I hate lists, but I know most people won't read things unless it is a list, so to stoop down to the average medium of choice for college students, I decided to list this off.
1. Appropriation- There's a fine line between careful political allusion and out right appropriation. Elysium is the latter. Honestly, if anyone could say Matt Damon didn't look out of place, speaking spanish, living in a predominantly latina/black/people of color neighborhood, while also claiming the very same plight as the people around him, then you are buying into the color blind future the movie wants you to believe in. Also, the hot button they are clearly pushing on is "illegal" immigration, which is an issue predominantly faced by latinos. The main love interest is Latina. The best friend is Latino. In fact everyone in Matt Damon's world, who's on his side seems not to be white, so why on earth is Matt Damon white? And when I say white I don't simply mean skin color, I'm also asking why you couldn't get a light skin Latino to play the role. I mean if you're gonna white wash the cast that's the the least you can do. Some of you might be up in arms, crying out "why does it matter if he is Latino or not". Welp because immigration laws and policy in the United States is a very real issue for many Latinos. To see it shamelessly thrown into a movie for a predominantly non-Latino audience is kind of a jerk move. Also, if he doesn't seem out of place, then I think you might believe society is colorblind too.
Two clearly Latino men discussing the deets with Matt Damon
2. Technology Dues ex Machina hurts more than helps-
The entire time the movie explains the disparity via cool technology and asshole robots. I mean there's even a machine that changes your atomic structure to cure cancer. The efficacy of these machines are astounding. They can comprehend verbal orders, carry out complex tasks and are physically and intelligently smarter. So if this is the case, then why do we see this?
Instead of having robots make robots, we'll just have humans do it for low wages
Honestly if technology is so advanced, then why don't they just have machines do most labor. Especially for something as technical as machine building. Yet you see Matt Damon work in the factory as if it were an assembly line... you know a rote action that could be easily taught to a machine. We could even have some human supervisors (oops I meant white human supervisors, because that's all we see in the movie). Did they expect me to believe that a society that has cured cancer and pretty much lives in complete lackadaisical bliss can't come up with a way to compensate for their poorer citizens? This is never addressed. The movie seems to just want you to believe that this is the new normal and if it isn't happening today, then it will soon. The issue is the technology doesn't align with the policy.
3. We'll give you a bad white character, but we need to distinguish him- Did you notice that the main bad guy has a bit of an accent (unsure if it is Irish or Scottish, but I guarantee you it doesn't sound English. This just continues the racial stratification. You have the latino/people of color community at the bottom rung of importance. Then you have the clearly ethinically distinguished baddie enter into the fray. With Matt Damon as the White anglo saxon savior to save the day.
Verdict: Elysium is fun to watch, but if you're sensitive to this kind of stuff, you might think it's a bit dumb.
Affirmative action is the tool of much of society to undermine the achievements of many minority students on campus. Often times when a minority is successful or if their presence is even acknowledged in an institution of higher learning, people can't help but bring up affirmative action. It's funny because people say minorities would stop being tokenized if affirmative action didn't exist. While I find that to be unlikely, my rebuttal to that is "why does the minority need to be tokenized in the first place." Implicit in the statement that minorities wouldn't be tokenized if affirmative action didn't exist is that every minority didn't earn their way into the University. You can even make this a weaker statement, but at the very least for their rationale to be solid you must think a considerable amount of minorities or at least a simple majority of minorities got into their institutions (we can assume minorities in top institutions, if that makes the conversation more amicable towards naysayers) because of their race/gender. This is an unfair assumption. Regardless of what your opinion of affirmative action is, it does not give anyone the right to decide which minorities deserve to be at an institution and which don't. To even engage in that kind of behavior is despicable.
But Affirmative action is being employed in a more subtle way. It's being used to hijack conversations concerning minorities. This can be seen in the #BBUM thread, where articles concerning the twitter trend are riddled with affirmative action debates. These debates are not the message of #BBUM, but when we discuss only affirmative action on their pages (which is what tends to happen when affirmative action is brought up) a multitude of experiences are lost due to the selfish tendencies of a few individuals. Why is affirmative action the favorite talking point of many white and asian students? The discussion of affirmative action typically reinforces notions of white superiority and asian superiority over other groups such as black and latino students. Constantly the message that is given is that blacks and latinos are lazy individuals, who don't work hard enough, which is why they don't get into top universities. It is masked behind fake good intentions such as arguing that getting rid of affirmative action would help black students, it won't (as evidenced by current statistics of black enrollment here at the University). People will claim it will end the tokenizing of minorities. Unfortunately they don't realize that minorities aren't tokenized by affirmative action, but by people. People assume minorities couldn't get into their universities without the help of affirmative action and treat the program as poison that taints even the brightest of minorities. Instead people could stop passing judgement all together and only judge minorities based on the merit of their actions, but that is a foreign concept for individuals who want to feel like they've been cheated in the world.
I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss affirmative action. I'm just saying that we need to stop bringing up affirmative action where it is not warranted. If a student of color brings up affirmative action in a value based framework (i.e. affirmative action is good or bad), then feel free to engage in a conversation about your thoughts. If you want to discuss affirmative action on your personal site or publication, go ahead, knock yourself out. But if affirmative action is mentioned in passing or as a historical context for some larger point, then you only serve to make the conversation about you when you decide to prattle on about affirmative action. Minorities don't have time to argue affirmative action every time someone decides they want to discuss it. Some minorities don't even care about the program. The point is that when people bring up affirmative action in contexts that have very little to do with it (or where affirmative action is one of many points being discussed) they typically only do so to degrade the minority they are talking to or to make the conversation about their needs, rather than the minority's needs. It's selfish and childish. Please stop.
BBUM# is trending and race conversations are beginning to bud everywhere. The response from many non-black students: feelings of isolation, rejection and unfair criticism. Regardless, there are some non-black students, specifically white (other non-black allies exist, this post just speaks specifically to white allyhood), who have respected and listened to what black students on campus are saying. However, this has brought back murmurs concerning the genuine nature of white allies. In the minds of many minorities, white allies are fraudulent and unable to ever be there for minority students. These murmurs need to stop.
I cannot speak for all minorities. Hell, I can't speak for all Latinos. All I know is that I don't see an end game in an isolationist mentality. I don't see a possible world where we excise the White in our life. Nor do I ever want to see that kind of world. White can be a beautiful shade and while that goes without saying (White typically is considered to be beautiful), to think that we don't lose anything meaningful by denying white experiences in our lives is a bit short sighted in my opinion. The opportunity cost is high when we allow the majority of the unchecked white privilege flood into our lives, but our allies don't do that. Our allies are mindful of their privilege and work hard to learn more each and everyday, just as we work hard to learn each and everyday. Our allies understand the distance, but don't let the distance prevent them from engaging with us holistically. Our allies don't only see black, but aren't color blind. Our allies sing with us, dance with us, cherish us, live with us, love us. We are apart of their lives and they are apart of our community. They aren't Latino to be sure, but they aren't complete strangers. If you wish to take the route of nationalistic hubris, where you section yourself away from constructions of whiteness in general and as a result regrettably disassociate yourself with many white allies, then that's your prerogative. But I believe that to fight inequality and to build a better society we should make no compromises. This means my white friends won't be necessary causalities in my struggle against oppression.
The term minority is a problematic one because it typically refers to all who aren't white male heterosexual, Protestant. However minority in the way I'm going to employ it, is going to refer only to racial differences. So a minority in the sense of this article is essentially only someone who isn't white. White is another term that's problematic because white can mean a whole host of things. Perhaps we can designate according to skin color or using heritage. For the matter of this article I will not construct some prerequisite. If you don't consider yourself white, then that's good enough for me. I feel that most minorities don't openly state they are white because it's a falsehood. White culture and white people don't have ties to them, except for that of the oppressor. Forcing them to take on that identity for the sake of their skin color would be inappropriate.
But the term minority even in a racial sense is a problematic term. Minorities do not coalesce well politically, making the "minority agenda" a complete fantasy in terms of actual political capital. Instead we often operate within our own particular racial groups (i.e. latinos, blacks, asians, etc). These political groups have an easier time realizing policy goals and demands, then the blanket bloc "minority". I am here to suggest a few things that will make the minority coalition much more tangible and also to warn minorities about the threat of white Neo-liberalist co-option.
Neo-liberalist go under many names. Typically they'll regard themselves as "bi-partisans" or even try to approach minorities through an age group such as "millennials". Neo-liberalist are the bastion of moderate politics, which will never recognize true racial difference. The Neo-liberalist agenda is one that subordinates the minority, especially people of color, for the sake of compromises that in the end help whites disproportionately more. The Neo-liberalist only acts in tandem with the minority when it benefits them, which is why their policy goals typically have huge economic pay-offs attached to them. I'm not asking to reject the policy goals of the Neo-liberalist. Instead I'm asking for a rejection of their coalition as one that we can be apart of. We cannot ever share with their political coalition because they are blind to how their coalition is still dictated by white leaders and white voices. Furthermore, no amount of token minority leaders within the group will change the fact that normative policy goals are oriented with whites in mind. It's not that they are brainwashed into believing a white normalcy is normal, it's that we are all brainwashed into believing that white normalcy is normal.
When we reject the white normative framework, we become self aware of how we were being duped and are allowed to make policy that is truly in our own best interest. But as I stated before, minorities don't coalesce. This is because most coalitions work within an affirmative framework. Most coalitions work within the context of what they want, not what they don't want. Latino's typically emphasize immigration legislation, while African Americans argue for structural changes concerning their neighborhoods. In an affirmative framework we have different policy goals, which leads us to not realize any particular policy suggestions as a minority bloc. However, if we move to a negative framework, then it becomes possible for us to collude and make unilateral demands. This comes via a "if it happens to them, then it can happen to me rationale". Policies like stop and frisk are damaging because they unfairly target minorities, specifically people of color. Once this is allowed, then the bar for what is unacceptable is moved and can easily move further. While I'm not suggesting that we will return to the days of Jim Crow, where cops had the social backing to call out people of color with loud voices (now they just do it with whispers and ambiguous language), I am suggesting that the problem will only become more pervasive. We can agree that disproportionate application of laws are also bad (e.g. drug sentencing laws). These are all issues as minorities we can put our foot down and make demands to end.
Our racial coalitions will compete from time to time (e.g. affirmative action is typically supported by African Americans and Latinos, but not by some Asians). That's fine. The political process is supposed to be one of competition. However, we cannot allow competition be the wedge for a Neo-liberalist co-option. A Neo-liberalist agenda would probably take the policy goals of a certain group and herald it as their own in order to break the impermeable minority bloc. For example, making affirmative action so that it's based completely on income. This will seem like it will take away stigma from Asians, when in actuality it will only serve to allow poor whites to be allowed into University at a much higher rate. The Neo-liberalist bloc isn't a conniving bloc that aims to hurt minority goals. If that's the characterization you're getting then you fail to recognize that the normative policy goals of white culture are inherently at odds with that of people of color. They are inherently appropriating and subordinating.
Minority blocs will serve us well in the coming years as the political capital of the country shifts from a white majority to a minority majority. It's time we create a political group sophisticated enough to represent our goals, while not accidentally undermining our own goals by supporting a white Neo-liberalist agenda. Our individual coalitions can bicker and compete, but not at the expense of our group as a whole. Until we've dismantled the normative white super structure, the minority voter must be vigilant and cast their ballet only when they have a clear shot at equality.
The Oatmeal recently posted this article http://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day , which encourages people to stop celebrating Christopher Columbus and instead celebrate Bartolome de las Casas during Columbus Day. Bartolome was similar to Columbus in the sense that both were white European explorers, who exploited natives for resources and labor, but Bartolome in an act of guilt and true disgust, turned a new leaf and fought for natives' rights and against rampant imperialism. The rationale given by the Oatmeal is pretty simple. Columbus was a jerk and this guy wasn't and he did good things for natives, so why not replace Columbus with him? Well it seems the Oatmeal didn't ask the question "how does this help repair relations with indigenous people?" While it's nice that Bartolome served as an activist for indigenous people's rights and he should definitely receive praise for his actions, replacing Columbus with him only replaces one White European male with another.In this seemingly appropriate re-patronizing, the indigenous person is silenced yet again. The indigenous person is instead given this liaison, who only serves to make Western culture feel good again. The unspoken rationale behind this is "well Columbus was a jerk, but not everyone was a jerk." It leaves the gate open for rationalizing the imperialistic tendencies of Western society as positives, rather than leaving the floor open for critique. What I'm advocating for is not a "I hate Christopher Columbus day", that would be inappropriate as well for the same reason Bartolome day was inappropriate, it ignores indigenous people. Instead using this day to focus on indigenous peoples' (specifically from the Caribbean, which are the ones typically forgotten when one uses the catch all phrase Native Americans) and their culture and how they were unfortunately oppressed is a much better use of time than to continue to think about White European men, an activity we have been forced to do for 12 years of our lives in history class.
Overt racism isn't dead, it's sleeping. And whenever an intelligent and determined minority asserts themselves into the public sphere, overt racism is brought back as the final defense against an inevitable turning of the tables. My English Professor at the University of Michigan told us that the two amendments we should be most grateful for are the 13th and 14th amendment because soon the majority group in the country will change and those amendments are the only thing protecting and guaranteeing rights when those changes come about. Well the change is coming and though some of the white community is welcoming it with open arms, there are plenty who find themselves "tired of the talk" and are gathering up their chutzpah for a showdown they will most likely lose. This showdown will be fought with words. We are going to shoot up white neighborhoods with ballots as bullets and people are going to decry the massacre. They will claim that we only vote for ourselves. They will argue that our political savvy is lacking. They will deny most of our candidates and find even more overt ways of blocking us from the vote. They will fail.
One might think, I'm a white ally, why does it seem as if you don't want me around. Well my friend you are wanted. You have been our vanguard for centuries and I can only hope that minorities who eventually come into power retain a sense of humility that allows us to realize when our own bias may affect us. However, this antagonistic tone isn't one of all out war. It is a calculated reconfiguration of the superstructure of race that has plagued this country. It is more complicated than us vs them, but for the sake of the battle that's how the lines are going to be drawn.
To be clear I'm not advocating for actual violence against any group. I'm merely pointing out that as power is transferred, we are going to face a class of people who struggle to come to terms with their own mortality. While financially we cannot pry wealth from the hands of the elite (which is predominantly white), we can at least assert our own political capital in meaningful ways. And just to be clear when I say pry wealth, I don't mean a hand out. I mean winning out in the free market without all of the legislation that makes them untouchable. I'm talking a return to a freer market. The trust busters will come riding back in, but this time they will speak Spanish and Ebonics.
This might make you feel uncomfortable. This might even make minorities feel uncomfortable. I honestly don't care because I'm done with negotiating when I can't even make it to the dinner table. We need to be at equal footing to make fair demands. This is what you call leverage and minorities still have very little of it. We have been fed a philosophy of tolerance and docility that the dominant group isn't even following. Why should we follow it? There is no moral high ground in exploitation.
Also, this isn't a vindictive struggle. I can honestly care less about getting back at my oppressors. Instead I just want to live a good life. I want my kids to walk around badge-less. And when I turn on the TV I want to see a rainbow in the rows of congress. The law will protect me and cops won't harass me. My mother won't be questioned at the border when she says her son goes to the University of Michigan. These are things I want. They are bold and pernicious, I know. So I have decided I'm just going to take.
Yep I read this post http://polemiqueoccasionelle.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/blurring-the-lines-of-feminism-a-criticism-of-the-criticism-of-blurred-lines/ . This post is hard for me to speak against as a man. I feel the discourse surrounding women's rights should be driven by women and men have a role in that conversation, but its a reflective one. Men shouldn't be imposing their own privilege on the conversation. I keep quoting the same person, but I really like this expression: "Be mindful of the space you take up in the room." However, when talking to the person who told me that about whether she could speak out for minorities as a white woman, I told her that I personally felt she could. That's because you shouldn't let misconceptions about your friends and family be perpetuated if you could stop it. So I really seem myself as stepping in not for women, but for my friends, my sister and my mother, who don't need to be ashamed for proudly demanding a world where they are respected, not objectified. The criticism laid out by the author here is twofold. She first argues that feminist have misinterpreted the language of Blurred lines for rape culture rather than sexual liberation. Secondly, she attacked the "Defined lines video", which parodies the song via role reversal. Her criticism of defined lines is that "two wrongs don't make a right" and the parody goes much farther in its objectification of men, then the actual blurred lines does of women. I will start first by defending Defined lines as a clear satire of the misogyny frequently shown in videos with women. Then I will move to strike down some of her interpretation and also draw from other articles, which have shown how Blurred Lines perpetuates rape culture. Finally, I will indict the criticism from the article as perpetuating the negative stereotype of Feminist being self obsessed matriarchal dictators.
Satire not sexism: Exaggeration as a strategy for emphasis
To start with the criticism of the "Defined lines" video, she begins by claiming that the song insinuates rape like behavior. What the author misses is that this video was intended as a parody. The video is supposed to be in bad taste because by doing so it brings emphasis to the sort of objectification women regularly see in the media. The exaggeration in the video is meant to capitalize on the already unsettling prospect of seeing this happen to men. What isn't being examined is why the male community seemed to respond with such outrage over the video. If you are full of outrage, good, then you should direct that outrage towards the music companies that do this to women on a regular basis, as opposed to one of the rare examples of this happening to men. This role reversal isn't even akin to that seen in the videos from Beyonce or other singers. Instead it's clearly being used to draw attention to how problematic the portrayal of women in the media is. The song even says this when it states, "What you see on TV/doesn't speak equality/ it's straight up misogyny." Those who chuckled at the video do so because they see the irony and satire at play here. But these chuckles weren't hearty chuckles. Instead people awkwardly laughed as they recognized that anyone who has this kind of stuff done to them is being degraded. The logical connection from that was supposed to be about stopping this kind of portrayal where it happens the most: the music industries portrayal of women. Finally, the author admonishes the creators, claiming that women should empower themselves, not weaken men. Such a statement is true in most situations. It shouldn't be the goal of the women's rights movement to weaken men. However, if women need to hurt patriarchy, then there is a good chance that men might have to suffer the drawbacks from that. It's not intentional. In fact it's usually brought about by the lack of practical strategies to fight against misogyny.
A bunch of naked women is a sad man's fantasy
The author suggests that the reason the song was misinterpreted is because it misses the mantra of sexual freedom being preached by the song. I could definitely see this if it weren't for a few red flags. First, the video suggests a man's fantasy, not an equal sexual fantasy. It's not the fact that there are several naked women in the video (unrated, actually first think about why an unrated video even fucking exists), but the fact that they find themselves being oogled at by Thicke and his crew (who seem quite comfortable being cloth). This signals to me that this isn't about the sexual freedom of the woman. She's already at this visible state of vulnerability, while the man is still clothed and in control. Those who claim the woman's body is a symbol of power are correct, but not when it's being subjugated by a male dominated environment. Women in this video are clearly attending to men and their needs. They are framed doing menial tasks and are completely silent, while men tell them what their sexual nature is. This is a sad man's fantasy of sexual freedom and unfortunately is a sexual prison for women.
Disentangling sexual freedom from the hypersexualization of women: a woman is not an animal
Even if you disagree with me that the author's framing of the video is awry, hopefully you can see that the interpretation of Thicke's lyrics are completely off the mark. The author claims that this verse: "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you/But you're an animal, baby it's in your nature/Just let me liberate you/You don't need no paper/That man is not your maker" is a "women's lib anthem." First, before we start interpreting the lyrics, we need to interrogate the narrator of the lyrics. This is Robin Thicke, a white well chiseled man, who clearly wants to have sex with this girl. His end goal is for some sort of sexual relations and so his rhetoric is going to be for that aim. So when he says, "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you", I'm immediately suspect of what this "domestication" entailed. Perhaps domestication is Thicke's way of putting a negative spin on a faithful relationship. It would certainly behoove Thicke to portray the woman's relationship as limiting, regardless of how true it is. If anything Thicke is using the woman's sexual freedom against her, by suggesting that she is less of a woman for engaging in a monogamous relationship. But even if we ignore the clear conflict of interest with the narrator and assume that Thicke was being truthful (i.e. the woman's love interest was indeed trying to limit her sexual freedom), then one must immediately be off put by Thicke suggesting that the woman is animal. To compare her to an animal completely takes away her control over her sexual drive. Animals don't have sex because they want to, but because they need to (except for dolphins apparently). By suggesting that her engaging in sexual relations with Thicke is her state of nature draws connotations of a primal like sexual appetite (which is also visually represented in the song via the goat and humping of the fake goat). A good example of this is when one of the singers points at the goat being held by the woman and says "you the hottest bitch in this place" directly towards it. In that small second the woman is being reduced to the animal and to make matters worse that is when they feel comfortable invoking a derogatory designation for the woman.
But I'm not even done, there's still more poor interpretation to be dealt with. The fact that the woman needs Thicke to "liberate her" is a clear position of subjugation. The woman isn't a free entity without Thicke's sexual liberation in this universe. The author doesn't even address this, in fact the author seems to take no issue with it, citing it as an example of pro women language in the song. I don't see how being reliant on a man to gain sexual freedom is in any way pro women. Then we return to the final line, which the author claims is Thicke's claim to a pro woman platform. Given all the context of the previous lines, I hope such a deduction seems laughable to you. The woman has been reduced to a sexual animal. Her relationship has been caricatured by Thicke. And she's given a sexual freedom ultimatum by him. Of course he wants to end it by creating the facade of control in the situation. This has been the new operation of sexism for men. We deal with women not by actually giving them the equality they want, but by appeasing them with fictional notions of equality. So instead of making a statement like "do what makes you happy, or what pleases you sexually", Thicke cleverly frames it as if her leaving her relationship via sex with him will liberate her from her prison.
Lower case f Feminism is a cop out
I've been particularly free of ad hominems in this post so far, but I think this author deserves to face the repercussions of her writing. When she decided to analogize (insert inside joke here) the accurate feminist critiques of the song to slut shaming, she made herself look like a fool. Her first piece of evidence for this charge was her critique of the "Defined lines" videos, which I already addressed, so I won't do so here. Then she claims the feminist critique of the line regarding spanking, makes that kind of sexual behavior deviant. Again, context is everything. In a video where the woman is completely in control of her own sexual experience this would be a different story, but as shown in the previous section, women are not in control in this video. So when Thicke insinuates that he could meet the woman's sexual desire via these violent acts, the context isn't sexual, but instead one of subjugation. Finally, her first two points about women never saying yes to sexual advances completely misses the point I made earlier about interrogating the narrator. In Thicke's mind this woman "knows she wants it", but I would bet some money that the woman herself probably feels differently about the situation. Furthermore, to validate Thicke's thinking would be to validate the rationale given by many people who rape women. This article http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/09/17/from-the-mouths-of-rapists-the-lyrics-of-robin-thickes-blurred-lines-and-real-life-rape/ shows the connections to rape culture the song has far better than I can, however a huge trigger warning, it uses actual testimonials from survivors.
Feminism is spelled with a capital F
Women who have a high standard for the society around them aren't nuisances, they are liberators. They are our mothers, sisters, daughters, friends, aunts. They deal with our male privilege when they shouldn't have to and many of them graciously educate us when we clearly are ignorant to the "space we take up". And when someone attacks these women for being too zealous, then all I have to say is shame on you. Shame on you for not being brave enough to continue the conversation when nobody wants to hear it. Shame on you for being a hindrance to those who want a full equality and who intend to not only change law and policy, but hearts and minds. Shame on you who think that I am less of a man for writing this because I know there is nothing more manly then standing up for the people I love. I write this to draw my lines in the sand. I hope the author thinks about doing the same.
