#probably incomplete understanding of race in media due to my privilege

[permian-tropos]

Thought about how Finn and Poe are depicted in TLJ: 

I don’t think Johnson was deeply racially biased in the way people think, though I think he might have a racial bias that’s not malicious, but also worth pointing out, since I always butt heads with that bias as a white writer. 

I think Johnson wanted to give Finn and Poe solid character arcs to fit with the theme of overcoming failure, and I don’t think he wrote them as if they were Other, because I do feel somewhat familiar with what it feels like when characters are Other. I’m very alert to women being framed as Other, and in SW most droids and aliens are framed like that. also, old mentor figures can be Other, definitely maternal figures, most villains, expendable side characters, NPC-type folks in the plot who help the story along.

Stories have to be full of Others of one sort or another, and you can be Other in a sympathetic light or a negative light. You can be revered or reviled or ignored. You can be reduced to a stereotype or an archetype. And some stereotypes are more harmful than others because of their connection to real world structural oppression. 

The only characters in a story who aren’t Other are characters who get POV time -- that’s just how it works, if the movie makes you see through a character’s eyes, they want you to project onto that character for those scenes. Finn and Poe are POV characters, so they’re not fully othered. Something else is probably going on. 

I think Finn and Poe are written in ways that white men would comfortably project onto, if the characters were white men. Take Finn and his running away. It’s not as if male characters who have to learn to care about the cause are deeply disliked. Han Solo is a scoundrel with a heart of gold who spends a lot of time in ANH being reluctant to help the heroes, and then he finally shows his true goodness and saves the day. Finn being a bit jittery and focused on saving a girl he likes might seem less flattering, but think about all the awkward, foolish white male protagonists who get dunked on a bit for their flaws, but ultimately win girls’ hearts and save the day. I’m thinking Emmett from the Lego Movie as a key archetype. That’s... clearly something that white guys find relatable and enjoyable to project onto. Self-deprecating, but ultimately a power fantasy. Part of the power fantasy is watching someone who’s a bit of a loser become a hero through adversity, it makes you feel like you too could take adversity and turn it into positive change as well. And Finn isn’t even such an overstated example, but he does have a lovable-loser thing going on in TFA and TLJ. And then of course he gets to be fantastically heroic and good and brave, because we (lovable losers in the audience) would like to be that way as well.

Poe’s behavior in TLJ gives me very... uncooked Captain Kirk dough vibes. I love me some Kirk, and he’s such a passionate guy who breaks rules and defies authority whenever he thinks it’s right. And sometimes he gets it wrong, and misjudges the situation, but the narrative usually doesn’t punish him too much. And the reason for this is because Kirk has Spock and McCoy and the rest of his crew with him and he deeply trusts their advice and expertise. Spock will almost always tell Kirk to cool his tits, so Kirk feels safe getting hot-titted when he thinks it’s called for. He knows he has a limiter. That’s what makes him a good leader, he knows his shortcomings and surrounds himself with close friends who can balance those shortcomings out. He’s also a seasoned captain, wiser from having dealt with a lot of messy situations. But (forget the reboot movies lol cause I do) if you imagine a younger Kirk, you can imagine him getting all riled up about injustice and hatching one of his daring million-to-one gambits to save everyone -- and it turns out to be a bad move. It turns out he was wrong. And he gets a lesson about that, and this helps him grow into the good Kirkboy we love and respect. 

The fact that Poe wants to rush out and save the day, but needs to learn patience, is something white men can find relatable and sympathetic.

But the thing is, I can understand people seeing Finn and Poe being written in this way, and understandably perceiving it as race-blind. Johnson put all these bits of character into them, but because he’s a white male writer who does in fact want to write Finn and Poe as likable and dynamic and engaging, he seems to have written things for them that are endearing when a white male does them. 

People see the expressed interiority of Finn and Poe in The Last Jedi and get White Male vibes from it, not because they were written to be disposable or Other, but because they were given White Male interiority.

Now, arguably, Star Wars seems not to discern human races, and since so much of White Male interiority involves seeing yourself as the default and not ever questioning that status, while existing in an industrialized Westernized capitalist society, the idea that Finn and Poe would at least reflect some of that attitude kind of isn’t... entirely unrealistic? 

I say this as a woman who had a lot of weirdly externalized misogyny and mistrust of feminism as a kid because I grew up in a bubble where I was free to express my gender however I liked, and adult women made all the decisions, and had status and value, and men were kind of just there also. I didn’t actually understand the feeling of not being default, of being Other, of being secondary, and when I was first exposed to feminism I was angry because I didn’t like to be told that I was oppressed. I didn’t want to be oppressed, so don’t you dare imply it could happen! I grew up without a lot of the social pressures women get, and now I actually recognize male-privileged attitudes ingrained in myself. I feel like aspects of masculinity (but certainly not all of them!) are just the gendered appropriation of Human Default, which women would default to if they weren’t pressed out of it (and aspects of femininity are extremely Human Default too and denying them to men is very damaging to them). So Finn and Poe being written by a white man trying to make them Human Default (or at least Male Default since gender disparities do exist in SW), could come across as infused with whiteness. Also humans in SW have heavy privilege over aliens and droids so they probably would act like privileged people when you think about it......

Still, I don’t and can’t begrudge anyone (particular a person of color) who doesn’t like that, because it’s probably not relatable and it’s missing a lot of nuance and perspicacity that a writer of color would infuse the situation with, in portraying a fictional fantasy world that’s relatively blind to race to an audience in a racialized society. You have to balance both fiction and reality.

White writers sort of have to learn that. A writer wants to engage with their audience authentically, and writers can’t get that if they pretend their audience won’t be hyperalert to racial dynamics. “But I didn’t know people would have that reaction” yes you did, or you should. “But I want to live in a world where people don’t have to have that reaction since it’s coming from so much suffering and injustice” me too buddy, but one movie can’t change everything overnight. Obviously if you care about marginalized people, what you want to do is make them feel appreciated and comfortable for the space of time your movie is playing. But I understand you do also want to write in your style. All the characters you write will be coming out of your own heart, that’s inevitable. 

It feels like the “why didn’t Johnson listen to the actors” anger is because people kind of wanted to see the actors’ takes on the characters, so they didn’t have to see Rian Johnson interiority throughout all of them. Except... the thing is. If Lucasfilm really begged Johnson to write and direct their movie, he’s allowed to put Rian Johnson interiority into it. Even the characters of marginalized identities -- ultimately, wanting to project onto and empathize with characters of color is not at all bad. Johnson feels like Rose is his self insert. She’s a woman of color, and he specifically wanted KMT for the role. He felt like he could deeply relate to this character. It’s not that he identifies as an Asian-American woman, it’s that he did actually think that distinction wasn’t a barrier to relatability. (On top of that, I think Rose is written to have some backstory elements that strongly parallel her actress’s Vietnamese heritage, and I think it’s a pretty big deal and I wish more people cared about that but we’ve been brainwashed to forget the Vietnam War I guess.)

White writers do need to take care not to project too much of their own interiority onto characters of color, to the point where audiences feel like they’ve been pushed out, like they’re seeing someone who looks like them but clearly is not like them on the inside (an uncanny, unnerving effect). But at the same time, I can’t imagine writing that doesn’t come from the writer. And white writers absolutely need to project onto and relate to characters of color. It’s always going to be a mess and there’s a lot of work to do to get it right but the alternative where you’re convinced you could never relate is not at all better. 

TL;DR: Rian Johnson did indeed fall into a white male writer pitfall, but I think it’s not malicious and it’s also both problematic and potentially a good thing. Also JJ Abrams basically did the same thing it’s just that he didn’t have to write “overcome my fatal flaw” arcs for Finn and Poe.

Johnson also definitely put a lot of work into prioritizing female perspectives and female fantasies and female wish fulfillment and female POV, and I think (as a Female... or. something approximating female lol) the film is a lot better about it than any other Star Wars movie to date. Or that may be because he sat down with Carrie Fisher for hours and hours brainstorming ideas and took her suggestions seriously enough to have notebooks full of them. I imagine he should have done the same with non-white script doctor but when it came to script doctoring and a deep connection to SW, Carrie was kind of without equal.

[eichy815]

Land of Missed Opportunity

For the past three years, I’ve penned an annual Independence Day piece discussion on what it means to be American – where we get things right, and where we need to improve.  Last year’s edition, entitled “Amber Waves of Pain,” served as an “Open Letter to the Entire World” from my quaint little lips.  In it, I acknowledge the many shortcomings of the United States...while simultaneously calling out other countries (along with any of their own nationalistic citizens) and challenging them to do better, for their own part.

One year earlier, I’d written a piece entitled “Star-Spangled Manners” that explored numerous reasons *WHY* so much anti-Americanism exists in our world.  The year before that, I wrote one about how blind patriotism amongst Americans is dangerous while simultaneously weighing the nuances of the pros and cons inherent within American culture itself.

Any of these op-ed articles of mine are relevant to what we are currently enduring, within the context of U.S. politics.  The next three years will comprise a major turning-point in American history...what happens during the 2018 and 2020 national election cycles could make-or-break us, collectively.

So today, I’m going to summarize six major areas in which our “beloved” U.S. government has failed our citizenry.  These failures have occurred due to a variety of factors:  individual greed, bad messaging, incomplete (i.e. badly-written) policy details, institutional corruption, “oppression-ranking,” mass media complacency, and lack of personal empathy.

None of these topical areas, in and of themselves, would magically fix all of our problems. However, if we gave each of these areas more focused attention...we could indeed undergo a truly transformative revolution.

AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

In February, I launched The REGIS Initiative – an acronym that stands for Raising / Eating / Growing / Inventing / Sustaining.  It’s designed to be a multifaceted drive to confront aspects of food production, farmers’ rights, drought alleviation, environmental stewardship, and pollinator protection – in terms of legislation, education, public awareness, and the localized nonprofit sectors alike.

My main gripe is that the issue of sustainable agriculture has failed to become a significant part of our national discourse.  Whether this is by design or due to incompetence (or a combination of both) is, quite frankly, irrelevant; the point is that we need to get this issue “on the map.”

All of us should strive to become “Agri-Warriors” – conscious, proactive citizens who demand to our lawmakers that they design legislation, youth curriculums, and philanthropic incentives to achieve the outcome of affordable, plentiful groceries and healthy growing conditions.  This needs to be prioritized, at every turn, to avoid mass-inflation or food shortages.

It isn’t “socialism”...it’s about our survival!

ELECTORAL REFORM – NO, FOR REAL!

Whenever politicians invoke “electoral reform,” they are usually referring to the common solutions of term limits, campaign-finance reform, and overturning Citizens United.

The latter is a tall order (as is any U.S. Constitutional Amendment) that will take many years – perhaps decades – to achieve.  Campaign-finance reform sounds good, in theory; but will it become a backhanded way of preserving sectarian privilege on behalf of Democrats and Republicans?  Term limits are another nice theoretical concept, but implementing them won’t make one lick of difference (and, in fact, may only exacerbate current problems) without simultaneously enacting large-scale reforms to D.C.’s lobbying sectors.

What we should be focusing on, with much greater fervency, are alternative forms of voting.  Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), Approval Voting (AV), or Range Voting (RV) would be the most logical alternatives.  We should be looking to examples such as the entire state of Maine (along with select U.S. cities) that have offered up such new systems to voters.  The recent June 13 broadcast of The View initially featured this issue (via a joint campaign commercial from gubernatorial candidates Betsy Sweet and Mark Eves) as part of its daily “Hot Topics” segments; but then, before the cohosts could discuss it amongst themselves with any substance, ABC cut in with “breaking news” about the Mueller investigation (which, ultimately, was a “non-story” about how Trump attorney Michael Cohen had agreed that he would cooperate with federal investigators).  

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there’s no doubt in my mind that someone at ABC News intentionally disrupted/preempted The View’s potential discussion of Instant-Runoff Voting because, if other states begin to follow Maine’s example, it will probably disrupt and upend the two-party system (thus limiting the mainstream media’s ability to control the narrative).

MULTICULTURALISM...*ACTUAL* MULTICULTURALISM

In March 2017, I wrote a somewhat-controversial op-ed entitled “What No One Wants to Say About Racism.”  Many conservatives hated it because they don’t want to acknowledge the existence of systemic racism against people of color.  Many liberals hated it because they don’t want to acknowledge that some cultural and social forms of racism can additionally target white people.

I still contend that distinguishing between institutional (systemic), social (individual), and cultural (group-based) forms of racism will be the only way our society ever reaches any semblance of mutual understanding and cooperation.  Instead, too many people want to control the entire discourse on racial or cultural identities based on, narrowly, their own personal experiences and/or the personal experiences of those who they believe are getting a raw deal.  Or cherrypicked statistics that happen to “prove” their point.

Sometimes this manifests itself when folks insist that we all should be “colorblind” or how “the only race is the human race.”   At other times, people employ a “turnabout is fair play” philosophy alleging how it’s time for white people (or white-passing individuals) to be explicitly and pointedly targeted for discrimination, themselves.  Michael Eric Dyson – the classic example of a performance artist trying to pass himself off as “an academic” – epitomizes this toxic archetype.  

Not everyone should be expected to speak “on behalf of their race.”  And no one should be allowed to speak “on behalf of their race.”  Both systemic and personal experiences with racism need to be brought out into the open, keeping context in mind when looking at each occurrence.  No apologism for any of it.  No accusations that the narrator is making things up or “being too sensitive.”  No reducing those occurrences to “hurt feelings, ”political correctness,” or “cultural relativism” (and, thereby, writing them off). Not every person from a specific marginalized group necessarily has the exact same worldview.

As I discussed in my recent blog article, “Bigots Without Borders,” racism is a much more complex topic than either the Left or the Right would have all of us believe.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

After we take that first step of maintaining productive conversations on race and nationality, we all need to become razor-focused on actual solutions. Otherwise, platitudes without results only keep these vicious cycles repeating themselves.

The most life-threatening forms of systemic racism – police brutality targeted specifically at people of color – need to be stopped through meaningful criminal justice reform.  The platform of “Campaign Zero” – originally constructed by founders and organizers of the #BlackLivesMatter movement – has offered up the clearest path for enacting those changes.

Yet, instead of embracing “Campaign Zero” and trumpeting its proposed solutions, many guilt-ridden Caucasian liberals/progressives seem to think that caustic virtue-signalling (as described in my editorial piece from this past April entitled “White Knights of the Oblong-Table”) against other white people is somehow the wisest approach in lieu of direct policy changes.  Such cluelessness and tone-deafness from these so-called “anti-racists” will only exacerbate racial tensions.

#SorryNotSorry, but that’s a reality.

ECONOMIC STABILITY:  A “PIT STOP” TO PROSPERITY

Much has been said about raising the minimum wage, cracking down on corporations, or even guaranteeing employment and a basic income to all Americans.  The two peskiest questions that seem to come up, amid this particular conversation:  how do we administer it, and how do we pay for it?

My friend and fellow Morpheus magazine columnist, Pasquale Neri, wrote about this scenario in an op-ed piece from this past May.  He proposes guaranteeing a universal income to every qualifying American by replacing it with an opt-in guarantee of $52,500 annually in lieu of one’s Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.  Unfortunately, his plan doesn’t address trickier confounding factors such as illegal terminations, geographic disparities, or limitations for citizens with disabilities.

Former Amazing Race contestant Justin Kanew – who is running for Marsha Blackburn’s open seat (Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District) in the U.S. House of Representatives – has floated a more workable idea that I myself have endorsed for many years now.  Rather than giving corporations lower tax rates right off the bat...why not offer corporate tax breaks as a REWARD for individual corporations that keep jobs stateside and add to the American workforce?

A lot of desire exists to raise the national minimum wage.  But not all industries are created equal.  Tell me with a straight face that an entry-level fast food worker and an entry-level computer programmer are equally deserving of $15 per hour.  Furthermore, American lawmakers have done virtually nothing to address the arbitrary taxation that hinders 1099 employees across-the-board.

Universal basic income, paid family leave, and The-Fight-for-$15 all sound lovely, in theory.  But, if implemented, what prevents these costs from being passed on to the consumers while driving up inflation?

IMMIGRATION REFORM

Two conflicting schools-of-thought, here:  “We are a nation of immigrants” versus “We must secure our borders by keeping out dangerous people.”

Nearly every politician claims to be in favor of “immigration reform.”  But what that reform itself literally involves – that’s dependent on the politician’s individual ideology.  I say – let’s pass a comprehensive immigration reform package that:   A.) mandates that people in the U.S. on work visas get paid wages identical to their American-born counterparts; B.) institutes a permanent renewal of DACA with clear and consistent guidelines; C.) incorporates a detailed and narrowly-defined version of The DREAM Act; and D.) establishes humane conditions for those seeking asylum from other countries.

When Democrats talk about “dismantling ICE,” they are usually referring to a broader goal of disempowering U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from its current power abuses of indiscriminately detaining people.  We must also end the “Show Me Your Papers”-style exploitation of laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070.  In turn, the trend of “chain migration” needs to be ended by making it stricter and tougher for Americans to capriciously sponsor an extended relative for immigration status (without that potential immigrant having proven his or her skill set).

I’m also tired of hearing people on the Left blather:  “Everyone in this country who comes from a nonindigenous background is technically an ‘immigrant.’”  Um, no...everyone who is born in America (or who has at least one American-born parent) is automatically an American.  Isn’t that the principle used to deconstruct those unhinged claims from “birthers” that President Obama was somehow here illegally?  So you can’t have it both ways.  Even the earliest members of America’s Tribal Nations migrated to the North American continent from other parts of the world.  Plus, many indigenous tribes fought and enslaved EACH OTHER.  No one’s hands are clean, here.

We should be welcoming low-risk, qualified immigrants from every country (not just Norway, Donald!).  At the same time, people who claim to be “progressive” or “feminist” or “anti-racist” need to quit exploiting “white guilt”...meanwhile, right-wing fundamentalists and obnoxious neocons need to quit embracing white supremacy.

BROADER GOALS

Finally, if Justice Anthony Kennedy’s successor proves to be a conservative hard-liner who shifts the U.S. Supreme Court away from reasonable progress, Democrats need to campaign in 2020 on the promise that – under a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate – they will increase the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 11 justices.  This would be done in the name of judicial balance...particularly to neutralize any extremism if Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, or Sotomayor have to leave the bench within the next two years.

Call it the #TwoMoreRobes movement.  It would be historically unprecedented (FDR tried to do it – and failed – back in the late-1930s)...but, if the Far Right succeeds in securing a clear majority on the U.S. Supreme Court in the present, then the rest of us might not have any other choice.

LGBT people need better representation in all areas of public life.  The #MeToo movement needs to clearly become about sexual survivors taking back power from their abusers and predators...not this divisive binary that gets boiled down to “women-vs.-men.”

We’ve missed a lot of great opportunities for positive change in this country.  That’s why we must change the narrative itself.  That’s why we must put forth constructive policies as a clear rebuttal to the smarmy Talking Heads of cable news.

It’s obvious that power-hungry deviants wish to tear us apart for their own financial gain.  But that doesn’t mean we have to let them!