Song Challenge Day 1: A Song with a Color in the Title

So because of this pandemic, I've been home for over a month at this point. I've been trying to find different ways to occupy myself so as to not go stir-crazy or get too depressed, so I thought I would take this song challenge thing a friend on Facebook is doing and expand on it a little each day here. 

I know I'm starting in the middle of the month, so I'll just do all 31. Not that anyone will really care all that much, but it will be something for me to do aside from watching TV (I'm currently in season 3 of Star Trek: Voyager) or playing video games (Bloodborne and the Resi 3 remake, a topic about which I hope to rant at some point soon, too, if I can just figure out how to say what I want).

So, day 1 is "A song with a color in the title." Here's my choice:

I think the meaning behind this song often gets lost in the upbeat tempo and catchy hooks- but when you listen to the lyrics, it's not just about missing someone or something you took for granted. It's about conservation and enviornmentalism. 

"Hey farmer, farmer/ Put away the DDT now/ Give me spots on my apples/ But leave me the birds and the bees/ Please."

You can be kind of snarky about it and say she's singing about sex, and I'm sure she deliberately chose that lyric in order to facilitate multiple meanings. But a different interpretation is she's telling a farmer to quit using pesticides on apples so it doesn't destroy the environment.

This song is fifty years old. And how are we doing?

Welp.

-We have ten years before the entire global ecosystem collapses, with losses of coasts and islands due to sea levels rising as a result of ice caps melting, all coral reefs dying, water scarcity, crop failures...

-Oh, those ice caps are likely to so depleted that there will be no ice during summer seasons within thirty years. 

-Most of the ecosystems in our oceans my collapse within this decade. 

-And we're totally not prepared for what could happen if we don't improve our policies and repair the damage, since we aren't doing enough to stave off catastrophe.

It's a damned shame.

Now I know anybody interested in reading what I have to say is already on board with this, but it's just infuriating because my generation and those after me are inheriting this almost literal trash fire from our parents and grandparents- and they're fine with it! They'll be dead, so they don't give a shit.

I know I could do better- I could probably use less water when doing dishes, taking showers,etc., but there's still the fact that one person's contribution is negligible when compared to the biggest polluting companies in the world- so much so that the top eight produce more pollution than that caused by every person in the U.S. combined. 

But the raw molecules are only part of the story. Between the narrative sold to us by consumerism and society, and the increasing neoliberalism rampant in our political structures (the emphasis on the individual), we're stuck in a system where we think we have choices, but we don't, and we think our choices will make a difference, but their impact will only be marginal at best (assuming everyone makes the right ones together).

But this is a lie.

In truth, these companies have known as early as five years before Joni Mitchell wrote "Big Yellow Taxi" that they would destroy the environment. And instead of changing course, turning themselves into renewable sources of energy, they doubled down and bought government leaders- Congresspeople, governors, mayors, presidents. They secure funding and tax breaks, they block policies that would go so far as to require them to (literally) clean up their act even just a fraction of a percent a year. They fund erroneous research via "thinktanks" they front, all the while putting forth a false pretense of being "clean" and "caring" about our environment and the world in which we live. Current marketing campaigns with sweeping shots of solar panels and an exaggerated presentation of their "push" for alternative energy like the video on this page abound.

Interestingly, in that video, they emphasize how they've spent $16.5B on this research since 2000. But, given the lowest their annual revenue has been since then was $205.251B, one would think that if they really cared as much as they did, they would be spending a lot more on alternatives and efficiency- as it stands, $16.5B over twenty years isn't much at all for a company that huge.

And yet, they've convinced us that we are the ones at fault, for our own daily practices. It's our fault for driving so much, let alone how their cohorts block public transit and oil companies contributed to the fall of the first wave of electric cars by GM in the '90s. It's our fault for using traditional energy, yet they make no effort to create affordable solar or wind options for anyone aside from the 1%. It's our fault for using gorram plastic straws (and plastic in general), even though the alternatives are still more expensive and sometimes don't quite cut it.

The only way things are going to improve is if fundamental shifts in how our society functions and operates occur. Mass transit needs to become the primary means of transportation in every community. Renewable energy for the home needs to not only be made affordable for the middle-class, but flat-out provided to the working poor. Plastic alternatives need to be less expensive. Fossil fuel companies' current sources of revenue, i.e. fossil fuels, need to become obsolete. Tesla can't be the only company making fully electric cars.

Big changes. And we're nowhere near any of them right now.

So, "Big Yellow Taxi." Every time I hear it, whether it's the original or that ubiquitous cover by the Counting Crows and Vanessa Carleton, I tap my toes while also kind of having a slight tantrum in my head. Because fifty years ago, one of the greatest singer-songwriters of the last century warned us about what we're doing to our planet. And we haven't really listened.

We won't really know what we've got until it's gone, and by then, it will be too late.

Happy Friday?

*Don't* Shut Up, Wesley!: When Hypocrisy, Vitriol, and Social Justice Collide

I've been sitting on whether or not to write about this for a bit now, ever since the news broke out, but given how much it bubbles in my brain and how much of an emotional response I feel when it does, I figured I should just get this out there.

This showed up in my news feed the day it went live, and it... Made me angry. Like, so angry I had to ask for a few extra minutes on my break because I had read it while at work, angry. It, along with the anger directed at Wil described there, are perfect examples of a phenomenon I have observed on the Internet, one that I think is completely self-defeating and outlandish. But allow me to explain here, in my own words.

Wil Wheton  started getting big on the Internet after showing up in niche nerd properties like The Guild and by his involvement in Geek and Sundry, especially with his show Tabletop, the latter of which I was one of the first subscribers on YouTube. So, y'know, full disclosure, I've been a fan for a long time. I especially appreciated how his motto of "Don't be a dick" was used on Twitter and the like by both him and his fans- he consistently decries the misogyny and hatred of the nerdboiz during Gamergate and Comicsgate, and all this recent Star Wars bullshit from the toxic minority (I feel like I saw something from his Twitter account or something, but I can't find it- he at least alludes to it here), and very openly supports (and calls for) attempts at diversity and inclusion within the various intersecting nerd-doms out there through his Twitter account and blog. 

So, naturally, he became a target. The nerdboiz he was calling out did some of the exact stuff he was highlighting to him, namely the ridiculous vitriol and bullying. Crucially, during the Gamergate stuff, he posted a block list created by Randi Harper under the auspices of a simple, hassle-free way to block misogynists and Nazis. It was later revealed that Harper is a hot-tempered terf, going so far as to encourage Gamergaters, the supposed enemy and problem, to dox trans rights people, and her list had in fact included myriad trans activists. As soon as he found out, Wil apologized, did his best to remove all of these people from the list and, when he couldn't, got rid of it and stopped promoting it altogether. 

Let me reiterate that last point: As soon as he realized the list he had promoted was secretly transphobic, he did his utmost to rectify the situation, by both unblocking trans people/activists and by getting rid of it. 

In other words, he did something in good faith, realized it was a mistake, and then tried to make up for it.

But that wasn't enough. He was continually being called transphobic and anti-LGBT and such, and was a consistent enough target of harassment and bullying by social justice advocates that he deactivated his Twitter, instead setting up shop on the purportedly ultra-liberal Mastadon. He was immediately the target of harassment there (you can see his responses to it on what's left of his page), a behavior which is supposedly against the platform's code of conduct. And he left Mastodon after his account was suspended by the admin of that instance, the admin telling him they received 60+ complaints about him in one night- notably, then, not for committing any violations himself, but rather because this big unruly mob flooded the admin's inbox.

Except they weren't nearly as cute- or musical.

I highly recommend reading Wil's piece on this whole thing. 

So here's why that first article I linked made me angry.

The author openly states that Wil was the target of a trolling prank on Mastodon, and that the perpetrator was a trans woman. But she makes him out as the bad guy for reporting the prankster, based solely on the fact that the latter is trans, ignoring the fact that the prankster was violating Mastodon's code of conduct in the first place. The author makes it out to be evidence of his supposed "transphobic agenda" or whatever, but dude- that woman on Mastodon being trans doesn't change the fact that she violated the server's terms. I get where the author is coming from, that she (the prankster) may not "feel safe around" Wil anymore, but you know what? Let's be a little more honest in our reporting/statements of facts, here.
Also, as a staunch supporter of the #MeToo/#TimesUp movement, I'm not super pissed he never ended up giving a detailed statement in:re Chris Hardwick. And I've been raped twice and was in an abusive relationship, folks. If he and Chris were as close as it seems, I totally understand. It's painful, and private. He has a right to privacy. He doesn't have to say anything. It'd be cool if he did, but these people don't know how that whole mess affected Wil personally, and while I am in no way saying he's a direct victim of Hardwick's alleged behavior, it's kind of asinine to demand a condemnation from the guy. I know all of my ex's friends and family know how he treated me, but I don't expect them to give him the boot because of it; how can I expect a stranger to do the same in similar circumstances? I know that's just my personal situation, but relationships are complicated, and so are people, and without being right there with them, we can't profess to know what "should" go on between two close friends when one turns out to be abusive; and it's also borderline cruel to expect a person to bare such deep, personal things to a mob of people that will condemn them either way.

Plus, maybe if the vitriol hadn't been so fierce, he wouldn't have left Twitter when he did and, yeah, maybe he would have made some sort of statement- we'll never know because he left, but I can't help but think that he didn't get a chance before the pitchforks got close enough to his jugular that he had to call it quits.

And basically, the way I see it, Wil isn't the one with the "listening problem," it's all of the people attacking him. Because they ignore all of the positive stuff he's done before, and refuse to accept his apology for his mistake. 

And herein lies the problem: If marginalized communities can't listen when an ally apologizes, they aren't going to keep their allies. When they engage in the kind of behavior they decry and aim it at people that previously were on their side, all they're doing is adding fuel to the fire of their detractors.

I'm probably pissing loads of people off, but hear me out.

Wil's response when he realized the list was bad was what should be ideal for an ally- he apologized and tried to make amends. It's classic Ally 101 behavior, stuff I read about when studying in grad school (remembe the time I was almost an academic? Jeez...). Destructive allies don't apologize; ones that can help enact change do.

But that's just it- I can't say he actually made amends, because, like I said, it wasn't enough. A bunch of social justice advocates stuck their fingers in their own gorram ears and crucified him. And that's entirely counter-productive to "the cause," so to speak. Who the flip are you preaching to, if you condemn anyone outside your circle that makes the slightest mistake? I'll give you a hint:

It may be sacrilege, but I liked this one more.

And I say this as a woman whose own intersectional identity leads to all sorts of internalized discrimination. 

Allies are people, too. We have to let them make mistakes. We have to listen when they apologize. We have to be there with, and for, them when they learn and grow into better allies. We can't expect to keep allies when we don't allow them to just be human. I'm focusing on this treatment of allies, here, but Sarah Lynn Michener addresses this in her own piece about some of the problems of the ultra-left:

It's fine to call out a celeb if they've genuinely done something problematic. But if you then never forgive them, bring it up every time they are invited to speak at a rally, and routinely say they have no place in the resistance because of things they have long since apologized for, then you will have a very small and ineffective resistance. 

I couldn't agree with her more! By attacking current, imperfect allies, you're alienating potential ones. TURNING ON MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Or at the very least, it reinforces the crap right-wingers say about "social justice warriors" and the like. 

And it proves how that holier-than-thou attitude is nothing but snake oil. I'm not going to go down the path of discussing the implications of sending the lions after someone that legitimately, earnestly espouses discriminatory beliefs. That's its own post.

But. Doing so to someone who has consistently, adamantly, and thoroughly demonstrated to genuinely be on your side is disgusting. And yeah, I do think it makes those doing it look as bad as the people they're supposed to be "fighting" against in the first place, the people whose identities are so integral to their own- because without someone to not be like, they have no idea what to be like. And they have no idea how hypocritical it is to say conservatives are "closed-minded" when they literally cannot listen to anything that's remotely outside their exact idea of what any bit of discourse should look like. It's its own, messed up form of hegemony that just makes me ashamed.

And no. I'm not saying the trans movement is for cis white dudes like Wil (let elone ones less enlightened than him- because he admits whole-heartedly he has all sorts of privileges because he's a cis white dude, y'all). Or that any movement at all is "for" allies. I'm not that stupid, either. But what I am saying is that you can't have a successful uprising without help from those in the most advantaged positions. In other words, allies.

And you can't expect those allies to be perfect. I mean, for Pete's sake, even official members of the in-group aren't always perfect. But we have to take them seriously when they try to make it right, walking them through what was wrong, why it was wrong, and how to go about that fix.

On a super personal note, someone very dear to me, a cis white male, has said he's often terrified of opening his mouth in situations related to marginalization, be it in person or online, because he's afraid of being attacked by the very people with which he wishes to express solidarity. Because what if he accidentally "says the wrong thing" or "gets misinterpreted" or whatnot. And I think this is why this issue pisses me off so bloody much- I know damn well he would fight, literally and figuratively, with every last ounce for every cause I would, but he feels powerless to do so because of some damn ASSHOLES that can't chill out and are so damn territorial and unwilling to even consider the possibility that someone from the majority can mess up but still be sincere. I know it's anecdotal, but it speaks to the bigger issue- this person I care about refrains from helping for fear of backlash. And c'mon, he's not the only one. Obvi.

So, Wil, if you're reading this (which I highly doubt you are), remember that small, loud minority of people doesn't speak for everybody. There are those of us that already miss your presence on the intertubes. That are sorry those arsehats scared you off. And wish we could bake you cookies.

And my advice to my fellow liberals: Get your act together. Stop vilifying people that can and want to help for making mistakes, especially if they express a desire to reconcile. If you can do this, there's hope for the future, for the change you, we, so passionately want. The more you can, the more credibility you'll build up, too. 

 If you can't, or rather won't, well, I have absolutely zero inclination to join your particular team- I'm good on my own, thanks. So in that case, you can just

Here We Go Again: More White Washing and Savioring

Admittedly, I had no intention of really blogging about this, but two things happened, close enough to each other that the resonance in my head (and heart) was pretty loud. (Also, a friend asked about it on FB, and my initial response became over two pages in Word...) First, I iked the trailer I saw for Kubo and the Two Strings when my partner and I went to see Finding Dory a few weekends ago. I'll embed one here for you, in case you aren't familiar:

But something about it unsettled me, and I couldn't place it at the time. After seeing a different one on TV, I realized that the Big Dude sounded alarmingly like Matthew McConaughey. So a quick IMDB search (link above already) fixed it and proved me right. And I say "alarmingly like" him because he's white. And so is the vast majority of the gorram cast, and all of the major hitters for the crew (writers, director, producers). Sure, George Takei is in there, I would guess for a bit  role... Buuuuut... it looks like it's set in Japan, right? Yes, since synopses on various sites (just Google it) mention in some way how Kubo's father was a samurai. So... that bothered me, and still does. 

Then I saw a poster for The Great Wall and didn't think much of it, because I only looked at the picture, not the words... But I realized just how white-wash-ee it is when I saw the trailer:

So... Yeah. That's two in less than a month for me, and it makes my fingers twitch with Internet Indignation.* 

I want to start with some links to various responses to both by people of Asian ethnicity, commenting on the whiteness. I'm not Asian American, so I'm not trying to speak for them, and it's important to include the voices of people being affected when advocating. So here's one about Kubo, and a good tweet and then a VERY well-written piece about The Great Wall. 

So, now be prepared for my long ramble. Let's start with the stories themselves. Both are historical fantasy/fiction. One may even call them... fanfic?

Okay, but seriously. While nothing exists in a vacuum (except, you know, black holes and the like, ‘natch), the two stories, taken at face value and ignoring any other context or baggage, are set in the pasts of real people involving fantastical elements of magic and wonder (I mean, blatantly so with Kubo, and apparently Willem Defoe voices a dragon in Great Wall, so... yeah). While the story behind Kubo itself seems fine (as in not racist), the idea that a white dude was there when the Great Wall was being built and led the resistance against a siege of dragons that saved China is pretty bad. THAT story reinforces narratives that at least somewhat implicitly, if not very blatantly, present the idea that only white people (usually men) can solve the world’s problems. TV Tropes calls it “MightyWhitey," while most call it the “White Savior” narrative. It can be told in various ways, and sure, there may be people of color that play important roles in the narratives, and  they may  have great stories of their own within the overall narrative; shoot, they may  even have better development than the white character(s). But in the end, the “true” hero of the story is white. The one that solves the problem while surrounded by people  of color is the white person/team/etc.

I think in some ways, this trope is related to the White Man's Burden and White Guilt, but the reason it ends up problematic is, even if those intentions are good, the motivations come from a selfish place. In the end, the white people look like dufuses. 

This narrative, then, is problematic because, well,  obviously, white people aren’t the only problem solvers in the world. They don’t have the monopoly on intelligence, capability, resource management, or whatever else that ends up making things better in the end. There have been plenty of people of color that actually DID make history; and there are countless more that affected it and were ignored because of their ethnicity; and there are countless right now that are making a difference that go unnoticed, too. This trope is entirely fantasy, and a narcissistic one, at that. Putting white people at the center of a tale about people of color is kind of like the “All Lives Matter” of storytelling: we just can't tell a story about people of color without including white people, because that would be exclusionary!, or so says the white Zeitgeist. And while we’re at it, this is really about white people, anyway, right? It’s almost comical, really. Almost.

To be cynical, mainstream HISTORY is a White Savior narrative: You get sidestories about famous people of color, but they’re few and far between, and only recently did we get more information about people of color that helped organize against oppression and what have you. It’s why something that one would THINK is absurd such as Black History  Month is necessary. But in textbooks, people of color (and women) usually just get a special section every chapter (at best); the rest of the book is about the White Dudes moving and shaking. I mean, okay, I'm a feminist, and while I do think "herstory" is... a bit  much, I also do recognize there are serious problems in how mainstream history education rolls. It presents the main drivers of history pretty much always as white men; those little asides and extra sections for non-men and non-whites are snippets, like supplemental links you can hover over when reading something online to get an extra info bubble. 

So fictional stories that perpetuate the same exclusion of people of color reinforce the “truth” we “learn” in schools. So now, in The Great Wall, this fictionalized version of history immersed in a culture that isn't white, is being drawn up with a white man at center stage. He's not a token white guy, he's the central figure. That's whitewashing, even if it's fiction, because they're contextualizing the whole ruddy thing as the "true story behind the construction of the Great Wall of China." (Of course, that's not a direct quote, but the text on the poster and during the trailer indicate they're fictionalizing true events.) Now I wouldn’t say that it’s amoral to make any movie starring a white dude, but it is problematic, at best, to drop a handful of white people into a story about a large group of people of color, make the story about how those white people saved the day, and  then tout it as a triumph of diversity (as some try to do; not necessarily  this film in particular, but it happens  a lot with this trope, like with The Last Samurai for example), while also selling it as the "untold story" or whatever of a real Thing. 

In other words, they're ret-conning actual history to pretend that a white dude is responsible for the actual Great Wall.

This is also a problem from a representational standpoint. Here we have a movie with a premise that BEGS for a cast of entirely non-white people. Ideally, of Japanese actors (actually from there, or of Japanese ethnicity, at least). It is a perfect chance to give people of color big roles in a big blockbuster movie. And yet, we literally have a white dude as the poster child. And that, in itself, is ridiculous. And disappointing. 

And this is where the casting of Kubo comes back into play.  While the characters are all Japanese (or... animals... or... ghosts... or whatever...), the actors portraying their voices are not. And sure, as the piece I linked already states, they're animated, and we aren't seeing any actors' actual faces. But. It isn't like there are no Asian actors out there. And taking away these roles from them, is egregious. I mean, these characters in Kubo aren't just generic characters that were, as per usual, cast with white actors. They are Japanese people that are being voiced by white people. I mean, I love Matthew McConaughey** and Charlize Theron. They're wonderful actors. But they're both pretty damn white. I mean, c'mon:

***

I've referenced this blog post before, but I just don't think I can better describe why whitewashing is problematic, and don't think I ever will, because it is so simplistic and perfect. I encourage you to read it, and think of it in the grand context of representation in film, or in comics or books, or on TV, in video games... whatever. And while the version of whitewashing she's talking about is when a character's reboot or remake or whatever is changed from being a person of color to being white, the principal  is the same: The characters in Kubo are animated as Japanese, but portrayed by whites, so think of the bowls as the roles different actors could take; the left bowl, then, is roles that go to white people, and the one on the right is those going to people of color. See how it's a bad thing now? Yeah.

What's worse is that actors of color already have it harder, so casting a character that is written as Japanese with a white actor is exceptionally egregious. The best way I can describe it is imagine you were applying for a job, with the father of a friend of yours. Now, this friend, you may love the pants off of them (not literally), they may be a great person, but you know they don't need the job- they  already have one, and their dad's connections could get them another in less than a day, if something ever happened. But, more importatly, they aren't half as qualified as you. Like the job requires a degree in math, which you have, and theirs is in creative writing. But you get a rejection letter, and then come to find out their dad gave them the job, instead. It's basically racial nepotism, preventing people of color from getting acting gigs for which they're perfect. And it's bad enough when it's a generic casting call; when the role is for someone of color, it's not borderline offensive, it IS offensive.

And this has a lot to do with the financial aspect/ what Hollywood “will allow,” so to speak, etc. I find it very unfortunate that Matt Damon, who apparently has even promised his production company will strive to increase diversity in film, would agree to star in yet another White Savior film. Elysium is a wonderful example of how “Hollywood wouldn’t allow” a person of color star in a movie about… people of color. The writer and director of that film (Niell Blomkamp, same person that did District 9) wrote it with a cast mostly of people of color  in mind (at least, on the good side- anyone on  actual Earth was intended to be of color, and we’re supposed to root for people on Earth, not on the space colony), and, importantly, with a central character of Hispanic ethnicity. But the Sony mucky-mucks told Blomkamp he had to cast mainstream actors (read: a white man as the lead), or they’d pull funding and support. So this put him in a tricky spot: Decline on moral principal because he wanted to tell an intersectional story about race, class, and human  rights, or keep going to tell as much of the story he still could, sacrificing most of the racial element. In the end, obviously, he went with the former, and Matt Damon ended up taking that central role, previously intended for a Hispanic man.

Now, if Matt Damon is as smart as he seems (don't let the South Park goons fool you), then why didn't he decline? I would guess because he sometimes passes himself off as an activist, and a movie with such strong political messages was something he couldn't pass up, despite how white-wash-ee it was. He and Blomkamp may have denied it, but whatever. 

So the main thing to think  about is WHY a white executive would insist on a white lead. There’s no solid and real answer, but I personally  think it has to do with institutionally racist assumptions about what “people want” in movies. These white executives, perhaps subconsciously, project their own worldview onto what everyone that may watch a movie they fund would want to see. These guys may or may not be overtly racist in their everyday lives, but if subconscious, it's more about projecting the kind of people they personally would relate to on who they assume everyone else would. In the case of Elysium, and I think in the two films under larger scrutiny here, I think it's more that the companies want big actors to attract big dollars.

But this, of course, leads to the chicken-egg conundrum. If actors of color aren't given the chance to be in big movies, they won't ever draw in the big bucks. And having a handful like Sam Jackson, Halle Berry, and Morgan Freeman isn't nearly as proportional as for white actors- again, remember the raisin bit. And even if the Chinese companies involved in The Great Wall wanted a bunch of white actors, that doesn't preclude those decisions and actions from being racist. It's institutional racism, some of the worst kind. They may be Chinese companies, but they want to make money in a capitalist system, and capitalism is inherently racist, misogynist, ableist, etc.  The actors that have already drawn in the biggest money are white, so, naturally, the executives want  mostly white actors leading the cast. It's a self-sustaining, system, a self-fulfilling prophecy, IT'S AN ADORABLE DOG CHASING ITS OWN TAIL!

But Kubo also suffers from having an entirely white production crew and executives. Kubo, in my opinion, is a bad case of backdoor cultural appropriation. It  would be one thing if they bothered to give some of the main characters Japanese actors for their voices, but they didn't. It's a bunch of white people getting together to tell a Japanese story because it's cool. I'm sure the movie has great messages and is probably  really fucking amazing, but damnit, it's frustrating as Hell that the big wigs just decided they wanted to make a movie that is "a samurai movie at heart" and talk about making their characters "feel real" and not even match the characters' ethnicities to those of the actors portraying them. It's sloppy, lazy, and depressingly exemplary of white privilege.  I'm sure they picked  the white actors for similar reasons as the people behind  The Great Wall, but at least with Great Wall, some people of color will benefit, even if it's Chinese executives; and in that case, Chinese people were involved in telling their own story. In this case,  it's a bunch of white people.

Also, while we're on cultural appropriation, there is a larger discussion about white pressure on people  of color that are involved, not necessarily the filmmakers themselves, when it comes to film making, and how white people like to use token involvement to excuse their racist garble (the involvement of Comanche in The Lone Ranger is a lovely example of that); even though I don't see any evidence any Japanese people  were involved, it's important to remember this  happens a lot, that the white people Doing a Thing will get a blessing from a token person or small group of persons of color and say all's good in da hood, and despite a large amount of people of that minority group disagreeing. 

So sayeth errbody else

But we don't have to worry about that here too much... since they didn't involve any Japanese people. 

So, the short version is that The Great Wall is offensive because it perpetuates ideas that people of color can't solve problems or be heroes; and Kubo is problematic because it's an example of cultural appropriation; while both are kind of bad because they're casting perpetuates racist norms that prevent people of color from getting jobs in the acting business. I do think the decisions in the case of The Great Wall were driven more by capitalism, while those in Kubo's case had more to do with cultural appropriation. Neither is really okay with me, and neither should still be going on in this far into the 21st Century. 

*Oh, dude, that totally should be in Urban Dictionary; I already got one thing in, but I had at least heard that before... "Internet Indignation," I just made that up.

**CHRIST is that dude's name hard to spell. I had to have the IMD page open in a second window next door the first time; the second time, I copy-pasted it. Yeesh.

**This commercial could, itself, get analyzed, but the short version is Charlize is presented as the newest "bombshell," if you will, in a long line of iconic white actresses. There is one person of color I can spot after watching it a few times in a row: A black woman that gets shoved out of the way by Theron as the actress power walks to the runway. Sigh.

On Love, Lying, And Sadness

I have a lot of posts in "draft" form, some closer to finished than others, but I kind of want to ramble a little. As I tend to do, I'm going to open with a story.

I was in a pretty great friggin' mood toward the end of my shift at the office supply place I work at recently. Why? Well, I was offered an interview at a place I would love to work and could see myself making a career out of, more so than my clothing store... and certainly more so than the office supply place (oh yeah... I got a second job... in July...). So with less than an hour left, there was a happy bounce to my step and I didn't even care I wasn't going to get my last break. 

Then, and without going into too much detail, a man needed my assistance, and he was invasive to the point of causing physical contact more than once, and where I felt sexually threatened. And unfortunately, I was like a trapped animal and too afraid to call for my manager, so, long story short, I just did everything I could to get him out of there as fast as possible. When he was gone and I could talk freely to the manager, I kind of emotionally vomitted all over him and another worker/friend about it.* And the latter person stuck with me as I started doing my end-of-shift stuff and I told him something I don't tell a lot of people about myself.

I am a liar.

You, right now.

But wait, let me explain. See, the kind of depression I have, it's not bipolar, no, but I have manic episodes, and I can go from very high to exceptionally low in a short timeframe. When I'm in a good mood, I'm loving and caring and tender and funnny and bubbly and all these other sugary adjectives. So people expect that of me, because that's far easier and more pleasant than pouty. It's even preferable to just... neutral or indifferent. I mean, c'mon, I know not everyone would agree, but if you had to see one of these faces regularly, which would it be:

Option 1

Option 2

Mmmhmmmm....

Which means that if I perform any less than that first choice, they start to worry, and if I ever even let a little bit of a truly dark or down mood show... everyone flips their goddamned shit and thinks I'm going to off myself or something ridiculously off the mark.

"Oh, Gab, are you okay? You aren't smiling today!"

"You're not as cheery as you usually are, what's going on?"

"Is there anything I can do for you? You don't seem like yourself today."

Etc. And that kind of annoys me, because  it says there are these expectations people have of me and I can't set a toe out of line. Like rather than being how I feel, I have to be what everybody wants me to be, instead. It's frustrating, and the moment someone says something like that, I do my best to step back in-line, and I also thank them profusely for caring. Which in itself is another act, because while externally, I'm like

Internally, I'm all

So I fake it. All the time. I'm frequently not nearly as chipper internally as I make it seem externally, but I'd rather pretend and have people off my case than actually let it show.

And, weird as it is, I do this out of love. Because while it's annoying to be fussed over, the truth is, I don't like being fussed over (for that, anyway) because I don't want to burden people with worry over me. The moment I start caring about you, that's the moment I try not to ask much, if anything from you, so the last thing I want is to become frustrating or a bummer or whatever. I want people to feel like they're gaining something from knowing me, now losing. And I know how taxing being close to someone with depression is, if nothing else because I know how frustrated with myself I get sometimes. 

What sucks is that I've become very good at lying like this, though. To the point where I even fool myself sometimes. Where I'm not sure what "myself" should even be like anymore. Am I actually chipper, or do I just think I am because I know I'm "supposed" to be?

Then I go to bed, and my back, shoulders, and neck burn and ache and are sore and stiff. And I realize no, I'm faking it. And carrying all of the negative energy in my muscles. Seriously, I have a friend that's a massage therapist, and she said she could see the lumps and tightness, even without taking off any clothing. 

But here's the kicker. The "I Can't Have Nice Things" part of my brain steps back, looks at the situation (hypothetically- not one in particular... you know what I mean!), and goes

Why? Well, see, and those of you familiar with me and/or this  blog prolly see this coming... It's ableism. No, seriously, it is. Because the whole reason people hide being sad is that pressure they get. And that pressure stems from societal norms and expectations on what "proper" behavior looks like. Why  can't people be sad? Because sad isn't "normal." People fake not being depressed because they don't want to be looked down upon, and because we treat people with  mental illness as if they're burdensome. So if course I'm going to be afraid that me being depressed around others is going to cause a burden, I'm trained to think it will because they're trained to treat it as such.

And the twisted thing is, the people getting all helicopter on me/anyone else, they're doing it out of love, too. Because yes, they most likely really, truly are concerned with  the person. But the trouble is in the phrasing. I'll retype the above statements for clarification's sake, but I want you to really analyze them yourself before I spell it out for you:

1) Are you okay? You aren't smiling today.

2)You're not as cheery as you usually are, what's going on?

3) Is there anything I can do for you? You aren't yourself today.

1) Admittedly, the least bad. But the focus is on the lack of smile, pointing out the absence of an expected behavior. And it's that expectation part that makes it ableist. Implicitly, "you aren't smiling like a normal person today." Switch "smiling" with "walking" and it'll make it a lot easier to grasp. 

2) This one is the worst of the three I chose. Here, the big problem is the assumption that it just has to be something specific. This is a real big fuckup that ableism has caused, this false notion that depression or sadness always has to have a specific cause. And as someone with depression, I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to try to explain to someone else that no, nothing in particular happened, I just feel like shit, can we drop it? Usually I don't bother trying and make something up or pick something going on as the catalyst for my sadness at the time, even if it isn't. (Or I just use the timelessly classical line of, "I'm just tired/have a headache.") Because usually if I try to say I dunno, I just feel icky, the other person starts digging and trying to come up with something. "Is it X? Is it Y?" Because we just have to know what causes it. It's very medical. And God, it makes a person feel even worse to be asked something like that if they can't give a precise answer, because again, we don't want to be a burden or let the other person down by not fulfilling yet another expectation (it's bad enough we weren't cheery for them). Of course, sometimes there may indeed be a legit answer to give, but I just hate that people's instinct is pretty much always that there is. 

4) This one's in the middle. Starts out right, but turns, because again, the question pointing to an absence of expected behavior is present. And that's crap. 

But the thing is, the expectations and need to find a "cause," they come from love. At least, I like to think they do. Because people want each other to be happy- we're trained to believe happy is the Best State to Be In. And we're also trained to believe that if we can figure out a cause, we can find a cure (just look at all of the hype over vaccines and autism, even though the original paper that started it all was pulled, the researchers lost their licenses, and one of the authors retracted and apologized). So if being sad is a "disease" or "illness," then we need to make sure people don't "get" it anymore! It's for their own good, right? We want people to be happy, so we push and prod and do what we're led to believe will be helpful.

But ultimately, it's not. At least for some. For people like me, anyway. 

I'd like to see a dystopian satire where being happy is considered an anomaly, while feeling meh is the societal norm. I'd love it, but I fear most people wouldn't get it. Happiness vs. sadness isn't usually associated with ableism, so even people all up in arms over stuff like accessibility and services may not think like I am about it. But here's the thing. If disability itself is porous (which lots of disability scholars themselves say) and you can go from having it to not to back again, I don't see how temporary bouts of sadness shouldn't be considered temporary disability. I mean, yes, there's a difference between clinical depression and being in a crappy mood, but both are looked down upon for the same reasons, reacted to in the same ways, and those societal responses come from hierarchical, socially constructed institutions that dictate how we "should" behave on a regular basis. 

And I don't like that. I don't like that at all. I should have a right to be sad if I want to, and a person that loves me shouldn't automatically assume the worst, nor should they feel like it's their obligation to "fix" the problem. 

Now, do I think we should thus ignore people that are sad? Pretend nothing's going on? No, I'm not saying that, either. I'm just saying we need to be careful how we approach people that "aren't acting like themselves"... and avoid using phrasing like that. Rather than alluding to past behaviors (which means assumptions or expectations), observe current behavior. "You seem a little down, is there anything I can do for you?" Or rather than assuming there is a specific cause, give the person room to say there isn't. "Anything in particular, or is it just a general icky feeling?" I can't anticipate every "wrong" inquiry and every "right" counter, but I'd just encourage you to think carefully about how you talk to someone you think is sad. Because it may not just be "sad," it may be manic, it may be clinical... 

And, honestly,  it's not your business to know. If the person wants you to know, they'll tell you. If you know them well enough, you may be able to figure it out on your own. But if you can't, for whatever reason, don't assume, and don't insist. 


Of course, this can get tricky. I know I sometimes insist I want to be alone when all I want to do is be held. When depression makes us say the opposite of what we want or need, the best case scenario is the person on the other end knows us well enough to see through that. It's difficult, though, because society has trained us all to be such good liars.

We lie  because we don't want to hurt the people we love. And because we're afraid they'll hurt us if we're honest.  We lie because no, sometimes we don't really know what is wrong, we feel like it's us in and of ourselves. And we don't know what we want, we don't know what we need, we just know we're sad and we wish we weren't. But sometimes, we're lucky, and we get someone that loves us enough to know to do this, and that we trust enough to allow it to happen:

That's love. All of it. 

And painful honesty. It's much harder to admit you don't know why you're sad than to make something up or pretend you're not. Honesty is so much more difficult than lying.

And it's joyful, even if sorrowful, too. Because both people know only true love and a bond too tight for words could produce that much trust and loyalty. 

So, what am I getting at, here? I'm not saying I expect blanket forts every time I'm frowning (although dude, that would be kind of awesome...). And I'm not asking anyone to walk on eggshells around me or anyone else they care about. But I guess I just wanted to get things off of my chest, about myself, and about how I think this is a Thing, and not just something I deal with.

And because my neck and back hurt so badly I can't sleep right now. Which says I've been bottling a lot up. And given how much I've cried lately, that's saying something.

And I'm refraining from the disclaimer about all of the positive things I'm happy and grateful about, too, because that's another ableist piece of garbage- I shouldn't have to justify feeling depressed or counter-balance it with a bunch of happy stuff. We don't go around saying a bunch of bad stuff to counter the effects of being in a good mood, it's crap that we feel the need to counter bad ones. I do have stuff to be happy about, and I'm legit thinking of it right now. I'm just sad and can't get out of it and am rambling. And tired, so tired, in every way. 

*This incident of sexual harassment isn't the focus of the post, so please don't freak out. I'm fine now, and my manager and I figured out what to do if he comes back. 

Diversity in Geek Culture, Part 1: A Black Man (!?!?!)

I'm going to do a series of an as-of-now undetermined  number about diversity in Geek Culture. 

I hate how during debates over having a woman or a POC as the lead in the next comic movie franchise, dudebros end up saying they "don't want diversity for diversity's sake." It's such an oversimplification of a highly complex matter, but they're categorically dismissing a very simple solution when doing so. A knee-jerk reaction like that, without considering the merits of the proposed character, is about upholding the status quo. And as I've said before, oppression thrives on its facade of normalcy and neutrality, as its position as the "status quo." And objectively and in a vacuum, I can agree with that statement- I want quality diversity, otherwise failures will be used as examples of why it doesn't work. (I know I'm always talking about Catwoman and Elektra, but they're the pinnacle examples of that crap.)

The thing is, when I or anyone else is asking for a female lead, or a Black person, or an Hispanic person, to be the star, we aren't just asking for that. We're asking for something of quality, something that's as close to objectively "good" as any mainstream, straight white male cis thing. 

So my first big stab aimed directly at diversity is about making a Black man lead a franchise. Why? Well, I think the fanboys will take to a Black man before a white woman, and it's pragmatic to go for the easy sell first. When you consider the hierarchies in society when it comes to actual, active power, white men rule the day, but they're followed by men of color. Then it's white women, and  last, women of color. Within this hierarchy, non-straight is devalued over straightness in any category, and for reasons I don't have time to get into, trans women of color are at the VERY bottom of the totem pole. So picking a Black man is the easiest argument to make, and I've actually been sitting on this piece for a good month and I think it's time to let it out.

This isn't to say that there isn't normative value in a Black man being the star of a superhero movie/franchise. I think it's really important to include any and all people doing the saving, beating the odds, overcoming personal hardship. Importantly, though, we need stories about minorities that are about them as people, and not centered around their minority status. Tragic stories of the inner city or slavery, movies all about the queerness of the lead character, or where the entire story revolves around a disabilty... they do more to fetishize the plight and not enough to relish the humanity outside that plight. I get tired of the "look at how bad they have it" stories about marginalized people. True equal representation is when they're just part of the group, or the central character because they're the central character (not the central character because of their status). In other words, the movie shouldn't be about a "poor Black kid, struggling with racism and poverty," but "a young boy growing up in our messed up world." And I don't see why "Black" movies can't just be, y'know, movies. And this goes for any group- and it's not to say that minorities shouldn't have their own art, but rather they shouldn't NEED a "specialized" market in order to MAKE that art. Their art shouldn't be regulated to an offshoot. It's like the "go be diverse over there" problem that can arise with centers made by those in the majority, meant to serve particular cultural or ethnic needs. It's good they have a place to feel safe, but it becomes a form of de facto segregation once that becomes the only place those people can feel safe.

I guess what I'm saying is, part of the big reason to have a superhero movie star a Black man is because we need more mainstream movies starring minorities, and a Black man would do just fine for me.

So that being said, I'm going to go about this a little differently. Before I've focused mostly on characters or franchises first. This time, I'm going to start with an actor I kind of dare the fanboys to sneer and turn up their noses at.

Taye Fucking Diggs. 

That's right. I went there. And allow me to give you a list as to why I think he'd be a great lead in a comic franchise, or at least a solo film.

1) He's a solid actor. Check out his IMDB page. You prolly forgot he was in a lot of those things, but I'm going to argue that that's okay- most likely, the movies you forgot he was in were all really good and had phenomenal ensemble casts that it was easy to get lost in. Like Chicago- he did a great job there, proving he can do everything, really. Because, like another constant lead in comic movies, dude's been on Broadway. But now think about some of the more mediocre movies he's been in. Like Dylan  Dog: Dead of Night. Or Equilibrium. He steals every scene, even though the scripts he's working with are kind of terrible. It's hard to do that- I mean, I love me some Christian Bale, but in Equilibrium, I was kind of "meh" about him most of the time. But Diggs's character, my gosh, Diggs did so well, I was on the edge of my seat whenever he was onscreen, anxious to see what he'd do next. He can be funny, scary, romantic, intimidating... He's on a new show, Murder in the First on TNT that just started. In the pilot alone, he demonstrates his ability to be convincingly funny  and  sarcastic, as well as demonstrating some  pretty high-volume vulnerability. Go watch it now. (It also has Tom Felton playing, once again, a rich asshole.) I got sniffly, and it was just ONE EPISODE. He's WAY better than his  opposite, a kind of annoying (fake) blonde (go figure- that's a terrible trope to be addressed some other time).

2) He's badass. Again, that IMDB page has a few action movies on it. And he's good at that- I mean, replace this gun  with whatever power the superhero has,  and voilla!

3) Given some of the weird-ass movies he has been in, and the fact that he was able to shine in them, he'd be able to adapt to whatever wonky backstory he's presented with just fine. Again, he sells it in Equilibrium and Dylan Dog, and I'm giving  this its own category because it's a distinct thing. To do well in a story that is just plain bizzare or unrealistic, that's a different kind of acting chop, separate from being a sultry romantic lead or a funny, sensitive dude (I'm thinking of The Best Man). Sean Connery is a great actor, but you could tell he wasn't buying into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen at all- and while I'd like to think that had more to do with him being dissatisfied with how they changed Alan Moore's original comics, let's be real and admit he probably just thought the script was too ridiculous. Taye lets it go in his "weird" roles, so he'd be able to sell whatever origin story or powers the character he plays has. 

4) He's easy on the eyes. I'll just let the evidence speak for itself on this one:

Drool.

Broooooding.

Dapper.

Look at the first one in this set. Dat body, right? But think about this in terms of superhero movies. Dude's already built for it. If they'll give a hulky lead role to this guy, why not one that's already donning  the physique? One less thing to deal with in production, right?

5) Another one that may seem like repetition, but look at his smile, in those, and here's a link  to a search for it. See, I think this is actually really important- HOW can you resist that smile? And I think that would be GREAT for a dude figuring out his powers. Imagine a grin like that on the face of a dude flying or shooting energy for the first time- it'd be pure elation and infect the audience with the same joy the character, as played by Diggs, is feeling. 

6) He's done a little comic stuff already. Again, back to Dylan Dog, but he was also a voice for Black Panther once. And there have been a few times where people have kind of double-dipped- Chris Evans was in The Fantastic Four and is currently Captain America, and Sam Jackson and Scarlett Johansson were a duo in The Spirit (bet you forgot about that one- I don't blame you, it's terrible) before joining together in Iron Man 2. There's obviously no rule saying a person can't be in more than one comic movie, and I think experience in one can help with another. 

So now the question is, Who could Taye Diggs play? I can think of a few roles because they're Black men, but I don't want to make it seem like that's all I care about. Because switching a role from white to Black isn't just about diversity for diversity's sake- but it can send a positive message and be a source for more progressive attitudes about race in the media. But I think I coincidentaly have them in order from easiest-to-most-difficult to convince people about. But keep in mind, I'm listing characters I think Taye Diggs could be- not just characters I want to see in movies. 

1) Victor Stone, AKA Cyborg. 

He became most famous through Teen Titans, but the DC studios, actually listening to the fans for once (unlike in other cases), picked up on that and decided to make him a founding member of the Justice League of America when they rebooted it in the New 52. This is huge, people. Before, Martian Manhunter had been a founding member (we'll get to him in a few, don't worry). But this time around, Cyborg's origin story is a key part of JLA's founding. Cyborg is newer and more modern, and his character would be a great outlet for a lot of conflicts we have in the real world today. He's basically Robocop, right? In this upcoming Batman v. Superman movie, Dawn of Justice*, DC really missed an opportunity to set up another side-franchise by not including him (as far as we know- movie is still two gorram years away). But it's not like it'd be impossible to come up with a way for Victor to become Cyborg. But I think this character is particularly an easy sell right now because of his recent popularity. He made the cover of Injustice: Gods Among Us, over staples like Green Arrow and Aquaman, and his role in that plot is pretty important- he gets one of a handful of little semi-cut-scenes where you have to do a Thing (I rag on those in my review**, but that he has one says a lot about how DC views him as a character and his importance to the family). I think fans right now would say, "Oh yeah, that guy, he's pretty cool." 

2) John Stewart, AKA Green Lantern.

Stewart is arguably as famous as Hal Jordan's Green Lantern, at least among comic fans- I actually think I know more people that say he's their favorite, come to think of it, than Hal. And he was one of DC's first Black heroes, so why not give him his due? His origins, as Hal's backup, are a little tricky to deal with, but there are good stories about kids filling their parents' shoes all the time, setting his up like that could work- kill Hal off in the beginning ala The Comedian in Watchmen and give us some tension with John trying to become his own Lantern. There's potential for lots of drama, there. And while I really don't like the idea of his wife getting killed, there's some potential for some good romance between him and Katma as she's training him to use his Ring. Or, alternatively, work him in via the JLA- have Hal bring  him along as a helper in one movie, have Hal die somewhere in there, then give him  his  own movie. Again, another missed chance for DC/Warner Brothers, but it's not insurmountable. 

3) Martian Manhunter.

Another original  member of the JLA, people forget about this guy a lot. But he's pretty awesome- he's basically Superman Plus- he's superfast, superstrong, has laser eyes, can move himself through solid surfaces and move stuff, and can read/fuck with minds like Professor X from that other comic studio. And his alter ego, John Jones, is Black, so keep it in your pants, fanboys, no race-bending, here, aight? But seriously, he's been around since 1955 for bloody sake. MMH actually is a great response to Professor X- he's basically the JLA's in-house therapist because of his ability to understand people so well. Which of course makes him wondrously compelling, since he's, you know, a Martian. Once past the social norms, he's like a sensei or wisened uncle when it comes to the interpersonal relationships in the JLA. I love the idea of him being in his own movie where he uses those skills as a profiler for the FBI or CIA on the side- one where it's not really made entirely obvious that he isn't even human until at least 1/3 through the movie, even, so that people unaware of him will be surprised by it- blow them out of their seats because the guy who was able to talk down a suicidal person or totally read the body language of a killer was actually a friggin' Martian! A MMH movie could combine good old fashioned detective drama with the superhero spin. And while  yeah, another possible missed chance, this dude I think works the easiest by himself- let someone in his unit figure him out, sure, but I don't think he really needs other superheroes with him. 

4) Oliver Queen, AKA Green Arrow.

Yes, usually a white dude. But what does race matter? Anyone saying it's "unrealistic" for a Black man to be in charge of a company like Queen Industries is being racist- if they argue about how "it's fiction, it's in the backstory!" about bikinis and high heels for women, they can suck it up and accept a Rich Black Man; and saying it's not in his backstory for him to be Black is racist, too. Because again, the status quo itself is racist, and arguing against race-bending to improve minority representation, especially when the color of their skin is the only trait being changed, you're arguing for the status quo, one that keeps POC vastly underrepresented. I've linked this blog before, but here it is again. Shit matters.  This is what I was getting at at the beginning. Sure, it's diversity for diversity's sake, but these assholes that claim they "don't see race" then need to put their money where their mouths are and not care if a Black Man plays a white one- so suck it up and let Taye  Diggs play motherfucking Oliver Queen. He'd do the snark SO GORRAM WELL. And he'd definitely be able to pull off the Rich Partyboy By Day persona- a guy that looks like  Taye Diggs would need to do no convincing the audience that he could very easily take home three ladies at once. As for GA himself, well, Oliver Queen is one of my favorite DC characters. The arc where he loses his fortune and he becomes a legit Robin Hood is so awesome- THAT would make a great movie, where the playboy loses his money and starts helping poor people in his city. I wouldn't even really need to see a supervillain to enjoy it (but,  then again, I'm way into social justice, hence most of this blog).

5)Arthur Curry, AKA Aquaman.

Stop laughing. I mean it, stop laughing.

I've thought for ages that Aquaman deserves more respect, and legit for most of the same reasons this guy lists. If he's so pathetic, why has he lasted so long and always been involved in JLA stuff, huh!?!?!? And yes, he can talk to and control sharks- his mega-attack in Injustice is SICK (in the best of ways). And lightning with his trident- A TRIDENT, by the way. Dude's a badass even in hand-to-hand combat. And there's some precedent, since Aqualad from Young  Justice is Black. And again, sure, dude usually looks pretty gorram Aryan, but again, so what? He's from Atlantis, they could have BLUE skin for crying out loud. My idea for an Aquaman movie, one that would be easily worked in, could be something like this: Just take an example from Justice League: War and have a teaser scene at the end of Dawn of Justice in which Aquaman show up angry at the destruction the Big Battle caused on the  creatures of the ocean. And have the next movie be more about him adjusting to land-life after (in the  first ten-twenty minutes, of course) he forgives Bats, Supes, and WW for the damage. And I think as long as the writers weren't too heavy-handed with the green politics (which I think any Aquaman movie is going to have to include, at least in minor doses), it could avoid being cheesy and just be good. Fact: The CW did, in fact, try a pilot, and even though it screen-tested well, they didn't actually make the show because Reasons. Aquaman is a cooler character than he gets credit for, and a movie with Taye Diggs playing him would draw in plenty of viewers, if only out of sheer curiosity, if nothing else. 

Ok, so I know my list is all DC characters. That's because the few other Marvel characters I'm familiar with either have movies already, or are ones I plan on ranting about on their own. I already gave Black Widow a shot, after all. But if you, dear reader, know of anyone else Taye  Diggs would be great as, let me know!

*Collective groan for that title. I'm telling you, things do not bode well for this movie at all. Uuugh.

**And I actually think I need to re-visit that game, because I've come to appreciate it more recently.