The Walking Minorities: Bitten, but not Dead

I like The Walking Dead. While I only paid attention to the Telltale video game, I still keep tabs on the comic and tv show. The original comic and the video game are in the same universe, albeit with some characters being adapted for the video game. The tv show, arguably the most recognizable to the public, is in its own world. So when the tv show is constantly under fire for how racist and sexist it is (C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!), I feel obligated to address the problem and defend the franchise.




Let's start with the main issue. According to TV Rage's article, the show starts "in Atlanta, the population of which was 54% African American, but of the rather large initial group of survivors, there were two African American characters" and one dies rather quickly. The remaining black man, T-Dog, remains a background character until season three. Then, he finally reveals himself to be a devout Christian, gets bitten, and sacrifices himself to save Carol, a white woman. All in the same episode. But don't worry; he is soon replaced by Oscar, a prison inmate who doesn't even make it to half a season, and Michonne, an angry black woman who does nothing but hate everyone, alive or undead. The one black man slot is then filled by Tyreese when Oscar dies. Why do all of our black characters die? Why can't there be multiple black men for more than three episodes in a row? It's as if the writers of the TV show add black characters only when they have to and really are racist against black people.




If the TV show is racist for constantly placing its black characters into red-shirt sidekick roles, then why does the video game have two black main characters? Is it because the video game demographic is appealed by diversity?

My experience at Acen, part 2: cosplayers and body types

http://www.gweem.net/4.html
http://red3.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-defense-of-fat-cosplay.html
http://geekalitarian.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/cosplay-race-and-fat-shaming/
At ACen, a lot of people cosplayed, including me. There was also a lot of diversity in the cosplayers, which I thought was pretty cool. There were people of all races and physiques cosplaying. Several cosplayers in wheelchairs dressed up with the people who assisted them. Picture requests were everywhere and the atmosphere I experienced was very friendly.

However, some cosplayers were not so lucky. While I saw some cosplay girls wearing sexy costumes (Mario, Wario, Luigi, Waluigi, WOLVERINE, Spiderman, etc.) being drooled over, I also noticed several overweight cosplayers being made fun of due to their largeness. Both groups were being objectified, but the double standard is that the sexy girls got praise, while the overweight cosplayers got disdain. This standard is wrong and ignores the real spirit of cosplay.

The word 'cosplay' combines 'costume' and 'play' to describe people who dress up as their favorite characters from anime, tv shows, books, etc. The essence of cosplay is modifying your appearance to play make believe as your favorite characters, and most people spend hours making their own costumes. Body types shouldn't get in the way of someone's enjoyment of cosplay. The people who criticize fat cosplayers attack them for not having the right body type for the character. But they give gender-bent sexy girls a pass, even though they may be dressed up as originally fat characters such as Mario. These people attempt to impose "no-win rules about what they are allowed to wear. That's not even getting into the ways appropriating fashion standards for conventional bodies onto unconventional bodies can expose the absurdity of those standards" when the models are just as unconventional. Although these girls are just as objectified, only this time as sex symbols rather than targets for scorn. A sexy "male Huntress or Power Girl is a reminder of how dehumanizing portrayals of women" have hijacked the cosplay world. Both kinds of cosplay "have much the same activist purpose in drawing attention both to the objectification of thin women and the way fat bodies are made invisible" because haters are attempting to police everyone until only the sexy girls remain to be gawked at. Overweight cosplayers are shamed for daring "to cosplay conventionally attractive characters" like "she thinks she’s attractive or something" just for the sake of male con-goer fantasy. 

Really, people should "get to make up their own minds on how to express themselves and their fandom," regardless of their actual appearance. Cosplay is a form a self-expression that should be open to anyone without fear of being put down.

My experience at ACen, part 1: creepy white guys, thoughts on Yellow Fever

I had a lot of fun at ACen. It's a great way for anime fans to gather and share their passion for anime. But one fan I met was rather... disturbing. He was an older white man who asked for my picture. I agreed, but once I began to walk away, he tried to talk to me.

"Do you speak Japanese?" he asked in poor Japanese.
"No, I'm sorry, I'm Chinese, I can't speak Japanese," I replied in Mandarin as quickly as I could.
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were a Japanese girl." I didn't want to continue the conversation past that and left.

It doesn't seem like a big deal--just a creepy old man targeting young Japanese girls at an anime convention--but it reminded me of yellow fever.

Yellow fever is defined as "sexual obsession felt by a non-Asian (usually white, usually male) towards Asians of the opposite gender" on Urban Dictionary. It is identifiable by a non-Asian's specific targeting of Asians as partners. No other race will do, and the entire Asian race is assumed to fit this non-Asian's stereotype. An excellent (read: terrifying) example is this man from OkCupid, who claims to be "only interested in the best [women]: Asian women." This man goes on to praises Asian women for their "long, fine silky hair," their ability to "remember what it's like to be woman: to be docile and submissive to a man," and their "delicate, playful personalities" as if all Asian women were the same. This disturbs me a LOT. It's not just because it's directed towards Asian women: there are other cases of race fever that are just as delusional. And this man has more problems than just his yellow fever. He is misogynistic, stating that the way to be a woman is "to be docile and submissive to a man," a trait all women would find unattractive. This man picks women like picking a breed of dog: he goes for a 'breed' he considers to be the most meek and submissive to him, trashing other breeds in the process. It's disturbing and offensive to everyone. Non-Asian women shouldn't be automatically rejected because of their supposed inability to fit one's outdated idea of an ideal woman and Asian women shouldn't be exaggerated and assumed to be all the same.

Yellow fever isn't just limited to men, however: the advent of anime and Kpop in America has created a wave of young girls who take a limited view of Japan or Korea based on anime or Kpop and become completely obsessed. Korean pop culture blog Seoulbeats singles out extreme Kpop fangirls for their unreasonable expectations South Korea due to their narrow view of Korean culture through the lens of Kpop. Due to prolonged exposure to Asian pop culture, these girls have come to target specifically Asian men "to display their 'Koreanness,' their perception of what they think it means to be Korean" or 'Japanese-ness.' To these fans, normal "South Koreans are often treated like prized possession, often to the point of fetishization, as though somehow being in acquaintance with a beautiful Korean somehow makes themselves Korean by association" and follows the same beliefs of the older man on Ok Cupid and at ACen. South Korean men become fetishized "prizes" who can validate a fan's inner Koreanness "by association."

In fact, one commenter on the article pointed out the similarities between one of these girl's sick fetishizations and "one of those guys who are struck with Yellow Fever — fascinated with Chinese culture, want to have Chinese girlfriends and have their own notions and perceptions about China, or that girl who thinks that everything from the West is better," including the humans.

Mo' Money Mo' Problems?

Memorial Day Mattress Sales

Did everyone enjoy their Memorial Day? What did you do on your holiday? Some people went to parades, others wore poppies, or just enjoyed the three day weekend. Other people went to one of billions of mattress sales. Mattress retailer Amerisleep This Memorial Day, Amerisleep sought to honor past and present service members and all fellow Americans with their best deal of the season on memory foam mattresses! Amerisleep promised  "$200 off any mattress and... free shipping throughout the continental United States!" "$200 dollars?" "ANY mattress?" "FREE SHIPPING?" WOW! What a deal! Good ol' mattress retailers, providing a mattress for our national heroes!

But seriously, why have we diluted Memorial Day to the point where it can be associated with enormous mattress sales?

One theory is the generational gap between World War II veterans and 'millenials,' the newest generation, which includes mainly children actually born in the 2000s and 90s kids, with some late 80s kids. Basically people who have grown up in the 2000s, far away from the Cold War. The New York Times showed in a study that "in the past decade, less than 1 percent of the American population has been on active military duty, compared with 9 percent of Americans who were in uniform in World War II. As a result, there is a growing generation gap, with younger Americans far less likely than older ones to have a family member who served" and, subsequently, experienced war firsthand. I consider 9 percent to be pretty low, but "less than 1 percent" is microscopic. And "the growing generation gap" between those who have served in the military during a war or even had a relative who served diminishes.

And empathy for veterans decreases as a result. Millenial man Mike Goorhouse explains his separation with veterans.Even though he has "grandparents who served in the armed forces" as do many of us, "their terms were complete well before I was born" In terms of the >1% of Americans on active military duty, Goorhouse has some "classmates from high school who currently serve in the military but none of [his] close friends have ever served our country in this way" and he has no solid connection to anyone served in the armed forces. Goorhouse believes that his "experience is that rare among members of the Millennial generation" and is one cause for the lack of love for Memorial Day.

So if our veterans mean less and less to us, then our national holiday turns more into a three day weekend. And with three day weekends, most people stay at home and rest on Monday. With customers staying at home (right where they want us!), mattress retailers like Amerisleep are pretty smart for creating an annual mattress sale for Memorial Day Weekend. Obviously no one cares anymore about our veterans, so let's make some money!


However, we are still fighting in Afghanistan and have plenty of Iraq War veterans, so the idea that we lack veterans or a war to remember what war feels like feels a little inconsistent. I also still don't know how mattress stores started their sales on Memorial Day. Maybe other retailers (like clothing, food, etc.) have or have had sales for Memorial Day, and the mattress sale became more iconic. Maybe this is one of the few times mattress retailers have sales, which is why it's become such a big deal. What do you think? Feel free to comment.

Race Substitution: Was there really no one else at the audition?

Oh, race substituting. The awkward cousin of race lifting that tries so darn hard to deny relation to racism in TV or Hollywood. Don't think you can get away. Race substituting isn't exactly race lifting, but it's very similar. We've all seen it before--some Japanese female character turns out to be portrayed by a Chinese actress, prompting us to groan and wonder if there really weren't any Japanese actresses who auditioned for the role. However, unlike race lifting, I am a bit more forgiving towards race substitution.




One of the most infamous examples of race substitution was in Memoirs of a Geisha, where all of the lead female roles were portrayed by Chinese actresses. The story is (shockingly) about the life of a young girl as she grows up into a famous geisha to reunite with her true love. It's a very Japanese story that (allegedly) reveals the darker side of the Japanese geisha system, so it should be pretty offensive for three Japanese roles to go to Chinese actors, right? I don't think so. Zhang Ziyi, the lead star of the movie, explained that the director's casting decision was based purely on ability. According to Memoirs of a Geisha's director, his priority is "casting someone he believes is appropriate for a role" and he felt that the geisha role would be a challenge for anyone, "because almost nobody today knows what that means--not even the Japanese actors on the film" and chose Zhang Ziyi for her acting and dancing ability. Zhang Ziyi noted that the role was extremely demanding for anyone, regardless of nationality.




Meanwhile, film critic Roger Ebert had a different idea, suggesting that the Chinese actresses were specifically chosen for their fame. He points out that even though the film was made by a Japanese-owned company, the Chinese stars of the film "are not only great beauties and gifted actresses, but box office dynamite. Even in Japan, Zhang and Li outgross any Japanese actress" and guarantee success for a film. If you run a film company and want to make an internationally-successful film, then choosing internationally-successful (all of the actresses speak fluent English and have had films that were popular in America, such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) actresses who "outgross any Japanese actress even in Japan" is a no-brainer.




In addition, I believe that most of the rage directed towards race substitution is about Asian roles. Danish-American actress Scarlet Johansson plays Russian heroine Black Widow in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Where is the call to arms for racial accuracy in Hollywood for European or American roles? The distinction between actors of European descent is far weaker than Asian actors, and no one would bat an eye if a English-American actor played a French character. But this isn't a case of 'all look same'. The audience is more accepting of race substitution in this case because they are willing to put that aside and focus on the actors' performances. This isn't dismissing the race of the actor vs his role. It's accepting minute imperfections for box office gain and more capable actors. As long as the actor can convincingly portray his role, then what's the problem?

I have no title. Gatsby and four. I don't know where to go with this but I like it.

I noticed a big coincidence in The Great Gatsby. But I'm not sure how many people agree with me. While reading Gatsby, I realized that Fitzgerald mentions the number four a lot, especially in scenes that are very negative or involve death. I find this interesting because in Asia, the number four is considered an unlucky number because it sounds similar to death.
I am quoting TV Tropes or Wikipedia? Both are nice. TV Tropes has more examples as well as Western examples.  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourIsDeath    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia

The death of Wolfsheim's friend: "'It was four o'clock in the morning then, and if we'd raised the blinds we'd seen daylight.'" (page 70) Afterwards, the friend was shot.

Gatsby's plan to take Daisy back. "He wanted nothing less of Daisy than that she should go to Tom and say: 'I never loved you.' After she had obliterated four years with that sentence they could decide upon the more practical measures to be taken." (page 109)

The room of Tom, Gatsby, and Daisy's fight scene: "The room was large and stifling, and, though it was already four o'clock, opening the windows admit only a gust of hot shrubbery from the Park." (page 126)

The introduction of Michaelis before Mrs. Wilson's death: "Michaelis was astonished; they had been neighbors for four years, and Wilson had never seemed faintly capable of such a statement [to lock Myrtle up and move away]" (page 136)

Gatsby observing Daisy: "'Nothing happened,' he said wanly. 'I waited, and about four o'clock she came to the window and stood there for a minute and then turned out the light.'"

Nick trying to talk to Gatsby before he dies: "I called Gatsby a few minutes later, but the line was busy. I tried four times; finally an exasperated central told me the wire was being kept open for long distance from Detroit." (page 155)

Michaelis after attending to Mr. Wilson: "Wilson was quieter now, and Michaelis went home to sleep; when he awoke four hours later and hurried back to the garage, Wilson was gone." (page 160)

Gatsby's last hours in his mansion: No telephone message arrived, but the butler went without his sleep and waited for it until four o'clock--until long after there was any one to give it to if it came." (page 161)

Wolfsheim reflecting on his first encounter with Gatsby: "'He ate more than four dollars' food in half an hour.'" (page 171)
The funeral procession: "and a little later four or five servants and a postman from West Egg, in Gatsby's station wagon, all wet to the skin." (page 174)

Nick's dream about West Egg: "In the foreground four solemn men in dress suits are walking along the sidewalk with a stretcher on which lies a drunken women in a white evening dress." (page 176)

Minors and the Sex Offender Registry

Recently, USA Today published an article questioning the humanity of placing underage sex offenders on a sex offender registry. Because I don't read USA Today, I didn't get this argument until this morning, when it appeared on BBC News. Please bear with me.

As you might know, I talked about how two Ohio boys convicted of rape have been placed on the sex offender registry, despite being minors. The morality putting minors on sex offender registries has become a topic of debate recently. Associated Press argues that placing teenagers or children on the registry damages them for life by branding them as evil before they can understand the wrong in their crimes.

One former offender from Texas called 'Austin' still feels burdened by having sex with a 12-year-old girl when he was 14. Although he's grown up now and is fully aware of his sin, the stigma against him is permanent. Being placed on the sex offender registry makes a teenager's "mistake is forever available to the world to see," Austin says. "You are never done serving your time. There is never a chance for a fresh start" because your reputation has been permanently sullied for being on the registry. You are kept separated from other children and will have trouble finding jobs when your employer knows you're on the registry.

But does this mean that minors should be kept off of the registry, period? No. They committed a crime and need more than just a slap on the wrist, especially for older teenagers and more severe crimes. But there should be more leniency and offenders should be registered on a case-by-case basis. Teenagers, especially ones like Austin, are often too young to understand the immorality of their crimes. Meanwhile, older teenagers are more likely to realize what they're doing is wrong. Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, agrees that more discretion is needed for underage crimes based on the age of the offender and the severity of the crime. He gives two examples, "if a 15-year-old 'sexted' a picture of him or herself, it is safe to say that prosecutors would take appropriate steps to ensure that person isn't required to become a registered sex offender for life" but still be on the registry. But "If a 17-year-old had committed multiple violent sex offenses against children," he should definitely be placed on the registry, as he has repeatedly attacked children with no concern for their lives or the wrongs in his actions.

But setting up standards for registration would be difficult due to states rights. The Adam Walsh Act requires states "to include certain juvenile sex offenders as young as 14 on their registries," something that has been met with mixed reactions. Some states sacrifice "some federal criminal-justice funding" and refuse to condemn children so young. Other states subject "children younger than 14 to the possibility of 25-year or lifetime listings on public registries," refusing to show children less lenience than adults.

What do you think? Is it moral for states to ignore federal law and attempt to protect underage criminals? Should the laws be more forgiving towards minors?

Race Lifts: Whitewashing Needs to be Whited Out

My group talked about Pretty Little Liars for our TV Tokenism presentation. We mentioned how one of the main characters was changed from white to half-Asian and how her girlfriend was made black despite not having a race in the books, and the implications of changing the character's races. Race changes like this are very common, leading some people to call them 'Race Lifts'.

A race lift is what occurs when a character's race or ethnicity is changed in the creation of a derivative work, sometimes to fill token minorities and sometimes to give minority roles to white actors. In this post, I will criticize the latter, which is also known as 'whitewashing'.

The most recent example of white washing is super-white British actor Benedict Cumberbatch taking the role of Khan, an apparently South Asian character who is the product of Star Trek's Eugenics Wars. He is supposed to be genetically superior to every other human in the series. Even though Benedict Cumberbatch is an extremely famous actor and VERY in demand right now (most people would recognize him as Sherlock in BBC's Sherlock), and I am forgiving of race substitution if the actors would bring more attention to the movie for their fame or superior talent, the level of race lifting is far higher than in Memoirs of a Geisha. Zhang Ziyi took the role of a Japanese geisha and portrayed a Japanese geisha in her movie. Benedict Cumberbatch took the role of an apparently South Asian character and portrayed a white man. He has undone the canon of the Start Trek franchise, that has always been "a franchise known for it’s progressiveness" and "has regressed in casting and representation to the standards from the 1960s" as said by this anti-race lifting Tumblr. To have such a "progressive" franchise "regress to the 1960s" is an insult not only to the character, but also to the original actor of Khan. He may have been of Mexican descent, but he was able to preserve the fact that Khan is a minority character. Cumberbatch looks like just another white supremacist. Although he has given Into Darkness a lot more attention than a South Asian actor would have given the movie, the whole point of Khan's character has been compromised.

Once of the most infamous examples of whitewashing occurred with The Last Airbender, M. Night Shyamalan's film adaptation of the popular kid's cartoon Avatar: the Last Airbender. AtLA takes place in world where certain people are able to 'bend' the elements with kung-fu inspired techniques. The show's style was based off of anime, and all the characters look Asian or Inuit. But when M. Night Shyamalan gave AtLA's Asian/Inuit roles to almost all WHITE actors, he was met with heavy criticism.
Honestly, I can understand giving some roles to white actors, but almost the entire cast? The most notable minority roles are given to the entire Fire Nation (the antagonists), who are portrayed by people of Indian and Middle Eastern descent and the main character's teacher, who dies before the story takes place and is race lifted into a black actor. Taking an East Asian/Inuit cast of characters and race lifting the main characters into white actors and giving antagonist and token roles to minorities is very racist. It's disrespectful to the culture the show was based on and to the Asian actors and actresses who could've taken the roles. 

Fantasia vs. Huckleberry Finn

In this post, I want to bring up an old discussion in class and talk about what's ok to censor and what's not. Although, I wonder if censoring is ok to start with. I think that as long as you aren't censoring important plot points, it is acceptable.

For example, Fantasia's Sunflower is ok to censor because she was insignificant to the plot. There are no benefits to keeping her, as all she does is serve everyone else.

In her only scene, Flower is a lowly slave to the pretty Aryan centaurs. She works endlessly on their hair and makeup so they can go meet other Aryan centaurs, although her masters seem to ignore her for most of the clip, making her a very insignificant character. Sunflower does nothing for the plot or the song playing in this Fantasia section and was created before TV Tokenism. She exists purely for racial stereotyping and doesn't have to be in the film. However, Cracked.com believes that the removal of Sunflower was even more insulting towards black people, as it gives of the message that in their "perfect, Fantasia world, Africans aren't servants. They don't fucking exist" and white centaurs are the only kind of centaur. But keeping flower out of the "perfect Fantasia is overridden by they fact that Sunflower (and by default, every black character) grovel under whiter characters. 

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_the-9-most-racist-disney-characters.html#ixzz2UpzHJFhhBut if you censor Sunflower, doesn't that just mean there are no African American centaurs anywhere? Also, could Sunflower be considered a deeper character than the other centaurs?

However, it is NOT ok to censor Huckleberry Finn. The racism in Huckleberry Finn is a major theme, and can be used as an example of old racism.

Thigh Gaps Get Criticism, but the Real Problem Escapes Again

Hailed by various internet forums as part of the ideal body type for women, thigh gaps have gained so much popularity that there are now just as many internet forums strictly against thigh gaps. If you aren't aware of what a thigh gap is by now, it occurs when a girl's legs are to thin that her thighs can't touch, giving her a permanent gap between them.

Bertie Brandes of Vice has some criticism of the thigh gap. However, her criticism seems to focus more on the unattractive nature of the thigh gap rather than the mob mentality behind the thigh gap movement. She calls the thigh gap "just a very clear sign that the owner of said gap is depriving themselves of food" and, finally, a signal that your repulsively skinny body is underweight, questioning "Why can't overweight people pioneer a fashion trend for once?" While Brandes is well-intentioned, she's misguided in her criticism; the real problem is the fact that thigh gaps are just another product of the body image beast and that the body image phenomenon has been going on for centuries. Fat, thin, curvy, tall, petite: they've all been the ideal body type, and girls have been pressured to fit all of them.

If Brandes intends on waging war again her perceived lack of overweight fashion trends, then perhaps she should read a textbook.The ideal Renaissance woman was far "more voluptuous then any other time in history. Paintings from this era depict women who would be considered overweight by todays standards," which was based on the logic that fatter=more food=richer=sexier. The 1930s to 50s encouraged a curvier figure, making skinny girls scramble to gain weight, as seen by these ads below.



In these ads, skinny girls are viewed as meager skeletons compared to the curvier women and are encouraged to find ways to add "attractive pounds and inches" if "they want to be popular." Is this curvy image an overweight one like the Renaissance? No. Is it demanding and given at birth to a select group of women? Yes. A study in 2005 showed that just 8% of women possess such a figure.

Unrealistic expectations have always been placed on body image, and women have always been pressured into altering their body images to fit the ideal. Thigh gaps and a skinny body are just another trend. If you want to criticize thigh gaps, then keep in mind that the problem isn't about skinny girls, it's about the fact that society doesn't accept multiple body types as the ideal at one time.

A Tale of Two Sentences

On April 30th, a Miami high school junior "mixed some common household chemicals in a small 8 oz water bottle on the grounds of Bartow High School in Bartow, Florida. The reaction caused a small explosion that caused the top to pop up and produced some smoke. No one was hurt and no damage was caused," but she was expelled and will be "charged with possession/discharge of a weapon on school grounds and discharging a destructive device. She will be tried as an adult" despite being just 16 and not intending to hurt anyone.

I think this is unfair. She was just trying to do a science experiment and used materials that created a relatively small reaction that just "caused the top to pop up and produced some smoke," and certainly wasn't trying to harm anyone. She wasn't trying to "discharge a destructive device" against her classmates but will be charged with felony "as an adult" for up to 20 years in prison and sent to a juvenile assessment center. Although the charges were later revoked, the fact that she was given such a harsh punishment for a science experiment seems to be an overreaction.

This reminds of of when on March 17th, a 16 and 17 year old Ohio high schoolers were sentenced at least one and two years, respectively, in jail for sexually assaulting an underclassman at a party and spreading evidence of the rape to their friends. Immediately after his sentence, one of the boys broke down and sobbed that his, "life was over" and apologized profusely to the family, saying that he "had not intended to do anything like" raping their daughter because they were drunk. However, Judge Thomas Lipps refused to budge, reminds the defendants that "these are serious offenses. If they were convicted in an adult court of these charges, they would be spending many years in prison" like the Miami girl could have spent. Why weren't these boys tried in an adult court like the Miami girl? I think that the crime of molesting an underclassmen is far more severe than doing a science experiment.

 Both Ohio and Miami have the death penalty according to this image.

Ohio has used the death penalty just five times in the past two years, while Florida has used it twenty-eight times. Maybe this means that Florida gives overall harsher sentences. But I can't find any statistics for murders in Ohio and Florida in 2012-2013. Florida may be a state with more crime than Ohio, leading to harsher sentences.

However, the Miami teenager DID conduct the experiment without a teacher's permission. And the school's conduct code states that "student in possession of a bomb (or) explosive device... while at a school (or) a school-sponsored activity... unless the material or device is being used as part of a legitimate school-related activity or science project conducted under the supervision of an instructor," which she lacked. The experiment was independent and done in the school yard at 7 in the morning. The girl should have asked her teachers for permission to conduct the experiment in a safer environment with their supervision. And if she didn't want the experiment to be supervised, then she should have just kept the chemicals at home and done the experiment on her own time without fear of violating the code of conduct. Even though the school principal acknowledges the harmless nature of the experiment, District spokesperson Leah Lauderdale urges parents to remind their kids that "there are consequences to their actions" and that the girl's violation of the code of conduct is "immediate grounds for expulsion" and the district must follow the code of conduct. It would be unfair to other students if one girl was exempt from being reprimanded for creating an unauthorized, explosive reaction on school grounds that could have harmed people because she didn't mean to hurt anyone. Just because she didn't mean to hurt anyone doesn't mean that people were safe from the reaction.

Maybe the sentence was done for shock value to remind the community needed to understand that rules need to be followed, no matter how harmless the offense is, seeing as her sentence has been lifted and she is back at school. I am still frustrated by the Ohio rape case, though. The boys were minors, but their crime actually hurt someone and they get one and two year sentences. As part of their punishment, they are being placed on the sex offender registry. Maybe this compensates for their brief sentence. What do you think?

White-Minority Racelifts: you really, really, really didn't (and shouldn't) have to

That's right. I'm going to make a whole series on Race Lifts. Because they're just that annoying.

I get it, Hollywood. You want a diverse cast to appeal to a wider demographic. And if you're adapting older material that has a rather homogeneous cast, a few edits can turn your movie from white guy paradise to affirmative action flick. But these changes are often offense to the minority you're trying to appeal to or disrespectful to the source material.

If your source material has a cast that is limited to one ethnic group, then keep it that way, even if that group remains all white. Isn't that the point of the ethnic group? Take the Percy Jackson and the Olympians movie series for example. Percy Jackson is a young adult fiction series based off of Greek mythology. As a result, most of the characters are white. However, the film adaptation of the first book, The Lightning Thief, changes two supporting roles from a white ethnicity (I'm using this liberally here as neither character is human and really has a 'race' other than Greek-inspired) to a black ethnicity. Satyr (half man, half goat) Grover Underwood, Percy's loyal but foolish guardian, is originally described as having "curly brown hair, brown eyes, small horns, caucasian skin, chin wispy beard and hairy brown goat legs," (source: Percy Jackson Wiki and my sister) but in the movie, he is portrayed by African America actor Brandon T. Jackson. Greek goddess Persephone, who has "pale skin, flowing, and curled black hair" also gets the token treatment with multiracial Rosario Dawson.

Is this racist? Not yet. But if you think about the characters our two black actors are portraying, then there are some implications. This Percy Jackson fan observes that the attempts at avoiding a racist, all-white cast only lead to being more racist. Grover is the protagonist's silly bodyguard who, despite being given the prestigious position of looking after Percy, often requires Percy to save him. In the movie, he becomes "always interested in the ladies, full of silly one-liners and the only main character that was half animal," unlike the other white characters, who are either human, demigod, or full Olympian god. This puts Grover in a sub-human role that does nothing but serve the other characters. Is this racist? Quite. Persephone, the other 'black' character (multiracial, actually, but still far less white than everyone else) is Hades's miserable captive in Hell. Hades is abusive and Persephone is desperate for visitors to free her from his company, going on a date with Grover. She is no better than a slave.

It should be noted that all other characters in the movie are white. There are no Asians or Hispanics in this movie. It's a world of white heroes and black lackeys. Is this racist? Quite. I highly doubt that the directors chose Jackson and Dawson for their superior acting ability. These race lifts were unnecessary and done on characters who would be unoffensive if they were kept white (as they are in both the books and the original mythology). If these casting decisions were an attempt to check a box or appeal to the black/minority (because I guess one minority fits all in terms of tokenism here), they failed.

Check your Guilt Trip!

In class, we are learning about social classes. One way we determined social class was through a social class calculator from the New York Times. This calculator measures your privileges, such as education and occupation, and places you into one of five categories: bottom fifth, lower middle, middle, upper middle, and top fifth.
There's also the Privilege Calculator (does it have a name?), which, instead of calculating your social class, calculates your right to talk about social issues. I decided to calculate my privilege last night. I got a total of 45 points, making me 'above average'. Although some categories such as 'bonus' (-15 for my perceived lack of a social life?) and 'height' (-10 for being short?!), I found most of the categories reasonable. This chart is clearly not as professional as the New York Times (calling European countries top, meh and s***), but the real problem is what 'privilege' means in the social justice world. A score of above 100 not only makes you 'above average' but means that you need to check your privilege daily.

But for who? Social justice bloggers, you privileged, mighty whitey pigs! Social justice website Shrub is here to guide you to reaching a PC Nirvana in just seven easy steps! Shrub's Walkthrough for Whites includes instructions on how to navigate 'minority spaces', areas in which you, the privileged, had better shut up in. This is because "we, as privileged people" often try to hijack minority spaces with inferior opinions. Shrubs says that it's best to give the minorities a turn and listen to "their issues, lives, and oppressions" that you are exempt from.
Although I'm 'above average' in privilege, I really want to criticize Shrubs. The idea that the privileged, ignorant you is incapable of understanding the oppressions of the poor, poor minorities is patronizing to both parties. It sounds like you are just so above the lowly minorities that you CAN'T comprehend their pain unless you give them their minority spaces. The idea that minority spaces are "needed because they are the only place where non-privilged people can truly focus on our own issues" is well-intentioned but only further highlights the lack of privileges minorities face. By giving minorities a separate space free of privileged interference, Shrubs is assuming that minorities can't express their pain to a privileged person.
I NEED A CONCLUSION.

North Korea's Bullying Party 2013, part 1: the military

Just a month ago, when you searched 'North Korea' on a major Western news site such as BBC World or the New York Times, you would get articles warning the world of North Korea's latest threat. But now it seems that these very publications have changed their opinion and are now downplaying North Korea's threats. This would all be very groundbreaking news...
...if South Korea hadn't felt this way from the beginning.

In this series of blog posts, I want to talk about why North Korea's threats of destruction are just that by talking about its military, history of threats, and why the threats still work (ish). Let's start with military.

According to blogger Jason Yu (who has worked with BBC World and others), North Korea is simply a playground bully. Although Western news publication have tried to give the impression that North Korea is a legitimate threat and South Korea is terrified, the reality is that most young South Koreans have stopped caring. To them, North Korea has always been a toothless bully. And with "a fortified military zone – known as the DMZ – separating the Koreas, a strong, technological Korean military, and highly-trained US forces in the area, Koreans feel safer more than ever. This is despite Korea’s thriving capital, Seoul, being a mere 46 miles away" from the last country crazy enough to consider nuclear warfare. Even IF North Korea invaded, it would be no match for South Korea and US forces. 

At a glance, North Korea's military seems like a huge threat. According to The Guardian, North Korea spends 22.3% of its GDP on its 8.2 billion dollar military. (note: figures are from 2008)

North Korea has almost two times more manpower in peace times, and could gain almost eight million more men if they called upon their reserve troops. Based on quantity alone, North Korea outnumbers South Korea in every category except Navy, armored vehicles, and C2-ISR aircraft.  However, quantity does NOT equal quality in this case.  Half of North Korea's best weapons were "designed in the 1960s; the other half are even older. Also, it is certain that due to shortages of spare parts, fuel, and poor maintenance, some weaponry will not be functional" and can do nothing but feed a bluff. North Korea may have"enough combat hardware to equip perhaps ten US divisions" but can match the power of only "about 2.5 US armored divisions" due to it's outdatedness. The Guardian also points out that although South Korea spent a seemingly weak 2.8% of its GDP on its military in 2008, it still spent three times more money. South Korea's army is better funded and has better technology. North Korea's army is large (the fifth largest in the world) but poorly equipped. North Korea may have nuclear weapons, but   So threats of war from North Korea are rarely a concern for the average South Korean.

American Occupation in South Korea: Outline

If I don't post this, I'll never post anything.
With North Korea's recent threats to destroy everyone (again) and America getting ready to help South Korea defend itself if necessary, I don't know what to say. But I do question why we are still in South Korea, and if South Korea even needs (let alone wants) us there with them.

Back in December, a video of Psy performing an EXTREMELY explicit, anti-American song went viral. This was Psy participating in a 2004 concert protesting American occupation in South Korea. In the video, Psy refers to American soldiers as '--- Yankees' who should 'die slowly and painfully' with their families for interfering with South Korea's politics.
As an American, this really surprised me, because I always viewed American occupation in South Korea as vital to its safety against the war-ready North Korea. I thought that without American troops ready to fight, North Korea could easily bomb South Korea and conquer it again.

1. Opinions on American soldiers.
2. Opportunity costs
3. North Korea a real threat?

The N word and it's problems, part 1: literature

This week in class, we analyzed The Problem We All Live With by Norman Rockwell. We also talked about the controversy surrounding the N word and how one teacher was fired for talking about its historical use (in other words, not as a racial slur). Because of the sensitive nature of the N word, Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn can only be taught in American Studies, despite the book's usage of the word being natural in historical context. We also talked about how a teacher was fired for saying the N word, once again only in historical context.
The N word will always be controversial. But shouldn't it be ok for books to use that word for historical accuracy? Huckleberry Finn used the N word 219 times. As a result, th

5-Hour Super Disappointment

I don't know how to introduce this. But I saw it on TV and got upset enough to write about it. This is my favorite blog post.

Last year, 5-Hour Energy decided to honor mothers by holding a Super Mom contest. In the contest, family members sent a photo and essay of their Super Mom explaining why she is so super. The Super Mom contest awarded hard-working, dedicated 'Super Moms' with free 5-Hour Energy drinks and featured their winning essays in a video you can watch here. A sentimental song about the singer honoring his mother plays in the background to match the respectful tone of the video.
As you can see, the moms in the video are definitely 'super'. Many of the moms raise multiple kids while still in school or working full-time. Some of the moms are single or very young. All of the people who submitted these moms (siblings, spouses, family friends, or children) love their mothers and are inspired by their hard work. No matter what hardships stand in their way, the Super Moms love and take good care of their families. For example, Macy Lucas (0:49-1:02) "just turned 23 and raises her 2-year old daughter completely on her own while maintaing a home, working two part time jobs, and going to nursing school full time." WOW! Mis. Lucas has to study, pay for housing expenses, and raise her daughter without any help. She's a very busy lady who "attributes part of her success to 5-Hour Energy" because it helps her "through shifts at the hospital, final exams, long hours and little sleep." A woman like that certainly deserves the title of Super Mom.
So when 5-Hour Energy debuted a 'Super Mom' commercial February 18th of this year, I was expecting these Super Moms to be featured. It would show 5-Hour Energy's usefulness in the real world without the fakeness of a paid actor. 5-Hour Energy could show the Super Mom's daily lives and have them talk about how the drink keeps them alert for their jobs and families. Why waste time and money coming up with a fake scenario and a fake mom?

In this commercial, our Super Mom cheerfully describes her day. Boy, did this Super Mom use her five hours well! She was "a dietitian, a housekeeper, a pediatrician, a housekeeper, a sanitation engineer, a housekeeper" and someone lacking the ability to finish her list with 'and'. This list may seem impressive, but Super Mom really just acts like a Generic Mom. As a dietitian, she makes a sandwich. As a pediatrician, she applies antibiotic cream and a band-aid to a scrape not even visible, despite claiming it to be a "third degree boo boo." As a sanitation engineer, she throws away a dirty tissue. But her most important job BY FAR is 'housekeeper', which is basically her picking up everything after her sloppy children. My mother (who is pretty super herself) remarked that this perfectly peppy and youthful woman seemed more like a '5-Hour Babysitter'.
The only 'super' thing about this mom is that she acts and looks supernaturally young. Despite having two children who look like they are 3 and 6, she looks no older than college. She has no wrinkles, no gray hairs, and no problem with constantly serving her children. This is NOT like the tough mothers in the contest who worked to support their family and TEACH their children good morals. She shows no signs of exhaustion from her work or energy from the drink because her only job is taking care of her children. She doesn't even drink her 5-Hour Energy until the end of the commercial after doing all of her petty chores. How super is this mom if she needs a boost after doing CHORES, when Mis. Lucas juggles a child, work, a house, and school?
'Super' Mom in the commercial and the Super Moms in the contest are totally different, despite both being displayed by 5-Hour Energy as the ideal mothers. 'Super' Mom is perky, impossibly youthful and shows no flaws as she completes small housework. The Super Moms deal with big jobs, personal loss, education, and look like normal human beings. If 5-Hour Energy celebrated real Super Moms last year, why can't they include a realistic Super Mom in their advertisements?

A picture is NOT worth a thousand words. It's worth six hundred.

Fun fact: I lived in America despite not being a citizen for over year. Although I was adopted in 1996, I didn't become a US citizen until 1998. But don't worry. I wasn't an illegal alien in 1997. I was just as American as a birthright citizen. If anything, I was --and still am-- even more American. This picture is an important artifact to American history because it represents a unique version of the American narrative. 

In the picture, I'm holding an American flag that I was given to by the judge who signed the paperwork that made me American. To me, this flag represents the beginning of my American Dream. The American Dream is a narrative arc is very much like the Cinderella arc created by Kurt Vonnegut. My Cinderella arc had already begun when I waited to be adopted by my American parents in my Chinese orphanage. My Fairy Godmother was my adoption. My US Citizenship is my ball gown. And the flag I'm holding are my glass slippers. To me, this picture is like when the Fairy Godmother gave Cinderella her ball gown. My parents and the US government gave me a chance to live in America and enjoy its opportunities. Look at that Chinese baby waving an American flag. One would expect an American baby. But I'm no longer a Chinese orphan. I'm an American citizen and I have far more civil liberties than I would've had as a Chinese citizen.

The American Dream is a Cinderella arc that continues onto the next generations. My parents came from lower income families and worked their way up, just like Walt and Billie McCandless in Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild. Both of my parents came from lower income families and raised themselves up like Walt and Billie McCandless, who "had both known poverty when they were young and after struggling to rise above it saw nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of their labor" and wanted their children to inherit their success. When my parents adopted me, they wanted me to be able to enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle than they did. Most importantly, however, they still want me to surpass their achievements. They want our family to continue its successful streak. Walt and Billie wanted the same and thought that giving McCandless a financially successful lifestyle and higher education would make him want the same goals as they did. My parents think this way, too. By adopting me, they gave me a chance at continuing their American Dream.

When I think about it, that Chinese kid in the picture could have been holding a Chinese flag in a Chinese house. She's in America now, get over it! It's a bigger deal than you would think. I consider the fact that I'm in America to be kind of ironic. America's democracy is supposed to protect our civil liberties more than China's dictatorship. China bans parents from having more than one child to keep its population stable. But this denies Chinese people a right to a larger family. Chances are that I was the illegal second child. It's arguable that the only reason I became an orphan and was subsequently put up for adoption was the restriction of civil rights in China through the One Child Policy. But my civil liberties are still in danger in America. I can be ejected from America under the Sedition Act, which has the right to deport individuals who "write, utter, or publish" words against the government that it deems "malicious, scandalous, and false." I myself consider it very funny that I came to America because of a violation of civil rights, while Americans could be ejected from America because of a different violation!

Regardless of civil liberties in China or America, I'm thankful to be here. I love my family and I want to make them proud. I'm proud to be American and I will continue living my parent's American Dream. This picture is the beginning of it.

Just in Case the Gadget Doesn't Work

Here's my favorite post again!

Putin's 'Protection' of Russian Orphans

On December 28th, Russian President Putin banned the adoption of Russian orphans by Americans. This new ban has been named the Dmitry Yakovlev Law. With over 700,000 orphans living in Russia, one would think that foreign adoption would be an excellent idea for both America and Russia. In fact, over 70,000 Russian orphans have been adopted by Americans.Russia's orphans are horribly neglected and mishandled by caretakers in their orphanages, and without parents their futures are bleak. So why not allow American parents to adopt these children and give them a better life? Russia's excuse is that American parents abuse, manipulate, and even kill their adopted children. While there have been freak cases of mistreatment to Russian orphans, these cases are not the norm. The real reason Russia's government made this ban was to combat American foreign policy. It has no legitimate concern for Russia's orphans and is wrong.

Dmitry Yakovlev was a Russian adoptee who had been accidentally killed by his father when he was left in a car for nine hours. Miles Harrison, Dmitry's father, had forgotten to drop his child off at day care, leaving him in a parking lot while he was at work. Harrison was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter for his hideous mistake, but the Russian court of opinion was much harsher. Public outrage started in 2005 "by the deaths of two Russian-born children after severe abuse at the hands of adoptive parents," both of which were convicted, as well as another case in which "a Pennsylvania man was convicted of sexually abusing a girl he had adopted from Russia" exploded following Dmitry's death in 2009, with some Russians wanting to cease American adoption already.

But why not ban adoption in 2009? The Dmitry Yakovlev Law is more like Russia's retaliation to America's Magnitsky Act, a bill that bars Russians allegedly involved in the detainment and murder of a lawyer. Putin's reaction to the bill was so severe that he severely bashed America's own justice system, pointing out the flaws of Guantanamo Bay (regardless of Russia's own flawed prisons) and describing the change in US-Russia relations as "at stake." Magnitsky was a lawyer who believed he uncovered "a web of corruption involving tax officials" who was imprisoned and abused for almost a year, dying in 2009. Both Magnitsky and Yakovlev died in 2009, with bills named after them being passed in 2012. Both bills restrict foreign access to the country. However, the Magnitsky Act was passed first. The Dmitry Yakovlev Law was created after Putin's sour response to the Magnitsky Act and seems impulsive. It is a rash law that will only hurt Russia, as its orphans will stay, albeit mistreated and unhappy. Russian adoptions by American parents was a mutual relationship between the two nations and it's a shame that Russia will take it away to display disgust about a different issue.

What do you think? Please comment!

Do CGI Guns Lead to Real Guns?

Violent video games have always been accused of 'desensitizing' players to violence and causing an increase in aggression for those who play them according to several studies. It is because of these studies that mass murders such as the Sandy Hook shooting are blamed on violent video games. This accusation is too severe, as video games can increase aggression but don't necessarily cause violent crime. One example of such a study was done in France in March. This study showed that individuals who play violent video games for three days and are then subjected to computer game and asked to finish a story are more violent and hostile as opposed to individuals who play non-violent video games. The computer game allowed players to punish fake opponents with a variety of loud noises, controlling their volume and duration. The violent video game players were deemed more aggressive than the non-violent video game players because "after reading the beginning of the stories, they were more likely to think that the characters would react with aggression or violence... also gave their opponents louder and louder headphone blasts after each day of game play," indicating an increase in hostile behavior or expectations due to exposure to violent video games.
This study is reasonable, the games were either extremely violent or dangerous but not graphic and there was a clear difference between the violent gamers and the peaceful games, as well as a notable increase in the violent gamers' hostility. So video games causing an increase in aggression is a logical theory.
However, this does not mean that video games cause mass murder. Call of Duty 4, the same video game included in the aforementioned study has sold an impressive 10 million units and counting, but there aren't 10 million mass murderers due to Call of Duty 4. Dr. Laura Davies, a child and adolescent psychiatrist believes that violent video games are a danger to the moral codes of children, but she still agrees that there are children who are "unable to so easily differentiate between fantasy and the real world. They might not fully understand that the people they harm have real lives and real families" and have their intensity magnified by violence in video games. While most children mature and are able to differentiate fantasy and reality when they are old enough to carry out such crimes, some individuals may never mature. And for these people, violent video games are dangerous and may contribute to an act of violence. But could violent video games be the sole cause for a mass murder? I don't think so.
What do YOU think, nonexistent reader? Do you agree with this post or do you think I'm lazy and should've made more blog posts over the quarter and genuinely tried to make them better?

Racist vs. Outdated vs. Confused

December was a pretty fun month. I made friends and got to see my family for the holidays. But my friends and family said some things that I must address. In class, we've discussed racism before and tried to express ourselves in a way that is as inoffensive as possible. But after talking with friends and family last month, I have come to the conclusion that you cannot avoid saying something offensive forever. However, this doesn't make you racist or a terrible person depending on how you say it.
From my experience, an offensive statement can be put into three broad categories: confused, outdated, or racist.
Confused statements are made purely out of a lack of information and don't tend to severely offend anyone. Last month, I was talking with some classmates and brought up the fact that I was adopted. One of my classmates was shocked and asked, "You're adopted? Why didn't you tell me?" I simply don't feel like reminding everyone that I was adopted. End of story. The boy's statement isn't discriminatory against adopted people. He was just surprised that I was adopted. One would have to be extremely sensitive to get upset at this.
Old people are an excellent source for outdated statements. When I play piano for my grandmother, she often requests an 'Oriental song' because she likes traditional Chinese music. Here's where things get dangerous. New York banned the use of the word 'oriental' in 2009 in state documents. Oriental is a term used to describe countries of Asia, especially the far East and was a term my grandmother has always used. It doesn't have a negative connotation like other racial terms, and my grandmother never intended to use 'oriental' to racially demean anyone. She grew up very close to Chinatown and often went there for lunch after work with her friends. And because 'oriental' has never been used as a way to look down upon a different culture, this term is more outdated than racist, although it can take a negative meaning.
My grandmother can be racist, though. Despite being Polish herself, she's referred to fellow Polish people as 'DPs'. I can only assume this is an abbreviation of the term 'dumb Polack', a very offensive, degrading term for Polish people. This is clearly a racist statement. As a Polish American who lived in a Polish-American community for most of her life, my grandmother is aware that 'polack' is a racial slur against her own race. My mother (third generation Polish American) has pointed this out to her several times. My grandmother is aware that this is an offensive term and continues to use it with the intent to offend someone. And that's downright racist.

But does that mean that you're only racist if you mean to be? Miley Cyrus offended many sensibilities with a 'funny face' picture that resembled a common Asian pose but repeatedly denied trying to offend anyone. Her defense was that she "was simply making a goofy face. When did that become newsworthy? It seems someone is trying to make something out of nothing to me," but really, Miley? Squinty eyes and a peace sign and you try to brush it off as a 'goofy face'? My jimmies have been rustled. 

What does everyone (no one) think about this? What counts as racist? And if you can define racism, what should be done?