Category: Commentary

  • Disney Princesses

    Thought I would share this from the March 18th Metro, Ottawa edition. This from the director of the movie Enchanted, which is not a bad flick by the way. The director of the film Kevin Lima is talking about the moment he first met Amy Adams. Listen to this:

    She looked like a Disney Princess to begin with — she had the big round eyes, the fair skin, the little perky nose.

    Isn’t that just down right white and dandy. If you check it he’s right though. Disney has been making animated films since 1937 and they haven’t ever thought to include a black heroine. Should we count Jasmine from Aladdin? Or did the Anti-Arab sentiment of that movie cancel her out? Hmm.

    But wait! There’s a big fuss about Disney’s newest traditionally animated film coming out in 2009. It’s called the Frog Princess and guess what? It includes their very first African-American princess character. It’s set in New Orleans and …

    Don’t you already know?

    The main villain is a voodoo priest. I really didn’t see that coming.

  • Obay Phase Two Revealed

    EN_TSA_Aspirations_TSR_1.jpg

    Torontoist: Obay Phase Two Revealed

    Well, the secret is out. I was fascinated with the Obay ads as well as everyone else. They were brilliantly done. It’s just that now we know who was behind them, it’s… anti-climactic. I just wish they were promoting something more… um… interesting. Somehow “Ontario Colleges” as the punch line for some thing this cool underwhelms… Oh well.

    But, that being said, I was having this very argument with a friend of mine over coffee: University isn’t for everyone. In fact it’s probably a colossal waste of time for a lot of the people there. Academia has become a business though and higher and higher numbers of recruits are needed to keep the profits coming…

    And here is the big question for me: If I knew then what I know now, would I have gone to University? I’m still trying to answer that one.

  • Racist graffiti at York University

    CityNews: York University Students March After Racist Graffiti Attack:

    Hundreds of angry students at York University gave their president the boot from a meeting to talk about racist graffiti found on school grounds.

    The “N” word, along with “Go Back To Africa”, were scrawled on the door of the Black Student’s Alliance (BSA) on Tuesday.

    Even more upsetting for the students was the University’s lack of response. E-mails and calls to York Administration went unanswered, and when the school’s president showed up to the rally, he was asked to leave.

    And this at my alma mater. sigh. The conversations written on the washroom walls and cubicles around York has been dredging this territory for a few years now, so I’m not surprised. (Yes, I do read that stuff) However, for someone to write it on the Black Student Association’s (BSA) front door after Martin Luther King day is, as they say, taking it to a whole ‘nother level.

    However, the BSA’s decision to shut out Mr. Mamdouh Shoukri, the new university president, from their awareness event seems shortsighted. First, it wasn’t him who put up the racist graffiti. Second, the man was born in Egypt. Last I heard, that was still in Africa; so the graffiti is as much against him as it is to any of the students in the BSA. Third, the time between the incident and his response was a reasonable 24 hours. Yes, it is a very short response, but the “its too late” rhetoric is way too melodramatic and OTT. Reparations are also ‘too late’, but we’d still take ’em; why not this little olive branch? And fourth, if they were as interested in getting his response as they claim, they would have let him talk at the event. Seems like a lot of unnecessary grandstanding going on. Maybe they thought that he was trying to steal some of their thunder and the publicity that they drummed up. Fair enough. But haven’t we come far enough to be just a little open-minded? Hear another side, maybe?

    What I’m really curious about is a counter-factual. Imagine if the female and white Lorna Marsden, – outgoing York president – was still in office, what would the official York reaction have been? Would she have gotten the statement out sooner than Mr. Shoukri? Would she have even attempted to walk into that gathering? On both counts I’m pretty sure the answer would be NO. And would the BSA members have been so strident in their disrespect had it been her instead of Mr. Shoukri? Again, I think not. Why? I’ll let you think about that one and tell me what you come up with…

    But BSA histrionics aside and back to the main point: Anti-Black Racism is still here in the 21st Century. Even in multi-cultural Canada. Shock of shocks.

  • On the Victory of Barack Obama in Iowa

    Visual diversity means little.

    The white man has convinced us, and some of their own no doubt, that they are a homogenous group. Believe me, if black people did not exist in the world, white people would get on with the far more important work of killing other white people. However, since we do exist and enter their space, we suffice as target practice.

    You could have a perfectly mixed and ‘diversified’ sample, and have no actual diversity. Or put another way, a room full of white people can be incredibly diverse. In that room you may have some Jewish people, some from Russia, an Irish descendant from New York, English nobility and members of the Canadian working class and they would in all likelihood, disagree on everything. The myth of racial solidarity is exactly that: A Myth. It was created out of necessity in and around the Caribbean sugar plantations, and has persisted until today. I say this in the hope that Black people will stop talking about “white people” as if they were some monolithic political party, but also in the hope that I can remember to stop talking about “black people”.

    If there were no white people in the world, Blackness would not matter, and we would then get to the more important work of remembering why we hate each other. Similarity of color means nothing. Two black people may have nothing to talk about and nothing else in common. The sooner this truth hits us, the sooner we can move on to more profitable stereotyping.

    The smokescreen of visual diversity and the political cushion it provides should not be underestimated. People generally assume that color of skin comes along with an ideology. To be Black is to be liberal, and if one lives in the US, a democrat. Black people have rhythm, are athletic and listen to rap music. Right. We also assume that because a certain government administration has x amount of Blacks in high positions, x amount of Latinos, z amount of “non-white” people, it is diverse. You can hire as much of these people as you want and engineer complete visual diversity with every shade of skin under the sun and it could, I emphasize could, mean nothing. All of these visually diverse people who look nothing alike may be intellectual clones.

    What does “multi-cultural” even mean? Again, a room full of white people can be multi-cultural. But multi-culturalism is the hot word of the day. The buzz word. Another useless plaything of a word that goes down smooth but has no nutritional value. It’s a politically-correct junk-food tortilla-chip of a word. Multi-culturalism, as far as I can see, only means visual diversity, which is only a useful gauge of telling how many black people are in a room, and as I am arguing, this doesn’t mean much.

    I am not saying that we should throw away the quotas and the affirmative action policies; most bureaucrats in their more lucid moments will say that these programs encourage diversity, and perhaps they do. Since we live in a visual society and crave visual stimulation, I guess we will have to settle for visual diversity. Just don’t be surprised when everyone says the same things.

    I offer you these observations only because they have occurred to me, not because I offer an alternative or even a point. Do you expect me to come up with everything? I am only a writer. I have no credentials other than what you have just read. If I had a PhD would it matter? Or would it take you that much longer to realize that I am full of shit?

    If I have a point, it is this: there are forces that exist out there, forces that are shaping our minds, our opinions, our outlook, and the majority – regardless of color – are plugging in and zoning out. To be awake and alert takes effort, RADICAL effort. We need to forget what people say, forget what color they are and watch and remember what they do. The important thing is the degree of correlation between words and deeds. This process takes a lot longer. It takes a lot more work. Your mileage may vary. But maybe, just maybe, you will go a day longer without being duped.

    Another one is born every day and I’d hate for it to be you.

  • Horror of the Christ?

    Passion of the ChristHow would you define the film “the Passion of the Christ”? What genre would you place it in? Horror? Psychological Thriller? Documentary? This piece was written in 2004 when the film came out and the topic came up recently in a conversation I had with a film studies grad student. Thought I would share it here:

    “Horror! That ain’t no Horror movie! Thats Jesus Christ!!” Yes I know I blaspheme (not the first time either) but bear with me. Religious types usually have a problem with me when I make this comment, and I guess the conversation hinges on what “horror movie” means in the minds of most people. No other genre is as closely related to “the devil” as Horror, so for me to label the pre-eminent (and most successful) film about Jesus as a “Horror” film is just too much.

    I saw it twice, and i stand by my pronouncement that it is a Horror film. No other genre of movie has such a particular effect on you. I guess when I say horror, most people assume I mean “freddy kreuger”. Not so. This is as intelligent as any film you will ever find, yet its main purpose is to shock and jar you into a state of “damn.”

    This is one film reviewer’s take:

    I have to offer a concession to those critics who have been so offended by the graphic portrayals of violence and torture in this film. It is, in fact, incredibly offensive. I cannot deny this fact.

    I agree. See, Mel Gibson (the director) didn’t have to show all that he showed. Come now, do we really need to see the nail being pounded into the hand? No. But you show everything in a horror film, and Gibson gives it to you, with squirting blood no less. The whipping scene for me is the most difficult to watch. Once again Gibson spares no detail. Having seen it the second time, (Believe me when I say I didn’t want to go through it a second time.) I find myself questioning some of the directorial decisions. Does it really have to be THAT graphic? The answer is no if it were any other genre.

    Think of Schindlers List for a comparison. That could have easily become a horror film, yet it remained a heart-wrenching drama. (The black and white toned down the gore, and Spielberg just didn’t show you everything like Gibson did. Remember the only color in the film, the girl in the red jacket?) Even a descent into hell film like “the Pianist” was less painful than this was. But this was what Gibson wanted. He wants you to feel sick when you’re finished. These are classic Horror genre motivations.

    So I say again. Horror. Very well done. Well filmed. Well acted. Well directed. Beautiful cinematography. Great Set and Costume design. But a horror. And this doesn’t cheapen the film in my estimation. Just helps to classify it.

  • What’s on the Table

    “No option can be taken off the table” – Sen Hillary R. Clinton.
    “We need to keep all options on the table.” – John Edwards
    “we should take no option … off the table.” – Sen. Barack Obama
    “I will never take any option off the table.” – US Pres. George W. Bush

    Been hearing a lot recently about the US and Iran. Lots and lots of noise. The rhetoric is starting to build to a fever pitch. The war drums are beating so loud that my bones are rattling, shaking even. From the ‘liberal’ Democratic candidates all the way to the Cheneys and the Bushes who still control the power, one point has been made remarkably clear and with a chilling consistency: In these negotiations with Iran, and we are led to believe that someone somewhere is, in fact, negotiating, no option is to be taken off of the table.

    What are these people talking about? I would like to think that they mean regular ole military action. But any one who has the short-term memory of an advanced Alzheimer’s patient has to know that military action is always in the cards when it comes to dealing with the US. What I find disturbing is that in the buildup to Iraq II I don’t recall hearing this refrain and certainly not with this frequency. The regular code words for military action are ‘serious consequences’. And the US has been threatening Iran with serious consequences for a while. This sounds a lot different.

    No option should be taken off of the table.

    What other options are there? What is on this metaphorical table? One option sitting by the salt and pepper shaker collecting dust is diplomacy. But no one in this busy age really has the time for that, and besides, this is Iran. They can’t listen to reason anyway. Why waste breath when you can shoot bullets right?

    Air strikes are probably also sitting there on this table like a rabid and twitching black cat. Of course we call them ‘surgical strikes’ in this day and age.

    The C.I.A. is always available for that other option, you know the one that they pulled before in Iran, where they deposed their democratically elected leader and installed a puppet dictator. Ok, alright, so that was a while ago. And that agency is probably too busy planning birthday parties in Venezuela anyway. The general rule of thumb is that you don’t turn a situation into a world crisis and then run a covert operation. Even for the US, that doesn’t make sense.

    I would like to think that a ground force invasion is the final option on the table, but the troops, like the butter, are spread pretty thin. So what do they mean? What could they mean?

    Could they possibly mean a nuclear strike?

    Could this be the unspeakable ‘option’ that everyone says has to stay on the table? I would like to think that the world saw the nuclear bomb used in warfare for the first and last time in 1945. Surely they can’t be talking about that. Are they really that crazy?

    For the love of God man, take that ‘option’ off the table!

    Please.

  • What an empty seat told me

    I’m on a public transit bus in Ottawa that’s full to and beyond capacity. People are standing, the bus driver is making announcements that people should move further back. Oddly enough there are two vacant seats that the standing crowd must not see.

    I ask myself, ‘is it a coincidence that these two seats are next to black men?’ I happen to be one of those black men.

    Of course I could be reading too much into this, and the crowd of standing white people around me and the empty seat next to the other black man, maybe they just want to stretch their legs. Thing is, I bet if I were to ask them if they had even the slightest tinge of racism in them, I bet they would say ‘no, of course not.’

    Am I the racist for seeing it? Feeling it?

    The empty seat next to me says otherwise.

  • You have the Power

    Suzuki

    Been noticing these ads recently. David Suzuki, one of the greatest Canadians, levitating fluorescent light bulbs. Intoning the sage words: “You have the Power”! Indeed. In the TV ad he appears on “Bob’s” doorstep just stopping by to change his porch light.

    Mr. Miyagi

    I can’t help it, but I don’t see David Suzuki in these ads, I see Mr. Miyagi.

    (This isn’t, at least I believe, because I see all older asian people as looking alike either)

    Remember Mr. Miyagi? The guy from the Karate Kid? Mr. “Wax on, Wax off, Daniel San”? Suzuki has become the wise and enlightened side kick just like Mr. Miyagi. It’s the famous minority as sidekick role, we get to help the white folk get smarter and then they go on to make the really BIG difference in the world. Try to picture Al Gore, and his inconvenient truth, levitating that light bulb… can’t do it? Yeah. Al’s going to make real change…

    This leads me to think of Morgan Freeman, who has gotten quite the kick out of playing GOD in the recent “Almighty” series of comedies. While it’s nice to see a black man as God, somehow I don’t really see the role as all that different from his wise black sidekick role that he has perfected in movies like “The Shawshank Redemption”, “Million Dollar Baby” etc. In Western society, God is pretty much that wise sidekick, doling out the needed advice. He stays in his little box, gets out of the way, and lets the white man shine.

    Bruce Almighty
    Morgan Freeman / God the sidekick

    Hence I don’t see this black Hollywood God as anything to really cheer about. Same ole. Same ole. I don’t know if this line of thought portends worse news for those who believe in God, or for minorities and the fight for equality… Hmm… Maybe it just means that David Suzuki will play God in the next “Almighty” picture…