Wonder Woes, Part Deaux: FOR THE LOVE OF HERA, SEE WONDER WOMAN

In "Wonder Woes," I discussed some stress/anxiety/anger/etc. I was experiencing in light of a potential change in Diana's backstory. It turned out to be a rumor, but I'm calling this post a sequel because my source of frustration here is still what's going on with Warner Brothers and one of the myriad things they've chosen to do (or not do) that just will not help me relax about Wonder Woman. Seriously, pretty much the whole time I've been watching this whole thing unfold, I've felt frustrated and helpless.

Yup

My latest stress is that with the premier date less than a month away, I'm kind of out of sorts over the dearth of (good/smart) marketing promoting it. And I'm not the only one noticing it. All sorts of other fancy, more-read people have noticed it, too. Not only that, but one of the few advertisement partnerships WB has made is with gorram diet bars. (Yes, there have been a few other partnerships, but the main one available now is food "for women" and associated with weight loss/dieting/etc. Just totally not cool.) And while a lot of the other articles are pitched as a "fans are wondering  why" piece, I know why- or at least, I have a theory. It has to do with what I was talking about here, and more.  They may be making the movie, but they don't expect it to do well. So they're cutting their losses and saving every penny they can, since they don't think the movie will make much more than its $100M budget (an historical thing in and of itself, if you didn't know). 

And of course that  upsets me. I've blogged before about how it seems the Dudes in Suits are so paranoid about having a comic movie star a woman, they gender/character-swapped the Days of Future Past storyline for the movie.* I have zero faith in movie executives at this point. And it's not up to directors what kind of promotional materials get made/distributed/etc. for their movies- so Patty Jenkins, our director here, is entirely powerless, now that her movie is (presumably) finished. There's nothing she can do as WB's PR department completely drops the ball. I can only  imagine how upset she was when she saw the "Thinkthin" shit. 

What makes this troublesome for me is this "we don't think it's going to do well so we're not going to waste money promoting it" has the potential to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. And if the movie does, in fact, do poorly it's first weekend or two, low turnout will be used as the excuse to put a cease and desist order on any and all female-starring superhero movies ad infinitum. Not a damn thing about the lack of effort from the PR department will be said, just the poor box office numbers. Alongside Catwoman and Elektra, Wonder Woman will be touted as an example of how "women just can't star in superhero movies." It's being set up to fail, and that failure will in turn lead to zero faith on the part of the Dudes in Suits. 

And yes, I do think this means Captain Marvel will very likely be affected, too. I don't care if it's a different studio- these Dudes in Suits take notice of what each other are doing, how they're doing it, how it does or does not pay off, etc. Marvel Studios would totally reconsider a Captain Marvel movie if a gorram Wonder Woman movie tanks. 

(I was going  to have this point be a side or footnote, but I think it's important and relevant enough it needs to stick in the main body.) When having this conversation in person, and when I bring up the Captain Marvel/Marvel Studios point, the only time anyone resists/challenges me there is when I'm talking to a man. Any women I've discussed it with has agreed emphatically, while any man I've spoken with about it has always argued, or at least tried to make it sound like I'm jumping to conclusions or something about it. The fact that Marvel Studios is separate from WB, or that they already have people cast and a director and stuff for Captain Marvel are among the main things I hear these dudes say (and I should note, I've reached over half a dozen at this point, who have all done this to me). 

What I want to know is why they think any of that matters, here? Movies complete with directors, actors, scripts, etc. get cancelled all the gorram time. So what's so special about Marvel Studios?  To say a thing I've said a million times, Marvel isn't actually all that great with female representation onscreen. Women end up being sidekicks, mysteries, tools, obstacles, and damsels in distress for the men in the stories to interact with somehow. And now that the Avengers team is even bigger, more than doubled, after Civil War, I want you to look more closely at the cast of Infinity War Part I. There are six women listed as for sure (one as rumored). Six. And that list doesn't include extras or anything yet. Six, out of 30 (or 29, if you count the two rumored listings). That's only 1/5 of the entire named cast. Or watch this "first look" featurette:

Notice how it's all white dudes talking, and any character-driven plot they talk about has to do with men specifically or general groups (the Avengers themselves, the Guardians of the Galaxy), groups in which women are a minority. I think that just sort of sets the tone for what to expect from the movies- as with all other Marvel movies,  these women will be side characters, and the main players will be Iron Man, Captain America, Star Lord, and Thanos. Also, as I've said before, if Marvel Studios is still unwilling to make a movie for a guaranteed-money-maker like Black Widow, one they know all of the nerdboys drool and jerk off to, now that she's been onscreen in five of their movies (soon to be six/seven, with Infinity War), why the fuck would they hesitate to ditch an idea for a character that's mostly unknown to the uninitiated? (Seriously, I don't know a single person that doesn't read comics but knows who she is (compared to Wonder Woman, which is like "duh"), and when I inform them she's a she, they're usually super surprised. Which says a lot, I think.) I don't think they'd cut her from Infinity War, no, but would they give her her own movie? Probably not.

And to state the obvious point, this would have absolutely nothing to do with the character of Captain Marvel herself, or any projections based on her- it would be simply because the Dudes in Suits would see that a- THE- Wonder Woman movie bombed, ticket-wise (which is all they care about- even if it gets a 100% on Rotton Tomatoes or like a 95% on Metacritic, the decision-makers wouldn't care), and would change their minds. 

And then the Batgirl movie with JOSS WHDON at the helm that hasn't been openly denied by anybody will get canceled, too, which would make it the second Whedon-helmed, female-led DC movie that didn't get made.  

And I just... While the dudebros and neckbeards may think, well...

I don't really care. I need Wonder Woman to succeed. All women and girls do, as far as I'm concerned. William Moulton Marston, the man who created her character, knew how important it is for girls to see characters "like them" in the media- that was a huge reason he created Wonder Woman in the first place. Back then. In the 1940s. A man knew representation is important for the self esteem and well-being of little girls.

So why is that so gorram hard for Dudes in Suits nowadays?

I need this movie to be good on a deeply personal level, don't get me wrong. It would invariably send me down a bad spell if I leave the theater disappointed. But that's a somewhat different discussion. Like I said before, the execs won't really care if it's "good" or not, they're only going to notice how much money it makes. Shit, I'll buy tickets on Fandango that I won't use, if I have to.

And there's a valid comparison between the standards this movie's performance has to surpass vs. those of male-led movies and what women have to deal with in professional settings, too. While neither Thor solo flick barely beat $60m opening weekend, and the first Captain America did about the same (compared to both Avengers, which nearly doubled that, and the later Iron Man movies, which all did much better, too), the Norse God is still getting a third movie, and Cap already had one. Even Ant Man, which at $57M made less than every other Marvel Studios movie (except the second attempt at a Hulk flick) has a sequel in the works.** Wonder Woman is projected at making a bit over $80m opening weekend, and yet a number that high is actually being treated as if it's low. 

Which makes me  sick. But, y'know,

It's the same double-standard women in the workplace deal with- they have to do twice as well, be twice as nice, and still may get passed up for promotions, or the credit will go to the dude that did half as much, etc. Films led by men can have comparably sub-par performance and still have subsequent movies in their franchises, yet there's speculation the franchise starring a woman that may perform better may thus be doomed? Come ON, now.

So we all need this movie to make lots of cash. Thus, I implore you, please,

GO SEE WONDER WOMAN OPENING WEEKEND AND THE NEXT WEEKEND IF YOU CAN, TOO

I say the second weekend because the drop between opening and second weekend matters, too. 

But, anyway.

Tell your parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, friends, frenemies, enemies, customers, coworkers, bosses, students, teachers... Tell every person you interact with every day. Tell them to see it. Even if you don't think it's going to be good (which is a whole different rant, but suffice to say I get really fucking tired of men saying they think it's going to suck and are apprehensive about seeing it, but they are more than willing to see any and every Thor movie in theaters, even admitting to seeing previous ones more than once despite knowing they were awful), give them a (breifer) explanation like mine as to why: If this does badly, we can expect to have to wait  another ten-plus years for another superhero film to headline a woman. 

There is one more fear, related to this double-standard: That if the movie does well but is kinda crappy, they won't make it its own franchise. We're past the point where that matters, though- all we can do is vote with our wallets and show the Dudes in Suits we want more by getting our butts  in the seats. I truly think that, at the end of the day, these Dudes in Suits aren't being consciously, maliciously sexist. I think the film industry is just so bloody entrenched with misogyny that they can't help but follow those tracks and keep things as is. But, this is capitalism. And at the end of the day, money is the most important thing.

So I also am desperate to believe the opposite of these fears: That if Wonder Woman does well, it will pave the way for other female-starring superhero flicks. So that Batgirl movie will really end up being a Thing. Black Widow will indeed get her own movie. Other franchises will come out of the woodwork, ones we've already thought of, and ones we haven't. Hell, just run a Google search for "female superheroes that need movies" and you'll get a never-ending list of articles, some with lots of overlap, some that are completely original. But the point is, people care. They want to see women onscreen. WE want to see women onscreen. And if Wonder Woman does well, I think it's possible. The patriarchal trends in the film industry could be at least a little changed, and someday, entirely smashed.

This really is an issue about the fate of feminism in this country. Wonder Woman  has, since her inception, served as a symbol for feminist ideals. That's literally what she was created for in the first place. This character is been around for a lot of shit, and has made it through a lot of shit that the dudes in charge of her stories have decided for her. I don't just think  it's superhero movies at stake. Even though The Hunger Games was successful, it, and the handful of other movies starring women that also did well, aren't treated as the norm. If Wonder Woman does well, maybe it will help that radical notion that women are people, and that the movies starring them can be money-makers, will be more accepted. And then 

BAM! Feminism FTW!!!

So please, get out there. Spread the news, make sure everyone you know goes to see Wonder Woman. And keep fighting the good fight.



*In that post, I said I was sick of Wolverine. While he did have a small part in Apocalypse, his swan song, Logan, was a masterpiece, and I am very pleased with how they said goodbye to the character. Of course, as the new series moves forth, they'll probably find a new Wolverine, but, hey, maybe the break will be longer than the breaks we've had between Spider-Man iterations. 

**Source

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.

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.