Export thread

[IMDB]1136608[/IMDB]

Now, I had NO IDEA what this movie was about other than aliens had landed and were in a slum in South Africa. That's it. I had no idea if this was a drama, comedy, or whatever. Yes, I posted the IMDB thing yesterday and figured it was more of a drama than anything, but I purposely didn't pay attention to any of this because I didn't want to ruin anything.

I'm still not sure how I feel about this movie. I want to like it but there's so much about it to hate. The obviousness of the South African/racist overtones towards the aliens is like a sledgehammer. Yet it does play a part in the movie so I understand why it's there.

But there were a few things about it that I hated.

There were NO sympathetic characters in the movie. Nobody to root for. The only one you really could feel anything for was the Prawn Christopher, but you hardly saw him in anything other than a small role. He wasn't in the movie nearly as much as he should have been. The main Human character was a cowardly dick. He only did anything if it helped himself, with the possible exception of his final act where he thought he would die letting Christopher get away.

Some things our "hero" did:

1) Destroyed & cooked the eggs of the Prawns. Basically killing their kids.
2) Sucker punched Christopher and left him for the military just so he could try and get to the mothership. Not sure what he was going to do once he got there.
3) Was not above torturing and killing little Prawns. They didn't necessarily show him doing it, but when Christopher's son threw the candy bar at him he hit the kid.

The egg part really got me because then they brought in the flame throwers and torched the whole place.

The whole fuel/black liquid/turns Humans into aliens thing was just weird. And the eating of his arm because it was turning him into a Prawn was intensely odd and disturbing.


All in all I still don't know if I liked the movie. I think it would have been much better for me on the big screen, but I did like the way most of it was done like news being broadcast.

I'd give it 7 of 10 but don't see why it's even nominated for best picture.

I liked that there were no real sympathetic characters, actually. There were sympathetic moments, which I think is a bit more realistic. It was a looooong journey for the main character to go from racist prick to willing to give up his life and that entire journey is going to be pretty miserble, especially since there is a fair amount of truth to the racism (the prawns seem to have lost their hive mind and so are very bestial?)

The thing that bugged me about the movie was how typical of an action movie it turned into for the final half. The fight scenes became drawn out and a little fantastical. That's where I started to feel the movie really drag. I would say an 8 of 10 from me but the fiancee would have probably given it a 6 or 6.5 I figure. It really is a tough movie to pin down, I think.

A few days after I saw the movie, and thought of it, I came to the conclusion that I should think of it as a very dark comedy. Just the way a lot of it was presented feels that way.

I wrote this in another thread, but while I liked it, it felt a little done. Wikus never had much character, so it was hard to sympathize with him. Plus you had the whole Christopher-Wikus Disney buddy plot which was a bit corny.

You know you are having trouble sympathizing with a character when, during Wikus' party, the thing that appeared in my mind when he was vomiting up black ooze on the kitchen table and convulsing was "Ah man he ruined the cake."

I would never have called Wikus overtly racist. At least, not intentionally. The point of the movie as I saw it was his journey from ignorance to revelation.

This is the stuff that real Science Fiction is made up of, though. It's a commentary on both itinerant Zimbabwean workers and Apartheid, using a backdrop and a setting that makes absolutes simultaneously more concrete (us vs. them = humans vs. aliens instead of South Africans vs. Zimbabweans or Whites vs. Blacks) and easier to question.

My main problems with it were that I never really understood how the aliens got into that situation in the first place. Someone told me that basically the prawns were supposed to be more like worker aliens, and that the ones that made the real decisions had died on the ship or something. Like imagine a zergling without an overlord or something. I can understand something like that happening, so the prawns don't put up any resistance or try to just get back to the ship in the first place, but the film didn't make that clear to me.

Basically they should have said why Christopher was the only one able to do things like pilot the drop ship and the mother ship.

The there's the whole Wikus is racist and only thinks of himself. I suppose that's fine and all that, I mean it makes it hard for me to care about him, but it's a valid choice for a character. The thing is though, is that when he does do the right thing at the end, it feels forced. I mean, it was only like 20 minutes ago Wikus sucker punched Christopher for putting his people's needs first, now all of a sudden he's willing to give his life for the cause. It just doesn't feel natural.

Rob King said:

I would never have called Wikus overtly racist. At least, not intentionally. The point of the movie as I saw it was his journey from ignorance to revelation.

This is the stuff that real Science Fiction is made up of, though. It's a commentary on both itinerant Zimbabwean workers and Apartheid, using a backdrop and a setting that makes absolutes simultaneously more concrete (us vs. them = humans vs. aliens instead of South Africans vs. Zimbabweans or Whites vs. Blacks) and easier to question.

Click to expand...

This was generally what I took away from the movie as well... Wikus started out an unthinking cog in an inherently racist (specist?) machine, to having his eyes opened.

phil said:

My main problems with it were that I never really understood how the aliens got into that situation in the first place. Someone told me that basically the prawns were supposed to be more like worker aliens, and that the ones that made the real decisions had died on the ship or something. Like imagine a zergling without an overlord or something. I can understand something like that happening, so the prawns don't put up any resistance or try to just get back to the ship in the first place, but the film didn't make that clear to me.

Basically they should have said why Christopher was the only one able to do things like pilot the drop ship and the mother ship.

The there's the whole Wikus is racist and only thinks of himself. I suppose that's fine and all that, I mean it makes it hard for me to care about him, but it's a valid choice for a character. The thing is though, is that when he does do the right thing at the end, it feels forced. I mean, it was only like 20 minutes ago Wikus sucker punched Christopher for putting his people's needs first, now all of a sudden he's willing to give his life for the cause. It just doesn't feel natural.

Click to expand...

1.) I picked up on the "hivemind is down" from the movie BUT not without really puzzling through it as the story progressed. It definitely could have been made clearer. Still, I don't mind too much that it wasn't because the humans had no idea either! I think of it more as a setting for the story than an important plot point. They could have shown some pundits speculating, I suppose.

2.) I don't think his sacrifice in the end was so much noble as it was a surrender. I felt he gave up a bit, which perhaps takes a bit away from the impact of his (metaphorical) transformation into a more enlightened "person". I DO think he became more enlightened but I also feel like he was put in a situation that he could no longer win against in the end and kind of gave up.

I actually liked how unsympathetic Wilkis was. I found it very disturbing (in a good way) to have him be the main character, and to follow that journey with him.

There were several moments when I -wanted- him to rise up and be the good guy. The scene where he knocks out Christopher and steals his ship after storming the UNC place together really struck me. I felt actual dissapointment in Wilkis, and I don't think that emotional response would have come so readily had he been more sympathetic.

I kept wanting to sympathize with him, and he kept being a dick human. And that really seemed to hit with me. I didn't think he was a bad guy, just obviously ignorant and didn't see how bigoted he was until the end.

You know, it's funny--I actually found the punch-out scene more sypathizable than other scenes, because he was getting understandably desperate.

fade said:

You know, it's funny--I actually found the punch-out scene more sypathizable than other scenes, because he was getting understandably desperate.

Click to expand...

It was a very memorable scene, certainly one of the pivotal points in the film. He was very understandably desperate, but at the same time he stabbed Christopher in the goddamn back and kidnapped his kid!

"When is dad coming down?"

I rented this on pay per view last week on a whim. I heard the good reviews of it, so I figured a $4 rental would be worth it.

I was right.

This movie was epic. And fucking disturbing at the same time.

First of all, I'm not referring to aliens as "prawns" because, that was the racist term humans came up with to label them. They are simply aliens for lack of a better term (I don't remember if they had a species name).

These poor beings.. Yea, the racial metaphor was right in your face but damn, just seeing how an entire race of extra terrestrials would be treated by humans was spot on. Cause sadly in our current state, we'd try to in slave them, povertize them, kill them, eat them or attempt to backwards engineer their technology. And this films does all that in one go.

The main human guy was a complete and utter dick who deserved his fate.

I was glad to see Christopher and his son not die.

And why the hell does the black fluid, which is obviously the power source of their technology, ALSO cause a genetic mutation in a human? A fuel source for intergalactic travel can cause physical alteration in another species?

I hated to see how these poor beings were treated.. Like when the couple of aliens traded the mech suit for a measly 100 cans of cat food.. they tricked the one into staying behind a minute, just long enough to lure him to turn his back..

I mean I get that real racism like this exists but not on this level. Why? These aliens didn't know any better. They didn't know they were coming to a planet with a fairly savage race that inhabits it. They had no clue we would murder, slaughter and practically pull a slow ass genocide over a twenty year period.

Oh and how the hell could humans understand the alien language? It was a system of clicks.. The aliens could understand english just fine, did they just not have vocal cords capable of it?

Great movie all together. Disturbing but great

Mav said:

Oh and how the hell could humans understand the alien language? It was a system of clicks.. The aliens could understand english just fine, did they just not have vocal cords capable of it?

Great movie all together. Disturbing but great

Click to expand...

Actually, there are quite a few languages, especially in Africa, that utilize clicks. Probably the most famous is Swahili. So yea, humans can understand click languages just fine.

Right I know that but like, assuming their language is completely different, how did they manage to translate it?

Most languages are derivations of Latin thus having a root language binding most of them. This seems overly complex, their click for the word Christopher might be something utterly different in a vocalized click of a human.

Mav said:

Most languages are derivations of Latin thus having a root language binding most of them.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's true.

What I know about languages is that I sometimes don't like the fact that my english is kinda lacking: I don't feel confortable enough to talk about what I thought of this movie, wich I absolutely loved.

Mav said:

And why the hell does the black fluid, which is obviously the power source of their technology, ALSO cause a genetic mutation in a human? A fuel source for intergalactic travel can cause physical alteration in another species?

Click to expand...

It was noted that the alien technology had a genetic component. Perhaps the fluid acted as some kind of viral mutagen.

---------- Post added at 07:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 AM ----------

Silver Jelly;337630][QUOTE=Mav said:

Most languages are derivations of Latin thus having a root language binding most of them.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's true.

[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's true either. It's true of Romance languages, certainly. But there are plenty of other languages with different roots. I think Mav is caught up in the idea that "most" languages must be similar to his own, an easy trap to fall into. I once surprised a whole group of people I debated on another board, when I showed them that no, Christianity is not really the majority religion worldwide. They were simply caught up with the idea that because everyone they knew, and every place that they cared about was predominantly Christian, it must be true universally (which, of course, it's not)

http://www.hokuriku-u.ac.jp/library/pdf/kiyo26/gai5.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_families

Mav said:

I rented this on pay per view last week on a whim. I heard the good reviews of it, so I figured a $4 rental would be worth it.

I was right.

This movie was epic. And fucking disturbing at the same time.

First of all, I'm not referring to aliens as "prawns" because, that was the racist term humans came up with to label them. They are simply aliens for lack of a better term (I don't remember if they had a species name).

These poor beings.. Yea, the racial metaphor was right in your face but damn, just seeing how an entire race of extra terrestrials would be treated by humans was spot on. Cause sadly in our current state, we'd try to in slave them, povertize them, kill them, eat them or attempt to backwards engineer their technology. And this films does all that in one go.

The main human guy was a complete and utter dick who deserved his fate.

I was glad to see Christopher and his son not die.

And why the hell does the black fluid, which is obviously the power source of their technology, ALSO cause a genetic mutation in a human? A fuel source for intergalactic travel can cause physical alteration in another species?

I hated to see how these poor beings were treated.. Like when the couple of aliens traded the mech suit for a measly 100 cans of cat food.. they tricked the one into staying behind a minute, just long enough to lure him to turn his back..

I mean I get that real racism like this exists but not on this level. Why? These aliens didn't know any better. They didn't know they were coming to a planet with a fairly savage race that inhabits it. They had no clue we would murder, slaughter and practically pull a slow ass genocide over a twenty year period.

Click to expand...

I saw it as an awesome display of Card's Hierarchy of alienness. The Prawns are obvious Djur despite humanities default belief that they are Ramen. Humanity had a problem fully accepting that but the movie makes it obvious that they are violent, super strong creatures who refuse to follow human laws or reign in their "fun" of derailing trains and kidnapping humans.

And then they are incapable of even providing an understanding of how their technology works and continue to breed out of control, stock pile weapons and make them selves such a nuisance that they can no longer be accepted near any population center. Sure it would have been cruel but Humanity and the prawns are incapable of coexistence and therefore the prawns should have been wiped out instead of being placed in the Refugee camp that became a crime and disease ridden slum that stretched South Africa's resources past the breaking point.

Oh and how the hell could humans understand the alien language? It was a system of clicks.. The aliens could understand english just fine, did they just not have vocal cords capable of it?

Click to expand...

I seem to remember Wikus delivering a few non-sequitors to Christopher so it's possible that humans have a soft understanding of the language and use known words and situation to fill in the blanks of what they don't understand.

Aliens seemed incapable of speaking English seeing as how none of them even tried.

Great movie all together. Disturbing but great

Click to expand...

Oh yeah great movie. I think that Wikus giggling as he explained the popping sounds coming from the burning eggs is probably the most disturbing scene in cienema history. It's just that monsterous.

Dave said:

All in all I still don't know if I liked the movie. I think it would have been much better for me on the big screen, but I did like the way most of it was done like news being broadcast.

Click to expand...

And this is why the film deserves an Oscar...


And Wikus being an arsehole at the start but in the very end doing something good was the whole point.

The thing that bugged me about the movie was how typical of an action movie it turned into for the final half. The fight scenes became drawn out and a little fantastical.

Click to expand...

Sadly i had friends who only liked the film from then on...

But i found it a pretty well done blend of the two parts.

It did have good action, which can only be a positive in my opinion. A movie doesn't need good action to be great, but including it (emphasis on good) is not a negative.

And who didn't think the rocket catch was awesome? Because that was awesome.

Ravenpoe said:

And who didn't think the rocket catch was awesome? Because that was awesome.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

As for the language issue ... I can't remember any humans speaking the Non-Human language, although I could just be forgetting. I guess it would make sense for the people dealing with the Non-Humans to understand their language, and on the flip side, the Non-Humans would basically have to learn to understand English in their situation, whether they're physically able to produce the sounds or not.

The hivemind part of things I thought explained well enough, although I never interpreted it as a hivemind sort of thing. My understanding was that their leadership was missing, and thus they sort of did their own thing. When Christopher showed up, I figured that he was either a former leader, one of several former leaders, or a worker bee who was capable of stepping up to the job, but didn't reveal himself for fear of the humans.

I also wish they had given them a politically correct term other than 'Non-Human.' 'Prawn' is somehow racist, but even 'Non-Human' defines them from a human-centric standpoint.

Re: the unsubtlety, let's not forget that apartheid ended in 1994, and South Africa's still not exactly the tidiest place on earth. Good odds that this film was exorcising a few of its participants' issues.

I am with the crew that actually liked not being able to sympathise with Wikus. I think it made for a better movie. I also liked how the aliens were disgusting, so even if the racists were the bad guys, you couldn't fully sympathise with the victims, giving part of reason to the 'bad guys'.

The conflicting emotions allowed for some thinking afterwards, and were very well done.

All in all, I thought the movie was awesome.

Again, the stuff with Wikus is called character growth... and was a great comment on how even people that might be considered decent (he was kind of a looser that got pushed around but was a good, loving husband based on his wife's reaction) will still be grossly bigoted if it's the social norm.

'Prawn' is somehow racist,

Click to expand...

Somewhat?! How much more obvious could the film be...

The newscasts scrolling texts called the prawns "space people".

@Li3n said:

'Prawn' is somehow racist,

Click to expand...

Somewhat?! How much more obvious could the film be...

Click to expand...

That's what they looked like. I mean, if they don't like the term they can certainly protest, but the impression I got was that the Non-Humans were not the ones who were bothered by the nomenclature. The one woman who talked about the racist term was a human.

But then, I'm one of those people who still uses the words 'Eskimo,' and 'Chinese.'

Rob King said:

But then, I'm one of those people who still uses the words 'Eskimo,' and 'Chinese.'

Click to expand...

As opposed to?

blotsfan;338796][QUOTE=Rob King said:

But then, I'm one of those people who still uses the words 'Eskimo,' and 'Chinese.'

Click to expand...

As opposed to?[/QUOTE]

Inuit and...well, don't know. Chinese is fine as far as I know.

MindDetective;338804][QUOTE=blotsfan;338796][QUOTE=Rob King said:

But then, I'm one of those people who still uses the words 'Eskimo,' and 'Chinese.'

Click to expand...

As opposed to?[/QUOTE]

Inuit and...well, don't know. Chinese is fine as far as I know.[/QUOTE]

Inuit and Jackie Chan.

MindDetective;338804][QUOTE=blotsfan;338796][QUOTE=Rob King said:

But then, I'm one of those people who still uses the words 'Eskimo,' and 'Chinese.'

Click to expand...

As opposed to?[/QUOTE]

Inuit and...well, don't know. Chinese is fine as far as I know.[/QUOTE]

Well, my point is mostly that people don't generally get to pick their monikers in other languages. I know "Chinese" isn't offensive, but it sure as hell isn't what the Chinese call themselves.

Similar to Germans being "Deutschlanders." Unless a term is intrinsically offensive, I don't understand how people get bent out of shape about them. And with regards to "Prawn" you have to read into it in order for it to be bad.

Rob King said:

And with regards to "Prawn" you have to read into it in order for it to be bad.

Click to expand...

Given that this is a fictional slur, I'm sure it doesn't matter, but... just how much do you have to read into naming an intelligent species after a bottom feeding animal?

Well not a lot, apparently. I just thought 'Prawn' was an excellent name because that's sort of what they looked like. The fact that prawns are bottom-feeders is an unfortunate one, but I never would have thought it a big enough deal in itself to make the term pejorative.

Although, in the film the Non-Humans have been around for a while, which means no matter what the humans started calling the visitors, it would have had plenty of time for the euphemism treadmill to make it offensive.

Rob King;338790][QUOTE=@Li3n said:

'Prawn' is somehow racist,

Click to expand...

Somewhat?! How much more obvious could the film be...

Click to expand...

That's what they looked like. I mean, if they don't like the term they can certainly protest, but the impression I got was that the Non-Humans were not the ones who were bothered by the nomenclature. The one woman who talked about the racist term was a human.
[/QUOTE]

If you look at how it's used by most people in the film you'd see it is.

Look at negro, it's still means simply black in most romance languages, and that's why it was originally used...

@Li3n;338955][QUOTE=Rob King;338790][QUOTE=@Li3n said:

'Prawn' is somehow racist,

Click to expand...

Somewhat?! How much more obvious could the film be...

Click to expand...

That's what they looked like. I mean, if they don't like the term they can certainly protest, but the impression I got was that the Non-Humans were not the ones who were bothered by the nomenclature. The one woman who talked about the racist term was a human.
[/QUOTE]

If you look at how it's used by most people in the film you'd see it is.

Look at negro, it's still means simply black in most romance languages, and that's why it was originally used...[/QUOTE]

My point is that it doesn't strike me as inherently racist, just like 'Negro.' But again, it's the euphemism treadmill. If the Non-Humans had been around for twentyish years, it's plenty of time for even the most neutral (or positive) term to take on negative connotations.

Obviously from listening to the context many of the characters are using it pejoratively. But I would argue that a) 'Prawn' should not be approached as inherently racist, and b) in the setting of the film, not everyone who would use the word 'Prawn' is anti-Non-Human.

Prawn isn't inherently racist, but most of the people that used it were terming it as a way to degrade them, like don't take shit he is just a prawn, aka don't take that shit he is just a negro. Just because it's an adjective that describes them well doesn't mean that it can't be used as a negative term which it was for most of the people.

Bear in mind, there's nothing intrinsic to the actual N-word that makes it inherently racist. It's just a tweaked version of what was, at the time, a legitimate term for people of African descent. What makes it racist is entirely how it is used and the cultural baggage that goes along with it. It doesn't matter what prawn actually means and whether it'd be an okay term for the aliens. It matters that for (20?) years the term was used offensively to describe a race that everyone saw as dirty and creepy.

Put me in the camp of people who were GLAD to see a movie that didn't sugarcoat anything and give us a sympathetic white guy to help us pretend that if we (I am referring to other white people like myself, and perhaps by extension people integrated into European culture) would have acted like good, tolerant people that, in all honestly, we probably would not have.

*Cough* Avatar *Cough*.

Actually using a word from another language when you have one that means the same thing in your does sound rather intentional to me. Remember, they where enslaving them, and dehumanizing them helped in justifying it.
The vikings had the best name imo, they called blacks blue people, because of what the ones from N Africa they met wore...

As for Avatar, well the tolerant one was somewhat of a tree hugging scientist type...

@Li3n said:

Actually using a word from another language when you have one that means the same thing in your does sound rather intentional to me.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all.

You mean "Black" versus "Negro" is somehow intentionally derogatory? Because we do that all the time. Like "Retarded" from French, rather than "Slow" in English ... and remember that 'retarded' used to be the Politically Correct term.

But was "negro" ever used in a non-discriminatory way?

Remember, it works both ways, some words that where bad are no longer considered offensive enough etc.

@Li3n said:

But was "negro" ever used in a non-discriminatory way?

Click to expand...

I don't doubt for a second that it was. I remember looking at old books on aLibris.com once, and finding a book from the mid-1800's called "The Sexual Behavior of the Negro." It may have come from an outdated and narrower understanding, but aside from the general ignorance of the time, there is nothing inherently offensive in the use of "Negro" there.

@Li3n said:

Remember, it works both ways, some words that where bad are no longer considered offensive enough etc.

Click to expand...

This is true too, but the only examples I can think of have had their meaning softened to the point where they're virtually useless words now anyhow, like "Lame."

I don't know if a book title like that from that time would count as non-discriminatory...

I don't know if a book title like that from that time would count as non-discriminatory...

Click to expand...

True. That's part of why Negro isn't used any more - it's too reminiscent of a time where almost all discussion about black people was racist to some degree. But at the time, Negro was the word to use, whether you were a racist hick or an advocate for the abolition of slavery.

Raemon777 said:

I don't know if a book title like that from that time would count as non-discriminatory...

Click to expand...

True. That's part of why Negro isn't used any more - it's too reminiscent of a time where almost all discussion about black people was racist to some degree. But at the time, Negro was the word to use, whether you were a racist hick or an advocate for the abolition of slavery.

Click to expand...

Well, this is kind of what I'm getting at. It strikes me more as a relic of a less enlightened time than an inherently derogatory term.

I mean, certainly someone using it today is a no-no, but two hundred years ago it's just unfortunately ignorant, not necessarily hateful.

Hrm - I could be wrong, but wasn't there a point when 'negro' was actually considered less offensive than 'black'? I'm pretty sure that it was generally presumed to be the proper, polite term at one time, but I don't remember when.

This coming from the guy that likes 14 year olds ¬¬

Rob King;339489][QUOTE=Raemon777 said:

I don't know if a book title like that from that time would count as non-discriminatory...

Click to expand...

True. That's part of why Negro isn't used any more - it's too reminiscent of a time where almost all discussion about black people was racist to some degree. But at the time, Negro was the word to use, whether you were a racist hick or an advocate for the abolition of slavery.

Click to expand...

Well, this is kind of what I'm getting at. It strikes me more as a relic of a less enlightened time than an inherently derogatory term.

I mean, certainly someone using it today is a no-no, but two hundred years ago it's just unfortunately ignorant, not necessarily hateful.[/QUOTE]

Well no term in inherently derogatory, some are just already sicielly associated with something "bad" before, which might not carry over to another culture...


But prawns is associated with them in a bad manner either way, just as calling dark skinned people crows is, sure there's a connection based on looks (aliens had mouths and exoskeleton, crows are black), but the association with an animal is meant to dehumanize...

Iaculus said:

Hrm - I could be wrong, but wasn't there a point when 'negro' was actually considered less offensive than 'black'? I'm pretty sure that it was generally presumed to be the proper, polite term at one time, but I don't remember when.

Click to expand...

All i can think of is that it might have been more "scientific", with the whole negroid thing, which was scientific racism...

@Li3n;339593][QUOTE=Rob King;339489][QUOTE=Raemon777 said:

I don't know if a book title like that from that time would count as non-discriminatory...

Click to expand...

True. That's part of why Negro isn't used any more - it's too reminiscent of a time where almost all discussion about black people was racist to some degree. But at the time, Negro was the word to use, whether you were a racist hick or an advocate for the abolition of slavery.

Click to expand...

Well, this is kind of what I'm getting at. It strikes me more as a relic of a less enlightened time than an inherently derogatory term.

I mean, certainly someone using it today is a no-no, but two hundred years ago it's just unfortunately ignorant, not necessarily hateful.[/QUOTE]

Well no term in inherently derogatory, some are just already sicielly associated with something "bad" before, which might not carry over to another culture...


But prawns is associated with them in a bad manner either way, just as calling dark skinned people crows is, sure there's a connection based on looks (aliens had mouths and exoskeleton, crows are black), but the association with an animal is meant to dehumanize... [/QUOTE]

I might agree with you if the Non-Humans were human. Then dehumanizing them wouldn't be much of an issue. But even the PC term, 'Non-Human' does dehumanize them, albeit in a somehow less racist way. Which was my point from the beginning. For whatever reason, 'Prawn' is racist, but the politically correct term defines them as what they aren't rather than what they are.

Xenohumanoids? Xenomorphs? Homo Xeno? Homo Johannesburgensis? Androxenoinds? Alter Homo?

I can't come up with anything good...

mr_thehun said:

Hrm - I could be wrong, but wasn't there a point when fourteen was actually considered less offensive than 'jail bait'? I'm pretty sure that it was generally presumed to be the proper, polite term at one time, but I don't remember when.

Oh Icarus, bless your .... for the fun you have brought to this board with your kid fiddling ways.

Click to expand...

'Scuse me?

Well the most obvious one would be whatever they call themselves... or go crazy and call them ET (extraterrestrials).

But the idea was that association with an animal is meant to imply they're sub-human (just like we do for other humans). Of course non-human also has a negative connotation in our culture and has been applied to actual humans.

@Li3n said:

Well the most obvious one would be whatever they call themselves...

Click to expand...

Since when have we done this with humans?

How does that make it non-obvious?!

If we don't usually do it, it's probably not that obvious.

Bah, people almost never do the obvious, and complicate things for no good reason...