"Fire is motion / Work is repetition / This is my document / We are all all we've done / We are all all we've done / We are all all we've done / We are all all defenses."
i need to delete my facebook account. every time i use it, it makes me want to smack myself in the face. i originally joined because i thought it would be an interesting sociological experiment, which i will admit it can still occasionally be, but it's generally just too much drama.
"people say i look like Lucy Liu all the time"
"dead ringer! but that's not fair... don't all asian people look alike?"
"@Ruth: you're so right! i've always thought all white people look alike too!"
i couldn't resist being a sarcastic bitch on this person's profile today. i really fucking can't stand people who think all people of a certain race look alike. if i can distinguish all the WHITE people apart, i think you can at least *pretend* to tell 2 people of color apart (esp. if both of them look NOTHING like each other).
when i trolled through this person's profile, i was sadly not so surprised to see that she is a Campus Crusader for Christ at Miami University. y'all, that school was so white bre(a)d.
i must commend her, though, on posting one of the most self-righteous-quotes-from-the-Bible-i've-ever-read as her "religious view." she practically parodies herself.
but, after further consideration, i feel i may have been too harsh on this certain sad individual. it seems her own friends can't tell her apart from an animated animal, so maybe i should forgive her inability to tell two people of color apart?
"you know this looks a lot like you!"
i always thought these "find the differences" puzzles in the weekend paper were a waste of time and insulting to people, but now i see how necessary they were.
can you tell the differences between these two pictures? yes? THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY FACE AND ANOTHER PERSON'S FACE. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE COLORS ARE THE SAME!!!
whoo. alright, back to some grad school work. 'sbeen fun.
on further consideration, i have more troubled thoughts about Avatar's problematic representation, in addition to those i illuminated yesterday:
1) Jake, the protagonist and surrogate character for "us"/the audience in the film (indeed, our avatar into the world of the Na'vi), becomes enmeshed in the Na'vi culture by way of initiation and, "mating" with the Na'vi leader's daughter (who, of course, chooses the mysterious and potentially dangerous stranger, who she calls "moron" from the start). of course, he, the incompetent outsider, comes to be an even better Na'vi warrior than the rest of them, and must come to their rescue (they of course being unable to defend themselves, even though they were, supposedly, "very hard to kill" and dangerous.) the film seems to suggest that it takes an outsider (a colonialist or imperialist) to preserve a civilization, or to lead the way in helping the "natives" get what they (don't realize they) need. [sound familiar? how about our efforts to "bring democracy" to the ignorant (read: unwilling) masses in Iraq...]
2) at the end of the movie, Jake is reincarnated(?) as a Na'vi, what the film suggests is his "true nature." his fellow humans (that is, the military nasty ones) are sent home by arrow-point and told never to come back. that is, to return to "normal" again, the races are segregated, with each race banished and confined to its own world, minus Jake, the bridge between the worlds. this provides an interesting contrast to, say, the ending of Lord of the Rings, which promotes, in my opinion, a far more multiculturalist conclusion (remember that at the end of the trilogy, the different populations of humans, elves, hobbits, wizard, and Ents are united in solidarity against the threat to their shared home, Middle Earth, and Aragorn takes an elven bride, uniting the kingdoms of Middle Earth, and gives credit to the true heroes of the story, the endearing hobbits. [ok, i admit, i'm a LOTR fangirl. those movies hit the mark for me. i can't understand the kids growing up on Twilight, i feel they are really getting cheated out of smarter film and literature opportunities...]).
additionally, i find Jake's final transformation into Na'vi to be confusing (why wasn't the doctor similarly resurrected? why was she not worthy enough to embody the Na'vi spirit, when, arguably, she worked harder to understand their culture and customs and lived among them as much or more so than Jake?) and why couldn't he stay in human form, why did he have to become Na'vi in appearance too (when arguably it's his spirit that is truly Na'vi)? it suggests to me that he can perform the part all he wants, but he's got to look the part too. and finally, this reminded me of the commonly held notion that white is "neutral" and that "white" can become anything it wants to be (in this case, Na'vi). it just has to work at acquiring the necessary signifiers.
3) finally, i realized after talking with my partner this afternoon, that for all the knocking i'm doing, i still believe there is value in the movie and its overall message (about imperialism and colonialism, that is. i still find the sociological representation stuff to be a bit distracting.) the important thing to remember, i think, is that even though the story may be cliché, or predictable, it is necessarily so, because it is a story worth telling and retelling, in multiple manifestations, because it needs to be heard again. we could always use a reminder.
i watched Avatar with my fam last night. i enjoyed it, really, and maybe one of the most enjoyable facts was how my dad and i became really absorbed in the narrative, [spoiler alert:] cheering on the Na'vi, boo'ing the imperialists/capitalists/US foreign policy surrogates.
for those of you who haven't seen it yet, i would recommend seeing it soon, but mostly because i think the theatre surround sound and giant image add a lot to the experience. if you can, see it at a 3D iMax (which we did not, [my mom and i get motion-sick] but the whole time i wondered what it would be like [probly the closest to tripping on acid i will ever get]).
those of you who can't afford to see it in 3D iMax (esp those of you in CA, where those tickets can cost close to $20!), let me save you some of the suspense: my brother called it cliché, "it had the same gist as The Last Samurai and Dances with Wolves." (mm, not true? i believe in The Last Samurai the "natives," that is, the samurai, actually lose. and i haven't seen Dances, but at least it didn't distort or adulterate a historically significant theme [colonialism vs. "native" culture] with fantastical allegory, at least Dances was explicitly and unequivocally talking about Native Americans... right?)
despite its predictable story arch, Avatar does throw in some delightfully sharp jabs at recent foreign policy, mainly, US adminsitrations' predilection for forgoing diplomacy and resorting to force – quotes such as "fight terror with terror" and "shock and awe" were pulled right from Rumsfeld's mouth, generating huge snickers from me and my dad. (i wonder, too, about how uncomfortable the film might make staunch republicans, Bush fans, FoxNews junkies, Glenn Beck nutsacks, and jingoes, once they get past the colorful images and realize that the film is asking them to cheer against what they believe in. has Glenn Beck seen Avatar and/or done a review yet?)
Avatar, just like Lordof theRings before it, uses the winsome conceit of fantasy to send us a much-needed message about how our modern lives are ruining the beauty of the world around us (indeed, the world without us). Avatar allows us to sink just deep enough into its fantasy to absorb its message, but i wonder if the message gets left behind as soon as we leave the world of Pandora and step out of the darkened movie theatre. as a kid watching the LOTR films, i eagerly took up where Peter Jackson left off, i wanted to be a hobbit and live in a Shire-like community, and i felt that meant we needed to protect our (Middle) Earth better. i started an environmental club at my high school, i got my family to recycle more and waste less. small actions probably, but illustrative. in contrast, leaving the theatre after Avatar made me feel exhilarated, but more in a "wow, what a really awesome movie" kind of way (residual spectacle). later, i felt bitter and angry as my thoughts turned to the surge in Afghanistan (no thoughts about the beauty of earth and nature).
i guess the significant difference between these two comparable films is this: while LOTR grounded its story in something fantastical, it still seemed plausible (warriors who looked like nothing stranger than medieval crusaders, trees who could walk and talk – this doesn't seem so strange if you accept the idea that the natural world is teeming with life and hidden beauty, which i do). Avatar, to use a phrase from the main character, was too "dream-like" to be real. and that's the problem, it is real. wars against native peoples and cultures happen all the time, thru brutal, irreverent force and extermination, and ppl don't see it or don't care. what good does it do for these things to be brought to the surface but to be forgotten in spectacle?
finally, a word about representation: i found it difficult to enjoy the movie for the first half an hour or so, because i was deeply disturbed by the way the "natives" were depicted. long braids, tall alien-like bodies and cat-like features, broken english, scarce clothing, hissing and animal-like agility... it was a biting reminder that our society often thinks of ethnic as "strange" or curious (disturbingly, something about the Na'vis faces, in addition to looking cat-like, suggested that the actors playing them were ethnic, which was what prickled me most ["native" = ethnic, colonialists = "white"] because it suggests that ethnic peoples are somehow wild or alien). for more on what i mean, see this article on what it means to wear "ethnic" fashion. (update! this article from a really great website on representation, picks Avatar apart quite aptly. again, spoiler alert!)
and, for those still wanting to see the movie but without the means to do it, this video sums it up nicely as well:
-stephan!e
edit! found this great image that sums it up pretty nicely:
another imperfect grad school ed-related blog post:
At the end of Chapter 10, Provenzo implores teachers to be critical multiculturalists, and question the assumptions about US culture and US schooling. While reading Ch 10, I felt myself taking on the perspective Provenzo advocates, and feeling frustrated and disappointed with what I see.
Throughout the text, Provenzo has outlined the role of schoolng in the domination of minority cultures, in deculturalization, and in perpetuating hegemony or the dominant ideology. On page 220, Provenzo lists a range of methods used by deculturalization programs. I found the following particularly interesting:
-"Use of teachers from dominant group" -"colonized people are directed, they do not direct themselves."
I found these ideas interesting because they manifest themselves in my observations of my school and in the Teach for America Program. Later in the chapter, when Provenzo discusses race and privilege, and the compensatory education programs of the civil rights movement, I can't help but feel this is a perennial problem in education that won't ever go away. He talks about how the inception of Title I was supposed to extend opportunities and resources to "help disadvantaged children" (248) but that time and data has proven that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do not do well in school. Maybe this is because the public schools are "middle-class and upper-class institutions that automatically place the poor at great disadvantage" (248) or that "historically, US schools have contributed to racial inequality and discrimination" (248) rather than integration and equality. When I think about my school faculty and the people who typically apply to Teach for America, Provenzo's point is confirmed: they are usually white, middle or upper class people from more affluent and privileged backgrounds than the children they teach ("teachers and those who plan to become teachers are usually white and middle class" - page 249). What message does this send to our students who are from minority ethnic groups and cultures, when the authority they must answer to and whose rules they must abide are those of another culture? And, if that culture is the one representing the dominant majority class? This sends a hidden message to our students about dominance and subservience. No wonder our students may not necessarily do well or have trouble learning in these school environments, if they feel they are in a constant state of dominance and deculturalization. Worse, when we teach SDAIE strategies or try to integrate the students' cultures into our lessons, it sends the message that not only are their cultures removed and bleached from the classroom, but they are so out of touch with their own culture that now we must teach it to them.
Furthermore, the text discusses the Supreme Court cases of Brown v. Board and Swann, and how they made efforts to transform racial attitudes and integrate schools better. It discussed busing as one solution that has proven problematic, because it takes children out of familiar and "safe" environments and neighborhoods, and injects them into "alien" places in the name of integration. "At best, busing has proved to be an imperfect way to overcome past inequalities and discrimination" (247). I strongly disagree with this. Busing is problematic because it is not a solution to underlying problems, such as the fact that segregation exists in society at large, and not necessarily because of past laws, but because of unspoken and unwritten laws. Segregation occurs because of unfair economic distribution, gentrification, urban planning, etc. It is a temporary solution and one only seen in schools, and does not remedy society holistically, but expects schools to fill in those gaps. Furthermore, what does it matter if racially different schoolchildren are being bused into different districts, if the curriculum taught at school is still "White" or lacking in color or cultural heritage to begin with?
It seems there are only problems and no easy solutions.
post-Inauguration Day realizations: -i remember being extremely turned off by the strong Christian fundamentalist undertones in the speeches and ceremony, and especially by this guy:
(edit: and how fitting. the video, like the man, just doesn't seem to want to shut the hell up. it starts without you wanting it to, one of my ultimate peeves when it comes to internet usability: the automatic video that creates loud obnoxious sound when you don't want it) (edit 2: fixed! - 1/25)
Warren's invocation made me extremely uncomfortable, thinking how the separation of church and state is really just an empty promise. and the part about asking forgiveness from Almighty God when we disgrace our fellow human beings and the environment made me extremely upset and angry, as we are fully aware a war (a genocide) is raging in Gaza, and we are content to just "ask forgiveness," shrug off any awareness of reality, as if it was all in God's plan. that kind of rhetoric is dangerous and had me gritting my teeth the whole time.
-the hope/change sheen is wearing off pretty quickly, too. i've been a huge cynic/buzzkill since november anyway, but i can pretty safely say that i am ready for the novelty of the moment to wear off so America can quit fantasizing and day-dreaming and snap back to reality. things do not change overnight. i don't know why i'm not as excited as everyone else seems to be about the new administration, i guess b/c i don't see substantiating empirical proof for the improvement, and i honestly cannot grasp the significance of having the first Black President. i know, i know, it must be absurd/impossible for other ppl to understand, but i, personally, do not feel that sense of awe and wonderment that everyone else seems to have in seeing a Black man as President. it does not surprise me that Obama is President now, and it makes perfect sense, so i guess i just don't get what all the fuss and pageantry and adoration is about, b/c frankly it just makes sense. i dunno, call me racist if you want to, the funny thing is that i think i feel this way precisely b/c i don't see race as any factor in it.
-i remember being surprised by how charged and passionate my students were around Election Day. i noticed many of my students taking vehement opposition to one another's political views, showing off their limited knowledge of campaign slogans and parroting rhetoric in transparent efforts to back up their support of a candidate they'd chosen to represent a deeper-seated world view and political affiliation. i noticed all my Black kids were for Obama, wore shirts with his face emblazened on the chest, would yell his name as if it were a cheer, would cheer at the mention of his name. the interesting thing about this was that usually, my Hispanic kids would grow silent, look sullen and sink down in their seats, would tell me later when i could hear them whisper, "i wanted Hilary to win." the braver ones would pretend to joke in class, "McCain for President!" what i came to realize later was this stance was chosen not out of opposition, but as reaction. true, some of my Hispanic students' parents probably legitimately supported Hilary and her pro-Hispanic community campaign. but what it came down to, perhaps, was a sign of bitterness towards what had obviously become a race race. when the nomination and the election came to be framed as a race issue, it became less about issues, and more about identity and belonging. who was going to be recognized and included, and who was going to be left out? when it seemed like Obama would win by indisputable margins, the election discussion in my classes became about control, and controlling who gets to stand for one's identity: "if this Presidency is supposed to represent me and my country, i want someone i choose, not someone thrust upon me. i want someone who can understand being the outsider, i want someone who can understand being left out, i want someone who can understand being misunderstood, i want a woman, i want an underdog, i want a Republican..."
