Tim Wise Up America!

Hey Friends,

Tim Wise is leading anti-racist activist in the US from Nashville and this is what he has to say about the election and white privilege (see text below).  He’s written a very interesting article concerning the election and white privilege in the US.  I believe it is worthwhile to ask oneself what it means to be ‘white’ and what it means to call oneself white versus calling oneself African American, etc.  Also, despite which candidate you support, hopefully you can join me in acknowledging why there has never been a successful ‘non-white’ presidential candidate from any party up to this point.  Perhaps we can look at this argument outside of party lines despite the obvious support for Obama by Wise.

I truly don’t see Wise’s piece or philosophy as calling all ‘white’ people racists, nor that all ‘white’ people overtly desire to be superior nor that such arguments are tied to any specific political party.  If you support McCain or if you simply do not support Obama, you are IN NO WAY automatically a racist by definition. Tim Wise is describing something that may not be a widely vocalized or defined phenomenon in people’s mind.  People are not bad or evil for unconsciously being a certain way, but there is a need to change so society can change for the better.   Tim Wise has something to say about some perceived inequalities in the current race for the white house.  I don’t believe this is political spin.  In stead, I believe this is an informed analysis of some of the Republican spin against Obama that has had effect simply because of Obama is at least half African American.  Also, some might argue that because of Obama’s appearance, some ‘white’ Americans see him as ‘the other’, ‘an outsider’, an African American that cannot be as trust worthy as a ‘white’ American.  If you just don’t like Obama for emotional reasons instead of policy reasons, or you just don’t think you could bring yourself to vote for him, but aren’t sure why, then please read Wise’s article and ask yourself if maybe it’s because of the ‘white privileged’ way.

More of my comments can be found below the article…

A couple of biographical links on Wise:

• http://www.speakersandartists.org/userdata_display.php?modin=50&uid=156
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wise

THE ARTICLE:

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise

First posted on ZMag 9/16/2008

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you’ll “kick their fuckin’ ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend five different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office–since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s–while if you’re black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school, requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn’t fit to safeguard American institutions.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you’re black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do–like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor–and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives close to Russia–you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because suddenly your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose “next door neighbor” qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you’re a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you’re irresponsibly exploiting them.

White privilege is being able to give a 36 minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and then Harvard Business school, and yet, still be seen as just an average guy (George W. Bush) while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then to Harvard Law, makes you “uppity,” and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.) and that’s OK, and you’re cut out to be president, but if you’re black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can’t be trusted to make good decisions in office.

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she’s disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you’re black and married for nearly twenty years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called “terrorist fist bumps.”

White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you ever sold drugs.

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you “dangerously naive and immature.”

White privilege is being able to say that you hate “gooks” and “will always hate them,” and yet, you aren’t a racist because, ya know, you were a POW so you’re entitled to your hatred, while being black and insisting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the “lesser adversities” faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because a lot of white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Tim Wise writes for Soft Skull Press

First posted on ZMag

My comments:
I think we can all agree that the huge majority of Americans are not intent on racist domination nor do we consciously see any race as any better than the other.  I think most people see no problem nor racism with referring to people or themselves as white and I would argue that this assumption is an innocent one.  Nor is this argument limited to any one party, although it’s clear that Wise has framed the debate by supporting a certain political candidate criticizing movements and statements of another presidential candidate, his VP, and their supporters.  But let’s be clear that Time Wise does not say that being a Republican nor supporting Republicans means one is a racist nor hellbent on securing white privilege.   There are simply some obvious, recent election events and statements that Wise believes are the examples and products of white privilege.

Knowing the origin of ‘whiteness’ can help one understand this debate.  The term ‘white’ was first coined to promote racial hierarchy setting lighter skinned people above darker skinned people during the days of the slave trade and European colonization of the world.  The term is currently widely used without any thought at all of the racist origins of the whiteness.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites

I believe Wise is suggesting, white privilege or calling oneself white is not the same thing as open, overt racism.  However, in many ways, it has the similar effects on society, albeit unintentional on most ‘white’ people’s part.

It’s very easy to join the ranks of those that believe that life is an even playing field absent of inequality of privilege and racism thanks to the Civil Rights Movement.  This just is not true.  I don’t think we should go crazy over the issue and point fingers nor make one another feel guilty as guilt is often used as an excuse to not take a positive, active stance on an issue or problem.   For that reason, please avoid feeling bad or guilty nor shamed if you can see any truth with this point of view.  In stead, I believe that one should contemplate the meaning of calling oneself white and what claiming that privilege means for society and attempt to dismantle said ill effects.  Thus, one takes an active stance on ending such a paradigm.  For a point of reference, many similar things can be said for hegemony with male privilege, heterosexual privilege, national, and 1st world privilege, all different issues with differing contexts, but with similar philosophies for solutions.

Ultimately, most of us lighter-skinned, 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation, European-descended Americans are simply just that: European American or lighter skinned Americans that happen to fit into the privileged group of ‘white’ Americans.  Should I go so far as to say, we are all simply people as different as we may appear to be?   Only when we give up that ‘white privilege’, can we begin to understand how to dismantle white privilege (conscious or unconscious/institutionalized) in the US and the world and work towards peaceful understanding of the issue of discrimination due to the existence of white privilege.

“Why not be proud of our ‘white’ identity?” one might ask.  “Other groups of people are proud of theirs.”  Well, for example, to claim being African American means identifying with the African American culture and traditions that were developed as a result of oppression and discriminatory exclusion from privileged ‘white’ society.  The same can be said for Asian Americans, Native Americans, Latino Americans, etc.  So, in the face of acknowledging a white dominated society and acknowledging what white privilege has meant throughout history, then we simply cannot blindly and ‘innocently’ claim being white as just and acceptable nomenclature and identification.  In other words, the act of claiming whiteness is, by nature of the historical and present state of society, illogical and unjust compared to identifying as African American or Latino, etc.

Also, I’d like to point out that I don’t believe I am intellectually, politically or morally superior by posting Tim Wise’s words or posting my comments.  I do not believe that I am free from the trappings of claiming white privilege.  I am quite certain in fact that I still do and say many things that certainly uphold the system as it is.  I agree that white privilege is a problem, mostly an unconscious one, in America and myself.  I simply suggest we set out on a path to try and let go of our perceived (or unperceived) comfort zones.  That simply means analyzing how what we say and do can effect the collective psyche and prosperity of a group of people that would otherwise be left out of the privileged group.

In other words, we let go of being proud and comfortable to be white and in stead be proud and comfortable with ourselves as human beings that just happen to be of European decent, while having many other things to be proud of besides belonging to a historically discriminatory way of classifying European-descended people.  We should begin recognizing that ‘white’ discomfort with certain people and groups of people are based on discriminatory stereotypes and that such discomfort is completely and unjustly accepted among ‘white’ circles.  Stop accepting the the gap and discomfort between ‘whites’ and different groups of people such as African Americans or Latinos.  If we give up our ‘whiteness’, then that gap disappears and suddenly other, equally historically American, yet ‘non-white’, ways of being and skin colors become equal to what was the ‘white’ way of being.  When you no longer see ourselves as the ‘other’, the ‘white person’, and begin seeing ourselves as simply a person, an American, a world citizen, then we may feel less reluctant to accept, socialize with, befriend, do business with, or elect others that perhaps are not very different from European Americans after all.  Tim Wise knows this, advocates for this, and has much more to say on the issue than I do.  Try reading/hearing/seeing more by Tim Wise.

I suggest that we can accept that there are many ways of being a world citizen and a citizen of our respective nations such the USA, and let go of the importance of being white.  It’s simple and necessary for a greater, more equal and just United States of America and world.

How Media Effects our Lives

Essay Explications of Debord and Benjamin

Do we have a full understanding of how the media affects us in our daily lives? Basically, there are many levels to such an understanding several of which are touched upon by two authors: Guy Debord and Walter Benjamin, two media critics that made several in depth criticisms of modern media in our lives. Walter Benjamin lived in Germany and escaped to Los Angeles at the onset of World War II. He wrote his essay, “The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” after moving to California and witnessing the intense commercialism and cultural blandness of the media in Hollywood. Therefore, fascism and Hollywood greatly influence his opinion of the media of the day. Guy Debord’s book Society of the Spectacle focuses on the role of the “spectacle” presented by the media in the lives of the French in the 1960’s. Both authors give an interesting perspective a subject that has changed and evolved over the last century yet still the two critics’ words remain very pertinent in the modern United States’ media inundated society.

The technology of media in Germany and the US in the middle of the last century had advanced greatly and changed how many people interacted with art. Walter Benjamin’s critique, “The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction, “ elaborates this concept very successfully yet falls slightly short when applied to today’s media world. The essay explores the rise of media from the “Middle Ages [where] engraving and etching” was popular art/media, which eventually gave way to lithography (Benjamin49). With the arrival of film and photography art was forever changed. When an object/subject is subjected to the lens and captured on film the subject loses its authenticity when reproduced using that negative. “[W]hen the historical testimony is affected” the authenticity of that which has been removed is jeopardized (Benjamin 51). In other words, the art loses the relationship it had with the spectator, changing the prior authentic emanating presence of the artwork such as a cathedral into a picture on the wall of a studio, two completely distinct locations (Benjamin 50). Not only is the space filled by the art contextually minimized, but the sensations of touching the wall, sitting in the pew, or watching the light change through stained-glass windows are all but diminished into a subjective photograph. The same applies to any reproduction taking the original work of art unauthenticated through film. Possibly, the widespread distribution of art increases awareness of the piece and the proliferation of art in society, which, arguably benefits all competent enough to perceivable appreciate the art in the sense that more now have access to art.

One could say that Benjamin’s experiences with Hollywood’s beautiful star actors/actresses, lead him to criticize the “cult of beauty” present in media (Benjamin 52). Today the “cult of beauty” dominates the popular media coming out of Hollywood evident in the repetitive use of popular icons such as Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts in movies. The society of the United States practically worships beauty in the media, which applies to the land when real estate values are highest in “beautiful” places and only “beautiful land is deemed worthy of protection such as Yellow Stone versus the Mesquite-scrubland of Southeast Texas. Yellow Stone National Park remains protected while the “unaesthetic land” of southeast Texas continues to be degraded. The underlying reason behind both the dominance of the “star” in the movie industry and the “beautiful” land in federal efforts in environmental protection is the inundation of the media with these “spectacles,” a concept discussed by Debord and explored later in this essay. The reproduction of art and the loss of authenticity in art lead to a shift in art’s function as ritual to art as political (Benjamin 53). With the possibility of influencing the masses comes the phenomenon of propaganda, which has existed for thousands of years and is evident in ancient civilizations such as Egypt, where recorded history directly boosted the Pharaoh’s standing in society. Propaganda took on new heights after World War II and on into the Cold War. Throughout the existence of Communist Russia we see rampant propaganda in photography and film, idolizing the leaders of the Communist Party. Sergey Eizenstien’s film Battleship Potemkin exemplified communist takeover by the Bolsheviks partly because Eizenstein had no other market to cater towards and partly because he knew little else. However, the styles of art could either cater to the ideals of the government or be abstract enough to not warrant ill attention from the authorities. The same generally applies to the United States in a more masked and diluted fashion, except during the obvious targeting of art in the McCarthyism of the 50’s when Hollywood was singled out as a scapegoat for anti-communistic sentiment. One cannot ignore the current Anti-Terrorism that dominates government propaganda today. Similar to McCarthyism, Anti-Terrorist sentiment is quick to point fingers with intent of ensuring an ideal upheld by the government.

Pointing out that the films of the 60’s in Hollywood were falling short of their full potential, Benjamin touches on the a current issue that many films in the popular media today follow a common three act formula of beginning middle and end. The films fail to explore their full potential within the medium aiming to mimic real life such as in A Midsummer Night’s Dream where Franz Werfel is quoted saying the film hadn’t reached its “true meaning” or “its real possibilities” in expressing all that is fairylike, marvelous, supernatural” and was merely a realistic representation of life (Benjamin 55).
The analogy of a comparing the painter to filmmaker vs. comparing a “magician” to a surgeon, details an effective point. That the cameraman penetrates deeply into reality capturing a specific aspect just as a surgeon cuts into the patient directly, while the painter demonstrates a more removed representation of reality just as the “magician” heals through passing his/her hands over the patient. Therefore, the cameraman can express a succinct point realistically and is more “significant” than a painting to the average viewer (Benjamin 59). Considering how widespread film’s domain and distribution has become, demonstrating such high significance gives film ultimate power as art. This ultimate influence explains film’s use as propaganda or as a scientific record.

Benjamin ends his discussion with mention of Fascism “aestheticizing” politics and making a spectacle of War. War, according to Benjamin, mobilizes all of the modern technologies together and is the only phenomenon capable of doing so. By mobilizing and aestheticizing government, Fascism provided the masses with an expression of themselves through a “Furher cult”(Benjamin 63). Because of the capacity of humanity to utilize technology in such a destructive way, the world is not yet ready for the technology (Benjamin64). Benjamin most likely included film in his opinion of technology and the ills that may become of misuse of technology.

In The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord, we are introduced through a series of points to the concept that our society is centered around “the spectacle” or

[t]he whole life of those societies in which modern conditions of production prevail presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. All that once was directly lived has become mere representations (Debord 12).

In his points, 1-18, and 42, Debord expresses in his own words how he thinks the system dominated by an economically inspired series of spectacles that has its grip on society. Much of Debord’s words apply to the United States, but one’s understanding of this book depends on the interpretation that person holds. Therefore, Debord’s language is very general and could apply to many aspects of society. For instance, the spectacle “is a social relationship that is mediated by images” could mean a number of things depending on what we consider to be a social relationship and what we consider “images” to entail (Debord 12). However, the strongest interpretation could be that our entire relations to other people has become dominated and predetermined by images we have already seen on television, in magazines or in films. When two people interact in the US, their interactions are influenced on by how those two people perceive the world and the media mediates this perception. They have already been told how they should go about meeting one another by the media. For example, Susie sees on a TV show that when a boy asks you out to the movies, you shouldn’t say yes right away because you don’t want to seem desperate. When Joe asks Susie to the movies, he will be prepared for her to say no, because he has seen the same show on TV. Also Susie and Joe will be expecting one another to say or do certain things throughout the interaction because of things they have seen in TV shows or movies, or read in magazines. In this way their relation is mediated by the “images” from the media or spectacles.

Such a situation is definitely true of the United States where every home has a TV and Internet with access to huge amounts of “information.” Children grow up learning about life through these two mediums. If viewed, pornography and sex scenes influence a young persons view of sex until they actually perform the act. Even then, what they have seen through the media is how the sexual encounter is measured.

For Debord, “the spectacle epitomizes the prevailing model of social life”, which will be presented by whoever owns the means of producing the spectacle. People’s view of love, death, and war become what they have seen in the media. None of these things are actually experienced with what Benjamin coined as “authenticity.” The spectacle is removed from its original location by a camera that is pointed subjectively and then edited subjectively only to be shown and viewed subjectively. Nothing about the spectacle is objective and the aura that any original part of reality is removed when it is captured on film or digitalized. The “production process” represents the only real choice made regarding the spectacle which “governs almost all time spent outside the…process” (Debord 13).

“In any world that really has been turned on its head, truth is a moment of falsehood.” (Debord 14) In a society where the spectacle or contrived has become reality, anything held to be truth is in fact contrived. US society may not seem to outwardly express this concept. However, the media and the spectacle are so far ingrained in our society that we are unable to separate ourselves from the spectacle. Because of this notion, Debord sees the spectacle as a “visible negation of life” (Debord 14).

A following point is that “modern industrial society…is based on the spectacle in the most fundamental way” (Debord 15). Specifically, the spectacle holds so much sway because the ruling economic class is portrayed perfectly by the spectacle (Debord 15). One could say that the ruling ideology, image, and policies are enforced by the spectacle. News programs on prime time TV in the US today represent the war in Iraq as good and necessary in order to portray war’s supporters as supporting the right cause. Supporters of the war control news and this fits into what Debord was saying almost 40 years ago in France.

In the end both Benjamin and Debord leave us with very interesting and new perspectives on the popular media of the day. Both authors do so through the spyglass they have trained on their own time around the middle of the last century, not too long after World War II along with the rise of Television as a modern commodity. The criticisms brought to light by both of these men are still applicable today showing us that the media has much sway over our society in the United States and we should be careful in our mindless intake of what we see.

Works cited:
Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books, 1995.
Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Media and Cultural Studies: Key Works. Ed. Meenakshi Gigi Durham. MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2001. 48-70.

The Evolution of the Western Genre: A Study of Four Films

The Western has captivated audience since the advent of narrative film in the Unites States following the introduction of The Great Train Robbery, one of the earlier narrative films in the world, into the US.   The Genre was popular for at least half a century, but has since nearly disappeared.  Despite the relative absence of Western films in recent years, many media savvy people could confidently list the elements of a Classical Western film noting the most central myth of a hero, a wandering cowboy, who saves the day from either horribly stereotyped Native Americans or an evil murderous man or group of men.  The plot archetype is adhered to by most, if not all Westerns, following or varied from 1930 up to 1955.   Since 1955, one could argue that Western has all but disappeared as a genre morphing into several forms before leaving the screen roughly altogether.  Some of those later forms are Spaghetti Westerns such as The Good the Bad and the Ugly (Leone, 1966), Revisionist films like Dances with Wolves (Costner, 1990), and the later films engendered by Western characteristics such as Star Wars: Episode IV (Lucas, 1977) and Kill Bill Volume I (Tarantino, 2003).  By analyzing the Western-like aesthetics of these films in sequential order of the films release date, one can characteristically trace the evolution of the Classical Western genre, through the Spaghetti Western and the Revisionist Western only to be absorbed into and combined with other genres in the most recent films containing Western iconography, aesthetics and myth.

To begin with, one can most definitely see the split from the Classical plot archetype and cinematography with Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in 1966.  This film portrays three men fervently searching for a treasure and none of them fit with the traditional Hollywood type hero found in many of the classical Hollywood films, such as Shane (Stevens, 1953) or Dodge City (Curtis, 1939) where the new stranger saves the town from corrupt self-serving men.   Leone’s characters are all completely self-serving with the slight exception of Joe (the Good) who gives his coat and cigar to the dying soldier and then eventually spares Tuco (the Ugly) his life near the end of the film.

The choice of portraying these unconventional characters also strays from the classical Hollywood style standard with Westerns.  The more realistic and grueling costuming, make-up and action of the film breaks from the glamour and clean cut production design of traditional Hollywood films.  For example, the setting is obviously outside of a studio and on location in the deserts of Spain, which is meant to be the southwest United States.   This technique is not uncommon in Westerns, however, the lack of studio sets lends to the films more “realistic,” less glamorous look.  The realistic, “outdoor” lighting adds to the low budget, natural look of the film.  One can assume that not much strong lighting is used on the outdoor shots as the sun functions as the main source of lighting.  Thus, the sunlight is used dramatically as high key lighting casting shadows on Joe’s eyes by way of his hat to intensify the seriousness of Joe’s attitude.  An example of this is the scene in the prison camp is where Tuco is being beaten and the Confederate band is performing on command.  The shadow over Joe’s eyes emphasizes his dark mood of his experience.  For the inside shots, the lightings seems to be fairly high-key and there is not much use of back lights and the lighting is not very dramatic. This use of lighting does not fall too far out of line with traditional Westerns.

Leone’s choice to make all color reflective could potentially be attribute to the low-budget style of the film as it is a Spaghetti Western, although the film was one of the most expensive Spaghetti Westerns of the time.

In terms of other aesthetics, the make-up of Joe (the Good), after he has been traveling through the desert, portrays him as sunburned with bubbling skin and graphic burns.  Many other times, scars and wounds are kept on characters in a very realistic way.  Such gruesome realism is not typical of the earlier Hollywood films that utilized heavy make-up studio lighting and polished costumes, where the hero usually fits a picture perfect archetype.  Additionally, the costumes of the three main characters of Leone’s film are all weathered and tarnished proving to be quite the opposite of the traditional Hollywood, clean and new clothing.

The cinematography complies to an extent with the traditional shots in Westerns, but breaks away with other shots establishing the films own style.  For instance, there are many wide angle pans and landscape shots that establish that the film takes place in a wide open space, a shot that most would agree is a standard Western shot.  However, the use of close-ups on hands and faces, especially eyes give Leone’s film a unique perspective as compared to older films that don’t have the characteristic contrast between panoramic encompassing shots and extreme close-ups.  Another aspect that sets, this film apart from films made before the era of Spaghetti Westerns, is the swift panning following the character Tuco (the Ugly) as he runs through the graveyard.  This final scene incorporates the distinctive approach of the film with all the aforementioned aspects such as wide shots and extreme close-ups, especially on hands and eyes.  Quentin Tarantino along with other filmmakers emulates this style in the future as will be investigated later in this discussion.  Overall, one can see that this Western utilizes a unique style that challenges audiences accustomed to typical John Wayne type films.  By “John Wayne” type films, I am referring to the classical Hollywood style of static camera movement; clean-cut highly fabricated productions design, and clearly defined morality of characters.

Once the conventions were successfully challenged, it seems that Westerns began to challenge and even reverse conventions in Western Genre filmmaking especially in plot.  This Revisionist approach is especially evident in Dances with Wolves in 1990 where the Native Americans are idealized and the US military are villainized.  The main character Lieutenant Dunbar is a “wandering stranger,” a relocated Civil War lieutenant, who comes to “town,” the Sioux village, and ends up “saving” them from the “evil villains,” the US military.  As, one can see this reversal of roles portrays the frontier much more accurately than traditional Westerns and is revisionist in this approach.

In terms of accuracy of portrayal, the costuming and make-up seem to be carefully crafted to be accurate of the times.  As is unavoidable in most mainstream films, one cannot be exactly accurate of the past, especially in period pieces while trying to cater to a large audience conditioned to seeing very stylized and fabricated images.  Thus, the high production value is definitely evident in the detailed costuming and make-up.  However, compared to the Classical Westerns, Costner’s attention to the accuracy of costuming, especially involving Native Americans, supports the Revisionist characterizing of this film.

Conforming to the Hollywood of the early nineties, Costner chooses to film with a much more traditional style of filming.  The film medium is standard slow film that has very small grain and high definition.  The camera movements are slow and deliberate with lots of pans and not too many jump cuts.  Overall, the means of production are concealed or transparent categorizing the film as reasonably mainstream in technique.  The pans and wide shots definitely revisit the Classical methods of earlier Westerns before the style innovations of directors like Leone.  Dances with Wolves utilizes contemporary technology and techniques, lending the film credibility in terms of the mainstream Hollywood expectations in the early nineties, which were to have very transparent means of production and stories that fulfill the status quo of happy endings and clear villains and heroes.

Therefore, with the combination of the traditional myth (although with reversed roles for archetypal characters) and traditional filmic aspects, Dances with Wolves serves as one of the last moderately “traditional” Westerns of the century before the genre begins basically ebb altogether.

Two, of many, films have been released, Kill Bill Volume I by Quentin Tarantino and Star Wars: Episode IV by George Lucas embodying the most current fate of the Western genre as having been absorbed into and combined with other genres.  Aesthetically, Tarantino’s film portrays much more of the later plot elements and aesthetics that categorize The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly than does Star Wars: Episode IV.  Meanwhile, both films mix genres and play around with traditional myth and roles of characters.

A very popular film, Star Wars: Episode IV directed by George Lucas, is most notably a science fiction film borrows from both the Action: martial arts/samurai genre and the Western genre.

First of all, the plot consists of an epic journey and Western-like shootouts just as many Westerns have, including The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.  Along the same lines as Leone’s film, Lucas creates a movie with heroes who own favorite weapons and build them themselves; just as Tuco builds his own pistol in Leone’s film, the Jedi build their own light saber in Lucas’s film.  The traditional Western “town” becomes the galaxy, which is threatened by the traditional gang of evil men, the Empire.  One can easily argue that plot elements are inspired by previous Western stories.

Additionally, there is Western flare in the cinematography of the beginning of the movie as well as all of the fight scenes.  The beginning of the film is on the planet Tatooine, a desert planet, which is actually a desert in Tunisia, providing for beautiful panoramic and panning landscape shots.   These wide-open shots of the dry, open desert would easily fit in many Westerns that have similar shots in similar landscapes.  There are many close up shots on people who are looking out over wide-open spaces, whether that be the literal Space or the deserts of Tatooine.  The Jedi fights scenes follow Western-like format, where the close-up of guns in or near hands are analogous to hands using the “force” to attract objects or throw objects that also are revealed through close-ups.  Such series of shots are very similar to the itchy trigger finger of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

The color scheme of the scenes shot in Tunisia is that of muddled earth tones.  All the costumes, buildings and key props do not stand out from this scheme with the exception of C-3PO and the light saber.  Similarly, I would suggest that Leone’s film does not stray much from this scheme either representing further parallel between the two films.  The costumes of Chewbacca and Hans Solo resemble that of the classic gunslingers of Western films.  Hans Solo wears a gun in a holster around his waste while Chewbacca wears a type of gun/ammo strap over his shoulder.  Thus, Lucas could have drawn from Western genre influence in creating the color scheme and costuming of Tatooine scenes.

The bar setting resembles the saloon of the old Western movies, where the shady characters accumulate, get drunk and cause trouble.  Sure enough, in the bar there is an iconic fight and someone gets an arm chopped off by a light saber to spice the old archetype with science fiction.  The elaborate outlandish drinks and creatures at the bar further remove the scene from its Western roots, but not by much.  The rough, outlandish look is a typical aesthetic for people in Western saloons and perhaps this is the morphing of the Western as it is absorb by the Science Fiction Genre beginning in 1977 only to be revisited by Quentin Tarantino.

Tarantino’s deliberate mixing of the Action: martial arts/samurai genre, Anime and the Western genre create a very aesthetically diverse film.  Arguably, the Western Genre already borrowed aesthetics and myth from the Samurai filmic tradition as is evident with the film, The Magnificent Seven, a Western remake of The Seven Samurai, a Japanese film.  Therefore, Tarantino is merely reversing the methods of his predecessors, John Sturges, maker of the Magnificent Seven and George Lucas (much of Lucas’s Jedi culture was borrowed from the samurai film tradition)  by crossing the cultural divide borrowing from the martial arts traditions.  Tarantino does this by literally involving Samurai swords as the weapon of choice instead of guns and setting a significant portion of the film in Japan.

The production design makes use of both Martial arts/samurai aspects and the contemporary Western Genre as the film occurs in both West Texas and Japan.  The scenes in Texas are reminiscent of the more classical Western aesthetic found in earlier films.  There are panoramic shots when establishing the location, iconic cowboy hats, and the two detectives are related as father and son.  The relation between the father and son, suggest a small town, which has been affected by the massacre that took place in the church.  Therefore, the original plot archetype has been transformed from stranger becoming small town hero to stranger becoming small town victim, because the Bride (Uma Thurman) is obviously the main character and is nearly murdered by her attackers, the evil “bandits” that one could find in early Westerns.  She goes on to exact her revenge on several of her attackers, more or less cleaning up the problem that occurred the small town.  Although the comparison is not strong, the plot elements are there if one considers Japan and the US to be the town that Uma Thurman is cleaning up by killing her enemies.

The use of extreme close-ups on hands, eyes and weapons suggest Spaghetti Western influence on the film.  Throughout the fight scenes tension is built by jumping from close-ups of eyes, faces, hands and weapons, especially of the swords in front of the faces.  One could easily assume that Tarantino is drawing from the intense scene at the end of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly when creating the fight scene at the Japanese restaurant.  Lucy Liu and Uma Thurman staring one another down with drawn swords bears striking resemblance to the close up shots of Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef with steely stares and hands itching to pull the trigger.  Another aspect of the fight scene is the stoic nature of the setting when Uma and Lucy move outside into the snow.  There is a small water fountain that rhythmically bounces up and down creating a large amount of tension by contrasting the tense action with a peaceful ambiance.  The same would be true of Leone’s film when Eastwood, Wallach, and Van Cleef are all about to face off and they are surrounded by blue sky and natural splendor (minus the eeriness of a cemetery), all very peaceful and in contrast to the tense moment in the story.

One can compare the parallel scores of Tarantino and Leone’s films.  Kill Bill Volume I includes some of the same intensity and sharpness in the score as in Leone’s film.  The whistling motif in Tarantino’s film is similar to the twang motif in the Western.  Both represent renewed conflict in the story, with each time we hear the whistling song in Kill Bill Vol. I, Uma is about to engage in combat or enter a dangerous situation.  With similar meaning, each time we hear the signature scoring for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly the main characters are facing off or getting ready to do so.

The color of the two films is similar at one point suggesting even more connection.  In the opening credits of Leone’s film, there are very colorful and very abstract images of cowboys on horses etc.  The same colors come up with Tarantino’s film both transmissively and reflectively.  For instance, every time Uma sees an old enemy, a very red, superimposed image of her past flashes on the screen transmissively.  Also, Uma wears very bright colors throughout the film, especially during the fight scene with Lucy Liu, which really captures the abstract aesthetic of the opening credits in Leone’s film with Uma’s bright yellow costume streaked with dark red blood.  Considering that Tarantino purposely embellished the film with color and many other aspects, there is a strong possibility that he was inspired by such artistic representations as the opening credits for Leone’s film.

Finally, the triumph of Uma in the end of the film is due to her superior skill with the sword, her wit and determination.  One should not have much difficulty in seeing the similarity between Uma’s triumph and that of Clint Eastwood in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.  Overall, one can definitely see how Kill Bill Volume I absorbs and uses the Western Genre especially the Spaghetti Western.  Furthermore, this development proves that the Spaghetti Western, represented by Leone’s film, an evolution of Genre in itself, had become iconic and representative of Westerns altogether for Tarantino.  With this in mind, one can further infer that the future of Westerns is to be incorporated with other genres just as Lucas and Tarantino have accomplished.

Finally, the Western Genre has obviously fluctuated and changed in the past decade only to disappear as an individual Genre.  By analyzing the aesthetics, plot elements, and iconography of the four films in order of the year of their release The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Leone, 1966); Dances with Wolves (Costner, 1990); Star Wars: Episode IV (Lucas, 1977); and Kill Bill Volume I (Tarantino, 2003); one can observe an evolving genre that is eventually absorbed by other genres and more or less disappears from the silver screen.  The first film; The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; is representative of the early Italian-made Westerns categorized as Spaghetti Westerns and provides a Western that plays with traditional plot myths and aesthetics.  The second film, Dances with Wolves, falls within the traditional aesthetics of a Hollywood period film, but portrays revisionist themes by reversing the traditional and politically incorrect stereotypes of Native Americans and US military in Classical Westerns.  The last two films, Star Wars and Kill Bill Volume I, both exemplify Western aspects, mostly Spaghetti Western, by combining several genres to create unique worlds illustrating that the Western currently has a sustained and vibrant influence on filmmaking today.

The Nez Perce Indians and the Environmental Ethics of Our Names

The Kincentrism of Anthropomorphism by the Nez Perce

The Nez Perce, at the time of Luis and Clark, exemplified an environmental ethic, which offers insight and direction towards an environmentally healthy lifestyle. This tribe resided in the plateau spanning the modern states of Washington and Idaho (see figure 1) for hundreds of years before Lewis and Clark stumbled upon them on September 20th, 1805 (Josephy 5). Nez Perce, Latin for “pierced-nose”, stems from the ancient practice of piercing their septum with dentalium, the tubular shell of a marine mollusk (Josephy 23). In the actual language of the Nez Perce, they call themselves the Nimapu, or the Real People (Haines 8). This name appropriately represents this tribe as an environmentally religious people in the light that any “real people” considers the natural setting around them. The contemporary world largely lacks any environmental ethic supporting moral protection of the environment. This essay investigates how the Nez Perce’s religious beliefs protected the environment, or local ecosystems, from human degradation. In particular, the Nez Perce’s Creation stories and spirit world or “Wyakin” beliefs, having evolved out of their close relationship to the land, added a reverent spiritual protection for the natural world, which shows a viable land ethic exemplifying protection of the environment through kincentric anthropomorphism of the tribe’s surroundings; kincentric meaning that all the creatures of the world are equal and interconnected through a common understanding, including humans.

Recent archeological finds, reveal man’s existence in the Lower Snake River Valley as early as 8,000 years ago (Josephy 15). The Nez Perce language belongs to a widespread and very old family of Penutian tongues. Judging by the similarity of languages of Native peoples down throughout the Rockies, the Nez Perce most likely come from the direction of Alaska moving down the westward side of the Rockies (Josephy 18). Eventually, the ancient peoples became the Nez Perce that Louis and Clark accidentally met in the Snake River-Clearwater Valley. The tribe closely connected to their surroundings gaining all of their nourishment from the earth even without the help of agriculture. Seasonal salmon runs, or “hillal” (in the Nez Perce language), and wild game, along with fruits, berries and roots were the tribe’s main subsistence (Josephy 17). Other tribes desired to trade with the Nez Perce partly because of a “distinctive bow” developed by the Nez Perce (Josephy 19). The Nez Perce constituted a strong presence in the region, slightly dominating other tribes in weaponry and prestige. Upon introduction to the horse in the early 1700’s, the Nez Perce was crossed the continental divide and learned buffalo hunting from the Flatheads (Josephy 20). In the opposite direction, a large trading center, Dulles, provided much interaction with neighboring peoples. At this spot, the numerous peoples traded goods as well as cultural ideas as is evident in a common creation story (Josephy 22).

The people of Dulles shared the myth of Coyote, the proverbial creator of each and every tribe amongst the people Dulles. Coyote is the most important of the “anthropomorphized animal characters and nature spirits” that held power in the spirit world (Boyd 114). Coyote is considerably anthropomorphized in the Nez Perce stories, along with every other spirit in their cultural stories. This spirit, Coyote, was so humanized that his actions seemed anything but coyote-like. He had a specific personality, one of cunning, wit, humor, “folly and childishness”, and “treachery and deceit” (qtd. in Boyd 115). The spirit could transform the face of nature, something that is sadly possible today with the help of machinery and technology, but wasn’t possible for the Nez Perce who lacked the modern technology. However, Coyote could alter his appearance into different shapes in order to “forward his purposes” in supernatural ways (qtd. in Boyd 115). He would resort to trickery and cunning to accomplish great feats. For instance, the Sun and the Moon, according to the Nez Perce, were the Sun and the Sun’s father, an old man, respectively. The Sun was killed many creatures and then fed them to his father, the old man. Inadvertently, Coyote reached the Sun who he duped and killed along with his father creating the Moon, the old man, and the Sun out of their dead bodies (Aoki 159-160). In the same way, Coyote killed “Flint-Man” in revenge for the murder of Coyote’s daughters, leaving flint scattered around the land (Aoki 170). These anthropomorphic myths account for many phenomenon of importance to the tribe such as the origin of the Sun and the Moon and flint, used to kindle fire.

Thus, the stories of anthropomorphized animal/spirits retain a kincentric undertone unlike the anthropocentric portrayal of animals in modern Western culture. A person relating to a dog may see human emotions in the dog wagging their tale translating that behavior as happy or joyful, while the true nature of the dog’s experiences are impossible to imaging in a human frame of mind. In this sense, most people in the United States today perceive dogs as less intelligent, less important creatures. However, the Nez Perce saw the coyote or the dog as human-like in the sense that they equally important as humans in the great scheme of the world. In other words, the Coyote illustrates that other creatures are tied to the Nez Perce as equal beings.

Of all the spirits, Coyote was most “associated with the creation of certain phenomena in mythology” such as the creation of the tribal peoples of the Northwest region (Boyd 114). As told by the Nez Perce, the tale depicts a huge monster eating all the animals in the Snake River Valley. Coyote was seen as a “supernatural trickster” that accomplished great deeds, but usually outsmarted himself with comical results”. Coyote supposedly slew the monster by jumping down his throat and sawing up his heart with flint. Upon the monsters death, Coyote cut up the body and each piece became a people, of which the Nez Perce (or the appropriate tribe of the storyteller) sprang from the blood becoming the most courageous and intelligent of all the people (Josephy 23).

The Coyote-creation story firmly intertwines the Nez Perce with nature incorporating their creation with the surrounding world. For example, located athwart the Clearwater River from the village of Kemaih, two large mounds of basalt literally were, to the Nez Perce, the liver and the heart of the monster destroyed by Coyote (Haines 8). Obviously, such strong representations lend ethical protection to the earth or, more specifically, the basalt mounds. Mundane aspects of land like basalt mounds suddenly become very important when surrounded by such lore. In our contemporary world, rocks receive little consideration, however, in the Nez Perce’s world, even rocks had spiritual significance.

Considering that Indians populated most North America holding similar types of spiritual beliefs, we can assume that the “basalt-mound-type” spirituality was wide spread. Accounting for those beliefs by respecting the previous myths and lore lends much needed significance to otherwise mundane land across the country. For instance, Coyotes are vermin by modern, hunting laws in the United States, which allow anyone to kill coyotes at will. If the idea of the Coyote in Nez Perce tradition were adopted, at least in the historical sense, the Coyote would have different meaning to our country. This type of protection already exists in legislation, but only for historical landmarks and buildings. We should give animals more importance in the culture of the United States by developing legislation that recognizes the historical, cultural importance of species to the original peoples of North America. Creating these laws also pays needed respect to the presence of such peoples despite the state of the Native Americans today, which is incomparable to the prosperity before the arrival of Europeans.

Besides the Nez Perce myths and creation stories, the beliefs in Wyakin, or guardian spirits, illustrate a strong kincentric tradition interwoven with the natural environment. Wyakin were the “supernatural guardians” of practically every object or creature in the world and could “harm or protect a [person] depending on its powers and inclination.” Each man and woman had a personal Wyakin “warning [them], protecting [them], and assisting [them] throughout [his/her] life on earth” (Josephy 25). The Nez Perce would send off their children at around the age of ten for a fasting and vigil period where the child would see the Wyakin (Haines 57). The spirit would appear as a “forest fire, a wounded bear, a one-antlered elk,” either physically or in a dream state (Josephy 25).

The utterly important taboos associated with these spirits breed great respect within the Nez Perce for the environment, fulfilling a necessity to relate the world around the tribe. Given, one couldn’t expect a people to relate to anything other than the world around them, which for the Nez Perce was immersed in nature. Subsequently, the young Nez Perce’s vigil revealed the Wyakin to the child and required the youth going out and finding “silent and lonely place…to fast and wait” for the Wyakin to appear (Josephy 25). The youth wait for their Wyakin to appear either physically or in a dream. Occasionally, seeing the Wyakin required several days of concentration where a lack of food and water would produce a hallucinogenic, dream state of mind where the Wyakin would surely appear. If no Wyakin, appeared the youth merely tried again until successful (Josephy 27).

The youth waited to reveal their Wyakin until the Guardian Spirit Dance in the winter, where the youths would imitate and chant about their Wyakin (Josephy 27). This practice demonstrates an extremely heart-felt the tradition where the youths would paint themselves and with “suggestive designs” and dance with older dancers until a hypnotic state was reached. The degree of exertion demonstrated how deeply the dancers felt and experienced the entire ordeal. By the end of the dance, the dancers could take on the names of their guardian spirits as well as their ancestral name along with any other nicknames the individuals had acquired over the years (Josephy 27). By taking on the name of their guardian spirits, the Nez Perce were completely immersed in the ethic that guided their cultural lives. Sharing a name and partial identity with a creature or natural phenomenon would only breed an emotional connection with that “guardian.” The Nez Perce physically endured the hardship of discovering the Wyakin, which endeared the spirit/animal to the Nez Perce. The hardship coupled with simply sharing “personality traits,” or idiosyncratic characteristics with the animal species or natural phenomenon, helped the Nez Perce to appreciate those animals or events in a more kincentric manner.

There was an ethical safeguard against driving any animals to extinction or ignorantly denouncing an occurrence such as ah forest fire as unfortunate and unnatural (which happens today in places like southern California where humans are constantly fighting forest fires). Actually, the degraded state of the land creates harsher and larger fires when exotic (introduced) plant species annually die creating more fuel for potential fires (Zedler et al. 809). However, if some types of ethical restrictions protected the ecosystems in order with human behavior, we could avoid situations such as increased susceptibility to fire or animal extinction. Perhaps, our culture should change the tradition of giving a middle name and give middle names of endemic creatures and natural phenomenon found in the area of the person’s birth. Although, the Nez Perce delayed naming a person for the guardian spirit until the Wyakin was revealed during the Guardian Spirit Dance or when that person attained a nickname through accomplishments or accidental happenstance. In a similar way, our culture should give a middle name only after that person’s personality shines through or they exhibit a behavior exemplifying an animal or natural phenomenon. A person having a name tied to the natural world identifies with the entity represents inclining that person to preserve and appreciate that species or natural occurrence. In order to create the naming tradition, we need to abandon the popular practice of associating smaller, less ferocious animals with weakness versus associating lager, more powerful animals with dominance in order to allow for open interpretation and naming after behavior. In the United States today, a person may be ridiculed for having a name relating them to a mouse vs. having a name relating them to mountain lion. Field mice are quick and industrious, which make the creatures very good at survival a characteristic that would not be unworthy of a human being. Therefore, giving a middle name is not limited to big and ferocious animals. Incorporating such a tradition would pay respect to the pre-colonial history of North American and its inhabitants as well as initiate ethical understanding of the environment.

Because the Nez Perce believed that a forest fire or a bear, etc. could give one power or ill fortune, meant that the Nez Perce respected every aspect of the world around them. For instance: “the spirit of the wind…could turn enemy arrows from [the Nez Perce’s] body” representing the wind as far from ordinary; “thunder and lighting would make [a man] brave in battle” giving a fearful phenomenon courageous connotations; “the bear or a bull buffalo would give him strength”; “the coyote” would give him “cunning in stalking enemies” and so on (Josephy 26). Basically, each animal’s biological behaviors and traits were passed onto the Nez Perce as the person’s Wyakin, which guided them through life. Emphasizing the importance of the Wyakin, the person would carry charms, or bits of fur, claws, or a bird’s head in order to aid in protection against enemies and other “bad medicine” (Josephy 26). The tribe considered the Wyakin good “medicine” that counteracted things like storms, sickness and enemies (Josephy 26).

There was restraint in following the rules and restrictions set forth by a person’s Wyakin. If a person “violated a rule” designated by his Wyakin, there would be consequences such as a poor hunt, an injury, or sickness (Josephy 26). Much of these beliefs protected the world around them from human degradation. Everything had a Wyakin and should be respected and the spirit appeased in order to not be afflicted with bad “medicine.”

The Micmac tribe of the Eastern tip of Canada held similar beliefs before contact with Europeans. This tribe believed everything had “manitou” or magical powers that represented emotional feelings given off by “an object, person or situation” (Martin 13). Everything had a spirit, an idea different from the Nez Perce in that the Guardian spirit of the object or creature was the actual spirit of the thing. Therefore, taboos provided for restraint by acting as “a control mechanism on Micmac land use, maintaining the environment” (Martin 13). In other worlds, the Micmacs were governed by these taboos in hunting and dealing with the remains of their prey. For instance, beavers comprised a “separate nation” respected for their industrial ingenuity. Therefore, when trapping beaver, the spirit had to be appeased in order to ensure good hunts in the future. Consequently, the beaver was “drawn in public and made into soup,” and care was taken not to spill the soup in the fire. Remains of moose fawn were similarly treated with great respect by not being thrown in the fire or given to the dogs, out of fear that the spirit may go to “inform their own kind of bad treatment” among the Micmacs and the animal “nation” would leave the area. The Micmac greatly respected bears and would hunt them while they hibernated, but a long “conciliatory speech” was made to appease the bear. Also, the bear’s heart was reserved for the elders of the village for if the young ate organ, they may “get out of breath while traveling and lose courage in danger” (Martin 14).

Analogous to Nez Perce belief, the Micmacs attributed illness or misfortune to not observing a taboo or ritual (Martin 15). Depending on the degree of disregard or type of taboo that was broken, misfortune afflicted the Micmac. The Micmac may become ill or injured, have his or the tribe’s means of hunting made “ineffective”, or the entire animal “nation” would leave the area, all possibilities that were only reversible by the works of a Shaman (Martin 16). All of these events are scientifically explained today, however, the world of the Micmac demonstrates a deep, spiritual tie to Nature and the ecosystem around them. The tribe exemplifies that by anthropomorphizing the world around them they foster a kincentric connection that sets up an ethical restraint for use of the land.

Although they lived on opposite ends of the continent, the Nez Perce and the Micmac share an ethical taboo framework protecting the environment around them. Each tribe was completely ignorant of the other illustrating that the ethic was wide spread across North America. If nothing else, we should note the history of this belief system as cultural heritage of the country/continent when considering the protection of endemic ecosystems and the natural world. Also, we should encourage, at least, a solid understanding that our nourishment comes from livestock and crops respecting that these organisms as part of our ecosystem, regardless of how degraded or polluted. Such understanding would lead to appreciation of organisms considered economically unnecessary. As a modern, Western culture, we are far from believing livestock are “resigned to [their] fate” as the Micmacs believed (qtd. in Martin 14). However, we could attempt to respect each life taken for food fostering a connection with the natural world. This could be accomplished by uttering a phrase of appreciation when the animal is slaughtered or eaten. The same concept applies to recreational hunting and fishing dictating that we should pay the same respects to game animals in the name of a viable environmental ethic.

Overall, the beliefs of the Nez Perce and the Micmac tribe exemplified an ethical relation to the natural environment through an anthropomorphic, kincentric tradition. Modern Western culture we should honor such traditions by creating legislation that protects ecosystems and species as historically important in our historical heritage. The basis for these laws is myths and creation stories as well as the religious beliefs of native peoples around the globe, especially in the United States. Species such as the coyote should be recognized as historical inspiration for myths such as those surrounding the mythical Coyote and the Nez Perce. We should study these stories and nationally recognize their significance in our heritage. With the ancient lore of the Indians surrounding them, average, mundane creatures and landmarks become very meaningful as with the basalt mounds in Washington.

The practice of adopting a Wyakin name also shows a deep, interwoven connection with nature, which helped the Nez Perce to preserve the world around them that gave them life. Naming traditions should be integrated with our own by giving middle names that relate a person to a natural phenomenon or species. Before such a practice is adopted, we would have to encourage others to see animals such as mice as significant and worthy by pointing out how typical mouse behavior is not invaluable in humans. Tying a person to a species or occurrence in nature fosters a connection and appreciation for that entity.

Finally, the Micmac and the Nez Perce followed religious taboos and respected their animal prey. We should do the same by at least verbally announcing our appreciation of the sustenance our crops and livestock provide. Doing so doesn’t imply that we are equal to these organisms, but at least brings us closer to an ethical relation to the environment that supports and sustains us no matter how separated from it we have become.

Figure 1: adapted from : Josephy, Alvin M. Jr. The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest. New Haven: Yale UP, 1965.
(Josephy 6)

Works Cited:
Aoki, Haruo, and Deward E. Walker, Jr. Nez Perce Oral Naratives. Linguistics vol. 104. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989.
Boyd, Robert. People of the Dalles: The Indians of Wascopam Mission. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, 1996.
Haines, Francis. The Nez Perces: Tribesmen of the Columbia Plateau. Norman: University of Okalahoma Press, 1955.
Josephy, Alvin M. Jr. The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest. New Haven: Yale UP, 1965.
Martin, Calvin. “The Spiritual Crisis of European Colonization.” Religion in American History: A Reader. Ed. John Butler and Harry S. Stout. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. 7-21.
Zedler et al. “Vegetation Change in Response to Extreme Events: the Effect of a Short Interval Between Fires in California Chaparral and Coastal Scrub.” Ecology 64.4 (1983): 809-818.

Women and Equality

Women earned the right to vote in 1919 and thus began the uphill legal battle for women’s equality. Many presently argue that women’s equality, which represents equality for all sexes and genders, remains far from perfect in the United States. Feminist theorists urge for varying viewpoints and paths of action in dealing with the problem of equality for women. The current public system in the United States is a sexists system historically created for and suited for men, which can be overcome by creating a more sexually equated system with corresponding beliefs. As soon as the public begins to recognize this problem, actions can be taken.

Some feminist political theory suggests the public system governing employment, education, and nationwide legal policies is inherently patriarchal having been created by men. Theories of social contracts and states of nature put forth by men such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Locke viewed women already subordinate in nature sufficing for why women were subordinate in civil society. Hobbes theorized that the woman was equal in the state of nature, but entered into a contract with the man for protection while pregnant. Such theories most assuredly led to the woman’s valued place in the sphere of domesticity in private life. Men’s dominance throughout history in western society left women out of the public sphere. Theory by Freud and Rousseau claimed that women were unable to develop a sense of justice, which was necessary for participation in social institutions such as law. The arguments of Freud and Rousseau traced women’s lack of a sense of justice in society backed to the beginning of civilization claiming the lack “structured” society to be male dominant (Pateman). Society today has its foundations in such thought and practice of considering all things female as inferior. The United States Constitution, written by men, took into account the rights of land holding, white males. The values of the economy have been largely male values as long as trade and money have existed. Therefore, public society today is shaped largely by language and roles that are valued largely as male or masculine.

Presently, investigation into sexual equality challenges the current male dominant system. Certain feminist theory presumes that laws fighting for sex equality in these areas have been ineffective. The reason “that sex equality law has been so utterly ineffective” is because there has been a “presuppos[ition]” of sameness when the sexes are actually different (MacKinnon). Catherine MacKinnon argues that the dominance of women presents the most significant obstacle to women’s equality. She suggests that a solution lies in viewing the problem in terms of dominance of women instead of terms of sexual differences between men women. Such an approach reveals the true problem, a sexist, male-dominant society, but MacKinnon offers no possible solutions. She falls short of solving the problem by merely pointing out the dominance and offering no tangible solution i.e. changing laws or enacting new ones or holding discussion and proactive campaigning.

Christine A. Littleton, another feminist, points out male dominance as “phalocentrism”, which is a theory involving societal values. Littleton believes that our culture “justifies [male] dominance” or rather dominance of what is “culturally male” through current gender values: valued male characteristics vs. female characteristics. The public world of employment and law are separated by what is considered good and acceptable in terms of male and female. Littleton progresses through several solutions in her exploration of possible plans for greater equality. For Littleton, a “symmetrical” solution represents the traditional, average argument of feminist fight for rights and equality. The symmetrical approach forms in two ways, androgynous and assimilative approaches. Androgyny requests that laws and regulations be made supporting a universal, human middle ground between men and woman. The trouble with working towards a common ground in professional arenas is that woman and men are different biologically noting pregnancy and average physical size and strength. Feminine gender influence prevails less than masculine, but feminine and masculine should have equal weight in the public arena. However, the roles that feminine and masculine play in society are not considered entirely equal in spite of an inherent equality of both. Finding a universal androgynous norm would not put equal value on either female or male, but would negate both in the place of the neutral, human values. Also, the job of equating all professions, Littleton states, would be “staggering” and would not be worth the trouble, which is a correct assumption.

Assimilation recommends that women be assimilated into the man’s world and given equal treatment as men. Essentially all the professions and benefits going to men would go to women with adequate qualifications. By equating women to men by assimilation the value of the feminine is overlooked and lost, because it lies outside of the new group that gets created. Thus, one gets a homogenous society without diversity of gender and by ignoring the diversity of gender the system becomes flawed. Dichotomies arise when “totalizing a system”, which exclude a certain group (Young), that group being the feminine. Assimilation aims for the impartial neutrality Iris Marion Young says creates a “propensity to universalize the particular”. In this case of assimilation, the particular is the opening the “man’s world” to women but still favoring masculine values. By universalizing the particular, those that still value the feminine as potentially good in the public world are “alienated” and ostracized (Young).

Additionally, Littleton investigates asymmetrical models for equality including “special rights, accommodation, and acceptance”. The first, special rights, advocates special care and/or protection cover certain biological differences of women from men, such as breast-feeding, pregnancy, etc. Some argue, with good reason, that special treatment for special needs is not enough and is partially asymmetrical while mostly symmetrical. Basically, it is a small compromise and doesn’t value the cultural female satisfactorily enough. Accommodation, another method for sexual equality, falls short of best because the approach lacks the necessity for total revamping of the male dominant system. Accommodation is similar to assimilation, although accommodation admits the differences between masculine and feminine. Both reject the total importance of accepting both genders and sexes as different but equally important to society. Littleton duly states that, “women and men must be treated as full members of society.” The technique of “acceptance” works best to value feminine as equal to masculine. Society needs to accept feminine values and biological female as normal and fully a part of society in order to create the greatest sexual equality in the United States. By accepting that there are biological differences. The fact that many “biological males exhibit socially female [or feminine] characteristics” puts even more importance on the acceptance plan. The lines are not clear between masculine and feminine when examine the differences between the biological sexes. The somewhat blurred gender roles that have come about should be valued equally to the masculine as well.

Thinking in terms of acceptance brings the argument to abortion, which should be legalized to grant women sexual freedom equal to that of men. When abortion is legalized and supported, women and men will be able to engage in sex with equated consequences. Mary Poovey picks apart past court cases and the supportive argument for abortion by highlighting that “the female body was constituted as a maternal body”. The issue with this “gender norm” is that woman are seen as the mother without consent and applying this “gender norm” to abortion denies women equal status to men. Poovey believes that abortion should be seen as “contraception, not murder” and that any policy and law recognize that the issue is far from private because pregnancy affects the immediate family, friends, and relatives. Her solution asks for politics to be “expressions of relationships that entail difference as well as community.” Beginning to see politics in this way creates a world of tolerance where dichotomies of the world begin to blend. Assumptions that individuality is of the ultimate importance in the United States creates the idea the abortion is a private problem. The assumptions also create the view that sexual expression, sexual orientation, child rearing, and ultimately sexual equality are all private problems. When the relations and community view is applied to the public realm, both feminine and masculine genders become more equally valued. For instance, the feminine and the masculine qualities in the work place should be seen as complimenting one another. Doing this does not mean these qualities should be limited different biological sexes or individuals. Poovey correctly advocates that the “mother role that is allowed” to women. Other gender norms should be deconstructed and other roles be allowed as well such as the socially female males. When all positive genders, sexes and roles are accepted and supported, our country will be fairly equal. We should all work towards this goal.

Individual vs. Communal Human Rights

For as long as the idea of a right has existed in legal form, individuals have laid claim to those rights as individual human beings. The majority of people living under the United States flag or countries with similar ethics believe themselves to be supremely important and protected as individuals with a full set of rights. Racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination may limit the rights of many individuals under unfortunate circumstances such as sexist employment situations or hegemonic societies. However, the majority of United States citizens would agree that they have claim to their own individual basic rights. The Constitutional Bill of Rights is understood to guarantee certain inalienable rights to each citizen such as the right to freedom of speech and the right to habeas corpus. Ideas of rights have proliferated throughout the world and have culminated into one multinational declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights put forth by the United Nations. In the document, certain basic ideas are highlighted as inalienable human rights in attempt to protect humanity as a whole by framing those rights as universally protected. Most of “Free World”, or the westernized liberal societies, would claim to uphold the UN’s idea of Human Rights although enforcement cannot be guaranteed. Many of the articles in the declaration begin with the word “Everyone”, indicating an emphasis on every human being as an individual. As a member of the group considered, Humanity, we can claim our rights as individuals as enumerated by the declaration.

All in all, rights as an institution upholding and protecting individuals around the world seems to be an accepted basis for liberal legal/political/social order similar to the United States societal structure. However, the idea of the supreme individual eventually becomes problematic in the discourse of rights. Other entities presently set claim to rights such as groups, especially Native American tribes or religious groups within the United States. By rethinking the subject of rights, due to the problematic nature of the supreme individual, which will be discussed shortly, one can “re-work” rights to include and represent groups/communities as well as to be more fundamentally accommodating to as many walks of life as possible to counter the patriarchal, culturally biased system of the United States.

The problem with basing rights on the individual as the most important unit of society is that the individual is not completely free from the cultural, social pressures of society. The ego does not develop out of oblivion into a full person without various ideas, traditions, relationships and legal direction (in the case of a person living within a legal system such as the United States) acting upon them. Trinh T. Minh-ha labels such an ego, the product of the various societal pressures, the big, uppercase “I”. On the other hand, the true self that represents what is validly original is symbolized on paper by her implication of the lowercase “i”. Minh-ha’s use of the lowercase “i” as the personal pronoun “I” speaks to a deeper philosophical understanding of the human ego. By using the “i”, Minh-ha emphasizes her own true feelings and opinions on the matters at hand. Yet another pronoun devised by Minha-ha, the I/I is a combination that illustrates that there are many categories and groupings that make everyone interconnected. For instance, we are all human and connected in that sense, but we are not all white, males.

Often, the “I” is characteristic of the dominant culture or, according to Iris Marion Young, the universalized “particular perspective[deletion] of the dominant group[deletion]” (97). In the United States, a patriarchal, white male-dominant society is the historical foundation of our system. Therefore, the qualities and traditions that are erroneously most valued are the white male standards due to the universalizing of such a particular across the country. Therefore, any culturally different minorities (even though minorities soon pose to outnumber whites) or women in the US, find themselves fighting an intrinsically racist, sexist system simply by virtue of the system’s origin. The “Founding Father’s” were white, landholding men and came from a patriarchal system in Europe at the time. They ultimately wrote our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, which declared “all Men are created equal”.

Only hundreds of years later did an amendment follow legally securing women’s suffrage. The amendment functions as a foundation for all other legal battles for women’s equality, an equality that is still far from being fully achieved and is therefore, still, an uphill battle.

The US’s melting pot, popular media-influenced atmosphere also tends to swallow up minority cultures. Those minorities, for instance the Chinese, feel that they must preserve their culture through tourism by capitalizing on cultural events such as the Chinese New Year (102). The “obsessive fear: that of losing connection” drives more minorities than the Chinese to commodify their culture. This is a fear of losing connection to the “i”, the genuine layer of [yourself] to which [you] may always cling” drives ethnic minority communities to commodify their culture (Minh-ha 94). These minority groups could be less threatened if their culture was more securely protected as equally as an individual’s rights are protected.

Our liberal legal/political/social order seems to assume that only one type of ego exists for each individual, which transcribes into law through rights. Thus far, we see that the reworking of the subject of rights should legally and philosophically shift to represent and protect the lowercase “i” to propagate a more accepting, less exclusive society. Such a society would allow the existence of difference and not require everyone to conform and threaten the central part of him or her. For instance, a Chinese American would not be forced to commodify his or her culture in order to preserve his/her “i”. However, the United States population as a whole is very complex and multilayered show by large diversity of cultures going into the “mixing pot.” To assume that only the “i” exists is equally as much folly as to assume that only the “I” exists. Therefore, when considering the individual as a subject of rights and legal protections and assurances, we should use the i/I model, which represents the interconnectedness of everyone through different groupings that may or may not apply. Eventually, everyone is connected in some fashion, whether by virtue of being human, or by being gay, heterosexual, male, female, African American, or Chinese American, etc. Such labels are the different facets that connect the each individual to larger groups and essentially to everyone else. The subject of rights should include these differences when inspiring rights into law.

The interconnectedness of everyone through groups culminates in communities. By investigating communities and group rights, the stress on the individualistic nature of rights becomes less clearly ideal. A constructive example is the Mashpee trial in 1977 and 1978. Here the people of the town of Mashpee, of whom were of Native American descent, sued for rights to lost land claiming they were a tribe. Native American tribes already have law protecting their sovereignty and their land. However, the discrimination against Native Americans in the United States emerged with the first contact of white settlers with Native Americans persisting until the present. Many tribal cultures within the United States are very communally based providing much structure and hierarchy within the tribe. Individuality is not held at the utmost importance creating cultures that is very different from rest of the country.

In the Santa Clara Pueblo et al. V. Martinez et al Supreme Court case, the strong communal connection was made evident, although the content of the case itself was quite controversial. Julia Martinez fought for her children to have membership in the tribe contrary to tribal law that no children born of a non-Santa Claran father could be members. Martinez saw the law as sexist and unjust taking the case as far as the US Supreme Court, but lost. Although, Martinez was correct in arguing that the law was sexist, the court ruled that the government had no jurisdiction over the Santa Claran tribal council and the tribe’s sovereignty. Tribe had a history of losing land and culture to outside pressure and sought to protect and keep land within the tribe by passing the ordinance under scrutiny. In terms of the court’s decision, the history of mistreatment, injustice, and suffering for Native Americans may have prompted the policy of not overstepping the tribe sovereignty. Overall, the Santa Claran case proved that US government grants tribes the right to govern themselves and showing that the group had some rights.

In the Mashpee case, however, group rights suffered a set back. The people of Mashpee could not prove that they fit the courts definition of a tribe. They had to qualify for tribal recognition a tribe has to show that they are a “body of Indians of the same or similar race, united in a community under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a particular, though sometimes ill-defined, territory” (Campsi 32). On many counts the Mashpee people were proven to not fit the definition, however, the definition itself is biased towards a “particular”, more specifically a white, dominant society. The fact that the people had to prove that they were a tribe to protect their communal land shows that culturally they were not protected. In many ways, tight nit, minority communities are like Native American tribes when they value the community and traditions to the point of wanting to preserve them within a certain geographical area such as a China Town. By letting the housing project keep the lands originally used by the community of Mashpee, the courts discriminatorily valued individual landowners over the group.

To keep disrespect of groups from happening, laws need to value communal use and community tradition over the individual in the case of communities like Mashpee. The subject of rights needs to be the i/I, which admits that the supreme individual does not exist. All people are part of some community on some level, whether or not they are racially connected or culturally. Society may even be better off when communities are valued and protected across the US. Vernon Van Dyke points out that “[e]thnic communities in many countries are differently treated with respect to rights of property and residence; it is not only a question of territorial reservations for the indigenous but also a question of special measures designed to make it possible for the communities to preserve their distinct identity” (38). Freedom and liberty are not threatened by extending rights to ethic or even religious groups, who wish to preserve their identity. The diversity that such laws would protect could only serve to enrich the country and deepen the strength of “freedom.”
Therefore, any policy that aims to over generalize or universalize any particular is an ignorant, fearful policy. Admitting diversity could only invigorate the country as a whole bringing all walks of life to equal standing. We should observe the trial rulings and laws being passed and act upon them, either helping those that emphasize the i/I or fighting those that aim to take away freedom from others. The “subject of rights” should be us as the interconnected, community-based individuals that we are, as well as those communities to which we belong. Overall, the subject of rights should not be exclusive, but inclusive.

Works Cited:

“The Mashpee Indians: Tribe on Trial.” Readings on the American Indian Law. Ed. Jo Carrillo. P38
Minh-ha, Trinh T. Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Indiana University Press, 1989 p79-114
The Rights of Minority Cultures. Ed. Will Kymlicka, Oxford University Press, 1995 p38
Young, Iris M. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, 1990

School Shootings: A Product of Male Aggression

There have been at least seven major school shootings around the world since I wrote this piece in 2006. One of them happened at Virginia Tech and one in Cleveland, Ohio. Of all the recent 56 major, reported school shootings since February 2, 1996, about 2 of them have been committed by women. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)I would like to take a second to reflect on the school shootings that have been happening in US and Canada recently and use them to make a larger observation about modern, western masculinity. These abominations seem all too comparable, as isolated as they are, to disregard their similarity as coincidence. Hopefully, my thoughts and opinions will help to foster a dialogue…the kind you might only find in a round table discussion in a liberal arts college classroom. Please remember that this is a public website and many people whom you probably do not know may be reading your comments. I encourage everyone, if they feel like commenting or posting, to please be civil and respectful. With that in mind please read on. The reading time is approximately 20 min. depending on how fast you read.

I’ve spent some time in college trying to understand and counteract male aggression, mostly working against the form of sexual assault. The four years of college have really shown me what it takes to make changes, but I’ve also seen the aftermath of that aggression. I have bore witness to an event called Take Back the Night where men and women reveal their stories and other’s stories of being sexually abused in some form or fashion, usually revealing their terrible secrets for the first time ever. Obviously, sexual assault is not limited to male on female crimes, but the mammoth majority of the crimes are men assaulting women. Take Back the Night allows people to come forward in a safe environment and break the silence and shame that they have lived with ever since they became survivors of the crimes, whether the crimes were perpetrated by family members, supposed friends, or loved ones. I should add that someone personal to the victims usually commits the crimes, not the stereotypical dark stranger in the night. The true pain and gravity of the situation are often too much to handle for unsuspecting supporters at Take Back the Night and many people walk out. Usually people hold in and keep secret that they were assaulted sexually and it undermines their happiness and everyday life. The emotions pour forth like a biblical flood washing away the hard exterior that many have built over the years, revealing the tortured reality. The release is usually the beginning of healing for many, as they accept what happened to them surrounded by a seemingly impossible amount of fellow survivors. Trust me when I say that someone you know has been sexually assaulted, abused or raped and you may never know it. [If you yourself are a survivor of such a crime, you are not alone, it was not your fault (no matter what anyone ever says to you or what you may think) and I strongly encourage you to tell someone that you trust that isn’t involved, perhaps even calling a hotline if you are in crisis. I just went on an Internet search engine and typed in “resources for rape survivors” and found loads of resources.]

What does all this have to do with the shootings you ask? Basically, about all of the recent shootings have ended up with the male perpetrators killing themselves and the female victims. Two of those shooters incorporated or planned sexual crimes. Now I don’t know enough of the details to speak authoritatively on the subject, but I insinuate that these crimes are evidence of some bigger problems concerning society’s expectations and images of men. I believe that men in the world are not being taught to respect women as human beings with dreams, aspirations and full, equal clout in the world. (When I say “men” I am speaking mainly of heterosexual males, although I’m sure the gender discussion and the power dynamics of masculine and feminine greatly applies to gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/queer, or GLBTQ, people as well).

Also, perhaps something happened to these men when they were young, that they were taught, by society to be shameful of and hide, so that the festering memory finally exploded into insanity. Perhaps they were abused or witnessed violence perpetrated by parents or loved ones. In some form or another, violence had a snowballing affect in their lives causing more violence along the way. I’m only guessing, but one can see that Roberts, the man of the Amish shootings, confessed to a history of sexual violence that plagued him. One can only suppose that when he committed the first crime “abusing a young female family member” that he had not been taught to respect women. Perhaps he witnessed an older family member, friend or parent perpetrating violence. All I’m insinuating is that this behavior and insanity could not have come from oblivion.

I will admit that to reach point of shooting people could be the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain or some other mental disorder. However, what made these men see these shootings as the answer to their troubles? To this question, I answer, learned male dominance and violence as the ultimate answer. This is a male paradigm, that given no other option, that we must turn to violence to get our way, when we find ourselves, as men, in a figurative or literal emotional corner, with no perceived escape. By emotional corner, I’m suggesting that people that perpetrate these types of violent crimes could find themselves in an existential dead end and feel that they can no longer properly deal with their emotions. Whatever the reasoning, these men turned to violence. Of course one could argue that fighting your way out of a corner is animal instinct, but these recent crimes were not acts of self defense, they were violent assertions of male dominance in order to cope with a troubled life.

Our society failed these men and their female victims. Where we should be educating men and women to lead balanced emotional lives, we are allowing society to educate otherwise. Men should be taught to deal with emotions in healthier ways and see the opposite sex as equal entities deserving equal, if not more respect and dignity.

Considering the overall sexist nature off the three incidents, I propose that each one reflects some of the problems with the sexist nature of society. Just as in racism or classism or any hostile “ism”, the dominant group justifies and glorifies their self-perceived superiority by debasing the perceived subordinate group. I see strains of such sexism running through my own being as learned behaviors and thought paradigms. You may not notice such sexist paradigms in yourselves, as they are all but invisible, accepted facts of life. In other words, sometimes I have to catch myself in my thoughts and actions regarding women and sexuality. I’m not suggesting that we live in an asexual world and disregard gender norms of modern western society as a whole. However, some of our language, thoughts and actions both reflect and strengthen society’s subsidiary definition of women. Women and the feminine are generally viewed as frail, juvenile (in a man’s masculine world) and only capable of filling the role predetermined by (male-dominated) society. In a younger man’s world, women mostly fulfill the role of object of desire and their ability to obtain these objects proves the man’s success as a man. One could also say that the younger man is yearning emotionally to replace his mother with a girlfriend as the emotional caregiver.

Before I go any further, I should say that as a man, I believe it would be a mistake to leave women out of this discussion and having it be only a male discussion. Becoming comfortable with the dialogue between men and women is an important first step in addressing these perceived imbalances in the world. At my school, I helped to establish a group named Sons and Brothers, dedicated to addressing these questions and actively campaigning against sexual assault. Since then, I have learned also, that however proud you are to be on the moral high ground, it’s important to not see yourself as the protector of women. Such a way of thinking will only serve to strengthen male dominance and put men in yet another position of power. And to such a future, where men justly rule over women, or rather the masculine justly and fairly reigns in dominance, I cannot attest. Power can always be corrupted as we see in almost every government or powerful entity on earth. There will always be those that prove the exception and abuse power, this is why our government was founded with checks and balances. (Some might say that the checks and balances aren’t quite working, but that’s another discussion). Sometimes feeling like the protector or hero was a fault of mine that was fed by the sexist way in which men and women are seen as fundamentally different and incapable of occupying the same spheres. Accepted norms of society are sometimes very hard to overcome, even for someone trying to do the right thing, like trying to break a bad habit. Moving on, men raping and killing is obviously a male problem, but only a mutual solution is the best. The best would be a mutual solution and discussion of mutual respect and trust where men and women have a true understanding of one another’s place and condition in the world. Only from that point can masculinity and femininity find equity in human power over the world. I will speak on the solution a bit later.

Concerning the root of the problems, I suspect that if men matured seeing their fathers (if their father is present) or male role models as emotionally healthy, balanced and mature people, then they would grow up to emulate those role models. Instead our society teaches men to be tough guys with animal mentalities, leaving them emotionally unbalanced and bankrupt, relying heavily on women to fulfill the tilting emotional scale. Thus women are often seen as overly emotional and weak. At the family level, I routinely see women portrayed in the horribly shortsighted sphere of housewife and “soccer mom.” However this is the stereotypical, Western middle class, dominant definition and also depends on the country and culture under discussion. Overall women are expected to solely care for the children and home while men are expected to work professionally and “bring home the bacon.” In the western world, the accepted, “civilized” notion of fatherhood is to teach the young men how to be a man and vice versa for mothers of daughters. Most of what you know about living your life and reacting to problems, you learn from your parents. This is a product of the way your brain develops necessary for survival. Many might claim they are nothing like their parents, but I venture that there are some core aspects of your personality that reflect your parents or guardians. Therefore, most men are missing a softer, more sensual side to their personality, which they either rejected early in life or never developed because of a disapproving father figure.

Perhaps some of you men bristled at that last statement, with thoughts like, “what is he gay?” “Is he saying we should all be gay?” With that I besiege you to see that homophobia is a direct result of our emotional imbalances. Our fear of contact with men, for fear of appearing feminine and weak, keeps us from expressing affection towards each other or identifying with anything in the stereotypical sphere of women. I’m not speaking of sexual attraction or sexual acts, I’m merely speaking of men showing genuine affection towards each other without fear of being ridiculed or ostracized. Our collective aversion to our own “feminine” halves merely serves to feed our need to dominate that half and appear manly and tough. I also, believe that one of the most violent forms of dominance is that of homophobic men (or women for that matter) taking out their insecurities and imbalances on GLBTQ people. You only have to read the newspapers to know what I’m speaking about. We often see stories of men killing and/or raping their wives, girlfriends, or friends. Even though most of the crimes will never be reported or seen in the news. But often you see and hear of the horrible hate crimes against GLBTQ people because, fear mixed with upbringing and imbalance manifested the Western ultimate male answer, which is violence.

The pattern of denying our femininity follows our (men’s…when I say “our” I’m speaking on behalf of westernized men. However, one could easily see the same manifestations in Middle Eastern and Asian cultures) every move through the good times and the bad. When we find ourselves emotionally unstable in troubled times, we are more likely to reject the feminine emotionality from our female significant others. This manifests violence. Growing up with this mentality often will make it ok to “take what you deserve” from the weaker less worthy sex or gender. In other words, many men grow to think that rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment are ok. More often than not, the “milder form” of sexual harassment is what one will see (and I say milder with the utmost cautions as it is often just as traumatic and harmful to society as rape, because it all supports the culture of male dominance.). I should clarify the difference between all the various ways a person can sexually assault another person. First, there is the overall term of sexual assault, which covers everything considered to be uninvited sexual contact, including touching or penetration with the hand, mouth or genitals. Here it is obvious, which sex is more equipped to commit these crimes. Then you have sexual battery, which is more or less when sexual assault, happens without premeditation, such as “in the heat of the moment” or both parties were intoxicated etc. The most violent crime is obviously premeditated rape where there is an obvious, malicious intent to sexually penetrate the other person without their consent.

Enough of the details, but now you know, so there is no confusion. The above paragraph is basically suggesting that the way we speak about women and the feminine side in general, and the way we visualize ourselves as the dominant, tough guy versus the dainty feminine side, whether that be women or gay men, is leading to the use of violence to assert that dominance. Every time we touch a women or verbally sexually harass a women to show that we have power to do so, we make it that much more ok to rape, kill, maim, or verbally batter a woman, both in our minds and other’s minds. We are creating the space for such violence to exist as a phenomenon of male thought and action. The same goes for any type of assertion of dominance, whether that is racism, classism, religion discrimination, sexism, sexual orientation-ism, etc. Any time you crack a joke or say or do something in the slightest discriminatory, those that do harbor violent hatred are that much more encouraged to act upon their hatred. We should also address such hatred with open dialogue and counseling to find the route of the fear. Also, we should support those that are fearful and emotionally traumatized or imbalanced. Waiting for those problems to rise to the surface in a crime and then putting those offenders in ineffective correctional facilities will not solve society’s problems. This system only covers the wound to let it fester in prison. If one is paroled they are release the hardened criminal on good behavior without the proper tools to deal with their own problems.

We must proactively recognize the fault in ourselves before we can address the faults in others. Men must open up with their feelings and lend a thousand times more respect to women and the thousands of years of societal and cultural oppression of women. There have been many cultures where women where considered to be equally, if not more, important and wise members of the community. Some American Indian tribes had women leaders; many “pagan” cultures apparently worshiped and revered womanhood, or the goddess, as the cradle of life, and rightly so.

No matter your religion, I believe one can reinterpret the holy texts to elevate and recognize the place of women in the world. Given the religious nature of much of the worlds conflicts, once can see the influence of religion in world politics and events. Even in our post-modern, Post-Judeo-Christian western world, where many claim to not be religious, we still have many laws based on very religious morals. So, whether you believe it or not, if you consider yourself a moral person, then you are following the Judeo-Christian ethics of the past, when religion was much more prevalent in our societies. Therefore, without a doubt, if there were reforms in the major religious institutions of the world, much of the “civilized” world would follow suite. One could argue that the world could reform much in this manner. For example, we could reform the major religious views of the natural environment to heal the relationship of the earth and mankind.

Concerning religion, I’m suggesting that just because we have lived and worshiped and lived a certain way for thousand of years doesn’t make it right. I think the phrase “we are only human” is very appropriate in this context. Humans make mistakes and to admit that we are human and that we must strive to better ourselves is only right. Self-contemplation and betterment is part of most, if not all, religious doctrines. Are there not clauses in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or the writings of Buddha or the collective religions of Hinduism that could be reinterpreted? Are we so close-minded and stuck in our ways that new paradigms of thought are beyond our imaginations? Even if you reject the scientific theory of evolution, you must admit that evolution of a faith is real, especially evolution of a faith over time. Just as our souls and minds grow and mature, so does our faith, if we are religious, and therefore so does a faith as a whole. If you believe you’re worshiping and living the same way that the earliest followers of your religion worship, you would be mistaken. I apologize for not having anything concrete to cite at this point, but I am quite certain.

Over the centuries, men have been indoctrinated and ingrained, again and again, with the idea that violence is the last resort and final solution. Also, that women are inferior and weaker and therefore, often don’t deserve respect or the right to be powerful in society. Perhaps our militarized societies and constant wars are evidence enough of this. Perhaps the need to dominate women both sexually, emotionally and spiritually illustrates our programming to see women as lower beings deserving less in life. As men bury their fears and emotions and reject emotional behavior, their own emotions can explode in a preconditioned frame of violence. Most people strike out in violence as a last resort, but others routinely use it as a tool of power. I’d like to remind everyone at this point that coercion into sex, sexual harassment, and sexual assault and rape are all forms of violence. Those using violence as a routine would consider anyone not utilizing the tool of power to be foolish and doomed to be subordinated. Wisdom has no home in this frame of thought.

Our world is a confusing and chaotic world, so full of violence and suffering. I really fear that the “civilized world”, which is basically all places occupied by humans, will get much worse before it gets better. I suppose this includes everything from the rape of the natural world, to the rape of women and the feminine. “Mankind” will suffer this fate especially if we throw ourselves into to the wind of certainty where nothing is more and less certain than “the way it’s always been.” I’m speaking to men when I say please don’t use the sphere of maleness and Western definition of a “real man” as a crutch in life. There is much ease in joining the male club, absent of women and femininity, to reassert one’s manliness and prowess as a man. In today’s world, that is a sure thing. I speak to women and the feminine, when I say, please don’t accept men’s and masculinity’s role as the dominant way. There are many changes that will be slow and hard, but I really believe such changes are for the better.

One very important thing is that I am not saying that to be a man is bad, nor is it bad to be manly or masculine. We are all different people and can only be truly comfortable in our own shoes by being true to ourselves. I’m only suggesting that we try to redefine what is to be a man from the norm of a dominant, powerful, and generally sexist to a well-rounded, reasonable, decent human being that lives in harmony with women. It’s a lot to ask and seems close to impossible and overly ideal, but these changes are not impossible. I wouldn’t say these things if I thought the changes were impossible.

Finally, what good can truly come of living unbalanced, fearful lives, surrounded by violence and suffering only to benefit a few? Western society’s masculine and feminine definitions should meet each other halfway, perhaps with more emphasis on the masculine side’s change, in redefining themselves for a more balanced life style. In such a life style women should be both revered as the cradle of life and respected as equals capable of ruling and having power in the world. Only then, will the testosterone-fueled wars of the world, where men beget violent acts that beget violent acts, be quieted and calmed into peace. Such an accomplishment will require a hundred (billions) more personal, inner (non-violent) revolutions, than outward ones.

And in the end, hopefully you can see why I believe these recent school tragedies are not the product of a lack of security at these schools. However, they are a product of an imbalanced, maladjusted, male dominated society with a common denominator of violence. In the face of this, I ask you all to examine your own education and actions and make a change. In the very least let’s all begin the discussion. In the name of peace and love, I wish you the best.

-the1000thpoet

PS I’m aware that I’ve made a lot of generalized statements without any peer-reviewed citations. If you don’t believe or agree with me, I encourage you to do you own research… at least with some recognized rape and sexual assault sites to see how big a problem rape is…Thank you for reading.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm

http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/3.html