Indian Jones sounds like it would be a character Tracy Morgan wanted to play on SNL. But then some SJW on staff complained about cultural appropriation so they made him an astronaut instead.
That’s not really what people mean by SJW. Think more like the college kids freaking out because someone wrote “TRUMP 2016” in chalk on their campus sidewalks.
Okay? Now back on topic.
No, the bad thing is that “SJW” is always used as an insult. The worst thing you can honestly say about the kind of behavior that draws that fire is that it is sometimes a little annoying; and the best things you can say about it are truly awesome. Gandhi and MLK were (pacifist but not quietist) warriors for social justice, and they were better men than any who use “SJW” as an insult.
I haven’t yet gone through the rest of this post, but this is starting off on the wrong foot. The 1940s weren’t “simpler” than today and people were not less complicated.
People in general were likely more ignorant, but that’s not the same thing.
In any case, this isn’t a work from the 1940s. It’s set in that period, but it is a work from the 1970s, and in analyzing what the story is implying it’s what those things meant in the 1970s that are key.
Sounds more like he has a history of running from them.
So Hugh [COLOR=Navy]Hefner’s empire and *The Pill *and [/COLOR][COLOR=Navy][COLOR=Navy]the Sexual Revolution of [/COLOR]the 1960’s and and Roe v. Wade had no impact? Dating behaviors were exactly the same and teens were just as promiscuous but the lack of media and scandalous coverage merely made that fact less well-known?
[/COLOR]
I see your point and appreciate the approach but I think it’s an equally valid approach to immerse oneself into a work of fiction (or history) and see the world from the characters’ perspective, which is what several of us are arguing. That would mean understanding what social values and mores Henry Junior and Marion were operating within (or actively ignoring) during the period they’re arguing about in the Nepalese bar scene.
Otherwise we could also open a separate thread to ask if Manny Wilder was a statutory rapist by 1970s and early 1980s standards for screwing Laura Ingalls – who bragged in the series that she was “Almost 16! Just about the same age my momma was when she got married!” [And, for that matter, that would have made her father a statutory rapist by the standards of the viewers’ time, as well. But this should be a separate thread (or ignored) so we don’t hijack this one.]
From a *sui generis *perspective – trying to understand the characters’ world through their context, I saw Indy and Marion talking about themselves as kids, she being deeply in love and thinking “This is the man of my life!” and being heartbroken when he left for whatever reasons. I think parts of Raiders and various parts of Skull suggest Indy still truly loved her (though he might have truly loved several of his other conquests from the Young Indy Chronicles, as well).
Yeah, to the extent of climbing out the back window of his office to get away (well, from the male students, too).
—G!
*Maybe he didn’t want to leave but he was running from another treasure-hunter whose artifact he stole – because it really belonged in a museum.
What’s up with the colored text? It’s very difficult to read.
This entire thread has become basically impossible to read, colored fonts or otherwise.
Stranger
As a bit of an aside - Gypsies Tramps and Thieves came out in 1971 - portraying a similar age gap (16 vs 21) and a threat of murder…
And 50 years from now, around 2066, they’re going to look back on some of our behaviors and say, “Man, different times.”
Indiana Jones is a Grapist.
Wait, it’s half your age PLUS seven?! I was misinformed!
I really don’t get that our of her speech at all. She’s angry at him for a busted love affair in which she feels she was used. It doesn’t have to get a lot more complicated than that.
Her meeting Indiana at the university is quite plausible given that it is suggested Ravenwood and Indiana were very close. But “had a bit of a falling out, I’m afraid…” which was presumably a falling out when Ravenwood found out Indy was nailing his daughter, a scandalous thing circa 1926.
As to why Marion is stuck in Nepal, though the extent to which she chooses to stay there is unclear, well, as she says, her father’s dead. (It is noteworthy that she refers to him by his given name, Abner, not as “Dad.”) I’d presume he took her there at some point after the falling out. It seems the most likely scenario.
Sometimes those old movies blow my mind with the stuff that wouldn’t go over to well and probably result in protests and boycotts. Does anyone remember that old Clint Eastwood cowboy movie where this blonde upper class woman kind of mouths off to him and he drags her violently into a barn and rapes her but the in the middle of the rape she starts to enjoy it?:eek:
The first scene in the movie shows a college undergrad flirting with Professor Jones in class. The Marion deal was probably a similar situation. It’s routine for people to refer to themselves as “a child” to exaggerate their youth at a certain point in time.
High Plains Drifter was pretty deliberately provocative back in the day, even. It was one of the four 1973 movies condemned by the Legion of Decency. And a New York Times reviewer commented:
It does. Because that’s how the term is used. What you did is the very thing that people who use that term would actually use it for.
You chose to use a term created and used by bigotry apologists. So someone pointed out those bigotry apologists would use that word against you, too.
SJW is an insulting term for people a certain group disagrees with. They don’t exist, any more than feminazis or libtards exist. It’s just someone you think is too sensitive.
Different, sure. But “different” and “simpler” aren’t the same thing.
No, no - that’s dog years.
You’re not wrong, and I’m no SJW at all.