Inclusion in the "Nude"

I'm  gonna talk about this stuff in a moment:

But first, I need to do some babbling  about identity. 

I've  mentioned a few times on  this blog that I have indigenous American ancestry and self-identify, at least in part, as Native American. And, as such, I'm pretty quick to notice and point out negative or problematic portrayals of indigenous peoples or cultures, even in things I love (like Harry Potter). (If you click on some of the tags at the bottom of those posts to related topics, you'll find more, if it interests you.) What I perhaps should have clarified before, and wish to now, is that I have lived a life of privilege based on the fact that  I 100% pass as white.

For those unfamiliar with the term, passing is related to when a person that self-identifies or has characteristics relating them to a marginalized group is perceived as the  dominant  group. When I was in grad school, a lot of the literature I read from specialists on disability and identity talked about passing at least a little (and I have one book  devoted entirely to the topic; not to say that's the only one out there, but  rather, that passing as non-disabled is a Thing), and I think a lot of us do it all the time when it comes to our depression, anxiety, etc.- we don't want people to know we have depression. A famous example is how F.D.R.'s physical disabilities were kept out of the public eye as much as possible, and it really wasn't until after his death that the severity of them became generally known. Transgender and non-straight individuals do it all the time, in different ways, and for different reasons: We have some pretty fucked up misconceptions about how GLBT people "should"  act and look, and  if a person of that identity fits them, we assume they're straight/cis, etc. And it is, as for me, quite common for people of color to pass as white because their skin tone is light enough to be "convincing" or whatever. 

Passing is a complex state of being. I know I have had more opportunities than a lot of my cousins would have had if they were in the exact same situations as me growing up, and not  just because I already started off at an advantage, being born in California and moving to Las Vegas, then going to college, rather than being born on a Reservation in South Dakota like most of them. This isn't to say none of my cousins are educated or have had successes- a number of them did go to college, and two of them are teaching on the Reservation in South Dakota right now. But, even with the disadvantages I had because I was poor, had disabled siblings, lived in dangerous neighborhoods, etc., I still had the advantage of being ghostly pale (I don't tan- I burn and peel) and dirty blonde. Well, dirty blonde nowadays; when I was little, I was Sleeping Beauty Blonde:

I'm gonna say second or third grade-
that was the age when I always used a
RIDICULOUS amount of gel in my hair, be
it in a ponytail, or like above, behind a headband. Oh, youth...

But still, I grew up knowing my heritage, hearing stories from my mom, grandpa, great uncles and aunts, my mom's siblings. Not to mention having a last name  that makes it kind of obvious (even though what I know of my indigenous heritage comes from my mom's family, not my biological father's, and it's his name that "sounds" Native). But because I look so damn white, it usually takes me saying my last name with a kind of "duh" tone attached for people to catch on if I bring it up with them. 

And I'll admit... I don't do it a lot. Partially because my ethnicity shouldn't matter... but partly because I know there's a part of me wondering what will happen, if they'll see me differently, treat me differently.

When I was in fourth grade, I got in an argument with my teacher over the pronunciation of "sioux"- she was saying it was "sao" (like "sour" without the "r"), and I was pronouncing it... correctly. This was during a presentation I was giving on my own family history, so I refused to back down, so she told me to "sit down and shut up" and that she was "pissed off" that I would be so disrespectful. I can't remember if I was sent to the principal or not, but I know the news went home eventually. And holy shit. My mom was pissed as all Hell and and made sure the principal knew it. And in the end, the teacher barely spoke to me the rest of the year, presumably because she got in deep fucking shit for being so damned racist to her student; but after that, a few kids called me the R-word I have disparaged on this blog before. I never told my  mom (sorry if this is how you're finding out, Mom, if you're reading...), or anyone, for that matter... but the rest of the time I was at that school, the bullies called me  a redsk**, and it was only the fact that we moved a monthish into fifth grade, thus prompting a school change, that I got away from it. 

I know that experience influences why I don't always offer the information freely with new people. I usually wait a while, testing them, getting a feel for whether or not I can trust them enough with it before bringing it up with them. As if it's a terrible secret I have to keep hidden, lest I be persecuted. It's kind of irrational in most contexts, I get it, but trauma does some fucked up shit to your brain, yo. 

So even though I look white, seem white, and everyone thinks I'm white, I don't necessarily feel white, and here's where shit starts to get wonky. Or, well, wonkier. 

I work at a store that sells intimates for plus-sized women. And one aspect that I am super, duper proud of our company for is that our models are always very diverse- more than one of the regulars  are women of color, and there are even some that show visible signs of aging!!! 

Shocking, I know. 

Another thing I've noticed is that, while it can't control the names of things from other companies it's contracted with, such as Spanx, which uses color names like "nude" and "soft nude" for lighter shades that light-skinned women would want for underneath thinner, lighter-colored clothing, and "taupetone" for the shade darker colored women would prefer for the same purpose, the company I work for calls lighter shades "cafe mocha" or straight-up "beige" for the former, and has equally non-ethnically-charged names for darker shades, like "French almond" (and I remember a bra that's now discontinued that was in "chocolate brown") (and by the way, the "French" in that isn't, as far as I can guess, just a way to make it sound fancier than "almond," an isn't meant to imply a white French person, especially since the models wearing that color on the website are women of color).

And I love that. Because I do so very strongly believe that words matter. I do my best to be inclusive for everyone, regardless of their myriad intersectional identifiers. And I know exactly where the idea to call a pair of beige panties "nude" came from: A white person. Because yeah, the message they wanted to get across was, "This won't show through your white pants/skirt/dress/etc.!" But who was it aimed at? Certainly not this woman: 

This is Precious Lee, the first plus-sized model of
color to be in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition

Nor anyone else with skin that's her color, or close to it, let alone any darker. This is the link for a Google Image search for "nude bra." Look at how few women of color there are. So whose "nude" is it?

Now here's the thing. "Nude" panties and bras could totally work for women like me that are passing as white;  those are the colors I do, indeed, go for when I'm wearing a light colored shirt or dress. And yes, I tell all of my  light-skinned customers to get a bra in the color they keep calling "nude," that's really "cafe mocha," because it's better for underneath thinner and lighter-colored tops than white (joking about how they actually "aren't that pale!"). And no, white women aren't white, but that's the point- that's why what's basically beige or a super light brown is called "nude." "Nude" implies "skin colored," and it's the skin color of... not-women-of-color, excluding us "passers." 

So I hate the whole "nude" thing. It excludes women with darker skin tones, implying the only skin tone that matters is lighter. And this kind of systemic racism is the subtle, difficult kind that people often reinforce without realizing they're doing it. Because God knows how long ago, someone decided to call it  "nude," everyone does, nowadays, not even thinking about exactly who that item would really be "nude" for in the first place. It's the "normal" thing to call those shades, and is so entrenched in the cultural zeitgeist that even women of color call my store's cafe mocha stuff "nude." 

But it's systemic racism. Period. If the tables had been reversed, and the fashion industry wasn't entrenched in racist practices and tendencies, either "nude" would never have been a thing, or it would be the "nude" for this gal

Angela Bassett

as opposed to this one

Meryl Streep

But that's now how things are. Women of color are surrounded by products named after white women, and, at least the customers I have seen, often internalize this so deeply that they get confused when something "nude" isn't called that. That's racism at its worst. 

This feeds into the idea that lighter skinned women of color are more beautiful that runs rampant in society. It's imperialist and orientalist, for women with darker  skin are thus  more "exotic" and "tribal," and darker colored women (and men) are more susceptible to things like harsher sentencing and incarceration, are less likely to get a job, are likely to get less pay, than their lighter-skinned brethren (let alone white people). There are tons of studies supporting this, but here's a good piece that talks about a lot of the different ways lighter skinned persons of color are treated less harshly.  

And this discourse, this deplorable idea that "lighter is better" is perpetuated in communities of color, too. Dark Is Beautiful is a campaign that has gained international attention, as its message is one combating the discrimination dark skinned Indian women experience. Indian cinema and advertising has historically excluded women of darker skin tones, or featured them in exploitative or problematic ways. And there are even Indian products designed to convince the women  using them it will actually lighten the pigment of their skin. I love this take on the issue:

I hate the idea that white/light is beautiful, is the baseline. Because it isn't. This whole business of lighter is better encourages passers like me to keep quiet, thus reinforcing the whole bloody mess in the first place. Like we shouldn't be proud of our identity. Of course, identity is super complex and I in no way am saying all passers are lying assholes. But I am saying that it's fucked up how the system is so skewed, white skin is the baseline, and light skin is actually safer to have than dark. 

So when I'm at work, I try to subtly correct my customers that look for "nude"  panties and bras. If they are pointing and say, "I need that nude bra," I'll point at the same one and say, "This? The cafe mocha one?" or if they  have to order something in that color, I'll say, "So that color is actually called cafe mocha, so let me  order that in a size 42DD for ya!" and do other, similar thing to remove "nude" from the conversation, given the context. Sometimes they seem to get annoyed, as if they think I'm talking down to them, and sometimes they refuse to stop saying "nude." When they  dig their heels in like that, I dig in my own (with a smile!), and find excuses to work "cafe mocha" into what I'm saying with them as many times as I can, to kind of drive the term home. I think most of my customers don't get what I'm doing or why, because, again, it's so "normal" to think of "beige" as "nude," it seems weird a store would use something other than "nude" for the color of the bra or panty  they obviously want for under light materials. I think a lot of the reason some think I'm being condescending, as if they're supposed to just know it's not cafe mocha because that's what my company does, not because "nude" is racist, because of how I pass as white. 

But sometimes necessity leads to me being a gentle educator. I have had a few times where a customer asked why it's not "just called nude" before, and when I give a very elementary lesson on racism to them, they actually tend to be pretty cool about it. My passing as white usually results in a response of... I dunno, awe, I guess, as if I'm some amazingly enlightened person because I care about subtle racism like that, when I'm talking to these particular gals. My favorite instance was particularly touching, though, so I'm going to retell the whole thing for you here.

I had been working pretty closely with an older white woman on bras for a good forty minutes. She wanted to get a ton (they were on sale, and she hadn't had a right-fitting bra since "well before [I was] born, sweetie"), so when I did my subtle correction of her when she said "nude,"  she asked, "Oh, now that's interesting. Why isn't it called 'nude?'"

"Well," I said, smiling a little, "probably because there are a lot of women that have skin colors that would totally contrast with that one in a light t-shirt because their skin is darker. And [insert company name here] cares about inclusion, so instead of naming a color after Caucasian people, they named it after something most people like, coffee!"  I laughed for a second, until I saw her face. She looked  worried and lost in thought. So I said  her name and asked, "Are you okay?"

"Oh," she said, "yes. I'm alright. I just... I had never thought of it that way. I just thought of it as 'nude' because it's close to my own skin color and, you know, that's my normal thing, and-"

"-and that's what it's always called, right?" I said, gently.

"Yes," she said, and she looked genuinely sad and sorry.

"Yeah," I said, nodding, "that's exactly the point. Kind of like how mainstream history textbooks are really more like white history."

"And why we need a Black history  month." She was nodding gravely, now.

"Yeah, so I just try to always use 'cafe mocha' or 'beige' when I can so that I don't exclude women of color from the conversation."

She nodded more rigorously. "Yes, I can see why. That makes sense." She paused, took a deep breath, slammed her hand on the counter, and said, grinning, "Well, Gabrielle, you better get me two of those cafe mocha bras, because Lord knows my girls need the support, and I don't wear a lot of black tshirts."

When this customer (finally) left the registers, a tall Black woman that had been standing nearby came up to me and bent down to whisper at me, "Thank you."

Admittedly, she surprised me, so I kind of jumped and squealed,  and once the you-startled-me and sorry-for-startling-yous had been exchanged, she went on, "I had always thought, 'Nude for who? White people?' before, but I don't know why I didn't notice that [insert company name here] doesn't call it that."

I nodded and said, "Yeah, I genuinely believe they're trying for inclusion  and diversity. I mean, look at all of the posters and marketing we have all over the store with women of color. And given the message of inclusion we have when it comes to body shape and type, I just find  it hard to believe that the whole 'cafe mocha' thing was on accident or whatever, y'know?"

She smiled and said, "Yeah, I think you're right. And you're doing a good job reinforcing that counter-message, honey."

"I do what I can, when I can." 

We went on to talk about how I pass as white, so I care a lot about it because "nude" wouldn't be actually nude for a lot of my family members, and she ended up tearing up. Which caused me to tear up, so we hugged and she said she wished she lived in town so she could shop with me more (she was here on business), but that she'd tell all her friends in the area to go to my store and look for me, and that all of her friends that don't shop at our store should because we have such great people like me working there. 

So that says to me it does matter. It matters for the women whose skin isn't the "nude" the fashion industry says it "should" be. And that is  the baseline I operate off of, myself. I don't give a shit if it gets on the nerves of white women when I say "cafe mocha" over and over again. 

I did get kind of snippy with a fellow employee over the phone  once over it. She had called our store to have us look for a bra for a customer that was at theirs, and I was the one taking the call, so I did the exact same  thing over the phone I do to customers- she kept saying "nuce," and I kept saying "cafe mocha" over and over. When she said, "Okay...?" with an attitude, I said, "Well, it's called 'cafe mocha' because not everyone is white,  and to include women of color. And I'm a woman of color, so having someone insist it's 'nude' like you're doing, especially when it isn't called 'nude' by  the company, is, well, kind of offensive. And you work for [insert  company name here], you should know your company's message of inclusion isn't just about size."

She hung  up. 

People  like that don't care. And aren't going to help. But people like my customer with the bras I talked about earlier, they're the best kind. They are open to the conversation about inclusion, and they want to help. So I am happy to educate them. Fuck the closed-minded assholes that don't get it- they don't want to get it. I don't mind making them uncomfortable, given their position of usual comfort is exactly what caused the issue in the first place- that their identity is presented writ large as "good" and "better" and "right" and all that nonsense. No. I'm much more inclined to make  the women whose identities are made to be "bad" or "dangerous," that get exploited, feel safe. It's the women that usually feel marginalized, like the woman that thanked me, that matter. 

'Batman v. Superman' Review, Part Two: What I Liked

Okay, so as I said yesterday, I'm now going to go through the things about this movie that I enjoyed. I want to reiterate, this movie wasn't entirely terrible, and the following is in now particular order. I should start with the obligatory movie poster, though right?

Once again,

SPOILERS, DUH

I do think this is more easily made into a coherent piece, rather than a bunch of numbers, so I'm just gonna go for it. And I'm going to start by addressing the positive perspective on the last point I made in my post about the negative things in Dawn of Justice. I added that after the original posting, though, so I'll include it here, in case you read the first part but didn't see that bit:

So if Batman is driven SO BLOODY OVER THE EDGE by Superman's fight with Zod and the presence of this alien, and he is so Hellbent on killing him for 90% of the movie, how come all it takes is Lois saying their moms share names for him to turn around and be on his side? It was cool, and there's an argument for why it works,  but also for why it doesn't. See, we spent a whole movie watching Batman hate Superman. Superman is the cause for him being willing to kill now, and to brand the thugs he catches with a Bat Symbol, and his main goal since Superman showed up, over a year-and-a-half earlier, has been to end the Man of Steel. But in thirty seconds, that all turns around? That's not enough. If you're going to build up that much backstory, it can't be reversed with a few lines of dialogue. I would have rather seen  them decide it was in their mutual interest to fight together against Doomsday, then, once the Big Bad was gone, have a neural conversation where Superman plead his case convincingly enough- which I think he could do, if Goyer wasn't being suck a fucking moron. There's a legitimate argument for why Superman did what he did, and it's not unlike how Batman destroys SO MUCH PROPERTY during every chase he's ever in; he could say how he tried to get Zod out of the city, and when it didn't work, he eliminated the threat to save the lives left, etc. I think Batman would listen to that and be persuaded to at least not kill Supes. And then, maybe have Lex kidnap Mama Kent (or have her put in danger in  the next movie... which I kind of hate saying... because ALL SHE'S GOOD FOR IS BEING IN DANGER JUST LIKE LOIS IN THIS MOVIE) and Bruce finds out she shares a name with his deceased mother, and that makes him more eager to work with Superman because of stuff  I'll talk about in the positive post. 

So okay, the reason I think this had the potential to at least be cool is because a lot of Bruce's hatred of Superman was rooted in bigotry. Call it speceism, if you will, but all of the times Bruce/Batman calls Superman "alien," and the amount of venom and disdain in his voice, it may as well be replaced with the n-word.  And I think this draws a very interesting parallel with racism and movements for equality, because one of the most sensical arguments against discrimination is that we all have way more in common than we think. So Bruce realizing that Superman's mom is in danger, and that his mom's name is the same as his own deceased mom's, makes Bruce realize that he and Superman have more in common than he was willing to realize. This is a fascinating revelation, and it should have been expanded on more- and again, if they had done that after the fight instead of before, it could have been. Because Bruce was afraid of Superman because he had the power to kill the whole human race, yeah? Well, what happened throughout the movie? Oh yeah, BATMAN WAS KILLING THE SHIT OUT OF ERRBODY. So by being so desperate to get rid of Superman, he, by degrees, became the thing he was trying to destroy. And him realizing this, coming to terms with it, and thus joining Superman's side with sincerity and earnestness, it could have been great. And it was there... kind of... it was just very, very poorly done. But I had to point it out positively, too, because Batman realizing Superman is more human than he thought is a big deal. Because I don't think there's ever been a version of Batman that didn't portray him as stubborn as fuck. So him changing his mind  is a B.F.D.

Along those lines, then, I liked the premise behind Lex, even if he was terribly cast and written. Because his whole goal wasn't to hurt Batman, really; he wanted to end Superman. That's why he's so bent on getting the kryptonite; that's why he's so adamant to Senator Finch that Superman is dangerous. He, too, saw the destruction in Metropolis, and he became terrified of what Superman could do to the people of Earth, on a whim, if he had a bad day, whatever. But in his madness, his drive to Stop Superman, he kills tons of people, too. To quote another DC character from a different movie, 

Luthor got so caught up that he started destroying lives and ending them without any thought to it. The pain he put Keefe through, the way he orchestrated the whole shin-dig in the desert, the people he held hostage, how he blew up the Capital Building, you would think that's the kind of stuff he would want to accuse the target of his anger of doing. I think part of why he wanted to have Superman kill Batman was because for however "criminal" Batman is, if he's been at it for 20+ years, he must have a loyal following, and if he died at the hands of Superman, that would probably remove any credibility Superman had left. 

I also don't think Lex Luthor necessarily had it out for Batman directly because, as I said before, he had to have known Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person before the fight in Metropolis happened, well before Keefe was injured, in order to help drive Batman over the edge like that. 

And that's a fantastic parallel: Weirdly, Batman and Luthor had the same response to Superman, and had the same goal with regards to him. They both want to end him during the course of this movie. They both go down a dark path because of the violence they see during the fight between Zod and Superman.

And so here's one of my favorite things about this movie: I loved that it opens (mostly) with the Metropolis fight shown from Bruce Wayne's perspective. That scene was a huge part of what people (myself included) thought was wrong with Man of Steel, and it was visually stunning in this use, as well as moving. The look on Bruce's face at the end of the sequence, this shot right here, explains so much, even without the hints at backstory we get later:

Much hate. Such the anger.

I would have loved it more if there had been some followup closer to the time of the incident, like maybe a montage over opening credits of people protesting against Superman, if they had mentioned during the coverage of Keefe's incident at the statue of Supes that this is the umpteenth time the thing had been defaced because there's a lot of anti-Superman sentiment. Showing us this scene reminds us why everyone shown as afraid of Superman is, in fact, afraid of him. They also could have bolstered it a bit with maybe someone at the Daily Planet being anti-Superman, or at least before the incident in the desert. But regardless, starting it with that was a great choice, and while I imagine it was also Zack Snyder saying, "FUCK YOU!" to his critics from the first one, it still was a great storytelling move, one of the few good ones in the whole Goddamned movie. 

So then, back to Bruce's face. I LOVE that the incident in Metropolis is what puts Bruce over the edge. Because when you think about it, and especially given the context we get later- a dead Robin, he's been at it for over twenty years, something terrible seems to have happened to Wayne Manor- it's fucking brilliant to turn Superman into the scapegoat for all of Bruce Wayne's anger and pain from his life. From his parents' deaths in front of him as a kid, to whatever happened the day before shit got real in Metropolis and stuff. That's a lot of rage. What it comes down to, is he's projecting all of his anger and misery onto Superman. And realizing that is what really should have been the catalyst for him changing his tune, even though yes, realizing Superman has some humanity to him, too, was good. THAT would have been far more moving and would have resonated more loudly in the psyches of the audience. That being said, I like to think that it was still in there for Ben Affleck as he was acting the scene where he vows to Supes that he'll save Ma Kent- he's too smart of a man and too good of an actor to miss that psychological twist to the Batman/Bruce Wayne he's portraying, here. 

And with that, I have to say, I was waaaaay into how off the deep end Batman/Bruce Wayne goes in this movie. I mean, it's not like Batman doesn't lose his shit in the comics. Here's a pretty famous panel I'm sure you've seen (and yes, I kind of detest the use of the "r" word, here, but it kind of proves the point that Batman has historically been batshit at times in the comics):

Another example, I'm of the belief that he actually kills the Joker in The Killing Joke, even though some cling to the idea that the Joker snaps his own neck simply to spite Batman. As much as I love Batman for choosing not to kill, it's very believable that he would, if the right buttons got pushed. So it was totally believable for me. I haven't read any reviews of Dawn of Justice yet, but I watched the one from How it Should Have Ended, and I was entirely unsurprised when he said that he didn't like that Batman was killing people. As stubborn as I am about "versions" of characters being "wrong" (i.e. my thoughts on Lex Luthor in this same movie), I also think it's reasonable to be open to Batman being that off his rocker and a little too stubborn for people to automatically discredit that development in his character, however much of a moral/ethical regression it may be for him.

So I wasn't weirded out by the fact that he has a shit-ton of GUNS and ROCKETS on the Batmobile, at least not from a "that's now what Batman does" point of view. And I fucking loved  this:

I don't know why that wasn't done sooner. It seems like the kind of thing Frank Miller or Alan Moore would come up with themselves- it's dark, creepy, and, let's face it, fucked up. And that's what makes it juicy and delicious! And whether or not it actually leads to the guys in prison getting killed is debatable- I like to think it's more correlation, rather than causation. After all, the news report about the dude put in the hospital (NOT killed, I should reiterate, but in the hospital in critical condition, which, come on, usually when he doesn't kill someone, Bats is probably leaving them paralyzed or something) was a child molester or something. And it's common knowledge that wife-beaters and child molesters have it the worst in prison. Did the brand make  his beating more severe? Maybe. I don't know. I don't really care. I like the idea that Batman has been driven so far over the edge that he's branding the baddies he catches, knowing full-well it at least gets them beat up in prison. It's a far more twisted version of leaving Carmine Falcone on a headlight so that he makes a Bat Signal in the sky with his body.

Now, did all the blatant killing on Batman's part make me uncomfortable? Yes. But  that was good. Because that's the whole fucking point. And I'd argue that the people whining about him killing and branding are missing it. The idea is that Superman freaked him out so Goddamned much that he lost perspective and that core aspect of his own Identity. I reiterate, there's quite a bit of backstory alluded to here- the Joker killed Robin in the past, Wayne Manor was destroyed, and I don't recall any positive references to Gordon (although there is a BatSignal, so I'm going to assume he at least at some point was on not-bad terms with the GCPD). He says something like, "We've always been criminals," to Alfred and while I know I haven't read or seen every version  of Bruce Wayne/Batman  out there, I think that's a substantial bit of personal development for him to admit that, and it, too, speaks to some of that backstory. 

So, yes, I would watch the shit out of a Batman movie starring Ben Afleck. And especially with Jeremy Irons as his Alfred. The scenes between them were all fantastic, and their rapport was perfect and exactly what I want out of a dynamic between Alfred and Master Bruce; like I said in the other post, I was sad I missed the beginning of one of their scenes together because I had to pee (and didn't want to endure any more of Kevin Costner's Pa Kent, to wit). Irons was a spectacular Alfred, and I was sad that he didn't get more screentime. The bit where he takes over the Batplane is fucking glorious, and that's another thing I'm surprised we'd never seen before in the Bat-verse (at least, as far as I'm aware). So both of them were GREAT casting decisions.

Another one, and one that I will 100% admit surprised me, is Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman/ Diana Prince. She stole every scene she was in, and not because anybody around her was really bad, but because she was just that fucking cool. So yes, I am going to do my damndest to see her movie at a midnight premiere next summer. I totally believed that she's an Amazon. I loved her little sneer when Lex is dissing Zeus- that was flawless and seamless and delightful and I squeed, because I know they made her his daughter in this version (insert feminist critique of that here...*), which is at least better than one of the theories floating around a while ago. So last time I griped about the fight choreography for Batman being mostly bad. What I meant by that was, it didn't get good until Wonder Woman joined the crew. The way she, Batman, and Superman all tag-teamed Doomsday, it was great- as if they'd fought together before, almost. And OHMYGOD I loved her "aw HELL no" looks she'd make each time she gets knocked down, like this one:

I fist-pumped every time, and so did the person I saw the movie with, and she knew nothing about Wonder Woman. She is that fucking cool in this movie. 

Truthfully, and this is kinda sad, but the scenes between her and Bruce were so good, their dynamic so yummy, that I think this movie would have been way better without Superman. Like if they had made it just a Batman+Wonder Woman flick. That is a movie I would happily go see, too.

But seriously, Gal Gadot vastly exceeded my expectations, and I'm so glad that we're past this feeling:

And I'm not too nervous about it anymore. If how well she did here is any indication, the Wonder Woman solo movie is going to be great. And as an aside, Chris Pine as Steve Trevor is a great choice, and I suspect they'll have some great chemistry. I also like that it appears as though they're going back to her WWII roots.

But anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself in anticipation.

I also really enjoyed Lawrence Fishburn's character, Perry White. He speaks a lot of truth, and while I don't have much else to say about him, I wanted to be sure to highlight that, too. Fishburn is always a solid actor, and I'm glad his lines were good enough for the calibur he brings to the cast.

And yes. This movie was very visually stunning. Mostly. It got kind of hokey during the fight with Doomsday, but Doomsday himself wasn't problematic.

In fact, I kind of dug that Doomsday was a creation of Lex Luthor. That is the kind of shit I expect from him, is the exact kind of shit he does. He's a mad scientist at heart, albeit one with a fuckton of money to back it up/make it easier. And while I did immediately think they kind of pulled an Ultron by changing him into a lab experiment instead of being (yet another) alien that lands on Earth (i.e. Marvel made Ultron a creation of Tony Stark in Age of Ultron, rather than being... an alien that lands on Earth), I still thought that was the truest thing to Lex Luthor's character in the whole movie. Even going back to how he sliced off Zod's fingertips to gain access to the crashed ship- that's a Lexish thing, too. "Blood of my blood." Granted, Jessie Eisenberg's delivery was more... creepy... than maniacal.

And there's precedent for it, too. Since the early 90s, the character Superboy has been a hybrid clone of Superman and Lex Luthor. The human portion of his DNA is why Superboy can't fly and do a few other things in Young Justice, and there, and in other versions, Luthor uses that tie to manipulate Superboy and use him as a sleeper agent/tool to hurt the Justice League. So it's totally believable that Lex would create some weird hybrid of his and Zod's DNA in order to kill Superman. Since Goyer is at least consulting on these damn movies as "the comic guy" for the story, I have suspicions that maybe he suggested this little tweak to Doomsday's origins as a nod to that part of Lex Luthor's "recent" (as in "in the past twenty years of") history. I'll admit, though, that if I didn't know this about him, I would have found it just plain creepy, not gonna lie.

And  while I'm on Lex again, let me say that while I didn't actively dislike the music, I was slightly disappointed in how it mostly sounded like a bunch of rehashed stuff from previous movies for which Hans Zimmer had been the composer... save for the creepy violin music that would play when Lex was being particularly weird/creepy/eccentric. Like the scene where he's talking to Senator Fisher in his house- the music basically made that scene.

And speaking of that scene... I loved that there is a jar of piss on her desk right before she blows up, too. That... well, I don't know if that's quite a Lex Luthor thing to do, oer se, but regardless, it was glorious to see. Because it was down-right fucked up. And, just in case you forgot, things are totally fucked up in Zack Snyder's universe, here. 

And so now it comes time for my rating. If it weren't for how great Batman and Wonder Woman are, I would say D-, or 5/10. But I honestly enjoyed those two (and Alfred) enough that I would say C+, or 7/10. They saved the movie for me, truly. I won't see it again in theaters, but I will definitely buy it when it comes out on BluRay, and who knows, I may end up writing a follow-up based off the extra scenes (because apparently the original cut is nearly FOUR FUCKING HOURS LONG...).




*The short version is that, by making her the product of a romantic tryst between Hippolyta and Zues, rather than being a blessing to the Amazons from female gods and formed out of clay, they're removing some of her independence. Part of her "feminist iconic" strength came from her total of zero ties to the male gender until meeting Steve Trevor; making her yet another one of Zeus's bastards diminishes that, as well as removes some of the strength and independence of her mother, Hippolyta- a badass in her own right, too. This piece from TheMarySue beautifully captures everything wrong with this telling of her history, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in her character, how she's evolved over the years, and/or is tired of my rants. 

'Batman v. Superman' Review, Part One: What I Didn't Like

I finally saw Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (I say "finally" because, as a good friend of mine said about how the both of us, as Bat-fans felt, "It has 'Batman' in the title, therefore I'm morally obligated to see it in theaters," and it's been out for over two weeks). So I have a lot to say. I'm going to start out by saying, as the name implies, this is a two-parter, because there's so much, and one post would be immense. So I'm starting with the bad, because yes, there is good, too. Which is kinda what I expected, but better, because there's more good than I anticipated- enough that I think the two-part-review is necessary. So that, in itself, is good. Given how I was less than thrilled with Man of Steel, I had absolutely ZERO expectations for this flick, but at least some of my hopes were met.

Anyhoo.

Spoilers ahead, obvi. 


These aren't in ranked order or anything. What it comes down to is a lot of little things that don't add up well for me. I can rant longer about some more than others, but while (most of) these things may have been forgivable on their own, the fact that all of them are in this movie is why I wouldn't say the movie is "great," by any means. I wouldn't even really say it's "good" overall. It's entertaining and tolerable.

1) My first irk is the feminist angle. I was superbly disappointed that the only thing Lois seems to be in the movie for is getting rescued by Superman. Not once. Not twice. But three times. THREE FUCKING TIMES IN A MOVIE THAT'S LESS THAN THREE HOURS LONG. (Granted, not by much, and that's something I'll talk about in a bit.)

I get that initially in the comics, that was pretty much her job, getting rescued. But come on, people, this is the 21st Century, aren't we past the "damsel in distress" trope? Like even a little? It was so hard to watch- I actually groaned out loud when she dove into the... puddle... thing... that had the spear, because I knew she was going to get trapped in that goddamned thing and Superman would have to go save her ass. And the only woman with more than two or three lines that doesn't get kidnapped or killed is Wonder Woman- who yes, was A FUCKING BOSS, but that's for the next post. And anyway, how awesome Wonder Woman is in this movie still doesn't make up for how few women are in it, and how they aren't in any way actually driving the plot. And fuck, they wasted the amazing talent of Lauren Cohan by making her Martha Wayne... and, aside from her screaming, I don't think she said anything (except maybe "Thomas" or "Bruce"). I just feel like this is so typical and entirely unsurprising, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing, and I just don't approve at all. And as a feminist icon, I imagine that...

,

Mr. Snyder.

And along those lines... Gal Gadot was the only person close to being of color with multiple lines aside from Laurence Fishburn and the dude that played the African warlord (which, wow, real positive portrayal of a person of color, there, Warner Brothers). Due to the nature of those little videos Diana watches (which, oh boy will we get to in a moment), Jason Momoa doesn't speak, and anyone involved in Cyborg's clip was only onscreen for a few moments (and Cyborg himself only screamed...), so yeah... not good on diversity in the casting at all. 

2) Plot-wise, let's start with the incident in the desert that Superman saves Lois from toward the beginning. Things going sour in itself wasn't the problem- that was kind of expected. What's stupid is that America writ large blames Superman, even though he didn't kill anybody and it was all gun violence.  Superman doesn't use guns. And he doesn't kill people... on purpose, at least, unless you're Zod (in this version).  Despite how everyone assumes it was his fault without asking him anything, nobody bothers to ask Lois to testify at the hearing about what she saw. So... she witnesses the whole Goddamned thing and they take testimony from people there after it happened, but not hers, which would have been an account of what happened during the incident. The whole Goddamned thing was just an action scene to use as the catalyst for Superman being feared and thought of as "dangerous," as if the whole thing with Zod that is used as why Batman  hates him isn't enough for the rest of the country? It was lazy writing. They could have just gone straight from the destruction of Metropolis to everyone being afraid of him. The thing in Africa was a contrived way to put Lex's guys in the middle and create yet another scene where Superman has to save Lois. 

3) Senator Finch seems to be too... conflicting... I mean, I just couldn't buy that she would be so anti-Supes and then refuse to let the chunk of kryptonite into the U.S. Now, do I think she would have let Lex Luthor have it? Of course not. No, what I think she would have done is say she's okay it, then swing some bureaucratic loophole to seize it on behalf of the government once he went to the expense of getting it to the U.S., and then it would have been developed into a super weapon at some military base by military scientists. Maybe some of LexCorps's peeps would have stolen it back, but it would have been even better if Batman himself stole the weapon- we're already supposed to think Batman is turning to the Dark Side (he even says something like, "We're criminals, we always have been," to Alfred at one point), so seeing him break into a government facility would have been super intense and support that whole "criminal" thing even more. 

4) Bruce's dreams. I mean, seriously, what the fuck? They in no way, shape, or form, advance the plot. They just take up valuable time (which, again, will be addressed). 

5) And right after one of those weirdass dreams, that whole thing with The Flash showing up in the little vortex, I'm assuming because he's jumping, or, really, running, back in time, saying, "Lois is the key!" is useless, too- Bruce doesn't do shit with regards to Lois after that, so it seems more like a piddly excuse to show The Flash on the screen, but then what about those little videos Diana watches in her hotel room? If all we see of Aquaman and Cyborg is those, why did we need to have (more) time wasted on a goofy time-run of The Flash that, like those dreams of Bruce's, doesn't do anything to actually advance the story? 

6) Also, WHAT THE FUCK WITH THE DAMNED VIDEOS? That was the MOST PATHETIC way to tease about future Justice League members. Diana may as well have been on YouTube and looking at a conspiracy theorist's channel, a channel consisting solely of videos they compiled of metahumans; all that was missing was the text at the end that spells out some vague, creepy, rhetorical question while Rage Against the Machine plays in the background (and of course, "Don't forget to like and subscribe!"). I mean, I understand "show v. tell" as well as the next college grad, but that's taking it a bit too literal. So back to the weapon, which ends up being a spear... 


7) WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T BATMAN JUST GO GET THE GODDAMNED SPEAR?!?!?!? At that point, when Batman says, "I have to get him to chase me back into the city, to the kryptonite," I was just...

...and I kind of gave up, basically throwing my hands in the air mentally and saying, "You win, Zack Snyder, you win the award for Dumbest Shit in a Batman Movie Ever." I don't understand how David S. Goyer, after having worked with the Nolans on the Dark Knight trilogy, could still come up with something so utterly stupid. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN HAD SOMETHING THAT TERRIBLE IN BATMAN AND ROBIN! I mean... God, that was so painful to sit through. The fight could have been basically the same if Batman had grabbed the spear and brought it to Doomsday. But then, of course, Lois wouldn't have nearly drowned  trying to get the spear, and then Supes wouldn't have needed to save her that third time, so..........

8) Speaking  of time, this movie is way too Goddamned long. Twenty minutes alone could have been cut if those stupid dreams of Bruce's weren't included. And another twenty, at least, if Zack Snyder would get over his goddamned masturbatory obsession with sssslllllloooooooooowwwww mmmmmoooooooootttttiiiiiooooooonnnnn....* To put it in perspective, this is the second movie I saw at the theater during which I got up to go to the bathroom. And I wasn't even worried about missing anything important- it was during the dream or whatever that Kal had of his Earth dad. The first was The Return of the King, to put things in perspective, which is over an hour longer- and even then, I was way more upset and worried about missing something cool. My only disappointment was the scene had already switched to being one between Bruce and Alfred, so I missed something with them. 

9) Jesse Eisenberg. He was terrible as Lex Luthor. See, I'm just too used to Lex being cool, calm, and collected. Part of why he's so scary is because he's so... chill... about his shit. A really good Lex is going to come across as a pure sociopath, and while sure, he may get a little angry when things don't go his way, he never loses his cool and seems lost or weirded out. This version was twitchy and nervous. He seemed like a cheap impression of Heath Ledger's Joker, which he, too, was more collected and less twitchy- sporadic and maybe a little unpredictable, be he never seemed nervous and awkward. Even if Lex wasn't always necessarily so chill, the twitchiness was too reminiscent of Ledger for it to work for me. 

10) Most of the fight choreography for Batman was awful. They followed all of the rules of Mook Chivalry when planning the fights between Batman and any thug or group, especially the bit about fighting one-at-a-time with Batman. I get that Bruce is getting older now and can't move very fast, but that should entail him throwing multiple goons or thugs off at once, not them politely waiting so they can attack individually. It was very disappointing to see him moving so slowly (while still not in slo-mo, I should point out) and have the other guys literally standing in the background. It's painful to watch.

11) And  yeah, maybe this should really be with 4 from above, but that scene where Kal/Clark has a vision or dream or whatever of his dead Pa Kent. If I missed 99% of it and still felt fine about the "plot" (I have to use that term very loosely, here), then it didn't need to be there. And even in the two lines of dialogue I saw, Kevin Costner was still bloody terrible. It was after his second line I said, "Welp, guess I can go pee now," to myself and got up to, well, go pee. But tack that on as yet another waste of time.

12) I don't think it's actually explained how Lex figures out that Clark is Supes and Bruce is Bats. Unless there's a deleted scene I'm  missing, I take it we're supposed to just leave it to his evilness? His genius? Like, what? That really got to me, because in order for him con Wallace Keef into blowing up the Capital (Keefe is the guy Bruce saves in the beginning that loses his legs and stuff), Lex would have had to know Bruce Wayne is Batman before Superman even showed up, meaning before the events of Man of Steel, since Keefe's importance hinges on being injured during the fight between Supes and Zod from the first movie. So how did Lex know? And how did he figure out Clark/Supes?

13) But speaking of Keefe, how did Bruce not know he wasn't getting his checks? When he says, "I thought we were sending him checks every month," or something like that, and the person talking to him said they were sent back every time or whatever, something bothered me, and at first, I wasn't sure what it was. But as Bruce is looking at the checks, it dawned on me.

Why didn't Bruce visit with him? I know he would have, if only to reinforce his hatred of Superman- why not go see the person that worked for him that was maimed by the alien? Sort of like how liberals watch Fox News to get morally outraged at bigots, or conservatives watch MSNBC to get angry about lazy poor people. Visiting the person he would (at least then) consider under his charge that was almost killed because of Superman is exactly the kind of masochistic thing Batman would do. So I call shenanigans on him being in the dark about Keefe. I don't buy that at all.

14) I'm adding this because I realized it's something I have mixed feelings about as I'm talking to a friend, but here it is. So if Batman is driven SO BLOODY OVER THE EDGE by Superman's fight with Zod and the presence of this alien, and he is so Hellbent on killing him for 90% of the movie, how come all it takes is Lois saying their moms share names for him to turn around and be on his side? It was cool, and there's an argument for why it works,  but also for why it doesn't. See, we spent a whole movie watching Batman hate Superman. Superman is the cause for him being willing to kill now, and to brand the thugs he catches with a Bat Symbol, and his main goal since Superman showed up, over a year-and-a-half earlier, has been to end the Man of Steel. But in thirty seconds, that all turns around? That's not enough. If you're going to build up that much backstory, it can't be reversed with a few lines of dialogue. I would have rather seen  them decide it was in their mutual interest to fight together against Doomsday, then, once the Big Bad was gone, have a neural conversation where Superman plead his case convincingly enough- which I think he could do, if Goyer wasn't being suck a fucking moron. There's a legitimate argument for why Superman did what he did, and it's not unlike how Batman destroys SO MUCH PROPERTY during every chase he's ever in; he could say how he tried to get Zod out of the city, and when it didn't work, he eliminated the threat to save the lives left, etc. I think Batman would listen to that and be persuaded to at least not kill Supes. And then, maybe have Lex kidnap Mama Kent (or have her put in danger in  the next movie... which I kind of hate saying... because ALL SHE'S GOOD FOR IS BEING IN DANGER JUST LIKE LOIS IN THIS MOVIE) and Bruce finds out she shares a name with his deceased mother, and that makes him more eager to work with Superman because of stuff  I'll talk about in the positive post. 

So that's about it. I will say, there's an interesting critique here about violence and  the state as there pretty much always is when it comes to a superhero movie. But I'll leave that discourse for later. I'm going to take a break for now and work on my post about what's good tomorrow. Once it's finished, I'll post a link in this (and one there leading back to this, too). It's there that I will actually rate it. 


*I contest this article's assertion that he dialed it back for Man of Steel. I mean okay, maybe he dialed it back in comparison to 300 or Watchmen, but dude... That's still a lot of fucking slow motion in Man of Steel.

Whitewashing Wizards: Thoughts on JKR's New Promo Stuff

I've had a lot of people either PM or tag me openly on Facebook about the new bits from J.K. Rowling on Pottermore. I was asked for myriad reasons, no doubt. Of course, because I love anything Harry Potter, but because of that along with the fact that I'm a known advocate for indigenous rights in my social circles. Search the tag "indigenous rights" at the bottom, here, and you'll get some blog posts that at least have a large chunk about something related to the topic, if not are entirely about it. And the big hullubulloo about the supplemental materials released as promotion for the upcoming film, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,  has centered around... well, how crappy the blurbs apparently are, apparently. I saw the "trailer" for them, and at that point, knew I needed to read the things before making a decision. 

Since it shows an indigenous man in a loincloth (groan) turn  into an eagle (groan), and mentions "skinwalkers," I figured there would be  a lot to dissect. Now I did read Dr. Adriene Keene's response to the trailer, but after that, I avoided any other "reviews" of any of the stuff to keep myself as fresh as possible. (Note: It's no coincidence she and I were both a little annoyed about the mostly-naked dude and the eagle- both are rather stereotypical, overused tropes about indigenous people; according to popular culture, all Native American men run around with only their front junk hidden, and we're all into eagles, eagles, eagles! (I even once had a white person try to posit to me that having the bald eagle as our national bird is somehow a homage to Native American culture....)).

So anyway, I've finally read the things. A few times. Because they're bloody short- seriously, just a few pages in MSWord, I would think. So, lovelies, here are my thoughts, and they aren't specific to the indigenous thing, either, because of a few things, like my feminist nature and my knowledge of American cultural history, my understandings about human nature, and... my basic reading comprehension skills.

I know I get snarky sometimes here. I would just have you read Dr. Keene's last paragraph before the comments in the piece I already linked; she uses one of my favorite quotes from Anita Sarkeesian, my biggest girl-crush ever. I love the Harry Potter universe; doesn't mean I can't acknowledge its flaws. And be a little funny in the process. 

Contradictions

I want to start out by noting a STUPIDLY HUGE contradiction in the "narrative" being presented, here. We know from the original books, and it's reiterated here, that witches and wizards can be born into non-magical families. "[European magical folks deciding not to relocate to America] meant a far higher percentage of No-Maj-born witches and wizards in the New World than elsewhere. While these witches and wizards often went on to marry and found their own all-magical families, the pure-blood ideology that has dogged much of Europe's magical history has gained far less traction in America." But then... there's a whole bloody section named after a law that makes it illegal for magic and non-magic people to associate. "Rappaport's Law," is what it's called. Ok? So... how does that work? Wizards aren't as obsessed with pure-bloodedness in America, but it's illegal for them to be around non-wizarding folks? What happens to the witches and wizards born into non-magical families? Are they forced to give up any family they used to know, or are those relations "limited to those necessary to perform daily activities"? This "Rappaport's Law" thing makes zero sense; a law like that would lead to lots of inbreeding in the American wizarding community. I could see it leading to witches and wizards becoming "Scourers," the mercenaries of wizarding blood that went after their own kind (and proportedly spearheaded the Salem Witch Trials), not see it going over well. And it's reiterated that the law is in full force into the 20th Century, so I'm kind of at a loss. I can only guess that Rowling was trying to present American wizards and witches as a bit more forward-thinking when it comes to "blood," but then forgot about it for the sake of something important for the movie.

But this is entirely ignoring race relations in the US. And this really needs its own section, so I'll table that for a moment.

Second contradiction: And this has more to do with the mythos created in the original books being messed with. Aside from the atrocious "No-Maj" (oh wow... Americans are dumb, yeah, but would they really come up with something that ridiculously awful?). Rowling goes into a lot of specifics about the four wand-makers in the United States and notes how three of the four always used the same core for their wands. But part of what made Olivander's wands so good was their diversity; one could argue that it wasn't really that his wands were better per se (although I'm sure yeah, his were pretty good in their own right), but that, as he said, the wands picked their users, so his vast supply that was so wide in range was able to cater to a wider range of customers, getting them a "better wand," relative to if they were presented with a bunch of wands that were more alike than different. Because it was presented as if every aspect of the wand matters: length, weight, core, wood. So this bit in the stuff about America confuses me. Do American witches and wizards know what kind of wand they want before going to the appropriate maker? Or do they go from shop to shop, sticking with the wand that does the whole "WHOOSH!" thing Harry experienced? 

The wand thing also really hits hard at the white-washing going on, so this will also be tabled until later. 

Third. The name  of the gorram organisation running the wizarding government in the U.S. itself shouldn't be what it is. The Magical Congress of the United States (MACUSA) was founded in 1693. And sure, Rowling acknowledges that this was "around a century" before the U.S. government was formed. But that's the catch: Until the American Revolution, 80+ years after MACUSA's founding, the "states" weren't "states," but rather colonies. They wouldn't have been "United States" in 1693. Like... She's British, how can she get that one wrong? 

Now okay, maybe they changed the name after the American Revolution? But that's not how it's presented, so.... yeah...

Fourth, and somewhat minor, the two presidents of MACUSA that get named are both women. Again, I feel like this is more Rowling trying to show the wizarding community as "progressive," but this kind of flies in the face of human history- or at least European and WHITE, which again, must be tabled. But suffice it to say, I find it more difficult to believe that at a time when women weren't even allowed to read writ large, wizards would have one as the first president of their organization. I like the idea, but I just find that brick way too hard to swallow. 

Muggle-Gate

Yeah, I ain't entertaining the idea of this "No-Maj" thing. So I'm calling the incident that led to Rappaport's Law "Muggle-Gate." Because that's how I do.

So this whole thing is basically a sex scandal involving the daughter of an Important Wizard and a Muggle descendant of some Scourers. Dorcus, who I am going to assume is a squib (a person from a wizarding family with a low aptitude in magic), is presented as a shallow prat. But I have to say, if she had done badly at the wizarding school, Ilvermorny, she was probably ostracized and an embarrassment to her prestigious family, so it's understandable if she fell back on what society at that time would tell her was important: her femininity. Her looks seem to be the only good quality she has, from what we're told- she focuses on her hair (and partying) before the scandal, and has only "a mirror and her parrot [as] her dearest companions" once she gets out of prison, and she's described as being "as dim as she was pretty." So she gets duped into sharing secrets with a Muggle Scourer that plays on her weakness- I'm adding a lot  into here, but I would guess part of the "courting" involved her telling him about how poorly it went at Ilvermorny, so he would know her confidence was low and she was vulnerable. A little flattery here, a question there... The man, Bartholomew, is never described very negatively- descriptions about his beliefs are presented, and those are obviously supposed to be bad, but he is never criticized directly or even seems as blatantly judged as Dorcus;  her name even is said to be equivocal to "nitwit" in the U.S. wizarding world centuries later. She's "dim," but there isn't a single adjective used about him. What about "sneaky" or "duplicitous" or "underhanded" or "rapscallion"?

This whole thing feeds into the misogynistic structures Western society and culture is/are built upon. The idea that it's a woman's fault there's evil in the world (Pandora, Eve). How there are so many insults that are feminine, but none that are strictly masculine in the English language. The idea that a law about segregation started because a woman fell for a man  with duplicitous goals is so fucked up I can't even. Not only is it ridiculously... bland... and overdone, but yeah. It's sexist on premise. Why did it have to be that? Why couldn't it be any of a number of other things? Here, Rowling, I have a few for you, on the fly, that are far less insulting to your own gorram gender:

1) A sibling of a witch or wizard born into a non-wizarding family turned on their magical family member. (This would also, perhaps, lend itself to explaining how the fuck magical kids in non-magical families lived... because as I said before, this law makes no sense.) Like how Petunia obviously resented Lily- take that further and turn it into a huge thing. Super drama points if maybe the angry sibling didn't realize it would lead to murder and goes down trying to save some wizards.

2) A Scourer born with just enough magic to squeak by infiltrated the wizarding community and spearheaded some kind of massacre. Like maybe they were a kid sent as an insider to Ilvermorny, and they let in a pack of Scourer adults, and then a bunch of students were killed overnight or poisoned or something. Or they went to Ilvermorny and paraded as a cool person and ran for office in MACUSA and fucked it up from inside like HYDRA did S.H.I.E.LD. Or maybe a team of kids are set up by their Scouring families to do it so it really is more like HYDRA- they scatter themselves all over MACUSA and somehow get revealed.

3) A kid witch or wizard (gender doesn't matter, just sayin') from a magical family is best friends with a kid at school or around town or on the next farm or whatever that, unbeknownst to them, comes from a Scourer family. Scourer kid's family figures it out and kills the wizarding kid and their family after gaining their trust. Or just the kid, so the wizarding parents go after the  Scouerers with backup from MACUSA and it's decided Rappaport's Law is the only way to prevent something like that happening again. 

4) A witch or wizard turns Scourer and willfully gives away the secrets Bartholomew got out of the unwitting Dorcus. I could see this in visual form, the wording of Rappaport's Law being recited (by  Rappaport herself, probably) as the traitor is being executed and signs are being put up in wizarding taverns and stuff.

Needless to say, I doubt Hermione would be pleased with that whole thing. 

Whitewashing: Wording

I'm starting with the smaller quibble. I appreciated that the opening paragraph of the first blurb was about how European and African (no Asian?) magickers knew about American ones before colonisation. The trouble is, Rowling still calls North America "the New World" four times after denouncing the idea that the western hemisphere was "new" at all! I know that "what would become the United States" is a lot, but this specific contradiction is very subtle white-washing. The little phrase "New World" obliterates the rich histories of the myriad Native American peoples on the western continent by implying the only perspective of any importance is that of settlers and colonisers, of white conquerors and thieves. The "New World" was new to them, not to the people already living there; calling it the "New  World" devalues the very existence of indigenous people. 

Whitewashing: Segregation... and Slavery?

I almost think Rowling invoked the Rappaport's Law thing as allegory for segregation in the United States. It  kind of works, but as I said before, it falls apart because of the fact that magical kids pop up in non-magical families all the time. Black babies aren't born into white families without notice (i.e.  someone needed to have an affair to make a mixed baby; magical babies appear like magic) (baddum-SWISH!). Honestly, I had thought the "mudblood" stuff had covered the race thing, and this stuff shows up now. So what leads to it ending? I mean, do they have their own Civil Rights Movement? And what would that look like? Because sure, I do think it's a violation off basic Human and Civil rights to dictate whom you can be friends or lovers with, but magical people aren't being prevented from doing anything else. THEY CAN STILL DRINK, FOR FUCK'S SAKE. Not that alcohol is the most important right, but  the only way I could see a "movement" like that being at all successful is if they frame it in the language of love and togetherness. I mean, if American wizarding families are anything like British ones, they'd probably be around only magical people a lot of time by default, anyways, not as a result of any malicious governmental restriction.

And another reason I can't quite buy that it's intentionally parallel to real segregation is that the closest to any mention of slavery is the "trafficking" of bodies practiced by the Scourers. But it was mentioned that African magical people knew about North American ones, so... Were African wizards traded in the slave trade? Is magic how some slaves escaped? Did MACUSA take an official stance on slavery? Probably not... House elves are definitely slaves. Remember this guy?

So were wizarding folks on the Confederate side during the Civil War? The lack of discussion of slavery is itself a type of white-washing, in the sense that this extremely dark portion of U.S. history isn't brought up. When giving the "history" of something that was happening at least alongside something so horrific, said horrific thing needs mentioning. And hashing out. Which relates to genocide against indigenous people, but....

Whitewashing: Pan-Indianism

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that when asked about the basis of the legends about skinwalkers, your average Joe Schmoe would probably say it's a "Native American" or "Indian" thing. I don't even remember  where I heard it as a younger version of myself, but I've known that it's specific to Navajo culture, though, and for some time. And while I do not presume to know more than that, I do know it's not "Native American," as it's presented in these little blurbs. This is the same bullshit that goes with the loincloth and the eagle I brought up before, because the loincloth and eagle speak to archetypes of indigenous people that are rampant in popular culture. 

The Skinwalkers are presented as "Native American," and any magic that came from North America itself is always discussed in blanket terms, attributed to the "Native American wizarding community." As such, without actually saying it overtly, the message is that every single tribe practiced magic the same way. That every tribe used the exact same plants and herbs in the exact same ways, transfigured in the exact same ways, etc. That the indigenous people of North America were all one people, with one distinct culture, one history, one experience.

This relates to why Tonto was so problematic. It's the idea that some sort of "Pan-Native American" culture is a thing. It manifests itself in movies like The Lone Ranger or even Wayne's World 2, in costumes, in the broken language used by indigenous people on TV and in film. It's much like  how white people talk  about "Africa" when they really mean "Eritrea" or "Kenya" or "South Sudan," but will delineate European countries without hesitation. It's dehumanizing. It paints a generic streak that blends  and meshes all of the rich, beautiful, unique histories and  cultures of all of the different, individual indigenous cultures spattered throughout the Americas. 

Whitewashing: Noble Savages and Cultural Appropriation

I'm going to kind of dart around the writings here, starting with the idea that "the Native American wizarding population" was "generally welcoming and protective of their European brethren" when European wizards wanted to flee Europe and "hide out" with the natives in the "New World" (see  what I did there?). So these white people would apparate over to American soil to hang with the natives, and then what? Did they "go native," as they say? It's a good thing  all of the indigenous people were so bloody nice, eh? I'm not saying I would have preferred Rowling painting a picture of nothing but hostile relations and blood because the indigenous people were out to kill anybody, but it also speaks lowly of her understanding of them as strong people to think they would just take in any random  white person that came a-knocking, especially after a few decades of dealing with the lies and deception of white people. It couldn't have taken long for word to spread among tribes that white people couldn't be trusted, and if British witches  and wizards are still at least marginally loyal to Mother England, why assume indigenous witches and wizards in North America wouldn't be loyal to their own tribes? Yet another brick I can't swallow: I just can't buy into the notion that all indigenous witches and wizards would be so open to letting white witches and wizards become members of their tribes. 

And how long did this "friendly" exchange last? How many indigenous people had to die before the tribes finally stopped letting any ol' white "mage" in? 

Whitewashing: Wands and Wizarding Indian Boarding School

And the way wands were discussed just  really, really bothered me. The implication with all of that stuff  about wands was  that indigenous people were "primitive" and it took white people's intervention to "civilise" them. Like they had all this  power and potential, and had had it for centuries on their own, but they didn't tap into it "properly" until the white people showed them how via the use of a wand. And it gives no room for the idea that maybe indigenous people didn't need  wands because they weren't doing with their magic the stupid shit white people do with their own. The wands are presented in a way indicating they're the "right" way to go, like they were "necessary" or something, as if there is even a "right" or "necessary" way in the first place.

Importantly, the one time any individual tribe is mentioned is in relation to wand-making. Shikoba Wolfe is presented as of Choctaw descent and one of the best wandmakers in the US. I see this as an indigenous person getting caught up in European capitalism that has to sell artifacts of cultural value to white people to subsist. A bunch of white people buying his wands because of the "intricate carvings" and thinking they're cool, like the hipsters wearing feathers in their hair and silver necklaces shaped like feathers with turquoise beads. This man's culture was Europeanized, to the point he made a living selling the thing the Europeans forced on his ancestors. 

Because then... then it gets mentioned that wands are required at Ilvermorny. So if students were required to use wands at wizarding school, that means indigenous kids were forced to practice magic like white people. In other words, their culture was being forcibly removed by an institution masked as a place of "learning." You know what that reminds me of?

That's Stewart Indian School. I've mentioned them before- they closed THE YEAR I WAS BORN, and it was one of countless "schools" around the country where indigenous students were taught, essentially, how to be white. And by "taught," I mean "forced." Here's another:

This one is Tulalip Indian School, in the very state I live in now, Washington.

As a small aside: I was staying at Stewart Indian School with my Girls State group the summer before my senior year in high school, at the very time the fourth Harry Potter book came out; long story short, our campsight  had to be evacuated, and this was the closest place that could accommodate a big group like ours. I remember freaking out because I was afraid Barnes N Noble would sell my copy of The Goblet of Fire that I had reserved because the release date was during the trip; I was at first more concerned about that book than the fact that I was staying in a former institution of cultural genocide. Once I realized what was going on, I had a mini-meltdown. 

Without realising it, by making so many passing assertions about wands and indigenous people in her blurbs about history in North America, Rowling is presenting the wizarding world as being equally culpable in committing cultural genocide against the Native American tribes in North America. Say the tribe used the magic as part of their religious belief- well, once they got to Ilvermorny, that would be (sometimes literally) beaten out of them, since British and French witches and wizards have no spiritual basis for magic- it's all fact and experimentation. It's not faith; it's the coldest kind of science.

And I say "coldest kind of science"  because I think there's plenty of space in science for faith- lots of our most groundbreaking scientists were people of faith. Magic, as it's presented in the first books, isn't about belief, really (although a case could be made for how a Patronus works). 

And what if the indigenous kids brought a different way of using herbs that could be found in both places? Either one of two things would happen. Either 1) They would be admonished for doing it as their ancestors taught them; or 2) They would be taught it in the classroom by a white teacher that's presenting it as if white people had come up with that method, and then would be admonished if they tried to point out it came from the indigenous people. And if they had another way of doing something, it would be taken away from them at Ilvermorny.

There's no mention of the persecution and relocation of indigenous people in any of the blurbs. And that is the entire basis for which white people settled this damn continent. Even if it was witches and wizards mostly riding the coat-tails of the Muggles, by not stopping the atrocities, they were party and privy to them. 

Closing Thoughts and Disclaimer

I think one HUGE qualifier to remember is that, again, this is  just a few pages of text. A vast number of the things wrong here stem from how there isn't enough information to answer the questions brought up by the information that exists. It's a lot of errors of omission. However, I do have to say, the things that were specific even seemed to be problematic, too- Mugglegate, wands, Skinwalkers, etc. I would like to give Rowling the benefit of the doubt and have faith that, were she to write a full History of Magic in North America, it would give a lot of meat to the skeleton we have. And I suspect that anything specific in the blurbs is important to the upcoming film. Unfortunately, most of the issues with these bits won't be answered by the movie- I mean, for one thing, only one person seems to be of color, and while she may play a part in discussing slavery  and stuff, unless she's supposed to be of indigenous and slave ancestry, it will leave most holes empty. 

And it's obvious that this stuff was all slapped together in a few hasty  sittings. Was there an American publicist involved? Probably not. If there was, it was probably a stodgy white dude that doesn't ever think about race or gender issues. That probably thinks of his ancestors as "native." Or maybe everyone was so hurried in getting this done, their main concern was getting the bits needed as specific promo for the movie out and they didn't even stop to think about anything else regarding the pieces.

But understand, I harbor no ill thoughts or feelings toward JK Rowling. I'm disappointed, sure, but I don't think in any way she intended to be hurtful or offensive, and I would believe that she didn't realize a lot of this even could be problematic because she's from a country with a very different history. It was, honestly, a kind of naivete on  her part. I can forgive that. I haven't seen anything about her apologizing or explaining what happened (and how it went so bloody wrong), which  sucks. But I would forgive her if she owned responsibility.

Sigh. Not really sure how to end this. Here's a picture of a unicorn puking up a rainbow.