Rudolf, not to be outdone by humans, develops a complex about his incongruity and this is heightened when other reindeer ban him from their social gatherings- until a blizzard threatens to cancel Christmas.

Apparently, they added the part where Santa came back to pick up to the misfit toys in 1965 in response to viewer letters.

The presumed psychological effects of exclusion were part of the rationale for Brown v. Board of education:

“To separate them [children in grade and high schools] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone…”

It isn’t clear that this rationale is or was true.

I doubt if racists perceived Rudolf the Red Nose reindeer as having some sort of anti-racism message. Racists don’t generally think of themselves as racists (or if they explicitly adopt that label, then they don’t see it in pejorative terms) and that’s why they are pretty much immune to either perceiving or taking to heart stories with anti-racist messages. They see themselves as people who just see things the way they are and everybody else refuses to admit to reality becuase of “political correctness”. What normal people view as stereotypes, they view as just an accurate description of reality.

Basically, racism belongs more in the psychological category of delusion, not run of the mill error. If someone makes an error, I might be able to just demonstrate where they are wrong and bring them about to the correct view by demonstrating where they went wrong. The delusional are much more difficult to persuade. There is a certain willfulness involved (see also global warming deniers who recoil from the label of denier). Or if I were to put it in religious terms, convincing a racist almost takes a conversion experience in which they see things in a completely different light. Not “Oh, I see I was wrong, that sociological study shows that X belief is wrong, I’ll abandon that belief”.

I just want to add a little more to the John Wayne movie criticism.

When I referenced The Searchers above, my point was that it’s a little too cliche to point to John Wayne—or cowboys and indians movies in general. The better part of the genre, John Wayne movies included, is a little more nuanced than what some people make it out to be.

In many movies, because even semi-decent drama demands such things, it wasn’t simply a matter of cowboys good, indians bad. There are usually corrupt white men and noble savages characters. Wayne’s roles often were sympathetic to the indians. (Admittedly, he also made his share of schlock movies.)

Now, my 1970’s childhood was in part heir to these movies. I always find it intriguing that as children, my friends and I would at times fight over who got to be the indians when playing cowboys and indians. It wasn’t that cowboys were uncool; but the indians seemed pretty cool, too.

The U.S. government may have had it in for the indians, but I don’t think it’s fair to say the same for Hollywood.

By the way, John Wayne had many nasty characteristics (and some nice ones), took a repugnant stance during the VietNam War era (although not during the Panama Canal transfer), and could be a real SOB, but he really wasn’t a racist.

Which raises the deep and interesting question as to whether a visual adaptation of a widely-known book can displace the book as the Primary Text. A decade ago, I and my fellow Tolkienists spilled uncounted bazillions of electrons over this issue in (prospectively) debating the legitimacy of the Lord of the Rings movies online. The fundamental cleavage was between “Purists” and “Revisionists”; as a leading revisionist, I took the negative in the debate, but I am no longer utterly sold on that position.

The practical argument for it is that a book is presumptively the work of a single individual with more-or-less complete control over the product, whereas a movie, or at least a “commercial” one, is inevitably a collaboration between a number of people who may be fundamentally at odds with one another, so that the final product will likely be more contingent than coherent, making the question of “intent” unanswerable.

In this instance, I guess we started out talking about the visual medium, so fair enough. (As for myself, I read Dune, once and long ago, but never saw the movie.)

I’ve always admired what Dr. Seuss did with didacticism: many of his stories were fables as blatant as Aesop’s, but they didn’t come across as patronizing to kids, in part because he was usually criticizing adult failings rather than telling kids to obey their elders.

the bit in life of brian about “what have the romans done for us?”.

it’s hilarious, and also useful (cf. paul krugman’s recent invocation).

but, you know, it really and truly is an apologia for aggressive empire. having a lot of sons of oxbridge sit around saying this, only thirty years after the uk finally released india from its clutches, is not as charming as it might at first seem.

I don’t think it’s so silly for the book. White guilt might not be quite the right tone, but there are a lot of parallels. The Fremen are archetypal noble savages, in touch with the land and living in harmony with its creatures all that. They are deeply spiritual warrior types. The Atreides and other Houses have been pillaging the natural resources using their ostensibly superior technology, but are confined to outposts by the hostility of the environment. Indeed, there’s a blatant environmentalist streak running through all of Dune (the book), in the best “white guilt” tradition. Paul Atreides forsakes his imperial heritage, leads the Fremen to victory and even assumes a native name.

It’s hardly a stretch.

Which John Wayne movie? The Searchers?