The Lone Ranger embraced the need to wear a mask to keep his secret identity purely out of having White Guilt. He realized his fellow White men were corrupt, and complicit in the mass murder of Tonto's fellow native Americans. If he takes the mask off, then he too will wind up complicit. Yes, that's right, liberals will love and relate to the current movie 'The Lone Ranger' since the Lone Ranger's mask is made of 100% WHITE guilt.
Are you joking around? Or is this for real? In any case, it's hilariously stupid. I don't know how old you are, and I don't know what it is, but I feel like there's this need to tell you that "The Lone Ranger" movie is based on a TV show (1949-1957), that is in turn based on a radio show (1933). And guess what, that's where the mask comes from. Guess what else: had fricken nothing to do with white guilt. You see what you want to see in films I guess. Even most of your conservative colleagues are honest enough to say that, "yes, it happened, white people did try to visit genocide on native Americans. But white people now shouldn't be blamed for the past." Well... uh... libhater, this movie takes place in that past. Even at that, his mask clearly had nothing to do with any of that, for or against.
Okay smartypants, try reading the link I provide for you here to see why Disney's new movie "The Lone Ranger" made the Ranger's wearing a mask a big issue over white guilt. Once you've read it and realize how stupid and ill informed you were with that embarrassing response, then you'll be able to come back here and apologize for being such a dunderhead. http://joemiller.us/2013/07/disneys...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-641de2e1e6-230988997
Idiocy, here, is marked by posting something that makes a seemingly wild claim, without having some sort of source to back you up. You waited 5 responses later to give one. And because of that, I'm not the only one questioning your intelligence here. And dunderhead? Dunderhead!? What are you like 80 years old? I'm going to mark July 7th, 2013, as the day someone called me a dunderhead. Now onto your source. I wonder if the reason you didn't post this in the first place, was because you wanted to considered smart and original. Or maybe, the reason you didn't post it at first, because you knew how stupid people would find it as well. Look, I rarely if ever agree with an article that accuses movies of racism or having some race related propaganda. I hate it when liberals do it. Jar Jar Binx is not a racist stereotype (he's just a stupid unneeded character). In the videogame world, some liberals complained that Resident Evil 5 was racist because you're shooting black people (which it isn't, you just happen to be in Africa, and the Africans are infected by a virus). And just to give you an even better example, when the very liberal MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry criticized "The Help" of being racist, I completely disagree with her as well. Pound for pound, such articles are written by people who completely missed the point, and probably paid attention to 35% of the movie. So keep that all in mind. Because you've posted another article, dealing with racism in a movie. And, I'm going to disagree... aaaaalll over again. However, as it turns out, there was already a response to this article. You see, you gave me a link, which I read. Then at the end of the article, I see that the link you gave me offered only a snippet of an article, and the original is linked at the end of it. So the full article, complete with someone's very observant response, is here: http://io9.com/lone-ranger-is-johnny-depps-tribute-to-(*)(*)(*)(*)ty-superher-654517516 The original article, which you allude to, is written by Charlie Jane Anders. I don't know what her other articles are like, but I do have a sort of sick curiosity just see how bad of a train wreck writer she is by viewing some of her other work. PorcoRosso's response is included on that link. If you look at the picture at the top, click on the #10 to go straight to this response. Some key points to note as it pertains to what we're talking about. Anders' words are in red, Rosso's response in blue: Tonto keeps insisting that "nature is out of balance," because of the crimes of the white outlaws who are secretly but obviously in league with all the white authority figures in the movie. (Tonto repeats the nature out of balance line in reference to Silver, the horse, and the numerous strange antics that it gets to - but on two occasions he refers it to the unnatural inclusion of the railroad in the middle of the wild - other than that, it's never used as a talk of white evil men.) What makes the Lone Ranger finally embrace the need for his mask, and hence the whole "secret identity" thing? In a nutshell, he realizes his fellow white men are corrupt, and complicit in the mass murder of Tonto's fellow Native Americans. If he takes the mask off, then he too will wind up becoming complicit. Yes, that's right — in this film, the Lone Ranger's mask is made of White Guilt. (In the film, Tonto argues that wearing the maks allows for the Ranger to act outside of the law to do good - especially when the law is being controlled for evil. Dan tries to believe in the law, but realizes that it can be bought and men can be killed, but an image - very much in the vein of all vigilantes, like Zorro - can't. The mask comes to symbolize him working outside corruption and being uncorruptable, not because he doesn't want to associate with white people. This kind of hyperbolic reading into things is sensationalism at its worst.) the Lone Ranger gets the Native American seal of approval from Tonto, as long as he's wearing the mask. (The Lone Ranger gets Tonto's approval when he mans up and helps Tonto bring justice to the people who had wronged him, The Ranger and the Natives.) In the end Anders' review was dishonest, seemingly unobservant, and seemed to just want to write something controversially mean spirited to get a rising response from those reading the article. So, Libhater, you will not be getting an apology from me. Although I do find your opinions pitiful and sad... just sad.
Excuse me for not reading your entire lengthy response, but I did mange to get to the point where you were criticizing the article, and as such I have to tell you that there were at least a dozen or so articles all having the same narrative--that the Lone Ranger wore that mask out of WHITE guilt. Its as simple as that, and to further deny that fact is to continue to set up camp in Dunderheadville. Btw, Dunderheadville is located on the Left Coast, while my home town of 'Realville' is located in a community full of intellectuals out on the East Coast. You really should visit us some day. A highly energizing and stimulating experience...I assure you.
I remember watching that show when I was a kid. Clayton Moore is the Lone Ranger. [video=youtube;Ph5-dRuTrDU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph5-dRuTrDU[/video]
Long story short: I do not agree with most movie review articles (liberal or conservative) that read into any racial issues barely evident in the film. (Melissa Harris-Perry's liberal review of "The Help" for instance) So there's a dozen or so idiots on the Internet. What's new? *groan* Come on. At least be honest enough to not claim that it's as "simple as that." When it comes to the arts (movies, tv shows, games, plays, music, visual art, etc.) we have to employ the mantra that "art is subjective." I'd at least think about respecting your views more if you at least attempted to have an intelligent presentation. I gotta ask... Did you see "The Lone Ranger" movie? This is what made me so much. It's fuming with undeserved confidence. Earlier I asked if you were 80 years old. Now I gotta ask if you're 12. It's hilariously childish. The only thing missing is "nanna-nanna-boo-boo" Actually a better likeness would be to reread what you said there and picture Ron Burgundy saying it instead. Here I'll help you:
So those dozen or so urls that all conceded the fact that the Lone Ranger wore the mask out of a sense of WHITE guilt can only be construed by you to be hilariously funny? Okay, so now I see where you are coming from, and that is obviously from a mindset that gets its talking points from comedic parodies as with that one using Ron Burgundy as the source. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Well, let me ask you this: can dozens or so people be wrong on something? Here's something else we need to discuss. How many movie reviews are there of this movie? Of those reviews what percentage of those critics actually agree with the "dozens or so" links you allude to? Let's use rottentomatoes.com. Keep in mind that the movie absolutely bombed with movie critics (25% among top critics). But 68% among audience members. So it's quite clear it wasn't a great movie. I thought it was at least fun, but obviously not Oscar material. So all that in mind, do your research. How many people actually agree with you that the mask of "The Lone Ranger" was because of white guilt? Nope. No, I don't think you do. You know, I'm just about done here. I'm not getting my talking points from Ron Burgundy, I'm comparing you to him. But it's quite telling that you misunderstand that, seeing as how you've actually made a career out of misconstruing reality.
Actually, the millions of people that voted for their messiah obummer were terribly wrong in doing so, so yes, dozens of people can be wrong. Frankly, I don't have the time to pursue the number of reviews of this movie, but I haven't seen anyone refuting the validity of the Lone Ranger wearing the mask out of having WHITE Guilt. Perhaps you could come up with a reason or a fact that would somehow dispute this finding. Well, we found something to agree on. I lost count somewhere in the millions. You're not so wrong in comparing Ron Burgundy to me since we do look a lot alike and we both share a similar humor/comedic background. Oh I don't misunderstand anything. I doubt you'll find anyone living in Realville to be likely to misconstrue much of anything.
That's actually the sort of response I was hoping for. I'm not going to agree or disagree with you. But all I was asking for was any issue in hold a certain opinion, and you know that there are lots of people that disagree with you. That is all. What the point there is this: you just use "hey there's dozens of links that all agree" as a way of affirming your position as being in the right. I just provided you with it. Go back to my response in which you said you had no time to read. Look at the red and blue words. Also, you can't just use words like "fact" and "finding" in this situation. We're dealing with movies and tv shows and what not. It's the arts, and art is subjective. So unless you have some "fact" or "finding" yourself other than the "dozens of links" that are basically all opinioned movie critics, then you got nothing. So you thought it was fun. Can you prove this? Right but the point of all that (and I feel odd trying to describe the joke to you), is that the humor of Ron Burgundy is that he has undeserved confidence. You can also think of Danny McBride's character in "This Is the End". Yeah, see the real problem here is you claiming that you're from Realville, meaning you're the one here who's in touch with reality. I think that's something that's pretty much up for grabs at this point. We're still debating, so who's in touch with reality is not yet decided. The thing is everyone wants to believe that their opinions are the truth, and all opposing opinions are lies. It's something that makes your clever (okay, it's probably clever to you anyway) signature irrelevant: "If you want to anger a liberal, tell him the truth. If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie." Really? And how do we know what's the truth and what's the lie here? You can't just have this "my opinions are right, so there" approach to reality and expect to be taken seriously. But that's exactly what you're doing here and throughout this forum.
