The Sentinel

Ok here is the story:
There was only 1 Spartan and he was the storyteller of the group. As the movie opens all of the other 300 Spartans are already dead! Dillios was the only one left alive and his king had told him to tell a ?GRAND TALE? so that they would not be forgotten, and that is just what he did. He did not tell Herodotus? tale because Herodotus had not even been born yet. Before books and movies, the storyteller was a very important person in any tribe. That is why we hear him narrating! It is a fictional story told by a fictional character. So it does not matter if the people were blue or green.

It was a very simple story and MOST of the people in the WORLD were able to understand it.

If anyone thinks that the Spartans should have just politely surrendered because Xerxes asked nicely, then how about America nicely asking Iran to be subjugated to America? I bet they would change there tune then.

Logic is wasted on fools.

I draw issue with the assertion that Iranians are dark skinned. I am a light skinned Iranian and proud of my appearance and lineage. Furthermore, I have met quite a number of Iranians in college and city circles, and I can accurately say that about 80% have light skin (not light being closer to Indian skin color).

Maybe the author saw Iranians while they were tan??? I have no idea.

I really wonder that the matter of being dark skin or light skin is such important in america, and you still did not get ride of your racistic culture. The matter is not iranians are dark or light skins, the matter is if the spartans deserved punishment or not!

Silly girl, I guess you need to wake up and smell the coffee. I know you want 300 to be true as you want every mythology but your insecurity will still remain and you will still be what you are Monica.

Sean you whiteboy, go listen to your Emeneim and dress up in your wigger pants and shut your pasty piehole. Hey I have an idea, go to some nascar races, get drunk and smash beer cans on your head. Wake up and smell the racisim..its USA! Now instead of hating blacks (1700's), and asians (vietnam), you hate middle-east (2007). Next millenium who else? The typical redneck is too worried about illegal aliens taking jobs and making sure to watch bill oreilley sucking gay cock on his news show.

Where exactly are you getting your facts from when you claim Greeks were fair skinned before they mixed with the Turks??

Read the Iliad, which was composed around the 8th century BC, describing the battle of Troy (i.e. Greeks against Ionians) and Homer himself says warriors from both sides could only be differentiated because the Greeks had longer hair. Ancient Greeks were not blonde haired and blue eyed, this claim has always been made by western Europeans trying to strengthen cultural ties with ancient Greece, in order to lay further claim to their heritage. It's bollocks propaganda to make us white people feel better about our lack of antique culture.

I am sure there were some fair skinned and fair haired Greeks back then, just as you can easily find green eyed and fair haired Iranians today. If you look hard enough you can even find blue eyed Arabs. The fact is 300 totally demonises the multi-cultural Persian army, turning them into monsters and mutants and turning Xerxes into some kind of transvestite - a far cry from the long hair and long beard that ancient Persian sculptors portrayed him as having.

I think most people are missing the entire point of the article in general. It's not about skin color at all, or hair color (I actually never mentioned the Greeks having fair hair). I'm saying the movie 300 is not a representation of today's war, and it is not targeting one certain race. The movie is about a battle that actually occured, fought by many races on both sides. I understand the movie usues mythological creatures and characters that didn't exist, that's because it's a movie and Hollywood adds those for effects. Please, get over the mention of skin colors and race and see the actual point being made. I appreciate everyone's opinion, please attempt to understand mine. The movie 300 is not racist.

Um. You did watch the movie right? The Spartans were depicted as gloriously handsome, beautiful white people whereas the "Persian" army were populated by the most grotesque looking creatures, who were supposed to represent said Persians, Asians and Africans. Granted, the heros of movies are always supposed to look good and the enemy is supposed to be "ugly" inside and out. Not saying that the movie was racist necessarily but there's a reason that people are bringing up the subject. All the white people are "good" in this movie and anyone who is non-white is evil, disgusting and soulless.

ok ok...Monica
you just said that this movie is not racist. I am persian and I am insulted by this movie. i don't care about the skin color, but when was the last time a persian king walked around half naked??? or when was a persian king bald? where in the history of persian empire says that?? persian kings were always clothed and they mostly had full beard and somewhat long hair. you just said "the movie usues mythological creatures and characters that didn't exist, that's because it's a movie and Hollywood adds those for effects." how is that not racism??? persians are not mythological creatures. if they show us as a creature that we are not, then that is racism. its obvious that when they made the movie or when Frank Miller wrote the comic they had no freaking information about persians.

oooh, one very very important thing I forgot to mention.
one of the biggest mistakes they made in the movie was that they said persian empire wants to turn spartans into slaves. that is a big fat lie. and apparently in the movie that is the main reason they start the battle. "Persia/Iran has never practiced slavery in its thousands of years of history, and was founded on respect and equality for all races and religions as Cyrus the Great's human rights declaration 2500 years ago is a testimonial to this rich society." i got that from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_dynasty
next time, when people want to make movies or write comics about historical facts they better do their research. this movie is far from historical facts. that just bugs me..grrr
i know, people will say oooh its based on a comic book, blah blah. so what? Frank Miller must have known what he was writing about. if he mentions something that happened in history, then he gotta stick with the historical facts. not just make up whatever he finds exciting and change the history.

This article is obviously written by some dumb girl. The movie was obviously racist and obviously did NOT accurately portray persians or spartans. The spartans all had CGI six packs, were all tall handsome warriors. The persians on the other hand were portrayed as grotesque warriors and meek, scared, slaves. She says the movie shows on honor on both sides but the persians are shown to be forced into battle by whips and the ones at the front lines run back and are too afraid to fight. I guarentee you, if you actually open a book and do some research on the topic you will find the battle was not this way. Also you say that Xerxes attempted a peaceful negotiation twice. Do you actually remember the content of this "peaceful negotiation" Basically Xerxes tried to bribe Leonidas then threaten him both times. They did not glorify the persians in these encounters but instead made Xerxes look like a cowardly tyrant who tried to use money or force to get his way.

300 Wasn't supposed to be historically accurate; it was based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller; Frank Miller did not know much of the history but that didn't matter because it was a graphic novel; the costumes and characters were supposed to be depicted as they were. A comic is fiction. It isn't a history book. Now, I know more than an ample amount on the history, so, first, I will name a few inaccuracies in the film:

One of the Ephialtes is depicted as grotesque and incongruously deformed. By historical records, none of the Ephialte traitors was deformed.
Xerxes is depicted as bald when he did indeed have hair and a beard.
This one is hard to miss, there is a rhinoceros in one of the scenes who gets slain by one spartan's doru (hoplite spear). Also, I don't believe there were any elephants, either.
Xerxes seems a little pompous and not at all how he is historically depicted.
The spartans look like characters from a comic.

Ostensibly, there is an ''ugly' evil side and the handsome good side. Frank Miller had no idea what he was doing but he didn't need to, it was a comic. I like both Xerxes and King Leonidas, so it is nothing against either, but contemplate this:

Xerxes had a deep hatred for Leonidas and ordered his joints segregated from his body and body crucified. He once caused the demise of an ample portion of his army and he imposed on the Greeks when they were vulnerable.

As I say, I like Xerxes, but I just want to convey to you that the Persians weren't all that liberal, either.
Racism did come into my mind at one point in the film, but no racism was meant. Xerxes may of been depicted as "somekind of transvestite" but he also had quite a strong-build and towered over his predecessors. Also, it was also quoted that Xerxes was made out to look like a coward due to the fact he bribed Leonidas twice - in reality, it is more than likely that he only bribed him because he was fighting a losing war at the time. In the film, just before the demise of the "300", Xerxes does not bribe Leonidas, he could of killed him and had it over and done with right there, but instead he offered him amnesty in return for his loyalty. He was benevolent to all of his predecessors on the film, too. The only major inaccuracy, for me, is that the Persians were against slavery and that they fought with honour and valiance, even though it was to little avail on their part. That would of been pretty onerous to act out, don't you think? In the first battle, the Persians do fight valiantly, despite the fact that they didn't scar a single spartan.
I don't believe it, but lets say that the film had deliberate or inadvertant racism, hate the origin not the movie. The director just duplicated Frank Miller's graphic novel. Perhaps Frank Miller is racist, - I don't think so - but Greek people are tanned just like Persians.

The issue isn't whether either side fought valiantly with "honor." Looking at the movie objectively, the Spartans are the antagonists (started the war) and Persians were protagonists (did not want war). However, the scripting made it vice versa. The issue, as presented by this article's title, is whether or not the movie had a racial bias. Historically, Persians were light skinned being descendants of the Aryans while Spartans were portrayed on pottery and other arts as having brown skin. Trying to argue that this movie is historically or even anthropologically accurate is ridiculous. As far as racial bias goes, that is something only zach snyder or frank miller can answer.

omg, i am white and most of my friends are persians, we went to see the movie and we were shocked. Firstly persians are white my persian friends are as white as me but with darker hair. Persians(the ones i've seen)are extremely beautiful girl or guy, no diff. the movie made them look like a bunch of barbarians.Persians are from an aryan race(white)

Hey now. Sequio, the point about Persians fighting with honour and valiance was not the moral I was conveying. I stated plenty of other things that answers most everyone's issues. The issue you are conveying was the first and foremost thing I answered. "Ostensibly, there is the ugly bad side and the handsome good side" or something in the jist of that. It was based on a comic, Frank Miller had no idea what he was doing - I think the real offenders are the ones that try to refute these films by turning it into something racist, homophobic, ect. Really, the guy is a graphic novelist, he made a popular one; his job is done. Christina, I have already said that Persians are akin to us, and that they can be tanned like Greeks - I don't think people should see them as handsome Greeks-ugly Persians; just segregate them as good side-bad side. It's just a movie. I know some Persians, well, most Persians didn't take offense to this until people decided to point it out to them and turn a fun movie into something abyssmal. I don't think this requires much more contemplation here.

ROCK AND ROLL FOREVER!!!!!!!!! Get a life and get over it, it's just a movie. BTW not all rednecks watch nascar some of em prefer formula 1 racing and cow tipping

Very nice lady Durban. Unfortunately, common sense is not as appreciated as one would like it to be. Ignore them, and keep up the good work. I appreciate your common sense... It is the rarest of treats.

All of you must be out of your minds because there is hardly one shred of fact in this movie. It uses a few facts, but other than that it is utterly ridiculous; pure fantasy. This is a college newspaper? This whole series of posts shows the woefully poor state of higher education in this country; Even the article is poorly reasoned. The movie does have racist overtones, not because it portrays Persians as light skinned or dark skinned, but because it portays them as MONSTERS, utterly subhuman. It also portrays Spartan culture as glorious even though it is completely millitaristic. Killing "defective" babies? Only Americans could glorify this kind of garbage. Hitler would be proud.

Thank god they didn't make a movie about Alexander the Great. If the Iranians get so pissed over a depiction of a battle that they won, I couldn't imagine the anger we would see if the movie was about the complete conquest of their entire nation (including the rest of the middle east).

On another note, the Persian forces depicted from the movie are what made up the Persian expeditionary force at that time. These were forces of conscripted nations drawn from all over the Persian Empire (which spanned from Northern Greece & Western Turkey to Easter India). Therefore, the rest of the Middle East should theoretically be just as mad at the movie as the Iranians are.

It was about Europe being defended against hordes of asians, to prevent a disaster like the one we have now (multiculturalism, immigrant crime, terrorism on european soil, etc etc) Only europeans can create civilization.

interesting article. here is a video i made that attempts to deconstruct the messages that i saw in 300.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwFOpYOXBQ0

it first talks about the archetypes the film used to tell its story and then shows how these same ideas have been present in Hollywood cinema since its beginning.

IT MAY SEEM as though there are deliberate racial issues raised in this production, however it is simply hypersensativity.

The story was recorded by the Greeks, glorifying their courage and honour.

The spartans have long been acknowledged for their skill on the battlefield, this is not just something that the movie writers made up.

As for the persians being monsters, you must bear in mind the purpose of this production is to entertain, and the producers will exaggerate if it will sell copies. It is an artistic interpritation of the ruthless dominating power of the Persian army, an army which was quickly and effortlessly extending the Persian empire. Furthermore, the presentation of the Persians is not derogatory, it is also glorifying their awesome military strength.

As others have said, regarding skin colour and ethnic/racial representation... the movie is more or less accurate, the fact that is not perfect down to a T is that it is a movie intended for entertainment and not a historical documentary.

I'm not criticizing anyone's belief's on racial issues, but this movie is not racially aggravating war propeganda... it is a Hollywood production intended to sell and entertain. Reading any more into this seems pointless. Thanks for your time.

Also i must mention, the movie was an American production, so the idea of saving Europe from immigration seems highly unlikely.

ha will you all shut up what is wrong with this country, everyone needs to chill out. Thats all people do these days is find racism in anything possible. i doubt the makers of this movie are racist against persians shut up. its hollywood they arent going to keep the real story or how things reall ywere they are always going to change it. get over yourselves. if people forgot about racism all together and stopped accusing of people being racist there would be none. everyones racist these days whether your black white brown grreen or yellow. it doesnt matter, everyone is a little its human nature. and if u say you are not you are full of shit.

black people are racist all the time against white people but no one will ever dare target them or label them as racist. and if sumoen did they would just be racist for accusing a black person or sumthing..

300 is pure propaganda designed to target the minds of 10-17 year old boys, indoctrinating them with racist ideas towards the percieved enemies of the Western world.

Its time for us to be honest with ourselves and educate our kids about peace and reconciliation rather than retribution and revenge....

Wow, trying to take this all in.. Ok here we go..
Yes the Greeks where "Mediterranean" at the time of the Trojan Wars. However shortly after that you have the Greek Dark Ages and the Dorian Invasion. This is when Tribes from the North took over the Greek Peninsula. They replaced the "Earth" gods of the Mycenae Greeks with "Sky" gods of the Northern Dorian People. Not that it matters.. but the people that took over Sparta would have been lighter skinned, larger, and some traits what would be comparable to "Central Europeans". They would have looked different from the Persians.
The Persians are not "Iranians" . Persia at that time would have been the cultures of Mesopotamia. Pretty much from modern border with India to modern border of Syria. Hittite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian... all are ancient Persians.. the middle east for the most part was Persian for thousands of years. Modern "Arab" mostly comes from the Islamic conquest around the 7th Century.
Historical inaccuracies of Sparta in relation to the 300: Freedom... BS, "Spartans" were around 10% of the population governed by Sparta. The rest of the people there, many original Ionians, were slaves. So that's BS.. the uniform.. WOW, don't get me started. The reason the Spartans beat the Persians was because the Hoplite, or Spartan soldier, had metal shield, Breast plate, Shin Plates, Arm Plates and a metal helmet.
The Persians for the most part were used to fighting in open fields. So they were equipped light. Wicker shields, yes I said wicker.... Light clothing, that allowed them to cross the vast Persian Empire quickly. But in a place like the hot gates.. they were F'ed. Persians were dark but the royalty was lighter skinned. Not because of race. But being dark was a sign that you worked in the sun. The same goes for the Pharaoh's or even the Spanish up till modern times. Xerxes had a beard and was actually clothed most of the time. The movie shoes him as some homo-erotic giant. In fact the entire movie was very homo-erotic. The depiction of the Spartans with washboard stomachs would be very inaccurate. It was better to have a small layer of fat on your body, just like gladiators from Rome. In hand to hand combat you want to be large with a little extra flab.
So there you go..

I thank you for the opportunity to share a portion of my moments in time with future generations.

I thank you for the opportunity to share a portion of my moments in time with future generations.

I thank you for the opportunity to share a portion of my moments in time with future generations.

wow, this brings back some great memories! it seems like just yesterday i was watching all of these great shows, and more great shows. this homecoming theme has been so much fun!

That looks like lots of fun. When I was in college we didn't had so many fun activities.

Nice review! Thanks!

I think the article and some of the reviewers are missing some key elements in regards to the movie.

The movie itself isn't perceived as racist because of the skin color of the actors but more of how the Persians were perceived in the movie. The presence and depiction of Persians as monsters and ugly creatures is what had Iranians in an uproar when the movie came out. But those same people who see 300 as anti-Mideast propaganda see the movie the way they do because they want to believe that's what it is.

300 was written before Bush took office so the story has been around and to believe that Hollywood created the movie simply to "educate" our youth with "racist ideas towards the perceived enemies of the Western world" is purely ignorant. Hollywood makes movies to make money and lots of it. I'm sorry but no Hollywood producer is interested in making movies to spread Mideast hate.

The Persians look like monsters in the movie because that's how the Greeks saw them and that is who's perspective we are seeing throughout the movie. There is no doubt in my mind there are Iranian movies that depict westerners or Americans in a very racist fashion but we never hear about it because to be honest, I don't think we would expect anything else from a country that is run by a leader who has got to be one of the most ignorant leaders to ever exist.

300 is a movie that is based on a very artistic and visual story and is meant to be very artistic and visual. The easiest thing to do is to claim it's racist because ignorant people will always find that it's easy to make it fit into whatever argument they are trying to engage in.

If you can't see the movie for what it is, an artistic movie, then you probably shouldn't be commenting on something you do not understand.

The onew who were white 3,500 years ago were the Hindis of Northern India (Aryans who immigrate to the Indian Peninsula around the year 1,500 BC) mixing later with the dark skinned Veddas and Dravidians.

The same is is taking place in LatinAmerica. Spanish are light skinned Europeans but in Latin America Spaniards have been mixing with the indigenous population and blacks (formerly African slaves) during the last centuries and today the result is an overwhelming majority of mixed (mestizo) Latinos. In fact, in the U.S. Latino/Hispanic is considered usually as "Brown" people even if around 30% of Hispanics are White.

But the pattern in LatinAmerica has been the same as in India: Indo-European settlers mixing with the indigenous populatio and giving birth to a new ethnic group (Indian/Latino)

Anyway, the movie is just a mirror of the Frank Miller comic. So if anything is wrong the one responsible is Frank Miller.

Iranians are Indo-Europeans so they are (just look at the Ayatollah) mostly white as the Kurds or Afghans...but probably when the Aryan tribes arrived to present day Iran 4,000 years ago there were some indigenous population the same way as in Northern India, even if it is evident it was more sparcely populated as in India the vestige of an earlier people (Veddas) is evident.

Probably, in one century most Americans will look the same as Puerto Ricans and Iranians look today.

"300" not only represents the ever-growing trend of accepted racism towards Middle-Easterners in mainstream media and society, but also the reinforcement of Samuel P. Huntington's overly clichéd, yet persisting, theory of "The Clash of Civilizations," which proposes that cultural and religious differences are the primary sources for war and conflict rather than political, ideological, and/or economic differences. The fact that "300" grossed nearly $500 million worldwide in the box office may not be enough to suggest that movie-goers share the film's racist and jingoistic views, but it is enough to indicate how successful such a film can be without many people noticing its relentless racist content. As Osagie K. Obasogie wrote in a brilliant critique of the film, "300" is "arguably the most racially charged film since D. W. Griffith's 'The Birth of a Nation'" – the latter being a 1915 silent film that celebrated the Ku Klux Klan's rise to defend the South against liberated African-Americans. Oddly enough, both films were immensely successful despite protests and charges of racism.

Media imagery is very important to study. Without analyzing and critiquing images in pop culture, especially controversial and reoccurring images, we are ignoring the most powerful medium in which people receive their information from. A novel, for example, may appeal to a large demographic, but a film appeals to a much wider audience not only because of recent video-sharing websites and other internet advancements, but also because the information is so much easier to process and absorb.

According to the Cultivation Theory, a social theory developed by George Gerbner and Larry Gross, television is the most powerful storyteller in culture – it repeats the myths, ideologies, and facts and patterns of standardized roles and behaviors that define social order. Music videos, for example, cultivate a pattern of images that establish socialized norms about gender. In a typical western music video, you may see female singers like Brittany Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Beyonce wearing the scantiest of clothing and dancing in erotic and provocative ways that merely cater to their heterosexual male audiences. These images of women appear so frequently and repetitively that they develop an expectation for women in the music industry, i.e. in order to be successful, a woman needs to have a certain body type, fit society's ideal for beauty, and dance half-nakedly. Stereotypical images of men in music videos, on the other hand, include violent-related imagery, "pimping" with multiple women, and showing off luxury. Such images make violence and promiscuous sexual behavior "cool" and more acceptable for males. As we can see from two studies by Greeson & Williams (1986) and Kalof (1999), exposure to stereotypical images of gender and sexual content in music videos increase older adolescents' acceptance of non-marital sexual behavior and interpersonal violence.

Cognitive Social Learning Theory is another social theory which posits, in respect to media, that television presents us with attractive and relatable models for us to shape our experiences from. In other words, a person may learn particular behaviors and knowledge through observing the images displayed on television. A person may also emulate the behavior of a particular character in a film or television show, especially if a close-identification is established between the viewer and the character. Both theories – Cultivation Theory and Cognitive Social Learning Theory – apply in my following analysis of "300."

In order to deconstruct "300," I will start by (1) discussing its distortion of history, then (2) contrast the film's representation of Persians and Spartans, (3) correlate Frank Miller's Islamophobic remarks on NPR with the messages conveyed in "300," and (4) conclude with the importance of confronting stereotypical images in mainstream media and acknowledging the contributions of all societies and civilizations.

Distortion of History

Initially a graphic novel written and drawn by Frank Miller, who is best known in the comic book industry for reinventing Batman in his critically acclaimed "The Dark Knight Returns," the inspiration for "300" stems from true historic events, although Mr. Miller states that it was never intended to be a historically accurate account of the Battle for Thermopylae. In any case, the information we have about the Battle for Thermopylae comes from the classical Greek author, Herodotus, who lived in the Persian city of Halicarnassus. His book, "The Histories," became part of Western folklore in 1850, when America embraced it as the leading authority on Persian history. Interesting enough, and many people may not know this, is that prior to 1850, the West had a very favorable impression of the Persian Empire, particularly because its main source for Persian history was rooted in the Bible and the "Cyropaedia," which was written by another Greek author named Xenophon. The "Cyropaedia" glorifies the rule of Cyrus the Great, a benevolent Persian king who will be discussed later. In respect to the Battle of Thermopylae, the events may have occurred, but it was far different than the famous myth explains: 300 Spartans held Thermopylae for three days against over a million Persian soldiers.

This version of history is portrayed in the Hollywood adaptation of "300" in heavily stylized fashion that remains faithful to the comic book. The film's director, Zack Snyder, said during an MTV interview, "[t]he events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy." And yet, the film hardly mentions that the 300 Spartans were allied with over 4,000 Greeks on the first two days of the battle, and over 1,500 on the final day (other sources mention that there were 7,000 to 10,000 Greek allies). The battle was fought in a narrow mountain pass of Thermopylae where not even two chariots could pass through side by side; the choice of using this terrain benefited the Spartans and their Greek allies immensely against the Persians. Many historians agree that the massive Persian army would have obliterated the Spartan/Greek forces without much difficulty if the battle were fought on an open battlefield. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the Spartans were heavily armored and wore armor that weighed 30-40 kg, while the Persians were lightly armored.

Ephraim Lytle, assistant professor of Hellenistic History at the University of Toronto, states that "300" selectively idealizes Spartan society in a "problematic and disturbing" fashion, which would have seemed "as bizarre to ancient Greeks as it does to modern historians." Touraj Daryaee, Baskerville Professor of Iranian History at the University of California, Irvine, criticizes the film's use of classic sources:

Some passages from the Classical authors Aeschylus, Diodorus, Herodotus and Plutarch are spilt over the movie to give it an authentic flavor. Aeschylus becomes a major source when the battle with the "monstrous human herd" of the Persians is narrated in the film. Diodorus' statement about Greek valor to preserve their liberty is inserted in the film, but his mention of Persian valor is omitted. Herodotus' fanciful numbers are used to populate the Persian army, and Plutarch's discussion of Greek women, specifically Spartan women, is inserted wrongly in the dialogue between the "misogynist" Persian ambassador and the Spartan king. Classical sources are certainly used, but exactly in all the wrong places, or quite naively.

As I wrote in my post on "The Truth About Thanksgiving: Brainwashing of the American History Textbook," omitting and ignoring an entire race of people in historical accounts is a form of racism because it negates the achievements and stories of the "Other." In the film, Persians constantly threaten Spartans with slavery, and yet, any honest historian knows that the Persian Empire, particularly the Achaemenid Empire, was built on a model of tolerance and respect for other cultures and religions. According to the documentary, "Persepolis Recreated," the Persian Empire is the first known civilization in the history of humankind to practice international religious freedom. Images carved on the walls of Persepolis testify how Persians interacted and conversed with nobleman of other nations respectfully and without enmity. Denying another civilization its own accomplishments and contributions to the world is like blotting them out from history altogether and rewriting one's own prejudice version. As we will learn later, any mentioning of Persian valor, compassion, and sophistication, would have resulted in a potential backfiring to the film's agenda.

At one point in the film, the Spartan protagonist, King Leonidas, describes the Athenians as "boy lovers," which, according to Paul Cartledge, professor of Greek History at Cambridge University, is ironic, since "the Spartans themselves incorporated institutional pederasty [erotic relationships between adolescents and adult men] into their educational system."

The fact that Frank Miller and Zack Snyder stripped the Spartans of homosexual relations and, instead, made them accuse the Athenians of being "boy lovers" in order to reinforce their masculinity, shows us a distortion of history that favors a heavily masculinized and homophobic take on the Spartans. In modern society, homosexual males are frowned upon the most because society discourages men to behave in ways that are contrary to their expected gender traits, i.e. a man must be strong, emotionless, and courageous – and of course, these play into stereotypes about homosexuals since it suggests they cannot possess any of those traits. Therefore, if a man is a "boy lover," he can never be as great of a fighter as a heterosexual Spartan. It's obvious that mentioning the facts about Sparta's institutional pederasty would not have made a connection with the film's directed heterosexual male audience. This is evident from Oliver Stone's "Alexander" film, where many expressed their outrage of Alexander engaging in homosexual relations, therefore never developing a close-identification with the character.

Distorting the history in "300" merely fulfills one component in glorifying the Spartans and vilifying the Persians. In the next section, we will see how the film's visual representation of Spartans and Persians accompany its biased history for the sake of reinforcing the divide between West and East.

Spartans and Persians: Glorification, Demonization, and Tokenism

Perhaps the most noticeable offense in the film is how the Persians are horrifically depicted as monsters. It is not hard to notice the punctuated differences in skin color: the white-skinned Spartans versus the dark-skinned Persians. The Persian King, Xerxes, is shown as an abnormally tall, dark-skinned, and half-naked madman with facial piercings, kohl-enhanced eyes and, as Dana Stevens from "Slate" writes, "[has] a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him." The rest of the Persians are faceless savages and demonically deformed. This demonization of the Persian race extends to malformed characters, including Persian women, who are depicted as Lesbians and concubines. Even the elephants and rhinoceroses look like hell spawns. Stevens also adds:

Here are just a few of the categories that are not-so-vaguely conflated with the "bad" (i.e., Persian) side in the movie: black people. Brown people. Disfigured people. Gay men... Lesbians. Disfigured lesbians. Ten-foot-tall giants with filed teeth and lobster claws...

Also noticeable is how the Spartans wear no body armor; instead they are bare-chested and wear only a helmet, cape, and underwear. This is common in comic books where physical attributes of male characters such as muscles are magnified and exaggerated to symbolize strength, power, and heroism. In sheer contrast, the Persians are dressed in typical Middle-Eastern attire in pure Orientalist fashion, which only degrade them into invisible and insignificant characters without stories. We have seen these contrasting images of West and East cultivated before, and we still see them today. Whenever a crisis in the Middle-East is covered by the mainstream Western media, we tend to see the images of garbed Middle-Eastern men burning flags and shouting like barbarians, but rarely ever see scholarly and intellectual Middle-Easterners who are treated with respect and credibility. As Jack G. Shaheen discusses in his book, "Reel Bad Arabs," Hollywood is guilty of vilifying Arabs and Muslims; repeating images of light-skinned and attractive Western (mostly American) counter-terrorist heroes blowing away dark-skinned, unattractive, and "rag-headed" Middle-Easterners. These images have been repeated so much in the mainstream media that they become the socialized norm: Arab/Muslim = Evil, oppressive, terrorist, and uncivilized, etc. Although the ancient Persians in "300" are neither Arab nor Muslim, they are confined into the same group through modern-day Orientalism.

Throughout the film, for instance, the constant emphasis on "The Clash of Civilizations" is not just limited to the manner of visual representations, but rather extends to what the Spartans and Persians stand for. Early in the film, we see the Spartan King, Leonidas, resist against the Persian call for "submission" by bellowing about freedom and liberty. Just like the visual depictions of Persians in "300" are no different than Hollywood's stereotypical and insulting representation of Arabs and Muslims, neither are the themes. As adolescents and fans alike eccentrically shout the film's most memorable quote, "This is Sparta!" – a line that Leonidas says right before kicking an African man down a well – they knowingly or unknowingly establish a close-identification with the Spartan characters and, subsequently, the heroism they are meant to epitomize. As a result, Persians get perceived, in modern terms, as "terrorists" – monstrous beings that are mysteriously driven by an innate desire to conquer, slaughter, and oppress.

These differences between Spartans and Persians ring eerily similar to modern-day tensions between the West and the Middle-East. As Obasagie writes, "this racialized depiction of freedom, nation, and democracy becomes central to "300's" take home message," but what remains even more unnoticed is the film's "unapologetic glorification of eugenics." In the very beginning of the film, for example, we see the newborn Spartans being inspected for "health, strength, and vigor," while the weak and disabled are hurled off a cliff onto a large pile of dead babies. Obasogie further elaborates:

The film suggests that this rather crude form of eugenics is put in place for military reasons: every Spartan child should either be able to become a soldier or give birth to one... Initially shocked, audiences are quickly reassured that this is all for the greater good: nation, freedom, and the Spartan family. How else can Sparta defend itself - and inspire modern democracies - unless it reserves scarce resources for the strongest?

Strongest men, that is, which brings me to my next point: the exploitation of female characters. A blog posting written at "FirstShowing.net" explains "Why Women Should Go See '300.'" The list, which is not even written by a woman, reads: 1. Gerard Butler, 2. Gerard Butler Naked, 3. Empowered Women, 4. Strong Relationships, and 5. 300 Nearly Naked Men with 8-Pack Abs. The author apparently thinks that male eye-candy, romantic relationships, and a dash of "feminism" constitute a "good film" for all women.

At first glance, the Spartan Queen Gorgo may look like an empowered woman, but she is a token character, at best. In a predominately White male film, she serves as the only central female character and assumes a pseudo-feminist role of flaunting her femininity for the sake of reinforcing the film's racism and singular image of masculinity. For instance, early in the film, the Persian messenger angrily responds to her, "What makes this woman think she can speak among men?" She responds proudly, "Because only Spartan women give birth to real men." Yes, real men, i.e. the one-sided view of masculinity: aggressive, violent, dominating, muscular, etc. It seems that any man who doesn't meet these characteristics is not a "real man." It also seems that Spartan women are treated as merely "manufacturers" of these "real men."
panteaThe mentioning of women occurs enough times in the film to establish that Spartans treat their women "better" than the Persians. The only Persian women we see are sex slaves and disfigured lesbians. In actuality, there were Persian Empresses such as Azarmidokht, who ruled Persia under the Sassanid Empire. Ancient Persian women not only engaged in political matters, but also served as military commanders and warriors. One of the great commanders of The Immortals was a Persian woman named Pantea (pictured left), and during the Achaemenid dynasty, the grand admiral and commander-in-chief for the Persian navy was a woman named Artemisia. Persian women also owned property and ran businesses. Unfortunately, we do not see any such representation in "300."

A counter-argument may state that Queen Gorgo actually plays a pivotal role in the film since she convinces the council to send more soldiers to aid the Spartans. But her success could never have been accomplished if she did not do what stereotypical female characters usually do: use her body to get what she wants. Queen Gorgo realizes she has very little choice when the corrupt Spartan politician, Theron, says he wants sex in exchange for helping her. After she drops her top, Theron forces her against the wall and rapes her. Later on, Theron stands before the council and accuses Queen Gorgo of being an adultress and a "whore Queen." Although Queen Gorgo stabs him in this scene, it's nowhere near as disturbing as the rape scene.

As we have seen in this section, the glorified violence, racism, and erotic imagery of the Spartans, as well as the use of women, accentuates their superiority over the Persians, but perhaps nothing can drive the point home more than Frank Miller in his own words.

Frank Miller and Islamophobia

It should be in the interest of those who may disagree with my analysis of "300" to listen to Frank Miller's interview on National Public Radio (NPR) on January 24th, 2007 (or read the transcript). The interview followed former President Bush's State of the Union address and is pasted below (emphases added):

NPR: [...] Frank, what's the state of the union?

Frank Miller: Well, I don't really find myself worrying about the state of the union as I do the state of the home-front. It seems to me quite obvious that our country and the entire Western World is up against an existential foe that knows exactly what it wants ... and we're behaving like a collapsing empire. Mighty cultures are almost never conquered, they crumble from within. And frankly, I think that a lot of Americans are acting like spoiled brats because of everything that isn't working out perfectly every time.

NPR: Um, and when you say we don't know what we want, what's the cause of that do you think?

FM: Well, I think part of that is how we're educated. We're constantly told all cultures are equal, and every belief system is as good as the next. And generally that America was to be known for its flaws rather than its virtues. When you think about what Americans accomplished, building these amazing cities, and all the good its done in the world, it's kind of disheartening to hear so much hatred of America, not just from abroad, but internally.

NPR: A lot of people would say what America has done abroad has led to the doubts and even the hatred of its own citizens.

FM: Well, okay, then let's finally talk about the enemy. For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against, and the sixth century barbarism that they actually represent. These people saw people's heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I'm speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I'm living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.

NPR: As you look at people around you, though, why do you think they're so, as you would put it, self-absorbed, even whiny?

FM: Well, I'd say it's for the same reason the Athenians and Romans were. We've got it a little good right now. Where I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he motivated our military, but he didn't call the nation into a state of war. He didn't explain that this would take a communal effort against a common foe. So we've been kind of fighting a war on the side, and sitting off like a bunch of Romans complaining about it. Also, I think that George Bush has an uncanny knack of being someone people hate. I thought Clinton inspired more hatred than any President I had ever seen, but I've never seen anything like Bush-hatred. It's completely mad.

NPR: And as you talk to people in the streets, the people you meet at work, socially, how do you explain this to them?

FM: Mainly in historical terms, mainly saying that the country that fought Okinawa and Iwo Jima is now spilling precious blood, but so little by comparison, it's almost ridiculous. And the stakes are as high as they were then. Mostly I hear people say, 'Why did we attack Iraq?' for instance. Well, we're taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, we're doing the same thing now.

NPR: Well, they did declare war on us, but...

FM: Well, so did Iraq.

Iraq declared war on the United States? Not only are Frank Miller's words filled with incredible absurdity and ignorance, they're also plagued by disgusting prejudice that should raise questions about his underlying messages in "300" and other recent works of his. One of the things I found really disturbing in Miller's interview was how he suggested that "teaching all cultures are equal" and "every belief system is as good as the next" is a bad thing! What is he implicating here? Are we to teach that certain cultures and belief systems are better than others?

In his next response, he essentially calls Islam "sixth century barbarism," and then lumps the entire Muslim world into one stereotype. Then he says "I'm speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I'm living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built." Perhaps someone should educate Mr. Miller that the Islamic empires preserved the beloved Greek philosophical texts by Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Ptolemy, Aristotle, and many others. He should also be informed that algebra was invented by a Persian Muslim, Mohammad Al-Khwarizmi. The word English word for "algorithm" actually comes from "Al-Khwarizmi" and the significance of algorithms in computers, programming, engineering, and software design is immensely critical. As stated by Michael H. Morgan, author of "Lost History: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers, and Artists," Al-Khwarizmi's new ways of calculating "enable the building of a 100 story towers and mile-long buildings, calculating the point at which a space probe will intersect with the orbits of one of Jupiter's moons, the reactions of nuclear physics... intelligence of software, and the confidentiality of a mobile phone conversation." Ironically, the Western achievements that Frank Miller boasts about could not have been possible without the collaboration of civilizations.

Conclusion

As I have written many times in my previous essays, racism is most dangerous when it has been made more acceptable in society. When the Nazis dehumanized the Jews, they did so in cartoons and propaganda films so that the rest of the country didn't feel sorry about killing them. When early American cartoons and cinema depicted African-Americans, they drew them with ugly features and had White actors wear blackface makeup, respectively. At the time, these obviously racist acts were acceptable. In modern times, when the insulting Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were released, many non-Muslims were too shocked at the Muslim world's reaction than actually taking the time to realize that the cartoons were drawn out of hate and sheer Islamophobia. Rather than seeing the cartoons as racist or prejudice, many defended it as "freedom of expression." The manner in which certain people in the Muslim world reacted to the Danish cartoons is another subject altogether, but it's worth mentioning that their response represents a sensitivity that the West has made very little efforts to understand. For Islamophobes, demonizing the Prophet of Islam wouldn't be such a bad idea since dehumanizing the enemy is an essential process of war. Vilifying the "Other" makes racial slurs acceptable – slurs like "rag heads," "camel jockeys," "towel heads," "dune coons" among much worse things.

Although the Persians in "300" are not Muslim (the movie takes place in the Pre-Islamic and Pre-Christian era), the visualization of Persians are identical to the stereotypical images we see of Muslims in other media representations. Demonizing the Persians during a time when Middle-Easterners and Muslims are already being vilified simply makes dehumanization of the "Other" acceptable and more recognizable. I remember having one odd conversation with a young man who started his argument by saying, "Xerxes and his Muslim army were a bunch of tyrants." I stopped him immediately and told him that his ignorant comments are precisely the reason why I raise awareness and accuse "300" of being a propaganda film. Xerxes and his Persian army were not Muslim, yet I saw many people correlating the film with present-day tensions between the United States and Iran. Joseph Shahadi recently informed me, the right-wing party of Italy even uses images of "300" in their campaign posters! It's sad how many don't seem to realize that dehumanization of certain groups has dangerous consequences; after all, before the Holocaust, Jews were dehumanized.

"300" may look like a visual breakthrough in cinema "art", but that doesn't make up for its blood-spattering jingoism or its racist content. Counter-arguments in the film's defense are often weak with excuses like, "it's just a movie," or "it's based on a comic book" or "it's simply meant to entertain." The counter-arguments are short and weak because the film is unapologetic and doesn't contain anything sympathetic or appreciative about Persians, their culture, and their history. It would benefit Frank Miller and Zack Snyder if they saw Ridley Scott's brilliant film, "Kingdom of Heaven," which explores the complexity of war and celebrates dialogue between great civilizations. Such films are beneficiary to society because they convey much-needed messages of coexistence, respect, and understanding that reach wide audiences.

On a personal note, it is discouraging that so many people, including academics, doctors, and scholars, are either not bothered or don't see the racism in "300." And every once in a while, another one of my friends will do the Spartan "Ha-oooh!" chant around me and not realize how offensive it is. The fact that so many people cite the movie and enjoy watching it provides enough support for the cognitive social learning theory, where people find the Spartan characters likable and admirable. It is likely that this may be the reason why so many are defensive of the film – simply because they like the movie so much. But we, as a progressive society, need to be bold enough to stamp our foot down and say we will not tolerate racism, just like we would never tolerate watching or promoting films that glorify the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. As Dana Stevens writes, "If "300" had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside "The Eternal Jew" as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war."

My personal hope is that people will appreciate this analysis and realize the immense impact media has on shaping our thoughts, perspectives, and views of each other. I would also hope that people are inspired to study ancient Persian history and learn about the countless contributions of the Persians, who were among the greatest philosophers, thinkers, poets, artists, physicians, mathematicians, astronomers, and innovators in the history of the world – before and after the Islamic era. I must point out that almost 90% of the paintings I post on my blog are Persian paintings (compare them with Frank Miller's horrific depiction of Persians in "300? and you will understand how upset and offended one can be).

The Arab, Iranian, and/or Muslim communities need to make their mark in the film industry and I cannot stress that enough. The release of "300" angered, but also frustrated me because I felt like I could not respond with a film about Persians due to my low-budget. It is a personal dream of mine to make a "Cyrus the Great" film someday, and I'm sure many of us have dreams of certain films we'd like to see about our communities, but they cannot remain dreams. They must be manifested and brought to life, and only through perseverance, sheer dedication, and passion can we achieve our dreams. As evident in "300," there are people making a living out of vilifying our cultures, histories, and religions while many of us stand by and watch the propaganda machine do its dirty work. I understand that not all of us are aspiring filmmakers, but to those of you who are: the longer we remain the silent, the less people will know about our beautiful stories.

I believe very firmly that Truth prevails in the end and I have faith that the new generation of progressive-thinkers, Middle-Easterners, South Asians, and Muslims alike are on their way in making a profound difference in our world. Someday, the Middle-East and Muslim world will no longer be demonized and feared, but appreciated and respected. The media has the power to turn tables around in such a way.

Someday...

~Broken Mystic~
February 16th, 2009

I am shocked to see how many persians/iranians etc are mad because the movie suggested that persians where fair skinned....ow no how could this happen we're white' we are an aryans race we have blue eyes.

A think this new storie have some mistakes.

Your article is fine for all its distinctive features.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=2975&sectionid=3510301

Have a look and then maybe you should think of updating your article. smh

Stop. you're just seeking for the scenario, which doesn't exist in a reality. Just an entertainment movie, without any racist or political context.

I must agree that film is quite racist. There is no doubt on that. This is a tale and nothing more I think.