Alice's frustrations, a Wonderland caucus race

   Last night I watched coverage of the 2010 Elections on ABC 7 News. Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos sat at their giant blue podium and gave mostly useless commentary on the election data and projections as they were made public. The network also plugged their partnership with Facebook in creating a joint chat forum online for voters to weigh in on the political issues being raised by the election.

   Excited for some good grassroots debate I hurriedly logged on to ABC 7's website and quickly found the chat board and began reading the posts. Shocking! I think I'll respond to that! Oh, I've got a retort for that! Oh really? Well how about this! And so, I got sucked into the heated political commentary wizzing back and forth. About four or five people, including myself, actively responded to each other while hundreds of other viewers would interject with a miscellaneous comment either to us specifically or no one in particular.

   After a while I started to notice our conversation circle. Each person brought up the same complaints over and over and each opposer would retort over and over. But it was the same basic Obama's doing his best/Obama is Hitler, Ta-ta Nancy Pelosi/Nancy Pelosi's not lost yet, We need to eliminate food stamps and welfare/we need more New Deal-esque government support talking points being raised again and again... and around the loop we went. It was nearly impossible to stop too because each comment, although the same as the one before, was still just as provocative.

   After a while of fierce typing I looked up and realized that no one was really even paying attention to the news anymore and my wrists were starting to get stiff. I then thought of poor Alice when she arrives carried on a tide of her own tears and finds herself sucked into the traditional Wonderland caucus race. What a wonderful political allegory Lewis Carrol constructed within Alice's narrative. Here the United States is at this moment bogged down by rabid political polarity, we've arrived here on a tide of our own tears: upset over the fear of a post-9/11 era, apprehension over middle eastern wars our journalists are hardly able to scrape the surface of due to post-Vietnam media restrictions, and disappointed with a president that the country collectively and blindly placed so many hopes on forgetting in a panic that our president after all is just man and like each of us flawed and beaten down by the bureaucracy of the administration and the complexities of foreign affairs. "No one can EVER get dry this way!" exclaims Alice in Disney's 1951 film, the voice of reason, to the Dodo bird. America wont get dry this way either.

Oh James!: How Bond Finally Learned to Please a Woman

   “When guys are persistent, it’s romantic, they make movies about that. If it’s a woman, then they cast Glenn Close,” retorts the always snarky Ally McBeal whose character ushered the Third Wave feminist movement into mainstream television, and consequently society, with her short power skirts, law degree, and constant channeling of Dustin Hoffman’s Midnight Cowboy character by shouting “Hey! I’m walkin’ here! I’m walkin’ here!” every time a cab swerved a little too close to her fashionable pumps as she trotted through Boston to her law office. Ally taught women everywhere that they can be sexy, independent, intelligent, accomplished, and stand up for themselves just the same as men. For many women, Ally exemplified the “new woman” that they could aspire to, and while Ally certainly made many contributions toward the self-esteems of women everywhere and frequently tackled sexual harassment, transsexual discrimination, domestic abuse, divorce rights for women, and rape cases almost exclusively from episode to episode, one hegemonic detail about women remained imbedded in her character: she needed the validation of a man. From the very beginning Ally is rejected by her longtime high school sweetheart and sent into a tailspin when she bumps into him at her new law office a few years later, now married to a beautiful and friendly blonde, supposedly an ex’s “worst nightmare.” Throughout the seasons Ally and her equally smart and independent female friends search for men to complete their lives and even at one point form a little pact about “snagging” a man within a short period of time. They frequent disco clubs, date recreationally, and swap romance stories. When Ally meets her match in Larry Paul and he has to go away for a couple weeks to tie up some loose ends with his son from a previous relationship, Ally makes herself so worried over his absence in her life she declines work projects, eats tubs of ice cream in flannel pajamas at night, and even begins hallucinating about him. So the Third Wave feminism did not flow completely to shore with Ally McBeal, she was everything that modern feminism asked for, except she was still under the hegemonic thumb of the male-dominated society. Ally’s character was not the only “feminist” to fall short of the ideal for the Third Wave philosophy. 

   Although Third Wave feminism encompasses many issues, theories and conflicting opinions, for the purposes of this analysis we will look at Third Wave feminism as a general struggle for equal footing with male counterparts in society’s eyes. As previously mentioned with Ally McBeal’s shortcoming, it is hard to imagine a show whose strong, intelligent, empowered male main character belittled himself day in and day out because he had not found himself a girlfriend. The media has no problem portraying men as having a complete life without the pressures of finding a mate, and yet the pressures to “domesticate” remain with the women characters. The case is the same with Bridget Jones who although smart and endearing, makes a mockery of herself trying to improve her life in order to please a man. She is not satisfied with herself until suitor Darcy affirms his approval of her “just the way she is.” Sex and the City follows the lives of four beautiful, intelligent, career-driven women who hash their sexual experiences to each other over martinis like girls discussing boy crushes at a slumber party, there is no inherent harm in this until we witness each character, particularly Carrie, fall under the lure of domesticity before her biological clock strikes midnight. The list goes on and when there is not an otherwise perfect Third Wave feminist role model who eventually gives into the lure of the Marriage-and-Babies-Equal-Self-actualization-Death-Call there is always the strong woman character who resists, but has to transform herself into an imitation of a man in order to get respect, note examples of Zena and G.I. Jane. Either women keep their femininity and self-respect until it is time to “settle down and find a husband” or they shave their heads, slap on some war paint, and check their female identities at the door. 

   The one exception to this trend and quintessential introduction to what modern day feminism has been looking for in a character for the past two decades appears in the most unlikeliest of places, a film that springs from a series that traditionally has objectified and undermined women as a tradition: James Bond. Since 1962 when Ian Fleming’s popular novels hit the big screen, James Bond began his womanizing for the admiring eyes of Americans to watch and images of flighty women who were valued only for their sex appeal or the information they could produce about their powerful boyfriends/husbands were seduced by Bond and paraded around in sexualized evening gowns, nightslips, lingerie, and bikinis, their sillohettes the trademark graphics used in the beginning sequences of every film. If all that was not enough women roles were given names like Pussy Galore, Honey Rider, and Tiffany Case, all nods to the sexual positions Bond would soon bend them into or their monetary worth. Bond was the sexy, smooth talking Nancy Drew icon in male form and he set an example for boys, and girls too, about how easily women can be used and dismissed and how minimal they are in comparison with Bond’s careful calculations and witty remarks. Women are nice for entertainment purposes but they are mostly that: eye candy. The one exception and turning point for years of the “bond girl” phenomenon is the unveiling of Martin Campbell’s reinterpretation of the James Bond series with the film version of the very first book: Casino Royale. With it, enter Vesper Lynd, the Third Wave feminist women have longed for, since the failure of the Second Wave feminist movement, and the proof that real feminists are appealing and appreciated by women and men in mainstream society, and do not always have to be depicted as bra-burning dykes or manicured publicists with wedding rings on the brain. Although James Bond’s main audience was typically geared toward men, teenagers and older, excited for action, tuxedos, fast car chases, and sexy women undressing, Campbell took a different approach with Casino Royale, deciding to make an action movie that men and women could enjoy together, something with physical combat and violence, but also meaningful dialogue, character development, and a woman who would prove herself Bond’s match without faltering until the credits role.

   Vesper Lynd enters the film as a strong, yet beautiful and enigmatic young woman, she dresses in simple European chic power suits but conducts herself with the same allure of Lauren Bacall’s old Hollywood sarcastic wit and penetrating eyes. She immediately throws Bond off and they continue to spar throughout the film. When she first sits down across from him at a table she introduces herself as “I’m the money” indicating she works for HM Treasury’s Financial Action Task Force and will provide Bond the means for his high stakes poker game, “every penny of it,” he replies and Vesper cuts straight to business, her cheeks void of a girlish flush her posture indicating no amusement at his flirtation. From then on Campbell uses close cut shots of Lynd’s face alternating with Bond’s face as they argue about the merits of the plan to bid, putting them on an equal level across from each other and giving each character equal film exposure. Lynd gets in the last word and exits the scene leaving Bond to contemplate where he went wrong in his arguing abilities. Here Lynd has already shown herself to be as intelligent and accomplished as Bond if not a little wiser at pointing out the obvious flaws in their plan and the recklessness with which the whole situation will be conducted. Jabs at her trying to dress masculinely for respect, are made but Lynd’s retort, which is to completely analyze every aspect of Bond’s lonely childhood and college years and make subtle reciprocating jabs and predictions as to why he has a “chip on his shoulder” and how he likely is a “cold hearted bastard,” stupefies Bond into silence, her analysis being presumably accurate. She bangs the nail in his coffin by criticizing: “You think of women as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits.” A point opinion the audience likely has been wondering thus far about Vesper, an attractive woman who seems unamused by Bond’s charm, and a reflection of her loyalty to her respect for not only herself, but her womanhood. “How was your lamb?” Lynd asks scarcely looking at Bond’s plate, “skewered,” is Bond’s double entendre reply before her exit. Vesper Lynd’s character has established herself as Bond’s equal, but she has done so by showing her equal wit and intelligence with grace and diplomacy all the while keeping intact her feminine identity. Legendary critic Robert Ebert commented in his review of the film, “I never thought I would see a Bond movie where I cared, actually cared, about the people. But I care about Bond, and about Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), even though I know that (here it comes) a Martini Vesper is shaken, not stirred. Vesper Lynd, however, is definitely stirring.” This juggling of all the most admirable qualities in women is executed beautifully and in a way that spurred an approving murmur from many critics.

   Throughout the film Lynd keeps Bond’s recklessness, and tendency to try and reduce her significance to being that of a “tool” to his success, in check. She saves him from the clutches of death as many times as he saves her and when he buys her a sexy dress to wear in front of the other poker players as a distraction she deliberately walks around the wrong side of the table to distract only him in order to thumb her nose at his attempt to “use” her as a decoy. Later, Bond tries to bully Lynd into letting him have more of the treasury’s funds to buy back into the game after a mishap and she refuses, on principle that his ego is inhibiting his ability to play, he grabs her wrist harshly and instead of whimpering and giving in to his charms and assertion of dominance she meets his eyes with an icy glare and demands he let go of her before pivoting and leaving him, still short of money. As much as Bond tries to woo her she will not be wooed until it is on her own terms, late into the movie after they both are recovering from being tortured. Lynd consents to his pursuing her and they share a passionate and respectful relationship. Lynd’s only two moments of emotional weakness are not at the actions of Bond but in response to horrific ordeals for which she exhibits herself with very human and empathetic responses, she breaks down after aiding Bond in killing an assailant and has a Lady MacBeth moment where she cannot get the invisible blood of guilt off her hands, the second breakdown is more ambiguous and hints at a troubled past, both times are brief and reserved in nature. She conducts herself like an adult and on a level that Bond comes to envy, realizing that his lack of emotional response might mean the loss of his soul at the hardening his heart must do for the sake of his work. Vesper’s weaknesses are heralded as more heroic than Bond’s detachments and are by no means used as a way to trivialize her character’s composure. 

   When Bond and Lynd fall in love it is Bond who must give up his life and career, not Lynd, in order for them to be together, something unique to what female characters usually have to sacrifice in order to live happily ever after. Paired with this decision is the beach setting, throughout which Bond wears a tiny speedo swimsuit and bares all his rippling muscles and physique while Lynd is wearing a full-on long-sleeved shirt as she lies next to him. While swimsuit ties peak through her collar, the film sidesteps the cliché of putting the woman in the scantily clad swim attire, knowing that Lynd would never be so flippantly sexualized. In the next scene the movie cuts to an image of Lynd steering a boat while Bond e-mails his resignation letter behind her. From this the audience can infer that it will be Bond who makes the compromises in their relationship and Lynd who will be “steering,” or “wearing the pants” in the relationship. In what the audience can only assume will be Lynd’s downfall as a Third Wave feminist role model, we see Lynd trapped in an iron barred elevator that plunges into water, Bond jumping into save her and turn her into one of the many “damsels in distress” of films past. Lynd upon seeing him backs away and indicates her refusal of him to save her. Lynd dies on her own terms. Bond reports back to M saying of Lynd “it’s over, the bitch is dead” in a ditch attempt to dismiss her memory and detach himself from the sorrow, at this M reprimands him revealing Lynd’s being continually blackmailed by the enemy and her bravery to nonetheless negotiate Bond’s safety from their clutches during the torture sequence. A strong intelligent woman and boss to Bond, M stands up for her fellow female in the same way Lynd often stood up to Bond’s womanizing ways in defense of her fellow women. 

   Casino Royale was a blockbuster hit, both with the critics and reviewers, along with the hoi palloi viewers looking for action and intrigue. The film was entertaining and did not disappoint, but did not have to compromise the main female character in order to do so, something that set it in stark contrast to its predecesors and while it spurred the eyerolls of anti-feminists when Vesper asks wryly if she is not Bond’s type because she is smart, the mainstream public cheered and, RottenTomatoes gave the film the highest rating of any wide-release that year with a 94% approval (RottenTomatoes.com) while MSNBC gave the film “a perfect five star rating,” (Hartl). Eva Green’s performance as Lynd won her an Orange Rising Star award bestowed by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, (BAFTA).

   Perhaps the appearance of Vesper Lynd is a sign of the next Wave of feminism where perhaps women will finally “get it right” in their battle against the American hegemony. The fact that so many men and women seemed to approve of Lynd, so much so that Eva Green’s once modest independent British film career has turned around landing her roles alongside Nicole Kidman and the up-in-coming Ewan McGregor flick, in their enthusiasm for the new Bond film that depicted a man who developed classier taste in women and did not go for a buxom ex-playboy with a hooker name, and a woman who teamed up with Bond rather than dragging him down and not abandoning her femininity in the meanwhile perhaps foreshadows a triumph of feminist role models for women and girls in the future that will be acceptable and influential to their male counterparts.

How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

"During the past decades, the culture industries have multiplied media spectacles in novel spaces and sites, and spectacle itself is becoming one of the organizing principles of the economy, polity, society, and everyday life." -- Douglas Kellner, Media Culture and the Triumph of the Spectacle

   The media spectacle has become something of a ruetine in mainstream culture and as the hit broadway musical number proclaims, "Give 'em the old razzle dazzle/Razzle Dazzle 'em/Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it/And the reaction will be passionate/Give 'em the old hocus pocus/Bead and feather 'em/How can they see with sequins in their eyes?/What if your hinges all are rusting?/What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?/Razzle dazzle 'em/And they'll never catch wise!" Pumping something up to be much more garishly glamorous and epic than it actually is, often ends up fooling the audience into believing the hype and buying into all the publicity. The idea of the media spectacle is much the same, particularly in film. Somewhere along the line Hollywood discovered the merits of "razzle dazzle" in making a huge success out of something otherwise very simplistic and none-too exciting. Movies like Moulin Rouge a basic story about a tragically ending romance, Chicago a straightforward narrative about a pair of Chicagoan murderesses, the film adaption of The Great Gatsby where Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanon spend a little too much time frolicking and tossing colorful cloths in the air, Titanic in which the audience already knew the boat was destined to sink and yet shelled out money to hear writing like "You know me Rose, your know me!" and 300 where glossy pecks and slow-mode battle cries were among the more complicated plot elements. 

   While the allure of the media spectacle certainly finds its success in manipulating the draw of "extravagance" for the hum-drum lives of the hoi palloi, and works the influence of the most dominant of their six senses: sight, by cramming as much visual flourish in as possible, it does all of this not without damage. When the media turns to spectacle, newspapers use flashy headlines and newscasters clutching microphones with wide eyes and using copious adjectives to hype up the scene behind them, books like The DaVinci Code employ publicity programs and teasers to increase the prestige of a poorly written "tome," and Lady Gaga dons seran wrap and juggling rings while wearing an abicus like a wristwatch to sing a song wisely advising "just dance" and the country sits mesmerized. Yet, the spectacles as they multiply have an influence, when we think of love we can't help but strive for a Pretty in Pink romance, or at least settle for a When Harry Met Sally best friend turned lover (on that note, who wouldn't like to have an orgasm like Meg Ryan's diner table interpretation? "I'll have what she's having"). When we think of high school we imagine The Breakfast Club, when we anticipate the first day of college we remember the pilot episode of "Felicity," when it comes to our career of choice we have a movie for each. Perhaps if you are finishing up law school you are thinking about A Few Good Men, or The Firm. If you are going into journalism you have seen All the President's Men, The Paper, Nothing But the Truth, and Shattered Glass more times than you can shake a stick at. If you are a career-driven woman you are familiar with Baby Boom or Working Girl. What's sex like? We look to explanations in Sex and the City. What about giving birth? Knocked Up, Nine Months, and all those episodes in which Phoebe on "Friends" carried her brother's twins. Why is America so dissatisfied with our presidents once they get into office? Perhaps it is because our expectations of them are those impressed upon us by TV series "The West Wing" or film The American President. If only Martin Sheen or Michael Douglas could run our country... if only. These are simply media interpretations for everything and because of the spectacle of the media, that which the media produces to embellish upon what life is really like gets recycled back into society as the norm. A very misguided, unrealistic, disappointing, norm.

   Recently I saw Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. Here is a movie that would not have needed the help of the media spectacle at all. Alice in Wonderland bosts big-name actors like Johnny Depp and Anne Hathaway, a classically loved story by children and adults of all ages, a director who has developed quite a cult following no longer limited to the goth community, and a premier time when no other film would be as much competition, Avatar having been in theaters for weeks already. Yet, picked up by Disney, the spectacle began with Hot Topic, Kohls, and The Disney Store selling Alice movie merchandise hand over fist, film trailers and ads posted on every major (and minor) website including IMDB and Facebook, premier fliers posted on campuses, movie posters and teasers everywhere, and a multitude of cast interviews and promotional events popping up on YouTube. It seemed everywhere I went I was haunted by the mischievous cheshire cat grin. In this case, the problem was not so much the distortion of reality as a means to the spectacle's ends (that is the purpose behind Alice's adventures already) the problem was in the over-hype of a film that I feel may have faired better had a little more mystery been left to it. I had a hard time enjoying the film when I had heard every good line uttered by the characters already used in one of the many released teaser trailers, the added 3-D did nothing but distract from the already lush and vibrant mise-en-scene, and the actual uniqueness of the film was lost in its publicity. Unlike the U.K. released trailer, the U.S. trailer neglected to mention that this film was a continuation of the Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass stories and would take place after Alice had grown up, as one last return to Wonderland before entering adulthood. Instead, the U.S. media spectacle averted the attention of potential audience members away from this and focused on drawing out their Johnny Depp loyalties rather than focusing on this unique twist and extension to an otherwise young-child's tale turned coming-of-age. Here I feel the spectacle did great damages to what could have been a film of greater success by exploiting the film to death for the audience so that all was left was the contrast of Anne Hathaway's eyebrows to hair color to shock and amaze viewers in submission.

The Nation delusion

"But if the facts are clear, their explanation remains a matter of long-standing dispute. Nation, nationality, nationalism -- all have proved notoriously difficult to define, let alone to analyse. In contrast to the immense influence that nationalism has exerted on the modern world, plausible theory about it is conspicuously maegre." -- Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities

   "The Nation" is something that everyone is familiar with with the small exception of isolated namadic peoples and gypsies who even so are likely made very aware of their rebelling against the conformity that is belonging to a nation. Scholars have difficulty defining a nation simply because there is not hard and fast way to sum up something that has become a catalyst for pride, war, and identification. What nation we belong to, whether we regularly hum Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA," occasionally tear up during the scene in Casablanca where the fearless cafe-goers stand up and sing the French national anthem in resistance to Nazi stronghold, or even fall under the category of people so ashamed of the recent foreign policy of a country we study abroad under the guise of being Canadian, it is hard to escape the twinge of upset when someone directly poses malice to a nation, a labeled community, that we have been raised to incorporate as an an integral part of our identity. Such malice becomes a personal insult on some levels. However, this does not make the strong feelings toward a nation any more understandable.

   For all intents and purposes a nation, or nationalism, does not exist. As soon as one tries to define the United States and what makes it a nation, paradoxes arise. When considering the average person and their views of what a nation consists of we come up with commonalities in values, politics, religion, culture, and language. Yet the values of the United States are unclear with coastal urban city values contrasting greatly to the rural town values of the midwest and south. The values range from place to place so much so that by law, vulgarity has to be determined by the state and the general values of the community in which it takes place. Utah's values are much more conservative compared to California's values. Next we consider politics, the United States is fundamentally divided on almost every hot-button politic issue. The polarity between democrats and republicans has risen to such a degree that people within the two parties talk to each other witch such lack of understanding for the other side it is as though the two live in completely different parallel universes. Religion is no different on this matter, while the United States is one of the most religious first world countries on the global, it's highest minority group on the charts consists of atheists, with around 15% denouncing religion. That aside, secularism has risen in the states as well as many new age religions like Scientology and Wicca which were once considered cults but are now recognized religions. Cultures vary just as diversely with the phrase "the country is a melting pot" as a ringing affirmative as well as languages as the United States has not official language at all. Through propaganda and imagined nationalized traditions and holidays, the citizens feel as though they belong to the United States almost in the same way trendsters in the 1980's bought "Members Only" jackets in the hopes of representing their status as "belonging" somewhere.

   When I think about the pointlessness and destructiveness of nationalism I usually think of three things: sports fanatics, people who declare their ethnicities like they know what being 1/32 Native American is all about, and that Meg Ryan movie French Kiss. I think about sports fanatics in relation to nationalism because they use the same sort of responsibility-less "we" and "our" words when referring to things they did nothing to contribute to. Example: "Yeah, we got three goals and wont the game against Manchester United in the Cup Championships last night!" No you didn't. You, who have never physically played a game of soccer in your life, were sitting on a coach watching paid professionals who have no idea who you are and don't care about your opinions of them, literally bend over backwards to win a game that you are now trying to share credit for. This is the same as when I hear Americans brag about governmental policies that they feel best the governmental policies of other countries when really they know nothing about political science at all and are just speaking out of nationalistic pride after a lifetime of rehearsed national superiority brainwashing. I think it's okay to say that Franch has a better health care system than us and that Canada has a better sense of foreign policy, many nationalistic Americans would call me unpatriotic for saying so however. I also think about how in middle school my friends and I would ask each other what ethnicities we were. I'd say I was about a quarter Irish, a quarter Spanish, a quarter Scottish, and a quarter English and invariably there would be someone would would give a similar ethnic makeup but would proudly proclaim they were 1/32 Native American. This would illicit some gasps of amazement at how unique and culturally intriguing this person was when really the person had been raised no less Caucasian than the rest of us and had no idea anything about the tribe their ancestor was from or what traditions were long lost to them. People like to talk about how "American" they are without realizing there is not set standard for being American. Perhaps the illegal immigrants who have spent years living in America, doing American jobs, interacting with American employers, contributing to American society are just as much American as me. Lastly, I think of the film French Kiss starring Meg Ryan about a woman who is born American, gives up her citizenship to become Canadian like her fiancee, and then loses her fiancee to a French woman prompting her to leave for Paris without completing the Canadian citizenship process and leaving her without a home nation at all. In the end she settles on becoming a French citizen, but not before going through a few identity crises and a lot of soul searching. Although nationalism is imagined and undefinable it has become a basic way for people to label themselves and label each other, categorizing being a major part of human nature, so much so that living in a world without nations would seem unnatural and uncomfortable to most and even unnerving to some.

Things Are Not That Black and White

"It would be simple and convenient if all the media were simply the ventriloquists of a unified and racist 'ruling class' conception of the world. But neither a unifiedly conspiratorial media nor indeed a unified racist "ruling class" exist in anything like that simple way. I don't insist on complexity for its own sake. But if critics of the media subscribe to too simple or reductive a view of their operations, this inevitably lacks credibility and weakens the case they are making because the theories and critiques don't square with reality..." --Stuart Hall, Whites of Their Eyes

   This issue of racial coding in the media is a complicated one. However, I do think that too often it is over simplified. It is human nature to polarize issues in order to understand them, this is why many films and novels center around the Good vs. Evil theme. There are many ways to depict the difference between these two forces, usually characters are developed and moral values are revealed in the side of the Good and typical sins like jealousy, corruptness, and cruelty toward the weak are revealed amongst those on the side of Evil. Another way of more subtly showing the contrast between the two forces is to assign them polarity within the appearance (most people are primarily visually-dependent learners and so this would be a useful tool in order to get through to the audience which side they should be cheering on). In showing the polarity between Good and Evil it would only naturally follow to choose the two colors (non-colors technically) most opposite in the color spectrum, the colors opposite in the eyes of every person, colorblind or otherwise, has long been perceived as Black and White.

   Here is where the argument is often made that Black is always assigned to Evil and White always assigned to Good and that this extends to the racist notions of today that live within white supremacy and black inferiority. I see a problem in this too easily simplified theory. First, however I will agree with some aspects of it.

   I understand the theory and the obvious harm that can be misconstrued out of this assigning of white and black to Good and Evil. However racist some of these films and novels might be in this, I believe the majority choose to assign colors to Good and Evil without thought for race but merely thought for clarifying the "other" in the movie that should be conquered. Indeed, many movies, I'd argue an equal amount, assign white to Evil and black to Good. It does not really matter in most cases which goes to which side, so long as they are opposite. 

   In a quick brainstorm I thought of the following characters, each pair consists of the Good leader and the Evil leader in a series of films that are fairly popular. In The Golden Compass the Good is represented by Serafina Pekkala a witch shrouded in darkness contrasted against the shimmering brightness of the Evil Miss Coulter, next we have the hitman Leon from The Professional always wearing sunglasses and black trench coats as the force of Good against the Evil corrupt cop always wearing a white linen suit, in James Bond: Die Another Day the girl on the side of Good is played by African American Halle Berry who wins Bond's affections over the Evil Miss Frost who works for the bad guys, when in Mean Girls Cady tries to make friends at a new high school the true friend of Goodness is the bitter goth Gretchen and the school's cruelest popular girl is light, breezy blonde Regina, in the classic comic book series Batman the good guy known as Batman wears a black cowl and his Evil nemesis The Joker wears white face paint, in the action film Blade Good guy African American Blade kicks the butt of the Evil white guy Deacon Frost.

       GOOD  SIDE                                                             EVIL SIDE

   I believe that if Evil is more often depicted with blackness and darkness it is done so not as African American-ness, but as actual darkness. Shadows are dark, children are afraid of the dark, coffins are dark, rats, spiders, and bats dwell in dark areas (all typically feared creatures), this is not to say that any of these are Evil, but they are mysterious, and to many frightening, race aside, I believe that if Evil is assigned blackness and darkness it is under the assumption that what people fear most, more than closed coffins, rats, spiders, and bats is Evil itself. 

   Thus I see a problem with the assumption that just because something in film or literature is color coded in darkness it is inherently causation to believe that this will subliminally coax the idea that being black is being "bad." I think people who are white come to that assumption all their own as being black is most easily recognized to them as being "most" other. Even this however, I see as a bit of a leap. How then can we explain the negative attitude toward the fair skinned Irish, often considered "as low as blacks" in the beginnings of our country? 

   I think perhaps more detrimental to racial equality in the attitudes of the people are Jar-Jar-Binks-like characters and characters like the Na'vi in Avatar. Here we see actual cultural influences, dreadlocks and gaged ears, from African culture used to signify a race of people that depicted as "primitive" and "inferior." These are the cultural codes within movies that should be taken into consideration and have merit for worry as they are freshly tied to African culture in the minds of the average viewer. In terms of The Lord of The Rings I see racism in the cultural coding of the Scandinavian armor for the Good and the dreadlocks, African tribal paint, and black body paint on the Evil orcs to be most offensive, but again, these are not matters of assigning each side Black or White but assigning the Black culture and White culture to each side, an entirely different message and much more worrisome at that.

Culture Appropriation

"And her ability to bring that tricked-out mix of characters to life has made for some eyebrow-raising, highly orchestrated stage shows. Curious to man is Winehouse's use of black male backup dancers and singers... Putting this "coolness" in the service of backing up a "ruint" white retro femme figure seems laughable in one sense and egregariously patronizing in another. In either case this sight-gag gimmick is perhaps the key to the obsessions of Back to Black." --Amy Winehouse and the (Black) Art of Appropriation

   The idea of borrowing from alternate cultures from that of the white hegemonic culture predominate in the United States goes on in almost every aspect of the media. The article quoted above explores a white singer and her search for success based on "borrowing" from other cultures of her own. Whatever "new" material Amy Winehouse puts forth for society and labels "hip-hop" or "jazz" will have a returning influence in those musical styles and cultures that go with those musical styles. The danger becomes evident in Winehouse's obvious lack of African American roots. She has not lived within the same cultural spheres or had the same experiences that first inspired "hip hop" and "jazz." Thus, we must question the authenticity of her music as being "black" and how it will change the perceptions of what those cultures consist of. It seems to me that white people notice the credibility minorities gain when drawing upon their different and intriguing experiences in order to produce art. Those who are left out are the artists who must draw on a culture that is already the hegemony, the white culture. Realistically, white culture is nothing "new," nothing "rebellious," nothing "spicy." Appropriations happens when white people crave being "individual" or "different" just like a minority. Winehouse can have all the benefits of a black person by drawing on "jazz" and "hip-hop" but at the end of the day doesn't have to worry about actually going through any sort of white struggle. People who appropriate another culture can pick and choose the experience and then walk away at the end of the day not realizing their own corruption of the formerly untainted culture.

   This not only occurs with ethnicities but with religions too. As with the Native Americans and their resent for the New Age reinterpretation of their old religious traditions, Native Americans resent the resulting opinions of the hegemonic culture on their religions when the representations of their religion that they are seeing and basing their negative opinions off of are those of people who are simply appropriating it without accuracy. One example of religious appropriation I have noticed in the past ten years is that of the Wicca religion. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the very peaceful nature-oriented Wicca religion of modern day good witches, the purport to base their religious rituals off of those of the ancient Celtic Pagans. Many of their beliefs are based on the incorrect historical assumptions made by Margaret Murray on her research of why the European Witch Trials spread like wildfire. These Wiccans however do not actually have very little knowledge of what the Pagans were actually like, what they actually believed. I know this primarily because no historian has been able to come to a solid and detailed summation of what the ancient Pagan rituals actually consisted when they lived in an era of very little remaining record. The harm comes when the main hegemonic groups base their knowledge of these ethnicities, religions, and cultures off of what these non-experts assume and perhaps wrongly practice. If we continue to "ignore the details" we will continue to corrupt the cultures of these peoples and consistently lose the knowledge and understanding of them that we should be focusing on.

Going Colorblind

"On the other hand, the younger generation confuses talking about race with being racist, she said. 'We all grew up in the '80s with the PC police on high alert and we don't know how to talk about it anymore," she said. "We need to be able to talk about it.'" -- "Colorblind" Generation Struggles with Race, Haley Edwards

   This quote, I feel gets to the root of the problem with race in the United States. When I was growing up in the 1990s everything was hyper-sensitized and political correctness was "in." As a result talking about race was about as comfortable as walking through a land mine field with snow shoes on. Anyone who was black was African American, regardless of whether they were from a country in Africa or not. No one inquired. Teachers trumpeted the fact that everyone was exactly the same, which I believe lead to an ignorance about black culture. Black culture was effectively wiped from any curriculum along with any other ethnicities and their cultural ties. I remember once for St. Patrick's Day the teacher made everyone put an "O" in front of their last name, to "get in the spirit" as she said. A few black people, jewish people, and myself (hispanic) protested. It did not seem to phase our teacher and for the rest of the day I was referred to as Kat O'Salazar. Ridiculous. 


   While our teacher certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, and did not realize the negative affects of her colorblindness, she was accomplishing two things with her little St. Patrick's Day game. First, she was throwing everyone onto a level ethnic playing field and disregarding their own cultural identities. Second, she was trivializing a culturally rich holiday and creating a stereotype. Instead of teaching use what Irish culture/identity consisted of, she was teaching us that anyone with a last name starting with an "O" was Irish. 

   Americans make the assumption that cultural identity can be equalized and ignored but in doing so racial slurs only end up morphing and growing. When we choose to ignore race in public discourse and between one another, what different races from our own consist of has to be made up by ourselves instead of amongst different perspectives. A white person cannot simply inquire into what it's like to be Muslim or Mexican or Moreman or African American in America without seeming to be interested in pidgeon-holing the interviewee into a racial stereotype. 


   Racism becomes just as hard to talk about if you are a white person than if you were black. If you're white you already have a 50% chance in the eyes of others, to be racist. If you're black and make a racial comment you are often not as criticized by peers, Amy Olson expresses this frustration for white people trying not to be perceived as racist, "'sometimes I put my foot in my mouth,' she said. 'If I say "black" they say, "It's African-American." Or my dad works with a lot of Native Americans, and he says they like to be called "Indian." So I never know what's right."'

   Reflecting on the 1990's nostalgically I remember the way predominately white television shows would guiltily throw a black character in, even in a nonsensical way, in order to seem non-racist and colorblind. This caused a lot of eye rolls for audiences who were acutely aware of the ploy, particularly in the case of the popular Boy Meets World. Boy Meets World was a popular family/teen show that centered around the young Corey Matthews and his family and friends as he grows up. The cast was exclusively white up until Season 5 when Angela Moore is introduced and becomes Shawn's first serious girlfriend. While Angela interacts with the other white characters no mention of her being different than them racially is made at all. Few comments about race are made at all. While Shawn is a very white-American boy dating a black girl, the two have no problems carrying on a mixed race courtship and neither of them are faced with any of the societal obstacles that would likely occur in real life. The only comments ever made in reference to Angela's blackness is when the group is sitting around chatting about what their "soap opera names" would be (this show had a large child/adolescent audience so discussing "stripper names" would be inappropriate) with the rules being that you take your middle name and follow it by your street name (for example: I would be "Patricia Loma"). Each person in the group goes around saying what their name would be and then it's Angela's turn: "Well then my name would be Shaniqua Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard..." She chuckles to herself and waits for everyone to laugh but the friends all just sit quietly, not understanding, "Boy, I've gotta get some black friends," she finishes. Another comment in regard to Angela's getting an A on a paper is made, "What was your paper on?" one friend asks, "How to maintain a black identity when you have three very white friends," she replies sarcastically.


   While I understand the reasoning behind wanting to remain "colorblind" and believing that everyone should be on an equal and race-less playing field, I do not believe it does well to help eliminate racism and is only an excuse for ignoring the problem. People should not have to divorce themselves from their race, heritage, culture, or ethnicity in order to be accepted into society, instead, society should make the effort to recognize all the interesting differences between people and appreciate them as positives to a person's identity, not negatives.