it is associative xenophobia, something pounded in to our heads by our parents, our surrounding milieu during our impressionable years, and our educational system. It is also a deeply ingrained instinctual response hardwired in to our brains that causes us to see anybody different from us as a threat to our own subgroup, from way back in the days when human beings were a remarkably fragile species on the verge of being wiped out by anything, and were still competitive with each other for territory, living space, and food.

And that's what bothers me. I would venture a guess that some clever person gave the White Witch locks in an attempt to make audiences really dislike her on some deep instinctual level... By tapping in to that "associative xenophobia". She is obviously different. And therefore, bad. People have built in programming that can be tapped to hate her. It would build emotional tension in the audience. And most people will never even be able to put their finger on why they don't like her, although many will make the connection that she is after all, a witch, and she is evil, but there will be sense of revulsion that goes deep down in to the onion layers of our brains... A programmed response that few can deny. Even better, in a theatre, surrounded by like looking social milieu most likely, people that look very much the same, on a deep empathetic level, there will be a group sense of revulsion, which is really a very interesting psychological response if you want to get right down to it.

Oops. Er... Hey um... I think I just gave my self away. I am obviously not the absent minded old fool that many think of me to be. I shall go back to being a fool that makes jokes about everything now and stop being so bloody serious.

Just something to think about folks when you go to the theatre folks. Ponder the real enemy.

I've read this thread for a while, and I think it's due time that I've responded. Up until now I've tried to sympathize with your viewpoint. You are angered and frustrated with the association of dreadlocks with an evil character in a movie. And as someone who has dreadlocks, I do understand the frustration you feel about this association between dreadlocks and evil, especially since the movie will be viewed by millions of people. And I can not stress enough that it is entirely in your right, Doc, to be frustrated and angered about this. And although I personally do not share this frustration, I respect that it is in your right.

But after this last I felt the need to respond. You ask who defines civilized and who defines feral? In one sense, the difference is merely evolutionary. Loosely speaking, the civilized are those people who band together and live as a community under a common rule system, and the feral are those that do not come together and live under a common rule system. At this point there is no value assigned to either. The value part comes down to a question of whether or not you believe it is human nature to be a social animal. If you believe that they are, then the person who lives in a society is in a sense more human, and the feral person more of a beast. If you believe the opposite, that human beings are not by nature a social animal, then too the values will be opposite (same goes for belief's that a "stronger person" lives a feral life and a "weaker person" a civilized life, and vice versa).

After this Doc, you point to the history of mankind. Here you seem to answer your own question. If mankind began with dreadlocks, then dreadlocks were first and foremost a sign of when we had feral natures. Now, the human beings in the world live in societies, or civilizations. And since we (more or less) chose to live as a society, we opt for the first value judgement: it is better to be civilized than feral. And since, as you stated, dreadlocks are first associated with the feral, it is not surprising that civilization on the whole does not wear their hair in dreadlocks. Now I personally am not saying this is right or wrong, but following logically this is the answer to your question.

Now, as for your examples about civilizations with dreadlocks, such as Egypt etc. Pardon the generalization, but human history on the whole has become more "civilized" the longer it exists - by civilized I mean it in the sense that societies drop habits that are linked to a more feral existance. It is similar to the evolution of the disgust of body odor. The 'early' civilizations, Greece, Egypt, and Rome, had a whole lot of stinky people in them. (Yes, the Romans were famous for their baths, but these acted more as social gathering places than washbasins).

I hope this clears things up, and this post does not come off as a flame. The answer to the question you were asking was contained in your own text. I just figured I'd help you out a bit.

When I have more time I'll try to respond to your point about "associative Xenophobia",

Cheers,

Munk

[Roland]

That is quite can of worms. I hope I read that wrong.

If you don't mind clarifying for me, just to make sure that I did, infact, read that the wrong way... Were you trying to say that kids are more likely to connect that whiteness with evil, as in being a white person, or just the fact that pale sallow albino coloured people are evil?

:blink:

Sometimes, over the net, you read something and it can be just a little hard to make out what people are trying to say. This is how misunderstandings happen. :D
[right][snapback]96535[/snapback][/right]

I took it as the latter. Much like the D2 Necromancer (despite him technically fighting for the side of good). Pale and sickly just don't have that "healthy" shine we associate with "good". ;)

Besides, bad guys are supposed to lose. It only makes sense that they suffer along the way for their wrongdoings. :)

[Doc]

I've read this thread for a while, and I think it's due time that I've responded.  Up until now I've tried to sympathize with your viewpoint.  You are angered and frustrated with the association of dreadlocks with an evil character in a movie.  And as someone who has dreadlocks, I do understand the frustration you feel about this association between dreadlocks and evil, especially since the movie will be viewed by millions of people.  And I can not stress enough that it is entirely in your right, Doc, to be frustrated and angered about this.  And although I personally do not share this frustration, I respect that it is in your right.

But after this last I felt the need to respond.  You ask who defines civilized and who defines feral?  In one sense, the difference is merely evolutionary.  Loosely speaking, the civilized are those people who band together and live as a community under a common rule system, and the feral are those that do not come together and live under a common rule system.  At this point there is no value assigned to either.  The value part comes down to a question of whether or not you believe it is human nature to be a social animal.  If you believe that they are, then the person who lives in a society is in a sense more human, and the feral person more of a beast.  If you believe the opposite, that human beings are not by nature a social animal, then too the values will be opposite (same goes for belief's that a "stronger person" lives a feral life and a "weaker person" a civilized life, and vice versa).

After this Doc, you point to the history of mankind.  Here you seem to answer your own question.  If mankind began with dreadlocks, then dreadlocks were first and foremost a sign of when we had feral natures.  Now, the human beings in the world live in societies, or civilizations.  And since we (more or less) chose to live as a society, we opt for the first value judgement: it is better to be civilized than feral.  And since, as you stated, dreadlocks are first associated with the feral, it is not surprising that civilization on the whole does not wear their hair in dreadlocks.  Now I personally am not saying this is right or wrong, but following logically this is the answer to your question.

Now, as for your examples about civilizations with dreadlocks, such as Egypt etc.  Pardon the generalization, but human history on the whole has become more "civilized" the longer it exists - by civilized I mean it in the sense that societies drop habits that are linked to a more feral existance.  It is similar to the evolution of the disgust of body odor.  The 'early' civilizations, Greece, Egypt, and Rome, had a whole lot of stinky people in them.  (Yes, the Romans were famous for their baths, but these acted more as social gathering places than washbasins).

I hope this clears things up, and this post does not come off as a flame.  The answer to the question you were asking was contained in your own text.  I just figured I'd help you out a bit.

When I have more time I'll try to respond to your point about "associative Xenophobia",

Cheers,

Munk
[right][snapback]96560[/snapback][/right]

:blink:

I was not aware I answered my self. Bother.

And I look forward to your reply, with interest.

Edit.

And on second thought... After thinking for a moment:

I am downright hermit-like. I dislike human beings in general. I dislike civilisation in general. I don't like being around people. I reject society as a whole after becoming entirely to disgusted by it.

Am I feral? "Civilised" people seem a good deal more barbaric than I am. For so called "civilised" society, I look around and see child molestations, violence, drugs, alcohol, and human trash and debris. I see animals. Well, no, that is insulting to animals. I see a collective of creatures that call themselves human and claim to be a civilised society, but are nothing of the sort.

I'd rather spend time with my goats than I would with people. Or my dogs. Or my chickens. Or the horses. The cow. The cats. Heck, even the trees and the kudzu is much better company than most human beings.

I have no answers. Only questions.

[Guest]

:blink:

I was not aware I answered my self. Bother.

And I look forward to your reply, with interest.

Edit.

And on second thought... After thinking for a moment:

I am downright hermit-like. I dislike human beings in general. I dislike civilisation in general. I don't like being around people. I reject society as a whole after becoming entirely to disgusted by it.

Am I feral? "Civilised" people seem a good deal more barbaric than I am. For so called "civilised" society, I look around and see child molestations, violence, drugs, alcohol, and human trash and debris. I see animals. Well, no, that is insulting to animals. I see a collective of creatures that call themselves human and claim to be a civilised society, but are nothing of the sort.

I'd rather spend time with my goats than I would with people. Or my dogs. Or my chickens. Or the horses. The cow. The cats. Heck, even the trees and the kudzu is much better company than most human beings.

I have no answers. Only questions.
[right][snapback]96565[/snapback][/right]

I think you just validated my position.

You say yourself that you generally reject society. Isnt it shocking that the hair style you chose to wear is one society frequently regards as a mark of a reject or as a sign of an uncivialized person.

[roguebanshee]

That is quite can of worms. I hope I read that wrong.

If you don't mind clarifying for me, just to make sure that I did, infact, read that the wrong way... Were you trying to say that kids are more likely to connect that whiteness with evil, as in being a white person, or just the fact that pale sallow albino coloured people are evil?
[right][snapback]96535[/snapback][/right]

I was referring to either sickly pale people or actual albinos in white clothes.

The image of pure white is more likely to stick in a persons mind than their hair, clothes, build or facial features. Of course, the closer you get to the specific image the stronger the connection will be.

[Doc]

In spite of my outrage, I am still going out to see this. I have rented out an entire showing. i sponsored a local youth group for a very poor church... Good kids, but poor. They probably don't get to see movies much. They kept their grades and attendance up in school, and crime is down in the neighborhood, and they haven't been out doing stupid stuff like peddling drugs. So I am going to keep my end of the deal and take them to the movies. (I make a lot of donations to this particular youth group, in this area, of all the local youth groups, they seem the most needy) It looks like Monday will be the day unless something dreadful comes up. (And the school part is taken care of. It is educational after all.)

Bloody hell, the cost of drinks and popcorn alone is going to kill me. A small coke is six bucks. Whisky Tango Foxtrot.

Sadly, I get the feeling that very few of these kids have ever read these books. That makes me sad. :(

[jahcs]

Bloody hell, the cost of drinks and popcorn alone is going to kill me. A small coke is six bucks. Whisky Tango Foxtrot.

Sadly, I get the feeling that very few of these kids have ever read these books. That makes me sad. :(
[right][snapback]96593[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps instead of buying those outrageously priced drinks get them copies of the book as a souvenir instead?

[Doc]

Perhaps instead of buying those outrageously priced drinks get them copies of the book as a souvenir instead?
[right][snapback]96597[/snapback][/right]

Oh, I planned to do that already, get several boxed sets of the books and give them to the church. What I would really like to do is rebuild the community center... Instead of some rundown shack where all these kids meet to socialise and do their homework and stay out of trouble... A modern building. Air conditioned for crying out loud. With classrooms maybe. A real kitchen instead of a sink and a microwave. The sort of kitchen that these kids and the church could use to feed the community. And a gym. Or something. A full sized basketball court. With seating for parents and the community. A place for kids to go to stay off of the streets and out of trouble. Maybe make something of themselves rather than be the next generation of prostitutes and meth addicts.

I promised a movie, drinks, and snacks. I must keep my word. These kids have had to many promises broken already in their lives. The way I see it, I could buy my self one stupidly expensive gun for Xmas like I usually do, or something to that effect, or I could make a whole crowd of kids happy.

The "civilised" people round these parts don't do to well to keep their promises. The mayor and the city council promised to revitalise this area years ago. It got him in to office. And not one damn thing has been done.

Civilisation can piss off.