Heroes write the History

Nearly a year ago, I wrote a post defining and explaining Nostalgia which largely criticizing the media industry's explicit exploitation of the past. Even in that post, I acknowledged that not all use of 'the past' was Nostalgic, and not necessarily bad. Successful shows like Mad Men (AMC) and Boardwalk Empire (HBO) or movies such as Lincoln (2012) and Charlie Wilson's War (2007) do rely on audience's idealized preconceptions of the past, but not in the same way as Man of Steel (2013) or The Carrie Diaries (The CW). The latter use Nostalgia to tell the same story while the former use History to tell a new one. Revisiting History within the context of New American Mythology reveals shifting perspectives of the past while offering direction to our present lives.

We all know the general story of Lincoln, the Civil War, and Emancipation. In any historical retelling of the story, we know how it's going to end (a bullet, Northern victory, and segregation). So why recreate it- to simply to relive our glory days? No, that's Nostalgia. We use History to help understand present issues, and look to our heroes for guidance. Take the 1988 t.v. miniseries, Gore Vidal's Lincoln.

Skip to: 5:03

 Admittedly, Vidal wanted to illustrate the founding fathers as less than heroic. The television series shocks audiences with a racist Lincoln in order to nudge audiences into considering how far society had come, even from desegregation two decades earlier.  What may have seemed radical ideas in the 60's were just common thought, especially in light of recent confirmation of humans as originating in Africa. The morally questionable honest Abe was not meant to glorify his personality or accomplishments (Nostalgia), but give a new perspective on the past (History).

Spielberg's Lincoln, is much like Vidal's in mannerisms, but he reclaims an untouchable aura of heroics (albeit not to the point of romanticism). What makes this version of History particularly interesting, is the "gritty" politics Spielberg demonstrated. Perhaps our previous idea of the 1860s included a virtuous political system that actually worked. The fact that Lincoln had to wheel and deal not only made History more real, but it also made me feel better about the current state of Washington.

Other Historical fictions in American Mythology today reflect similar sentiments. Instead of the idyllic portraits of great men that we find in textbooks (or even comic books), we see the complex interactions between individuals who live in a morally grey zone. By toning down the rose tint, we can see beyond the nation's grand rise to power and acknowledge that at no point have times really been easy.

HBO's Boardwalk Empire takes place in the roaring twenties, when the 18th Amendment essentially restricted alcohol to a point where bootleggers were working in a free-market system. This allowed them to to collect great wealth, obtain great power, and occasionally accomplish great things. However, the actions various gangsters take to gain or retain their greatness/monopolies follow neither general idea of a 'good' man nor the idealized free-market system.

(A meeting of all the East coast bosses)

The main character, Enoch Thompson (aka Pasty Breadstick in a Bowtie), constantly re-balances his political and economic powers in order to create an image of a great man. In this scene particularly, he decides its better to deny his business partners booze (limit the free market) in exchange for a 'prettier' public face. Rosetti (the angry one) acts in the opposite manner, disregarding Thompson's overall well-being for greed. Audiences know Enoch Thompson as not the most morally sound individual, but at least he has some sense of gentlemanly character. Or not. Which may be the most surprising aspect of the show. Despite wanting to like any one of the characters, audiences must see them as willful participants in a corrupted system that operates under a facade of glamour.

In this way History surpasses Nostalgia in its message to the masses. Instead of longing for yester-year, the former sends a message of 'things can get better'. People can change, circumstances can alter. It's up to the hero to decide whether he or she will give up or move forward.

Que Donald Draper, Mad Men Season 1, Episode 1

Mad Men has largely been about the fall of the All-American hero. Audiences see Don as a flawed individual who hides his despair and vulnerability from the people around him. Throughout the series such deception drive him to act immorally, without regarding his actions as harmful to himself or others. In the above scene, he casually says he does not believe in the tomorrow. We know that this isn't the truth, and not just because we know the bomb didn't go off. He simply fears the past, choosing to ignore the gritty details. If you've watched the latest season, then hopefully you can compare this scene to the final one in the last episode. Don now looks to the past, not in fear of its consequences nor shame of its contents, but with a sense of pride and purpose. That is where he is from. From all that shit, he became...

Donald Fucking Draper

We'd prefer to hide away the dirty bandages and dead bodies of History, but they describe more authentically than the glorified poems written after the battle. Americans want to acknowledge the grime under their heroes' nails, because that's proof that they weren't divinely designated as saviors to society. Is the American Dream not to achieve greatness despite through equal opportunity, no matter your race, creed, gender, orientation, social status, etc? Our heroes must live with flaws in a past which is realistic. Americans look at History not to show off our grandiose rise to power, but to understand that despite whatever shit storm we're going through now, we will not only survive, but emerge [hopefully] as a better society..

You Can't Turn Off the News

Breaking News!

This has been a hot topic on some popular TV news stations lately. No, not on ESPN, E!, TMZ, the Daily Show, Bravo, Oxygen, HLN, TLC, or any other Reality show channels. CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNews have been following the developments of this 'story' very closely. Because nothing else is happening in the world.

I grew up with CNN on the TV, so that's what I turn to when I want noise in the background, hoping that some bit of information will make me more informed or worldly or something. Not the case. Useless prattle is expected from MSNBC and FOXNews, but CNN? You were the last hold-out.

Are they required to plaster 'Breaking News' on everything?

Let me cite Jeff Sorensen's opinion piece in the Huffington Post:

"Fast forward to when CNN came about. It seemed fresh and convenient. CNN was the only newsgroup reporting live on the ground when the United States attacked Iraq at the beginning of the Gulf War. They were cooped up in a hotel reporting through a Four-Wire circuit while the Anti-air weapons fired outside the window of their hotel room. It was one of the greatest moments in journalistic history. As stated in the film Live From Baghdad, it was "the journalistic equivalent of landing on the Moon."

CNN was no longer considered the experimental network; it became the basis for everything that followed. New 24-hour networks appeared on the scene and further saturated the market by jacking CNN's format.

Now, major networks are fighting over who is more non-biased than the others. Each network tries to show how they report both sides equally, but it's the worst kept secret ever. It's not even a secret. It's so easy to recognize when something is biased, unless they aim the content at your ideology. Confirmation bias blinds people to the bias because it supports their point of view. Hence, the content is correct to those supporting the bias aimed toward them. ... The more they argue their points, the more extreme their point of view goes toward their bias. This happens on 24-hour news all day. Both sides argue their views to the point that neither listens to the other side. They'll sink into their beliefs even if there is no evidence supporting it. This tends to happen in most belief structures."

Except CNN hasn't chosen to spew extremism, but mundane moderatism. They latch onto the pseudo-political popular stories, gnashing into a story calling it a 'dissection of facts' when really it's just maiming factoids into a grotesque pile that you're told is important, interesting, or breaking news.

It ain't nothing new.
Piero Manzoni, Worth more than its weight in gold.

Yes, the news stations report on important events such as women in combat, gun control, and Obama's new cabinet. The discussion that follows the annoucement of the headline, however, are still just biased babble with few or no factual grounding. The news fails to enlighten us about the events happening beyond our own line of sight, but feeds us, as Sorenson said, our own bias.

It makes sense really. Why should news organizations invest in investigative reporting? 'New' news may be original and authentic, but it lacks the credibility of popular consensus. It's looked at with skepticism, it's easily judged. Whereas the communal news that reinforces our already established beliefs is easily swallowed, and easily regurgitated (I'm looking at you Facebook Debaters). Reporting on the same subject with different commentators makes viewers feel good and learned because 1. They already know the subject; 2. They are on the 'inside' of the developing story; 3. They can tell their non-news watching friends about everyone's opinions. The viewer gets the 'credit' in the real world while the news stations get the ratings.

2010 : Haiti

Anderson Cooper was the first big news anchor to go to Haiti after the devastating earthquake that hit there. Investigating reporting right? Let me rephrase the question: What do you remember about Haiti's earthquake? Specifically  what did Cooper uncover that you remember? He says in this clip that he believed this was a fluke looting, that he happened to be in the right place at the right time, ready to look heroic and for everyone in the states to pause and say, hey, that Cooper guy is heroic/hot!

That might be a bit of an exaggeration. But he is a celebrity news-anchor, and not like Walter Conkrite. Viewers watch his shows not just because he's a good reporter, able to ask the right questions, but because they have an emotional investment in him. Perhaps it's better to quote Cooper himself:

"I think the notion of traditional anchor is fading away, the all-knowing, all-seeing person who speaks from on high. I don't think the audience really buys that anymore. As a viewer, I know I don't buy it. I think you have to be yourself, and you have to be real and you have to admit what you don't know, and talk about what you do know, and talk about what you don't know as long as you say you don't know it. I tend to relate more to people on television who are just themselves, for good or for bad, than I do to someone who I believe is putting on some sort of persona. The anchorman on The Simpsons is a reasonable facsimile of some anchors who have that problem"

Cooper admits it. He wants the audience to realize he isn't all knowing, and in doing so allows the viewers and himself be on equal ground. Ah, Equality. Not in the sense of 'All Men are created Equal, Under God', but in a way that says, 'We have equal access to the same information, let's be friends'.

Cooper made friends with this little guy while investigating Planet in Peril
Question he's asking right now: Would you rather be me or the sloth in this picture?

This is all a round-about way to say that Walter Benjamin has, once again, reared his head. The most obvious connection with Mechanical Reproduction and today's news stations: repeating/reproducing the same news story over and over and over and over again gives it more importance (a bigger aura) than the event on its own. Case and point: Manti Te'o . Who gives a crap about how a 21 year old guy that fell in love with a fake girl? Okay, maybe a few people, but at reserve that for Lifetime Movies or SpikeTV. Or, at the very least, for the 'Entertainment' portions of the news. But nope. Wolf Blitzer will continue to report on this very serious American event.

Point two taken from Benjamin truly characterizes the 21st Century. The idea that everyone deserves/has the ability to access information. It does away with the enlightenment's compartmentalization of subjects and the scholar of one subject. Instead everyone can become amateur-expert in any and all subjects. Your snide comment on annoying-liberal's facebook status is just as valid as Rush Limbaughs (or more so). Citing John Stewart as an authority on the socio-political? Legit. The fact that your uncle owns a gun store gives you the power to make broad statements on gun control. And that's what the news stations are doing. They find random people to act as commentators on the show. (You'll note, that's exactly what the Daily Show does, but with the cast.) If the news stations disregarded this shift in America's intellectual hierarchy, they would come off as pedantic, and few people would watch.

News stations have traded investigative, feet-on-the-ground journalism for mass-dialogue and equality. These are not mutually exclusive; everyone has their feet-on-the-ground. The problem is that the news stations can sift through every person's blog, twitter, or feed. Our connections, whether followers or friends, limit our ability to spread news. I mean don't we all swell with pride while counting the number of Likes on our latest photo as if they were peacock feathers. Unfortunately we're not all friends with Cooper, nor do we have the luck of being a both a Star Trek star and very clever like George Tekai. We can only hope that our pet or family gathering is entertaining enough for America to share.

Changing Shades of Brown

I want to discuss the Brown, because I believe this archetype is morphing. And in an odd way. Previously I believed the Brown were "non-Anglo foreigners who do not pose any sort of threat. Socially, politically, and sexually inferior to their black or white counterparts, browns often appear as comic-relief" namely Hispanics, but could include any non-Anglo character.

For example, the very entertaining movie Moulin Rouge! (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp, 2001)* has five prominent male characters: Christian, The Duke, Harold Zidler, Toulouse-Lautrec, and The Unconscious Argentinean. (Okay the Argentinean isn't very prominent, but he sings a song).  You'll note that the first three actors listed are of Anglo descent (Scottish, Australian, and English) while the last two are not (Colombian and Polish). Yes, the characters of Zidler, Toulouse, and possibly the Duke are French but what counts are visual cues and accents. We perceive the main influential/manipulating characters (Christian, the Duke, Zidler) as Anglo, while the side characters (who still play a role, just not active ones) as non-Anglo. Toulouse and the Argentinian never threaten Christian's chances with Satine, and only act as advisers/friends.

[*Moulin Rouge! is listed as both a American and Australian film on imdb.com; I'll let you decide if this is allowed in the New American Mythology cannon.]

Besides obvious 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male' dominance that has pervaded American culture since its founding (by WASPM), I believe that kind of Brown existed for several reasons.  First, the 20th Century was dominated not just by America, but the United Kingdom, Germany, and the USSR, and after World War II, to just America and USSR. Which means those 'other' countries (i.e. Mexico, China, Iraq, India, etc) aren't of too much concern. Eastern Europeans and other communist countries (non-Anglo countries), unfortunately, were the enemy and therefore characterized as impotent savages.

He looks just like a Wildman
And by Wildman I mean this guy

Next, the United States won the Cold War, and not just against the USSR. Communism proved to be inferior to capitalism in Latin-America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and vicariously parts of the Middle East. The communist aligned nations were riddled with general instability and lack of infrastructure that stalled economic growth and political development.

Finally, the 9/11 attacks brought a crises of faith for American citizens. They questioned their supremacy, their dominance, and thought that maybe they weren't as potent as they believed. What's more, China and India's econmies and populations burgeoned, taking with it American jobs and investments. In the U.S., Latin-Americans and other other non-Anglo-Americans began to develop stronger presence, voicing concerns of discrimination in politics, the media, and the larger communities. In the first decade of the twenty-first century Americans sensed the world shifting away from WASP dominated culture.  However, the media decided to reassure the public that the 'foreign' invasion was benign with characters like the Argentinean or Toulouse-Lautrec, Fez in That 70's Show, or Oscar in The Office.

Cece in New Girl (Fox, 2011)
The powerful, confidant, sexy best friend of Jess.

However, I believe this is no longer the case. Foreigners have become stronger, smarter, and sexier. Maybe it just took a decade for the media to catch up to people's beliefs. Or maybe the recession has disillusioned those who had clung to the 20th Century. The 'Other' are no longer just the backward folk who live on the fringes of society. They are, in fact, real people, doing real work, with real lives, real culture, and real opinions...

...which may differ from the 'majority's' in good and bad ways. Now we see non-Anglo transitioning from the background and emerging as a part of American society. American culture processes this change in various ways. The conflicts between the past perspectives and present projections surface in quite interesting ways.

Perhaps the more familiar example of such conflicting ideas is in The Big Bang Theory (CBS, 2007 - ) with the Koothrappali siblings. Raj exhibits the old perceptions: he's inept with women, is a sidekick (to the sidekick), and has sexually ambiguous moments. Overall, rather submissive. Priya on the other-hand gets pick of the guys, is a self-possessed woman (separate from both the girls and the boys), and does not hide her sexuality. Overall, rather normal (compared to depictions of WASPM). And there's the odd part- the rise of the 'other' in America Culture comes in the form of a woman (distinctly not a Girl). Other examples include, Gloria from Modern Family (ABC, 2009), Dr. Cristina Yang from Grey's Anatomy (ABC, 2005), Miranda from The Dark Knight Rises (Warner Bros. Productions, 2012), and Neytiri from Avatar (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporations, 2009).

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Strong non-Anglo in American Culture women aren't limited to fiction.

Why this is...?  It might be an attempt to dis-empower non-Anglo by using a 'weak' symbol. It might be a carry over from Orientalism, where viewers sexualize the exotic 'other'. It might be a way to soften the  integration of non-Anglo into American culture. Of course the male 'other' does appear at times, but largely as a Brown, the inferior, or as an Alien, the unintelligible/irrational threat. We'll just have to wait and see how this new archetype integrates into the larger mythology, and how it effects American's perceptions of non-Anglos. Who knows, maybe Puerto Rico will become a state sooner than we expected.

Brown

• Chang Community (NBC, 2009) - Mostly just strange. If he was more powerful he'd be an Alien
• Abed Community (NBC, 2009 ) - Again, really strange. No sexual motivations
• Mr. Chow The Hangover (Warner Bros. Pictures, 2009) - Although he causes trouble, he isn't a real threat.
• Tom Haverford Parks and Recreation (NBC, 2009) - He started out as just a Brown in a greencard marriage, and although he's developed into a more influential character, he's not really all that important.  
• Borat Borat (Four by Two, 2006) - Sacha B. Cohen played on American's perceptions of non-Anglo to create a very convincing Brown character.

Alien

• Bane The Dark Knight Rises (Warner Bros. Pictures, 2012) - subservant to Miranda
• Red Skull Captain America: The First Avenger (Paramount Pictures, 2011) - He's Russian
• Matthew Bascalli (the Art Teacher) Parenthood (NBC, 2010) - Sleeps with Grandma!
• Gustavo/Gus (Pollos Hermanos owner) Breaking Bad (AMC, 2008) - Despite his controlled facade, Gus' actions are not the most predictable, nor are any of the other Latino characters'.

Ambigous/Transitional

• Oscar The Office (NBC, 2005 ) - Gay, and not a power player BUT he is having relations with Angela's husband. 
• Ann Perkins Parks and Recreation (NBC, 2009) - She's more of a Girl, but she is racially ambiguous, and has gained power through the series.
• Most Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson movies - With the exceptions of The Mummy Returns The Rock plays characters that aren't neccisarily Browns or Aliens, just traditionally Anglo archetypes. 
• Jacob in Twilight series - He doesn't end up with the 'heroine', but he's not powerless either.

Has anyone seen Puss In Boots (Dreamworks, 2011)? I couldn't glean much from the trailer, but it seemed like Puss is a cowboy who may have a spunky latina cat friend to protect him. Then again, he is a cute little kitty- Brown?


 -----------------------
Addition: I've named a new archetype after writing this post. The Amazon: Non-anglo individuals (usually women) who do not pose any sort of threat and are socially, politically, or sexually superior to their peers.

Keep the discussion going in the comments below.

You Can Make a Coin Toss seem like Armageddon

" Why did football surpass baseball? Because football is perfect for the TV screen, which is actually shaped like a football field; because football is at once the most intellectual and the most brutal game in the world, in which the coaches think while the players bleed; because we love to see people knocked silly. But also, perhaps even primarily, because football mints the kind of uniquely vivid images that the Sabols could spin, over and over, into a Kip­ling poem about war." - Rich Cohen

If you're not a football fan, you probably hang around some of the 64% of Americans who watch NFL or the 200+ million who watch NCAA Football. Now, if you've been around a TV with a NFL game on,  you've noticed all the teams commemorating Steve Sabol, who died this week. Sabol apparently, made football into what we know it as today. Before it was just another sport. Sabol groomed it into a "never ending drama" (Producer Ken Rogers). Drama is the correct term, but not in the daytime television sense. Football imitates the grand epics of Beowolf and the Illiad; the narrator lauds the heroes as they enter the battle field, describing their previous victories and losses, their backgrounds, and their special gifts. The bard sings an anthem of previous heroics as the new heroes mentally prepare. Then- kickoff. The narrator continues to objectively explain the battle, postulating strategies of the generals/coaches, giving insight to warrior/player's emotions, and questioning the gods/referee's influences on the outcome.

However as Rogers said earlier, the epic in football never ends. It continues with new heroes cycling in as the old ones fall out of favor. Both college and professional football continually engage their followers- there's never a point of 'well that's settled.' Rivalries between teams, coaches, players, owners, etc deepen the drama of the games, and therefore get viewers emotionally invested in their outcomes. It's a tit-for-tat system that will never end. Such sentiments are well illustrated in this recent George Tekai post:

It's a bit silly. But football is not just a silly thing that a lot of Americans like. How many times have we heard people roll their eyes and say 'its just a bunch of guys running into people.' I was once one of those people. Then I went to a SEC school and saw thousands of people participating in this bizarre ritual every weekend.  Not two or three thousand. More like eighty thousand. And that's just people in the stadium. People go the campus and just hang-out watching TV outside. Football is a silly thing that A LOT of Americans LOVE. 

I suspect this American romance follows the same mentality I explored in my Olympics post. This group is better than that group because these few individuals are athletically and mentally superior. Unlike the Olympics however, the team is more important than the individual. Yes, quarterbacks get all the advertisements, but I'm pretty sure fans of the Carolina Panthers, Denver Broncos, or Philadelphia Eagles would not say that the teams victories and losses' rest solely on the actions of Cam Newton, Peyton Manning, or Micahel Vicks. Fans understand that victory is a group effort, and fans believe they contribute to the victories as well- they are in fact a part of the team. 

Tailgating, going to the games, watching every games, and doing weird rituals aren't just conspicuous consumption. It's a way of identifying with other people and coming together to cheer on your side. And if a fan is one of those people who doesn't hang out with other people and instead watching football alone all weekend long- he's still part of the team. No lonliness. 

It's true! Kentucky Football fans exist!

Yes, football is a fabricated Reality of rivalry. Fans are Zombies (blindly buying into/following their team, despite the odds). Players are Astronauts (sacrificing their bodily health for the entertainment/success of their fans). All so that BEARBULL (advertising and NFL ownership) can influence more of individuals' lives. But, at least it's not the City. Football gives people something to believe in (maybe, just maybe we can win), and to look forward to (there's always next season). Zombie fans coming together in this way is not a bad thing. Its one of the few times Americans actually go hang-out with each other. 

Football isn't opera or an gallery opening or a natural history exhibit, but it's where many American's find relief from their true reality. It's not a television show or movie that points out how they're not a Cowboy or Astronaut. It's a community who accepts them as long as they like the team. 

-----------------------------

If you want to know more about how Football became America's sport, I recommend you read this article:

They Taught American How to Watch Football by Rich Cohen at The Atlantic

Start Consuming Today

Another appearance by our Astronaut archetype in advertising. Hulu wants you to know that they're innovative and Good. Funnily enough, the "See what's new" video doesn't utilize the Astronaut theme any more, but instead shows off how they're features can make you a Zombie (perhaps visually expressed in the chubbiness of the Astronaut). The tagline is "Start exploring today," and it makes (over) use of the words "explore" and "discover".  It seems to me all 'new' features combine aspects of YouTube and Apple products, with the notable exception of the 10 second rewind which is new. And probably useful. The rest of the ad explains how the new Hulu will make making choices easier and faster. So that you can stare at the screen like the mouth-breathing consumer you are.

Now let me return to watching my show!!! 

Olympic Reality

During the past seventeen days, an average of 31.1 American million viewers tuned in every evening to watch the 2012 London Olympic Games. Even though NBC monopolized the event, they successfully gave America a Reality where greatness is meticulously measured. Each country sent its most fit and able individuals to compete against each other and prove their country's superiority.

via CBS.com

The United States of America reclaimed the title as the World's Top Superpower by winning not only the most medals, but the most gold metals. We'll beat our pride-swollen chests as our flag rises above the others. We'll celebrate the soldiers'- I mean athletes' homecoming by calling them American Heroes that won the war with non-violent sportsmanship.  We'll politely say, "Nice Try China, it was good to see you again Russia, and that was an interesting show Britain" as our 46 gold, 29 silver, and 29 bronze medals flash in their eyes.

'I only beat you by 3.69 seconds Pereira,
maybe in four-years you can catch up.'

Unfortunately, like most Reality found on television, the Olympics does not accurately portray the world. The medal count seems like a fair way to gauge each country's athleticism (and therefore superiorty), but it ignores other important facts and figures that levels out the battleground. I've found this nifty (although a bit confusing) program that sorts countries and their medal counts by 1) Official Medal Count, 2) Gross Domestic Product to Medals, 3) Population Count to Medals 4) Number of Athletes to Medals, and 5) GDP per Captia to Medals. Columns 2 - 5, I believe, are weighted so that Gold equals 3pts, Silver 2pts, and Bronze 1pt.

Powered by Tableau

First, I congratulate you if you have figured out how to work this cryptic table. If you still need help, here is an example:

China won 38 Gold, 27 Silver, and 22 Bronze.
 (38Gold x 3) + (27Silver x 2) + (22Bronze x 1)
 = (114) + (54) + (22)
 = 190 [weighted number of medals]

1,334,130,000 [Population] / 190 [Medals] = 7,021,736.84
Meaning for every 7million (or so) people in China, it got one [Weighted] Medal

The U.S. n 46 Gold, 29 Silver, and 29 Bronze.
(46Gold x 3) + (29Silver x 2) + (29Bronze x 1)
=  (138) + (58) + (29)
= 225 [weighted number of medals]

311,591,917 [Population] / 225 [Medals] = 1,384,852.96
Meaning for every 1.3 million people in the U.S., it got one [Weighted] Medal

So we beat China in this regard as well. Along with 70 other countries. In fact, the island country of Granada got the most medals per citizen despite getting only one medal.

1 Gold x 3 = 3
104,890 [Population] / 3 = 34,963
One medal for every 34,963 Grenadians!

'Take that China and USA!'

China does beat the US when it comes to GDP, GDP per Capita, and Team (which I think counts every number of medals given away, i.e. the Relay Team gets 4 gold medals x 3). Meaning, despite being poorer than America, its citizens being poorer than Americans, and sending less athletes, Team China won a whole lot of medals. The Chinese government sees value in showing athleticism to the world and pours money into such programs. Americans might find Chinese Olympians' dedication shocking, but it's just a different mindset; they probably think P&G 'Supporting Olympians' Moms' is bizarre.

'Haha!
My Ping-Pong Gold Medal cost less per citizen than  yours James!!' 

Regardless of all this penis-measuring, all of the Olympians worked hard to make it to and through the games. They all proudly represented their countries. (Well, not these people) The world should marvel at their skills and determination. Medals going to other teams does not make them less worthy or less amazing- they are competing against the best. We couch potatoes should remember that any of these athletes could whoop our muffin tops. (Zhang Jike's can hit ping-pong ball at over 60mph)

My message: Don't get too big-headed over Team USA's Offical Olympic Medal count. It's a false Reality that leaves out important statistical information. You can be impressed and proud of your countrymen, however. Just remember when you are bragging:

'You didn't break the Women's 4x100 Relay World Record'

God is a Well-Spoken Black Man

Bruce Almighty (Universal Pictures, 2003)

The title of this post shouldn't surprise anyone. We've seen, or rather, heard Morgan Freeman impart information that only a omnipresent, omniscient being could know. In March of the Penguins (Bonne Pioche, 2005) he revealed how penguins survive Antarctica's extreme climate with faithful love. He showed us what it means to live (and love) even when the end is near in The Bucket List (Warner Bros., 2007).   In Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy (Warner Bros. Pictures, 2005, 2008, 2012), Freeman played a man who had all the tools, was smart enough to repair them, and who knew right from wrong. Even in Wanted (Universal Pictures, 2008) he represented Weaver, the one who chose the hits, who knew who had to die and who to live.

Morgan Freeman's voice-over in the Visa Olympic 'Go World' campaign, well, it's as if God is telling us to cheer for our athletes because He hears us and helps them achieve [our] goals. The 'Go World' tag even shows that God isn't biased. And uses Visa. 

Aptly named Freeman isn't the only Well-Spoken Black Man who gets to channel the voice of God. The 'Token Black' in movies and television has become the voice of reality/reason/truth. Let's look at some of our favorite television shows:

The Office: We have Stanley and Daryl. 

Stanley he doesn't engage in (many) of The Office's shenanigans, he just wants to get through his day and get out. He calls people (mostly Michael Scott) out on BS, doesn't put any pretenses up, AND wants to be a lonely Astronaut.

Darryl, entered The Office from the warehouse (the Other). As such, other characters (Andy) approach him as if he has some sort of 'Street Smarts' and often ask him for advice. Darryl is aware of his power and his freedom to make his own way through the office and keeps a cool, humble head. 

American Idol and other variety-competition shows:

What have Randy Jackson, Ceelo Green, and Nick Cannon got in common? They've appeared as the fair and balanced voice of Reasson. People tend to see the Black as unbiased and objective who rely on their knowledge/experience to make fair judgement rather than personal taste or preferences (opposed to 'mean' Simon Cowell, or 'nice' Sharon Osborn). The variety-competion shows don't limit Blacks to hosting and juding however. Arguably, their Black contestants are the most popular. Remember the dancer tWtich from So You Think You Can Dance (2008)? Or this year's Joshua Ledet on American Idol? They didn't win, but I believe they were the most admired individuals because they relied on their talents rather than mere sex appeal or general acceptance.

Joshua Ledet on American Idol (Fox, 2012)
Singin' with God in his Soul

Is that the key? Does our society see Black as individuals who can only advance with God-given extraordinary talents? A friend of mine explained to me that the only perceived way 'out' for a African-American man was through sports or other 'entertainment' media (aka talent). Don't believe me? Take a look at NBC's portrayal of one of our Olympians:

African Americans as God's chosen race counters historic records, but it makes sense if we look at today's facts. 79% of the African American population identify themselves as religious as compared to 56% of the general population. As a religious community, African Americans have added much to American culture, namely the long lineage of Gospel Music that African slaves brought to America and adapted to Christianity. Martin Luther King Jr., in-arguably the greatest American figure in the latter half of the 20th century, lead the Civil Right Movement with his preaching skills (and strong, resonant voice).

Of course, America now has an African American President, who ran under the campaign of 'Hope' and 'Change'. Presumably, Americans voted for this great man because they had faith in his talents to advance American in the 21st Century. We believed in Him. Barack Obama campaigned the same year Bruce Almighty came out. We can't really discern the movie first helped Americans see Black as the keeper of knowledge, or if it only happened after voters elected Obama into the Oval Office, but I propose the two were related.

What we do see in recent years is more African Americans portraying characters who protect and/or posses some sort of secret knowledge- whether that be technical skills, moral high ground, or outright intelligence. Although this does not mean representations of African-Americans in the media accurately reflect demographics, nor are all representations Black (i.e. Tracy Morgan's character in 30Rock). It does reflect a change in America's mind-set, one that acknowledges the African American community as valuable to America's well being.

Poster for Book of Eli movie

Other 'Black:'

• Eli in Book of Eli (Alcon Entertainment, 2010): Do I need to explain this one? 
• Nick Fury in The Avengers (Marvel Studios, 2012): Up until 2002 this character was white. 
• Perry White in Man of Steel (Warner Bros. Pictures, 2013): Again, traditionally white character. He's the Editor-in-Chief at the Daily Planet.
• Heimdall in Thor (Marvel Studios, 2011): The gatekeeper who sees both the Earthly and Asgard Realms
• Storm in X2, and X-Men: The Last Stand, (Twentieth Century Fox Film, 2003, 2006): She becomes the school's leader (keeper) after Xavier's death. 
• Troy Barnes in Community (NBC, 2009 - 2012): He has magical skills to fix A/C and Plumbing!
• Agent J in Men In Black (Amblin Entertainment, 1997, 2002, 2012): He has the street-skills to save the world! 
• Morpheus in The Matrix (Warner Bros, 1999, 2003): The guy searching for 'The One' to liberate the people. 
• Mufasa in The Lion King (Disney, 1994): "Remember who you are..."

In Association with 'Black'

• Oprah in Life (Discovery Channel, 2010)
• Maids in The Help (Dreamworks SKG, 2011)
• Shirley Bennet in Community (NBC, 2009 -2012)

Have more? Do you dispute my claims? Comment below. 

Predictably, Neville was left partnerless

Lena Dunham's character on Girls deals with a partner who expects flexibility, even when it's not practical, and perhaps not as enjoyable. A plethora of TV shows have episodes that discuss 'spicing things up', and a variety of pop-songs glorify dirty, dirty deeds. A clip from Tracy Morgan's Black and Blue stand-up show talks about gold diggers. Apparently (jokingly?) a lobster dinner is three finger minimum in the anus. At least he acknowledges that it's not everyone's idea of a good time. Setting aside any feminist statements, these messages create unrealistic expectations for men. Virility is cast as reckless, dominant, forceful, and indifferent towards a partner.  Take Don Draper's actions toward his wife Megan in season five:

We know Don Draper is not the best role model. However, pop-culture sees him as one of the most masculine characters on TV today. If guys already look to him for career advice, cocktails, and fashion, than what's to stop them from emulating his sexual endeavors. (Season 1: Cheating on His Wife, Season 2: Cheating on His Wife, Season 3: Cheating on His Wife, Season 4: Having Kinky Sex with Prostitutes and Others, Season 5: Domineering Sex with (Only) His Wife.) No, Draper was not created as a idealized model for masculinity, but the authenticity of Mad Men confuses reality with hyperbole.

At the other end of the masculinity spectrum, we have the guys in Big Bang Theory. Sheldon Cooper, Leonard Hofstadter, Howard Wolowitz, Raj Koothrappali each have a personal quirk that makes them a stereotypical nerdy and inept with women. Wolowitz is perhaps the least attractive and most offensive of the bunch: lives with his mother, hits on anything, tries to trick girls into sleeping with him, worst dressed, etc. He even gets a robot stuck on his penis one episode. Despite all this, Wolowitz is the first of his friends to marry. The most aggressive guy, not smartist, nicest, or sensitive, gets the girl.

Now, you can dismiss Draper and Wolowitz' sexual success as plot devices, but similar patterns appear throughout contemporary media. Iron Man is the only Avenger with a girl. In Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy the forcefull love interest loses out to the hesitant. Winston Bishop, the most masculine and sport-oriented roomate is the only one with stable, happy relationship in New Girl. Han Solo gets Princess Leia and Luke, the main character, gets no one in Star Wars. Three and a Half Men - need I say more? Instances where the 'less' masculine is threatened with losing his love interest to a more dominant guy include Spiderman 3 where Harry Osborne/Green Goblin gets MJ instead of Peter Parker/Spider-Man; in the last Harry Potter movie/book Ron leaves the group because he believes Hermione thinks him inadadquet compared with Harry; and even the BBC show Merlin, where Arthur has several love interests and Merlin gets only one during a single episode.

Merlin - Knights of the Roundtable
We're so masculine and scowly with our longswords!!

It's also fair to point out that my previous post discusses women's sexual freedom, and this is just the masculine freedom. True. But wouldn't you say that most guys (people) enjoy sex? My issue is with the dominating-male 'winning' a sexual partner over his friends who have other positive skills, and what this message sends to the general populace. Not only does this portray relationships as competition (which to some extent they are), but sets a woman as a prize for being a particular type of masculine. If you (the male) don't behave aggressively, dominating, or overall cocky, even if its more virtuous path (Luke Skywalker, Thor), then you lose the girl/prize and become miserable. One of two things supposedly happens: 1) a Ron Weasley complex, where the male feels inadequet and depressed, and gives up on his woman or 2) a Harry Osborne/Green Goblin mentality, where the male abandons his real self and tries to out-masculine his counterpart through over-compensation. This, of course, results in very few guys for women to reasonably choose from, and leads to statements like 'crazy' women who hang out with douchebags. But I promised this wouldn't be about "feminist issues" (even though it is).

The point is boys, I mean men, you don't have to compare yourself to the hypermasculine because you're not competing with them. (Unless of course, you are of the hypermasculine personality. Then go for it.) As always, present yourself honestly and your sexual interests will judge you on who you are, not who you're 'suppose to be'. (And women: judge guys on who they are, not who you think they should be). Because at the end of Harry Potter who was the most awesome, lusted-after guy? Not Ron, Harry, Malfoy, Lockheart, the Weasly Twins, Bill, or even Cederic. It was this guy:

http://youtu.be/iRD-qxYkwkc

and just in case you missed it, this guy:

Not yet a Woman

I recently listened to Fresh Air's interview of Lena Dunham, creator/writer/actress of the HBO series Girls.

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/07/152183865/lena-dunham-addresses-criticism-aimed-at-girls

I have not seen the show, or even heard of it, but the interview brought up a whirlwind of contemporary pop-culture issues. If you want to hear about Girls, listen to the story. It's good. I'm going  to take some tidbits from the interview, and run with them. Far and fast.

You'll make it.... eventually.