http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Friday, February 9, 2007
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Best play ever man.
In happier news...
Movie rec of the week:
Johnny Guitar, dir. Nicholas Ray. Marvelous pulp. Joan Crawford at her melodramatic best. Sterling Hayden charming/menacing. Flipped gender roles (notice the positioning of the gun). My personal favorite: the jerky, bird-like performance of badguy Mercedes McCambridge as Emma. Sort of a cowboy critter.
Movie rec of the week:
Johnny Guitar, dir. Nicholas Ray. Marvelous pulp. Joan Crawford at her melodramatic best. Sterling Hayden charming/menacing. Flipped gender roles (notice the positioning of the gun). My personal favorite: the jerky, bird-like performance of badguy Mercedes McCambridge as Emma. Sort of a cowboy critter.
Monday, February 5, 2007
I feel unusual. I think we should go outside.
In honor of M.I.A.'s absurdly badass new song, I offer my essay about bird flu written in Nov. '05...
Xenophobia Airborne: The Bird Flu
Why has the bird flu virus only in the last month become the terrifying specter that we now know it to be, daily prophesied in the news? After all, the virus, along with the possibility that it could become transmissible from person to person and thus spark a catastrophic epidemic, has been around for several years. One possible explanation for the sudden jolt of interest in this disease might be found in a recent paradigm shift in Western paranoia in from culture to nature, a transformation that began with the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia and recently solidified as a phenomenon with several devastating Caribbean hurricanes and the Kashmir earthquake. It is a change in focus that has supplanted our obsession with global terrorism in favor of more imposing weapons of mass destruction: the various nightmarish potentialities of what the natural world is capable of dishing out. Yet it is only in the bird flu pandemic scenario that the hidden cultural anxieties buried within this explicit fear of nature are fully played out.
Who do disasters happen to? Naturally the answer to this question depends on who you are; for many, the answer is “me.” For most Americans, however, disasters happen to other people. They happen “over there.” But, the natural objection goes, what about New Orleans? Surely this disaster happened to people “just like you and I,” i.e. other developed-world citizens, those most “innocent” of victims. But then again, who really suffered in New Orleans? Was it not in fact an underclass who otherwise go unnoticed, denied, invisible, in the developing world—the Other within the Us? The developing world’s subaltern class, only visible as either victims or perpetrators of destruction and violence (as is currently on vivid display in France and Belgium)? Whether Americans want to admit it or not, even the tragic events of Hurricane Katrina were distant enough for them to remain alien, far enough away. What was too close to home, however, was the obvious incompetence of the government in helping the most needy victims of the disaster. The anxiety produced by this display of outrageous ineptitude remained free-floating, waiting for some future possibility to attach itself to. Terrorism would have been a logical destination, but after four years of countless alerts and little domestic action, Americans have been completely desensitized to the threat of terrorist attacks, particularly large-scale actions such as 9/11. The next act of terrorism on American soil is likely to be in a city, and likely to be a localized attack on easily accessible transportation—trains, buses and the like. While this remains of grave concern to those who live in major cities, it has nothing on the bird flu.
The bird flu means no escape. Nowhere will be safe. In almost no time, the “over there” would be over here. Like the 1918 virus, it could spread to every corner of the globe. Quarantines would likely prove ineffective; no more safety in not living in a city, no more gawking at urban catastrophe from a comfortable distance. Now, even more so than during Katrina, the "Other" would locate itself literally, physically within "Us"—we and those poor third-world victims would be one and the same. In addition, the hopelessness of our contemporary state would be exposed (at the current moment we are embarrassingly unprepared for such a disaster)—“their” state, the seemingly dysfunctional governments and services, “their” corruption, “their” neglect for their citizens, would be finally and utterly revealed as our own (as it has already been revealed with Katrina). Terror at the prospect of the bird flu is terror at the rapidly collapsing distance between there and here; it is the blurring of categories, a world without definition or boundary (as the disease would in fact use the very capitalist flows of the globalized world to spread). In such a way, we witness the eclipse of the developed by the developing world—it is already here, whether the bird flu comes or not; the media has already mirrored our fears back to us. Nature thus triumphs over culture, indeed over cultural difference proper. With our biological safety goes our the safety of our categories, our identity; there is no more pride, no more relief in being “here” where all is so much better. At last, everywhere is simply the world: equal and unending catastrophe.
Xenophobia Airborne: The Bird Flu
Why has the bird flu virus only in the last month become the terrifying specter that we now know it to be, daily prophesied in the news? After all, the virus, along with the possibility that it could become transmissible from person to person and thus spark a catastrophic epidemic, has been around for several years. One possible explanation for the sudden jolt of interest in this disease might be found in a recent paradigm shift in Western paranoia in from culture to nature, a transformation that began with the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia and recently solidified as a phenomenon with several devastating Caribbean hurricanes and the Kashmir earthquake. It is a change in focus that has supplanted our obsession with global terrorism in favor of more imposing weapons of mass destruction: the various nightmarish potentialities of what the natural world is capable of dishing out. Yet it is only in the bird flu pandemic scenario that the hidden cultural anxieties buried within this explicit fear of nature are fully played out.
Who do disasters happen to? Naturally the answer to this question depends on who you are; for many, the answer is “me.” For most Americans, however, disasters happen to other people. They happen “over there.” But, the natural objection goes, what about New Orleans? Surely this disaster happened to people “just like you and I,” i.e. other developed-world citizens, those most “innocent” of victims. But then again, who really suffered in New Orleans? Was it not in fact an underclass who otherwise go unnoticed, denied, invisible, in the developing world—the Other within the Us? The developing world’s subaltern class, only visible as either victims or perpetrators of destruction and violence (as is currently on vivid display in France and Belgium)? Whether Americans want to admit it or not, even the tragic events of Hurricane Katrina were distant enough for them to remain alien, far enough away. What was too close to home, however, was the obvious incompetence of the government in helping the most needy victims of the disaster. The anxiety produced by this display of outrageous ineptitude remained free-floating, waiting for some future possibility to attach itself to. Terrorism would have been a logical destination, but after four years of countless alerts and little domestic action, Americans have been completely desensitized to the threat of terrorist attacks, particularly large-scale actions such as 9/11. The next act of terrorism on American soil is likely to be in a city, and likely to be a localized attack on easily accessible transportation—trains, buses and the like. While this remains of grave concern to those who live in major cities, it has nothing on the bird flu.
The bird flu means no escape. Nowhere will be safe. In almost no time, the “over there” would be over here. Like the 1918 virus, it could spread to every corner of the globe. Quarantines would likely prove ineffective; no more safety in not living in a city, no more gawking at urban catastrophe from a comfortable distance. Now, even more so than during Katrina, the "Other" would locate itself literally, physically within "Us"—we and those poor third-world victims would be one and the same. In addition, the hopelessness of our contemporary state would be exposed (at the current moment we are embarrassingly unprepared for such a disaster)—“their” state, the seemingly dysfunctional governments and services, “their” corruption, “their” neglect for their citizens, would be finally and utterly revealed as our own (as it has already been revealed with Katrina). Terror at the prospect of the bird flu is terror at the rapidly collapsing distance between there and here; it is the blurring of categories, a world without definition or boundary (as the disease would in fact use the very capitalist flows of the globalized world to spread). In such a way, we witness the eclipse of the developed by the developing world—it is already here, whether the bird flu comes or not; the media has already mirrored our fears back to us. Nature thus triumphs over culture, indeed over cultural difference proper. With our biological safety goes our the safety of our categories, our identity; there is no more pride, no more relief in being “here” where all is so much better. At last, everywhere is simply the world: equal and unending catastrophe.
The NYTimes gets all CRITICAL on yo ass!!!
Well well well! Look who's playing cultural critic today! The ordinarily zombielike arts staff at the New York Times has deigned to venture as to why so many of the Superbowl commercials were violent this year. Look out, masters of the obvious, it's the WAR! Who woulda thunk it?
Now, I hate to take a turn into negative town here, but I think that this little featurette might have missed something. It's true, the ads were obnoxious, insensitive, and violent (my personal vote for nadir-of-the-year being the one in which a mechanical crane committed suicide-- ha ha!). But such insightful cultural analysis got me thinking... is there maybe something else that reflects this Interesting New Tendency of Violence in American Entertainment? Something, say, like, the game itself? Or maybe, oh, OUR ENTIRE FUCKING CULTURE????
Nah, that can't be it.
Now, I hate to take a turn into negative town here, but I think that this little featurette might have missed something. It's true, the ads were obnoxious, insensitive, and violent (my personal vote for nadir-of-the-year being the one in which a mechanical crane committed suicide-- ha ha!). But such insightful cultural analysis got me thinking... is there maybe something else that reflects this Interesting New Tendency of Violence in American Entertainment? Something, say, like, the game itself? Or maybe, oh, OUR ENTIRE FUCKING CULTURE????
Nah, that can't be it.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
MY favorite actor is Sidney Poitier.
So that my comments are not completely buried where no one will ever read them (as opposed to the three people who might read them here), I transfer some comments from a discussion following a post by Paul Shirley, the likeable/tragic espn writer who is trying to make an NBA team. A summary of his points:
...nothing stirs me up like the impact of race on sports. I watched some of the NFL's Conference Championship games. ...After both games, mention was made of the race of the winning coaches. First to piss me off was the Fox Network's Joe Buck. He noted that the Bears' coach, Lovie Smith, would be the "first African-American to coach in the Super Bowl". Later, Jim Nantz pulled the same trick. He noted that Tony Dungy would complete the all-black coaching dyad. ...What neither announcer understands is that their mention of the coaches' race did nothing to aid the eradication of racism. In fact, it did the opposite. ... I understand what Joe Buck and Jim Nantz were trying to do. They thought they were doing good. But they weren't. In fact, they did harm. By pointing out the coaches' race, they emphasized that the two men are different from the rest of humanity because of their skin color. ...Racism will disappear only when a black man is a man and when a black coach is a coach.
These are my comments:
Your intentions here are good, Paul, but you're wrong.
You ARE aware of race. You DO care about race. You care enough to rant about this issue. Thou dost protest too much.
EVERYONE with sight is aware of race. It is completely and totally unavoidable.
Racism is never going to disappear. Only a white person could even SUGGEST that such a thing could be possible.
Race pervades every level of the discourse of our popular culture. Racism structures almost all of our social and economic relations in the United States (though of course it is intermingled, in a very complicated way, with class).
I think that what you were really annoyed by is the -commodification- of the race of the Super Bowl coaches. That is, what is really appalling is that the NFL has the gall to PAT ITSELF ON THE BACK now that black coaches are finally coaching the big game.
In this conversion of race into marketing, there is what Marxist theorists call the ideological turn. That is, the fact that the NFL has an essentially racist hierarchy (almost no black people in management and lots of black players) is somehow SOLVED by a single instance to the contrary. Ridiculous.
It is admirable on one level to be so outraged by race/racism that you simply negate, or deny that it exists. The next and better step is to strive to understand it.
An excellent example of race in current sports parlance is the appalling use of the word "thug." This is the most racially coded term to come down the pike in a long time, and it is almost always used in an explicitly racist way by white commentators. What the hell does "thug" mean, besides "scary black guy?" It literally means, "I am scared of this big black guy who I perceive as a threat to me." "Thugs" are violent characters, they do harm to others. So the word attaches to completely meaningless fashion accessories like tattoos and do-rags. But make no mistake: the use of this term "thug" is RACIST. It is used as a synonym for "black man" that gives someone's race a negative coding. That is the definition of racism. When a black athlete dresses in a more "white" way (that is, when the threat perceived by the race-anxious person is removed to that white person's satisfaction), then he is no longer a "thug." This is a racist economy.
...nothing stirs me up like the impact of race on sports. I watched some of the NFL's Conference Championship games. ...After both games, mention was made of the race of the winning coaches. First to piss me off was the Fox Network's Joe Buck. He noted that the Bears' coach, Lovie Smith, would be the "first African-American to coach in the Super Bowl". Later, Jim Nantz pulled the same trick. He noted that Tony Dungy would complete the all-black coaching dyad. ...What neither announcer understands is that their mention of the coaches' race did nothing to aid the eradication of racism. In fact, it did the opposite. ... I understand what Joe Buck and Jim Nantz were trying to do. They thought they were doing good. But they weren't. In fact, they did harm. By pointing out the coaches' race, they emphasized that the two men are different from the rest of humanity because of their skin color. ...Racism will disappear only when a black man is a man and when a black coach is a coach.
These are my comments:
Your intentions here are good, Paul, but you're wrong.
You ARE aware of race. You DO care about race. You care enough to rant about this issue. Thou dost protest too much.
EVERYONE with sight is aware of race. It is completely and totally unavoidable.
Racism is never going to disappear. Only a white person could even SUGGEST that such a thing could be possible.
Race pervades every level of the discourse of our popular culture. Racism structures almost all of our social and economic relations in the United States (though of course it is intermingled, in a very complicated way, with class).
I think that what you were really annoyed by is the -commodification- of the race of the Super Bowl coaches. That is, what is really appalling is that the NFL has the gall to PAT ITSELF ON THE BACK now that black coaches are finally coaching the big game.
In this conversion of race into marketing, there is what Marxist theorists call the ideological turn. That is, the fact that the NFL has an essentially racist hierarchy (almost no black people in management and lots of black players) is somehow SOLVED by a single instance to the contrary. Ridiculous.
It is admirable on one level to be so outraged by race/racism that you simply negate, or deny that it exists. The next and better step is to strive to understand it.
An excellent example of race in current sports parlance is the appalling use of the word "thug." This is the most racially coded term to come down the pike in a long time, and it is almost always used in an explicitly racist way by white commentators. What the hell does "thug" mean, besides "scary black guy?" It literally means, "I am scared of this big black guy who I perceive as a threat to me." "Thugs" are violent characters, they do harm to others. So the word attaches to completely meaningless fashion accessories like tattoos and do-rags. But make no mistake: the use of this term "thug" is RACIST. It is used as a synonym for "black man" that gives someone's race a negative coding. That is the definition of racism. When a black athlete dresses in a more "white" way (that is, when the threat perceived by the race-anxious person is removed to that white person's satisfaction), then he is no longer a "thug." This is a racist economy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
