Stuart C. Wilson/Getty Images
© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Scientific American says Jedi in 'Star Wars' are problematic white saviors steeped in toxic masculinity; the internet strikes back
September 26, 2021
Scientific American is a science magazine founded in 1845 that has published articles by more than 200 Nobel Prize winners. The magazine has featured brilliant minds such as Hans Bethe, James D. Watson, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Linus Pauling, and Albert Einstein. However, now one of the science magazine's goals is "advancing social justice," which was evident in a recent article attempting to cancel the Jedi in "Star Wars" for being "problematic."
It took a total of five Scientific American writers to spew out a 2,060-word article titled: "Why the Term 'JEDI' Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion." The opinion piece oozed out an exhausting laundry list as to why the Jedi are "inappropriate symbols for justice work." The wokescold composition explained why Jedis — the mythical knightly order in the fictional movie "Star Wars" — should not be compared to the acronym "JEDI," which stands for "justice, equity, diversity and inclusion."
The article listed all of the ways that the members of the fabled Jedi order are problematic, including white saviors, toxic masculinity, and even the phallic-shaped lightsabers (which are also used by the enemy Sith).
They are a religious order of intergalactic police-monks, prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic lightsabers, gaslighting by means of "Jedi mind tricks," etc.). The Jedi are also an exclusionary cult, membership to which is partly predicated on the possession of heightened psychic and physical abilities (or "Force-sensitivity"). Strikingly, Force-wielding talents are narratively explained in Star Wars not merely in spiritual terms but also in ableist and eugenic ones: These supernatural powers are naturalized as biological, hereditary attributes. So it is that Force potential is framed as a dynastic property of noble bloodlines (for example, theSkywalker dynasty), and Force disparities are rendered innate physical properties, measurable via "midi-chlorian" counts (not unlike a "Force genetics" test) and augmentable via human(oid) engineering. The heroic Jedi are thus emblems for a host of dangerously reactionary values and assumptions. Sending the message that justice work is akin to cosplay is bad enough; dressing up our initiatives in the symbolic garb of the Jedi is worse.
The social justice overreaction over the beloved space opera then attacked the "Star Wars" franchise for "trafficking in injustices such as sexism, racism and ableism."
"'Star Wars' arguably conflates 'alienness' with 'nonwhiteness,' often seeming to rely on racist stereotypes when depicting nonhuman species," the post said.
Even Darth Vader's heavy breathing is allegedly a problem, "The series regularly defaults onto ableist tropes, memorably in its portrayal of Darth Vader, which links the villain's physical disability with machinic inhumanity and moral deviance, presenting his technology-assisted breathing as a sinister auditory marker of danger and doom."
"What's more, the bodies and voices centered in Star Wars have, with few exceptions, historically been those of white men," the article stated.
But even when the science-fiction franchise became more inclusive, it wasn't enough. "And while recent films have increased gender and racial diversity, important questions remain regarding how meaningfully such changes represent a departure from the series' problematic past," the writers alleged.
"Those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with Star Wars—including those hurt by the messages it sends—may feel alienated by the parade of jokes, puns and references surrounding the term JEDI," the article said.
Even saying the word "Jedi" is apparently an issue because it provides Disney "with a form of free advertising, commodifying and cheapening our justice work in the process." The SJW authors then trashed Disney for a "long and troubling history of circulating racist, sexist, heterosexist and Orientalist narratives and imagery."
Many people on the internet blasted the article quicker than Han Solo could shoot Greedo with his DL-44 at the Mos Eisley cantina. Numerous Twitter users deemed the article to be more worthless than bantha fodder.
Someone just blow up the Internet already\u2026pic.twitter.com/OpzkHPotqQ— Dave Rubin (@Dave Rubin) 1632435606
So @sciam was founded in 1845. \n\nIs it weird to be deliberately burning through 170+ years of credibility by publishing bizarre, anti-scientific political propaganda like this?\n\nOr are you guys shorting your own stock?— Geoffrey Miller (@Geoffrey Miller) 1632428761
"Scientific" American lmaohttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-term-jedi-is-problematic-for-describing-programs-that-promote-justice-equity-diversity-and-inclusion/\u00a0\u2026— Hayden Daniel (@Hayden Daniel) 1632433516
Re: that insanely woke Scientific American anti-Jedi op-ed, it seems like every time something like this comes up, everybody laughs and asks how can something like this happen at a place like that ... but it keeps happening. There is no red line.— Rod Dreher (@Rod Dreher) 1632444448
Legitimacy crisis. \n\n@sciam has been corrupted by woke ideology.— Peter Boghossian (@Peter Boghossian) 1632439222
\u201cFor over a thousand generations the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice. Before the woke times. Before The Scientific American.\u201dhttps://twitter.com/sciam/status/1441104576917159937\u00a0\u2026— Matt Taliaferro (@Matt Taliaferro) 1632439649
pic.twitter.com/OBzVz2ztwz— Tim Andrews (@Tim Andrews) 1632438404
Some activists for Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion call themselves JEDI, which is kinda cool. But no, this is "problematic" because Star Wars is too white, male (phallic lightsabers!), colonialist & capitalist (Disney). This is science @sciam ?https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-term-jedi-is-problematic-for-describing-programs-that-promote-justice-equity-diversity-and-inclusion/\u00a0\u2026— Michael Shermer (@Michael Shermer) 1632495306
Five people wrote this. They\u2019re not embarrassed. Neither are the editors at @sciam. They all should be.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-term-jedi-is-problematic-for-describing-programs-that-promote-justice-equity-diversity-and-inclusion/%3Famp%3Dtrue\u00a0\u2026— Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio) 1632443410
The @sciam article about why Jedi are problematic contains thoughts that should have never escaped the weed-soaked dorm rooms of gender-studies majors, much less have made it into what is theoretically supposed to be a respected scientific periodical:https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/scientific-american-star-wars-jedi-are-problematic/\u00a0\u2026— Jack Butler (@Jack Butler) 1632505490
Well I\u2019ve seen it all now. This is the fanbase you wanted Disney. Hope you are happy \n\nWhy the Term 'JEDI' Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion - Scientific Americanhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-term-jedi-is-problematic-for-describing-programs-that-promote-justice-equity-diversity-and-inclusion/\u00a0\u2026— MasteroftheTDS (@MasteroftheTDS) 1632437599
.@sciam is an absolute joke. \n\n"Through its connections to Star Wars, the name JEDI can inadvertently associate our justice work with stories and stereotypes that are a galaxy far, far away from the values of justice, equity, diversity and inclusion."https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-term-jedi-is-problematic-for-describing-programs-that-promote-justice-equity-diversity-and-inclusion/\u00a0\u2026— Colin Wright (@Colin Wright) 1632435411
You\u2019ve got to be kidding me! I submitted a proposal for an article in SciAm, which was not even reviewed, on how cognitive factors explain why \u201cvitality\u201d is so hard on social media. Instead, they give space to writings as this?— Kristina Lerman (@Kristina Lerman) 1632422408
Did Chancellor Palpatine write this?https://twitter.com/sciam/status/1441104576917159937\u00a0\u2026— J.R.R. Jokin (@J.R.R. Jokin) 1632440008
Opinion: Why the term 'Scientific American' is problematic for describing a journal that publishes articles that don't meet any scientific standards— Kritische Kritische Theorie (@Kritische Kritische Theorie) 1632433525
Want to leave a tip?
We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?
Paul Sacca is a staff writer for Blaze News.
Paul_Sacca
more stories
Sign up for the Blaze newsletter
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements. You may opt out at any time.
© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Get the stories that matter most delivered directly to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements. You may opt out at any time.