I may have to turn in my nerd membership, because I thought Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was absolutely God-awful. Not just because the plotline was pathetically thin, or because the fight scenes were dull or the characters two-dimensional — the problem with Scott Pilgrim wasn’t even the fact that Michael Cera still hasn’t learned a second acting technique apart from affably confused. No, I realized I was in a really bad movie after two troubling scenes at the very start.

The first is when Ramona Flowers (Mary-Elizabeth Winstead) roller-skates through Scott’s subconscious before he meets her, making her literally the girl of his dreams and, essentially, his creation. And then, a little later, the scene in which Scott prepares to battle Ramona’s first “evil ex” named Matthew Patel, picture above, who breaks into a Bollywood number before fighting Scott because he is, after all, East Indian and has magical powers. Not kidding.

Even that might not have been so bad if the film had in any way given a fair shake to any skin color other than white. But, as Sean Stangland at Daily Herald Blogs argues:

I realize that every “good” character, for lack of a better word, is white. The other prominent Asian characters in the film are Scott’s clingy, borderline crazy Chinese girlfriend, Knives Chao (Ellen Wong), and two of Matthew’s fellow evil exes, Kyle and Ken Katanagi (Keita Saitou and Shota Saito). Latinos are represented by Clifton Collins Jr. as a vegan cop, and blacks are represented by … uhh … hmm … no one. So perhaps the criticism that the film was made for and by white hipster douchebags carries a little more weight than I thought.

(more…)

Naming a child is a great responsibility, and one that most parents weigh very carefully. Of course, sometimes you mess up … I accidentally gave one of my daughters the same name (first and middle) as a character in a children’s series, for example, and I had to talk my ex-husband out of naming my other little princess “Pythagora” (he wanted to name the baby “Pythagoras” but then we found out she was a girl).

Still, even Pythagora is far better than Adolf Hitler. Or Jocelynn Aryan Nation. Or Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie. Yup, those are in fact actual names given to the three children of Heath and Deborah Campbell of New Jersey.

It should come as no surprise that the children were removed from their parents’ custody. The only surprise as far as I’m concerned is that they had enough time to continue this madness after naming their first child Adolf freaking Hitler.

From Newser:

The Appeals court ruling overturned a family court decision, and found that the parents suffer from unspecified physical and psychological disabilities. Heath and Deborah Campbell were victims of childhood abuse and neither “have received adequate treatment for their serious psychological conditions,” the ruling stated. The parents “recklessly created a risk of serious injury to their children by failing to protect them from harm and failing to treat their disabilities,” the judges ruled.

They cited a typo-riddled note written by Adolf Hitler’s mom and slipped to a neighbor warning that her husband had threatened to kill her, reports AP. “Hes alread tried it a few times. Im afread that he might hurt my children if they are keeped in his care,” wrote Deborah Campbell, who later called the note she admitted writing “a lie.”

You know, sometimes I feel really badly for the legal system. I really and truly do. I think it must be very hard not to say, “They’re freaking bananas, take the kids away, next!” in a case like this.

(more…)

If you follow the news at all, you’ve more likely than not heard the name Shirley Sherrod. While you’re probably aware of the veritable circus being made out of comments she made at an NAACP event, you might be a little foggy on the whole story. I know I was.

Basically, Shirley Sherrod was the USDA Director of Rural Development for the state of Georgia until she quit abruptly last week just before a media storm of epic proportions. Her resignation came about after conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart posted excerpts on July 19 of a video taken of Sherrod speaking about the importance of overcoming personal prejudices.

Sherrod’s comments, which were pretty obviously taken out of context in an edited two minute clip, come off as sounding about as racist as they come when speaking about her laissez faire attitude in helping white farmers because of their skin color. Sherrod was pressured to resign and ultimately did so via an e-mail sent from her BlackBerry on the side of a road.

From Politics Daily:

Sherrod made headlines Tuesday morning after a video clip surfaced from a speech she made in March to an NAACP forum recounting her meeting with a struggling white farmer who came to her for help in 1986.

“Here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land,” Sherrod said about her feelings 24 years ago. “So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he (went to state or federal officials) he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.”

Sherrod told CNN on Tuesday that the clip was taken out of context. She said she described the decades-old incident with the white farmer because she has since come to realize her mistake. “Working with him helped me realize the issue is not about race, it’s about those who have and those who have not,” she said.

And now the backlash has begun.

Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee Chairman (and former presidential candidate), is making strong racist claims against Fox News, whose Bill O’Reilly led the charge in smearing Sherrod’s name.

From CNN:

(more…)

Sabbar Kashur has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for “rape by deception” after telling a Jewish woman that he was also Jewish in order to get her to have sex with him. Although the judge stated that the sex was consensual, his ruling makes it clear that the Jewish woman would not have agreed to the sex if she knew the Kashur was not Jewish. While it is clear that Kashur did deceive the woman and was wrong to do so, the idea that this somehow constitutes rape is ridiculous, especially when one considers the circumstances under which the sex occurred and the racial and religious dynamics surrounding this case.

The woman in question claims that she only had sex with Kashur after he told her that he was a Jewish bachelor who wanted a serious relationship. If this were true, then why would she have had sex with him in a public place only a few hours after meeting him? This does not seem like the sort of behavior that indicates one would be seeking a commitment, which may be exactly why Kashur lied, since he knew the magic words “Jewish bachelor” and “serious relationship” would help him get into her pants more quickly. Indeed, what it seems that the woman was not angry about the sex, but the fact that she had it with …

(more…)

Sarah Palin closed a recent Facebook note regarding the dust up between the NAACP and the Tea Partiers with the sentence, “It is time to end the divisive politics.” Fresh on the heels of that, however, she is leaning on American Muslims to reject the mosque proposed to be built near Ground Zero. I don’t know, Sarah Palin, but that seems about as divisive as politics can be.

From Politics Daily:

Sarah Palin has a new cause – the proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York.

On Sunday, via the social networking site Twitter, the former Alaska governor asked “peace-seeking” Muslims to understand that the mosque will interfere with recovery from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Whoa. A house of worship will interfere with the nation’s recovery from 9/11? That has to be the most asinine thing I’ve heard in my life. That’s like saying that no Catholic churches should be located near schools because some rogue priests are pedophiles. It is completely counterproductive to building bridges toward peace, acceptance, and understanding. It is in direct contrast to the very Constitution that the Tea Party claims to hold so dear.

(more…)

Abuse in a relationship is a serious — sometimes deadly — business.  There is often a hesitancy in reporting someone you love to the police, and the humiliation that goes under the “domestic abuse” blanket is wrong on many levels … but it exists all the same.

Which leads me, of course, to Mel Gibson.

I’m going to be honest with you, I’m a huge fan of Mel Gibson movies.  Braveheart is one of my all time favorites.  I have fond childhood memories of watching the Mad Max films with my brother.  The Lethal Weapon flicks.  The Patriot.  Even freaking Hamlet.  I love them all.  And I think that’s why it’s important to remember that the public face of people can all too often mask something terrible.

What’s pissing me off the most about the recent coverage of Gibson’s travesties is that the heat seems to be more on his use of derogatory words than on his treatment of former girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva.  I mean, his racist rants are deplorable.  In retrospect, in fact, he should have been called out on the carpet for them back in 2006.

From a TMZ report:

Once inside the car, a source directly connected with the case says Gibson began banging himself against the seat. The report says Gibson told the deputy, “You mother f****r. I’m going to f*** you.” The report also says “Gibson almost continually [sic] threatened me saying he ‘owns Malibu’ and will spend all of his money to ‘get even’ with me.”

(more…)

Nikki Haley won the Republican gubernatorial nomination in South Carolina on Tuesday in a runoff election with Congressman Gresham Barrett.  South Carolinians will choose between Haley and Democrat Vincent Sheehan on election day, and Haley is the hands down favorite to win.  Haley overcame challenges including cheating allegations, an increasingly common charge in this day and age, and ethnic slurs.

From the New York Times:

Ms. Haley, 38, rose in the polls by promising to break an entrenched network that has dominated state politics for decades. She portrayed the unsubstantiated charges of sexual affairs as retaliation for taking on special interests.

In the general election, Ms. Haley faces the Democratic nominee, Vincent Sheheen, who won his primary on June 8. Republican candidates in South Carolina hold a considerable advantage in the general election, and even Democratic leaders in the state concede that something unforeseen would have to unfold for Ms. Haley not to win in November.

The two are competing to succeed Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, who confessed to having an extramarital affair with an Argentine woman last year and is barred by term limits from seeking re-election.

Haley, “a first generation American of Indian descent,” has been increasingly popular in the national news.  Her meteoric rise can be attributed to many factors, not the least of which is an endorsement from Sarah Palin.
(more…)

Film producer Scott Rudin has reportedly purchased the film rights to upcoming biography Queen of the Nile, Cleopatra: A Life, and has confirmed that the film is being developed with Angelina Jolie in mind for the leading role.

Rudin’s casting decision has caused controversy. Essence this weekend features an opinion piece that strongly criticises the casting decision and argues that the role should have gone to a black actress. The author of the piece, Shirea L. Carroll, writes:

‘Honestly, I don’t care how full Angelina Jolie’s lips are, how many African children she adopts, or how bronzed her skin will become for the film, I firmly believe this role should have gone to a black woman. I mean, isn’t it enough that 47 years ago, Dame Elizabeth Taylor was cast to portray Cleopatra in one of the most expensive films ever made? That Elizabeth Taylor was actually the third white woman to be tapped for the Cleopatra role – following Vivien Leigh and Claudette Colbert – just makes this all the more comical. Were Vanessa Williams, Halle Berry and Thandie Newton unavailable for auditions that day? Why would Hollywood think it’s even slightly plausible to cast white women in roles that would be more sensible to case a black actress for? Especially when that role is an African Queen.’

Carroll’s views on this issue are interesting for a number of reasons – for one thing, history doesn’t actually give us a definitive picture of what Cleopatra looked like, let alone confirm that she was black. It is most commonly thought that Cleopatra was in fact of Macedonian Greek ancestry. Carroll recognises this in her article, stating that:

‘…while historically there is no concrete information that Cleopatra was of a darker complexion, there is more evidence than not that she was black, and not entirely of Greek ancestry, as Shakespeare, leagues of painters and now Hollywood would have us believe.’

Though Carroll does assert that there is no concrete information to prove that Cleopatra was of a dark complexion - ‘there is more evidence than not that she was black,’ I don’t feel that this particularly strengthens her argument in the piece.

In addition, Carroll’s piece seems to focus on the fact that Cleopatra was African, and should therefore be played by a black actress. This is problematic in itself – Africa is, and indeed always has been, a multicultural nation with citizens of many different skin tones and complexions. Just because Egypt is in Africa, does this mean that Cleopatra should be played by a black actress? Charlize Theron, for example, is African, and she’s a blonde-haired Caucasian – would she be a more appropriate choice than Angelina to play Cleo?

Whilst Carroll makes a valid point with her piece, that Hollywood should perhaps cast more black women in lead roles, I’m not sure the issue of Jolie’s casting is a particularly good lead from which to make this point. The lack of clarity over Cleopatra’s ancestry means that such vehement insistence that the role should be taken by a black woman is a purely personal conviction, and a conviction that has not gone down well with a number of commenters on the Essence website.

Carroll is clearly writing about a topic that she feels very passionate about, but I think I’m inclined to agree with some of the commenters who have expressed their concerns. There really aren’t any concrete reasons that can be given to explain why the role of Cleopatra should be played by a woman of any specific race.

In my mind, even if there were solid evidence that Cleopatra was a black woman, films are fiction. The movies have always been guilty of inaccurately portraying history, and are more about A-list actors and box-office figures and than historical or political accuracy. I’d be interested to hear what you guys think about this – in writing her article, has Shirea L. Carroll ‘bent’ history to make a political point about something she feels passionate about, just as movie-makers bend history for their own means? Is it really that terrible a decision to cast Angelina Jolie in the role? Who would you guys choose, and for what reasons?

South Carolina Gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley is pushing on with her message—and leading the polls by quite a margin—despite the all-too-usual disdain some hold for women in politics … and the stigma attached to her ethnicity (a state senator referred to her as a “raghead”).  Oh, and she’s also been accused of sleeping around.

From Politics Daily:

Will Folks, a conservative blogger, and lobbyist Larry Marchant, a former campaign worker for rival Andre Bauer, who sits at the bottom of the poll, said they’ve shared pillow talk with Haley. Then, state Sen. Jake Knotts used “raghead” to describe Haley and the president of the United States, two elected officials who may be politically opposed but are similar in the way that matters most to Knotts.

Haley, a Methodist, was born and raised in South Carolina and attended Clemson University there; her parents, immigrants from India, are Sikhs, which must make Haley some sort of stealth candidate in Knotts’ view.

The politically tainted accusations of sexual misconduct, the ethnic slurs passed off as harmless and “intended in jest,” reek of sexism and nativism that is unfortunately as American as the apple pie some would also see as under attack – maybe by a sexy dish with multicultural spices. While Americans talk a good game about welcoming everyone, it’s clear that to a lot of people some citizens are more American than others. In 1928, the Catholicism of presidential candidate Al Smith was a deal-breaker. That you have to now have Muslims or Sikhs in the family tree to engender the wrath of some Christian Americans could, I suppose, be considered slow progress.

(more…)

A fourteen year-old girl in Gloucester County, New Jersey, was recently “arrested” by local law enforcement for hijacking a PA system in a local Whole Foods store and advising African-Americans to leave.

The girl was charged with “bias and intimidation” (interesting charge) and will see a court date in the near future for her indiscretion.

A Detective for the Edgewater Police Department states:

“I believe the reason there weren’t any problems was because the store acted so prudently in calling right away, and the police response was so quick that anyone who was in the store saw these people get grabbed immediately and put in a police car.”

How do people with such internal anger and stupidity even continue to exist nowadays? Am I naive, or are there really that many people who carry the burden of one hundred years upon their backs, still, and to the point where it transcends into their daily, everyday lives?

What the hell are these parents and teachers passing along — or not passing along — to kids nowadays?

I mean, jeez, we have a black president, Joshua Alston opines in a NEWSWEEK web exclusive. How far behind is entertainment?

He’s got a point: The show is now in its 14th season, and all the male contenders have been white. What gives?

Rather than actually contacting the show’s executive producer and getting a “crafted, politically correct” response back, Alston decided to answer the question for himself. He decided that the show has only featured white bachelors because the majority of the country is white, and because folks still “overwhelmingly” seek a love connection with people of their own race.

Could they cast a black man? Sure. Would it be smart to? Probably not. The Bachelor is one of many pop-culture artifacts that highlight the uncomfortable gap between the way we’d like to think of racial integration and the way it actually is.

Honestly, I think Alston is letting “The Bachelor” off way too easy. It’s common knowledge that 24, for example, leans right — not the most progressive political P.O.V. – and yet it featured an African-American President close to a decade before that became a reality. And that show’s been on the air FOREVER. It’s done well. Maybe it’s the idealist in me, but don’t the people behind pop culture have a responsibility to close the gap between how accepting we profess to be, and how accepting we really are? Or at least to prepare us, to move us forward? Has money made entertainers such cowards? Wait, don’t answer that …

I know this isn’t exactly feminism, but I have a lot of opinions on this Henry Louis Gates thing, and gosh darn it I’m going to talk about them.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with this story, here are the basics:

Henry Louis Gates is a professor at Harvard Law School. He also happens to be black. Last week, Professor Gates returned from a business trip to his home and found his door jammed. He opened his back door with his key and tried unsuccessfully from inside his home to open the front door. Eventually, Gates and his driver forced the door open from the outside. Meanwhile, a neighbor was watching what was going on and called the cops to report a possible break-in, saying that there were two black men with backpacks on the porch trying to force the front door open. A white policeman showed up and asked to speak to Professor Gates, and ask him for proof that he lived there. Gates refused, and began to yell at the police and accuse them of racism. He continued to yell at the police after a warning that he was becoming disorderly, and was eventually arrested for disorderly conduct. The charge was later dropped.

Somehow this story has become “proof” of racism in America, with even President Obama stating that the police “acted stupidly.” Anyone and everyone seems to be on television talking about how our police are so incredibly racist and awful, and they’re pointing to this story as why.

Listen, I’m not claiming that we don’t have racism in this country, or that all police are always colorblind, but this is about the dumbest “example” of racism I’ve heard. The police got a call about a possible break-in. What are they supposed to do? Sit around in their cop cars for half an hour and try to determine if the caller is racially profiling someone? While a house is potentially being robbed? Or — worse — someone inside the house is being attacked? Is that what you want our police to be doing?

Is our police force only supposed to investigate crimes where the perpetrator is white? Ignoring any other calls because there could possibly be racial profiling involved? Do our laws about disorderly conduct only apply to white people? Are black people allowed to treat the police however they want with no repercussions, just because arresting them on disorderly conduct might be construed as racism?

The cops did their fucking jobs — they showed up to investigate a possible break-in. They didn’t barge in and start beating up Professor Gates; they stood outside and asked him to provide proof that he lived there. This is a totally reasonable police response to a call about a potential break-in, and I’m willing to bet the response would have looked identical had Professor Gates been white.

You could say this neighbor was being racist, but even that seems an unfair accusation. If I saw two people — black or white or whatever — trying to force open a front door to a home, I’d probably give the police a call to let them know too. It’s suspicious activity, and you want to do your part as a good citizen. She didn’t head over there with a gun and start shooting, she didn’t call these men names, she described them and their activities over the phone politely to a police officer. Again: totally reasonable.

I think the only person here who was definitely being racist is Professor Gates. His response when the police officer asked for his identification because he was investigating a possible break-in was “Why, because I’m a black man in America?” No, stupid, because you were forcing open a door to a residence. All he had to do was be like, “Yes, officer, this is my house. The front door was jammed. Here’s my ID.” And that would have been the end of it. Instead he has to make it some huge thing about race. And then everyone jumps on the bandwagon, and suddenly this police officer who was just doing his job is the new face of racial profiling in this country? Bull. Shit.

Professor Gates, your outburst and your ensuing media brouhaha did nothing to improve race relations in this country; you have only done harm. Next time, consider the possibility that decisions can be made in this country without race being a factor, and then maybe others will, too.