To do, in the future

Sometime this weekend, when I have time completely free and have caught up on sleep, remind me to write that essay I’ve been thinking about on the shifting and occasionally classist definition of “fandom.” Because I really don’t have enough to do in the next couple of weeks. And now I’m off to my 8 hour departmental orientation and then 5 hours of work directly after! Yay!

IBARW: the forgotten American minority

It’s International Blog Against Racism Week and I wanted to post about something. Of course, there’s about a billion different things you could talk about, from the very general about racism and assumptions, to the more specific about certain population groups. I decided to go with something a little more specific because it concerns me personally and has since I was a child.

You see, I grew up in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. For those that don’t know, this is the home of HAL 9000 and, until earlier this year and with much protest, the University of Illinois’s mascot Chief Illiniwek. The Chief was finally retired back in February, due to a ruling by the NCAA saying that the mascot was “hostile and abusive” to Native Americans. For those that like to judge themselves: The Chief’s Last Dance. You’ll have to forgive the quality of video; it’s on Youtube and looks like it was ripped from a video tape copy of a local news station’s coverage. The sound is a little loud, so be prepared for roaring.

You see, the U of I, in general, loves the Chief, deeply, passionately, and fought that ruling to the bitter end.

The U of I is not the only sports team to have a problematic mascot (and don’t forget the issues of using Native Americans, Native American tribal names and Native American symbols/terminology as mascots) but they are probably one of the most contentious hold-outs. The Florida State Seminoles, for example, were allowed to keep their name and symbols (Chief Osceola and Renegade) because they asked and received official sanction by the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. (AFAIK, neither FSU nor the two other schools that were exempt from the NCAA ruling don’t pay any type of license fees or other type of monetary compensation in exchange for permissive use of Native American tribe names.)

When I was growing up, I had grandparents who worked for the U of I. My grandmother was a Dean at the College of Education (which meant I was infamous with all the new student teachers at my schools) and my grandfather taught in the College of Agriculture. They were both (and still are) supporters of U of I football and basketball, so I got to go to a lot of home games of both sports. I remember seeing Charlene Teters and her children protesting at the games and I remember the abuse they suffered. I didn’t understand why people were so mean then but of course I didn’t really understand the things wrong with the Chief.

You see, the Chief plays into one of two overwhelming stereotypes American culture has about Native Americans: “bloodthirsty savage” and “noble savage.” In sports, it’s teams like the “Braves,” or the Southeastern Oklahoma State University Savages (now the “Savage Storm”), or the North Dakota Fighting Sioux (who were originally the Flickertails, but the name was changed in the 30s to The Sioux after the UND student paper noted the Sioux were good at killing, had a strong warrior-like physique and that Sioux rhymes easily for yells and chants.). Of course, my personal favorite is the now defunct St. Bonaventure Brown Indians and Brown Squaws. You can see it in practically every western ever made, in which those “damn Indians” are terrorizing the good (white) farmers/sharecroppers/cattle ranchers/etc. and killing and raping their women and scalping the men (see especially the John Wayne film The Searchers).

The noble savage, on its face, is a better stereotype. It involves the Native Americans who are connected to nature, generous and selfless, innocent, physically healthy, and with a more natural, or untutored, wisdom. Doesn’t sound so bad, right? I mean, this is the kind of group that started Thanksgiving, right? Well, look a little deeper. Don’t a lot of those attributes also sound like the attributes think of in children? It’s unrealistic and condescending and still in use. Look at the two anti-pollution PSAs, one created in 1971 and the other in 1998, which show a Native American crying at white neglect of nature. (For the record, I found these on Youtube by searching ‘crying indian,’ which says something right there.) In movies, I think generally you’d be more likely to see this stereotype with female Native American characters than male ones (but I haven’t exactly made a study of it).

The real problem here is that both of these overriding stereotypes rely on the past. Because they rely on outdated views of Native Americans, it obscures and trivializes contemporary Native Americans and Native American culture.

So, let me give you a few facts about the current state of Native Americans in the US:

Their unemployment rate is 3 times that for whites and over two times that for blacks.
They have the lowest median income. They have the lowest per capita income.
They have some of the worst housing in the nation.
They have one of the highest mortality rates in the nation.
1/5 of all Native American teenagers attempt suicide.
Their life expectancy is well below the national average.
The alcoholism rate among Native Americans is 5 times the national average.
They have the highest proportion of high school drop outs in the nation. 36% of students drop out of high school by the 10th grade.
There are legal loopholes that allow non-Native Americans to victimize Native American women and children without any consequences whatsoever. Native American women are victimized over 2.5 times the national average.
Native Americans were the last minority in the nation to receive the right to vote (in 1924). The only voting rights amendment that came after this was the 1971 change that moved the voting age from 21 to 18.

Now is the time to confess the other reason this topic concerns me personally. My older brother, Alistair, teaches and coaches on the Navajo reservation in Arizona. He married a Navajo woman, Faith, and they have two of the cutest kids ever (in my highly biased opinion). He and Faith deal with these issues first hand daily, both with the kids he teachers and with what they’re going to do with their own (Ruth is two and Elijah is about four months old right now). I wish them the best of it though I know they’ve got an uphill struggle.

This struggle is made even more uphill by the general lack of consciousness of conditions for Native Americans and now, with the introduction of casinos (which has created a whole new set of problems on reservations and begun to create something of a false stereotype of rich tribes), I fear that isn’t likely to change anytime soon.

You see, I’m conflicted about the retirement of the Chief. I wonder that, now that contentious symbols like the Chief are gone and out of public view (relatively speaking; last month I saw an auction of a Chief clock go for over $250), I worry that the discussion will stop completely and all we’ll have left in popular discourse of Native Americans are the bloodthirsty savage, the noble savage and the greedy casino owner.

Tomorrow, if I’m not lazy or busy, I just might blog about the issue of race in sports generally. Because I find sociology of sports fascinating.

Language and Speech Patterns

I’ve been reading all the posts regarding the newest (okay, given LJ’s deletion of of fan artist accounts, second newest) thing going around LJ. Yes, you guessed it, the miscegenation debate. And what’s really shocking to me is not that a) very educated people don’t know the term and its racist origins or b) people don’t see anything wrong with using this term, even knowing its origins but c) apparently it’s a bad thing to call people on their racist/sexist/classist/intellectualist/etc shit.

When I went to ’s journal to link up her original post, it blew me away that she has five posts following it, all of the effect of essentially disclaiming her statements to simply get people to concentrate on the real topic at hand: the racist usage of a derogatory term.

This is not uncommon in fandom. This is not uncommon even in academia (though with different root sources, at least in my portion of academia). It frightens the hell out of me. We, women especially, are patterned and trained to use disclamatory language. “I think,” “to an extent,” “it seems,” “you know?,” all of these are disclamatory tags that pepper our language and speech. Generally speaking, men are allowed to state, but women are forced to explain. I think that idea of intersectional language is made even more difficult when you bring in other traditionally oppressed statuses, such as race or disability or class.

In academia, at least social sciences where I primarily read, I think disclamatory language is a huge problem. In essence, the dry, dispassionate, “value-free” expectation of scientific research encourages it by (falsely) removing the scientist’s goals and standpoint’s from the equation. Science is not “value-free” because scientists are not value-free. Even worse, this kind of scientific inquiry privileges the advantaged perspective. In essence, research questions tend to explore the deficiencies of the groups in disadvantaged social positions than they are to explore the deficiencies of groups with social power. So we ask, “why do women have so little self-confidence?” rather than “why do men have so little modesty?” Posing questions this way, researching this way, implies that “those with power are normal; their traits, behaviors, and social position require no justification” (Sprague 2005: 11). There’s a lot of writing on feminist methodology in research in social sciences right now that’s fascinating. (Of course, I was a standpoint theorist from long ago, back when it was called “new historicism” in literary theory, to display my personal bias in research.)

In fandom, disclaimatory language seems almost worse. (See, I did it there myself. It’s ubiquitious!) Those female language patterns are reinforced over and over by the other members of fandom itself. Case in point: ’s inability to simply just say “this is a racist term” without people pressing her and reacting and forcing her to qualify, qualify, qualify. When you don’t disclaim your “opinion,” (never mind that you might actually be stating something that is a fact), you’re seen as aggressive and unreasonable because of it. You almost have to have the ability to waffle and compromise and use weasel words to have a real discussion in fandom and half the time those discussions end up hijacked by “oh, but her tone!” criticisms anyway.

I don’t have any particular revelations on why fandom in particular is so focused on making people disclaim. Part of it may be that online fandom, especially fic/art producing fandom, is so much a female space and female groups are traditionally cooperative acts (and there’s a whole bunch of potential studies in why and how fandom members take a competitive social act and try and reshape it to a cooperative one, with varying degrees of success, research for the future!). Quilting circles, for example, to use a somewhat out of date one (though my grandmother’s quilting circle is awesome). There’s also the Cult of Nice, from the Cult of Self-Esteem that says any criticism, valid or otherwise, is scorned as bad and if you can’t say something nice, either shut up or lie about it. Maybe even some of it comes down to the idea of fandom as a “safe space.” There’s a lot of people out there who come to fandom strictly for fun and don’t want those icky political discussions messing it up. The ignorance defense is valid here too, in some ways, I think. (Look! More weasel words!) Fandom is primarily middle-to-upper class, educated white females and the priviledged class likes to protect its privilege. Willful blindness, you could say.

I really don’t know the reason. In actuality, it’s probably a combination of all those reasons and maybe even others. I just know that I personally would like to see less qualifications and more statements.

Sprauge, Joey. 2005. Feminist Methodologies for Critical Researchers: Bridging Differences. Walnut Creek: Rowman and Littlefield.

On rewatching G.I. Joe

“Here comes the Crimson Elite.”
“Elite, ha. We do all the work around here.”

“My orders come from Cobra Commander himself. In triplicate!”

GI Joe: Indoctrinating nascent office workers since 1985. Yo Joe!

Anti-Intellectualism in Eurekan Life

In the midst of the discussion that I had about this morning’s post on metatextual and contextual racism (and other isms), one canon came up a lot when were talking: Eureka. It came up often because it’s a really unique show in what and how it displays its bias. Eureka is highly lauded for their visual portrayals of minorities in major roles (both in terms of women and multiple ethnicities) but that doesn’t mean either canon is devoid of people of lower social status and oppression. But what I find really interesting about both shows is the metatextual analysis of where the real bias lies and how they’re approaching it.

Eureka has, hands down, one of the most ethnically diverse casts in scifi. There’s characters of color and bi-racial relationships (and not just in the black/white sense, we also see Asian/black, for example) all over the place. But not a single glance at racism as a topic within the canon. Partially, I think, this is because it’s the wrong genre for this. Eureka is not a drama; it’s a comedy. Maybe even action comedy.

But the big reason racism isn’t really addressed comes because the metatextual bias of the show isn’t racist. Eureka is anti-intellectual.

I know! Shocking statement about a show in which the town is almost entirely made of the top scientific minds of the world and their families. But that doesn’t change the fact that the show’s slant is anti-intellectual. The protagonist and point-of-view character for the show is primarily Jack Carter. Jack is the one who takes care of problems, cracks the most jokes, and often displays an average Joe sort of common sense most people respect. He’s a former federal marshal, unwillingly turned town sheriff when he and his daughter Zoe crash their car outside of town and wander in needing a repair. He supplants the (female) former Army Ranger and established town resident Deputy Jo Lupo for the job when the original sheriff is injured.

Jack also routinely puts down the science around him, dismissing the scientists and complaining about their speech, mannerisms, lack of forethought, consideration, and their lack of respect for “proper culture” (such as baseball).

This is the character we’re supposed to relate to and agree with and he consistently displays an outright loathing for the intellectual surroundings around him. Even worse, rarely do any other characters call him on his attitude. The one character who does often is Nathan Stark. Nathan, the head of the company all the scientists are employed through (Global Dynamics), puts Jack down equally as often as Jack snarks at him. The difference is that Nathan is shown as snide, condescending, patronizing and an all around ass to everyone around him.

But lest you think that this is Eureka’s way of showing all outsiders to the town, there’s the case of Zoe. You see, Zoe Carter adapts to Eureka being weird. She eventually embraces it and finds her own place within the community. Jack Carter distinctly does not. He tries to bend Eureka to his view point. And the biggest difference between Jack and his daughter Zoe is that Zoe appreciates being smart and different, even before she lands in the capitol of weird: Eureka. Specifically, she appreciates what being smart can do. (She’s even taken advantage of it before. Zoe might not be Eureka caliber of smart, but she’s not just average either. Jack’s biggest problem with Zoe — and she causes a lot of problems during the course of the show — is really that Zoe’s just smarter than he is.)

The really funny thing about the metatextual display of bias is that, contextually, Jack is the minority position. Within Eureka, he’s vastly outnumbered. He’s not a scientist, he wasn’t looking to work there, he’s a new-comer, he likes (and here’s an annoying stereotype of intellectuals, if I have to name just one) *gasp!* sports. How often do you see a metatextual slant of irrational and divisive bias through a minority perspective? (Randomly, do we see a lot of discussion of instances where we see, for example, middle/upper class African-Americans afraid of lower class African-Americans or actively avoiding “ghettos” like Cabrini Green in Chicago or some of the neighborhoods in East St. Louis, or Hispanics with Barrio Logan in San Diego? Because it happens, even on TV.)

The fact that this metatextual bias exists in a canon where, contextually, things are idyllic in terms of equality is fascinating. Of course Eureka has other issues, metatextually, in terms of its minority portrayals (I find issue with the portrayals of the big four female parts in the show, personally, as they fall into very specific stereotypes and all lend themselves to support roles and the lack of regular female “hard scientists” — Jo’s the muscle, Beverly and Allison are doctors (and we only see Allison acting as a doctor once, the rest of the time she’s an administrator and bureaucrat), and Zoe’s a kid in school.) But I think the bias overlooked by fandom and probably created unconsciously by the show’s producers and writers is the anti-intellectual air. After all, accepting it as rote is easy; it plays right into the general culture of anti-intellectualism within American society. This is a general dismissal that worries me personally, as much as racism or sexism or homophobia, because the consequences here are equally as damaging. Look at President Bush vs. every environmental scientist ever. Or the way pseudo-science is used to push abstinence-only education in schools. But that’s an essay for another day and time.

This doesn’t stop me from being excited about the return of Eureka, of course. The fake PSAs and pseudo-infomercials Scifi is showing don’t help either. The one featuring Henry (”Remember, today’s robot is tomorrow’s unstoppable killing machine.”) had me laughing so hard I was crying. If you didn’t recognize him, Henry’s actor (Joe Morton) is the same man who, in Terminator 2 played Miles Dyson, the unfortunate doctor who essentially creates Skynet. Skynet being the psychotic computer that goes nuts in the future and starts waging a campaign to rid the world of humanity, of course. So, yes, the PSA was hilarious in context.

And now I’m curious: does anyone know when The Sarah Connor Chronicles is supposed to start?